Official MBS Announcement: 5 Games over 5 Years

ATL1

ATL1

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,377
WreckinGT said:
Most teams can do the same thing if they want to. They aren't doing it for some reason.
Click to expand...

No most teams can’t go 1.8 miles and play in a 2 billion dollar stadium with national exposure without having to play in title game one. No not many at all. This is extremely rare. For five years straight. Ridiculous.
 
Whiskey_Clear

Whiskey_Clear

Banned
Messages
10,486
ATL1 said:
No most teams can’t go 1.8 miles and play in a 2 billion dollar stadium with national exposure without having to play in title game one. No not many at all. This is extremely rare. For five years straight. Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

But if MBS was 20 or even 10 miles away instead would you no longer support the move? Does distance really matter to most. 1.8 is better than ten or twenty unless a further distance limits my commute.

But the distance involved has zero affect on my ability to enjoy a marquee game in my favorite stadium in the world.

Some love this decision. You do it seems and I wouldn’t attempt to construe your opinion as “ridiculous.” Others will hate it for their own reasons. I don’t understand why so many seem to take differing opinions personally and label those opinions as “ridiculous thoughts.”
 

WreckinGT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,198
ATL1 said:
No most teams can’t go 1.8 miles and play in a 2 billion dollar stadium with national exposure without having to play in title game one. No not many at all. This is extremely rare. For five years straight. Ridiculous.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of teams in the country within a reasonable driving distance to their local NFL stadiums and could rent them out for home games if they really felt like it.

I really question this notion of exposure as well. What are people expecting to happen that wouldn’t have happened if the games were at BDS? Are we expecting ESPN to give us better time and channel slots? Are we expecting national media to cover us more because the game is in a pro stadium? What are the actual tangible exposure benefits we are expecting here?
 
stech81

stech81

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,962
Location
Woodstock Georgia
TooTall said:
To rebuild BDS would take a while. I don't trust the half of Texas A&M stadium that was torn down and rebuilt in 7 months. So............I wonder where we will play when major renovation to the stadium happens:pompous::pompous::pompous::pompous:.

This is not just a 5 year plan people. I'm starting to believe that AI202 and the games at MBS are part of a 20+ year plan for us. So, buckle up and enjoy the ride:cigar::cigar::cigar::cigar:
Click to expand...
I worked in Construction it can be done faster you may not want to pay the price.
 

Wrecked

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
590
Gold1 said:
So lets say the games go great and we win a couple and we make a lot of cash. What's stopping Tstan from scheduling 2 or 3 games a year at MBS?
Click to expand...
Nothing. And that is going to be the end result if this is successful, he would be foolish not to leave BDS for the Benz and more revenue.
 
Southpawmac

Southpawmac

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,111
WreckinGT said:
There are plenty of teams in the country within a reasonable driving distance to their local NFL stadiums and could rent them out for home games if they really felt like it.

I really question this notion of exposure as well. What are people expecting to happen that wouldn’t have happened if the games were at BDS? Are we expecting ESPN to give us better time and channel slots? Are we expecting national media to cover us more because the game is in a pro stadium? What are the actual tangible exposure benefits we are expecting here?
Click to expand...
Well TCU and Ohio St changed a game to AT&T Stadium last year and it was an 8pm ESPN game. Similar situation, so you would hope for a similar outcome. Also, I feel that having a press conference with the leaders of each group was them setting these up marquee special games, and I doubt Aurther Blank wants MBS to be seen as just a run of the mill, mid-day game location. Noon games don’t really sell the marquee matchup in a world class stadium picture.
 
ATL1

ATL1

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,377
WreckinGT said:
There are plenty of teams in the country within a reasonable driving distance to their local NFL stadiums and could rent them out for home games if they really felt like it.

I really question this notion of exposure as well. What are people expecting to happen that wouldn’t have happened if the games were at BDS? Are we expecting ESPN to give us better time and channel slots? Are we expecting national media to cover us more because the game is in a pro stadium? What are the actual tangible exposure benefits we are expecting here?
Click to expand...

