AD sabotage the football program

[augustabuzz]

In 2003 the enrollment at GT was 19,413. Currently(as of 2017) the enrollment at GT is 29,376. At Clemson the enrollment in 2008 was 18,317. Currently(as of 2017) the enrollment is 24,387. GT has had larger increases in the number of students in the time period that CPJ and Swinney have been the coaches. So, if you multiply those students by credit hours by price per credit hour, GT seems to have made out better.

GT has great campus growth and enrollment growth at the moment. I do enjoy sports and I do want all of the athletic teams at GT to do well. I do not buy an argument that athletics is the cause of growth of an academic institution. The Ivy league schools have crappy sports, but they have very low acceptance rates. MIT doesn't even have sports, yet they have a very low acceptance rate. GT has more applications now than at any time in the past. The acceptance rate is lower now than it was before.

That growth is mainly in our graduate school. CU has more undergraduates than Tech.

 

[Vespidae]

GT has never landed a 5* recruit, fwiw. When did we ever consistently land top 150 guys for that matter?

Adding majors by itself will help but it's only a piece of the puzzle; we have to recruit nationally. The reality is we are surrounded by football-first factories in the south where high school education isn't a priority. Consider where Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Louisiana rank on the list of high school education. Sure, we tap Florida, but it would be great to go after kids in Virginia, Texas, California, places where there is no inbred (pun intended) bias against GT where high school education is better than anywhere else in the south outside of metro Atlanta. Consider what CPJ said on the radio show before the Duke game: 9 of Duke's 11 starters on defense aren't from North Carolina. He also said that they were the best defense GT would see outside of Clemson, and they definitely proved it.

Smart kids who can play are out there. They just don't always want to major in engineering or the liberal arts majors we DO have (econ, management, etc.). But I bet they might take a stab at Sports Science, Telecommunication and Journalism, or Technology and Forensic Sciences.

Alabama recruits heavily in Texas. I think it's the majority of their team now, not Alabama (Jalen Hurts ... Texas. Tua ... Hawaii). Gene Stallings noted that when he was an assistant at Alabama, each coach had a zone within the State of Alabama to recruit, get to know the high schools, etc. Now ... Alabama recruits nationally.

Do we need to do that? I don't think so. Fifteen metro areas provide more than 80% of the talent in the country. Even if you don't get the 5Stars, you'll get guys who have played against talent and that's a start. Put together some regressions and consider who is likely to be most successful at Tech. It isn't just football talent, it's performance in school, what jobs his parents have, number of family members, military or non-military family, etc. We're geeks ... we can do this.

 

[MikeJackets1967]

Alabama recruits heavily in Texas. I think it's the majority of their team now, not Alabama (Jalen Hurts ... Texas. Tua ... Hawaii). Gene Stallings noted that when he was an assistant at Alabama, each coach had a zone within the State of Alabama to recruit, get to know the high schools, etc. Now ... Alabama recruits nationally.

Do we need to do that? I don't think so. Fifteen metro areas provide more than 80% of the talent in the country. Even if you don't get the 5Stars, you'll get guys who have played against talent and that's a start. Put together some regressions and consider who is likely to be most successful at Tech. It isn't just football talent, it's performance in school, what jobs his parents have, number of family members, military or non-military family, etc. We're geeks ... we can do this.

Tennessee's football program is getting better and it looks like Coach Jeremy Pruitt is concentrating his recruiting in Georgia,Alabama and Florida. Recruiting in Georgia is going to be very tough in Georgia in the future with UGAG,Alabama,Tennessee,Auburn and Clemson recruiting hard in Georgia.

 

[tech_wreck47]

Because it didn’t affect the split between the number of home games or away games we played and instead of having both the UGAg and Clemson home game s in the same year, it alternated them, allowing us to raise significantly more money through ticket sales (both canvases buy a ton of 3 game packs which helps us make more money from the weaker games on our home schedule).

I mean, if our distribution of games is:
GT home
Clemson home
GT
Clemson
GT
Clemson

It’s absolutely no different in terms of the number of home/away games
GT
Clemson
Clemson
GT
Clemson
GT

The only way this would not work is if we decided to end the annual series after a Clemson away game so we had:
GT
Clemson
Clemson
GT
Clemson

but even then it’s a maximum of 1 game difference and since there is no hint of ending the series the point is moot (and if we ended it after a GT home game once again there would be no effect).

