GT Peer Group & Path to Success

[billga99]

There's a STRONG lobby here in Augusta determined to keep the Medical College of Georgia, now a part of Augusta University, as the premier public medical research school in Georgia.

Also you have both Morehouse and Emory in Atlanta with Medical Programs. I doubt most states would want 3 Medical Schools in the same city.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Also you have both Morehouse and Emory in Atlanta with Medical Programs. I doubt most states would want 3 Medical Schools in the same city.

True, but both Morehouse and Emory are private, which means that Georgia doesn't get their hands on the money at all. uga tried a few years ago to get the Medical School away from Augusta.

 

[rodandanga]

True, but both Morehouse and Emory are private, which means that Georgia doesn't get their hands on the money at all. uga tried a few years ago to get the Medical School away from Augusta.

Didn't they get a satellite campus in Athens, at the old Navy Supply School? I've always felt that eventually uga will push to annex that and back door their way in to a Med school.

 

[CuseJacket]

Split this tangent off the WCU postgame discussion.

On the the Stanford comparison, do we still want to hold them up on a pedestal?

They won 4, 4 and 3 games the last 3 seasons.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Didn't they get a satellite campus in Athens, at the old Navy Supply School? I've always felt that eventually uga will push to annex that and back door their way in to a Med school.

Sort of. The AU campus hosting uga medical students in a "partnership" was part of the compromise reached when uga was basically told no. Initially, there was discussion on uga absorbing the medical school and having it under their direction, similar to the satellite GT campus in Savannah. IIRC, the students that go through the uga/AU program get a degree backed my MCG_AU but with uga on the diploma.

Too bad Tech wasn't as successful in fending off their engineering program.

 

[billga99]

True, but both Morehouse and Emory are private, which means that Georgia doesn't get their hands on the money at all. uga tried a few years ago to get the Medical School away from Augusta.

I would think GT would be reluctant to push for this since they have joint degrees with Emory around Medical Technology....not sure of the actual name of the degrees. But GT would make more sense than UGA based on the number of hospitals in Atlanta metro area. The one caveat is the Medical School doesn't have to be in the same geo location as the main school (such as Cornell Medical in NYC and main campus in Ithaca, NY)

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Split this tangent off the WCU postgame discussion.

On the the Stanford comparison, do we still want to hold them up on a pedestal?

They won 4, 4 and 3 games the last 3 seasons.

I don't know that I view them as either on a pedestal or as an example for us to follow, as the cultural differences between the two schools is greater than the geographical distance. Personally, however, I wish we had an athletic endowment and a university culture that prized athletic success as much as Stanford does. While Stanford's recent football results are equivalent to ours, I have more faith that their administration will sink real money into fixing their malaise than I do in our administration.

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

Sportico’s Intercollegiate Finance Database

Sportico is maintaining an interactive, real-time database that tracks the official balance sheets of public FBS university athletic departments.

www.sportico.com

This in my opinion is the best website when it comes to money for athletic programs and each sport. For 2020-21, Tech's operating expenses was $19,854,441 compared to UK's $24,684,438 which definitely proves your point.

Looking deeper at the numbers, Tech's revenue was 26th in the country, better than Mississippi State, Oklahoma State, and others. I just find this very interesting when it comes to the money conversation for Tech.

Tech's revenue being 26th in the country is kind of surprising, at least to me. I would have thought a few notches lower.

 

[wrmathis]

Split this tangent off the WCU postgame discussion.

On the the Stanford comparison, do we still want to hold them up on a pedestal?

They won 4, 4 and 3 games the last 3 seasons.

it’s 2 more wins than Tech has gotten

 

[Blue&Gold1034]

Tech's revenue being 26th in the country is kind of surprising, at least to me. I would have thought a few notches lower.

The media deals and conference distributions have A LOT to do with it. Makes up half of the revenue.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

We aren't 26th. The rankings referred do not include the private schools such as Notre Dame, Miami, Stanford, Duke, etc.. Revenue is the wrong measure to go by anyways. No matter what we make on football, it is how much we spend that matters. We rank no higher than 45th in FBS in football spending (The chart I link only includes public schools) and no better than 8th in the ACC.

