Another AD Thread, Expanding Programs

Re: While I agree that we need to...

Good point NC.

I am in full support of minor sports excelling. First things first though.
However, if we do find ourselves sucking at the bigguns, I of course want the minor or non rev programs to win.

My point is that a weighted average should be in play.
 
I am sure that we could support more...

programs but what's the point? Who would actually care other than kids who play these things? Soccer, lacrosse, frisbee golf, laser tag, hula hoops, dungeons and dragons...kids who want to do these things at Tech I am sure are doing them anyway. I don't see where this helps us in anyway other than being politically correct and keeping up with the Joneses so to speak. I cannot for the life of me see how this benefits the school, only the 20-40 kids who might participate in this stuff.
 
Re: I am sure that we could support more...

Just because you don't care doesn't mean other people don't. I suggest you take a trip to another school sometime and check things out before you make announcements that no one cares. Maybe go to a lacrosse game in MD? Or women's soccer in the rest of the ACC.

Don't assume everyone has your narrow view of what athletics does for a school or for the entire student body.
 
Wow. You are

enlightened. Maybe you could humble yourself to explain to those without your obvious understanding of the "big picture" how these things add value.I don't doubt that there are people who care about the minor sports and have actively participated in some myself. The point is - yes there are people who care but on a percentage basis their number is small.However if they (these sports)cost more than they bring in I don't see the point in funding them other than on an intramural basis. I would rather do a few things well than try to be all things to all people. So how many people show up at these events that you reference -300? 750? 3,000? Can anyone on this board name the team that won the women's ACC field hockey championship? Whichever school won, which I am willing to wager 99% of this board would NOT be able to name, how has this helped that school? Does the lacrosse team at Uva have season ticket holders or sell merchandise in the bookstore?

Again it is not those who pursue these things are wrong to do so. I love to hunt birds and do so on my own.I didn't expect the GTAA to fund me in this endeavor while I was at Tech because I realized most people don't care about it. Does that make me enjoy it less because I know that people won't pay to watch me shoot quail? The answer is no.

Have a nice day sir.
 
Re: Wow. You are

Sorry to horn in here, but your argument appears to be civil enough, and this topic is pertinent to a current crisis in my household. (I will spare the details, but it concerns an ex and money)

Anyway, my opinion: Any athletic endeavor can be great for the participant, especially if it's a young person. The benefits received of physical fitness, mental and physical discipline, learning to thrive in a team environment, developing a healthy respect for rules and authority, etc. are all wonderful learning experiences.
Someone need not be involved in football, basketball or baseball to gain the above benefits.

Establishing and maintaining any organized team or individual sport requires money. The simple question is, where does the necessary money come from. While there are multiple sources, most of it comes from the profit generating mainstays within each athletic department. Football and basketball.

While I wish that Tech could fund all sorts of non revenue sports, it's just not realistically as possible for us as it is with some of the football factories we are all aware of.
Ga. Tech football has smaller profitable revenues than uga for example. This is an assumption based on difference in ticket sales, merchandise sold and bowl proceeds. (I realize there is revenue sharing within the conferences)
As a result, the uga's will have more money to spread around to the non rev teams.

We need to match uga, Tenn, AU, etc. dollar for dollar on football program spending. If that means many of our teams stay as club sports with private funding, so be it.
A huge mistake would be to fool only ourselves by spreading our resources too thin just to say we compete in X number of varsity sports.

Need some help on a question:

I believe that some of the ACC schools compete intercollegiately in some sports while other conference members don't. Sports such as lacrosse (throwing a ball with a stick), Crew (rowing a boat) and Soccer come to mind. The questions are 1) Do these schools compete as independents, or do they compete in these sports in a seperate conference?
2) What are the mandatory athletic teams that each ACC school must field?
 
Pocket watch you are right on....

we all agree that competition and athletics add value to the life off all people. What is at issue is the following - why is it imperative that the nonrevenue sports be done on the varsity level vs.an intramural or club basis that produces ALL (in my opinion anyway) of the benefits at a fraction of the cost? I am interested in the points of view of those who maintain that fielding teams on a varsity level adds value exceeding the cost of maintaining these teams. Mr. NCjacket,who is apparently more enlightened than tolerant of others,your thoughts please?
 
Currently GT has $110 million in debt with $40 million in yearly revenue. Football, basketball, and I think baseball are revenue generators.

GT wouldn't want to add a sport that is a revenue loser unless forced to. The men's tennis program is short 20% of their scholarship limit due to Title 9 limitations. They have something like 4 scholarships and women's tennis have 8 scholarships available. This is a good reason why the women's tennis program is able to rise to #4 in the NCAA and why men's has been around #30.

If a sport was to be added it would have to come from the ACC sports list (which can be found on the ACC website). Women's golf would be most logical with the new golf course coming this fall (Eschelon Club) in Crabapple.

One interesting note: if an additional scholarship was endowed for men's tennis then that would be acceptable to the NCAA. However the GTAA couldn't pay for an additional scholarship, our of revenues, without breaking Title 9 limits..
 
Re: Pocket watch you are right on....

B, just a clarifier on my stance: If Tech did have abundant overflows from the major rev. sports, I would hope that we would fund the club sports we currently have.

However, Football and basketball at Tech need not suffer $1 compared to all of the top spenders of other college programs hunting for championships.

I will sit down now.
 
Re: Pocket watch you are right on....

I'm not suggesting we bankrupt GTAA to provide sports. But if we can afford to I would be in support of it. The ACC holds championships in numerous sports Tech doesn't compete in. We will never field all of them, but if we can add sports I think it would add to our all around athletic program.

B, what is value? I think adding lacrosse would be great because I think it would be. It's an exciting sport that is growing by leaps and bounds. In terms of attendance, I'm not sure what Tech might draw, but the NCAA championships has sold out in the Eagles stadium on Philadelphia for the last two years.

It's also interesting that Duke can field lacrosse (M and W), W golf, M and W soccer - just to name a few. Duke is significantly more expensive to attend so scholarship costs are much higher. They offer the full allotment of NCAA scholarships in those sports. Their football revenue is nil, and their take from the conference is the same as ours. So how come they can afford it and we can't?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top