Stansbury Already Doing Work

[MountainBuzzMan]

Let's not forget reality. FBS attendance in general, is down. Of all P5 conferences, the ACC is last at 49,827 per game. Compared to the teams we play, Tech does pretty well.

The problem with filling the stadium is schedule. We don't play a lot of teams that have big draws in the area. Consistently play TN, Auburn, and Alabama ... and you'll see the stadium fill. But playing teams that don't draw a lot of fans themselves, it strains credibility that they will drive to Atlanta to watch a game. Even Clemson, which is only 2 hrs away, didn't fill out.

Free beer and stripper poles aren't going to fill a stadium. Playing opponents with a good draw, putting on a good product, and developing a local fan base of loyal alumni will.

Hence my comment about there needs to be more of an event that goes a little beyond just football. (I threw up a little just typing that, but the realities of today need to be understood and embraced) There is not much left to do with schedule. Especially once we go to 9 conference games. You may as well forget about consistently scheduling TN, Auburn and Alabama. Why post something that everyone knows will never happen. We are never going back to the SEC. Hell, Bama was even going to hose us out of our part of a home and home series with them.

Did anyone seriously suggest Free beer and stripper poles?

 

[SolicitorJacket]

I'm thinking free shots (whiskey clear, natch) passed out to the home crowd every touchdown.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I'm thinking free shots (whiskey clear, natch) passed out to the home crowd every touchdown.

You rang? And yes to free shots

Filling the stadium ain't worth a damn if full of opposing team fans. The answer isn't to play Tenn, Bama, Aubie (which I favor for other reasons). The answer is to get more alum butts in seats and try to create sidewalk fans that will attend also. Winning helps but it's still difficult at Tech when winning.

 

[Vespidae]

From a marketing point of view, there are two basic questions.

First, do I have a product? In football, the product is the game, the matchup. Ask your Bama, UT or Auburn buddies. Will they drive from Mobile to Tuscaloosa to see Bama play Carson-Newman? No. Will they drive to watch them play Texas A&M? Yes.

It's the same for Tech. Play a few attractive opponents and it gets people in the mindset of attending. Even Mighty Alabama suffers attendance issues when they have a crappy home schedule.

The second is the List. Do I have a marketable database from which to sell my product? Alabama, UT and other state schools draw students and non-students alike to buy. Second schools, like Tech, are far more selective and the alumni rolls are smaller. Far smaller.

That's why a booster program matters. It amplifies Awareness. Tech's Booster program pales in comparison to others. In the ACC, FSU derives a significant portion of its funding from the booster program, and not the school. Booster program also increase non-student interest by increasing awareness.

There are a few other issues around Awareness, Consideration, Trial, and Repeat rates, but my little Excel models say ... Tech is going to draw 50k a game and has upside to maybe 60 on a good day. We're probably never going to get to 70.

You can offer all the free drinks you want, but in the end, it's the product ... who is playing who ... that counts. And the list of folks who find it worth buying.

 

[LibertyTurns]

Vespidae,
Agree with the above but I guess I'd just like to see some indications that The Hill actually gives a crap about our major sports. I look at the erosion of the gameday experience and it signals to me a major chasm between the GT sports fans and academic elites that run the school.

We've got all these fancy new buildings now. Our academic programs are hailed to be in the top tier of the world, certainly the country yet the same dogged daily work that's put into academics is not put into athletics. Read GT's strategic plan and tell me what's missing- a commitment to athletics. It just isn't even on the radar.

We don't recruit high academic calibre student athletes like our peers do. We have a massive capability to leverage our technological expertise with athletics & look down our nose at it. We have alums with deep pockets but seemingly do everything we can to piss them off UNLESS they're interested in donating to academic endeavors.

Homecoming in disintegrating. Some you can blame on the globalization of the economy. Most you can blame on "taking the fun out of it". The Wreck Parade's now a joke. There used to be huge contraptions, now there's these little embarrassing things. There used to be a "festival" atmosphere on campus, now it's small isolated pockets.

As far as attracting top level teams to come here. Our stadium is too small which means either playing off campus or not at all. Bammer, etc doesn't want a challenging game that frankly would be embarrassing for them to lose. They'll play other top teams but they don't want to risk the indignity of losing to a "high school" offense type program & a bunch of nerds to boot. They lose to GT then ZERO chance of a national championship that year. Lost to FSU, etc & it's a "quality loss".

The list goes on but leadership starts at the top. Rebuilding the faanbase & turning the program around is a decade long proposition. GT has a "we want it now & we want it cheap" mentality & that's just not going to happen. I hope Stansbury has the passion & resilience to craft his vision & execute it AND our fanbase has the perseverance to allow him the time to do it.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Vespidae,
Agree with the above but I guess I'd just like to see some indications that The Hill actually gives a crap about our major sports. I look at the erosion of the gameday experience and it signals to me a major chasm between the GT sports fans and academic elites that run the school.

