GT ranks #33 in football program monetary value

[dressedcheeseside]

http://www.ibj.com/the-score-2014-0...tball-riches-iu-tops-purdue/PARAMS/post/45498

I thought we'd be near the bottom of the barrel but apparently that's not the case. I guess all the fuss about not selling out BDS and our small fanbase is overblown.


Also, it appears we're a better business than a football team at the current moment.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Of course it is overblown. It comes from people who think in terms of the SEC or simply "big state flagship schools" as the paradigm for college football. There are ~120 DI (FBS) programs so clearly a full range of tiers or levels based on size of colleges, universities, and institutes involved in the sport. One logically needs to place their program into the proper group of schools to compare them to on similar issues such as stadium capacity, ticket sales, and fanbase size.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Of course it is overblown. It comes from people who think in terms of the SEC or simply "big state flagship schools" as the paradigm for college football. There are ~120 DI (FBS) programs so clearly a full range of tiers or levels based on size of colleges, universities, and institutes involved in the sport. One logically needs to place their program into the proper group of schools to compare them to on similar issues such as stadium capacity, ticket sales, and fanbase size.

On that note, we're the only STEM school that even plays FBS.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Then Tech is literally incomparable.

 

[nodawgs]

You forgot to divide by 3 and take into account average dollars per play. That's a better measurement. We're obviously number 1 if you do that.

 

[Tech First]

On that note, we're the only STEM school that even plays FBS.

I know I should know but what does STEM school mean?

 

[cyptomcat]

I know I should know but what does STEM school mean?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STEM_fields

 

[00Burdell]

I suppose that it should come as no surprise that the relative ranking of ACC team revenue pretty much mirrors the relative ranking of the football team itself. F$U then Clemson then VPSIU then GT.

Interesting points/questions...
■ We pull in more than Wake, Pitt, Duke and UVa combined.
■ Express the revenue figures on a per-alumnus basis and we have to be at or near the top.
■ How in the name of all that is Holy is Texas pulling in close to a billion dollars a year?

 

[GTNavyNuke]

I suppose that it should come as no surprise that the relative ranking of ACC team revenue pretty much mirrors the relative ranking of the football team itself. F$U then Clemson then VPSIU then GT.

Interesting points/questions...
■ We pull in more than Wake, Pitt, Duke and UVa combined.
■ Express the revenue figures on a per-alumnus basis and we have to be at or near the top.
■ How in the name of all that is Holy is Texas pulling in close to a billion dollars a year?

Texas brought in $131M last year. I talked to a Texas alum - many give $1000 a year. Also, I think there are several (or many) campuses that are all called "Texas" but in other states would be different colleges. Some one who knows can correct me on that.

Given that we had about 100,000 living alum last year, we do pretty good.

BTW GT Research Institute brought in $221M in 2011 research revenue. Not as sexy as football, but serious money regardless.

 

[Techster]

On that note, we're the only STEM school that even plays FBS.

No we're not:

http://www.usnews.com/education/blo...universities-that-grant-the-most-stem-degrees

We may be mainly known for STEM majors, and GT churns out a lot of STEM graduates, but pretty much every school on that list offers a STEM major. The irony is, the high majority of our scholarship football players are not STEM majors.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

No we're not:

http://www.usnews.com/education/blo...universities-that-grant-the-most-stem-degrees

We may be mainly known for STEM majors, and GT churns out a lot of STEM graduates, but pretty much every school on that list offers a STEM major. The irony is, the high majority of our scholarship football players are not STEM majors.

Yes we are. By my definition, if a school has 75% or higher of their granted degrees in STEM fields, they are a STEM school. No other school in the USA that grants this high a percentage of their degrees in STEM fields a FBS football team. Furthermore, it doesn't matter how many of our SA's are in STEM fields, imo. It has zero bearing on GT's definition and how that impacts recruiting and everything else associated with fielding a competitive football team at the highest level of competition.

