60 years since GT left the SEC

[Techster]

View attachment 15209
Thoughts of the day when the decision was made to withdraw from the SEC. I became a basketball scholarship athlete at Tech with a"full ride", which then meant at Georgia Tech a full scholarship until I graduated within 5 years (4 years of eligibility plus a redshirt year if the coach wanted it). I never even knew what the tuition was. Coach Hyder just said everything is paid for. The rationale for the President Dr. Harrison's decision to withdraw from the SEC is in the articles of the 1963-64 academic year, a much published and controversial topic. The non-highly rigorous academic SEC schools (probably all but Vanderbilt today) did not have the same admission and progression standards as GT. Same is true today. The NCAA later removed the upper limits (then 140) on total basketball and football scholarships and now is limited by year to 85 in football and 13 in basketball. Tech leadership used their slide rules and figured the math was not in Tech's favor. Coach Dodd's and President Harrison's goal was to provide scholarships until graduation, not based on continuous athletic abilities.

Things are entirely different with current NCAA rules like the portal and NIL. Georgia Tech's student-athlete recruiting and academic standards have changed very little since it's beginning, when it took deliberate decision making to even have football and basketball intercollegiate teams due to interference with school work. Even though most athletic scholarships are coach-decision renewable one year contracts, I know of no Georgia Tech student athlete being denied a scholarship for other than not meeting academic or behavioral standards. That will change the face of college athletics more so in bigger ways. I am sure happy the Georgia Tech 1964 decision was made, or I might have been bumped off scholarship when I got injured or when several of my teammates went on academic probation. Both were still there when I signed a letter of intent in 1968.

Of course, the transfer portal today is the NCAA method to move players around different teams and it make the 140 Rule controversy of 1964 a moot point. Both the players and the coaches get a vote on scholarship removals for under-performing players, voluntarily or involuntarily. And Notre Dame is still an independent for football. Last year, The sports teams at Notre Dame brought home $165,660,298 in revenue while shelling out $158,801,193 in expenses. But they do have a bachelors degree in sports and recreation management. Go figure. The Georgia Tech administration does have unique challenges. All in all, it's high reputation had sustained itself for over 138 years throughout all.

The 21st century monumental decision for Georgia Tech to make is whether to join the pay-for-play schools or continue with the NIL schools, some say within the next 8 years.

I think you made the right decision in choosing GT. Dodd, and from your testament, GT honored all sports scholarships for SAs until they "got out".

However, my point has always been, there's more than one way to skin a potato. Dodd wanted to skin it his way, and wanted everyone else to follow suit...or GT would leave. As I pointed out in my post above, Dodd could have easily worked within the system that was veering towards the 140 rule anyhow given the support with the SEC and across the country. He chose the "my way, or the highway" approach and no one was hurt except GT. Schools across the country eventually voted on a rule like the one Dodd wanted.

Also to your point, the landscape of college sports is a constantly shifting one. It was true back in Dodd's days, and it's true now. Dodd was impatient, while others weathered the storm of changes. IMO, that impatience was to GT's detriment.

 

[bobongo]

Nine years after GT left the SEC, GT tried to rejoin the SEC. Who was the AD for GT at the time? Bobby Dodd. If the SEC was so bad and the playing field for GT so unfair, why did Dodd spearhead GT rejoining the SEC? How was the "principled decision" serving him to ask for readmittance to a conference he stormed GT out of?

Because after nine years a national standard was established, and Dodd could now see it would be to Tech's advantage to rejoin. Remember, nine years had passed. Most would agree that had Dodd been able to see into the future, he never would have left the SEC. Was the 140 rule ever revoked?

 

[Techster]

Because after nine years a national standard was established, and Dodd could now see it would be to Tech's advantage to rejoin. Remember, nine years had passed. Most would agree that had Dodd been able to see into the future, he never would have left the SEC. Was the 140 rule ever revoked?

