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

[Augusta_Jacket]

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.

There is no question that tickets sold is greater than the number of butts in seat. The official attendance records are from the GTAA, however, so it is the data I had available. With the caveat that actual attendance is most likely worse, it further proves the point I was making. Winning a few big games has not historically boosted attendance.

As to your other point, sure, being in the SEC would almost certainly improve attendance. The problem is that the additional fans would likely not be wearing GT colors, and I don't know how much that helps either. I also am not sure that our fans would magically just start showing up eventually because of the conference we are in. As it is, the ACC has been one of the top 2-3 conferences in the FBS for the past few years, and it hasn't moved the needle on attendance. Big games do, but again, mostly not our fans filling the extra seats.

 

[stech81]

There is no question that tickets sold is greater than the number of butts in seat. The official attendance records are from the GTAA, however, so it is the data I had available. With the caveat that actual attendance is most likely worse, it further proves the point I was making. Winning a few big games has not historically boosted attendance.

As to your other point, sure, being in the SEC would almost certainly improve attendance. The problem is that the additional fans would likely not be wearing GT colors, and I don't know how much that helps either. I also am not sure that our fans would magically just start showing up eventually because of the conference we are in. As it is, the ACC has been one of the top 2-3 conferences in the FBS for the past few years, and it hasn't moved the needle on attendance. Big games do, but again, mostly not our fans filling the extra seats.

Sad but true.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

There is no question that tickets sold is greater than the number of butts in seat. The official attendance records are from the GTAA, however, so it is the data I had available. With the caveat that actual attendance is most likely worse, it further proves the point I was making. Winning a few big games has not historically boosted attendance.

As to your other point, sure, being in the SEC would almost certainly improve attendance. The problem is that the additional fans would likely not be wearing GT colors, and I don't know how much that helps either. I also am not sure that our fans would magically just start showing up eventually because of the conference we are in. As it is, the ACC has been one of the top 2-3 conferences in the FBS for the past few years, and it hasn't moved the needle on attendance. Big games do, but again, mostly not our fans filling the extra seats.

I don't disagree with your points, but the fact is that winning DID influence attendance up until the 70s when we started losing, pro sports came to Atlanta, and Georgia got VD (pun intended). Dodd once said that if Grant Field held 75,000, it would be full for every game. Of course, it's easy to say that when you win most of your games and are up against traditional rivals every year. The only traditional rivals we have in the ACC are Clemson and Duke.

 

[Techster]

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

One thing some of you keep forgetting is the financial hit GT took when we left the SEC. Dodd thought, wrongly, that the GT brand would carry us like it did when we were in the SEC. GT was THE team in Atlanta and surrounding suburbs during that time. Two decades of playing in a sparsely attended BDS games cost GT untold amounts of money, and because our product was so poor, GT also ceded ground to UGA. What's one of GT's biggest issues now? Funding...if you understand the time value of money, you'll understand that all the money lost back then due to leaving the SEC doomed us for decades.

The older GT fans can probably address this better than I can, but from what I've read, GT use to have VERY well attended games. Obviously, that meant having lots of fans that were not GT grads or students. It wasn't like it is now where our attendance also depends on opposing fans attending.

In terms of on the field product, seriously, it's not like GT would have been a punching bag in the SEC. GT definitely wasn't a punching bag when we left the SEC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Dodd Oh, did I mention how much money GT lost?

Plain and simple: Dodd let his personal feelings and idealism get in the way of what was best for GT. In a way, Dodd's reasons were selfish, and it cost GT dearly.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

The older GT fans can probably address this better than I can, but from what I've read, GT use to have VERY well attended games

I started going to games in 1962, when I was a freshman. Every game was either full capacity or near to it, and that's not just the SEC games. And the majority of the fans in the stands were Tech fans, even for the Georgia game. It all started going downhill in the 70s.

 

[ClydeBrick]

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.

It is also a somewhat disrepectful that they talk about the 1928 and 1952 teams without mentioning that they are considered MNCs by GT - especially the 1952 team.

The Associated Press can DIAF.

 

[redmule]

I'm still PO'ed at Heisman's wife. If he had stuck around we'd have two or three more MNC's, and the Heisman would be awarded every year on Grant Field.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I don't disagree with your points, but the fact is that winning DID influence attendance up until the 70s when TVs became readily available in the households of America...

FIFY.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

FIFY.

TVs were readily available in the households of America in the 60s, but not that many games were televised. Obviously the plethora of football games on the tube hurt, but I don't think that alone was the problem since it was a problem shared by every school in the country. At Tech, it was losing and playing mostly unpopular teams that did Tech in, because too many people found other things to do or better games to attend.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

TVs were readily available in the households of America in the 60s, but not that many games were televised. Obviously the plethora of football games on the tube hurt, but I don't think that alone was the problem since it was a problem shared by every school in the country. At Tech, it was losing and playing mostly unpopular teams that did Tech in, because too many people found other things to do or better games to attend.

It's more than that. Add professional teams to the sports market, growing tv programming, scheduling non-regional teams instead of the SEC schedule, etc.

Though they didn't help, losing seasons aren't the only reason attendance declined, and it will take more than winning seasons to grow a fan base that attends faithfully as well.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

It's more than that. Add professional teams to the sports market, growing tv programming, scheduling non-regional teams instead of the SEC schedule, etc.

Though they didn't help, losing seasons aren't the only reason attendance declined, and it will take more than winning seasons to grow a fan base that attends faithfully as well.

Pretty sure I have already said everything you just said.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Pretty sure I have already said everything you just said.

Yeah, but at your age you forget so fast...

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Yeah, but at your age you forget so fast...

Apparently you forgot what I had posted yourself, while I remembered.

 

[sgreer]

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.

Winning seasons do not seem to help attendance or recruiting that's for sure. I can't believe the fan base has not grown over my 40+ years of going to games.

 

[sgreer]

I don't disagree with your points, but the fact is that winning DID influence attendance up until the 70s when we started losing, pro sports came to Atlanta, and Georgia got VD (pun intended). Dodd once said that if Grant Field held 75,000, it would be full for every game. Of course, it's easy to say that when you win most of your games and are up against traditional rivals every year. The only traditional rivals we have in the ACC are Clemson and Duke.

I have

One thing some of you keep forgetting is the financial hit GT took when we left the SEC. Dodd thought, wrongly, that the GT brand would carry us like it did when we were in the SEC. GT was THE team in Atlanta and surrounding suburbs during that time. Two decades of playing in a sparsely attended BDS games cost GT untold amounts of money, and because our product was so poor, GT also ceded ground to UGA. What's one of GT's biggest issues now? Funding...if you understand the time value of money, you'll understand that all the money lost back then due to leaving the SEC doomed us for decades.

The older GT fans can probably address this better than I can, but from what I've read, GT use to have VERY well attended games. Obviously, that meant having lots of fans that were not GT grads or students. It wasn't like it is now where our attendance also depends on opposing fans attending.

In terms of on the field product, seriously, it's not like GT would have been a punching bag in the SEC. GT definitely wasn't a punching bag when we left the SEC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Dodd Oh, did I mention how much money GT lost?

Plain and simple: Dodd let his personal feelings and idealism get in the way of what was best for GT. In a way, Dodd's reasons were selfish, and it cost GT dearly.

Another factor will be the momentum that uGa has going. Heck, I have family members that were Tech fans growing up and defected after the 1980 NC. It will be tough to gain new sidewalk fans due to this.