We've got all these fancy new buildings now. Our academic programs are hailed to be in the top tier of the world, certainly the country yet the same dogged daily work that's put into academics is not put into athletics. Read GT's strategic plan and tell me what's missing- a commitment to athletics. It just isn't even on the radar.

We don't recruit high academic calibre student athletes like our peers do. We have a massive capability to leverage our technological expertise with athletics & look down our nose at it. We have alums with deep pockets but seemingly do everything we can to piss them off UNLESS they're interested in donating to academic endeavors.

Homecoming in disintegrating. Some you can blame on the globalization of the economy. Most you can blame on "taking the fun out of it". The Wreck Parade's now a joke. There used to be huge contraptions, now there's these little embarrassing things. There used to be a "festival" atmosphere on campus, now it's small isolated pockets.

As far as attracting top level teams to come here. Our stadium is too small which means either playing off campus or not at all. Bammer, etc doesn't want a challenging game that frankly would be embarrassing for them to lose. They'll play other top teams but they don't want to risk the indignity of losing to a "high school" offense type program & a bunch of nerds to boot. They lose to GT then ZERO chance of a national championship that year. Lost to FSU, etc & it's a "quality loss".

The list goes on but leadership starts at the top. Rebuilding the faanbase & turning the program around is a decade long proposition. GT has a "we want it now & we want it cheap" mentality & that's just not going to happen. I hope Stansbury has the passion & resilience to craft his vision & execute it AND our fanbase has the perseverance to allow him the time to do it.

Although I agree with most of what you said, especially concerning Homecoming and the Wreck Parade. But if the following quote is really what you meant to say and not a typo, or unless it is sarcasm, I don't understand it ---

We don't recruit high academic calibre student athletes like our peers do

 

[Vespidae]

LibertyTurns,

I appreciate your frustration. I'm a 35 year Tech alum and have learned a lot about how Tech approaches athletics vs. how other top teams like UT, Auburn, and Bama. Here's my input ...

First, re The Hill. There's a lot of passionate discussion around "does the Hill care?" They don't. The financial support that the Institute provides athletics is essentially zero. In fact, the only financial support The Hill does provide is the waiver of out-of-state tuition for select athletes. This is a non-cash donation, so the net amount is ... zero.

Do I get upset about this? No. Why? It's consistent with almost every other FBS school and how they do it. There are a few exceptions, but in general ... the schools organize athletics using an "athletic association" which in our case, is the GTAA.

However, the Hill, more so that other institutions actively restricts the GTAA by refusing to allow them access to donor rolls and further, controlling all of the school's licensing and branding. In short, the Hill handcuffs the athletics program.

I don't think the Hill gives a whit about athletics. Yes, there is a strategic plan (and has been) to make Tech the pre-eminent STEM school in the country and it's now Nr 2 in engineering. Only last year did the GTAA finally publish a strategic plan. Ugh.

I think most of the blame for the GTAA lies with the GTAA. It has had anemic leadership for most of the last 20 years and seldom steps out of a very narrowly defined box. They could help themselves tremendously by exercising more leadership and less complaining. I am personally familiar with efforts of the organized fan bases at Bama, UT, FSU and Auburn. We have no comparable program to generate, at the local level, awareness in our programs and a convincing argument that this is where we need to spend our Saturday afternoons.

What's really interesting is that there are numerous studies to show the economic impact of sports on universities. And it's overwhelming positive. I just think the Hill doesn't see it as a priority and would be quite happy to be a Vanderbilt. If Bud Peterson put 5% of his efforts into improving the GT brand and the athletics, I do think we could field, consistently, a Top 25 team.

The sad part of this is that it is purely economic now. To field a competitive team in football requires an athletic revenue of about $100MM ... so you have to get really good at a) merchandising, b) recruiting (we suck at the process of recruiting IMHO), c) alumni and fan engagement, and d) community relations. If we do not put a plan together, it is inevitable ... the long slow slide to mediocrity. I would hate to become .... Rice.

I'm ranting now ... but let's just leave it this way: We have the program we have because The Hill and The GTAA are satisfied with the program we have. If they both sit down and decide what the vision for Tech athletics could and should be, I have no doubt they would succeed. They just haven't. And probably won't.

V

 

[65Jacket]

At one time I was leaving my entire estate to GT. Now I am leaving zero. If I thought they were giving fair support to GTAA and that GTAA would be strong going forward with strong support from the Hill, my feelings would change. As it stands, the rest of you can support the Institute.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

LibertyTurns,

I appreciate your frustration. I'm a 35 year Tech alum and have learned a lot about how Tech approaches athletics vs. how other top teams like UT, Auburn, and Bama. Here's my input ...

