Someone is interested in CPJ

[knoxjacket]

our fanbase is one of the worst in college football no doubt about it, but we're also very small comparatively speaking to other schools we view as our main rivals.

The first part of that isn't even remotely true.

 

[QuadF]

Our athletic department loses money--once you count the student-financed student athletic fee, the tuition discounts, and the loss of donation dollars to sports. It also poses a major risk to the academic reputation, without the upside of a big publicity year to boost the quality and number of applicants. Either that, or decide to run a real program, recognizing that we are one of less than a dozen schools that try to do it the right way. Doing it the right way is going to yield good, not great, results at Stanford. A Rose bowl every 2-4 years. But GT is not Stanford, and the recruiting effect will never be the same. At GT, doing it the right way in every case, rather than figuring out what compromises we can live with appears to yield mediocre results.

If Duke, Vanderbilt, UNC, and Virginia, all top academic and research universities, are willing to do it, we should consider it too. I think we'd have far more success given that we have a winning tradition absent a bleak period from the late sixties to early and mid 80's. Duke is doing it with someone who wanted to coach at Georgia Tech. And I still think we made the better hire, because Duke's admin is doing what it takes to win at football. We can be a 9 win program every year, with some special seasons.

all but the top 10 d1-a programs a year lose money.

i'm not sure what magic uva, vandy, unc, and duke have done that made them into programs worth citing. In the last decade, most of those have had a couple of 9 win seasons and duke alone had a 10 win season. Our 09 team had 11 wins, and averaged far better than all of them.

 

[BuzzCzar]

The first part of that isn't even remotely true.

with you, nashville, yukon and the rest of the negativenancygirls on here, Stingtalk might be though

 

[gtphd]

our fanbase is one of the worst in college football no doubt about it, but we're also very small comparatively speaking to other schools we view as our main rivals.

The alumni base is fairly small comparatively. The sidewalk fans are where we get killed.

When you live in a town and only see UGA gear and you are young and impressionable, you more likely than not grow up as a UGA fan.

The single most impactful thing GT fans can do (other than donating millions to the GTAA) is take back the Atlanta Metro area. There is no reason a store in the Atlanta Metro area should sell UGA branded gear and not sell GT gear right next to it. It should be as common to see a store with GT-only gear as it is to see UGA-gear.

GTAA marketing plays a role in that, but so do GT fans. The next time you walk into Kroger and see a bulldog lawn gnome by itself, tell the manager that you'd like to see a GT gnome right next to it and remind that manager that a recent NY Times survey found that GT has a larger and wealthier fan base than UGA. It may seem stupid, but seeing hundreds of those stupid examples of UGA crap with no GT crap next to it has an effect on people. Broken Window theory.

 

[TechSBP]

What, specific, actions has "The Hill" taken to impact GT Football?

Relaxing academic standards? Minimum academic standards are set by the Board of Regents (and are the same at GT and UGA). The Hill has already give the AA carte blanche to request as many exceptions as they want for football from the Board of Regents.

Majors? GT has to ask the Board of Regents for authorization to add new majors. I imagine there's not much of a business case to add a Physical Education major at GT. Adding a major that *might* apply to athletes, like Sports Management, Social Media Marketing/Digital Communications, or Kinesiology is a very daunting task and takes more than football to justify it.

The REAL issue is the GT fanbase. We're terrible. UGA's logo is plastered all over every store in the metro area. If we, as a fanbase, stood up and voted against this action with our wallet, we would see fewer UGA advertisements, more GT advertisements, and we wouldn't be the little brother. If WE invested more in our program, we'd have an 80,000 seat stadium, CPJ could attract 4-star and (gasp) 5-star talent. If we want to see change in The Hill, an organized campaign from alumni directed at Bud Peterson could get virtually anything we want, including new majors and/or eased academic standards.

If we want GT football to be a powerhouse, it can be. We just need to try.

Well, for starters, as some people at CU-boulder about all that our President did for their athletic program. If you think Peterson is goint to respond the way you suggest, you should really have a better understanding of his decisions at CU. And if you think he is responsive to alumni who don't write big checks, you've never dealt much with a college president. An alumni campaign is unlikely to change anything.

