(11-28-2018 04:38 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 04:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 04:12 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  Don't disagree with any of that, JR. I see it as something that's a very long way off though - possibly 30-50 years in the case of Clemson and FSU. There's just no interest on their end or with SC (and I suspect UF too).

I'm fine with the SEC going to 9 games though, and I think we get that relatively soon in addition to a +1 P5 requirement. That would actually solve a lot of the current issues some folks have with imbalanced conference schedules and permanent rivals. The fact that Sankey even addressed it at media days was interesting and it tells me it's very much on his mind.

I don't understand how you can say there is no interest when Florida had desired to sponsor Florida State in 2010 and sponsored them in '91 and Spurrier indicated that South Carolina were willing to sponsor Clemson in 2010. That's the reason Slive asked for a "Gentlemen's Agreement" that no in state rival be nominated until the renegotiation clause was fulfilled with 2 new markets first, and why Slive insisted that such stipulations would not be imposed in the future.

As to the timeline, 2035 would be when anything that might happen would happen.

Now what the message board crud did with that is another issue entirely and part of a great lie about the process.

Now as to 9 games, that should have happened with expansion to 14, and would be essential at 16.

I admitted I don't know much about UF.

I DO know that Clemson people are very happy in the ACC (because of easy schedules) and SC people are very happy with them being there (because of recruiting). Both schools are more than happy to continue playing OOC at the end of November. Unless there is just overwhelming pressure from the SEC, TV, and whoever the current coaches/ADs are, I just don't see it happening.

I wouldn't like it, but at the end of the day it would probably help SC if it happened. But I just can't imagine a scenario.

I'm sure Clemson people are presently happy with an easy path. But remember in 2010 that scenario was not on the board because Spurrier had the upper hand and Clemson was still mired in mediocrity. So, I'm talking about what went down at the executive level in 2010 and you are talking about how fans feel in 2018. Right now the ACC is a cakewalk for the Tigers so yeah, I can see that.

What the South Carolina and Florida administrations were worried about in 2010 was what further expansion would do in placing pressure on their money games with Clemson and Florida State since both schools ticket priority donations were centered around those games.

Heck in '91 it was a big enough concern that FSU was invited because in part of Florida's concerns. The big plan in '91 was to move to 16 and Clemson was in the mix. South Carolina got the invite when Clemson withdrew interest when F.S.U. headed to the ACC.

What the admins realize is that the current business and economic pressures are likely to again increase the size of the major conferences and that should we move beyond 16 playing their annual rivals will become quite difficult. Consequently that is the impetus for their interest in including them.

What the fans want, or don't want is an entirely different universe, and that includes the boosters sometimes as well.

If the SEC moves beyond 16, I look for another run at F.S.U. and Clemson.

(11-28-2018 04:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I'm sure Clemson people are presently happy with an easy path. But remember in 2010 that scenario was not on the board because Spurrier had the upper hand and Clemson was still mired in mediocrity. So, I'm talking about what went down at the executive level in 2010 and you are talking about how fans feel in 2018. Right now the ACC is a cakewalk for the Tigers so yeah, I can see that.

What the South Carolina and Florida administrations were worried about in 2010 was what further expansion would do in placing pressure on their money games with Clemson and Florida State since both schools ticket priority donations were centered around those games.

Heck in '91 it was a big enough concern that FSU was invited because in part of Florida's concerns. The big plan in '91 was to move to 16 and Clemson was in the mix. South Carolina got the invite when Clemson withdrew interest when F.S.U. headed to the ACC.

What the admins realize is that the current business and economic pressures are likely to again increase the size of the major conferences and that should we move beyond 16 playing their annual rivals will become quite difficult. Consequently that is the impetus for their interest in including them.

What the fans want, or don't want is an entirely different universe, and that includes the boosters sometimes as well.

If the SEC moves beyond 16, I look for another run at F.S.U. and Clemson.

I don't have the SEC executive contacts that you do; I only know what the administrations at SC and to a lesser extent Clemson desire. I wasn't really looking at it through a fans point of view, although I think that would line up with what both admins want as well, so no conflict there.

