Great read from the Hive..... I agree 100%

bobby dodds ghost

Damn Good Rat
Joined
Jun 5, 2002
Messages
1,492
Posted By: BarJacket Registered User

Posted At: 11/17/02 3:37:42 pm
Reply
I love Georgia Tech ahtletics. In fact, I'm pretty sure I love Tech sports too much for my own good. I know that many people disagree with what I'm about to say, but I believe it is true.

First, the bottom line: If Tech doesn't get back in the SEC, the athletic association will go broke and that will be the end of Tech sports. It just breaks your heart, and worries you, to see the apathy for Tech football that was displayed yesterday. This once-proud program that we love is reduced to playing conference games in front of thousands of empty seats in one of the South's smallest capacity Div 1-A stadiums.

And it will only be worse two years from now, when Duke draws the same size "crowd" in an expanded Bobby Dodd Stadium. You can talk about the rain and cold weather, but it was rainy and cold at games all over the country that drew capacity crowds into stadiums twice as big as our's. The difference: Fans cared about those games.

If we stay in the ACC, I really wonder how we're going to pay the debt on the new endzone seats and seats that have been remodled and are were empty yesterday that are going to be sitting there empty for many ACC games. I'm seriously afraid the GTAA will go bankrupt and be forced out of business.

It isn't a matter of what conference we want to be in anymore. Tech fans disagree on that. It's a matter of which conference can we financially survive in. All Tech fans should be concerned about that. I submit that the question isn't whether you want Tech to be in the SEC or the ACC. The question is whether you want Tech to be in the SEC or drop sports. Those are the two options we're confronting.

Shocking statement, isn't it. I don't like it that it has come down to this, but it has. Look at yesterday. We're going for a bowl game and a five hundred conference record. We're playing our last home game of the year. And who shows up? The few and the proud, and nobody else.

Face it: You can't sell air conditioners in Alaska and you can't sell ACC football in Atlanta. When Tech was in the SEC, everybody who was anybody had season tickets to Tech games. Grant Field was the place to be at the place to be seen. There was a waiting list for tickets. Even Tech grads had to wait their turn to get season tickets. Visiting teams didn't return tickets, they wanted more.

Then, Coach Dodd made the horrible mistake of getting out of the SEC. But note this: He never planned on Tech succeeding by getting out of the SEC and joining the ACC. He knew that wouldn't work. His plan was to get out of the SEC and play a combination of long-time rivals and national powers. He thought we could make it as a major independent, like Notre Dame. For a long time we had schedules that brought very attractive teams to Atlanta. We played Auburn, Tennessee, Alabama, Clemson, South Carolina, FSU, Miami (of Florida), Georgia, Southern Cal, California, Notre Dame, Michigan State and teams like that.

But some problems developed. We couldn't win against a schedule like that, pro teams started spreading the sports dollar thin in the Atlanta area, fans from those national powers didn't travel to Atlanta and, most importantly, Tech found out these big name teams from all over could not replace the old SEC rivalries in the minds of the people we were trying to sell tickets to.

This was firmly recognized, leading Tech to try to get back in the SEC. We were rebuffed. Then and only then, did we decide to join the ACC, more as a means to survive than to thrive. And that is what has happened, by and large.

Well, if we want Tech sports to survive, we're going to have to get back in the SEC. Some people dismiss this by saying we could not get back in because we were rejected back in the 1970's. Well, I believe we could get back in for the following reasons:

1- A very high ranking Tech official told me that "we could get back in the SEC tomorrow if we wanted to." This person also said the reason we aren't getting back in, despite the fact that it would help us athletically, is that the administrative powers that be prefer Tech to stay in the ACC. Well, whose program is it, some school administrators or the fans who support Tech sports? And more importantly, with our debt repayment problems, the ACC just isn't an option anymore. I take this person at his word when he says we could get back in the SEC "tomorrow, if we wanted to." He even said that he had been contacted a few days earlier by the SEC wanting us back. Now, these weren't public comments, because the powers that be would have had this person's head if he had made them publicly. But these were comments he made in a private conversation in his office, and I believe him 100%.

2- When we tried to get back in the SEC in the 1970's, Bobby Dodd was still at Tech and the people he offended by getting Tech out of the SEC were still at many SEC schools. Now, it's thirty years later, and those people have passed on.

3- Tradition dies hard. While we miss our SEC rivals, many of them and their fans miss playing Tech and coming to Atlanta, too. This isn't a one-sided situation.

