1. Welcome to Georgia Tech Swarm! JOIN US and be a part of the SWARM! GO JACKETS! THWg!

What's different now?

Discussion in 'Georgia Tech Football' started by techman, Feb 14, 2020 at 8:35 PM.

  1. techman

    techman Jolly Good Fellow

    Were we able to get better players in the late '80s and 1990 when we won the Natty than we are able to get now? If so, why? What's different now?
  2. Lotta Juice

    Lotta Juice Helluva Engineer

    Everything's different
    GT14, CTJacket, Adadu and 6 others like this.
  3. JacketOff

    JacketOff Helluva Engineer

    Literally everything. Comparing college football in 2020 to 1990 is like comparing the War on Terror to World War 1.
  4. SoMsJacket

    SoMsJacket Ramblin' Wreck

    GT14, GoldZ, Jacketman and 4 others like this.
  5. Oldgoldandwhite

    Oldgoldandwhite Helluva Engineer

    It’s harder to find that diamond in the rough. We hit the jackpot on the Swillings, Bell, the two Colemans, and especially Jones. Filled in with a host of really good finds.
    DvilleJacket, iceeater1969 and Yoda like this.
  6. BCJacket

    BCJacket Helluva Engineer

    Yes 100%. Also, the internet. Think about it, back in the 80's how did coaches find kids to recruit? They would hear about them through their network. High school coaches would tell them about a great kid they had - which was basically effective in the immediate area. Or the kids had to self recruit by contacting the school, going to a camp. How did coaches communicate with recruits? Had to call them at home or send a letter snail mail. If they wanted to see film on a kid someone had to literally film it or use a camcorder in the 90s and physically mail the video.

    Now, a coach in California can pull up 247 and see all the kids Bama thinks is worthy of an offer and watch video of them on Hudl all in in 30 seconds. Tweet at them, email, text, whatever. Geographic distance still matters, but it's not a barrier to contact and communication.
  7. GSOJacket

    GSOJacket Helluva Engineer

    I don't have detail, but I doubt we were next to last in the conference financially back then. This is not a trivial problem, and short of a major windfall, it's not going away quickly. It impacts funding of facilities, recruiting, and coaching talent.
    CTJacket, Squints and iceeater1969 like this.
  8. BCJacket

    BCJacket Helluva Engineer

    As of 2017, the latest public data, Tech was 10th out of 15 (including ND) and within 10% of the #6 team VT. Tech was lower under Sasquatch. Things are improving under TStan. I expect the 2018-2020 numbers (when released) will be even better.

    Miami, Clemson, ND and FSU are on a different level, but the rest of the ACC is right around where Tech is now.

    This is specifically Football spending. Tech is lower on total athletics, but we sponsor fewer sports.
  9. GSOJacket

    GSOJacket Helluva Engineer

    Here's what I saw (from 2017):

    Here’s the numerical order of how much each ACC school spent on football; the accompanying national rank is in parentheses.

    The numbers include a variety of factors: coaching staff salaries, academic aid and recruiting finances. The AP states, though, two critical factors aren’t baked into this cake: money paid to coaches through multimedia partners, and cash put towards facilities.

    1. Florida State (No.2): $42.46 million
    2. Notre Dame* (No. 4): $38.97 million
    3. Clemson (No. 10): $34.67 million
    4. Virginia Tech (No. 16): $31.15 million
    5. Miami (No. 25): $28.47 million
    6. Duke (No. 36): $23.47 million
    7. North Carolina (No. 37): $23.46 million
    8. Louisville (No. 38): $23.43 million
    9. Syracuse (No. 39): $23.22 million
    10. Pittsburgh (No. 40): $23.13 million
    11. Boston College (No. 48): $21.35 million
    12. Virginia (No. 51): $20.33 million
    13. NC State (No. 54): $19.19 million
    14. Georgia Tech (No. 61): $17.38 million
    15. Wake Forest (No. 63): $16.61 million
    The thing that doesn't show up here is that our high debt load doesn't give us much flexibility.
  10. 684Bee

    684Bee Helluva Engineer

    we’ve historically done more with less. Imagine what we could do with more! Time to give.
  11. forensicbuzz

    forensicbuzz Helluva Engineer

    The AD at ND makes over $3M/year in total compensation.

    The AD at Northwestern has a compensation package over $1.5M.

    I think Stansbury is a steal at the original salary.
  12. iceeater1969

    iceeater1969 Helluva Engineer

    As to money::::
    2016 TO 2018 - Texas A M """"increased"""" donations by 20$million.
    OURS STAYED FLAT AT 11$million.

    I hope that cgc and his staff of gt alumni get tightwad alumni to donate for staff.
  13. TheSilasSonRising

    TheSilasSonRising Helluva Engineer

    Gee, I wonder if the “Alumni Association “ might be of some assistance?
  14. stinger 1957

    stinger 1957 Helluva Engineer

    Bobby Ross was one heck of a coach before he ever came to GT, thought we were really lucky to get him at the time, was not upset at all when BC left and we got Ross. I wasn't here during that era, but seems like they recruited players they could develop just like our current staff seems to be doing.
    Seems to me Dabo built Clemson with lots of 3 stars, I love coaches that can do that.
  15. BCJacket

    BCJacket Helluva Engineer

    Those are the Financial year 2015 #s. Which would have been released 2017. The public data lags by 2 years. 2015 was a particularly bad year for Tech.

    Most recent numbers FY 2017 per https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/:


    ACC over time (Doesn't include Pitt, Cuse, L'ville and ND) Not color coordinated by school colors because Excel is weak.

  16. rhino gold

    rhino gold Georgia Tech Fan

    COJacket likes this.
  17. GSOJacket

    GSOJacket Helluva Engineer

    Thanks for the update, BCJacket. It looks like the top four are breaking away (and VPI could probably re-join if they could rekindle enthusiasm in their program). Miami is something of a surprise, but I guess they're trying to stay within shouting distance of FSU in spite of their lack of results.
    COJacket likes this.
  18. takethepoints

    takethepoints Helluva Engineer

    EXCEL isn't "weak". It simply sucks big-time for any graphic presentation. It's as good as most spreadsheets for preparing small/middle square datasets. But once you do that, the whole shebang should be fed into either JAMOVI or R and analyzed using ggplot2. I'd use JAMOVI because it is menu-driven, based on R (it comes with a distribution of a subset of R that runs it), a lot of add-ons for various esoteric techniques, and it is FREE! FREE! FREE!

    Try it. You'll like it.

    Btw, great work. Always nice to come here and find some, you know, data analysis sprinkled in with the fan outbursts.

    Btw, part duex. We need to catch Puke this year. One step at a time here.
    ☠CaptainBuzz☠ and slugboy like this.
  19. BCJacket

    BCJacket Helluva Engineer

    Ok, ok, Excel isn't weak. I love Excel, I use it all day most days. But the colors not matching expected school colors is confusing for visual folks.

    How many schools have multiple discussions on the pros/cons of Excel for data analysis and graphics on their athletics board. :) Gotta love Tech fans.


    Duck Fuke. I'd bet we're well above them by now with TStans fundraising/marketing efforts.
  20. takethepoints

    takethepoints Helluva Engineer

    Especially for the 10% of the population that is red-blue colorblind. That's why I always told my students to use gray scale (ggplot2 has a bunch of them) though there is also a "colorblindfriendly" palette in R somewhere. See:


    for the gory details.

Share This Page