SC/Clemson is indeed a big money game and is crucial to selling season tickets, I agree with you on that.

I guess what I'm trying to say is the paradigm would have to switch quite dramatically (to probably 10 or 11 conference games), before the pressure would become so large that inclusion makes more sense than just playing out of conference. Moving to 9 conference games won't do it and maybe even 10 as long as there are still requirements for playing out of conference power opponents. When you get to 11 or 12 conference games then I think that's where the tipping point is, although I think that's closer to my 30-50 years than it is to 2035.

It's a unique rivalry, perhaps more unique than most around the country realize.

(11-28-2018 04:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 03:40 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 02:24 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 09:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Besides ATU, if the SEC moves to 9 conference games it's going to have to be dropped anyway.

I know South Carolina has no intention of dropping Clemson and Clemson likes playing 2 SEC schools/year so that series is safe.

I could see UGA/GT ending things at some point but not sure Kirby has the cache to do that (yet). Also GT will be hiring a new coach and who know what his thoughts will be.

The State of Georgia also has a Legislature that does appropriations to state universities, including powerful alumni of both schools. Kirby Smart ain't changing that.

Officials and fans of Alabama, Auburn, Miss. State, Ole Miss., Arkansas, Missouri, and LSU can easily exclaim they want nine conference games. They don't have other P5 schools in their respective states that don't exist or are already.in the SEC. The other seven do or can resume doing so (T a&m).

Look guys we are on the slow track to 12 P games. A step to 9 conference games will mean a step to 10 P games. If Texas joins the SEC at some point then A&M is a non issue. If Kansas ever joins then Missouri is a non issue. Should Florida State and Clemson ever join then those are dead issues as well.

The problem with Georgia Tech is simply compatibility. And I agree with both Kirby and with AllTideUp, there is no reason to continue that game from a competitive, profile, or recruiting stand point.

If the next round of realignment lands us two prizes from the Big 12 the pressure on Clemson and Florida State will become immense. Squeezing the scheduling is just a form of ratcheting up the pressure to secure the SEC as the sole football conference in our region, and in doing so securing the SEC's top spot nationally for the sport. And as the Southeast grows politically it would be advantageous to have these state schools under one banner. The business ties between the states, research endeavors growing out the expansion of business in the Southeast, and the synergy of those ties will be increasingly important to establish and maintain.

For those reasons and those we stated in establishing a qualitative difference between flagships and the rest, I look for an eventual intentional move for Texas, Florida State, and North Carolina. Oklahoma could be a bonus but isn't essential. We probably would be amenable to Clemson and/ or Virginia/VaTech.

I could easily see the SEC topping out at 20 and I think that is the sweet spot for attaining a cohesive grip over the Southeastern United States.

Obviously North Carolina is the alpha dog of the ACC, but they would establish their dominance over their region much more completely with a move to the SEC. Like Texas their sports have gotten weaker due to having 3 other North Carolina peers.

The case for Virginia is much less obvious and in a lot of ways Va Tech would be the better fit, but for the political connections and business/academic ties UVa would still likely be the primary target.

Higher Ed is going to be consolidating. Eventually some very well established schools are going to see the need to separate themselves from some of their old peers. If sports is going to continue to be a solid revenue stream, a great advertisement for the school, and the region is going to experience solid growth, then I expect the organizing principles of conferences to change. Indeed, I believe our realignment picks are indicative of that already.

Pulling in the regional schools would be a huge economic advantage.

My thought for a long time has been that the SEC will use the opportunity to "annex" territory from the Big 12 region and maximize their reach. Texas would be the top target there, but I think Oklahoma and probably Kansas have a place as well in that sort of strategy. The latter 2 schools both have national fan bases that will make it easier to grow exposure for the other brands in the conference.

OK is a growing state albeit still a small one. KS appears to be slowly shrinking, but KU is still an AAU school and the state is still strong economically. It's just that they don't have a terribly diversified set of industries. The weather doesn't help them, but as long as agriculture is important in the US then I think a state like KS still wields some influence. I guess what I'm saying is it's an easy way to grab 2 more Senators and make the coalition bigger.

