I got a couple more general comments I'm willing to share...

Allen Koholic said:
That's a good question - is it worth trashing the biggest rivalry game we have in order to get a few more dollars?
Click to expand...
The red trash is already trashing the biggest rivalry game, so for now, yes it is worth it for a lot more dollars. A lot more.
 
GTCrew said:
The red trash is already trashing the biggest rivalry game, so for now, yes it is worth it for a lot more dollars. A lot more.
Click to expand...
Is it "a lot" more dollars?

The Benz can hold about third more than Bobby Dodd can. Average ticket price is $116 for a game at BDS. Simple math puts that at a cool $2+ million. Which is nice. (And that's assuming an awful lot)

That's ~2% of GTAA's operating revenue. You want to move the biggest game to a soulless dome full of red idiots for a 2% bump every other season?

If tickets were the biggest source of GTAA's money, I'd be more inclined to support moving the game. If we have another season like this one though, we may need to.

http://www.fin-services.gatech.edu/...ges/gtaa_final_financial_statements_2018_.pdf
 
Allen Koholic said:
Is it "a lot" more dollars?

The Benz can hold about third more than Bobby Dodd can. Average ticket price is $116 for a game at BDS. Simple math puts that at a cool $2+ million. Which is nice. (And that's assuming an awful lot)

That's ~2% of GTAA's operating revenue. You want to move the biggest game to a soulless dome full of red idiots for a 2% bump every other season?

If tickets were the biggest source of GTAA's money, I'd be more inclined to support moving the game. If we have another season like this one though, we may need to.

http://www.fin-services.gatech.edu/...ges/gtaa_final_financial_statements_2018_.pdf
Click to expand...
We can do a lot better than a $2 million gain, because the seat prices would be much higher than $116.

And I assume the gains would not get spread out to all sports. I assume we would spend it all on Football. What % increase would $2M minimum mean for the football budget?
 
savbandjacket said:
I had a sense of duty to go to make sure that there was at least one gold shirt in my section. Then I yelled out the stuff to Budweiser which pissed off all of the uga fans around me because they couldn’t hear their stupid 4th quarter thing. The old woman behind me bitched the rest of the game because I stood and bobbed in her way and yelled out the stuff so she couldn’t hear. That made it all worth it.
Click to expand...

It was overwhelmingly RED in my immediate area in the upper north, so my feelings got me thinking I was the token. But it was great when we scored and they all went silent, at least temporarily.
 
So looking through that, we made $3million on tickets and $2.8million in a travel guarantee for the chickfila game in 2018.

We could easily milk way more than that out of the dwag fans every other year.
 
GTCrew said:
So looking through that, we made $3million on tickets and $2.8million in a travel guarantee for the chickfila game in 2018.

We could easily milk way more than that out of the dwag fans every other year.
Click to expand...
That 2.8 guarantee was offset by the ticket commitment Tech made to Chicken Fillet Jerkoff Classic. I'm not an accountant at all, so someone else might want to look at those numbers and see exactly what Tech made from that football game.

Also, that game wasn’t one of our six home games, right? We had six plus that, so you’d need subtract one home games worth of revenue.
 
Last edited:
Allen Koholic said:
That 2.8 guarantee was offset by the ticket commitment Tech made to Chicken Fillet Jerkoff Classic. I'm not an accountant at all, so someone else might want to look at those numbers and see exactly what Tech made from that football game.

Also, that game wasn’t one of our six home games, right? We had six plus that, so you’d need subtract one home games worth of revenue.
Click to expand...
The $2.8 was additional. The $3million was for an extra game, yes, which is why we keep focusing in on the difference between BDS seating and MB seating, however $3million was only half the seats so we could pencil in double that.
 
We Could probably convince U[sic]GA to move the game to MBS annually. It's not like their fans don't travel. Hell they could still get Varsity if the game were at MBS every year. Which might not be a bad idea...

After we get at least one win against them in BDS this century.
 
Last edited:
ciegetanks said:
We Could probably convince U[sic]GA to move the game to MBS annually. It's not like tgeir fans don't travel. Hell tgey could etill get Varsity if the game were at MBS every year. Which might not be a bad idea...

After we get at least one win against them in BDS this century.
Click to expand...
Why would we have to get their permission? Either way, we need to raise the ticket prices for the mutt and Clemson games to the market price. You should not be able to purchase from Tech and sell at a significant profit. We should also do this for the Duke and UNC basketball games.
 
BrentwoodJacket said:
Why would we have to get their permission? Either way, we need to raise the ticket prices for the mutt and Clemson games to the market price. You should not be able to purchase from Tech and sell at a significant profit. We should also do this for the Duke and UNC basketball games.
Click to expand...

I meant convincing U[sic]GA to only play COFH in MBS. As in EVERY year. Not just move the game from Bobby Dodd, but also from the Hedge lined landfill U[sic]GA calls a field as well.
 
GTCrew said:
We can do a lot better than a $2 million gain, because the seat prices would be much higher than $116.

And I assume the gains would not get spread out to all sports. I assume we would spend it all on Football. What % increase would $2M minimum mean for the football budget?
Click to expand...
(a) How would adding capacity increase ticket prices? I would expect the relationship to be inverse.
(b) Wouldn't Title IX require that a significant portion of that additional revenue be used to fund ladies' sports?
 
