GT and Under Armour

[Whiskey_Clear]

Money talks....agreed. But we aren't really talking about money with regards to how prospects view UA, Nike, Russell. They ain't paying for squat. The worry is in getting the uni to best lure recruits and that worry driving business decisions. That's what I find distasteful. I'm fine with money talks...let the best deal win. $$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[inGTwetrust]

They may not pay for it out of pocket. But if better uniforms attract better recruits. Then...better recruits = better teams = increase in ticket and merchandise sales = $$$.

I get what you are saying, but you gotta do what you gotta do to achieve a competitive advantage (within reason).

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Within reason is often debatable

 

[awbuzz]

What defines "better" the Manufacture logo? The Team Logo/colors? State flag as a uniform? Looking like a Jackson Pollock painting?

My guess is that it's in the marketing logo (manufacturer and the team's ability to win)

 

[inGTwetrust]

Within reason is often debatable

My reasonable level was more in terms of legality lol

 

[CHE90]

I'm not doubting it but I do lament the fact that we now may be in an era where big business decisions are affected by the whimsy of snot nosed 17 and unders.

You find it distasteful that "the whimsy of snot nosed 17 and unders" who will generate all of this football and TV revenue and are only paid a paltry stipend are affecting business decisions? I think I can live with the uniform brand they prefer.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

@CHE90
So.....just throwing out a hypothetical.... if 70 % of recruits prefer Nike but UA is offering 10% more $ and 30% more free stuff...you'd go Nike?

 

[5277hike]

You find it distasteful that "the whimsy of snot nosed 17 and unders" who will generate all of this football and TV revenue and are only paid a paltry stipend are affecting business decisions? I think I can live with the uniform brand they prefer.

A paltry stipend, and a college education worth $20-40k per year, and the opportunity to earn much more throughout their careers. My point is not that they don't get what they probably should, just that it is much more than "a paltry stipend".

 

[CHE90]

@CHE90
So.....just throwing out a hypothetical.... if 70 % of recruits prefer Nike but UA is offering 10% more $ and 30% more free stuff...you'd go Nike?

That's a great question. I would say you would probably have to weigh the intangibles of what better players would mean for program exposure, future revenue, and building the Georgia Tech brand versus the extra cash now. About five years ago I had a conversation with a Michigan State administrator. He talked to me about what a big time college football program means to a university not only in terms of running a profit center if indeed it is profitable, but also the marketing exposure it provides for the university in general outside of athletics. I don't remember the number he told me, but they claim the amount of "advertising" it provides for the university overall is staggering in terms of dollars. He further said that Michigan State would never be able to afford that kind of advertising for their brand. Sorry for rambling on here, but I think its more than just question of dollars.

 

[CHE90]

You find it distasteful that "the whimsy of snot nosed 17 and unders" who will generate all of this football and TV revenue and are only paid a paltry stipend are affecting business decisions? I think I can live with the uniform brand they prefer.

A paltry stipend, and a college education worth $20-40k per year, and the opportunity to earn much more throughout their careers. My point is not that they don't get what they probably should, just that it is much more than "a paltry stipend".

Agree with you on its more than a paltry stipend. Also agree they don't get what they probably should.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

That's a great question. I would say you would probably have to weigh the intangibles of what better players would mean for program exposure, future revenue, and building the Georgia Tech brand versus the extra cash now. About five years ago I had a conversation with a Michigan State administrator. He talked to me about what a big time college football program means to a university not only in terms of running a profit center if indeed it is profitable, but also the marketing exposure it provides for the university in general outside of athletics. I don't remember the number he told me, but they claim the amount of "advertising" it provides for the university overall is staggering in terms of dollars. He further said that Michigan State would never be able to afford that kind of advertising for their brand. Sorry for rambling on here, but I think its more than just question of dollars.

Wish we had some administrators at Tech who thought that way.

 

[CHE90]

Wish we had some administrators at Tech who thought that way.

Me too! I've been around a lot of people from their athletic department and they seem very forward thinking in how they run things in East Lansing.

 

[Techster]

That's a great question. I would say you would probably have to weigh the intangibles of what better players would mean for program exposure, future revenue, and building the Georgia Tech brand versus the extra cash now. About five years ago I had a conversation with a Michigan State administrator. He talked to me about what a big time college football program means to a university not only in terms of running a profit center if indeed it is profitable, but also the marketing exposure it provides for the university in general outside of athletics. I don't remember the number he told me, but they claim the amount of "advertising" it provides for the university overall is staggering in terms of dollars. He further said that Michigan State would never be able to afford that kind of advertising for their brand. Sorry for rambling on here, but I think its more than just question of dollars.

The thing about schools like GT, Stanford, Harvard, Princeton...elite academic schools, is they don't need the athletic exposure that a school like Michigan State does. Our academic reputation is going to attract top notch students regardless. That's probably why the academics and adminstrators here are lukewarm about our athletic arm.

Now you look at a school like Alabama. Are kids really attracted to going there without their sports team?

 

[TheSilasSonRising]

The thing about schools like GT, Stanford, Harvard, Princeton...elite academic schools, is they don't need the athletic exposure that a school like Michigan State does. Our academic reputation is going to attract top notch students regardless. That's probably why the academics and adminstrators here are lukewarm about our athletic arm.

Now you look at a school like Alabama. Are kids really attracted to going there without their sports team?