I'm not sure we can get around both VA schools and possibly 3 NC schools because of their profile.

(11-28-2018 05:06 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 04:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 03:40 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 02:24 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 09:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Besides ATU, if the SEC moves to 9 conference games it's going to have to be dropped anyway.

I know South Carolina has no intention of dropping Clemson and Clemson likes playing 2 SEC schools/year so that series is safe.

I could see UGA/GT ending things at some point but not sure Kirby has the cache to do that (yet). Also GT will be hiring a new coach and who know what his thoughts will be.

The State of Georgia also has a Legislature that does appropriations to state universities, including powerful alumni of both schools. Kirby Smart ain't changing that.

Officials and fans of Alabama, Auburn, Miss. State, Ole Miss., Arkansas, Missouri, and LSU can easily exclaim they want nine conference games. They don't have other P5 schools in their respective states that don't exist or are already.in the SEC. The other seven do or can resume doing so (T a&m).

Look guys we are on the slow track to 12 P games. A step to 9 conference games will mean a step to 10 P games. If Texas joins the SEC at some point then A&M is a non issue. If Kansas ever joins then Missouri is a non issue. Should Florida State and Clemson ever join then those are dead issues as well.

The problem with Georgia Tech is simply compatibility. And I agree with both Kirby and with AllTideUp, there is no reason to continue that game from a competitive, profile, or recruiting stand point.

If the next round of realignment lands us two prizes from the Big 12 the pressure on Clemson and Florida State will become immense. Squeezing the scheduling is just a form of ratcheting up the pressure to secure the SEC as the sole football conference in our region, and in doing so securing the SEC's top spot nationally for the sport. And as the Southeast grows politically it would be advantageous to have these state schools under one banner. The business ties between the states, research endeavors growing out the expansion of business in the Southeast, and the synergy of those ties will be increasingly important to establish and maintain.

For those reasons and those we stated in establishing a qualitative difference between flagships and the rest, I look for an eventual intentional move for Texas, Florida State, and North Carolina. Oklahoma could be a bonus but isn't essential. We probably would be amenable to Clemson and/ or Virginia/VaTech.

I could easily see the SEC topping out at 20 and I think that is the sweet spot for attaining a cohesive grip over the Southeastern United States.

Obviously North Carolina is the alpha dog of the ACC, but they would establish their dominance over their region much more completely with a move to the SEC. Like Texas their sports have gotten weaker due to having 3 other North Carolina peers.

The case for Virginia is much less obvious and in a lot of ways Va Tech would be the better fit, but for the political connections and business/academic ties UVa would still likely be the primary target.

Higher Ed is going to be consolidating. Eventually some very well established schools are going to see the need to separate themselves from some of their old peers. If sports is going to continue to be a solid revenue stream, a great advertisement for the school, and the region is going to experience solid growth, then I expect the organizing principles of conferences to change. Indeed, I believe our realignment picks are indicative of that already.

Pulling in the regional schools would be a huge economic advantage.

My thought for a long time has been that the SEC will use the opportunity to "annex" territory from the Big 12 region and maximize their reach. Texas would be the top target there, but I think Oklahoma and probably Kansas have a place as well in that sort of strategy. The latter 2 schools both have national fan bases that will make it easier to grow exposure for the other brands in the conference.

OK is a growing state albeit still a small one. KS appears to be slowly shrinking, but KU is still an AAU school and the state is still strong economically. It's just that they don't have a terribly diversified set of industries. The weather doesn't help them, but as long as agriculture is important in the US then I think a state like KS still wields some influence. I guess what I'm saying is it's an easy way to grab 2 more Senators and make the coalition bigger.

I'm not sure we can get around both VA schools and possibly 3 NC schools because of their profile.

I think the move with regard to Virginia and North Carolina is to try to lure UNC and accept either of the Virginia schools but probably not both. Of course the Big 10 would be content to help out with regards to North Carolina and Virginia as states.

