Paul Johnson's job

[MWBATL]

We are dead last in ticket sales of public schools in the ACC, embarrasing.
We are dead last in contributions of public schools in the ACC, embarrasing.

OK, so you guys have now caused me to dig deeper to find the truth...and here it is....

First of all, the USA Today article is solid BUT it sometimes does not know how to classify Income. So, in GT's case, they threw a bunch of stuff into "Other" (about $15.9MM) while for the other ACC schools they had no trouble categorizing income. The GTAA financial reports lists around $10MM in ticket sales PLUS $5 MM in Club seats/Suites PLUS $5 MM from the Tech Fund. The USA Today report lists ticket revenues at a bit over $9MM. So, to remedy this confusion I have taken what USA Today reports as Ticket Sales, Contributions and Other and lumped them together. On that basis GT alumni spend about $287 per person. Virginia alums spend $202 per person, while UGa alums spend $210 per person. Virginia Tech alums spend only $148 per person. Now, I will add that financial reporting in this arena is inconsistent from university to university. But, Bill Battle at Collegiate Licensing Corp once told me that the GT alumni base was the highest giving base PER CAPITA in the Southeast. Theses numbers suggest that may be true.

And take me back to my point...what more revenue? Get more alumni! You simple cannot be as small a school as we are and expect to draw tons of fans and get tons of money. But then, that likely would require expanding our base beyond engineering, which so many people seem to hate or oppose.

As has been pointed out by others TV revenues have in fact evened the playing field on revenues for all colleges.

As a footnote, Clemson alums are probably amongst the tops in per capita spending these days, close to us but perhaps a smidgen ahead. Miami is below us and UNC is well below us and I did not bother with any other schools.

 

[decatur jacket]

Bohannon is doing a great job at Kennesaw i think they'll finish 8-3 this season

He will do great until the rest of the league "figures out" his offense. Then he's done.

 

[Vespidae]

There should be no reason Tech could not double that figure. We need a truly competitive fund raising operation. I get more letters and calls from my high school than Tech ...

 

[Milwaukee]

Didn't read through the entire thread, but someone sent me this today.

 

[Techster]

Didn't read through the entire thread, but someone sent me this today. View attachment 1925

It's probably going to be shown to a recruit (or a 100) this recruiting season as well.

"Why go to a school who's head coach openly questions the school's commitment to investing in YOU?!" or some spin along those lines.

Really wish CPJ would have kept it behind closed doors. We already have a tough time recruiting, no need to add self inflicted wounds.

 

[Vespidae]

Living through the 1-10 Bill Curry years, I would love to be a Top 25 team ... 9-2, 8-3, occassionally 10-1, sometimes 7-4.

If you look at the very top programs, their revenue is all north of $100mm a year.

Engineers are trained to get the highest use out of the fewest resources. Properly motivated, Tech could do it.

However, that said, I dont believe The Hill is committed to athletics as much as tolerates it.

 

[g0lftime]

What exactly defines commitment? Is it donations, changing entrance requirements, changing cirriculum, better facilities, more pay? Who needs to be committed? The fan base, the coaching staff, the GTAA, the president, the faculty? You can't fix a problem until you understand the root case. Give us some specifics.

 

[RonJohn]

OK, so you guys have now caused me to dig deeper to find the truth...and here it is....

First of all, the USA Today article is solid BUT it sometimes does not know how to classify Income. So, in GT's case, they threw a bunch of stuff into "Other" (about $15.9MM) while for the other ACC schools they had no trouble categorizing income. The GTAA financial reports lists around $10MM in ticket sales PLUS $5 MM in Club seats/Suites PLUS $5 MM from the Tech Fund. The USA Today report lists ticket revenues at a bit over $9MM.

They do have an explanation page. These numbers were provided to the NCAA, they were not pieced together by USA Today. The explanation page does state that some of the schools interpret items a little differently. However:

The ticket sales number is face value of tickets sold. No AT Fund(Preferential seating according to the methodology page on the article). The contributions number is any individual contribution to the athletic association, including preferential seating donations. The "Other" is a catch all for items which include game guarantees(which I don't think GT had any in 2015), money from endowments, sports camps, etc. I don't know what all income GT placed in the other category.

However, it is pretty clear that GT is dead last for public schools in the ACC in face value of tickets sold. That is pretty embarrassing.