Sorry, but that's just trying to soften a very bad decision. The fact is, Dodd and GT's hubris that we were the "Notre Dame of the South" was a component of GT leaving the SEC. Once Dodd and GT realized that wasn't true, and GT was losing money and support, we tried to go "home" again. Our experiment to be an Independent (like Notre Dame) was a disaster that almost destroyed our athletic program. The ACC was founded in 1953 (GT joined in 1979, 6 years after we tried to rejoin the SEC), we could have easily joined at any time instead of returning to the SEC. There were other conferences as well. If Dodd's principles took GT out of the SEC, why return when you knew what was waiting there?

The 140 Rule actually became more stringent over the years, and it was adopted across the country by every school.

 

[LT 1967]

Is that a reference to Tech's first year as an independent or Vince Dooley's first year as HC at Ugag?

Bisher did say the defeat of GT that day was the Final Step in the change of fortunes for the two schools. However, I don't think he was concluding at that moment in time that the 32-year-old Former Assistant Coach from Auburn was going to be a major factor in the perception of Tech-UGA in the future. I realize that the chapter for the 1964 game was titled "Vince Who". At that time Dooley was a relative unknown. I tried to find the original article from the AJC archives since this was apparently an excerpt from the original. I couldn't locate the article.

The author of "Clean Old Fashioned Hate" did say in the previous chapter for the 1963 game that Tech's SEC decision plus the hiring of Dooley would have a profound impact on the GT-UGA series. Of course, he is working from hindsight on both counts as we are. Obviously both decisions did have an impact. I believe GT leaving the SEC was the most impactful!

After the 1964 game, the Series was tied at 27-27-5.

 

[bobongo]

Sorry, but that's just trying to soften a very bad decision. The fact is, Dodd and GT's hubris that we were the "Notre Dame of the South" was a component of GT leaving the SEC. Once Dodd and GT realized that wasn't true, and GT was losing money and support, we tried to go "home" again. Our experiment to be an Independent (like Notre Dame) was a disaster that almost destroyed our athletic program. The ACC was founded in 1953 (GT joined in 1979, 6 years after we tried to rejoin the SEC), we could have easily joined at any time instead of returning to the SEC. There were other conferences as well. If Dodd's principles took GT out of the SEC, why return when you knew what was waiting there?

The 140 Rule actually became more stringent over the years, and it was adopted across the country by every school.

I do believe the vision of Tech as a successful big-time independent influenced Dodd's decision.
I just think the future wasn't so clear to see at the time Dodd made his decision in 1963. That's why I'm not so hard on his making it.
In retrospect, of course, things didn't turn out so well. I think the pro sports teams coming to Atlanta had an outsized effect on Tech's standing in Atlanta. Leaving the SEC was only one factor in Tech's decline.

 

[stinger78]

I think most members of the SEC agreed in principle with getting rid of the 140 rule. They just resented GT and didn’t like the way Dodd tried to force it on them, so they called his bluff.

Coach Dodd was the toast of college foot at the time. Marilyn Monroe was on the cover of Life Mag in a GT sweater. Others were jealous. Wally Butts at UGA was very jealous as was Shug Jordan at Auburn. Dodd had beaten him 14 IAR at one point, including a team that Vince Dooley played on. Getting Tech out of the way was a blessing for them both.

I don’t think anyone really saw what was ahead for Atlanta or college football. It was dumb luck that pro sports came to Atlanta and then Dodd suddenly retired as HBC at the age of 57. Why? It’s just an unfortunate set of circumstances that put Tech in this path. Not sure how to get off that path now, or even if Tech should. CFB is just crazy now.

 

[tomknight]

Why would you post that trash in here? Do you drop trash in the floor at your home?