As for having a big stadium, here are a few schools that win and don't have 80,000 seat stadiums: Oregon, Stanford, Virginia Tech . . .

I've spent enough time at several universities to know that we don't exactly encourage our athletic department by comparison. And the things you suggest would have little effect, except adding a major--which has happened at most schools by this point, to accomodate sports.

As I said, either try to win, or stop pretending.

 

[GTCrew4b]

We complain about everything. Literally everything all the time.

We are more pessimistic than most fanbases.

We just got outcheered by GA Southern at home.

We are very cheap

We have extreme expectations.

We are without a doubt one of the worst fanbases in all of college football when it comes to supporting the team. We're very fair-weather.

We alienate potential supporters because we fall back on how smart we are, and our school is pretty white in the middle of Atlanta (although a lot of colleges are pretty white).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I thought CPJ's comments about GA Southern were very telling when he said, "They do what it takes to be good. They show that they want to win."

 

[gtphd]

all but the top 10 d1-a programs a year lose money.

Let's be clear: FBS football programs make millions of dollars. It's the rest of the AA (save basketball and baseball at some schools) that lose money.

 

[BuzzCzar]

Let's be clear: FBS football programs make millions of dollars. It's the rest of the AA (save basketball and baseball at some schools) that lose money.

cheap-ass graduate students!!!

lets be very clear: Georgia Tech, the school, requires millions of public assistance dollars to stay open. much more than the AA

in fact, the AA gives money to the school. like 30% of all donations to the AA go to the General Fund

without the AA, Georgia Tech the school would have to charge higher admission and other fees of the students.

you know, just to be clear

 

[TechSBP]

all but the top 10 d1-a programs a year lose money.

i'm not sure what magic uva, vandy, unc, and duke have done that made them into programs worth citing. In the last decade, most of those have had a couple of 9 win seasons and duke alone had a 10 win season. Our 09 team had 11 wins, and averaged far better than all of them.

Which is why I said we'd see better results, since we've almost always had better results than them.

We have a better base to recruit from, better tradition, and we know better how to win.

 

[gtphd]

And if you think he is responsive to alumni who don't write big checks, you've never dealt much with a college president.

Lets say that 10,000 alumni form a lobbying group and those 10,000 alumni develop an official, single representative. Those alumni develop a reasonable, actionable position regarding the future of Georgia Tech athletics and how they interface with the Institute.

You believe Bud will ignore that?

Efforts to enact change by fans tend to have four major problems:

(1) a large number of fans yell different things simultaneously leading to no actual demand (like Occupy - "We're mad and want you to do something!")

(2) a few vocal fans voice opinion, leading to letter writing campaigns involving on 100 or so alumni, which undermines the request

(3) demands from fans are unreasonable (e.g. "hire Spurrier/Saban"!) or are not actionable (e.g. "win 10 games per season"!)

(4) alumni groups are corrupted by the university and become puppets (e.g. GT Alumni Association)

If we develop an approach that avoids the 4 problems above, alumni can get virtually anything passed as long as it's reasonable. People do this with politicians daily.

 

[samsgt02]

The alumni base is fairly small comparatively. The sidewalk fans are where we get killed.

When you live in a town and only see UGA gear and you are young and impressionable, you more likely than not grow up as a UGA fan.

The single most impactful thing GT fans can do (other than donating millions to the GTAA) is take back the Atlanta Metro area. There is no reason a store in the Atlanta Metro area should sell UGA branded gear and not sell GT gear right next to it. It should be as common to see a store with GT-only gear as it is to see UGA-gear.

GTAA marketing plays a role in that, but so do GT fans. The next time you walk into Kroger and see a bulldog lawn gnome by itself, tell the manager that you'd like to see a GT gnome right next to it and remind that manager that a recent NY Times survey found that GT has a larger and wealthier fan base than UGA. It may seem stupid, but seeing hundreds of those stupid examples of UGA crap with no GT crap next to it has an effect on people. Broken Window theory.

