GT Peer Group & Path to Success

[GoldZ]

ND is not a good example. It is one of the few schools where the Athletic Dept is a full operating department of the university just like Operations, Facilities and the Provost. That is NOT the case at Tech.

As to who fires the AD, typically the BoT would do that but depending on its by-laws, may empower one member to do so on its behalf. Cabrera then, would probably be it but and I want to stress this ... the Chair can't just do what he wants. There are rules and by-laws that he MUST follow as a legal matter.

Situations where the Chair wants to fire for poor performance and the Board prevents from doing so, I would suggest are very rare. The point all along in this thread is that Leadership and Commitment at the top level is absolutely necessary to climb out of this hole. What do you think the Chair and Board would find themselves doing at most land grant schools with winning programs if they didn't take action after 3 years of putrid performance?

 

[Vespidae]

Situations where the Chair wants to fire for poor performance and the Board prevents from doing so, I would suggest are very rare. The point all along in this thread is that Leadership and Commitment at the top level is absolutely necessary to climb out of this hole. What do you think the Chair and Board would find themselves doing at most land grant schools with winning programs if they didn't take action after 3 years of putrid performance?

A President of a land grant U would be fired. Tech is not a land grant U and it's leadership is not judged on athletics. I can assure you that if Bobby Raine (richest man in Alabama) wants the President of Auburn fired, the decision will be discussed at a boardroom in a bank in Montgomery, followed by a call to Governor and it's over.

Auburn's AD Greene was recently forced out despite having a great year in both basketball and baseball. Most sports are doing very very well. What's not? Football. Even the new president got the message: Don't renew his contract. We need a football guy.

While I do agree that Leadership is required, I doubt we will ever get it. In my view, Tech has tolerated athletics and if it keeps the alumni base happy and contributing $$$, fine. Simply put, a championship athletics program is not required for Tech to fulfill its mission. If we go 7-5 until the end of time, I think most involved would be happy.

Bud Petersen's comments ring true in my ear: "My only responsibility to Georgia Tech Athletics is to appoint the Athletics Director." It was true then, true now and will probably be true a decade from now.

 

[GTLorenzo]

Texiera has to approve that.

If he is going to give the program millions of dollars and has the experience of a major league player, I am OK with him having some influence in the direction of the program. Definitely more so than us message board warriors….

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

First, I'd like to say despite my edgy posts today/yesterday there were a number of reasonable responses, of which I don't agree with a lot of them but they're thoses guy's opinions. Here's one commonly held opinion I disagree with & I hope given the evidence provided below people will agree it's all just more bluster to avoid culpability/responsibility for our mess & assign blame once again at the feet of our very loyal fanbase. Our fanbase culture is resilient, tolerant of coaches learning on the job to a far greater extent than many other P5 programs & generous.

In 2019 we were asked to open our wallets to fund the regime change. Millions of dollars were raised to help close the gap, Stansbury's Current Operational fund. The target was $12M if I recall correctly and we delivered $37M. AI2020 was launched & we responded not with the $125M that was requested but $175M. We're giving at levels never seen before in GT's history & we'll contiune to give when presented with good plans for our money.

Fans regularly complain we don't have money, not true. They complain we must rely on large donors with oversized influence & are beholden to them, to some extent that's true but the rank & file fans donate prodigiously. We're not completely reliant on big donors like Oregon. We say we can't afford better coaches, again not true. Those large donors that are disparaged offered the money; us littler guys are standing by ready to answer the call to fund the operational contingency fund to pay the buyouts and get good coaches. The money's there. It's not a fanbase issue, it's a leadership issue. We've come thru with the money when asked & when the need was communicated.

Stansbury felt no need for change. He's obviously satisfied with what he has given the fact he had full ability (positional authority and a source of funding) to make whatever changes he desired. Those facts are not in dispute or maybe they are, but they shouldn't be. If asked again, we'll answer the call.