Could not agree more

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Two things here people accusing others of 20/20 hindsight need to recognize:

1. SEC vote was 6 for/6 against the 140 rule. 'Bama, with a promise from Bear Bryant to vote for the 140 rule, reneged at the last minute and voted against. 'Bama was ultimately the deciding vote. Dodd wasn't alone in his quest to even the playing field. There was close to even support there for what Dodd wanted. Not only in the SEC, but across the college sports landscape. Instead of working with his colleagues towards an equitable solution, he stormed out of SEC due to his "principles". Who did that ultimately hurt? I've said it many times before, Dodd had the opportunity (and support from other SEC schools) to work within the system to change what was supported by others, instead he cut GT's nose to spite the SEC's face.

2. Nine years after GT left the SEC, GT tried to rejoin the SEC. Who was the AD for GT at the time? Bobby Dodd. If the SEC was so bad and the playing field for GT so unfair, why did Dodd spearhead GT rejoining the SEC? How was the "principled decision" serving him to ask for readmittance to a conference he stormed GT out of? The only person Dodd hurt was GT...and that pain was felt financially, and in terms of eroding our fanbase for decades afterwards...and you can argue in terms of fans, we're still reeling from that decision. Dodd knew he erred by pulling GT out of the SEC, and trying to rejoin the SEC almost a decade later was his admittance of it.

Dodd was 100% correct in trying to usher in change for players, and even the playing field for schools who believed in doing things the "right way". There's a reason why Dodd's name is still legendary in college sports today, and there is a prestigious award named after him. However, that fateful decision in 1964 to pull GT out of the SEC only hurt GT. It's a decision that still impacts GT to this day. Not only the loss in revenue (GT was one of the most financially successful programs at the time), the loss in fanbase, and the ceding of fan support to UGA (GT was a more popular program than UGA at the time). Bobby Dodd was a great coach, but as an AD (i.e. business leader) he made a decision that sealed the fate of GT sports to this day. Business leaders understand the total implications of their decisions, and also understand that their decisions must represent the best outcome for their shareholders, not their own egos. For those that say GT doesn't belong in the SEC, just remember everything GT gave up and lost over the decades since then.

From a game theory perspective, I think other schools wanted GT to leave if the vote didn't fall Dodd's way. It wasn't a secret what GT's intentions were if 140 Rule failed. GT was a NATIONAL brand at the time, and Dodd/GT was a thorn to many in the SEC. GT famously dictated a lot of terms (hosting games due to the Atlanta market, not playing teams in Mississippi, etc.). If GT left the SEC, it was beneficial to numerous other SEC schools and coaches. It definitely benefited UGA (who blocked GT from returning to the SEC for good reason), Bear Bryant who the 140 Rule was basically designed to curb his actions, and schools surrounding Georgia that had to recruit against GT. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and Dodd had a LOT of enemies.

So here we are today. Will GT ever rise to the prominence we had as members of the SEC? We'll see...but that is a BIG mountain to climb to get there.

Your Point 1. You make Dodd sound like a petulant child. You’re entitled to that opinion but it goes against what I’ve read about Dodd’s character. We will have to agree to disagree about him being some kind of drama queen.

Your Point 2. Sounds like there is no room for nuance in your understanding of this. Yes, the SEC acquiesced to what Dodd wanted. So Dodd wanted back in. But the SEC rejecting Tech’s re-entry tells me they were still as corrupt as Dodd feared the first time. Lesson learned.

Lots of hindsight here. Still. Bottom line, the SEC already has their one academic school to kick around. They probably don’t need a “second Vanderbilt.”

 

[okiemon]

Two things here people accusing others of 20/20 hindsight need to recognize:

1. SEC vote was 6 for/6 against the 140 rule. 'Bama, with a promise from Bear Bryant to vote for the 140 rule, reneged at the last minute and voted against. 'Bama was ultimately the deciding vote. Dodd wasn't alone in his quest to even the playing field. There was close to even support there for what Dodd wanted. Not only in the SEC, but across the college sports landscape. Instead of working with his colleagues towards an equitable solution, he stormed out of SEC due to his "principles". Who did that ultimately hurt? I've said it many times before, Dodd had the opportunity (and support from other SEC schools) to work within the system to change what was supported by others, instead he cut GT's nose to spite the SEC's face.

