CPJ interview - Nov 11

[JacketOff]

The GTAA GOT more money from loans, $200M worth, and did a make a dime's bit of difference ON THE FIELD? No. Tennessee is a cash machine. And still ended up a dumpster fire with recruits NOT recruited by Alabama or UGA, their primary competitors.

Just because you can spend more doesn't translate into greater success.

Of course there are exceptions, but it’s quite obvious that a programs likelihood of success goes up when their spending goes up. I’m not sure why you would even try to argue this point.

 

[Vespidae]

Of course there are exceptions, but it’s quite obvious that a programs likelihood of success goes up when their spending goes up. I’m not sure why you would even try to argue this point.

Because I can. Let's look at the GTAA report card:

• We let the program sink to almost beyond recovery in 1980
• We hired a bunch of coaches and fired them and have a ton of legacy costs that bind us
• We invested heavily in in non-revenue sports so even though we upgraded our facilities, it generated no additional revenue.
• We spent lavishly on offices instead of player locker rooms

So, I would argue that Tech, even at $70M generates enough to put out a competitive product. But, the history of really bad decisions bleeds off the revenue into former coaches and facility debt.

Spending more has not been a recipe for success. Spending wisely is. In 41 years, I would give the GTAA a failing grade on responsible financial management.

 

[iceeater1969]

Money provides resources, I will grant you that. But Tennessee has Top Five facilities, Top Five fanbase, Number One in Merchandising Sales and was still a dumpster fire two years ago. Hire a bad coaching staff and adopt a hands off policy while spending money is a not a good recipe for success.

I will bet MBob didn't even know where CPJ's office was.

And the guy that hired Mbob could , imo, could are less.

Imo, its because the increased defense spending was blowing up revenue from research institute.

Look at totals for Paul's tenure = gtaa flat to down while others acc are up ( zero paydown of 200,000,000 debt ; = endowment way up,
= research revenue way up.

If Mbob and cpj were not working as a team, that's on the prez.

Your point that money doesn't
guarentee success is correct.

But having the least amount of money........?? Look at knight database for acc in last 10 years - we suck at revenue.
Zero margin for error.


The stratification of the super factories ( Clemson, Alabama, Ohio state, lsu, norte dame ) is seen by looking at first 50 players of rivals 2020 . recruiting class. The super factories have 80% of these players..

 

[Vespidae]

The stratification of the super factories ( Clemson, Alabama, Ohio state, lsu, norte dame ) is seen by looking at first 50 players of rivals 2020 . recruiting class. The super factories have 80% of these players..

Agreed. And in the current environment, they will continue to do so. Tech is not going to generate the $150M that Alabama, Texas A&M, Tennessee and others do … because our fanbase and media reach is so tiny. It's a constraint. And it's pointless to argue otherwise.

What you can do it recognize the constraint and ask, "What can we do with our limited resources and make better long-term decisions?"

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Correlation is not causation. I'm surprised that I have to say that to a Georgia Tech grad.

Correct, and if you dig into my post history you will see where I have stated so. But at some point you have to look hard at correlation. In fact, when you look at programs that winn consistently at the level GT fans on these boards state. (8 wins minimum, with 10 win seasons not generationally separated) then you need to figure out how the schools that are doing that are doing that. A major difference between us and those schools is spending. Now, as I have said for probably the 100th time, I am not saying we have to spend at uga levels to achieve that level of success. We can taylor spending smartly with better coaches to build a program. We CANNOT do that at the current level of spending.

If I wanted to buy a used car to take to the drag strip and compete with the local tuners, there are many price points I can enter the market at. I could spend top end and buy a souped up car with all the upgrades, or I could compete by buying an older car and doing a lot of the upgrades myself. I've become competitive without spending the same as those around me. What I can't do is buy a bargain basement jalopy with a worn out motor and expect to compete without throwing money at it. In a lot of ways, that's the way we treat our football program. We wonder why we aren't beating duke when we invest 25% less in football than they do. We are 61st of 65 P5 schools in terms of spending. That HAS to change. We can do it smartly, but it's a necessity nonetheless.

 

[Technut1990]

Agreed. And in the current environment, they will continue to do so. Tech is not going to generate the $150M that Alabama, Texas A&M, Tennessee and others do … because our fanbase and media reach is so tiny. It's a constraint. And it's pointless to argue otherwise.

