Pay the Players. Here's how.

Tampa Jacket said:
I came out of Georgia Tech with five figures of student debt. How about the opportunity for a top-notch diploma tuition free? That sounds like a great deal. Used to be that way. Should still be that way.
Click to expand...

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
 
beej67 said:
CFB is an uncapped pro league and only some teams are paying. Coaches are overpaid and players are underpaid at most schools. Take advantage of this. Set the new precedent. Innovate. This is the way.

1) Figure out how cheap you can get Brent Key = X
2) Figure out how expensive your top pick is going to be = Y
3) Y-X=Z
4) Z/88= new player universal salary
5) Hire Key
6) Get the boosters who were going to shell out the money for Y to instead buy super expensive custom merch we can use to funnel Z to the players
7) Poach kids from other schools who are getting paid less than (Z/88)
8) Profit

If Brent wants too much money, shop him against someone cheaper so we can pay the players more.
Click to expand...
Do we even need the custom merch? Just give the funds to the NIL collective and write checks direct. I like your approach though. The players we need in order to win are not students, they're semi-pro. We either treat them as such or suck forever.
 
Why is Tech so poor in terms of donor money compared to the UGAs, Auburns, and Bama's of the world, out of curiosity? Alumni are making bank. Are there just less Tech alum (potential donors) that care about football than the other schools? Do the other schools have lots of non-alum donors?
 
bentlloyd said:
Why is Tech so poor in terms of donor money compared to the UGAs, Auburns, and Bama's of the world, out of curiosity? Alumni are making bank. Are there just less Tech alum (potential donors) that care about football than the other schools? Do the other schools have lots of non-alum donors?
Click to expand...
Because the Hill values a very small (imo) increase in admissions scores over slightly lower scores and students who will go to games, stay near GA and donate. We bring in students who don't care and then wonder why the students don't care. Classic Ma Tech. The unseen cost to their short-sighted approach is a lack of in-state presence and influence in business and politics, not just the lack of donations and fans for attendance at games.
 
covingtonjacket said:
Because the Hill values a very small (imo) increase in admissions scores over slightly lower scores and students who will go to games, stay near GA and donate. We bring in students who don't care and then wonder why the students don't care. Classic Ma Tech. The unseen cost to their short-sighted approach is a lack of in-state presence and influence in business and politics, not just the lack of donations and fans for attendance at games.
Click to expand...
Aren't admission standards lowered for the in-state quota? I know I got in with less than ideal scores...
 
covingtonjacket said:
Because the Hill values a very small (imo) increase in admissions scores over slightly lower scores and students who will go to games, stay near GA and donate. We bring in students who don't care and then wonder why the students don't care. Classic Ma Tech. The unseen cost to their short-sighted approach is a lack of in-state presence and influence in business and politics, not just the lack of donations and fans for attendance at games.
Click to expand...
Yeah. GT as a University is really struggling. The only way to improve the prestige is to <checks notes> 'admit more students who like football.'

Yeah. that's the ticket
 
05GTCorndog said:
Yeah. GT as a University is really struggling. The only way to improve the prestige is to <checks notes> 'admit more students who like football.'

Yeah. that's the ticket
Click to expand...
I think you missed the point. The school is not struggling academically. It can more than afford to admit more well rounded students who will go to a game and stay involved after graduation even if those students have slightly worse scores. That's my point.
 
covingtonjacket said:
I think you missed the point. The school is not struggling academically. It can more than afford to admit more well rounded students who will go to a game and stay involved after graduation even if those students have slightly worse scores. That's my point.
Click to expand...

No, I understand the point. It is ridiculous to expect the school to turn its back on its primary mission so that it can keep more graduates around to donate to football.

That isn't going to happen and it shouldn't happen.
 
05GTCorndog said:
No, I understand the point. It is ridiculous to expect the school to turn its back on its primary mission so that it can keep more graduates around to donate to football.

That isn't going to happen and it shouldn't happen.
Click to expand...
Of course not. Nothing should deter us from our mission of educating the smartest kids from China and India.
 
covingtonjacket said:
I think you missed the point. The school is not struggling academically. It can more than afford to admit more well rounded students who will go to a game and stay involved after graduation even if those students have slightly worse scores. That's my point.
Click to expand...

GT students do stay involved after graduation. Didn't you see the funding drive the school did a few years ago? They raised bonkers amounts of money. Just not for athletics.
 
05GTCorndog said:
No, I understand the point. It is ridiculous to expect the school to turn its back on its primary mission so that it can keep more graduates around to donate to football.

That isn't going to happen and it shouldn't happen.
Click to expand...
You would be right if maximum possible test scores fulfilled it's primary mission. Not sure it does. I also think you mischaracterize my goal. It is not "more donations to football". Either way, it is probably not worth rehashing ITT.
 
covingtonjacket said:
Because the Hill values a very small (imo) increase in admissions scores over slightly lower scores and students who will go to games, stay near GA and donate. We bring in students who don't care and then wonder why the students don't care. Classic Ma Tech. The unseen cost to their short-sighted approach is a lack of in-state presence and influence in business and politics, not just the lack of donations and fans for attendance at games.
Click to expand...
Tech is short-sighted for admitting the best students? The öööö are you going on about?

All three of those SEC schools are double the size of Tech. Even if every kid that got out of Tech was interested in football, we'd still have a smaller fanbase.
 
Tampa Jacket said:
I came out of Georgia Tech with five figures of student debt. How about the opportunity for a top-notch diploma tuition free? That sounds like a great deal. Used to be that way. Should still be that way.
Click to expand...
Because the degree is pointless. Every kid that goes to UGA who doesn't go to the NFL gets a job for life working at some booster's car dealership or whatever. Playing for a factory is a lifetime hookup. Nobody even checks where your degree is from after your first job anyway. If my kid had the choice between Tech and Clemson, there's no choice at all.

Pay the players. Outpay the rest of the ACC that hasn't figured this out yet.
 
Jmonty71 said:
Give it a few years. We probably aren't that far away from this. I foresee 18 year old kids getting millions to play at Bama or UGA (and other type schools).
Click to expand...

not 18, but Stetson got around a million in NIL deals this year at UGA Rumored paid price for Arch Manning to Texas was $12 million. The future you foresee is already here
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top