2. Nine years after GT left the SEC, GT tried to rejoin the SEC. Who was the AD for GT at the time? Bobby Dodd. If the SEC was so bad and the playing field for GT so unfair, why did Dodd spearhead GT rejoining the SEC? How was the "principled decision" serving him to ask for readmittance to a conference he stormed GT out of? The only person Dodd hurt was GT...and that pain was felt financially, and in terms of eroding our fanbase for decades afterwards...and you can argue in terms of fans, we're still reeling from that decision. Dodd knew he erred by pulling GT out of the SEC, and trying to rejoin the SEC almost a decade later was his admittance of it.

Dodd was 100% correct in trying to usher in change for players, and even the playing field for schools who believed in doing things the "right way". There's a reason why Dodd's name is still legendary in college sports today, and there is a prestigious award named after him. However, that fateful decision in 1964 to pull GT out of the SEC only hurt GT. It's a decision that still impacts GT to this day. Not only the loss in revenue (GT was one of the most financially successful programs at the time), the loss in fanbase, and the ceding of fan support to UGA (GT was a more popular program than UGA at the time). Bobby Dodd was a great coach, but as an AD (i.e. business leader) he made a decision that sealed the fate of GT sports to this day. Business leaders understand the total implications of their decisions, and also understand that their decisions must represent the best outcome for their shareholders, not their own egos. For those that say GT doesn't belong in the SEC, just remember everything GT gave up and lost over the decades since then.

From a game theory perspective, I think other schools wanted GT to leave if the vote didn't fall Dodd's way. It wasn't a secret what GT's intentions were if 140 Rule failed. GT was a NATIONAL brand at the time, and Dodd/GT was a thorn to many in the SEC. GT famously dictated a lot of terms (hosting games due to the Atlanta market, not playing teams in Mississippi, etc.). If GT left the SEC, it was beneficial to numerous other SEC schools and coaches. It definitely benefited UGA (who blocked GT from returning to the SEC for good reason), Bear Bryant who the 140 Rule was basically designed to curb his actions, and schools surrounding Georgia that had to recruit against GT. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and Dodd had a LOT of enemies.

So here we are today. Will GT ever rise to the prominence we had as members of the SEC? We'll see...but that is a BIG mountain to climb to get there.

And, IIRC, the leading sponsor/supporter of Tech rejoining the SEC was — guess who? — Bear Bryantand Alabama.

 

[GoldZ]

Given the fact that the reason Dodd left the SEC was eventually passed by all schools in college a few years later, and then we tried to get back into the SEC...well, it looks pretty bad for GT. IMO, GT leaving the SEC was the biggest reason for the rise of UGA over GT. Fans often forget GT's popularity before leaving the SEC. There's a reason UGA voted against GT re-joining the SEC. They were probably the biggest beneficiary of Dodd's folly. The last 20 years (1945-1964) GT was in the SEC, GT was 12-8 against UGA (with an 8 game winning streak). Some fans want to point to pro sports as GT's loss of drawing power, but GT's popularity plus fierce rivalries with 'Bama, Tennessee, Auburn, UGA kept BDS full every game...and that would have continued. Part of the reason for Dodd's calculus in leaving the SEC was our popularity in the Southeast and the ability to draw a crowd. People often forget Dodd's "Notre Dame of the South" pitch in convincing other GT decision makers approving the decision. That turned out to be a false assumption without the fierce SEC rivalries.

The B1G decision in 2012 may go down in GT sports as the worst decision in GTAA history depending on what happens when the GOR expires. The B1G media payout PLUS their academic profile was the perfect match for GT. I calculated GT's loss in revenue a few years ago and it was in the HUNDREDS of millions. We could have practically wiped out the entirety of GT's debt by now putting our program in a much better position than we are now. Given where the B1G's trajectory is going, and the uncertainty of the ACC after the GOR expires, turning down the B1G could be the decision that determines whether GT plays "big boy sports" or is just another college that fields a team.