 

[Techster]

Yes we are. By my definition, if a school has 75% or higher of their granted degrees in STEM fields, they are a STEM school. No other school in the USA that grants this high a percentage of their degrees in STEM fields a FBS football team. Furthermore, it doesn't matter how many of our SA's are in STEM fields, imo. It has zero bearing on GT's definition and how that impacts recruiting and everything else associated with fielding a competitive football team at the highest level of competition.

I did not know that. If it's true, source?

On the second point about our SA's, you are right, it's your opinion and you're welcome to it. My opinion is that GT is a hard school, but it's waaay overplayed by some on this board as there are more than enough high school SAs just in GA that could do really well at GT, it's just the coaches job to do recruit them. But luckily we don't have to just recruit in GA. It's hard to beat the STEM drum when the majority of our SA's aren't STEM majors...just my opinion.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I did not know that. If it's true, source?

On the second point about our SA's, you are right, it's your opinion and you're welcome to it. My opinion is that GT is a hard school, but it's waaay overplayed by some on this board as there are more than enough high school SAs just in GA that could do really well at GT, it's just the coaches job to do recruit them. But luckily we don't have to just recruit in GA. It's hard to beat the STEM drum when the majority of our SA's aren't STEM majors...just my opinion.

The source he used was the one you gave . . .

On 2nd point your opinion has less anecdotal validity given even just the last few higher ranked kids Tech landed who have had a difficult time getting in or staying eligible: Myles Autry; Travis Custis; Jabari Hunt-Days; and Junior Gnonkonde. It is also well hashed on this board the frequent cases in which certain kids have to wait until they improve their grades or get higher test scores before they can get that Tech offer. Also Tech recruiters have to get on kids very early in high school so that if they are interested in Tech they can be sure to take the right course-load in high school to be on target for getting in. It is reasonable to assume that these last two elements will not always be attractive to even high achieving academic kids, or at least they can potentially be real turnoffs when one has good academic schools like Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, UVA, Stanford, etc., being less demanding of what you study and do in high school.

These do not even entail DCS's frequent point that a high academic achieving high schooler has to actually be interested in degrees Tech has to offer. They pretty much can't be primarily interested in the humanities & liberal arts, that's for sure.

Finally . . . there is the impact of the bagmen. The one reporter who did a serious investigation of it claims that 100% of 5 star recruits and 75-80% of 4 star recruits are influenced by bribery into their choice of schools.

So where is the evidence for your generalization that there are "more than enough" high academic achieving AND high quality football potential kids to recruit simply in GA? Actually, what could even count as evidence for such a hopeful assumption?

 

[Northeast Stinger]

The source he used was the one you gave . . .

On 2nd point your opinion has less anecdotal validity given even just the last few higher ranked kids Tech landed who have had a difficult time getting in or staying eligible: Myles Autry; Travis Custis; Jabari Hunt-Days; and Junior Gnonkonde. It is also well hashed on this board the frequent cases in which certain kids have to wait until they improve their grades or get higher test scores before they can get that Tech offer. Also Tech recruiters have to get on kids very early in high school so that if they are interested in Tech they can be sure to take the right course-load in high school to be on target for getting in. It is reasonable to assume that these last two elements will not always be attractive to even high achieving academic kids, or at least they can potentially be real turnoffs when one has good academic schools like Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, UVA, Stanford, etc., being less demanding of what you study and do in high school.

These do not even entail DCS's frequent point that a high academic achieving high schooler has to actually be interested in degrees Tech has to offer. They pretty much can't be primarily interested in the humanities & liberal arts, that's for sure.

Finally . . . there is the impact of the bagmen. The one reporter who did a serious investigation of it claims that 100% of 5 star recruits and 75-80% of 4 star recruits are influenced by bribery into their choice of schools.

So where is the evidence for your generalization that there are "more than enough" high academic achieving AND high quality football potential kids to recruit simply in GA? Actually, what could even count as evidence for such a hopeful assumption?

