Why Did Georgia Tech Football Leave the SEC?

[boger2337]

IMO, there have been three seismic shifts in college football in the last 50 years:

1) Integration in the 60s and 70s
2) APR in 2003
3) TV money over last decade

With history unchanged, all three of these crossroads left Georgia Tech with a lesser ability to compete then the prior era (though impact of #1 was for relatively short period of time).

With history changed (staying the SEC), only #3 turns out differently. Most recent difference in conference distribution was approximately $14 million per year. Let's conservatively say that GT would have gotten an additional $50 million over the last decade. Would that mean better facilities, resources, etc? Probably. Would that mean more success/wins? Hard to say. Everyone else is getting that money too, so doesn't automatically equate to a competitive advantage.

I think the big variable is if staying in the SEC would have impacted the actions of the academic side. If the answer is no, then we're probably looking at a program similar to Vanderbilt.

My personal opinion is that it was the right move for the right reasons, though the steady slide from the departure from SEC to Homer Rice's arrival was demoralizing. The success of 1990 probably does not happen in the SEC. I also think the pride we have in the character of student-athletes isn't at the same level (which matters to some, including me).

I agree with all the above, but I do believe that less focus and pride in the academics is okay if it means winning 10 games a year. It's not like we would immediately be Alabama or Louisville in academics. I think we can be solid as a school and have a successful team. Notre dame has done well the past decade. Stanford, florida isn't bad at all. UNC did cheat, but hell we could of too if we were in the SEC lol.

Am I willing to sell my soul to be a blue blood? No.

My first born? Maybe. Hahaha

These all do have less intensive work

 

[CrackerJacket]

Leaving the SEC was a mistake because there was no viable destination plan in place.

Trying to be the ND of the South was a non-starter. My freshman year was 1971, and by then our facilities were significantly inferior to those of our former SEC rivals. I visited friends at FL, TN, and GA over the next year or so and was shocked at the differences between what their SAs and our SAs had to train and practice on. This would have magnified any recruiting disadvantages due to our limited # of available degree programs and tough course work.

Bottom line IMO is that leaving the SEC made us less competitive in general. We’d still have gotten hammered by most SEC rivals, but we’d have had more & deeper athletic talent. Don’t see how this would have compromised the rigor of our curricula.

 

[JacketOff]

IMO, there have been three seismic shifts in college football in the last 50 years:

1) Integration in the 60s and 70s
2) APR in 2003
3) TV money over last decade

With history unchanged, all three of these crossroads left Georgia Tech with a lesser ability to compete then the prior era (though impact of #1 was for relatively short period of time).

With history changed (staying the SEC), only #3 turns out differently. Most recent difference in conference distribution was approximately $14 million per year. Let's conservatively say that GT would have gotten an additional $50 million over the last decade. Would that mean better facilities, resources, etc? Probably. Would that mean more success/wins? Hard to say. Everyone else is getting that money too, so doesn't automatically equate to a competitive advantage.

I think the big variable is if staying in the SEC would have impacted the actions of the academic side. If the answer is no, then we're probably looking at a program similar to Vanderbilt.

My personal opinion is that it was the right move for the right reasons, though the steady slide from the departure from SEC to Homer Rice's arrival was demoralizing. The success of 1990 probably does not happen in the SEC. I also think the pride we have in the character of student-athletes isn't at the same level (which matters to some, including me).

I think it’s a little extreme to say Tech would be similar to Vandy as far as football success goes. Vandy has never been a successful program, and Tech was definitely a top tier program leading up to the SEC departure. I think the biggest factor in what GT athletics and GT in general would look like in this hypothetical would be how the USG treated Tech. Tech was the better football program between GT and UGA leading up to the departure, maybe with continued success in the SEC the USG would’ve allowed GT to expand in order to maintain competitiveness.

I think regardless of football success however, had Tech remained in the SEC, the baseball and basketball programs would absolutely be some of the top in the country. Vandy probably never would’ve rose to the prominence it currently has in baseball if GT was in the SEC.

I think at worst Tech is similar to Auburn in all sports. At best it’s more like Florida in everything

 

[TechCubed]

I agree with all the above, but I do believe that less focus and pride in the academics is okay if it means winning 10 games a year. It's not like we would immediately be Alabama or Louisville in academics. I think we can be solid as a school and have a successful team. Notre dame has done well the past decade. Stanford, florida isn't bad at all. UNC did cheat, but hell we could of too if we were in the SEC lol.

Am I willing to sell my soul to be a blue blood? No.

My first born? Maybe. Hahaha

These all do have less intensive work

ND, Stanford, Florida -- all good academic institutions but they are schools with broad curriculums. This is where the APR crossroads come into play. Schools had to decide whether to be real schools since progress towards a degree is required or create a "landing spot" where athletes could stay eligible in a semblance of a degree program. I think the million dollar question is would the actions of The Hill been different had GT had a taste of SEC money over the years? In the SEC, you could say at some point the tail starting wagging the dog as the power shifted from academics to athletics. Would that have happened at GT?