Clemson and F.S.U. would be simply protecting our brand in the Deep South.

So at 20 I think we would be quite pleased with Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, North Carolina and Florida State. If we couldn't land a Virginia school Clemson makes a solid 20.

ITT: Butthurt over GT scheduling from the 70s/80s, when GT was bankrupt, applied to get back in the SEC and was denied (if you wanted to keep playing GT so bad there was your easy in), considered dropping to I-AA, and ultimately joined the ACC for a decade long climb back to relevance.


GT can compete at the highest levels in all sports including football, but a few things must be in place:

- A President that supports the athletic mission as much as the academic one. Bud Peterson didn't give two ****s about sports but that changed after the Bobinski as AD fiasco. Peterson essentially let a booster pick out the AD since they wrote the check for the McCamish Pavilion. After the AD got pitchforked and ran away to Purdue, Peterson decided he may want to be a bit more hands on with that. Also, he has ethics probes up to his eyeballs after there was graft and corruption and theft found in two academic areas (dining and somewhere else). So suddenly Peterson has strong motivation to actually give a **** and be hands on.

- An academic administration that isn't run by sadomasochists. It wasn't until the last 3-4 years that GT lifted the academic hammer it dropped on the program after Gailey lost over a dozen players to flunking out. Prior you had to get a painful exemption for any player that couldn't meet GT's existing academic criteria. Now, so long as you graduate them, the GTAA will be granted as many academic exemptions as it requests. If they get rid of the calculus requirement that'd be huge. Imagine the decimation of the LSU or UGA starting lineup if they all had to pass calculus at GT to stay on the field.

- An AD that unites the fan base, communicates with it, and makes wise hiring decisions .... Stansbury looks to be this guy so far. But GT hasn't had this since Homer Rice. Seriously. Every successful GT program even today can be traced directly to Homer Rice hires. Cremins in hoops? Homer Rice. The current golf coach? Homer Rice. O'Leary in football? Homer Rice. Etc. So, a big enthusiastic check here for now for the first time in ages.

- Cashflow. While GT doesn't have the alumni base of a 50k person diploma factory, the base it does have is far richer than average. But they're also not lemmings. They have to believe in what you're up to for the wallets to open up. This is why an AD that unites the base is so important. Radakovich's answer to this was throw everything on a credit card. Bobinski's answer was to schedule like Savannah State (what a moron). Stansbury has shown he's got things united enough that the money is flowing again. They're well ahead of pace to meet the $125m fundraising goal for 2020:




- A serious and comprehensive recruiting effort. This means filling the ranks with high school coaches from big programs in GA and neighboring states. This means a bigger recruiting staff than most places so you can go find those elite skill position players who are also academically high achievers. Basically ... you need to recruit more like Stanford does. Yes, try get everything you can in ATL and GA. But aggressively look in the region too. O'Leary took a ton of players out of Jesuit HS in Tampa and even recruited fairly well in Upstate NY. It wasn't until Bobinski was sent packing that GT actually started building up a proper recruiting staff. Bobinski ran a skeleton crew in there. AI2020 has already hired four more recruiting assistants.


Since Homer Rice left, all of these things have consistently slid in the wrong direction. Now that they have an AD worth a flyin' fornication ... they're making good progress back to where they should be. But ... again ... it'll probably be a decade long climb. And we're only 3-4 years in. As PJ would say ... it's never as good or bad as it seems.

(11-28-2018 05:29 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

ITT: Butthurt over GT scheduling from the 70s/80s, when GT was bankrupt, applied to get back in the SEC and was denied (if you wanted to keep playing GT so bad there was your easy in), considered dropping to I-AA, and ultimately joined the ACC for a decade long climb back to relevance.


GT can compete at the highest levels in all sports including football, but a few things must be in place:

- A President that supports the athletic mission as much as the academic one. Bud Peterson didn't give two ****s about sports but that changed after the Bobinski as AD fiasco. Peterson essentially let a booster pick out the AD since they wrote the check for the McCamish Pavilion. After the AD got pitchforked and ran away to Purdue, Peterson decided he may want to be a bit more hands on with that. Also, he has ethics probes up to his eyeballs after there was graft and corruption and theft found in two academic areas (dining and somewhere else). So suddenly Peterson has strong motivation to actually give a **** and be hands on.

