College Football's Top Facilities

[Vespidae]

Schools in Norman , college station, auburn , Tuscaloosa etc have to have fancy lockers cause they stink.

Schools like LSU in Baton Rouge have great facilities because they place the most players into the NFL. That's what the major programs offer ... "We will help prepare you for the NFL and to do that, we will give you the NFL experience."

 

[laoh]

Do not be fooled by fancy locker rooms and gym machines.

 

[Vespidae]

Do not be fooled by fancy locker rooms and gym machines.

If you believe in what the research in the Talent Code provides, fancy equipment and resources are ultimately, counterproductive, to skill mastery.

 

[Squints]

YES.

(According to the Princeton Review https://www.princetonreview.com/college-rankings?rankings=best-athletic-facilities , we actually come in at #4 in overall athletic facilities...which is an achievement considering GT is located in an expensive urban environment. GT was #1 at one point.)

We're in the conversation with some in the top 20.

No, GT doesn't have mega complexes like Clemson, 'Bama, Texas, etc. Those are just ridiculous monstrosities. GT has everything the guys in the top 20 has (indoor practice facility, updated locker rooms, updated weight room, etc) and will get even better after construction is complete with the capital raise TStan initiated. GT's facilities just aren't over the top and they're not monstrosities like what they have at Clemson, 'Bama, Texas, etc.

I really wish we didn't talk so poorly about what we have. It's not the flashiest, but I promise you 90% of colleges wish they had GT what has.

I'm pretty sure this is a ranking of athletic facilities available for the general student body. Not the facilities for competitive athletics. I mean Grinnell College? Bicknell University? Gettysburg College? Great schools but not exactly D1 powerhouses. Tech should be high on that list. The CRC is a sick facility. I worked in aquatics when I was there. Its world class.

I don't think a ranking like this is relevant to a discussion of how our athletic teams' facilities compare to who we're competing with.

 

[RonJohn]

Ok, we may have to do it, but this whole process is symbolic of what's wrong with college sports.

Universities and colleges are educational institutions. The money we spend on sports is counter-productive. Sooner or later - let it be sooner - we will go back to funding post-secondary education at the level needed to catch the US up to other developed countries (our rate of college completion among college age young people is 19th among the 34 OECD countries). That will mean some refocusing of educational expenditures at all levels of government, including infrastructural spending for sports facilities and other indirect subsidies to college sports. Let the fans support the athletic associations as they already do, but if they want to get athletes in on faux scholarships or get facilities built, the answer should be no. We need the money for other and, from a public policy standpoint, much more important things.

I'll miss big time college sports, but I wouldn't lift a finger to stop changes that would get rid of them.

GT the Institute provides slightly less than 10% of the GTAA budget.(By regulation of the Georgia Board of Regents) The majority of that is from student athletic fees. Only about 2.7% of the athletic budget is provided from school funds(outside of the student athletic fee), which is about 0.1% of the budget of the school. The athletic facilities, scholarships, athletic salaries, etc. are paid for from the GTAA, not from Institute funds.

There could be a discussion about lack of public support for higher education, but that should probably take place in the Swarm Lounge instead of the athletic forums. My point is that GT the Institute provides very little money to athletics. It can't provide much because of regulations.

 

[LibertyTurns]

I'm pretty sure this is a ranking of athletic facilities available for the general student body. Not the facilities for competitive athletics. I mean Grinnell College? Bicknell University? Gettysburg College? Great schools but not exactly D1 powerhouses. Tech should be high on that list. The CRC is a sick facility. I worked in aquatics when I was there. Its world class.

I don't think a ranking like this is relevant to a discussion of how our athletic teams' facilities compare to who we're competing with.

Some people don’t read past the headlines. You’d think GT people would be able to analyze and assess beyond 1st order effects. You’d never deduce that from reading some of the back and forth.

 

[YellowJacketFan2018]

It would be interesting to see where the Georgia Tech facilities would rank

 

[Techster]

I'm pretty sure this is a ranking of athletic facilities available for the general student body. Not the facilities for competitive athletics. I mean Grinnell College? Bicknell University? Gettysburg College? Great schools but not exactly D1 powerhouses. Tech should be high on that list. The CRC is a sick facility. I worked in aquatics when I was there. Its world class.

