"We can't compete with Clemson"

[daBuzz]

TIL, I need to find a new barbershop. Mine is apparently behind the times.

 

[daBuzz]

SpaceX makes sense. We can give them an area inside the stadium where they can have an exhibit.

Or launch rockets. We could make that part of the half time show.

This right here. I don't want my degree devalued.

I hear much about this mythical "it will devalue my degree" argument, but I'm not sure how that actually works. So, explain to me how this whole concept of "devaluing" a degree that you already own works. Does you boss walk into your office and say, "Damn you...Georgia Tech decided to let a corporation put their name on their football stadium. Thus, you suck as an engineer now so we're going to pay you 20% less"?

 

[GT1992]

I'm ok with this. Let's increase it by 50% and use the money to get rid of some of our debt and open up a barbershop in the locker room.

We need to up faculty athletic fees.

 

[Killick]

Just base faculty salary increases on number of football wins.

 

[non-gineer]

Where are the Hewitt and Gregory buyouts allocated?

The net $48M difference in revenues would pay them off and then some.

 

[GBurdell]

Let's get rid of all women's sports, including men's soccer.

redundant

 

[BuckNasty]

Could we get Richt to sponsor it? He laid some wood down for the Miami practice facility.

 

[gtphd]

We need to up faculty athletic fees.

Tax academic departments 3% and pass that to athletics. $21 MM overnight.

 

[ScionOfSouthland]

All I am hearing is that cash inflow isn't the problem. What's Paul's next excuse?

 

[18in32]

On a similar note: earlier this year, SBNation posted (link) a chart showing a qualitative "wins per dollar". We right above the average. FWIW, Clemson is as well, but with more success and more expenditures.

I guess we all just assume we understand the direction of causation, but I'm not so sure.

 

[Ish]

All I am hearing is that cash inflow isn't the problem. What's Paul's next excuse?

I wouldn't take OP's numbers as gospel. I doubt they include things like cap-ex, which is where we are falling behind.

 

[GT3000]

redundant

I'm sure that was the point

 

[GT98]

Of course their ticket sales are going to be higher. But we should be able to match or exceed their donations if done well I would think.

Should is correct. Problem is GT has many alumni that care little about athletics and do not give or buy tickets.

 

[Ish]

Should is correct. Problem is GT has many alumni that care little about athletics and do not give or buy tickets.

That may be true, but it's also true that the GTAA is horrendous at reaching out to potential donors. Ask yourself this-- how many calls do you get from the GT Roll Call per year, and how many from the GTAA?

 

[johncu]

I hear much about this mythical "it will devalue my degree" argument, but I'm not sure how that actually works. So, explain to me how this whole concept of "devaluing" a degree that you already own works. Does you boss walk into your office and say, "Damn you...Georgia Tech decided to let a corporation put their name on their football stadium. Thus, you suck as an engineer now so we're going to pay you 20% less"?

If people's experience with Georgia Tech grads is that they are all very competent, they will be more likely to hire another one. If Georgia Tech started admitting toolbags who took joke classes in easy degrees, then people will start to associate Tech grads with those people.

That's the idea, anyway.

 

[NorthsideJacket]

If you look at UGAg, the numbers are much more startling. I looked at a comparison of the "Net" for each (Revenue - Expenses)

Over this time period ('05-'15), Clemson 'netted' $8.5 million more than we did. UGAg 'netted' $130 million more! ----- (sorry, I don't know Coit table posting format secret)

Athletic Association Net
YEAR GT Clemson Differential
2015 $2,223,681 $678,697 $1,544,984
2014 ($348,729) $1,337,101 ($1,685,830)
2013 ($1,850,149) $1,970,311 ($3,820,460)
2012 $2,004,374 $2,218,483 ($214,109)
2011 ($710,853) $2,807,093 ($3,517,946)
2010 $138,660 $782,481 ($643,821)
2009 ($465,425) ($556,266) $90,841
2008 ($288,131) ($870,060) $581,929
2007 $1,921,739 $1,778,976 $142,763
2006 ($3,167,148 ($433,082) ($2,734,066)
2005 $2,211,593 $468,178 $1,743,415