- An academic administration that isn't run by sadomasochists. It wasn't until the last 3-4 years that GT lifted the academic hammer it dropped on the program after Gailey lost over a dozen players to flunking out. Prior you had to get a painful exemption for any player that couldn't meet GT's existing academic criteria. Now, so long as you graduate them, the GTAA will be granted as many academic exemptions as it requests. If they get rid of the calculus requirement that'd be huge. Imagine the decimation of the LSU or UGA starting lineup if they all had to pass calculus at GT to stay on the field.

- An AD that unites the fan base, communicates with it, and makes wise hiring decisions .... Stansbury looks to be this guy so far. But GT hasn't had this since Homer Rice. Seriously. Every successful GT program even today can be traced directly to Homer Rice hires. Cremins in hoops? Homer Rice. The current golf coach? Homer Rice. O'Leary in football? Homer Rice. Etc. So, a big enthusiastic check here for now for the first time in ages.

- Cashflow. While GT doesn't have the alumni base of a 50k person diploma factory, the base it does have is far richer than average. But they're also not lemmings. They have to believe in what you're up to for the wallets to open up. This is why an AD that unites the base is so important. Radakovich's answer to this was throw everything on a credit card. Bobinski's answer was to schedule like Savannah State (what a moron). Stansbury has shown he's got things united enough that the money is flowing again. They're well ahead of pace to meet the $125m fundraising goal for 2020:




- A serious and comprehensive recruiting effort. This means filling the ranks with high school coaches from big programs in GA and neighboring states. This means a bigger recruiting staff than most places so you can go find those elite skill position players who are also academically high achievers. Basically ... you need to recruit more like Stanford does. Yes, try get everything you can in ATL and GA. But aggressively look in the region too. O'Leary took a ton of players out of Jesuit HS in Tampa and even recruited fairly well in Upstate NY. It wasn't until Bobinski was sent packing that GT actually started building up a proper recruiting staff. Bobinski ran a skeleton crew in there. AI2020 has already hired four more recruiting assistants.


Since Homer Rice left, all of these things have consistently slid in the wrong direction. Now that they have an AD worth a flyin' fornication ... they're making good progress back to where they should be. But ... again ... it'll probably be a decade long climb. And we're only 3-4 years in. As PJ would say ... it's never as good or bad as it seems.

I wish you well with all of that, but that doesn't alter the fact that Georgia would be wise to quit with the upper hand. They would increase their national profile with national games of interest and that helps their political posturing for the post season.

I enjoyed and have fond memories of the Tech / Auburn series, but Bobby Dodd screwed that up and I'm surprised it lasted until '78. I'm not hankering to schedule Tulane either.

Where the SEC was in 66 and where we are today is several universes apart. We'll be going after high profile state flagship schools and trying to put together a consortia of ties that span the broader political / economic spectrum within the Southeast.

I hope we continue to play in baseball, and a basketball game now and then would be a good thing. But the chasm between the SEC/Big 10 and everyone else is only going to grow and the gravity of those two conferences will remain a constant pull on the schools who would rather be a part of that than a victim of it.

The Alston case still looms and the rapidity with which change will come will hinge in part on the outcome of that trial.

I don't think realignment is slowing down. It seems to me to be accelerating. The pause we are currently experiencing is due to the uncertainty over pay which will be decided in the courts, and the expiration of existing contracts.

Kansas is very obviously positioning for something, Oklahoma fans and boosters are ready for their escape, and Texas seems to be oddly creating rifts over issues that are so ancillary that they seem to be an intentional form of detachment.

If things move in 2023, they will cascade in 2035.