I don't think a ranking like this is relevant to a discussion of how our athletic teams' facilities compare to who we're competing with.

I think it's relevant, but if you read my posts, the link wasn't the basis of my point. The rankings factor ALL facilities, just not ones available to students or SAs only. In fact, ramblinwreck referenced as much in 2011 when GT was ranked #1: https://ramblinwreck.com/georgia-tech-ranks-first-in-nation-in-athletic-facilities/

BTW, SAs don't use and enjoy the same facilities that the general student population does? I would say some SAs use the general student facilities just as much as the SA facilities....and if you hung out at CRC enough, you know what I'm talking about. I can't remember a time when I was student that when I went play pick up, SAs weren't playing pick up or just hanging out with friends on the sidelines.

The OVERALL point is, GT's facilities are VERY good regardless if they are SA specific or general student specific. As I said, maybe our football or basketball specific facilities aren't as grand as some of the factories, but GT has NOTHING to be ashamed of.

 

[Squints]

EDIT: Accidental Post

 

[Squints]

I think it's relevant, but if you read my posts, the link wasn't the basis of my point. The rankings factor ALL facilities, just not ones available to students or SAs only. In fact, ramblinwreck referenced as much in 2011 when GT was ranked #1: https://ramblinwreck.com/georgia-tech-ranks-first-in-nation-in-athletic-facilities/

BTW, SAs don't use and enjoy the same facilities that the general student population does? I would say some SAs use the general student facilities just as much as the SA facilities....and if you hung out at CRC enough, you know what I'm talking about. I can't remember a time when I was student that when I went play pick up, SAs weren't playing pick up or just hanging out with friends on the sidelines.

The rankings cited by you and ramblin wreck are Princeton Review rankings. From what I understand it's essentially user satisfaction survey of current students. The only information it offers to it rankings is: "based on student ratings of the recreational and athletic facilities at their schools. " It's not focused on D1 athletics let alone D1 football.

SAs used the CRC all the time when I was there. And I as a said the CRC is a huge asset to everyone on Tech's campus if they choose to use it. But we're talking about college football facilities aren't we? What does the CRC have to do with that? I feel like you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hold here.

The OVERALL point is, GT's facilities are VERY good regardless if they are SA specific or general student specific. As I said, maybe our football or basketball specific facilities aren't as grand as some of the factories, but GT has NOTHING to be ashamed of.

Who said anything about being ashamed? I mean agree I with you but the rhetoric that I've seen thrown around on this board and others is often "don't settle for mediocrity", "Tech should be the best at everything it attempts", etc. And as far as football facilities, the point of this thread, we are definitely not cream of the crop. Not sure why that's a controversial thing to say or question.

 

[Techster]

The rankings cited by you and ramblin wreck are Princeton Review rankings. From what I understand it's essentially user satisfaction survey of current students. The only information it offers to it rankings is: "based on student ratings of the recreational and athletic facilities at their schools. " It's not focused on D1 athletics let alone D1 football.

SAs used the CRC all the time when I was there. And I as a said the CRC is a huge asset to everyone on Tech's campus if they choose to use it. But we're talking about college football facilities aren't we? What does the CRC have to do with that? I feel like you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hold here.



Who said anything about being ashamed? I mean agree I with you but the rhetoric that I've seen thrown around on this board and others is often "don't settle for mediocrity", "Tech should be the best at everything it attempts", etc. And as far as football facilities, the point of this thread, we are definitely not cream of the crop. Not sure why that's a controversial thing to say or question.

What in the...

I think we are in agreement, but for some reason you're trying to make a bigger nothingburger than what it is.

As I said, my post was NOT BASED ON THE PRINCETON REVIEW LINK...it was simply provided as a reference from another POV. Maybe I should have specified that as I thought it would be inherent if you read the rest of the post.

My overall point and I keep trying to make is GT is NOT AS BAD as some would make us out to be. Don't know why I need to repeat this, but NO GT DOES NOT HAVE THE MONSTROSITY that teams like 'Bama, Clemson, Texas, etc have, but neither do 90% of college football. GT has VERY GOOD facilities, such that NFL teams and high level athletes use it all the time when they are in Atlanta.

So is there anything else you want to nitpick?

 

[Animal02]

What in the...

I think we are in agreement, but for some reason you're trying to make a bigger nothingburger than what it is.

