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?
Well, I certainly kicked over a yellow jacket nest on this topic didnt I?
Sorry, but I dont want GT to be...Johns Hopkins.
But can we be GT...AND...have a THRIVING athletics program?
Michigan, Penn State, USC, Texas, and others seem to have developed a way. Why cant GT?