We will just have to disagree, there a thing called home field advantage and to get that two years in a row is pretty nice. And you are right, it’s an on going season so to give your example and end on GT as if it’s the same is just not true why not add another game to your example and end it on Clemson? Is it a major thing? No, but you shouldn’t have to play a team where they have home field advantage twice in a row when you are competing for the ACC, just makes no sense.

 

[MikeJackets1967]

We will just have to disagree, there a thing called home field advantage and to get that two years in a row is pretty nice. And you are right, it’s an on going season so to give your example and end on GT as if it’s the same is just not true why not add another game to your example and end it on Clemson? Is it a major thing? No, but you shouldn’t have to play a team where they have home field advantage twice in a row when you are competing for the ACC, just makes no sense.

I'm like you i'd rather switch Clemson to later in the season. I would put the Virginia game in the first 5 games of the season.

 

[RonJohn]

That growth is mainly in our graduate school. CU has more undergraduates than Tech.

2008:
GT -- UG approx 13,000 GR approx 6,500
Clemson -- UG approx 14,500 GR approx 3,000

2018
GT -- UG approx 15,500 GT approx 14,000
Clemson -- UG approx 19.500 GT approx 3,700

So Clemson had an UG increase of 5,000 compared to GT's increase of 2,500. However, my post was in response to a post that said Clemson made a lot of money because of the tuition of the gain in students. GT had a total increase of about 10,000 students. Clemson had a total increase of about 6,000 students. Graduate students pay tuition also. Graduate students also conduct research which helps the reputation of the school. GT has not fallen behind Clemson in academic funding, academic reputation, or perspective students applying. Clemson doing well in athletics, but it hasn't caused their enrollment to make gains against GT. It hasn't caused their number of applicants to make gains on GT. Doing well in football makes middle aged men think more highly of a school, but I haven't seen any evidence that it causes increases in academic applications or academic reputation. It seems to me that it is a "common knowledge" idea among football fans that has no evidence to support it. In fact, looking at multiple sample sets it appears that the evidence refutes it.

 

[Vespidae]

oing well in football makes middle aged men think more highly of a school, but I haven't seen any evidence that it causes increases in academic applications or academic reputation. It seems to me that it is a "common knowledge" idea among football fans that has no evidence to support it. In fact, looking at multiple sample sets it appears that the evidence refutes it.

Looking solely at GT or Clemson may be too small a data set to conclude anything. I refer you to Harvard Business School Assistant Professor of Marketing, Doug Chung who has studied it and whose findings include:

• When a school rises from mediocre to great on the gridiron, applications increase by 18.7 percent.
• To attain similar effects, a school has to either lower tuition by 3.8 percent or increase the quality of its education by recruiting higher-quality faculty, who are paid 5 percent more than their average peers in the academic labor market.
• Students with lower-than-average SAT scores tended to have a stronger preference for schools known for athletic success, while students with higher SAT scores preferred institutions with greater academic quality. Also, students with lower academic prowess valued the success of intercollegiate athletics for longer periods of time than the high SAT achievers.
• Even students with high SAT scores are significantly affected by athletic success—one of the biggest surprises from the research, Chung says.
• Schools become more academically selective with athletic success.

 

[Scubapro]

There is nothing wrong with that, but the school cannot pay for the top notch facility, the nutrition, the sports training, etc. The school cannot even pay for the tuition portion of the SA's education. The school is limited to 10% of the overall athletic budget. The school currently pays approximately 10%, most from student athletic fees. The GTAA is required to fund 90% from other sources.(Conference media deals, tickets, donations, etc.)

I have heard the 10% rule from multiple people and I have a few questions about it.
Is that 10% self imposed or is it part of a state mandate or law
If its law or mandated where is it documented and does it apply to all Colleges and Universities in the state?

 

[RonJohn]

We will just have to disagree, there a thing called home field advantage and to get that two years in a row is pretty nice. And you are right, it’s an on going season so to give your example and end on GT as if it’s the same is just not true why not add another game to your example and end it on Clemson? Is it a major thing? No, but you shouldn’t have to play a team where they have home field advantage twice in a row when you are competing for the ACC, just makes no sense.

