Outstanding Article on CFB, Atlanta, GT, & HBCU's

[ATL1]

How Atlanta became the capital of college football

http://www.espn.com/college-footbal...ll-playoff-national-championship-home-atlanta

This is excellent writing and journalism.

 

[Techster]

Everybody? Not only does Atlanta sit at the geographic heart of the SEC and the ACC, two of the conferences that make up the Power 5, but five years ago, when the Big Ten expanded to 14 teams, the league didn't take Rutgers until it had been turned down by Georgia Tech. Atlanta has brought in so many transplants that nearly half of the Power 5 schools have alumni watch parties on autumn Saturdays.

Interesting.

 

[The Rev.]

Good read (and I am a fan of Maisel's writing) but I must question the following:

"...five years ago, when the Big Ten expanded to 14 teams, the league didn't take Rutgers until it had been turned down by Georgia Tech."

Living in Big Ten territory, I had heard rumors about this, but I am dubious that Georgia Tech was ever given the chance to actually turn down the Big Ten and its BTN money. It would seem more likely that the B16 and their network decided to go after Rutgers because they wanted the NYC market.

Anybody know any more about this....?

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

How Atlanta became the capital of college football

http://www.espn.com/college-footbal...ll-playoff-national-championship-home-atlanta

This is excellent writing and journalism.

Totally agree.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Everybody? Not only does Atlanta sit at the geographic heart of the SEC and the ACC, two of the conferences that make up the Power 5, but five years ago, when the Big Ten expanded to 14 teams, the league didn't take Rutgers until it had been turned down by Georgia Tech. Atlanta has brought in so many transplants that nearly half of the Power 5 schools have alumni watch parties on autumn Saturdays.

Interesting.

I was not aware of that either. Five years ago I might have been in favor of it, but not now.

 

[Techster]

But Atlanta was a Tech town under Dodd and remained so until the mid-1960s, when Georgia hired 31-year-old Auburn assistant Vince Dooley. As he entered the SEC in 1964, Dodd took Georgia Tech out of the conference. He didn't like the league's liberal scholarship limits.

It proved to be a spectacular miscalculation by Dodd. In the next two years, the Braves moved to Atlanta from Milwaukee and the NFL awarded an expansion franchise to the city. The Falcons, trying to curry favor with the locals, wore a helmet with Georgia and Georgia Tech colors: red, black, gold and white stripes.

....

Tech became irrelevant for nearly two decades. It let the other schools enter the facilities arms race. The ACC threw Tech a lifeline, beginning in 1983, but even then, Dodd, by then long retired, understood how the landscape had changed. He had watched Curry, his former player, take Georgia Tech from 1-10 to 9-2-1. But when Curry left Georgia Tech after the 1986 season to take over at Alabama, Dodd said of his protégé, "It's a chance to be a big-time major football coach, which he could never be at Georgia Tech."

Ugh...was just talking about this in a post the other day. The decision that still haunts GT to this day.

 

[Techster]

I was not aware of that either. Five years ago I might have been in favor of it, but not now.

ACC is the best fit for GT right now, although GT lost a LOT of money in the years we had to wander the desert due to leaving the SEC. It's unfortunate because Dodd didn't have the patience to work within the system and SEC instituted the scholarship rule a few years later. But it was too late for GT, and in some ways, Dodd's hard headed idealism cost GT greatly.

 

[jgtengineer]

Good read (and I am a fan of Maisel's writing) but I must question the following:

"...five years ago, when the Big Ten expanded to 14 teams, the league didn't take Rutgers until it had been turned down by Georgia Tech."

Living in Big Ten territory, I had heard rumors about this, but I am dubious that Georgia Tech was ever given the chance to actually turn down the Big Ten and its BTN money. It would seem more likely that the B16 and their network decided to go after Rutgers because they wanted the NYC market.

Anybody know any more about this....?

Tech to the big 10 was more about research partnerships than sports actually. Plus atlanta market, but more importantly they wanted a peace of that GT research share.

 

[g0lftime]

Big 10 wanted more visibility in GA for recruiting and games in the south later in the season. GT is not really a good fit for Big 10 but has a good brand outside GA as an outstsnding university. Would have put B10 in the southeast. BB travel would have been even worse in winter. I still don't like ND in the ACC until all in for ALL sports. These bigger conferences make strange bedfellows.

 

[GTL]

As he entered the SEC in 1964, Dodd took Georgia Tech out of the conference. He didn't like the league's liberal scholarship limits.