Wow. How many times have I had this conversation with people.
If you are recruiting primarily in the South it does not help that Tech is searching among the worst high schools in the country as well as an overall culture that tends toward anti-intellectualism. Sure, the students are there sprinkled around here and there, but it is a fairly small pool compared to the cotton patches the factory schools are picking through. Were Tech located in California or the Mid West I guarantee recruiting would be easier.

 

[Techster]

The source he used was the one you gave . . .

On 2nd point your opinion has less anecdotal validity given even just the last few higher ranked kids Tech landed who have had a difficult time getting in or staying eligible: Myles Autry; Travis Custis; Jabari Hunt-Days; and Junior Gnonkonde. It is also well hashed on this board the frequent cases in which certain kids have to wait until they improve their grades or get higher test scores before they can get that Tech offer. Also Tech recruiters have to get on kids very early in high school so that if they are interested in Tech they can be sure to take the right course-load in high school to be on target for getting in. It is reasonable to assume that these last two elements will not always be attractive to even high achieving academic kids, or at least they can potentially be real turnoffs when one has good academic schools like Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, UVA, Stanford, etc., being less demanding of what you study and do in high school.

These do not even entail DCS's frequent point that a high academic achieving high schooler has to actually be interested in degrees Tech has to offer. They pretty much can't be primarily interested in the humanities & liberal arts, that's for sure.

Finally . . . there is the impact of the bagmen. The one reporter who did a serious investigation of it claims that 100% of 5 star recruits and 75-80% of 4 star recruits are influenced by bribery into their choice of schools.

So where is the evidence for your generalization that there are "more than enough" high academic achieving AND high quality football potential kids to recruit simply in GA? Actually, what could even count as evidence for such a hopeful assumption?

Sorry, still not seeing where my link says if a school has 75% or higher STEM majors, they are DESIGNATED a STEM school. As the first sentence in the article I linked to says :

What are the leading STEM universities in the U.S.?
As part of the U.S. News STEM Solutions conference, we are publishing an exclusive new list of the National Universities from our 2013 Best Colleges rankings that grant the largest proportion of bachelor's degrees in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math.

Yes, GT has one the highest proportions compared to other universities on the list DCS links to, but as you can see in that list (which includes Clemson, NC State, Duke...we are not even the only STEM school in the ACC), DCS original statement is false.

As for your examples of Autry, Custis, JHD...were they the only available kids in GA? No, they were the only kids in GA the staff could land. Past kids like Stephon Tuitt (Notre Dame...who was pretty much across the threshold), Jordan Jenkins (now at UGA), James Vaughters (Stanford), Deshaun Watson (Clemson) were all highly sought after GA kids that considered GT or were offered by GT but chose to go elsewhere. All of those guys were high academic caliber kids as well. For every kid that failed to do well at GT, there's another GA kid that GT recruited that's doing well academically at other schools. All because you're cherry picking kids that didn't take academics seriously or didn't want to do the work (see JHD's Dad's comment) doesn't mean you've proven anything. Calvin Johnson did alright here, and last I checked, he was a pretty decent player.

You can get into bagmen (which BTW, there's an interesting thread about that and how GT got the 2007 class...so we need to look at our own house before calling the kettle black), and how kids have to want to major in the degrees GT offers...but none of that refutes what I'm saying: Yes, GT is a STEM school, but so are other schools we compete against, but it's really overplayed considering the vast majority of our SAs are not even STEM majors. (and yes, the later is just my opinion).

BTW...have you noticed how well we're doing this recruiting class? What changed about GT that all of a sudden a higher tier of recruits want to play for us? Helps when you put people on the staff that are actually strong recruiters.