Revenue: https://www.sportico.com/business/c...finances-database-intercollegiate-1234646029/

Spend (FBS): https://www.sportico.com/business/c...finances-database-intercollegiate-1234646029/

Spend (ACC): https://www.sportico.com/business/c...finances-database-intercollegiate-1234646029/

The eye opener is the profit/deficit ranking. We're making over $17 million a year more than we spend. (Imagine the coaching staff that could buy) We are second in the ACC public schools in this measure and 11th in all of FBS. Our issue is the $200,000,000 debt service we are paying off for facilities upgrades over the years.

Sportico’s Intercollegiate Finance Database

Sportico is maintaining an interactive, real-time database that tracks the official balance sheets of public FBS university athletic departments.

www.sportico.com

Sportico’s Intercollegiate Finance Database

Sportico is maintaining an interactive, real-time database that tracks the official balance sheets of public FBS university athletic departments.

www.sportico.com

 

[CuseJacket]

it’s 2 more wins than Tech has gotten

Their trajectory is downward while we are staying steady.

This is a fun game

 

[stinger 1957]

If I were running a business I would take care of my revenue producers and ALL their needs with the money available before I spent money on other operations that do not produce the dollars. Then I would look at how I would invest the excess. For me that translates at GT, take care of the needs of the FB program first, the MBB next and then see which other programs I need to invest in, may need to cut some sports programs out of the picture. FB goes and the whole thing comes tumbling down it seems to me.
It appears to me we are at the bottom and it's going to take some years to build it up again. We do have facilities. That gives a foundation to build on. Don't know what we do about paying the players, but is probably solvable over the build up years. If I'm right about what I'm saying, all these people that say fire CGC need to get some patience because a change IMO just sets us back again. I have some problem with him also, but not sure if a change is the right thing in this case, maybe patience is best.

 

[MikeGT]

If I were running a business I would take care of my revenue producers and ALL their needs with the money available before I spent money on other operations that do not produce the dollars. Then I would look at how I would invest the excess. For me that translates at GT, take care of the needs of the FB program first, the MBB next and then see which other programs I need to invest in, may need to cut some sports programs out of the picture. FB goes and the whole thing comes tumbling down it seems to me.
It appears to me we are at the bottom and it's going to take some years to build it up again. We do have facilities. That gives a foundation to build on. Don't know what we do about paying the players, but is probably solvable over the build up years. If I'm right about what I'm saying, all these people that say fire CGC need to get some patience because a change IMO just sets us back again. I have some problem with him also, but not sure if a change is the right thing in this case, maybe patience is best.

But it’s not just a business where you can cut or sell off underperforming divisions. The vast majority of our spending is on the football program and debt related to it. But there is still oversight legally and socially, if you will. We already only support a minimal number of sports - 14 counting mens and womens I believe and all but football lose money. (According to this site anyway https://www.collegefactual.com/coll...ampus/student-life/sports/#athletics_overview )
With that said - I still agree with your overall point that you don’t kill the goose that lays golden eggs, but you still have to figure out to support the teams that are a financial burden. It’s part of being a non-profit charity.

 

[CEB]

Their trajectory is downward while we are staying steady.

This is a fun game

Well...
Precipitous drop to a level low enough we almost have to sustain
OR
consistent downward trajectory to the bottom...

Let’s not strive for either or try to draw some noble distinction between the two...

 

[GoldZ]

I'm not going to flame away as your post is well written and it is obvious that you are passionate. Where I will push back though is this - you must run in different circles than I do. As an older fan (class of '81) myself, I don't hear anyone wanting the older fans gone. I don't get that vibe here on this site either - most folks seem to get that this is where most of the donations come from and that we are starved for cash. Most people also understand that we are starved for fans as well, young or old, So, I don't know where you are coming from.

Secondly, either on here or amongst my circle of Tech buddies, no one I know thinks Collins is doing a "fantastic" (your word, not mine) job. In fact, most think the opposite and know that he is on a very short leash (and rightfully so). In the most optomistic case he garners support bc he is the coach and it is in our own selfish best interests for him to be successful this year.It is probably not likely but I would love to see Tech win 9 games this year. I don't have to like him personally and I certainly understand the criticisms - but I want the program to succeed. Now, starting this weekend. Not bc I am a fan of him but rather a fan of our players and program first and foremost.