A few points. AI 2020 initiative began while CPJ was HC, it wasn't designed to support "regime change." We raised our current operations from 12 mil to 38 mil, but if we fire CGC we will eat 7.2 million out of that budget. Paying Clawson's buyout, also likely high since he just inked that contract last November means we are probably looking at between 10-12 million in buyouts for next year. (Because Wake is private, exact figure is not known for Clawson, but a 3-5 million figure is likely conservative) That means if we do open our wallets for a HC, we likely can't afford the assistants we need to make the new HC successful.

Now, to your other point, it's one thing to get people to mobilize behind a one time program with tangible results such as a new EDGE center, weight rooms, etc. Getting our fanbase to donate to the GTAA itself has been historically hard. To say they aren't communicating the need is disingenuous as well, as I routinely get emails and calls from my ticket rep asking me to consider raising my donation levels.

Finally, the biggest issue we have is our debt. If we truly want to be competitive, we HAVE to find a way to retire the millstone around our neck that is a $200 million dollar debt.

 

[GTLorenzo]

A few points. AI 2020 initiative began while CPJ was HC, it wasn't designed to support "regime change." We raised our current operations from 12 mil to 38 mil, but if we fire CGC we will eat 7.2 million out of that budget. Paying Clawson's buyout, also likely high since he just inked that contract last November means we are probably looking at between 10-12 million in buyouts for next year. (Because Wake is private, exact figure is not known for Clawson, but a 3-5 million figure is likely conservative) That means if we do open our wallets for a HC, we likely can't afford the assistants we need to make the new HC successful.

Now, to your other point, it's one thing to get people to mobilize behind a one time program with tangible results such as a new EDGE center, weight rooms, etc. Getting our fanbase to donate to the GTAA itself has been historically hard. To say they aren't communicating the need is disingenuous as well, as I routinely get emails and calls from my ticket rep asking me to consider raising my donation levels.

Finally, the biggest issue we have is our debt. If we truly want to be competitive, we HAVE to find a way to retire the millstone around our neck that is a $200 million dollar debt.

Can we use any of the AI 2020 money on that? If not, do we do another fundraiser for that and other projects specifically? I think it has been interest only in the past, but if it rolls to a fully amortizing loan and/or has a reset, we could be in huge trouble based on current interest rates.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Can we use any of the AI 2020 money on that? If not, do we do another fundraiser for that and other projects specifically? I think it has been interest only in the past, but if it rolls to a fully amortizing loan and/or has a reset, we could be in huge trouble based on current interest rates.

The AI 2020 funds were designated, which means the money has to be used as given. The percentages/amounts are hidden in the details, but precious little, if any, will go towards debt retirement. AI 2020 was designed to give us money we could use BECAUSE our debt hinders us.

 

[roadkill]

A few points. AI 2020 initiative began while CPJ was HC, it wasn't designed to support "regime change." We raised our current operations from 12 mil to 38 mil, but if we fire CGC we will eat 7.2 million out of that budget. Paying Clawson's buyout, also likely high since he just inked that contract last November means we are probably looking at between 10-12 million in buyouts for next year. (Because Wake is private, exact figure is not known for Clawson, but a 3-5 million figure is likely conservative) That means if we do open our wallets for a HC, we likely can't afford the assistants we need to make the new HC successful.

Now, to your other point, it's one thing to get people to mobilize behind a one time program with tangible results such as a new EDGE center, weight rooms, etc. Getting our fanbase to donate to the GTAA itself has been historically hard. To say they aren't communicating the need is disingenuous as well, as I routinely get emails and calls from my ticket rep asking me to consider raising my donation levels.

Finally, the biggest issue we have is our debt. If we truly want to be competitive, we HAVE to find a way to retire the millstone around our neck that is a $200 million dollar debt.

Where can one find details about our $200M debt? For example, is it a bond, which would explain why we are only making interest payments? If so when is its maturity date?