If some of you folks see your 20 team leagues, and schools such as Vanderbilt, Mississippi State, Kentucky, etc., are out on the chopping block, and rivalries with Georgia Tech, Louisville, Miami or whomever are killed off, your moments of joy may be short-lived. Assigning state flagships throughout the southern USA running mercenary, semi-pro operations will go the way of the USFL, only faster. It becomes time colleges get out of the football business, concussions and all.
ESPN will cut their loses.

(11-28-2018 05:55 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  If some of you folks see your 20 team leagues, and schools such as Vanderbilt, Mississippi State, Kentucky, etc., are out on the chopping block, and rivalries with Georgia Tech, Louisville, Miami or whomever are killed off, your moments of joy may be short-lived. Assigning state flagships throughout the southern USA running mercenary, semi-pro operations will go the way of the USFL, only faster. It becomes time colleges get out of the football business, concussions and all.
ESPN will cut their loses.

Who said anything about cutting Kentucky, Mississippi State and Vanderbilt? What I laid out is the path that we will take. Picking up Texas and possibly OU or Kansas, trying to lock down F.S.U., maybe pick up UNC or a Virginia school and possibly taking Clemson is mostly an effort to preserve those rivalries.

Your not hearing much out of me on dropping any SEC members because the SEC has never asked anyone to leave, ever. If we wind up paying players that will be decided by the courts. If Vandy chooses to leave over that it will be their decision. But, it won't just be affecting football. It will bring in Basketball and likely Baseball as well.

There's a downsizing underway in higher education. The demographic and economic trends that are driving it are not abating. So, buckle up. But I see nobody in the SEC as being vulnerable unless Vandy decides no on pay for play.

You tell me what has Georgia got to gain by keeping Tech. Their rivals are now Auburn, Florida, and Tennessee in that order and there is no love for South Carolina either. Tech is way down their list. It is only important to Tech and I am speaking in business terms and not fan terms.

Picking up Texas, Kansas, Florida State and Clemson only cements rivalries. If we pick up a presence in Virginia or North Carolina then so be it.

The Big 10 is going to grow. We will keep pace and try to head them off at the pass. It is why Kramer had a 16 team plan in '91 and a defensive addition plan that would have taken us to 20 back then. Nothing has changed.

The economic climate has the SEC and Big 10 way ahead of everyone but the Big 12 which is systemically challenged and has way to small of a footprint. When their top schools leave for stronger peers and richer pickings the imbalance between the SEC/B1G and the ACC/PAC is going to become too great.

It is why if you've followed my train of thought here that I have been for a 3 x 20 with the PAC absorbing 8 of the Big 12 schools and the B1G and SEC divvying up the ACC. It's the only way to achieve a balance that will permit the sport to flourish competitively. Right now the imbalance in competitiveness is massive and the monetary instability is merely a reflection of that.

(11-28-2018 05:29 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

ITT: Butthurt over GT scheduling from the 70s/80s, when GT was bankrupt, applied to get back in the SEC and was denied (if you wanted to keep playing GT so bad there was your easy in), considered dropping to I-AA, and ultimately joined the ACC for a decade long climb back to relevance.


GT can compete at the highest levels in all sports including football, but a few things must be in place:

- A President that supports the athletic mission as much as the academic one. Bud Peterson didn't give two ****s about sports but that changed after the Bobinski as AD fiasco. Peterson essentially let a booster pick out the AD since they wrote the check for the McCamish Pavilion. After the AD got pitchforked and ran away to Purdue, Peterson decided he may want to be a bit more hands on with that. Also, he has ethics probes up to his eyeballs after there was graft and corruption and theft found in two academic areas (dining and somewhere else). So suddenly Peterson has strong motivation to actually give a **** and be hands on.

- An academic administration that isn't run by sadomasochists. It wasn't until the last 3-4 years that GT lifted the academic hammer it dropped on the program after Gailey lost over a dozen players to flunking out. Prior you had to get a painful exemption for any player that couldn't meet GT's existing academic criteria. Now, so long as you graduate them, the GTAA will be granted as many academic exemptions as it requests. If they get rid of the calculus requirement that'd be huge. Imagine the decimation of the LSU or UGA starting lineup if they all had to pass calculus at GT to stay on the field.