 

[TechCubed]

I think it’s a little extreme to say Tech would be similar to Vandy as far as football success goes. Vandy has never been a successful program, and Tech was definitely a top tier program leading up to the SEC departure. I think the biggest factor in what GT athletics and GT in general would look like in this hypothetical would be how the USG treated Tech. Tech was the better football program between GT and UGA leading up to the departure, maybe with continued success in the SEC the USG would’ve allowed GT to expand in order to maintain competitiveness.

I think regardless of football success however, had Tech remained in the SEC, the baseball and basketball programs would absolutely be some of the top in the country. Vandy probably never would’ve rose to the prominence it currently has in baseball if GT was in the SEC.

I think at worst Tech is similar to Auburn in all sports. At best it’s more like Florida in everything

That's fair, and I probably overreached to say Vandy. I think if the curriculum remained narrow (similar to it is now), GT would be closer to the bottom than the top. Had the curriculum and entrance requirements been expanded over the years, Auburn is better comparison. Think in other sports, GT would fare well.

The USG part of it is a big piece, but GT would also wanted to have expanded.

 

[boger2337]

ND, Stanford, Florida -- all good academic institutions but they are schools with broad curriculums. This is where the APR crossroads come into play. Schools had to decide whether to be real schools since progress towards a degree is required or create a "landing spot" where athletes could stay eligible in a semblance of a degree program. I think the million dollar question is would the actions of The Hill been different had GT had a taste of SEC money over the years? In the SEC, you could say at some point the tail starting wagging the dog as the power shifted from academics to athletics. Would that have happened at GT?

I certainly think being in the SEC would of pushed Tech to open new degrees and be more available for recruits.

Do I still wish that happens?? Hell yes.

 

[Pointer]

I certainly think being in the SEC would of pushed Tech to open new degrees and be more available for recruits.

Do I still wish that happens?? Hell yes.

New degrees is more board of regents issue.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

New degrees is more board of regents issue.

Yep. Tech has tried to add some degrees several times in the past which made total sense, but the BOR voted them down.

 

[boger2337]

New degrees is more board of regents issue.

Agreed. Just feel the weight of the SEC adding pressure or "financial aid" to grease some wheels would make it easier.

Bribes work lol

 

[WreckinGT]

I think we would be above Vandy but not by much. Probably in the Miss St/Arkansas tier. We would likely have the second worst attendance in the conference.

 

[GTFLETCH]

IMO, there have been three seismic shifts in college football in the last 50 years:

1) Integration in the 60s and 70s
2) APR in 2003
3) TV money over last decade

With history unchanged, all three of these crossroads left Georgia Tech with a lesser ability to compete then the prior era (though impact of #1 was for relatively short period of time).

With history changed (staying the SEC), only #3 turns out differently. Most recent difference in conference distribution was approximately $14 million per year. Let's conservatively say that GT would have gotten an additional $50 million over the last decade. Would that mean better facilities, resources, etc? Probably. Would that mean more success/wins? Hard to say. Everyone else is getting that money too, so doesn't automatically equate to a competitive advantage.

I think the big variable is if staying in the SEC would have impacted the actions of the academic side. If the answer is no, then we're probably looking at a program similar to Vanderbilt.

My personal opinion is that it was the right move for the right reasons, though the steady slide from the departure from SEC to Homer Rice's arrival was demoralizing. The success of 1990 probably does not happen in the SEC. I also think the pride we have in the character of student-athletes isn't at the same level (which matters to some, including me).

I think if Tech stays in the SEC it would help recruiting and thus I think our program looks like Auburn from a Football Win/Loss perspective not Vanderbilt....

I also do not think staying in the SEC would have negatively affected the academic side of our school.

As far as money goes, it will be interesting in the upcoming Decade (2020-30) to see how the ACCN $$ allows ACC athletics compete with the Big10 & SEC. While the ACC mess up the 2010 TV deal we got the ACCN right!

 

[YellowJacketFan2018]

Georgia Tech left the SEC because Bobby Dodd was upset that Bear Bryant and Alabama wasn't disciplined at all after the Chick Graning incident in 1961. It was a tremendous mistake when you look back at it now.

 

[gtstinger776]

IMO, there have been three seismic shifts in college football in the last 50 years:

1) Integration in the 60s and 70s
2) APR in 2003
3) TV money over last decade

With history unchanged, all three of these crossroads left Georgia Tech with a lesser ability to compete then the prior era (though impact of #1 was for relatively short period of time).

With history changed (staying the SEC), only #3 turns out differently. Most recent difference in conference distribution was approximately $14 million per year. Let's conservatively say that GT would have gotten an additional $50 million over the last decade. Would that mean better facilities, resources, etc? Probably. Would that mean more success/wins? Hard to say. Everyone else is getting that money too, so doesn't automatically equate to a competitive advantage.