 

[GTLorenzo]

The AI 2020 funds were designated, which means the money has to be used as given. The percentages/amounts are hidden in the details, but precious little, if any, will go towards debt retirement. AI 2020 was designed to give us money we could use BECAUSE our debt hinders us.

But didn't we raise $50 more than planned? What happens to those excess funds?

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

But didn't we raise $50 more than planned? What happens to those excess funds?

Because they were designated for AI 2020 they can only be used for AI 2020 scope projects.

Most likely will go to endowments and/or operational budget which was included in AI 2020.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Where can one find details about our $200M debt? For example, is it a bond, which would explain why we are only making interest payments? If so when is its maturity date?

The best explanation I've found so far...

Georgia Tech Football: Show Me the Money

You’ve got the brawn debt / I’ve we’ve got the brain analysis and suggestions / let’s make lots of money.

www.fromtherumbleseat.com

 

[GTLorenzo]

Because they were designated for AI 2020 they can only be used for AI 2020 scope projects.

Most likely will go to endowments and/or operational budget which was included in AI 2020.

Would be interesting to see what those other uses may be, like endowment or other "physical assets" which may give you the ability to pay off some debt? Not sure if that is really spelled out in anything the public has access to.

 

[takethepoints]

With what money? That seems to be the sticking point. We will be paying a hefty amount to CGC just to have him not coach.

See the post below yours. The cash is there for the asking, provided someone wants to ask.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

See the post below yours. The cash is there for the asking, provided someone wants to ask.

See my reply below that. I don't think it really is.

 

[RonJohn]

See the post below yours. The cash is there for the asking, provided someone wants to ask.

There are posts that seem to speculate that the money is there. However, if you look at an athletic association financial statement or at the year by year on the Knight Commission reports it is plain that there is not more money coming in than going out: https://knightnewhousedata.org/fbs/...f-technology#!quicktabs-tab-where_the_money-1 There are buckets of money that the athletic department has, but most of that is tied up in endowments, from which they can only use the earnings and only for the purpose that the endowment was set up.

If you compare GT to the mutts, GT brings in about $86 million and spends about $85 million. ($86 million in revenue is not very good compared to other P5 programs) The mutts bring in about $170 million and spend about $124 million. The HC for the mutts makes about $8 million more per year than the HC at GT. The buyout for the GT HC at the end of last season was about $12 million. There is absolutely no room in the GT budget for that. There were vague statements that the buyout money was made available by donors, but I still have not seen any on the record statement by anyone who would actually have knowledge that verifies it. The mutts could raise their HC's SALARY by $12 million per year and have it fit in their budget every single year. They could also raise the assistant coaching SALARY pool by $12 million and have it fit in their budget every single year.

If someone wants to look through the financial statements or the Knight Commission reports and finds some mysterious money that I didn't see, I will be happy to hear about it and take another look.

 

[Vespidae]

There are posts that seem to speculate that the money is there. However, if you look at an athletic association financial statement or at the year by year on the Knight Commission reports it is plain that there is not more money coming in than going out: https://knightnewhousedata.org/fbs/...f-technology#!quicktabs-tab-where_the_money-1 There are buckets of money that the athletic department has, but most of that is tied up in endowments, from which they can only use the earnings and only for the purpose that the endowment was set up.

If you compare GT to the mutts, GT brings in about $86 million and spends about $85 million. ($86 million in revenue is not very good compared to other P5 programs) The mutts bring in about $170 million and spend about $124 million. The HC for the mutts makes about $8 million more per year than the HC at GT. The buyout for the GT HC at the end of last season was about $12 million. There is absolutely no room in the GT budget for that. There were vague statements that the buyout money was made available by donors, but I still have not seen any on the record statement by anyone who would actually have knowledge that verifies it. The mutts could raise their HC's SALARY by $12 million per year and have it fit in their budget every single year. They could also raise the assistant coaching SALARY pool by $12 million and have it fit in their budget every single year.