 

[Tech First]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STEM_fields

Thanks

 

[ATL1]

It would move higher if GT could win consistently.
When coming up GT was the ATL school & Jawja was some redneck school in Athens. Times are different now the SEC has blanketed a cloud over the city. If GT were to win & would when even say win sexy I could easily see GT being in the top 25 or better. I truly believe it could happen.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Sorry, still not seeing where my link says if a school has 75% or higher STEM majors, they are DESIGNATED a STEM school. As the first sentence in the article I linked to says :

What are the leading STEM universities in the U.S.?
As part of the U.S. News STEM Solutions conference, we are publishing an exclusive new list of the National Universities from our 2013 Best Colleges rankings that grant the largest proportion of bachelor's degrees in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math.

Yes, GT has one the highest proportions compared to other universities on the list DCS links to, but as you can see in that list (which includes Clemson, NC State, Duke...we are not even the only STEM school in the ACC), DCS original statement is false.

As for your examples of Autry, Custis, JHD...were they the only available kids in GA? No, they were the only kids in GA the staff could land. Past kids like Stephon Tuitt (Notre Dame...who was pretty much across the threshold), Jordan Jenkins (now at UGA), James Vaughters (Stanford), Deshaun Watson (Clemson) were all highly sought after GA kids that considered GT or were offered by GT but chose to go elsewhere. All of those guys were high academic caliber kids as well. For every kid that failed to do well at GT, there's another GA kid that GT recruited that's doing well academically at other schools. All because you're cherry picking kids that didn't take academics seriously or didn't want to do the work (see JHD's Dad's comment) doesn't mean you've proven anything. Calvin Johnson did alright here, and last I checked, he was a pretty decent player.

You can get into bagmen (which BTW, there's an interesting thread about that and how GT got the 2007 class...so we need to look at our own house before calling the kettle black), and how kids have to want to major in the degrees GT offers...but none of that refutes what I'm saying: Yes, GT is a STEM school, but so are other schools we compete against, but it's really overplayed considering the vast majority of our SAs are not even STEM majors. (and yes, the later is just my opinion).

BTW...have you noticed how well we're doing this recruiting class? What changed about GT that all of a sudden a higher tier of recruits want to play for us? Helps when you put people on the staff that are actually strong recruiters.

If you reread my post, you'll see I said "my definition" of STEM school is one that grants at least 75% of it's degrees in STEM fields. I couldn't find any actual definition anywhere so a drew the line somewhere that made sense to me. Just because a school offers engineering, you wouldn't call them a STEM school would you? Would you call UGA a STEM school?

Even if you drew the line at 50% for argument's sake, there would be only one other school in the US other than GT that meets that criteria and fields an FBS football team (Stanford).

My point is that we have a small pool of eligible targets. That goes to extremely small if you then want to talk about likely targets.

The fact that most of our football players do not major in STEM fields helps a little, but not as much as you think and certainly doesn't undo all the negative impact of GT being a STEM school.

Negative recruiting impacts of GT being a STEM school regardless of how many players actually major in STEM fields:
1. negative elitist perception
2. demanding course load no matter what you study
3. few girls and even fewer pretty girls. And I dismiss the whole "well we're in Atlanta" argument. The guys spend the vast majority of their time on campus. The female scenery in class and around campus is no comparison to most every school in the SE.
4. negative "nerd" perception. Some of us might revel in this, but trust me, most high school football players do not.
5. small fanbase
6. small stadium
7. football is not king with our students or alumni like it is on almost every other campus in the SE. If you took a poll on campus on which is more important school or football, you have a vast majority laughing in your face and saying school, duh. If you took another poll as to what is your favorite sport, football would not be #1. Most likely it'd be soccer or even badminton with our high asian student population.
8. small prestige factor. I'm not talking about academic prestige, either, that's pretty high. I'm talking the kind of prestige the modern social media crazed SA hungers for: the spot light created by ESPN and bigtime tv sports media. Even Stanford has that. That's why most kids would rather ride the pine at Bama than start for GT.