GT had been trying for years to get the mutts and Clemson on alternating years. They agreed on a preliminary basis to play the mutts in the kickoff game in Atlanta under the condition that it not be counted as a home game for GT. They wanted to play in the Georgia Dome one year(that one was a home game year for GT) then play in Atlanta the next year. The mutts didn't agree to that. (I thought it was a horrible idea to play them early in the season instead of at Thanksgiving.)

It was a couple of years later that the conference changed the scheduling and GT played Clemson away two years in a row. I'm sure the athletic department wasn't happy from a football team perspective, but it did even out the home schedule. Before that change, the home schedule every other year was atrocious.

 

[4shotB]

Recruiting in Georgia is going to be very tough in Georgia in the future with UGAG,Alabama,Tennessee,Auburn and Clemson recruiting hard in Georgia.

Mike, this has always been the case. Everybody (OSU, Stanford, Cal, ND etc.) plus the ACC/SEC has always recruited this state hard.

 

[eetech]

We will just have to disagree, there a thing called home field advantage and to get that two years in a row is pretty nice. And you are right, it’s an on going season so to give your example and end on GT as if it’s the same is just not true why not add another game to your example and end it on Clemson? Is it a major thing? No, but you shouldn’t have to play a team where they have home field advantage twice in a row when you are competing for the ACC, just makes no sense.

Because it doesn’t change the total number of home field situations.

The only thing that happened is that the home fields were reordered.

And since it’s Tech that benefits from the reordering it’s not surprising that Clemson got the 2 in a row home field situation.

 

[tech_wreck47]

Because it doesn’t change the total number of home field situations.

The only thing that happened is that the home fields were reordered.

And since it’s Tech that benefits from the reordering it’s not surprising that Clemson got the 2 in a row home field situation.

Correct, but when you are competing for an ACCCG appearance you would not want to have the hardest team on your schedule for an away game twice in a row. I’d rather have one of the other teams as an away and Clemson as a home game. I do get what you are saying though, I just think you would want to avoid it if possible. I just don’t see the benifit, I’m all ears if there is a benifit though.

 

[bikeseat]

What did you say, if anything about it then?

I ask this not to criticize you, but back then I and several other posters were called out (and even called liars) for criticizing, pointing out or mocking that travesty.

Almost as if to say "How dare you say anything negative" about what is going on at GTAA.

I wonder how many criticizing us back then are now on the how horrible a thing it was for MBob to do that now?

My job was to play football not play travel agent? I probably should have taken our AD to task for it then...

 

[ibeattetris]

Correct, but when you are competing for an ACCCG appearance you would not want to have the hardest team on your schedule for an away game twice in a row. I’d rather have one of the other teams as an away and Clemson as a home game. I do get what you are saying though, I just think you would want to avoid it if possible. I just don’t see the benifit, I’m all ears if there is a benifit though.

Nobody thought this was a good idea at the time. We had to play Clemson away in both 1993 and 1994. Our AD should have fought for us to get Clemson HOME two times in a row, not away. But now he works for Clemson :thinking:

 

[Cam]

2008:
GT -- UG approx 13,000 GR approx 6,500
Clemson -- UG approx 14,500 GR approx 3,000

2018
GT -- UG approx 15,500 GT approx 14,000
Clemson -- UG approx 19.500 GT approx 3,700

So Clemson had an UG increase of 5,000 compared to GT's increase of 2,500. However, my post was in response to a post that said Clemson made a lot of money because of the tuition of the gain in students. GT had a total increase of about 10,000 students. Clemson had a total increase of about 6,000 students. Graduate students pay tuition also. Graduate students also conduct research which helps the reputation of the school. GT has not fallen behind Clemson in academic funding, academic reputation, or perspective students applying. Clemson doing well in athletics, but it hasn't caused their enrollment to make gains against GT. It hasn't caused their number of applicants to make gains on GT. Doing well in football makes middle aged men think more highly of a school, but I haven't seen any evidence that it causes increases in academic applications or academic reputation. It seems to me that it is a "common knowledge" idea among football fans that has no evidence to support it. In fact, looking at multiple sample sets it appears that the evidence refutes it.

It's worth pointing out that 6500 of those grad students are for the online Master's in CS degree that was introduced a couple years ago. They still pay for their degree (about $7000 total, which is insane btw), but a lot of that growth is a bit misleading. Now I can tell you from experience that the on-campus grad students just care about their alma mater's program (if they had one). They came to GT entirely for the degree.