Every university in ACC, SEC, BIG 10, PAC 12 is going to attract top notch students in one way or another. Just because some kid at GT is not attracted to an academic program somewhere else does not invalidate that program, believe it or not.

GT does indeed have a very big problem if what the athletic program has contributed to the school over the years is not appreciated. It simply shows that nerd, ingrates on the Hill are so smart that they are absurdly stupid. A $ amount of value and good will can not be given to how much a good athletic program contributes to a school.

Are kids really attracted to going to bama (or any other school) without their sports teams? Of course they are. It is stupid and arrogant to assume otherwise.

Reasons would include legacies, location, size of student body, certain program offerings (I know you can not believe that people might have an interest outside of engineering), friends already there, being close or far away from mom & dad. Too many to list.

 

[Techster]

Every university in ACC, SEC, BIG 10, PAC 12 is going to attract top notch students in one way or another. Just because some kid at GT is not attracted to an academic program somewhere else does not invalidate that program, believe it or not.

GT does indeed have a very big problem if what the athletic program has contributed to the school over the years is not appreciated. It simply shows that nerd, ingrates on the Hill are so smart that they are absurdly stupid. A $ amount of value and good will can not be given to how much a good athletic program contributes to a school.

Are kids really attracted to going to bama (or any other school) without their sports teams? Of course they are. It is stupid and arrogant to assume otherwise.

Reasons would include legacies, location, size of student body, certain program offerings (I know you can not believe that people might have an interest outside of engineering), friends already there, being close or far away from mom & dad. Too many to list.

Dude, you're not saying anything different than what I've said. I wasn't going to list every top tier academic program hence the "like Gt...."

But thanks for defending the honor of the masses.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Every university in ACC, SEC, BIG 10, PAC 12 is going to attract top notch students in one way or another. Just because some kid at GT is not attracted to an academic program somewhere else does not invalidate that program, believe it or not.....Reasons would include legacies, location, size of student body, certain program offerings (I know you can not believe that people might have an interest outside of engineering), friends already there, being close or far away from mom & dad. Too many to list.

In State Tuition. Scholarship Offers. Acceptance letters. Following that hot girl in history class.

Wait, forget that last one...

 

[Ibeeballin]

Good marketing Nike. Just imagine if our Swarm billboards had a Nike or UA insignia on it

 

[dressedcheeseside]

View attachment 1741 Good marketing Nike. Just imagine if our Swarm billboards had a Nike or UA insignia on it

Dude's got some bad dandruff.

 

[CrackerJacket]

The thing about schools like GT, Stanford, Harvard, Princeton...elite academic schools, is they don't need the athletic exposure that a school like Michigan State does. Our academic reputation is going to attract top notch students regardless. That's probably why the academics and adminstrators here are lukewarm about our athletic arm.

Now you look at a school like Alabama. Are kids really attracted to going there without their sports team?

Well, as a poor kid with great grades and a long-dead Dad, I had a lot of college options available. I looked at GT, MIT, Caltech, Northwestern Ivy League, etc - academic heavyweights all, and damn the price tag. Sports were a factor. I wanted an academically elite school with an onfield rep - a place I could get a top flight education and whose teams I could root for the rest of my life. Been there, do that.

MIT during the week and FSU on Saturday? Damn straight. Excellence in all things is not just a noble aspiration, it's attainable if you have the will, brains and courage to make it so. The Hill needs to remember this.

 

[Techster]

Well, as a poor kid with great grades and a long-dead Dad, I had a lot of college options available. I looked at GT, MIT, Caltech, Northwestern Ivy League, etc - academic heavyweights all, and damn the price tag. Sports were a factor. I wanted an academically elite school with an onfield rep - a place I could get a top flight education and whose teams I could root for the rest of my life. Been there, do that.

MIT during the week and FSU on Saturday? Damn straight. Excellence in all things is not just a noble aspiration, it's attainable if you have the will, brains and courage to make it so. The Hill needs to remember this.

The point is, GT (and acadmically elite schools on the same tier) are going to attract top flight students regardless of having a good football/basketball/baseball/etc. team. If you or I didn't go to GT, there's another kid who has no inclination toward sports with a 4.0 GPA and 1400+ SATs that's going to take our spot (and that's exactly the case as attendance is hurt because of this). You look at the Ivies. They don't compete at the highest levels in sports, but they sure do attract some of the best students in the world, and it's ultra competitive to be admitted into those schools. Before Stanford was doing well in football, they were still getting the top students. Having a bad sports program never hurt Stanford's quality of students.

I'm in no way denigrating other schools. It's just a fact that having a good sports program helps with attracting students. Nothing wrong with that. But it's also a fact that top tier schools like GT will attract top level students regardless of whether or not CPJ takes us to the OB. Look at 2015 for example. One of our worst years since 1994, yet GT was able to attract its most competitive class ever:

http://www.news.gatech.edu/2015/03/20/tech-admits-most-competitive-class-institute-history

What it boils down to is academically elite schools don't need athletics to pull students like other schools do. The academics drive the demand. Schools like Alabama, Mich St, Clemson...all good schools in their own rights, are more attractive because they have good sports programs. Of course, there are other factors as some have pointed out (legacies, scholarships, etc.). I guess that's why the Adminstrative Board at GT maybe lukewarm towards the Athletic side of the school. In the end, GT will be GT regardless of whether or not CPJ makes it to a bowl game or Pastner makes it to the Tournament.