New Bobby Dodd Stadium survey from AA

The key is consistency. Popping up with a good team now and again won't fill the stadium, but over time, a consistently good team is sure to increase fan interest and attendance.
This right here. Winning will bring people, but it can't be every now and then. We just never seem to put back to back top seasons together to create a stir.
 
This right here. Winning will bring people, but it can't be every now and then. We just never seem to put back to back top seasons together to create a stir.
I think everyone agrees the most important thing is for GT to win football games consistently. That's kinda the point of the board, the stadium, everything.

But if we characterize our failure to fill the stadium as caused by a failure to win games, and our failure to win games as caused by our failure to fill the stadium... well, we're not making much progress on solving our failure to do either.

So how to crack the diabolical chicken-or-the-egg problem?
 
I think everyone agrees the most important thing is for GT to win football games consistently. That's kinda the point of the board, the stadium, everything.

But if we characterize our failure to fill the stadium as caused by a failure to win games, and our failure to win games as caused by our failure to fill the stadium... well, we're not making much progress on solving our failure to do either.

So how to crack the diabolical chicken-or-the-egg problem?
Winning comes first. My contention is that most of the money we're contemplating putting into the stadium would be better put into coaches' salaries, recruiting budgets, weight rooms, and anything else that will attract top recruits and make them better. The stadium is the cart, and winning is the horse.

Millions were thrown away on the last stadium renewal, the installation of 12,000 mostly empty seats. Imagine if we had put those millions into our paltry recruiting budget and coaches' salaries (and by this I in no way am trying to devalue the coaches we have, though the jury is still out on that IMO).
 
Winning comes first. My contention is that most of the money we're contemplating putting into the stadium would be better put into coaches' salaries, recruiting budgets, weight rooms, and anything else that will attract top recruits and make them better. The stadium is the cart, and winning is the horse.

Millions were thrown away on the last stadium renewal, the installation of 12,000 mostly empty seats. Imagine if we had put those millions into our paltry recruiting budget and coaches' salaries (and by this I in no way am trying to devalue the coaches we have, though the jury is still out on that IMO).
Yes I think I already agreed with you about the centrality of winning.

The problem is that it’s hard to raise money for coaches salaries/buyouts — have you heard them gripe about how many millions CGC is getting per win? And OL coach salaries aren’t naming opportunities. You can invest $25m in a staff and after a few years you got nothing to show for it. Admins have a lot less confidence in the certainty of each coaching hire than they do in capital investment. If you put that into facilities, they’re there and ready for the next regime at least.

It’s a tough balancing act I think. No easy answers
 
Yes I think I already agreed with you about the centrality of winning.

The problem is that it’s hard to raise money for coaches salaries/buyouts — have you heard them gripe about how many millions CGC is getting per win? And OL coach salaries aren’t naming opportunities. You can invest $25m in a staff and after a few years you got nothing to show for it. Admins have a lot less confidence in the certainty of each coaching hire than they do in capital investment. If you put that into facilities, they’re there and ready for the next regime at least.

It’s a tough balancing act I think. No easy answers
Good point. Bolstering the recruiting budget might be a better sell than coaches' salaries, and probably get more bang for the buck as well.
 
Back
Top