I think this is incorrect. Dodd didn't like scholarship limits period. When someone committed to Tech, he got a full 4-year scholly even if he was injured on the first day of practice and never played a down. When the SEC imposed scholarship limits, this policy put Tech at a disadvantage because the other schools would simply pull scholarships from players who didn't produce (or force them out or whatever) and that was against Dodd's philosophy.

Of course, not long after GT pulled out of the SEC, the NCAA imposed scholarship limits, negating the reason for leaving in the first place. I understand why Dodd felt it necessary to leave the SEC, and perhaps it's now hindsight, but certainly an ill-advised move.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I think this is incorrect. Dodd didn't like scholarship limits period. When someone committed to Tech, he got a full 4-year scholly even if he was injured on the first day of practice and never played a down. When the SEC imposed scholarship limits, this policy put Tech at a disadvantage because the other schools would simply pull scholarships from players who didn't produce (or force them out or whatever) and that was against Dodd's philosophy.

Of course, not long after GT pulled out of the SEC, the NCAA imposed scholarship limits, negating the reason for leaving in the first place. I understand why Dodd felt it necessary to leave the SEC, and perhaps it's now hindsight, but certainly an ill-advised move.

I’m not sure we’d be any better off than we are now had we stayed in the SEC.

 

[travgt01]

ACC is the best fit for GT right now, although GT lost a LOT of money in the years we had to wander the desert due to leaving the SEC. It's unfortunate because Dodd didn't have the patience to work within the system and SEC instituted the scholarship rule a few years later. But it was too late for GT, and in some ways, Dodd's hard headed idealism cost GT greatly.

Would it have been worked out if gt hadn't left? I doubt it.

 

[Jacket in Dairyland]

Good read (and I am a fan of Maisel's writing) but I must question the following:

"...five years ago, when the Big Ten expanded to 14 teams, the league didn't take Rutgers until it had been turned down by Georgia Tech."

Living in Big Ten territory, I had heard rumors about this, but I am dubious that Georgia Tech was ever given the chance to actually turn down the Big Ten and its BTN money. It would seem more likely that the B16 and their network decided to go after Rutgers because they wanted the NYC market.

Anybody know any more about this....?

Agree. IMO, they didn't want another Purdue. Limited curriculum. Relatively small(er) fan base that doesn't travel particularly well. Rutgers, to me , was and is , a headscratcher.

 

[Jacket in Dairyland]

Another interesting , but unmentioned , circumstance was that Dodd retired in 1966 and the first black football player enrolled at Kentucky in 1967. By 1970 , most teams in the South, Tech included, were giving scholarships to black athletes ( long overdue in my opinion). Perhaps Dodd , who I have no reason to believe was opposed to the trend, just saw the game as undergoing a tremendous change and raising the level of competition for schools like Tech ( smaller and specialized). Just my thoughts.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Tech to the B1G was a hot topic a few years ago during conference realignment. The looming grant of rights was a major limiting factor in the move, having been previously signed in the new TV deal.

But the B1G did come calling. The B1G wanted UVA, GT, & UNC if they could get them. Gaining the ATL TV market would have been the big coup, not the teams on field success. After all, $$$$ is what drives everything in college football.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

ACC is the best fit for GT right now, although GT lost a LOT of money in the years we had to wander the desert due to leaving the SEC. It's unfortunate because Dodd didn't have the patience to work within the system and SEC instituted the scholarship rule a few years later. But it was too late for GT, and in some ways, Dodd's hard headed idealism cost GT greatly.

Too much pride has led to a great many failures. Dodd had the moral high ground on this issue but let his pride lead him to an extremely poor decision. C’est la vie.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

I’m not sure we’d be any better off than we are now had we stayed in the SEC.

One way we would be better off is that there would be few games at BDS that were only half capacity attendance. Many in attendance would probably be fans of the opposing teams, but if Tech won a few big games, then Tech fans would start to fill it up.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Many in attendance would probably be fans of the opposing teams, but if Tech won a few big games, then Tech fans would start to fill it up.

I looked at the attendance figures a couple of years ago going back to the 1996 season. This argument really hasn't held an water since the stadium was expanded. I looked at % of capacity by season. Since 2003, the first year with the expanded stadium, we've drawn the following:

Year %Cap W-L Stadium Capacity
2003 96% 7-6 55000
2004 85% 7-5 55000
2005 94% 7-5 55000
2006 92% 9-5 55000
2007 91% 7-6 55000
2008 86% 9-4 55000
2009 94% 11-3 55000
2010 84% 6-7 55000
2011 88% 8-5 55000
2012 80% 7-7 55000
2013 90% 7-6 55000
2014 88% 11-3 55000
2015 92% 3-9 55000
2016 86% 9-4 55000
2017 85% 5-6 55000

Now, as a means of comparison, here are the numbers from 96-2002.