No. There’s not a lot of teams with the access GT. Hell there’s only a handful P5 institutions that have urban campuses. You can literally walk from GT to MBS.
 
bobongo

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,760
Wrecked said:
Not possibly, it will. You have to follow the money.
Click to expand...

Slippery slope arguments are themselves a kind of slippery slope - they get out of hand, fast. We're not tearing down Grant Field. We're just playing a few at MBS that will attract more fans than the home ballyard can hold. If we get to the point where GF will no longer hold enough fans for the rest of our games, it will be expanded, I'm quite sure. We aren't going to give up the oldest stadium in Division 1 college football to permanently rent a stadium that may be here down the road, or may not. Not going to happen.
 

TheSilasSonRising

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,729
Supersizethatorder-mutt said:
Suppose that had been said when they rebuilt the west stands or when they added the upper deck to both the east and west stands? Although maybe someone should have at least objected to the design of the upper east deck, with its original support pillars that blocked views of the field in the lower deck. At any rate, wanting to improve the stadium doesn't mean we don't appreciate it; we just want to make it even better than it is. And the ideal place to start, if not rebuilding the entire stadium, would be with the east side, lower and upper.
Click to expand...

Actually a lot of that was said, in so many words, in years gone by.

That led to part of the stadium almost being condemned the week of one of our opening games (vs so. Carolina IIRC) because a retaining wall had to be rebuilt. And to the embarrassing bathroom situation under the old South Stands. They looked worse than the bathrooms at centuries old prisons.

But why couldn’t we just be happy?

Screw the old Tech Man mentality. It is past time to start fighting the best fight we can.
 

TheSilasSonRising

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,729
WreckinGT said:
There are plenty of teams in the country within a reasonable driving distance to their local NFL stadiums and could rent them out for home games if they really felt like it.

I really question this notion of exposure as well. What are people expecting to happen that wouldn’t have happened if the games were at BDS? Are we expecting ESPN to give us better time and channel slots? Are we expecting national media to cover us more because the game is in a pro stadium? What are the actual tangible exposure benefits we are expecting here?
Click to expand...

More $ for sure.

If it can be turned into a recruiting +, then our new staff are the ones that can do it.
 
jacket_fan

jacket_fan

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
759
Location
Milton, Georgia
There is one aspect I have not seen discussed in this long thread.

Does moving a game to another stadium help the team win? Some of the former players might chime in here because in my opinion, part of the home field advantage is the comfort of being in your own surroundings and normal routine. The look and feel of your home stadium helps pregame. And during the game.

I would be 100% behind this, no 110%, if it would help the team win. I know money is the motivator and I get it. But to me winning is pretty damn important. I suspect I will get skewed for this scenario, but let's say Tech loses to anyone in one of these games by a slim margin. Say a kicker misses a field goal because (fill in your reason because it was not played at BDS). Would it still be worth it? Or is the money and recruiting process more important?
 
bobongo

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,760
jacket_fan said:
There is one aspect I have not seen discussed in this long thread.

Does moving a game to another stadium help the team win? Some of the former players might chime in here because in my opinion, part of the home field advantage is the comfort of being in your own surroundings and normal routine. The look and feel of your home stadium helps pregame. And during the game.

I would be 100% behind this, no 110%, if it would help the team win. I know money is the motivator and I get it. But to me winning is pretty damn important. I suspect I will get skewed for this scenario, but let's say Tech loses to anyone in one of these games by a slim margin. Say a kicker misses a field goal because (fill in your reason because it was not played at BDS). Would it still be worth it? Or is the money and recruiting process more important?
Click to expand...

No, moving does not help us win the games that are moved. Money and recruiting will help us win more in the future.
 
bobongo

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,760
jacket_fan said:
So winning is less important than money and recruiting? Serious question.
Click to expand...

Money and recruiting help you win.

Look, you can't get anywhere playing scared. GT has made some bold moves lately. Some of them may not work out so well. But our trajectory is getting higher, and it's all going to work out better in the long run, I do believe.
 
Last edited:
Top