4- Financially, we'd be much better off in the SEC. Maybe the ACC does pay slightly more from the conference office to member teams than the SEC pays to its teams. But that is more than offset by the revenue to be derived from sold out games at 55,000 seat Grant Field against an SEC schedule as opposed to pitifully attended ACC games at Grant Field, like yesterday against Duke.

5- The fact that the SEC has 12 teams is not a problem. If they want Tech back, they'll find another team, maybe one in the ACC or Big East, to join Tech and give the SEC two seven-team divisions. Or they could take us back and have a thirteen team league. After all, the ACC has had seven, eight and nine member league lineups in the recent past, and the Big 10 has eleven teams, so there is a way to work out the schedule.

6- Even if we had to pay $100,000 to each SEC team and the SEC office for ten years in a row, it would be well worth it. We would still come out much better than we will trying to draw crowds to ACC games and falling so short that we go broke.

I posted last week about the reasons I'm optimistic about Tech's future. I am optimistic... about our players, and coaches. But there is one opponent that we cannot beat, and that oppoent is the Atlantic Coast Conference. Georgia Tech has become irrelevant in football because we're trying to get people excited about something they do not and never will be excited about: Atlantic Coast Conference football.

Say what you want to say about me. That's not important. But keep this in mind: Either Georgia Tech will get back in the SEC or it will go from being irrelevant to being broke and closing down its sports programs. It's your choice. If you care about the future of Tech sports, start contacting everybody you know and letting them know that you don't believe Tech can survive in the ACC and that you're withholding contributions until we get back in the SEC. You will be amazed to find out that the power to save Tech sports by getting the Yellow Jackets back in the SEC rests with you, my friends.

Need more proof? Ask yourself this. Which home games are you the most excited about next year? Auburn and Georgia, right? And both of those are non-conference games against old rivals from the SEC. I submit that when the highlight of your schedule are your non-conference games, you are, of course, in the wrong conference.

And remember, it's not a choice between the SEC and the ACC. It's a choice between the SEC and a self-imposed super death penalty that will surely result if we don't get back in the SEC.

Finally, you can say, "Well, Clemson has a big stadium and they're doing great in the ACC." Yes, but remember, the ACC is where they've been all along. Those teams are Clemson's traditional rivals. Or you can say, "FSU does fine in the ACC." Well, they were never in the SEC, so they don't have the traditional rivalries we do. Plus, the games they care most about are not ACC games. Plus, FSU fans will not sit still in the basketball-first ACC for very long, in my opinion. In fact, having Tech and FSU go in a package deal to the SEC is a real possibility. Of course, right now FSU doesn't care what conference it's in and being in the ACC means they get a BCS bowl even when they have a bad season. But with the glory days of Bobby Bowden fading, this will change.

And I'm not saying ACC football is bad or even inferior to SEC football. I'm just saying what's true. The reason you can't sell air conditioners in Alaska is not because they're not good air conditioners, it's because people in Alaska don't want to buy them. Same thing. The reason you don't have people dying to see ACC games in Atlanta isn't because the ACC plays a bad brand of football, it's because ACC football is not what the people want.

Save Georgia Tech sports. Get the Yellow Jackets back in the SEC!

Selah.
 
I don't agree 100%, but with some of it. If we are in danger of going bankrupt now, why didn't we when we were doing horrible in the mid-90's? Not being sarcastic, I'm just trying to understand some things.
 
I predicted back last year that the economy might keep many from the games this fall over the whole country.

I will be alert to any statistics at the end of the year regarding attendance at football games across the nation. It is possible there have been empty seats at most of the stadiums around the country this year.

Another factor could be some fans staying at home and away from big crowds due to the threat of terrorism, especially those that normally take their kids with them. Personally, I believe any team that wins consistently will draw their share of fans regardless of the conference or who they play.

I would guess Miami, Oklahoma, Texas, FSU, Florida, Ohio State, etc. have drawn full or near full crowds this year and during the previous years because of consistency.

I bet Maryland's crowds have been larger last year and this year due to the expectancy there.

During the consistent years when Dodd was coach at Tech, Dodd himself had to turn down high dignitaries request for tickets because the tickets were so hard to come by. It had little to do with us being in the SEC, it had a lot to do with the consistent winning.

wink.gif
 
What ahsoisee said. I'm not for the move, we've been in the ACC a long time and haven't gone bankrupt yet through our fair share of disappointing seasons. Something else - the Duke game was the only one that didn't sell out except for MAYBE the Wake game.
 