 

[Techster]

If you reread my post, you'll see I said "my definition" of STEM school is one that grants at least 75% of it's degrees in STEM fields. I couldn't find any actual definition anywhere so a drew the line somewhere that made sense to me. Just because a school offers engineering, you wouldn't call them a STEM school would you? Would you call UGA a STEM school?

Even if you drew the line at 50% for argument's sake, there would be only one other school in the US other than GT that meets that criteria and fields an FBS football team (Stanford).

My point is that we have a small pool of eligible targets. That goes to extremely small if you then want to talk about likely targets.

The fact that most of our football players do not major in STEM fields helps a little, but not as much as you think and certainly doesn't undo all the negative impact of GT being a STEM school.

Negative recruiting impacts of GT being a STEM school regardless of how many players actually major in STEM fields:
1. negative elitist perception
2. demanding course load no matter what you study
3. few girls and even fewer pretty girls. And I dismiss the whole "well we're in Atlanta" argument. The guys spend the vast majority of their time on campus. The female scenery in class and around campus is no comparison to most every school in the SE.
4. negative "nerd" perception. Some of us might revel in this, but trust me, most high school football players do not.
5. small fanbase
6. small stadium
7. football is not king with our students or alumni like it is on almost every other campus in the SE. If you took a poll on campus on which is more important school or football, you have a vast majority laughing in your face and saying school, duh. If you took another poll as to what is your favorite sport, football would not be #1. Most likely it'd be soccer or even badminton with our high asian student population.
8. small prestige factor. I'm not talking about academic prestige, either, that's pretty high. I'm talking the kind of prestige the modern social media crazed SA hungers for: the spot light created by ESPN and bigtime tv sports media. Even Stanford has that. That's why most kids would rather ride the pine at Bama than start for GT.

Eh...sorry, just because you arbitrarily designate some percentage (which favors your POV) doesn't mean the rest of the world needs to follow it. I'm going with the more respected US News (who BTW GT uses for marketing purposes when they recruit) for their designation of STEM universities.

As for the rest of your post, I don't disagree with it, it just doesn't have anything to do with my OP. Yes it's harder at GT (which I've stated already), but you either find a way to overcome them (as Stanford and Duke have) or you fold your tent and play somewhere else. College sports isn't fair, like the real world...not everyone is on the same playing field. It sucks, but is sucks more to complain about it and not do anything to improve the situation.

Luckily, AD Bobinski isn't one to complain and he's giving CPJ tools to level the playing field. CPJ has hired some coaches that are better recruiters than the ones that left, he's increased the recruiting personnel, and we're more active on social media getting our message out and controlling the narrative...all of which were big issues when CPJ first got here. We're seeing the impact of all of that now with better commits this recruiting cycle. It's harder getting the kids GT needs, but IT CAN BE DONE...and we're seeing it first hand now.

 

[Longestday]

@dressedcheeseside Leonard still gets Penny : ) I got mine: )

Most 16/17 year olds want to party with girls and have a good time. We need the 17 year olds that are more mature and value an education despite the negative attributes that education brings.

I would like to see a poll each year on why players picked GT:

• ***Relationship with the Coaches***
• Education
• Best D1 offer combined with the rest of this list
• Practice facilities
• Close to home/far enough away from home
• In Atlanta
• Best chance at early playing time / starting at a D1 school
• Best Athlete results after school outside of NFL?

Although I agree it may have some unconscious effect, I don't think you have an athlete say, "I am not a nerd and therefore I am not going to GT".

I want to take a risk here and say that many of our athletes come here for the education, the relationship they have built with the recruiting coach, and best D1 offer that has potential for early playing time. This has nothing to do with the mini 500.

We are not a factory that is consistently in the hunt for championships, consistently in the top 25, with a larger girl to guy ratio on campus, talked about by the media non stop, a school that you have followed since you were in middle school. Many want to play for a championship team that sends most of their people to the NFL and does not require them to go to class. The biggest negative we have is we are 7 and 6 the last few years and they make you go to hard classes. This is not rocket science to a 16/17 year old.