I've always said GT's biggest liability has been our own business decisions. We keep proving it true year after year. Hopefully the Cabrera era will change that.

No, the seeds of uga's rise were firmly implanted before we left the sec (or else we would've become (Vandy/UK)....namely--large home grown student body who stays home- wide curriculum- land grant university. IOW....MONEY! All they had to do is overcome their stupidity (hard to do), and hire good coaches other than Butts, Goof, and Dunin. Period, end of analysis.

 

[Bogey]

Only Tech fans will spend time during rivalry hate week bashing our hall of fame head coach of 60 years ago, who was also honored by having college football's most coveted national coaching award for success on the gridiron, while also stressing the importance of scholarship, leadership and integrity, named after him, and whose record has never come close to being duplicated since. And doing this without having any appreciation of all the factors involved during the time of his decision. Simply crazy.

 

[RamblinRed]

It may have been a terrible decision, but would GT be in a better position today than it is if it had stayed in the SEC? That's actually 2 separate issues. It's not an automatic that staying in the SEC would have made things better today.
That is a discussion that can be argued either way.

As someone who is a GT alumni, but didn't grow up in the South (at least not until my teenage years and not until after GT had joined the ACC), I'd argue that GT would not be in a better place if it had stayed.
IMO, GT likely would have ended up as a better version of Vandy. That is the only other school in the SEC that plays the game of college athletics similar to how GT does.

The introduction of pro sports to Atlanta definitely would have negatively impacted GT. Having it occur after leaving the SEC just made that worse.

IMO GT is still likely a 6-7 win team most seasons if it stayed in the SEC. It simply was not going to play the game the same way most of its conference brethren were, which would put it at a distinct disadvantage.

Going to the B1G would have helped our financial position, but based on the statistics from teams that have changed power conferences it is unlikely to have made GT win more games.
I have been working on that analysis. There have been 15 programs that have moved to a power conference between 2004-2014 (10 to 20 seasons ago). Out of those 15 programs only one has won significantly more games in its new conference (both overall and conference games) after moving - that is TX A&M. 7 of the 15 programs have won significantly fewer games in their new conference (both overall and conference - ranging from 10 to 30% lower winning percentages both overall and in conference play) and the other 7 haven't really seen significant change of winning percentages (though 5 of the 7 have seen their winning percentage drop by 1-7%, one is almost exactly the same - VT, and one has improved by 3% -Syracuse).

Overall 12 of the 15 programs have seen a decrease in winning percentage. 1 has been flat, and 2 have improved (Syracuse by 3% and Texas A&M +11.7%).

I think GT athletics largely are what they are. I don't think still being in the SEC or moving to the B1G would have significantly impacted that in a positive way. The data simply does not support that hypothesis.

 

[stinger78]

Two things here people accusing others of 20/20 hindsight need to recognize:

1. SEC vote was 6 for/6 against the 140 rule. 'Bama, with a promise from Bear Bryant to vote for the 140 rule, reneged at the last minute and voted against. 'Bama was ultimately the deciding vote. Dodd wasn't alone in his quest to even the playing field. There was close to even support there for what Dodd wanted. Not only in the SEC, but across the college sports landscape. Instead of working with his colleagues towards an equitable solution, he stormed out of SEC due to his "principles". Who did that ultimately hurt? I've said it many times before, Dodd had the opportunity (and support from other SEC schools) to work within the system to change what was supported by others, instead he cut GT's nose to spite the SEC's face.

2. Nine years after GT left the SEC, GT tried to rejoin the SEC. Who was the AD for GT at the time? Bobby Dodd. If the SEC was so bad and the playing field for GT so unfair, why did Dodd spearhead GT rejoining the SEC? How was the "principled decision" serving him to ask for readmittance to a conference he stormed GT out of? The only person Dodd hurt was GT...and that pain was felt financially, and in terms of eroding our fanbase for decades afterwards...and you can argue in terms of fans, we're still reeling from that decision. Dodd knew he erred by pulling GT out of the SEC, and trying to rejoin the SEC almost a decade later was his admittance of it.