How much did we borrow to finance the stadium reno. and add.? This debt is what the author is writing about. I'm more interested in getting back into the SEC...it is our birthright as Tech fans.
.
.
BOO
 
I don't have the article but I saw something about 1-2 years ago listing the revenue generated per school (all athletic programs) and the ACC was the top conference.

I find it highly ignorant to believe that our athletic program will go broke after any amount of time. Considering the 2 major revenue college sports (basketball and football):

1) ACC is guaranteed a BCS bowl for 1 team (it is conceivable to receive a 2nd bid) $10mil+ automatically. The BCS team shares with the conference. Also, the bowl payout from the other 5 tie-ins are shared among the attending team and the conference.

2) The ACC tourney is the highest revenue conference basketball tournament. All teams participate, all teams share the $$$.

3) The NCAA tourney guarantees a payout to each participant (individual payout increases the deeper the participant survives in the tourney). 4-5 (even 6) teams every year from the ACC participate and the ACC has fielded a Final 4 team in 14 of the last 15 years. These revenues are again shared between the participant and the ACC.

4) Television rights - GT has has at least been on regional TV for 10 of the 12 games this football season. 21 of 27 basketball games are already slated for television this season. F$U, Maryland, and UVA have had similar football TV schedules this season and you can expect Duke, Maryland, UNC, and NC State to control the B-ball airtime.
 
Good post Contact. Thanks for bringing this to more light, I'm a bit in the dark when it comes to finances because I'm not an alumni yet. (If that has anything to do with it.)
 
ahso - Doesn't look like the economy affected seats this year - attendance average this year for the top 80 teams is up 200. Last year 53,135, this year 53,434. The only major differences are Miami plus 21,925, Virginia Tech plus 12,393, Clemson minus 5819, and Stanford minus 12,764. That is YTD versus full seasion last year, so some big games like GA-Ga Tech, FSU-Florida, OSU-Mich are not in for this years average.
 
Unless someone shows me the numbers, I don't buy this bankrupt argument at all.

And unless you want to name the high ranking person or he/she comes out in public and says it, this stuff is as bad as the tabloids.
 
Dave Tech, thanks for the information. I thought the economy would hurt the attendances this year, but the figures have proven me wrong. It is difficult to argue against facts.

pat.gif
 
I agree I would not object to seeing Tech back in the SEC but to say Tech will be bankrupt in the near future is to my mind hogwash. A FBall team on TV 10 of 12 and about 80% of the BBall on TV brings in big bucks not to mention Base ball. How many of the SEC teams can say that not, the Bamas, Awberns, Tenn or even Fla. I do agree that more traditional rivals like Bama, Awbern would cause a SRO stadium. But to say Bankrupt I don't think so.
 
Granted the concept of the GTAA's going bankrupt FINANCIALLY in the ACC is invalid.

But it is valid that GT may be close to bankrupt w/r/t quality of football games/opponents. The Duke @ GT game this past week-end symbolizes the "fan bankruptcy" that is being in the ACC. Not many care about it. Few will come to it, even with season tickets.

The SEC may pay out less, but the product is much more attractive.

Reminds me of the joke about Tech and co-eds: "The odds are good but the goods are odd." Could maybe say the same about ACC football (as compared with SEC).

Have we (the sexy blonde) married an 85 year old O.F. (ACC) for his money, and lost our soul (sporting interest and enthusiasm)?
 
The SEC already has one Vanderbilt, they don't need two. We wouldn't be able to compete in the SEC for the same reasons Vandy can't: we're basically a small-enrollment, academically challenging, upstanding university. Do we really want to go head-to-head in the recruiting wars with the Alabamas, Kentuckys and Auburns of the world that have proven time and again that they'll do anything and pay ANYBODY to lure unsuspecting student athletes to their teams? No, we don't. Imagine what our record would be if we had to face the killer SEC schedule. If nobody shows up to see a 6-4 GT team play Duke, who's to say anyone will show up to see a 1-7 Tech team play Kentucky or Vandy.

If the weather was better Saturday, we would have had another 10,000 fans at the game. Big deal. Considering the quality of our offense this year and the dullness of the games, it's a miracle we've drawn as well as we have. What is TRULY lacking at Tech is an honest-to-goodness quality marketing team. The GTAA couldn't market a Pope to a Catholic, not to mention college football in the crowded Atlanta entertainment marketplace. Some innovative mini-season packages, or exciting giveaways, or ANYTHING with a HINT of creativity to get people out to Tech games would be better than the abysmal job they do marketing Tech football.