First, re The Hill. There's a lot of passionate discussion around "does the Hill care?" They don't. The financial support that the Institute provides athletics is essentially zero. In fact, the only financial support The Hill does provide is the waiver of out-of-state tuition for select athletes. This is a non-cash donation, so the net amount is ... zero.

Do I get upset about this? No. Why? It's consistent with almost every other FBS school and how they do it. There are a few exceptions, but in general ... the schools organize athletics using an "athletic association" which in our case, is the GTAA.

However, the Hill, more so that other institutions actively restricts the GTAA by refusing to allow them access to donor rolls and further, controlling all of the school's licensing and branding. In short, the Hill handcuffs the athletics program.

I don't think the Hill gives a whit about athletics. Yes, there is a strategic plan (and has been) to make Tech the pre-eminent STEM school in the country and it's now Nr 2 in engineering. Only last year did the GTAA finally publish a strategic plan. Ugh.

I think most of the blame for the GTAA lies with the GTAA. It has had anemic leadership for most of the last 20 years and seldom steps out of a very narrowly defined box. They could help themselves tremendously by exercising more leadership and less complaining. I am personally familiar with efforts of the organized fan bases at Bama, UT, FSU and Auburn. We have no comparable program to generate, at the local level, awareness in our programs and a convincing argument that this is where we need to spend our Saturday afternoons.

What's really interesting is that there are numerous studies to show the economic impact of sports on universities. And it's overwhelming positive. I just think the Hill doesn't see it as a priority and would be quite happy to be a Vanderbilt. If Bud Peterson put 5% of his efforts into improving the GT brand and the athletics, I do think we could field, consistently, a Top 25 team.

The sad part of this is that it is purely economic now. To field a competitive team in football requires an athletic revenue of about $100MM ... so you have to get really good at a) merchandising, b) recruiting (we suck at the process of recruiting IMHO), c) alumni and fan engagement, and d) community relations. If we do not put a plan together, it is inevitable ... the long slow slide to mediocrity. I would hate to become .... Rice.

I'm ranting now ... but let's just leave it this way: We have the program we have because The Hill and The GTAA are satisfied with the program we have. If they both sit down and decide what the vision for Tech athletics could and should be, I have no doubt they would succeed. They just haven't. And probably won't.

V

VERY VERY WELL SAID !!!

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Only been a GT fan for 4 decades now so I don't have the tenure of some of you nor the football team ties. It's not the same environment as it was in the Dodd glory days where the stadium was packed & people flocked to The Flats to watch GT play. Today many have jobs that are not 9-5, 5 days a week. Heck, I now work nearly 7 days a week and getting to the games is a chore (only missed 2 home games the last 3 years). Kids sports have exploded & many are year round. Alternatives abound to the traditional sports of days gone by. TV has impacted attendance significantly because before it was either watch in person or listen on radio. We can hope to evolve into Bammer or find the GT way.

I believe GT is in the center of a great town yet leverages none of the advantages its surroundings. Music is just one I cited to bring in people to the event. Back in my day there used to be a ton of live bands at the fraternity houses on game day. I think it provides something to the gameday experience that's missing today.

GT possesses a superior research capability but uses none of it to its advantage. Our stadium and surrounding areas should have top notch technology. The best video boards, acoustics, etc. Our athletes should have the best analytics at their disposal, we should be a leader in equipment design, etc. Where else should companies like Nike, UA go to in order to get access to athletes & designers/scientists/engineers than the best techological institute in the world? Maybe it helps with winning- it certainly couldn't hurt bringing in top coaches and recruits.

Kids are a key element whether we like to think so or not. Make a kid a fan when they're young & they're more likely to be a fan when they're older. Those that just arrived on campus need to be lured to the games as they often come from areas other than GA. We need to market to them to make them lifelong fans instead of saying "they're nerds & are not into sports".

Yeah I wish GT could field Top 10 teams every year but I'd have to go back 50+ years for the last time we had back to back Top 10 teams?? It was before my time. We won the 1990 National Championship & I don't remember attendance being off the chart good either during the run up or the year after. Maybe I'm mistaken because I was gone a lot during those years.

Stansbury has a big challenge. He needs a comprehensive approach to righting the ship. There's major challenges on every front- big donor support, debt service, fanbase spread all over the world and coming from all over the world, tough academics, major athletic program reputations leaving a lot to be desired, facilities needing upgrades because we lag the top competition, understaffed staffs, etc. I hope he transforms our athletic departments and I hope he has the vision & ability to execute.