Dodd was 100% correct in trying to usher in change for players, and even the playing field for schools who believed in doing things the "right way". There's a reason why Dodd's name is still legendary in college sports today, and there is a prestigious award named after him. However, that fateful decision in 1964 to pull GT out of the SEC only hurt GT. It's a decision that still impacts GT to this day. Not only the loss in revenue (GT was one of the most financially successful programs at the time), the loss in fanbase, and the ceding of fan support to UGA (GT was a more popular program than UGA at the time). Bobby Dodd was a great coach, but as an AD (i.e. business leader) he made a decision that sealed the fate of GT sports to this day. Business leaders understand the total implications of their decisions, and also understand that their decisions must represent the best outcome for their shareholders, not their own egos. For those that say GT doesn't belong in the SEC, just remember everything GT gave up and lost over the decades since then.

From a game theory perspective, I think other schools wanted GT to leave if the vote didn't fall Dodd's way. It wasn't a secret what GT's intentions were if 140 Rule failed. GT was a NATIONAL brand at the time, and Dodd/GT was a thorn to many in the SEC. GT famously dictated a lot of terms (hosting games due to the Atlanta market, not playing teams in Mississippi, etc.). If GT left the SEC, it was beneficial to numerous other SEC schools and coaches. It definitely benefited UGA (who blocked GT from returning to the SEC for good reason), Bear Bryant who the 140 Rule was basically designed to curb his actions, and schools surrounding Georgia that had to recruit against GT. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and Dodd had a LOT of enemies.

So here we are today. Will GT ever rise to the prominence we had as members of the SEC? We'll see...but that is a BIG mountain to climb to get there.

Take a look at these two websites:
Jhowell.net
Stassen.com

You can see who was playing whom and where. Tech was by no means alone not playing the MS schools in MS.

IMPO, the issue was jealousy. Dodd was big stuff then and Johnny Vaught, Shug Jordan, and Wally Butts were not. They hated Dodd. It was Butts who said Dodd was so lucky that he would walk away from an atomic bomb blast with a pocket full of marketable uranium. IIRC, schools that were supportive were UT, UK, UF, TU, and VU. UA was on the fence.

 

[Techster]

And, IIRC, the leading sponsor/supporter of Tech rejoining the SEC was — guess who? — Bear Bryantand Alabama.

Do you think that was a sincere vote? At the time GT tried to rejoin the SEC, Bryant was in the midst of his legendary run at 'Bama. GT, meanwhile, was a shell of its former self. Given Bryant's underhanded history with Dodd, I am sure he took a straw poll and realized his vote didn't matter. Supporting GT was simply symbolic for him, and a way for him to rewrite history on the GT/SEC matter...in which he was integral in GT leaving. If Bryant really wanted GT in the SEC, he wouldn't have chickened out on the 140 rule vote. Bryant didn't show up for that vote...probably because he could not look Dodd in the eye while voting opposite of what he promised Dodd. It's akin to a politician who votes for a decided bill contrary to his party's stance but popular with his district.

Bryant was a POS, but he was very smart with politics inside the SEC. He was the opposite of what Dodd stood for.

 

[Techster]

Your Point 1. You make Dodd sound like a petulant child. You’re entitled to that opinion but it goes against what I’ve read about Dodd’s character. We will have to agree to disagree about him being some kind of drama queen.

Your Point 2. Sounds like there is no room for nuance in your understanding of this. Yes, the SEC acquiesced to what Dodd wanted. So Dodd wanted back in. But the SEC rejecting Tech’s re-entry tells me they were still as corrupt as Dodd feared the first time. Lesson learned.

Lots of hindsight here. Still. Bottom line, the SEC already has their one academic school to kick around. They probably don’t need a “second Vanderbilt.”