What you can do it recognize the constraint and ask, "What can we do with our limited resources and make better long-term decisions?"

Like leave the ACC and join The Big 12 or even the American Athletic Conference, we fit with those schools a lot more than we do the ACC. I can see us generating more interest with USF, East Carolina or Texas and Kansas St.

I know the responses but we just would. and we would compete for championships every year

 

[Vespidae]

In a lot of ways, that's the way we treat our football program. We wonder why we aren't beating duke when we invest 25% less in football than they do. We are 61st of 65 P5 schools in terms of spending. That HAS to change. We can do it smartly, but it's a necessity nonetheless.

The GTAA in my opinion, is not a good steward of money and has had horrible management for decades. Giving them more is not the answer. Telling them to clean up their act and make better decisions and earn the right to ask for more is.

 

[Technut1990]

The GTAA in my opinion, is not a good steward of money and has had horrible management for decades. Giving them more is not the answer. Telling them to clean up their act and make better decisions and earn the right to ask for more is.

Who tells them that ? Half the fans are fine to have a football team at a Highly Intellectual Institution rather than a great team at a great Institution, Regents doesn't care, Ga draws sports dollars and Tech draws research dollars. Nobody cares if Tech draws sports dollars

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

The GTAA in my opinion, is not a good steward of money and has had horrible management for decades. Giving them more is not the answer. Telling them to clean up their act and make better decisions and earn the right to ask for more is.

We're going to have to disagree on this. While I agree we have to be smart about our resources, withholding the support needed to move the program forward seems like cutting off our nose to spite our face. We have a new AD and a new HC. We either trust them or we don't. If we don't trust the AD and the HC to do what is in the best interest of the program, then we need to find replacements for them.

 

[Vespidae]

We're going to have to disagree on this. While I agree we have to be smart about our resources, withholding the support needed to move the program forward seems like cutting off our nose to spite our face. We have a new AD and a new HC. We either trust them or we don't. If we don't trust the AD and the HC to do what is in the best interest of the program, then we need to find replacements for them.

What support are we withholding? Is there a big bag of money somewhere that we're standing in the way? The GTAA can fundraise if it wants. Tech can fundraise if it wants. Neither one agrees on how to do it so … for 40 or more years … it hasn't.

 

[deeznats]

What support are we withholding?

You must be new here... The GTAA can certainly do a better job fundraising and the Institute could help, but there are posts all the time about people withholding support. One poster is withholding support until we change uniforms.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

What support are we withholding? Is there a big bag of money somewhere that we're standing in the way? The GTAA can fundraise if it wants. Tech can fundraise if it wants. Neither one agrees on how to do it so … for 40 or more years … it hasn't.

How we raise the funds is moot. We as an Institution, fans and GTAA alike, are holding our program back by not funding it properly. Until we grow our football budget to a competitive level, we will continue to operate at a disadvantage in the NCAAF landscape.

Given the current staff and facilities, do you honestly think we can build a program that wins minimum 8 games a year on the 5th worst P5 budget?

 

[Vespidae]

You must be new here... The GTAA can certainly do a better job fundraising and the Institute could help, but there are posts all the time about people withholding support. One poster is withholding support until we change uniforms.

I am new. I've only been here for 3 years.

And do seriously think one poster's ticket purchase is going to be material?

 

[deeznats]

I am new. I've only been here for 3 years.

And do seriously think one poster's ticket purchase is going to be material?

No, but many people withholding support is material (like the middle sentence of my post you chose to ignore).

 

[Vespidae]

No, but many people withholding support is material (like the middle sentence of my post you chose to ignore).

The use of the word "ignore" suggests something diabolical. Please educate me on why I chose to "ignore" it and my reasons. I am more than happy to opine on Tech's lackluster performance in fundraising.

 

[deeznats]

The use of the word "ignore" suggests something diabolical. Please educate me on why I chose to "ignore" it and my reasons. I am more than happy to opine on Tech's lackluster performance in fundraising.

This is a dumb argument, but since you asked... I wrote a post about many people on this board are withholding support and posting about it. I gave one example of what I think is the most ludicrous instance. Your response was to ask me if I seriously thought that one poster withholding support is material. I have to assume you either didn't comprehend the post or chose to ignore a part of it because I never made the assertion that one person not buying tickets is material.