1996 98% 5-6 46000
1997 94% 7-5 46000
1998 88% 10-2 46000
1999 100% 8-4 46000
2000 96% 9-3 46000
2001 102% 8-5 41000
2002 99% 7-6 43719

Winning a few big games hasn't historically drawn more fans. Even in 1998 we only drew 88%. I think we need to do more than win a few games to get the fans back. I am not certain what all that will entail, but I know it's more than just the Wins and Losses keeping people at home.

 

[iceeater1969]

One way we would be better off is that there would be few games at BDS that were only half capacity attendance. Many in attendance would probably be fans of the opposing teams, but if Tech won a few big games, then Tech fans would start to fill it up.

Cheese
Sure is obvious to me why we would be better of $ wise.
With the difference in opponent fan attendance SEC verses acc (per VEST) we would increase season ticket sales. Season ticket sales would increase to marginal ga tech alumni fans and side walk fans who could sell their good seats tickets for dollars to the rabid sec fans and pay for them. The smallish Bds would always be sold out. Just imagine the uga game with Florida, tennesse, Alabama verses the Duke and uva games. Sure was fun in 65&66 when we played tenn and auburn. To me It's clear gtaa would get more $ for coaches, staff and recruiting .
I know of 10 side walk fans that went to Alabama Clemson and are half are headed to atl for Monday headed. The coastal acc has a amount tiny side walk fan base.


How about better athlete wise? Would playing against sec teams attract better athletes? Maybe some what better, but hard to say because we could be a door mat like Baylor was in b 12. Recruiting to a packed BDS verses watch we have now would be easier. So I think we would be a team that would have a much better record against the Dukes and u v a so of the world, but since we don't play them I think our record would be worse than it is now., With the additional money perhaps we would find away to recruit nationally and coach up teams to be occasionally competitive.




So back to Cheeses point , would be be better off having more money but having more tough games or less money and fewer tough games.

After tech all my efforts were headed down the former tract and not the latter. I can see both sides as I really don't like crowds that much.

We are we're we are.
Go Jackets,please don't loose to Duke and UVA again!

Talk about lowered expectation!

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

I looked at the attendance figures a couple of years ago going back to the 1996 season. This argument really hasn't held an water since the stadium was expanded. I looked at % of capacity by season. Since 2003, the first year with the expanded stadium, we've drawn the following:

Year %Cap W-L Stadium Capacity
2003 96% 7-6 55000
2004 85% 7-5 55000
2005 94% 7-5 55000
2006 92% 9-5 55000
2007 91% 7-6 55000
2008 86% 9-4 55000
2009 94% 11-3 55000
2010 84% 6-7 55000
2011 88% 8-5 55000
2012 80% 7-7 55000
2013 90% 7-6 55000
2014 88% 11-3 55000
2015 92% 3-9 55000
2016 86% 9-4 55000
2017 85% 5-6 55000

Now, as a means of comparison, here are the numbers from 96-2002.

1996 98% 5-6 46000
1997 94% 7-5 46000
1998 88% 10-2 46000
1999 100% 8-4 46000
2000 96% 9-3 46000
2001 102% 8-5 41000
2002 99% 7-6 43719
You were at most of the games in 2017, and you're telling me we had an average of 85% capacity (55,000) for the season? I sure didn't see that from where I sit. Those numbers may reflect the number of tickets sold, but they sure don't reflect reality. However, my point was that if we were in the SEC and played 7 or 8 SEC games each year, with half of them being at BDS, the opposing fans alone would fill up the stadium. Obviously that's not something we want, but I believe that eventually the percentage of our fans to opposing fans would switch and BDS would be more like it was in up until the 70s. Of course that increased percentage of Tech fans in the stadium would be contingent on us winning. But like it or not, SEC teams draw a helluva lot more fans than ACC teams do. I actually think that Big 10 teams would too. I think we are where we belong now (in the ACC), but I also believe that Dodd made the biggest possible blunder ever in taking us out of the SEC.
Winning a few big games hasn't historically drawn more fans. Even in 1998 we only drew 88%. I think we need to do more than win a few games to get the fans back. I am not certain what all that will entail, but I know it's more than just the Wins and Losses keeping people at home.