Most of my ranting about these items has had to do with people complaining that the "administration" or the "hill" is not supporting athletics enough. It is pretty obvious from the NCAA reporting that GT students and the school are putting equivalent dollars into the athletic association as all other ACC schools except Virginia. If the fans want to spend the same amount of money as Lousiville and FSU, the students cannot pay $40MM more in student fees and the school cannot pay $40MM more in taxpayer money. The only place left for the money to come from is from the fans. It could be corporate licensing, but there has to be enough fan enthusiasm to get corporations to sign up for licensing. So, it all comes down to whether the fans will pay up or not.

If you can come up with a realistic way for the taxpayers or the students to provide an additional $40MM, please describe how that would work.

 

[Vespidae]

I think I covered that in an earlier post.

As a school, both The Hill and GTAA, are we organized in such a way to deliver $100mm in revenue needed to run a Top 25 program? No.

I can only refer to published sources, but the fact that Bobinski's top achievement is a strategic plan tells me the GTAA has no vision. Is it Top 25? Top 5 of comparable schools? Most efficient?

I've never heard Peterson or the GTAA articulate their goal. Until then, we can do a gap analysis.

 

[Jerry the Jacket]

Nothing new here. Georgia Tech is a difficult. It is unique and it is damn hard to make it through school and is damn hard to win in football, basketball and any other endeavor the school pursues. You know what, that is what makes the experience valuable. Yes you have to have commitment because the expectations are very high and few can achieve them. Johnson embraced those expectations when he took the job. He said he embraced them as things that made Georgia Tech such a special place and looked forward to selling the Georgia Tech difference.

I think what has happened is that Coach Johnson has run out of gas. Georgia Tech is fine, nothing has changed and it's time to quit whining and get back to work.

Go Jackets!

 

[ATL1]

Here's a thought.

http://furtherreview.blog.myajc.com/2016/10/05/techs-johnson-sending-wrong-message/

 

[DvilleJacket]

Didn't Johnson say when he got here he could win a NC with our talent?

 

[VolJacket]

No

If GT has one day soon has to go the College Football Head Coach up and comers route Scott Satterfield of Appalachian State would be a very good pick. He's done a very good job at Appalachian State bringing it up to FBS level and the Sunbelt Conference.

 

[zhavenor]

No. Just left behind the lack of a guaranteed contract. Tulane realized he was really good and offered a good deal.

I think is referring to the probation, scholar ship reduction, that Southern is on now.

 

[AE 87]

I understand how dwags could twist what he said. I understand how it could be used against us in recruiting. I can't understand how fans can get it wrong

In the immediate context he also said something like, "Can we beat Clemson? Yes."

There's a difference between being able to beat somebody when you're dialed in and focused and having the expectation that should beat them given the inequalities.

 

[JacketFromUGA]

I listened to the quote as he said it. The expectation is winning every game against them. Not winning any game against them.

 

[33jacket]

I understand how dwags could twist what he said. I understand how it could be used against us in recruiting. I can't understand how fans can get it wrong

In the immediate context he also said something like, "Can we beat Clemson? Yes."

There's a difference between being able to beat somebody when you're dialed in and focused and having the expectation that should beat them given the inequalities.

This is exactly what i was arguing about pitt in reverse. That gt should beat pitt every year. Ie the expectation. Can pitt beat us. Yes. But as a program we should beat them each year.

Paul is saying similar. Look having an expectation to beat them yearly is off. He is right. That program took a step and is at another level now. But does that mean we cant beat them. Of course not. Its just to call it an expectation is silly.

What he said is right. He said it wrong. And probably didnt need to do it they way or in public

 

[Techster]

Here's a thought.

http://furtherreview.blog.myajc.com/2016/10/05/techs-johnson-sending-wrong-message/

The message that Johnson put out there again this week was dubious on another front, too. Questioning commitment can be dangerous. For it is not uncommon for a program to recommit itself to winning by first bringing in a new coach with a new approach.

Yikes.

 

[OldJacketFan]

You know if Hummer is going to run with this he ought to be gracious enough to run the entire statement from PJ. But that the fishwrapper at it's best.

 

[VolJacket]

You know if Hummer is going to run with this he ought to be gracious enough to run the entire statement from PJ. But that the fishwrapper at it's best.

The AJC is just a UGAG rag