18in32 said:
(a) How would adding capacity increase ticket prices? I would expect the relationship to be inverse.
(b) Wouldn't Title IX require that a significant portion of that additional revenue be used to fund ladies' sports?
Click to expand...
(A)First, because we underprice the tickets versus demand for that game at our stadium. Second because we dont "market" the tickets to Georgie fans. Third because there are more boxes and premium seats at the Dome.

(B) I dont think thats how titleIX works. It cant possibly based on budget.
 
GTCrew said:
(A)First, because we underprice the tickets versus demand for that game at our stadium. Second because we dont "market" the tickets to Georgie fans. Third because there are more boxes and premium seats at the Dome.

(B) I dont think thats how titleIX works. It cant possibly based on budget.
Click to expand...
(a) We're already working on pricing the UGA tickets are close to market as we can. That's a challenge for any ticket-seller in any environment. I don't think there's any reason to think we will be better at getting pricing "right" (relative to capacity) at MB than at BDS. Not sure about how I feel about the GTAA actively marketing tickets to UGA fans. That feels icky. I do agree about MB having more "tiers" of seating opportunities, though I'm not sure the increased capacity wouldn't offset the advantage (on a per seat basis – obviously total revenue goes up).

(b) Title IX compliance is essentially measured by participation and support. So you've got to have roughly the same number of girls and boys getting scholarships. (There are nuances here but let's stay at 30,000 ft.) Then you have to make sure that all those girls are receiving the same quality opportunities in their sport. So you can't buy Grade A gear for the men's soccer team, but Grade C gear for the women's soccer team. You can't have a trainer for the boys but not one for the girls. Due to the nature of the sport (equipment intensive, big field which requires constant maintenance, etc.), you can spend a disproportionate amount on football relative to the "per capita" participation rate. But, no, the GTAA can't just decide to increase spending on football without also making sure that the women's sports are receiving comparable levels of support (as appropriate to the needs of each sport). So an increase in $1 in football-targeted revenue or donations will, at some point and somewhere along the way, mean less than $1 in net benefit to football. That's the point of Title IX – to force men's sports fans to pay for women's sports.
 
Last edited:
Playing uga at MB really early in the season makes a lot of sense to me. As Spurrier said, you want to play them earlier than later. We do the game, accept the results, take the cash and move on to winning in the ACC which we can realistically do most years. Btw I think we can beat uga on a semi-regular basis without selling our soul. We’ll have better years plus uga will choke like usce this year. They’ll screw up eventually and hire another idiot like Donnan. I’d like to see us focusing first and foremost on the ACC coastal.
 
18in32 said:
(a) We're already working on pricing the UGA tickets are close to market as we can. That's a challenge for any ticket-seller in any environment. I don't think there's any reason to think we will be better at getting pricing "right" (relative to capacity) at MB than at BDS. Not sure about how I feel about the GTAA actively marketing tickets to UGA fans. That feels icky. I do agree about MB having more "tiers" of seating opportunities, though I'm not sure the increased capacity wouldn't offset the advantage (on a per seat basis – obviously total revenue goes up).

(b) Title IX compliance is essentially measured by participation and support. So you've got to have roughly the same number of girls and boys getting scholarships. (There are nuances here but let's stay at 30,000 ft.) Then you have to make sure that all those girls are receiving the same quality opportunities in their sport. So you can't buy Grade A gear for the men's soccer team, but Grade C gear for the women's soccer team. You can't have a trainer for the boys but not one for the girls. Due to the nature of the sport (equipment intensive, big field which requires constant maintenance, etc.), you can spend a disproportionate amount on football relative to the "per capita" participation rate. But, no, the GTAA can't just decide to increase spending on football without also making sure that the women's sports are receiving comparable levels of support (as appropriate to the needs of each sport). So an increase in $1 in football-targeted revenue or donations will, at some point and somewhere along the way, mean less than $1 in net benefit to football. That's the point of Title IX – to force men's sports fans to pay for women's sports.
Click to expand...
(a) Do you not realize we could sell them for more than the Tennessee tickets sold for? We can clearly make a lot more, how much more is debatable. I think early season we could make even more compared to Thanksgiving.

(b)Thats a lot of words that basically mislead. There are no requirements to spend more than we do now.
 
GTCrew said:
(a) Do you not realize we could sell them for more than the Tennessee tickets sold for? We can clearly make a lot more, how much more is debatable. I think early season we could make even more compared to Thanksgiving.

(b)Thats a lot of words that basically mislead. There are no requirements to spend more than we do now.
Click to expand...
You are wrong.
 
ciegetanks said:
We Could probably convince U[sic]GA to move the game to MBS annually. It's not like their fans don't travel. Hell they could still get Varsity if the game were at MBS every year. Which might not be a bad idea...

After we get at least one win against them in BDS this century.
Click to expand...
I hope MBS is still there by then.:dunno:
 
18in32 said:
You are wrong.
Click to expand...
Fake news.

Does Title IX require that equal dollars be spent on men and women's sports?

No. The only provision that requires that the same dollars be spent proportional to participation is scholarships. Otherwise, male and female student-athletes must receive equitable "treatment" and "benefits."


You are trying to argue the "treatment" and "benefits" (scare quotes literally installed by NCAA) which simply defies what is occurring in the real world. The football players already get "treatment" and "benefits" far beyond what any of the women get. And its much worse at other schools.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top