- An AD that unites the fan base, communicates with it, and makes wise hiring decisions .... Stansbury looks to be this guy so far. But GT hasn't had this since Homer Rice. Seriously. Every successful GT program even today can be traced directly to Homer Rice hires. Cremins in hoops? Homer Rice. The current golf coach? Homer Rice. O'Leary in football? Homer Rice. Etc. So, a big enthusiastic check here for now for the first time in ages.

- Cashflow. While GT doesn't have the alumni base of a 50k person diploma factory, the base it does have is far richer than average. But they're also not lemmings. They have to believe in what you're up to for the wallets to open up. This is why an AD that unites the base is so important. Radakovich's answer to this was throw everything on a credit card. Bobinski's answer was to schedule like Savannah State (what a moron). Stansbury has shown he's got things united enough that the money is flowing again. They're well ahead of pace to meet the $125m fundraising goal for 2020:




- A serious and comprehensive recruiting effort. This means filling the ranks with high school coaches from big programs in GA and neighboring states. This means a bigger recruiting staff than most places so you can go find those elite skill position players who are also academically high achievers. Basically ... you need to recruit more like Stanford does. Yes, try get everything you can in ATL and GA. But aggressively look in the region too. O'Leary took a ton of players out of Jesuit HS in Tampa and even recruited fairly well in Upstate NY. It wasn't until Bobinski was sent packing that GT actually started building up a proper recruiting staff. Bobinski ran a skeleton crew in there. AI2020 has already hired four more recruiting assistants.


Since Homer Rice left, all of these things have consistently slid in the wrong direction. Now that they have an AD worth a flyin' fornication ... they're making good progress back to where they should be. But ... again ... it'll probably be a decade long climb. And we're only 3-4 years in. As PJ would say ... it's never as good or bad as it seems.

Very interesting post.

P.S. Y’all should totally hire Tony Elliott from Clemson. He would be a great hire, a big loss for Clemson, and if successful bad for UGA as well. Would be a win on all fronts

The idea of moving UGA/UF back onto the respective campuses have been a topic with Dawgs fans since the 94-95 season when they had to while Gator Bowl was rebuilt. The major opposition has been the South Georgia alumni/fan base and the piles of cash Jacksonville doles out to keep the game in its current location. Both of those are hard for the Athletic Department in Athens to ignore.

Regarding Tech, I think the problem is more of style of play issue than anything else. Everyone in the state still looks forward to the game. As DawgnBama stated, the Tech game didn't stop UGA from scheduling ND, Clemson, ASU and Colorado. While it isn't a legislated game, the idea that it could end (short of GT moving to G5 status or lower) would have the folks under the golden dome pencil whip a mandate before the press conference ended.

As for the political cohesion the SEC hopes to wield JR, I will say this on behalf of the Trade School on North Ave: unless GT simply gives up, there is no way UGA's STEM department will come close to what Tech has. The idea of tossing a jewel of that caliber aside for athletic incompatibility seems dubious. If the SEC wants to emulate the B1G, then it needs to create something like CIC (for real, I know the SEC has its 'academic network) to fulfill the academic/governmental synergy.

(11-28-2018 06:20 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  Very interesting post.

P.S. Y’all should totally hire Tony Elliott from Clemson. He would be a great hire, a big loss for Clemson, and if successful bad for UGA as well. Would be a win on all fronts

If we're playing "neuter the rival and help yourself" Dell McGee is an even stronger hire IMO.

(11-28-2018 06:38 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 06:20 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  Very interesting post.

P.S. Y’all should totally hire Tony Elliott from Clemson. He would be a great hire, a big loss for Clemson, and if successful bad for UGA as well. Would be a win on all fronts

If we're playing "neuter the rival and help yourself" Dell McGee is an even stronger hire IMO.

Along those lines, my magic wand proposal:

HC: Scott Satterfield
AHC, RC: Dell McGee
OC: George Godsey
DC: Nate Woody

(11-28-2018 06:24 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  The idea of moving UGA/UF back onto the respective campuses have been a topic with Dawgs fans since the 94-95 season when they had to while Gator Bowl was rebuilt. The major opposition has been the South Georgia alumni/fan base and the piles of cash Jacksonville doles out to keep the game in its current location. Both of those are hard for the Athletic Department in Athens to ignore.

