If we were given the option to switch to the SEC...

Re: Here's a little more info:

Stick said:
In 2006, the average SEC payout was $10,168,997. The highest payout of $10,714,082 was to LSU; the lowest payout of $9,766,122 was to Mississippi State.

In 2006, the average ACC payout was $10,853,810. The highest payout of $12,472,707 was to FSU; the lowest payout of $10,809,796 was to Wake. (I did not include payouts to BC, Miami or VPI, as they were provisional members, financially, in 2006).

The difference in the averages was $684,813 (and the ACC average was low in 2006 because the payouts to VT, Miami and BC were low). There was a $1,758,625 difference at the high end, and a $1,043,674 difference at the low end.

The source for this info is at:

http://blog.al.com/bn/2008/02/show_me_the_money_division_i_a.html

I'm afraid your financial case is busted...
Click to expand...

WHOOOOAH. You had 12 teams in the ACC, only counted revenue for 9 and think the data isn't flawed. Count 2007 or 2008 when all 12 team were actual members and the sEC is higher.


You can't just count who you want to include average payout. You add up the 12 teams and divide by 12 to get an avearge.

Your logic and math are flawed.
 
beej67 said:
That's great info. I wonder why/how the ACC's guaranteed payout is bigger.
Click to expand...

The articale is counting gate receipts and donations. Do you think GT would recieve more in donations and could charge more for tickets and sell more tickets if they played UGA, Bama, UF, and Vandy as their 4 conference home games instead of FSU, MIA, Duke, and Wake?

GT would make millions more per year in total revenue if they were in the SEC just on football. Baseball would alos make money rather than lose money like they do now.

Plus, Stick's math is wrong anyway as he used 12 teams to make money but only counted 9 for his average. Think critically here; don't trust Stick with an agenda. The SEC makes lots more money than the ACC on avearge. Granted UNC makes a killing.
 
thwg,
I think you're probably right. When you add up their conference revenue with their enormous fan support, royalty revenue (more millions), and TV exposure on Saturdays, their overall benefit from the conference is pretty formidable.
What I noticed from the data is that we were the only ACC team in both the top ten of revenue and expenses per athlete. We are right there with the heaviest hitters in the business. With our budget being significantly smaller than the others in the top 10, how are we doing this? Also, the others that are spending on this level are generally getting very good on-field results. There's something disjointed here in what we are getting in our relative bang for our buck.
How long can we spend on the level of Tennessee, Ohio State, LSU, Texas, and Georgia without the fan base and infrastructure matching theirs? Is it truly a prudent thing for an academic institution to do to extend and risk resources with a deficit spending quest just because fans are begging for it?
 
Re: Here's a little more info:

thwg said:
WHOOOOAH. You had 12 teams in the ACC, only counted revenue for 9 and think the data isn't flawed. Count 2007 or 2008 when all 12 team were actual members and the sEC is higher.


You can't just count who you want to include average payout. You add up the 12 teams and divide by 12 to get an avearge.

Your logic and math are flawed.
Click to expand...

I am afraid your math checking his math is flawed. You latched onto the comment about excluding the provisional members for the low end and assumed he excluded it for average. But you didn't actually check the numbers. The average included all 12 members of the ACC.

You can argue about whether it is appropriate to exclude provisional members for the low end. But I think the point is that those numbers did not represent what those members would have gotten without the restrictions as new members. The real low number probably would have been around $9,631,752 taking the average of the lows; but then the high number would probably be reduced some as well. But either way the distribution only affects the high-low spread, not the average overall.

P.S. The lower payouts for provisional members of the ACC would also apply if we switched to a different conference. We would be penalized with lower payouts for awhile.
 
thwg said:
The articale is counting gate receipts and donations. Do you think GT would recieve more in donations and could charge more for tickets and sell more tickets if they played UGA, Bama, UF, and Vandy as their 4 conference home games instead of FSU, MIA, Duke, and Wake?

GT would make millions more per year in total revenue if they were in the SEC just on football. Baseball would alos make money rather than lose money like they do now.

Plus, Stick's math is wrong anyway as he used 12 teams to make money but only counted 9 for his average. Think critically here; don't trust Stick with an agenda. The SEC makes lots more money than the ACC on avearge. Granted UNC makes a killing.
Click to expand...

Not really. Wanting it doesn't make it so. I think you have as much of an agenda as Stick does. So, thinking critically, I trust his numbers over your fervent faith and belief.

