AD Wish List....

As for "declining" athletics.....think of students as customers or potential students as potential customers.

Will a declining athletics program attract more potential students or fewer?

I would argue that, since we're in the South where college football is king,
It will lead to fewer potential or interested students. And fewer students means
LESS money in all aspects.
 
Todd Stansbury. He is the perfect choice. He was our academic advisor and knows how to bridge the hill with athletics.
 
3GT said:
As for "declining" athletics.....think of students as customers or potential students as potential customers.

Will a declining athletics program attract more potential students or fewer?

I would argue that, since we're in the South where college football is king,
It will lead to fewer potential or interested students. And fewer students means
LESS money in all aspects.
Click to expand...

Since we have more applicants than students, that isn't true. It could weaken our applicant pool but that is doubtful. Somehow Emory attracts students and how's their football team?

People apply for Georgia Tech because it's a good school and if you're in state, it's relatively cheap. Football is not going to change that drastically either way, look at the student section for proof.

By the way, football ticket revenue is only 20% of the total AA revenue. Very little money is given to the academic side and if it came to that, we would simply shut down some non-revenue sports as we've done before. Swimming and diving aren't that important to the vast majority of students. So to claim that they are making any significant revenue for the university is misguided.

http://fin-services.gatech.edu/sites/default/files/GTAA Final Financial Statement.pdf
 
This is a key decision. Todd was a guy who totally understands what it takes for each athlete to survive at tech. He was a player under curry...has huge support from existing faculty,staff, and letterman. Make it happen
 
3GT said:
As for "declining" athletics.....think of students as customers or potential students as potential customers.

Will a declining athletics program attract more potential students or fewer?

I would argue that, since we're in the South where college football is king,
It will lead to fewer potential or interested students. And fewer students means
LESS money in all aspects.
Click to expand...

I didn't read the entire thread, but fewer athletics would result in a disproportionate decrease in the lower half of the applicant pool. The result would therefore be an increased admission rate. GT has a 48% admission rate this year. It had a 62% admission rate last year. Same ranking.
 
ND_jacket said:
Bigger is not always better. Tech has little interest in being bigger than it currently is, in part because there is next to no physical space onto which it can become bigger. Those more professors you cite are generally not as strong of researchers as the people Tech hires right now.



Evidence? In fact, this is often false, as comprehensive universities have more students but also more majors, so the number of students per major is much smaller. Thus, the faculty have fewer opportunities to teach interesting advanced courses because there are fewer students to take them.



Have any evidence of that? The top 25 universities for research expenditures in 2009 (source) were:

Johns Hopkins
Michigan
University of Washington
MIT
UC San Diego
Wisconsin
Penn
Columbia
Stanford
UCLA
Pitt
Duke
UNC
Washington University in St. Louis
Minnesota
Penn State
Harvard
Yale
USC
Ohio State
Vanderbilt
Georgia Tech
Case Western Reserve
Texas
Caltech

You know what all but two universities ranked above Georgia Tech have that we don't? A medical school. Yes, that's right, we have the third highest research expenditures of US universities without a medical school, after MIT and Columbia.



Evidence for that?
Click to expand...

I agree with you wholeheartedly, but the Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons says "hello."
 
GT is ranked #2 in non-medical research expenditures behind Hopkins. And the only reason Hopkins is #1 is because they include their national laboratory in their spending (while other schools, like Caltech, treat them as separate institutes).
 
gtphd said:
GT is ranked #2 in non-medical research expenditures behind Hopkins. And the only reason Hopkins is #1 is because they include their national laboratory in their spending (while other schools, like Caltech, treat them as separate institutes).
Click to expand...

How does MIT compare to GT?
 
gtGreg768b said:
I agree with you wholeheartedly, but the Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons says "hello."
Click to expand...
Yeah, that was already pointed out. I thought they had a med school, but I missed them in the list I was using to verify which places had medical schools on my first pass.
 
ND_jacket said:
Yeah, that was already pointed out. I thought they had a med school, but I missed them in the list I was using to verify which places had medical schools on my first pass.
Click to expand...

We should go back to giving you hell for being a Notre Dame fan.:lol:
 
georgia_tech_swagger said:
Wow... just wow. I'm reeling from that. I know interest rates are low ... but who other than the United States Federal Reserve -- which has the unique ability to print money out of thin air -- has ever made themselves prosperous by driving themselves into debt oblivion. A fifth of a billion. $^!#$&!#$&!#&. You'd think Congress ran the GTAA.


:turbonoes: :eek4wtf: :eek3: :faint: :hiding:
Click to expand...

A) That isn't that much money. You should read a corporate financial statement sometime - Home Depot has over $10B in long-term debt, and that isn't atypical for a large company.

B) Debt isn't a problem if you're capable of paying it back. I haven't seen any indication that the AA is in danger of default as long as the TV revenue from the ACC keeps coming in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top