I think we've hashed this out as much as we can. The SEC and GT have moved past that vote and have gone in different directions. This is what I'll say about the situation:

Dodd was an uncommon man that operated on a different set of standards. He was dealing with men who were willing to operate beneath those standards to win. We see it far too often even in today's collegiate sports world. Dodd was probably too idealistic for the business of football, but all fields need people like Dodd to uphold some form equilibrium between those who win at all cost, and those that want to be on the right side of history when it's all said and done. Dodd did not win as many games as Bryant, but at the end of the day history looks at Dodd beyond just football, and Bryant's place in history is confined to the football field.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Only Tech fans will spend time during rivalry hate week bashing our hall of fame head coach of 60 years ago, who was also honored by having college football's most coveted national coaching award for success on the gridiron, while also stressing the importance of scholarship, leadership and integrity, named after him, and whose record has never come close to being duplicated since. And doing this without having any appreciation of all the factors involved during the time of his decision. Simply crazy.

Wish I could like this several more times.

Also wish we could rewrite history by destroying uga tomorrow.

 

[Tommy_Taylor_1972]

It may have been a terrible decision, but would GT be in a better position today than it is if it had stayed in the SEC? That's actually 2 separate issues. It's not an automatic that staying in the SEC would have made things better today.
That is a discussion that can be argued either way.

As someone who is a GT alumni, but didn't grow up in the South (at least not until my teenage years and not until after GT had joined the ACC), I'd argue that GT would not be in a better place if it had stayed.
IMO, GT likely would have ended up as a better version of Vandy. That is the only other school in the SEC that plays the game of college athletics similar to how GT does.

The introduction of pro sports to Atlanta definitely would have negatively impacted GT. Having it occur after leaving the SEC just made that worse.

IMO GT is still likely a 6-7 win team most seasons if it stayed in the SEC. It simply was not going to play the game the same way most of its conference brethren were, which would put it at a distinct disadvantage.

Going to the B1G would have helped our financial position, but based on the statistics from teams that have changed power conferences it is unlikely to have made GT win more games.
I have been working on that analysis. There have been 15 programs that have moved to a power conference between 2004-2014 (10 to 20 seasons ago). Out of those 15 programs only one has won significantly more games in its new conference (both overall and conference games) after moving - that is TX A&M. 7 of the 15 programs have won significantly fewer games in their new conference (both overall and conference - ranging from 10 to 30% lower winning percentages both overall and in conference play) and the other 7 haven't really seen significant change of winning percentages (though 5 of the 7 have seen their winning percentage drop by 1-7%, one is almost exactly the same - VT, and one has improved by 3% -Syracuse).

Overall 12 of the 15 programs have seen a decrease in winning percentage. 1 has been flat, and 2 have improved (Syracuse by 3% and Texas A&M +11.7%).

I think GT athletics largely are what they are. I don't think still being in the SEC or moving to the B1G would have significantly impacted that in a positive way. The data simply does not support that hypothesis.

Measures of respect exist in the college athletics world for Georgia Tech and her coaches and administrators, both awards representing scholarship, leadership, and integrity. That is the Tech culture I remember and despite all the clutter, it still exists today

There is the annual Dodd Trophy: The Dodd Trophy was established in 1976 to honor the FBS football coach whose program represents three pillars of success: Scholarship, Leadership and Integrity. The award honors the coach of a team with a successful season on the field and equally as important, stresses the importance of academic excellence and desire to give back to the community. The First recipient was Vince Dooley.

There is the annual Homer Rice Award: Presented to FBS Directors of Athletics. The Homer Rice Award is presented annually to an FBS Director of Athletics. Criteria for the The recipient: Must have served as a Director of Athletics for at least 10 years; Must have made significant and meaningful contributions to intercollegiate athletics; Must have been retired from an FBS Athletics Director’s position for at least one year. It began in 1989, with awardees such as Vince Dooley, AD's from around the country including the service academies, AD's and conference commissioners from Big 10, Big 12, ACC, and three AD's who were also Executive Directors of the NCAA.