To do better in the SEC than the ACC, GT would have to be higher on the food chain in the SEC than it is in the ACC. (The numbers really don't lie.) In theory that is possible, but in practice I don't think it is realistic.

I think your perceptions are skewed by football. The SEC does much better than the ACC in football as the numbers indicate. Yet, overall they do about the same considering the other sports and the expenses.

Realistically, a move is at best a wash financially in the long term and a loss in the short term considering penalties.
 
manjano mdudu said:
thwg,
I think you're probably right. ...What I noticed from the data is that we were the only ACC team in both the top ten of revenue and expenses per athlete. We are right there with the heaviest hitters in the business. With our budget being significantly smaller than the others in the top 10, how are we doing this?
Click to expand...

The obvious answer is that we don't have as many athletes as do the others you are comparing.
 
I really don't have an agenda.

lonestarjacket said:
I think you have as much of an agenda as Stick does.
Click to expand...

The numbers are what they are; check the article. This comment:

"(I did not include payouts to BC, Miami or VPI, as they were provisional members, financially, in 2006)."

was simply intended to say that the SHARES received by those 3 schools were no full shares because they are provisional members. When they get FULL shares, the number will be comparable at worst to what Wake Forest received.

Bottom line: the ACC pays its member schools more than the SEC pays its member schools. The difference is substantial. If the argument for leaving the ACC for the SEC is a financial argument, shouldn't the numbers support it?
 
I strongly prefer the ACC to the SEC. It is all about class. THe SEC is simply low rent imo. The only two SEC schools I would allow my kids to attend would be Vandy or Florida. Luckily they picked Georgia Tech, but virtually all of the ACC schools would have been ok. Plus we are superior in BB, equal in baseball, and close enough in FB,though this was an off year for the conference. .
 
Grass always greener over the cess pool,
Lets give SEC the FSU thugs and $1 million and we get Vandy. We cut Miami loose to the Cubans.
 
If I were given the option to fly away in space with those little gray men that people see from time to time I would take it*.


*about as likely to happen so let's spend 7 pages discussing it
 
With our budget being significantly smaller than the others in the top 10, how are we doing this? Also, the others that are spending on this level are generally getting very good on-field results. There's something disjointed here in what we are getting in our relative bang for our buck.
Click to expand...

Two reasons, Title IX and the fact that GT has, IIRC, the lowest number of sports allowed for a D-IA team. To compensate for a big football program, the factories have more female sports and pour more money into them. UGA gymnastics is a good example of this.

Looking at it now, it may be the reason GT has done better in football and basketball despite its academic restrictions. It's interesting to see that the biggest football schools have to raise much more money than us to get the same benefit to their football program.

I also still think the SEC would net more money in the long run. The payouts are higher due to the ACC's higher basketball revenues outweighing the SEC's higher football revenues. However, that still doesn't include gate receipts. We would sell out almost every conference game and charge significantly more for tickets.
 
If Ga Tech was given the opportunity to re-join the SEC, the vote would be a landslide YES. Those that say no now just don't want to admit it, or don't get it.

We'd make more money because we would have bigger games, bigger rivalries, more local interest from SEC prospect players and more fans, period.
It's the best conference in college football now, and was arguably the best when Tech was a proud member before Dodd's ego got too big.

Ga Tech in the SEC is every bit as natural as ALabama, Tenn, AU and Ga being in the conference. More natural. Atlanta is still the capitol of Dixie.

The best chance of it happening is the BCS forcing four 16 school super conferences. Tech and FSU would be two near obvious invitees by the SEC.
 
Pocket I think you are wrong, that vote is just not coming anymore. The reasons are simply:

1) Tech's academic prowess/reputation has grown quite a bit in the last 30 years. I just don't see the academia side of Tech voting for the SEC regardless of pressure. We're lucky that we're allowed to compete in the ACC.

2) Tech's campus has changed and land is extremely valuable now. Truthfully, to compete in the SEC, we'd need to expand our stadium to 85,000. I just don't see how that could happen in our current location. Financially you couldn't justify the switch without a larger stadium and I don't see that happening on our campus anymore.

3) Atlanta has also changed dramatically in the last 30 years. The growth in the south has occurred in Florida, North Carolina, Georgia(Atlanta) and Virginia (D.C.). This new south is much more dynamic than the old south and the players have changed: Atlanta, Florida, Charlotte versus Atlanta, New Orleans, Birmingham. The people that have moved into Atlanta are much more likely to attach themselves to the ACC's schools than the SEC or they already lived in the area (e.g. Auburn fans).