 

[Milwaukee]

Looking solely at GT or Clemson may be too small a data set to conclude anything. I refer you to Harvard Business School Assistant Professor of Marketing, Doug Chung who has studied it and whose findings include:

• When a school rises from mediocre to great on the gridiron, applications increase by 18.7 percent.
• To attain similar effects, a school has to either lower tuition by 3.8 percent or increase the quality of its education by recruiting higher-quality faculty, who are paid 5 percent more than their average peers in the academic labor market.
• Students with lower-than-average SAT scores tended to have a stronger preference for schools known for athletic success, while students with higher SAT scores preferred institutions with greater academic quality. Also, students with lower academic prowess valued the success of intercollegiate athletics for longer periods of time than the high SAT achievers.
• Even students with high SAT scores are significantly affected by athletic success—one of the biggest surprises from the research, Chung says.
• Schools become more academically selective with athletic success.

This is a great post.

 

[TheSilasSonRising]

To the people that are on the side of adding easier majors:

Let's say we create a whatever your idea of said major without calc and science requirements is. How much do you think it will really improve recruiting? Do you think we will land 5stars or top 150 kids? Top 250? Will we be in the top 25 every year? Honest question.

I personally don't think it would change a whole lot. Maybe 2 more 4stars a year. We probably still won't land any top 150 guys, and I don't think we will ever get a 5star recruit here. Over a 4-5 year period I don't think the talent difference would change a whole lot in the W-L column. On the list of stuff I just feel it's way down on stuff we can do to win more games.

Not one ounce of doubt it would help more than hurt a single thing about GT.

And I have seen MANY times when we were one athlete away from greatness. ELI going down in athens in 78 as one example.

 

[iceeater1969]

Alabama recruits heavily in Texas. I think it's the majority of their team now, not Alabama (Jalen Hurts ... Texas. Tua ... Hawaii). Gene Stallings noted that when he was an assistant at Alabama, each coach had a zone within the State of Alabama to recruit, get to know the high schools, etc. Now ... Alabama recruits nationally.

Do we need to do that? I don't think so. Fifteen metro areas provide more than 80% of the talent in the country. Even if you don't get the 5Stars, you'll get guys who have played against talent and that's a start. Put together some regressions and consider who is likely to be most successful at Tech. It isn't just football talent, it's performance in school, what jobs his parents have, number of family members, military or non-military family, etc. We're geeks ... we can do this.

U r right
I lived north Houston for 40 years. The schools are all exceptional (oil $$). The football powers of inner city are out and the suburbs are where the hs football is played. Migration has made for a potent mixture of football. Same as Dallas.

Ga tech has lots of alumni in H and D and Gt is well thought of.

 

[alagold]

What specifically is he doing to impair TStan? What specifically is he doing to prevent fans from donating money?

He might be doing something, but I haven't seen anything specific only vague "the hill" keeps the athletic department down type comments. There was a comment a couple of years ago that profs would not offer any way for athletes to take exams early/late when they have late night games/trips before an early AM exam. That is an example of something that most of us could agree should be addressed by the President or the Deans. Are there other items?

Ron,
I would like the Prez OFFICE to admit that they made mistakes in hiring AT LEAST one of the ADs that floated through recently.Its like he doesn't give a crap who is the AD and what he does.The SAME thing with his buddies stealing pay, etc from Tech for doing nothing..
Bud has got to go.

 

[Vespidae]

Ron,
I would like the Prez OFFICE to admit that they made mistakes in hiring AT LEAST one of the ADs that floated through recently.Its like he doesn't give a crap who is the AD and what he does.The SAME thing with his buddies stealing pay, etc from Tech for doing nothing..
Bud has got to go.

Bud turbocharged development (fund raising) at all the schools within GT. He really pushed it, hiring D officers at each, with goals and objectives. The success of the engineering schools is evidence.

Has he attempted anything like this in athletics? No. Has he taken out the red tape between donor rolls like Roll Call, GT-F and GTAA. Has he worked to facilitate and appoint a board of “sports” people on the GTAA board? No.

Bev Davenport at UT did one smart thing. She brought back Phil Fulmer as a special advisor reporting directly to her to provide unfiltered opinion on the status of the athletics program at UT. Bud could easily hire GOL, or another great,to do something similar. Has he? No.