As I said, my post was NOT BASED ON THE PRINCETON REVIEW LINK...it was simply provided as a reference from another POV. Maybe I should have specified that as I thought it would be inherent if you read the rest of the post.

My overall point and I keep trying to make is GT is NOT AS BAD as some would make us out to be. Don't know why I need to repeat this, but NO GT DOES NOT HAVE THE MONSTROSITY that teams like 'Bama, Clemson, Texas, etc have, but neither do 90% of college football. GT has VERY GOOD facilities, such that NFL teams and high level athletes use it all the time when they are in Atlanta.

So is there anything else you want to nitpick?

I am sure Ice will find something.

 

[Squints]

What in the...

I think we are in agreement, but for some reason you're trying to make a bigger nothingburger than what it is.

As I said, my post was NOT BASED ON THE PRINCETON REVIEW LINK...it was simply provided as a reference from another POV. Maybe I should have specified that as I thought it would be inherent if you read the rest of the post.

My overall point and I keep trying to make is GT is NOT AS BAD as some would make us out to be. Don't know why I need to repeat this, but NO GT DOES NOT HAVE THE MONSTROSITY that teams like 'Bama, Clemson, Texas, etc have, but neither do 90% of college football. GT has VERY GOOD facilities, such that NFL teams and high level athletes use it all the time when they are in Atlanta.

So is there anything else you want to nitpick?

We are largely in agreement and I'm not trying to start an argument here so I'm not sure why you're getting so defensive. All I'm trying to point out is that you're link isnt't useful to the discussion at hand imo. No more no less.

You clearly disagree. That's cool. Ain't no thing.

 

[katlong]

This misses the years pre 1935, but I found it interesting, despite where we fall on facilities......
https://247sports.com/LongFormArtic...all-greatest-all-time-128113283/#128113283_12

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

What in the...

I think we are in agreement, but for some reason you're trying to make a bigger nothingburger than what it is.

As I said, my post was NOT BASED ON THE PRINCETON REVIEW LINK...it was simply provided as a reference from another POV. Maybe I should have specified that as I thought it would be inherent if you read the rest of the post.

My overall point and I keep trying to make is GT is NOT AS BAD as some would make us out to be. Don't know why I need to repeat this, but NO GT DOES NOT HAVE THE MONSTROSITY that teams like 'Bama, Clemson, Texas, etc have, but neither do 90% of college football. GT has VERY GOOD facilities, such that NFL teams and high level athletes use it all the time when they are in Atlanta.

So is there anything else you want to nitpick?

It’s a constant arms race. We now have a locker room that probably rivals many NFL teams. This only recently occurred. In 20 years or even 10 how will it rank? Will it matter?

As for right now. I think our biggest deficiency in the arms race is the chow line. We are probably still behind the curve on the nutrition side.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

We plunked down $9M for the Brock indoor facility and Northwestern choked over $270M to build a ginormous facility. We’re racing a Meserati with a Festiva and are a lap down. We’ve got some huge catching up to do.

We have one of the first indoor facilities in the south. It may not be as fancy as some of the others, but it's still impressive and definitely gets the job done.

 

[Vespidae]

It’s a constant arms race. We now have a locker room that probably rivals many NFL teams. This only recently occurred. In 20 years or even 10 how will it rank? Will it matter?

Tennessee's facilities were ranked in the Top 5. I've seen them. And they are impressive. It didn't stop the dumpster fire of a program they experienced.

 

[65Jacket]

Ok, we may have to do it, but this whole process is symbolic of what's wrong with college sports.

Universities and colleges are educational institutions. The money we spend on sports is counter-productive. Sooner or later - let it be sooner - we will go back to funding post-secondary education at the level needed to catch the US up to other developed countries (our rate of college completion among college age young people is 19th among the 34 OECD countries). That will mean some refocusing of educational expenditures at all levels of government, including infrastructural spending for sports facilities and other indirect subsidies to college sports. Let the fans support the athletic associations as they already do, but if they want to get athletes in on faux scholarships or get facilities built, the answer should be no. We need the money for other and, from a public policy standpoint, much more important things.

I'll miss big time college sports, but I wouldn't lift a finger to stop changes that would get rid of them.

Lighten up guy, have some fun in life.