I think the big variable is if staying in the SEC would have impacted the actions of the academic side. If the answer is no, then we're probably looking at a program similar to Vanderbilt.

My personal opinion is that it was the right move for the right reasons, though the steady slide from the departure from SEC to Homer Rice's arrival was demoralizing. The success of 1990 probably does not happen in the SEC. I also think the pride we have in the character of student-athletes isn't at the same level (which matters to some, including me).

why do you think integration was a headwind?

 

[boger2337]

I personally think we cannot view GT as it is today and compare it to the SEC.

I tend to think if GT stayed in the SEC we would of expanded the variation of degrees for SA. (SEC, Donors would of greased some wheels).

I tend to think we would have a larger fanbase. A much larger sidewalk fanbase.

What I think people are missing is that I think the SEC may of changed the direction of the school as a whole, to an extent. The SEC would support a team in Atlanta. The biggest deal I take away from it is the school would of been more athletics centric. Definitely more football centric. More in the ballpark of uga, Florida, Clemson. Where the public would know GT as a football school that has good academics. Not a school that also has football. We would be more the best both both worlds with maybe a slight dip in academics. Say a slip of 5-10 in the academic rankings which I'd be fine with if it means we win championships.

 

[Jerry the Jacket]

Water over the dam. All of this is speculation. It is what it is. In my opinion, leaving the SEC was a big mistake and altered the football destiny and culture of Georgia Tech. I wish we could go back and change it but we can't. Interesting to discuss but nobody really knows what would have transpired.

Go Jackets!

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Water over the dam. All of this is speculation. It is what it is. In my opinion, leaving the SEC was a big mistake and altered the football destiny and culture of Georgia Tech. I wish we could go back and change it but we can't. Interesting to discuss but nobody really knows what would have transpired.

Go Jackets!

Well, we DID at least try to go back and change it, when we applied for re-entry, in whatever year that was, and it was denied by the SEC teams, including Georgia and Bama, who both claimed they supported us initially, but turned on us in the end.

 

[TechCubed]

why do you think integration was a headwind?

I wasn't alive during this era, so I'm attributing this to my father (who graduated in early 70s): Prior to integration, Georgia Tech could be considered one of the "traditional powers" of college football, and the program had a strong foothold with some of the top HS programs in the south. As schools began to integrate and a new talent pool available, southern schools were slow to integrate. As they finally did, the larger, state schools with broad curriculums were better equipped to accept African-Americans, who had been relegated to subpar primary education for generations. So while other schools benefited from this infusion of talented players, it was a trickle at Georgia Tech. There is finally some normalization in the 80s, but the 60s and 70s saw GT left behind during the shift.

Others who saw it with their own two eyes may have additional or different perspectives. My point is that it was a pivotal moment in the history of college football, and Georgia Tech's standing was impacted by it.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

I wasn't alive during this era, so I'm attributing this to my father (who graduated in early 70s): Prior to integration, Georgia Tech could be considered one of the "traditional powers" of college football, and the program had a strong foothold with some of the top HS programs in the south. As schools began to integrate and a new talent pool available, southern schools were slow to integrate. As they finally did, the larger, state schools with broad curriculums were better equipped to accept African-Americans, who had been relegated to subpar primary education for generations. So while other schools benefited from this infusion of talented players, it was a trickle at Georgia Tech. There is finally some normalization in the 80s, but the 60s and 70s saw GT left behind during the shift.

Others who saw it with their own two eyes may have additional or different perspectives. My point is that it was a pivotal moment in the history of college football, and Georgia Tech's standing was impacted by it.

IMO Tech was ahead of the game in integration compared to other southern schools. Remember Greg Horne, Lucius Sanford, and (in spite of later problems, not of his own making) Eddie MacAshan. Unfortunately, the edge we had at that early point in time quickly disappeared when schools not having Tech's academic standards started recruiting and signing black kids, who just like white kids, weren't interested in Tech's academic offerings.

 

[YellowJacketFan2018]

I wasn't alive during this era, so I'm attributing this to my father (who graduated in early 70s): Prior to integration, Georgia Tech could be considered one of the "traditional powers" of college football, and the program had a strong foothold with some of the top HS programs in the south. As schools began to integrate and a new talent pool available, southern schools were slow to integrate. As they finally did, the larger, state schools with broad curriculums were better equipped to accept African-Americans, who had been relegated to subpar primary education for generations. So while other schools benefited from this infusion of talented players, it was a trickle at Georgia Tech. There is finally some normalization in the 80s, but the 60s and 70s saw GT left behind during the shift.

Others who saw it with their own two eyes may have additional or different perspectives. My point is that it was a pivotal moment in the history of college football, and Georgia Tech's standing was impacted by it.

Kentucky was the first team in the South with a black player in 1965 and Ole Miss was the last team in the South with a black player in 1972.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

I was mistaken in thinking that we had black players before McAshan. He and Greg Horne were apparently the first two at Tech, in 1971