Like in the Cheers theme song, "Everybody knows your name". Everyone knows us and our fight song, which begins, "I'm a Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech, and a hell of an engineer—". I found over the years that, even though I was an Industrial Management major, many thought I was an engineer. That was only for special athletes. That reputation lives on no matter what conference we were or are in or will be in. Everyone loves to come to Tech and drink our whisky clear in beautiful Grant Field (oops Hyundai Field). I loved it when the football team sang both verses in the locker room after the Syracuse win, and they all knew the words.

 

[bobongo]

Do you think that was a sincere vote? At the time GT tried to rejoin the SEC, Bryant was in the midst of his legendary run at 'Bama. GT, meanwhile, was a shell of its former self. Given Bryant's underhanded history with Dodd, I am sure he took a straw poll and realized his vote didn't matter. Supporting GT was simply symbolic for him, and a way for him to rewrite history on the GT/SEC matter...in which he was integral in GT leaving. If Bryant really wanted GT in the SEC, he wouldn't have chickened out on the 140 rule vote. Bryant didn't show up for that vote...probably because he could not look Dodd in the eye while voting opposite of what he promised Dodd. It's akin to a politician who votes for a decided bill contrary to his party's stance but popular with his district.

Bryant was a POS, but he was very smart with politics inside the SEC. He was the opposite of what Dodd stood for.

Yeah, I wouldn't trust too much of what Bear Bryant had to say.

 

[stinger78]

Do you think that was a sincere vote? At the time GT tried to rejoin the SEC, Bryant was in the midst of his legendary run at 'Bama. GT, meanwhile, was a shell of its former self. Given Bryant's underhanded history with Dodd, I am sure he took a straw poll and realized his vote didn't matter. Supporting GT was simply symbolic for him, and a way for him to rewrite history on the GT/SEC matter...in which he was integral in GT leaving. If Bryant really wanted GT in the SEC, he wouldn't have chickened out on the 140 rule vote. Bryant didn't show up for that vote...probably because he could not look Dodd in the eye while voting opposite of what he promised Dodd. It's akin to a politician who votes for a decided bill contrary to his party's stance but popular with his district.

Bryant was a POS, but he was very smart with politics inside the SEC. He was the opposite of what Dodd stood for.

It was Bear Bryant who, along with Ray Graves at Florida, who stood up and vocally supported GA Tech’s reentry into the SEC in 1978. They scheduled a 6-game home-home series from 1979-1984 and Florida set-up a home-home with Tech as well.

 

[LT 1967]

Everyone is probably ready for the leftovers from Thanksgiving Dinner. However, let me add a little reading material to the conversation. See the two attachments. First one is from Coach Dodd's book and the second one is from Homer Rice's book.

Coach Dodd gives more detail concerning the SEC Vote. The Headlines said that GT resigned before the vote. Not exactly according to Coach Dodd.
Also, see the comments in Coach Dodd's book that the 140 rule needed to be discarded or the annual max of 45 needed to be reduced.

In Dr. Rice's book he notes that the SEC dropped the annual max from 45 to 40 prior to the recruiting cycle of 1964 which was probably summer or early Fall?? This was only a few months after the January meeting when we resigned. Mitchell Ginn also says in his article for the Tech Alumni Magazine that Dr. Rose of Alabama had gotten an agreement from the SEC Presidents in January that the annual max could be dropped from 45 to 40, but the140 total to remain. To me that would seem to be a reasonable compromise.

The proposal at 40/140 is close to the same differential as the current 25/85. The 40/140 rule results in 20 extra players over 4 years or 5 per year allowed for attrition. The current 25/85 rule results in 15 extra players over 4 years or 3.75 per year. This would definitely result in fewer players for other SEC schools to recruit and cull out of the program.

I assume Dr. Davidson was in the President's meeting in January, so I surmise that the reduction to 40 per year was not low enough or Tech's demand was to drop the 140 or else. Some of the other SEC members saw it as an ultimatum.