If someone wants to look through the financial statements or the Knight Commission reports and finds some mysterious money that I didn't see, I will be happy to hear about it and take another look.

As I recall, there area about 20 schools that bring is huge dollars, about 20 that break even or post a small surplus and the rest ... basically lose money on athletics. Tech isn't any more or less worse, except for all the debt. There simply is no extra room to work with.

 

[GoldZ]

A President of a land grant U would be fired. Tech is not a land grant U and it's leadership is not judged on athletics. I can assure you that if Bobby Raine (richest man in Alabama) wants the President of Auburn fired, the decision will be discussed at a boardroom in a bank in Montgomery, followed by a call to Governor and it's over.

Auburn's AD Greene was recently forced out despite having a great year in both basketball and baseball. Most sports are doing very very well. What's not? Football. Even the new president got the message: Don't renew his contract. We need a football guy.

While I do agree that Leadership is required, I doubt we will ever get it. In my view, Tech has tolerated athletics and if it keeps the alumni base happy and contributing $$$, fine. Simply put, a championship athletics program is not required for Tech to fulfill its mission. If we go 7-5 until the end of time, I think most involved would be happy.

Bud Petersen's comments ring true in my ear: "My only responsibility to Georgia Tech Athletics is to appoint the Athletics Director." It was true then, true now and will probably be true a decade from now.

Vespidae, I know full well who is and isn't a land grant U. I also know more than a little about how AU works. We are in agreement about likely not getting the necessary leadership. This is the very core of my multiple post on this thread. I don't however agree that Tech couldn't significantly modify it's support of the football program. Not likely, but neither was our '90 MNC.

 

[GT33]

Where can one find details about our $200M debt? For example, is it a bond, which would explain why we are only making interest payments? If so when is its maturity date?

We were rolling it over either late 2020 or early 2021 before the interest rates spiked. If we didn’t do that, fire Stansbury now. It was his top priority. The threat of looming higher interest rates was well understood. I never did get confirmation it happened and at what interest rate but what where they were was very favorable short term and long term.

 

[GT33]

The buyout for the GT HC at the end of last season was about $12 million. There is absolutely no room in the GT budget for that.

I’ve posted before the reason why at the end of last season Collins the value of his buyout was essentially the same for then, end of this season and end of next season. It’s not just the size of the buyout it’s the diminishing revenue and the amount of years and ensuing financial damage to repair digging a deeper ditch. It was the whole financial premise behind the movement to replace him in December. It’s essentially a wash. Stansbury made a choice to give him another year and is hoping for the best.

 

[GT33]

The AI 2020 funds were designated, which means the money has to be used as given. The percentages/amounts are hidden in the details, but precious little, if any, will go towards debt retirement. AI 2020 was designed to give us money we could use BECAUSE our debt hinders us.

I’m not sure if I’d call $37M in Unrestricted Operations funds precious little money, it’s a little less than a half a year’s revenue for us. That was able to be used on anything Stansbury wanted including debt reduction or coaches salaries or make up for lost season ticket revenue, etc. The other approx $138M we raised went to scholarships, funded coaches that weren’t funded before, etc (asked $25M and got $37M ) and the rest went to other assorted capital projects (asked $88 got $102)
projects.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I’m not sure if I’d call $37M in Unrestricted Operations funds precious little money, it’s a little less than a half a year’s revenue for us. That was able to be used on anything Stansbury wanted including debt reduction or coaches salaries or make up for lost season ticket revenue, etc. The other approx $138M we raised went to scholarships, funded coaches that weren’t funded before, etc (asked $25M and got $37M ) and the rest went to other assorted capital projects (asked $88 got $102)
projects.

It's a one time infusion, though. We don't have that on an annual basis. How do we get that kind of additional revenue routinely is the question. Right now we have the equivalent of a big stimulus check. We can buy something nice with it but we can't depend on it every year.