I don't agree with you about the Hill not holding us back. I think they do along with the Board of Regents. However you do make a great point on businesses not showing or supporting Tech, but clearly showing their support for UGA. I'm tired of it, too. I grew up in Georgia, and I believe the lack of support is as worse as it has been since the early 80's.

We (Tech fans and alumni) should get organized to make it clear for businesses they should show some öööö respect for the best school in state.

 

[TechSBP]

Lets say that 10,000 alumni form a lobbying group and those 10,000 alumni develop an official, single representative. Those alumni develop a reasonable, actionable position regarding the future of Georgia Tech athletics and how they interface with the Institute.

You believe Bud will ignore that?

Efforts to enact change by fans tend to have four major problems:

(1) a large number of fans yell different things simultaneously leading to no actual demand (like Occupy - "We're mad and want you to do something!")

(2) a few vocal fans voice opinion, leading to letter writing campaigns involving on 100 or so alumni, which undermines the request

(3) demands from fans are unreasonable (e.g. "hire Spurrier/Saban"!) or are not actionable (e.g. "win 10 games per season"!)

(4) alumni groups are corrupted by the university and become puppets (e.g. GT Alumni Association)

If we develop an approach that avoids the 4 problems above, alumni can get virtually anything passed as long as it's reasonable. People do this with politicians daily.

So, you propose something impossible, at any school, and then suggest they'd listen to it? I doubt it. But--you know what--you get that started, and I'll sign my name--if you think it will work, I'll support you by being one of the 10,000. It couldn't hurt. I'm sure all of us have the time.

Change.org is ready when you are.

 

[gtphd]

without the AA, Georgia Tech the school would have to charge higher admission and other fees of the students.

You love to argue just to argue. The way you weakly worded your statement, it's impossible to argue. But I want to drop off some facts about GT finances because posters love to mention the impact football or student tuition has on the Institute:

Revenue from faculty research: $755 MM
Revenue from tuition and fees: $271 MM
Revenue from State Government: $207 MM
Revenue from Aux services: $100 MM
Revenue from donations: $32 MM
Everything else: $82 MM

This excludes GTF, which GT doesn't need to operate, just for new buildings and scholarships, but even if you throw that in, donations are 5% of the Institute revenue.

Revenue from faculty research: $755 MM
Revenue from tuition and fees: $271 MM
Revenue from State Government: $207 MM
Revenue from Aux services: $100 + 105 = 205 MM
Revenue from donations: $32 + 63 = 95 MM
Revenue from GTF investments: $23 MM
Everything else: $82 + 4 = $86 MM

One more interesting fact:

Revenue from tuition and fees: $271 MM
Collected tuition and fees: ~$540 MM

Where is the difference? Subsidizing Ft. Valley State, Georgia Southern, Atlanta Metropolitan College, etc.

 

[knoxjacket]

We complain about everything. Literally everything all the time.

We are more pessimistic than most fanbases.

We just got outcheered by GA Southern at home.

We are very cheap

We have extreme expectations.

We are without a doubt one of the worst fanbases in all of college football when it comes to supporting the team. We're very fair-weather.

We alienate potential supporters because we fall back on how smart we are, and our school is pretty white in the middle of Atlanta (although a lot of colleges are pretty white).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I thought CPJ's comments about GA Southern were very telling when he said, "They do what it takes to be good. They show that they want to win."

This fan base is no more negative or pessimistic than any others. Based on the size of the fan base our AA gets a lot of $$$.

Our stadium is probably too large based on alumni and student populations.

The fact that we have higher expectations (although not really high) is a sign that people care.

Go to any bottom 60 or so FBS school and say again we have one of the worst fanbases.

 

[cyptomcat]

Techsbp, how exactly would you like school to help GTAA and CPJ?

One more interesting fact:

Revenue from tuition and fees: $271 MM
Collected tuition and fees: ~$540 MM

Where is the difference? Subsidizing Ft. Valley State, Georgia Southern, Atlanta Metropolitan College, etc.

Do you have a link on this? I would like to read more on it.

 

[gtphd]

Do you have a link on this? I would like to read more on it.