We don't need to escape to the SEC to make this program viable. We've got the alumni base and the local fan base to sell out even an expanded BDS. What we need is some Arthur Blank-style marketing savvy at GTAA to get the job done. Be honest now, who would ever have guessed that the FALCONS would be one of the toughest tickets in town?
 
Here is another great read on the Hive:

http://pub93.ezboard.com/fthehivefrm1.showMessage?topicID=4927.topic

Flogging a deceased equine! The SEC vs. ACC ....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, my apologies to all who's first reaction is "Oh no - not again." I've just got to make some comments about this subject and sincerely hope that those who sincerely think the SEC would be better will respond with their reasons.

I'm not surprised the topic of SEC membership came up today. I remember sitting in BDS yesterday staring at the mostly empty East Stands and thinking this was going to be a field day for the conference bashers who want to use pathetic turnout for certain opponents as reason #1 to flee the ACC. Ofcourse the other thought running through my mind as we struggled to beat a bad Duke team is how badly would we have fared in the SEC this season? I'm not saying we can't win in two weeks - I think our defense will give us a chance. What I am saying is who thinks Tech would have 7 wins on November 17th if we had played Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Alabama, Kentucky, Florida, Mississippi, and Auburn. I don't necessarily buy the argument that the SEC is far and away better than the ACC but it is a very good conference with tough teams. There have been seasons when I know Tech could've done well in that league but this isn't one of them. My first question to those who wish us back in the SEC is this - If we can't beat Clemson, Wake, and Maryland why do you think competing in the SEC would be better?

My second point is about the finances. It's well documented here and at other sites that the ACC shares more revenue on a per team basis ($8.1 million in 2000) than any other league. The SEC had an average distribution of $6.6 million in 2000. What's not discussed so much is that Ga.Tech beat the league average that year receiving $8.4 million. That's more money than SEC notables Florida ($6.6), Tennessee ($6.3), and Georgia ($6.5) Put another way, $1.9 million dollars is worth 12,000 tickets/game at $27 each.

The other point I'd like to make about the money concerns football versus basketball. The ACC has a well earned reputation as a hoops league. What nobody mentions is that the conference makes more from football ($44.5 million in 2000) than they do from basketball ($35.6 million). The SEC beats the ACC by a wide margin in football revenue by bringing in $61.9 million. If you adjust for the difference in teams though the margin is not that great. The ACC makes $4.9 million per team while the SEC makes $5.1 million per team - a difference of only 4%. On the other hand the ACC beats the SEC $35.5 million to $22 million in basketball revenue despite having fewer members. Now I know some fonts don't give a rip about the basketball team but that's ignoring reality. There are two major revenue producing sports in which to fund all others. My second question is this - Are you really willing to toss away almost $2 million dollars in total revenue and put the basketball team at a competitive disadvantage because we can't get a decent crowd to the Duke game every other year?

My third and final point is this endless obsession with stadium size and it's correlation with success on the football field. It makes me want to print up some T-shirts that say "It's not the size of your stadium - it's how you use it!"

A quick look at the largest stadiums in the country will find some of the most successful programs of all time at or near the top - Michigan, Penn State, Ohio State, Texas, and Florida State are among the usual suspects. The SEC has 6 of the Top 10 and 8 of the top 25 in average attendance. This begs the question though - which came first? If you look at the current list of schools with 80,000+ seat stadiums nearly every single one of them has a storied history. (So.Carolina and Florida are exceptions) Their winning programs predate the trend of building huge cathedrals to college football. In fact, I think it's pretty clear that they have the massive stadiums BECAUSE of their winning traditions - not vice versa.

It's also difficult to make a direct correlation between stadium size and on-field success. LSU is one of a handful of stadiums that seats in excess of 90,000. Baton Rouge is historically one of the most feared venues - especially at night. It's doubtful anyone would ever confuse it with Bobby Dodd Stadium. Who would you bet had the better record throughout the 1990's? Obviously it's Georgia Tech despite playing in a stadium that could fit in the real Death Valley twice. The Jackets posted a 66-49-1 record from 1990 to 1999. LSU was 54-58-1. Even more impressive is this little nugget - the Tigers were 35-32-0 at home during that span while Tech posted an outstanding 41-19 home record.