Who are these supporters who you say think he is doing a fantastic job? I call BS and say don't exist, or if they do, they must be amongst your group of friends exclusively. If you think those of us, like myself, who want him to be succesful bc he is the coach, are pleased with the job done to date that is far from the truth. IMO I hasten to add.

I am not flaming away. I admire your passion. But remain laughing at the dogma.

Also

 

[4shotB]

Back to the topic of Wes Walker ...

I once did a project with the US Army where they were evaluating all sorts of non-military organizations for leadership principles and ways to improve their own effectiveness. One of the organizations was the Kansas City Chiefs and I have been to Chiefs HQ, so I asked them ...

Interesting post and spot on with what I learned "back in the day". What I find interesting in this is that Collins had been with enough organizations over the years and around enough successful coaches that one would think that he would have adopted a "best practices" approach. That is what I did...as I was coming up I learned from observation from others both what worked and what did not work so I did not have to reinvent the wheel in each new job. Collins seems to have adopted a complete new philosophy however although I don't suppose I find fault in that.. As Marshall Mathers once said, "you only get one shot" so I think a person should follow their own path. I get that it is easy to Monday morning QB in retrospect but it appears (to me anyways) that Geoff went all in on what he apparently thought was a revolutionary approach to program management. It's his head on the block after all, not ours.

 

[slugboy]

Interesting post and spot on with what I learned "back in the day". What I find interesting in this is that Collins had been with enough organizations over the years and around enough successful coaches that one would think that he would have adopted a "best practices" approach. That is what I did...as I was coming up I learned from observation from others both what worked and what did not work so I did not have to reinvent the wheel in each new job. Collins seems to have adopted a complete new philosophy however although I don't suppose I find fault in that.. As Marshall Mathers once said, "you only get one shot" so I think a person should follow their own path. I get that it is easy to Monday morning QB in retrospect but it appears (to me anyways) that Geoff went all in on what he apparently thought was a revolutionary approach to program management. It's his head on the block after all, not ours.

I have worked at companies that used metrics and goals well, and companies that may have been worse off for having them. Even if the leader came out of an effective organization, it’s easy to take all the wrong lessons.
I’ve seen leaders confuse the measures for the goals. The problem with that is that you either don’t make real progress to your goals, or you don’t recognize when you have the wrong path or metrics.
I’ve seen leaders manage to the measures. When people see they’re rewarded for metrics instead of the goals, some work to inflate the metrics, and the people who aim for the goal feel unsupported.
In a number of other ways, I’ve seen leaders who don’t understand how to use numbers.

All models are wrong; some are useful. Metrics and models align in that sense.

 

[GoldZ]

Interesting post and spot on with what I learned "back in the day". What I find interesting in this is that Collins had been with enough organizations over the years and around enough successful coaches that one would think that he would have adopted a "best practices" approach. That is what I did...as I was coming up I learned from observation from others both what worked and what did not work so I did not have to reinvent the wheel in each new job. Collins seems to have adopted a complete new philosophy however although I don't suppose I find fault in that.. As Marshall Mathers once said, "you only get one shot" so I think a person should follow their own path. I get that it is easy to Monday morning QB in retrospect but it appears (to me anyways) that Geoff went all in on what he apparently thought was a revolutionary approach to program management. It's his head on the block after all, not ours.

It is however, our program on the block, not his(job maybe, but not program). Best practices in cFB also includes top management being engaged, supportive, and demanding of results of integral parts of the organization, which imo, football is.

 

[GoldZ]

I have worked at companies that used metrics and goals well, and companies that may have been worse off for having them. Even if the leader came out of an effective organization, it’s easy to take all the wrong lessons.
I’ve seen leaders confuse the measures for the goals. The problem with that is that you either don’t make real progress to your goals, or you don’t recognize when you have the wrong path or metrics.
I’ve seen leaders manage to the measures. When people see they’re rewarded for metrics instead of the goals, some work to inflate the metrics, and the people who aim for the goal feel unsupported.
In a number of other ways, I’ve seen leaders who don’t understand how to use numbers.

All models are wrong; some are useful. Metrics and models align in that sense.

All good points, but Leadership trumps metrics and models with measurable easy to understand goals that matter to the organization.