This is where our marketing has been pathetic in my opinion, but with a winning team in football, this can and will change. But we do not compete with Georgia for these potential fans. We compete with the Falcons, Hawks, Braves, and Thrashers.

I see a time where Atlanta is fully behind us again and we can once again reign in the south. But I see that happening out of the ACC better than the SEC today.
 
ACC is a basketball conference . . .

. . . always has been and always will be. If you are more of a basketball fan you will lean toward staying in the ACC. On the other hand if you are fan of the greatest sport known to man, college football, you should greatly favor the SEC.

I have said this before but will repeat it for emphasis. If D-Rad could take Georgia Tech back into the SEC he would take his place in Georgia Tech athletic lore right along side Heisman and Dodd. Just the renewal of old rivalries would gurantee greatly enhanced ticket sales. This would also give us greater marketablity in baseball. Basketball really has no long term tradition of greatness at Tech and playing in the SEC would generate as much interest and revenue as playing in the ACC. Tobacco Road rules the ACC and always will. Football is King in Dixie and Tech needs to get back on the SEC train.

Never say never. I think if D-Rad gets the opportunity, he has the smarts, the skills and the balls to make this happen.

Go Jackets!
 
midatlantech said:
Pocket I think you are wrong, that vote is just not coming anymore. The reasons are simply:

1)... . We're lucky that we're allowed to compete in the ACC.
Click to expand...

Nonsense

midatlantech said:
2) Tech's campus has changed and land is extremely valuable now. Truthfully, to compete in the SEC, we'd need to expand our stadium to 85,000. I just don't see how that could happen in our current location. Financially you couldn't justify the switch without a larger stadium and I don't see that happening on our campus anymore.
Click to expand...

The Foundation buys Techwood from Atlanta and a new deck is added.

midatlantech said:
3) Atlanta has also changed dramatically in the last 30 years. The growth in the south(sic) has occurred in Florida, North Carolina, Georgia(Atlanta) and Virginia (D.C.). This new south(sic) is much more dynamic than the old south(sic) and the players have changed: Atlanta, Florida, Charlotte versus Atlanta, New Orleans, Birmingham. The people that have moved into Atlanta are much more likely to attach themselves to the ACC's schools than the SEC or they already lived in the area (e.g. Auburn fans).
Click to expand...

Proof?

midatlantech said:
This is where our marketing has been pathetic in my opinion, but with a winning team in football, this can and will change. But we do not compete with Georgia for these potential fans. We compete with the Falcons, Hawks, Braves, and Thrashers.
Click to expand...

I agree.

midatlantech said:
I see a time where Atlanta is fully behind us again and we can once again reign in the south(sic). But I see that happening out of the ACC better than the SEC today.
Click to expand...

You're probably right. There's a reason UGa and AU didn't want us back in the SEC.
 
Last edited:
Re: ACC is a basketball conference . . .

gnats67 said:
No kidding? Are FSU, BC, VPI, Clemson and Miami aware of this?
Click to expand...

I think #5 VPI found out when they beat #12 BC in the ACC championship last year in front of only 53,212.... Or when FSU beat VT in a less than capacity crowd in the inaugural game. ACC is definitely a basketball conference to most, including me. I wish we never absorbed BC, VPI, or Miami...we would have a much better regular season in basketball.
 
pocket_watch said:
If Ga Tech was given the opportunity to re-join the SEC, the vote would be a landslide YES. Those that say no now just don't want to admit it, or don't get it.

We'd make more money because we would have bigger games, bigger rivalries, more local interest from SEC prospect players and more fans, period.
It's the best conference in college football now, and was arguably the best when Tech was a proud member before Dodd's ego got too big.

How? People keep saying this but don't back it up. The only way we make more is to sell about 5000 more tickets, approx $1.2 @ $40 per for 6 homes games, $1.4 for 7. I'm sure you add some for concessions, etc. , but that's it. Unless you're planning to raise ticket prices where is this additional revenue coming from? Hell, Tech fans don't even buy tickets when we play ugag now, so all you're really saying is the SEC fans would drive our prices up, right?
Click to expand...

This would be all about the money guys, and I just don't see any evidence it would add up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top