Total Net Deficiency ($8,512,300)


Athletic Association Net
YEAR GT UGA Differential
2015 $2,223,681 $19,591,972 ($17,368,291)
2014 ($348,729) $10,934,633 ($11,283,362)
2013 ($1,850,149) $1,216,263 ($3,066,412)
2012 $2,004,374 $2,747,052 ($742,678)
2011 ($710,853) $11,581,568 ($12,292,421)
2010 $138,660 $12,485,103 ($12,346,443)
2009 ($465,425) $4,934,278 ($5,399,703)
2008 ($288,131) $13,560,862 ($13,848,993)
2007 $1,921,739 $14,210,924 ($12,289,185)
2006 ($3,167,148) $17,009,332 ($20,176,480)
2005 $2,211,593 $23,854,329 ($21,642,736)

Total Net Deficiency ($130,456,704)

 

[ThisIsAtlanta]

If people's experience with Georgia Tech grads is that they are all very competent, they will be more likely to hire another one. If Georgia Tech started admitting toolbags who took joke classes in easy degrees, then people will start to associate Tech grads with those people.

That's the idea, anyway.

Wouldn't work that way in practice. People already basically assume that football players are tool bags. I don't think people would suddenly start blaming Tech for that.

 

[coit]

If you look at UGAg, the numbers are much more startling. I looked at a comparison of the "Net" for each (Revenue - Expenses)

Over this time period ('05-'15), Clemson 'netted' $8.5 million more than we did. UGAg 'netted' $130 million more! ----- (sorry, I don't know Coit table posting format secret)

Athletic Association Net
YEAR GT Clemson Differential
2015 $2,223,681 $678,697 $1,544,984
2014 ($348,729) $1,337,101 ($1,685,830)
2013 ($1,850,149) $1,970,311 ($3,820,460)
2012 $2,004,374 $2,218,483 ($214,109)
2011 ($710,853) $2,807,093 ($3,517,946)
2010 $138,660 $782,481 ($643,821)
2009 ($465,425) ($556,266) $90,841
2008 ($288,131) ($870,060) $581,929
2007 $1,921,739 $1,778,976 $142,763
2006 ($3,167,148 ($433,082) ($2,734,066)
2005 $2,211,593 $468,178 $1,743,415

Total Net Deficiency ($8,512,300)


Athletic Association Net
YEAR GT UGA Differential
2015 $2,223,681 $19,591,972 ($17,368,291)
2014 ($348,729) $10,934,633 ($11,283,362)
2013 ($1,850,149) $1,216,263 ($3,066,412)
2012 $2,004,374 $2,747,052 ($742,678)
2011 ($710,853) $11,581,568 ($12,292,421)
2010 $138,660 $12,485,103 ($12,346,443)
2009 ($465,425) $4,934,278 ($5,399,703)
2008 ($288,131) $13,560,862 ($13,848,993)
2007 $1,921,739 $14,210,924 ($12,289,185)
2006 ($3,167,148) $17,009,332 ($20,176,480)
2005 $2,211,593 $23,854,329 ($21,642,736)

Total Net Deficiency ($130,456,704)

That is really interesting. What does UGA do with the surplus funds?

 

[johncu]

Wouldn't work that way in practice. People already basically assume that football players are tool bags. I don't think people would suddenly start blaming Tech for that.

Depends on what you're advocating for. Are we talking about just cheating for football players to get them through? If so, you're right.

If you're talking about expanding the degree offerings, then concerns about watering down the quality of grads are legitimate. Same goes for relaxing the rigor of the classes that make GT what it is.

 

[DressCheeseSideSeaboard]

That may be true, but it's also true that the GTAA is horrendous at reaching out to potential donors. Ask yourself this-- how many calls do you get from the GT Roll Call per year, and how many from the GTAA?

I get more calls from the GTAA.