A single expample isn't good enough though. Coming into the 2002 season, Tech had gone 42-19 the previous 5 years. Compare that to some teams that play in much larger venues; Penn State (107K) was 38-22, Tennessee (104K) was 52-11, Ohio St. (101K) was 42-18, UGa (86K) was 42-18, Auburn (86K) was 34-26, So.Carolina (81K) was 23-34, Clemson (81K) was 32-27, and Notre Dame (80K) was 34-25.

On the other side of the argument you find good teams playing in small stadiums. Washington State is on the verge of winning the PAC-10 even though their home stadium (37,600) is only slightly larger than Duke's. (33,800). Oregon's Autzen Stadium is considered a very tough place to play despite holding 53,999 seats. The defending Big 12 champion Colorado Buffalos are averaging 49,200 fans this season in a stadium that holds under 51,000. In fact, there are 8 teams in this weeks Top 25 that play in stadiums that will be smaller than an expanded BDS. Two more teams play in 60K stadiums but aren't averaging that many fans.

One last thing - remember an expanded BDS would still rank 10th in the SEC in stadium size.

All of that brings me to my last question - How is membership in the SEC suppossed to be a panacea for our football program; how will it help us fill the stadium with OUR fans each week?

That is all.

Edited by: Army Jacket at: 11/17/02 11:32:02 pm
 
very amusing to see bobby dodd's ghost post selective posts from the hive ..

much like selective amnesia
 
Duke averages 19,000 for football and they aren't going broke. How do you expect to compete in the SEC with attendance averages like this: TN 106912, LSU 90089, GA 86520, FL 85185, AU 82943, AL 82530. You can't be serious to think we could compete effectively in the SEC.
 
GTT, thanks for bringing this post over. Whoever wrote that posts did a great job. Probably, his only mistake is to try to confuse everyone with facts!

 
What a bunch of tripe.

If we were still in the SEC we would not have the basketball program we do now nor the winning record in football we have had for the past 10 plus years. We would be fighting Vandy for the cellar. Bowl games? Forget it.

News flash! We have a smaller fan base and a smaller student population and that is not going to change. Unless we begin offering a degree in underwater basket weaving and start recruiting from prisons, we won't fit the SEC mold.

I do admit we had our heads buried somewhere when we started scheduling teams like UCONN and BYU, and Stanford. We should be filling our non-conference slots with Auburn (I know starting next year), Tennessee, and gulp maybe even Florida or our old arch rival Alabama.

Do this and build a winning ACC program and the fans will come.....

bsmeter.gif
 
This post is a load of crap with NO substantiation or quantification whatsoever. The only way GT goes bankrupt is to leave the acc. Allow me to reference another post from the Hive that actually uses fact and figures:

Subject: Going broke in the ACC...
Posted By: Army Jacket Registered User

Posted At: 11/18/02 11:30:11 pm
Reply
After much digging around I found some numbers for Tech athletics.

In 1999, Georgia Tech self-reported football expenditures of $4,838,671. The GTAA reported football revenue was $10,136,088. That's a profit in football only of $5,297,417.

For Tech to make back $4,838,671 in ticket sales only, the GTAA needs to sell 32,258 tickets per game at $25.00 each over 6 home dates. That is well within reach even for the worst games. It also demonstrates that in even numbered years when our home schedule includes Wake and Duke, having home games against FSU and UVa more than offset their presence. If you assume sellouts for the 'Noles and Cavs, we would only need to average 22,516 against the Deacons and Devils to break even. In short there is absolutely NO WAY we are losing money in football in the current setup.

Unfortunately I couldn't find total numbers for the entire athletic budget. However I was able to piece together some things from other clues. The total athletic expenditures in 1999 were ~$20.4 million. I know we received ~$7.7 million from the ACC in revenue sharing. That combined with the $10.1 million made in football nearly erases the deficit without accounting for men's basketball. That also does not account for royalties collected off the sale of licensed products. These numbers give me good reason to believe that Tech is finishing in the black each year. I doubt seriously the numbers have changed dramatically the last few years.

One other thing I thought was interesting. Every school in the ACC outspent Tech on football except for Wake Forest, which finished just over $100,000 behind us. Florida State spent over $12 million. Duke spent over $6 million. (Who's putting a priority on their football program now?) However the Jackets finished 4th in total revenue and 2nd in profits. (Clemson cleared over $6.8 million)
 
Back
Top