 

[Vespidae]

This is a dumb argument, but since you asked... I wrote a post about many people on this board are withholding support and posting about it. I gave one example of what I think is the most ludicrous instance. Your response was to ask me if I seriously thought that one poster withholding support is material. I have to assume you either didn't comprehend the post or chose to ignore a part of it because I never made the assertion that one person not buying tickets is material.

So I'll respond this way. Whether one poster or a dozen withhold support (what does that even mean? Not buy hats? Tickets? Watch on tv?), is not material to the revenue Tech has to generate. Coca-Cola isn't going to lose any sleep when PETA members stop buying Coke products.

There are three ways Tech could generate more money. First, they could integrate the databases and leverage the alumni base to raise money for GTAA in the same way they do for the schools. Second, they could try to get the Top 1000 contributors to contribute 10% more and offer more in return (e.g., suite invitations, free programs, etc.) and Third, they could create a booster program like IPTAY or the Seminole Club to generate funds outside of ticket sales.

They could have doing this for the last 50 years. And have chosen … not too. The individual organizations (Alumni, Foundation, GTAA, Roll Call) are jealous guardians and won't share. Tech hasn't provided much to the biggest donors other than program mentions and half-time pics. And a booster program has been talked about and avoided for decades.

So whether or not one or a dozen posters withhold support is immaterial to the money needed. Yes, $5 helps. But in a budget of $70-80 million, it's not even a rounding error.

My personal view is that it is pointless to talk about the arms race in college sports as if Tech is going to suddenly get in it. They aren't. The Hill tolerates sports. And that's about the best I can some up about the engagement of the President in GT Athletics.

 

[deeznats]

So I'll respond this way. Whether one poster or a dozen withhold support (what does that even mean? Not buy hats? Tickets? Watch on tv?), is not material to the revenue Tech has to generate. Coca-Cola isn't going to lose any sleep when PETA members stop buying Coke products.

There are three ways Tech could generate more money. First, they could integrate the databases and leverage the alumni base to raise money for GTAA in the same way they do for the schools. Second, they could try to get the Top 1000 contributors to contribute 10% more and offer more in return (e.g., suite invitations, free programs, etc.) and Third, they could create a booster program like IPTAY or the Seminole Club to generate funds outside of ticket sales.

They could have doing this for the last 50 years. And have chosen … not too. The individual organizations (Alumni, Foundation, GTAA, Roll Call) are jealous guardians and won't share. Tech hasn't provided much to the biggest donors other than program mentions and half-time pics. And a booster program has been talked about and avoided for decades.

So whether or not one or a dozen posters withhold support is immaterial to the money needed. Yes, $5 helps. But in a budget of $70-80 million, it's not even a rounding error.

My personal view is that it is pointless to talk about the arms race in college sports as if Tech is going to suddenly get in it. They aren't. The Hill tolerates sports. And that's about the best I can some up about the engagement of the President in GT Athletics.

I agree with most everything you said and now I see where you are coming from. I still think some of the onus is on alumni and fans though and not all of it is the fault of the GTAA/the Hill. The people posting on a message board are peanuts compared to the overall budget, but the malaise that spreads is contagious and adds up to real money.

 

[jrgray]

GT has been successful in the past without the 3O. We can be successful in the future without it. Other schools that are not traditional powers have been and are successful without it.

Have we really? O'Leary had a .612 winning percentage. Gailey was .579, Ross .543 and Curry, Carson, Rodgers, Fulcher and L*w*s were worse. Ross had one magical season and one 8-win season. O'Leary had 10 wins once. Gailey never did.

So unless we are going back to Dodd, Tech hasn't been successful consistently in football for decades. Johnson was a great coach for the time -- relatively cheap when GTAA didn't have a lot of money and he didn't saddle us with a huge buyout.

I hope Collins is the guy to get us there, but more important, Stansbury needs to be the guy to raise some $$ and spend it.

 

[Vespidae]

I hope Collins is the guy to get us there, but more important, Stansbury needs to be the guy to raise some $$ and spend it.

I just don't think this is the strategy (raising tons of $$$).

If I heard TStan correctly, the goal is to refresh the facilities (new Edge, etc), wait for legacy costs to discontinue (stop paying fired coaches) and reduce long-term debt. That would give them more discretionary money to spend that they don't have today. With the size of our fanbase, I just don't see a path to significantly increase football related spending without a MASSIVE change in how we raise money.