Half the student body would rather swat a shuttlecock in their spare time than toss a football. Gnaw on that that for a while.

 

[SolicitorJacket]

Half the student body would rather Omnislash a bad guy on DOTA 2 in their spare time than toss a football. Gnaw on that that for a while.

Fixed it for ya.

 

[JacketFromUGA]

Fixed it for ya.

Hey I play Dota 2.

 

[JacketFromUGA]

http://www.espn.com/blog/acc/post/_...rector-instability-making-more-familiar-hires

 

[GTech63]

I didn't read all the comments but being in a NFL city is another obstacle to over come.

 

[TheSilasSonRising]

Has anybody ever asked why, whenever we have a successful run in football that within a year or two we seem to crash?

The "Hill" has people (that the alumni have allowed to gain power since the 60's) that have ZERO concept of the positive aspects a successful football program has on the entire school. From money, to enrollment (and increased quality of applicants), to, yes, academic prestige. It is a fact that has been proven at every successful university in the country, whether our elitist attitude will allow us to see it or not.

At GT, the Hill does not recognize that success as an opportunity, but rather as a threat. Those HillNerd azzwipes are, frankly, so smart as to be some of the biggest, dumbazz losers on the public dole.

The ONLY way at this time to get the point across to them is to divert the flow of the creek. Reroute the water supply until they can no longer handle their parched throats.

Like, I believe 65Jacket said, our estate no longer includes one penny to GT academics. That will be the only way for those bozos to learn the lesson of capitalizing on success, not seeing it as a threat.

But, sadly, too many have bought into the scam the Hill perpetuates.

 

[iceeater1969]

Has anybody ever asked why, whenever we have a successful run in football that within a year or two we seem to crash?

The "Hill" has people (that the alumni have allowed to gain power since the 60's) that have ZERO concept of the positive aspects a successful football program has on the entire school. From money, to enrollment (and increased quality of applicants), to, yes, academic prestige. It is a fact that has been proven at every successful university in the country, whether our elitist attitude will allow us to see it or not.

At GT, the Hill does not recognize that success as an opportunity, but rather as a threat. Those HillNerd azzwipes are, frankly, so smart as to be some of the biggest, dumbazz losers on the public dole.

The ONLY way at this time to get the point across to them is to divert the flow of the creek. Reroute the water supply until they can no longer handle their parched throats.

Like, I believe 65Jacket said, our estate no longer includes one penny to GT academics. That will be the only way for those bozos to learn the lesson of capitalizing on success, not seeing it as a threat.

But, sadly, too many have bought into the scam the Hill perpetuates.

Ditto.
I however give a small sum each year so as to main tain my perfect record.

 

[takethepoints]

I see the frustration with the Hill and the positive aspects of a successful football program.

Problem = the financial awards of successful football and general athletic programs cited above are for institutions that are very different from Tech. The people who don't want to see athletics having as big a role as many here would like have an easy answer to the argument: the shifts you are talking about wouldn't work the same way at Tech. What we have to do, they would say, is gear up to compete with MIT and CalTech. You might have noticed that they don't have major college athletic programs or students or donors who are attracted by them. You could point to Perdue and Rice in answer and they would say, correctly, that our athletic programs appear to be better then (Rice) or equal to (Perdue) the schools you are referring to. "Why are you complaining? Go away and let us run one of the best engineering schools in the world. Play games if you want, but don't bother us with it."

What is needed to change their minds is an argument that meets their lack of concern. Otherwise, we are asking them to change what is an imminently successful approach - Tech is one of the best engineering schools in the world - for a voyage in uncharted waters. Problem = there really isn't any school anywhere that I know of that meets the kind of criteria that would undermine their counter-argument. If anyone has a solution for this conundrum, I'd sure like to hear it.

 

[MWBATL]

Well, here's one angle that is a possible approach to help convince GT admin of the advantages of successful athletics.

First, understand that GT now considers itself deluged in applicants. The last thing they really want is more applicants. Further, they likely think the quality of the incremental applicants drawn by successful sports programs is inferior to their current applicant pool. GT admissions seeks help not in increasing applications, but in increasing the "hit" rate among accepted students. When GT accepts you, often so have a number of other quality schools. I believe our "get" rate is only around 50% because quality students have choices.

Truthfully, some (many?) of those quality students are nerds who may not be moved by a successful athletics program. But some might. Can Stansbury exploit this possible angle?

 

[gtcole]

Anybody attending this? I can't but I'm curious if he shares some new info.
https://staffcouncil.gatech.edu/rsvp

 

[33jacket]

umm, 2/3 of your athletic department board should not be professors. Lets start there. Nuff said