Not one I can find. When you pay tuition to GT (or any USG member), it's collected and sent to the USG. The USG then disburses this back to universities. Some universities receive more than they send and some send more than they receive. Research universities (UGA, GT, GSU) always send more than they receive. GT receives the lowest percentage back ranging from 30% to 50%.

The interesting point is that the net amount sent to the USG ($200+ MM/year) is the same or more than the State funding for the Institute (~$200 MM/year). In effect, GT is 100% self-funded without the State.

The only thing the State really does for GT is prevent us from starting a Medical School or Law School (thanks to a UGA controlled Board of Regents and State House).

 

[johncu]

I hate to say it, but I don't know if there's much we can do. The image of our school is not particularly conducive to sidewalk fans (nerds, elitists, etc.) so we simply do not have as many. People tend to support teams that they can identify with. The typical person in Georgia is going to identify with the UGA culture more than the GT culture. That's just a fact. Unless we completely overhaul the entire mission of the school, including broadening courses of study and loosening admissions standards, the above will probably never change. It is what it is.

We can, however, hire really good coaches (which I believe we have) and recruit the hell out of the small pool of talent that fits us (which we have not done well). Call it the Stanford model, if you will. They were less successful than us until recently, but they flipped the script when they hired Harbaugh and have not looked back since. IMO their success is sustainable, simply because they have hired another good coach and maintained very good recruiting for several years.

Even doing that, we will still be at a constant disadvantage to the factory schools, but that's life. We're still doing better than over 75% of our FBS competition, so any talk about giving up is just absurd IMO.

 

[cyptomcat]

Not one I can find. When you pay tuition to GT (or any USG member), it's collected and sent to the USG. The USG then disburses this back to universities. Some universities receive more than they send and some send more than they receive. Research universities (UGA, GT, GSU) always send more than they receive. GT receives the lowest percentage back ranging from 30% to 50%.

The interesting point is that the net amount sent to the USG ($200+ MM/year) is the same or more than the State funding for the Institute (~$200 MM/year). In effect, GT is 100% self-funded without the State.

The only thing the State really does for GT is prevent us from starting a Medical School or Law School (thanks to a UGA controlled Board of Regents and State House).

The net tuition&fees number you posted is everywhere to be seen, but the collected tuition&fees is nowhere to be found. I guess you can estimate the number from enrollment, but it could still be somewhat off.

 

[GTLiebs]

This fan base is no more negative or pessimistic than any others. Based on the size of the fan base our AA gets a lot of $$$.

Our stadium is probably too large based on alumni and student populations.

The fact that we have higher expectations (although not really high) is a sign that people care.

Go to any bottom 60 or so FBS school and say again we have one of the worst fanbases.

The problem I think is similar to the generally agreed on idea that GT can't compete with the power teams running the same NFL/spread-ish kind of offenses they run because we'll just be running the same thing with less talented players.
I think the issue is that for what GT is we can't have the same amount of negativity and have expectations the same way as most other schools. If we want long term success and to raise ourselves to the same level then we can't bring the same level of emotion into our decisions like most other schools do.

 

[TechSBP]

The only thing the State really does for GT is prevent us from starting a Medical School or Law School (thanks to a UGA controlled Board of Regents and State House).

In once case, the med school, they are holding us back from something great.

As to the law school, starting one would devalue every other GT degree. GT's law school would be bottom tier for decades. Law School rankings can't be moved quickly because it is based solely on reputation.

And GT would be entering a crowded field. Emory, U[sic]GA, and Georgia State are all well-regarded law schools.

We need more medical schools. Applications to bottom feeder law schools have been dropping off dramatically, because good students don't go there and no one needs a bad lawyer.

As for your point about revenue, think about it this way: with that sort of revenue, why would athletics matter to GT? The answer, to most faculty and administrators, is that GT would be just fine with or without athletics. So there's no emphasis on athletics. Which, is quite different than schools that don't have that sort of research revenue.

Now, one thing to consider, is that GT inflates the amount of research it does, by including its research corporation in its numbers. MIT, Berkley, Texas, CU, etc, don't do that.