Regarding Tech, I think the problem is more of style of play issue than anything else. Everyone in the state still looks forward to the game. As DawgnBama stated, the Tech game didn't stop UGA from scheduling ND, Clemson, ASU and Colorado. While it isn't a legislated game, the idea that it could end (short of GT moving to G5 status or lower) would have the folks under the golden dome pencil whip a mandate before the press conference ended.

As for the political cohesion the SEC hopes to wield JR, I will say this on behalf of the Trade School on North Ave: unless GT simply gives up, there is no way UGA's STEM department will come close to what Tech has. The idea of tossing a jewel of that caliber aside for athletic incompatibility seems dubious. If the SEC wants to emulate the B1G, then it needs to create something like CIC (for real, I know the SEC has its 'academic network) to fulfill the academic/governmental synergy.

Tossing Tech aside has little to do with research. And the track to research status in the Big 10 had it's roots in reconstruction where certain state constitutions were amended to divide up disciplines to prevent the South from regrouping from a leadership standpoint. The states that changed those antiquated stipulations (North Carolina, Florida, Virginia, etc) were able to make those moves toward AAU status a bit quicker than the mossback states that accepted the status quo and moved on.

Political connections and business connections are more important in the Southern approach to cooperation than trying to emulate the Big 10. The sky boxes are where things happen down here Vandiver. We aren't going to usurp 100 years of AAU regulations to get her done. Georgia and Alabama's Med schools are off campus. Oops a technicality preventing AAU consideration. Veterinary Medicine which contributes greatly in Cancer research isn't counted under AAU stipulations. Oops, there goes consideration for another group of our schools.

You have to be a bit more mature and admit that the present academic system is jobbed and the stipulations are there for exclusionary reasons. The AAU is their system and the West coast schools had no restrictions placed upon them and knew the route to membership when they were still building their schools up. New England schools helped to sculpt those qualifications as well.

So playing by their rules isn't going to advantage us, at least not as we try to grow and they try to appropriate our border states. If the new South is going to be a leader we'll have to make an end run around such hurdles at least until the plurality of House seats are within our states. That's how the political game is played.

Nebraska was a small sacrifice to set back schools in the South by requiring an on campus medical school in order to meet AAU guidelines.

And back to Tech you present an argument that can't be justified both ways. If Georgia drops Tech from the schedule that doesn't hurt Tech's academic standing or enhance Georgia's. What it does do is to enable Georgia to enhance its national profile and increase its sports revenue. So the Jewel in Atlanta doesn't suffer anything but an athletic demotion where most Tech grads would be the first to argue that sports has not been their priority.

What else have you got? UGA law grads dominate the Georgia House. So I'm not even going to buy the political fallout angle.

The dawgs and the tail waggers will always talk about how it's (Auburn/TN/FL/whoever) as the real rival. Try losing to GT to see the reality. Give Jim Donnan a phone call and ask him which was the most important one to win.

(11-28-2018 07:20 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  The dawgs and the tail waggers will always talk about how it's (Auburn/TN/FL/whoever) as the real rival. Try losing to GT to see the reality. Give Jim Donnan a phone call and ask him which was the most important one to win.

Gee, now whose talking old smack. College football is about where we are headed now, and it might not resemble where we have been. It's not what I want, but it's where it is headed.

I suspect it is being bred as kind of a replacement of for the NFL. You can compromise on CTE's if full contact is limited to high school and college play. NFL interest is waning as is all football interest, but at least with the College game you have limited exposure to risk with limited playing time, and if it pays the players, and since it comes with a built in, and quite a bit more loyal fan base, the continued efforts to market its elite teams is going to serve a couple of the networks well as NFL lite, and when the economy takes its next nosedive you might see quite a bit of downsizing of professional sports as a whole. Then those with the elevated college sports will be able to operate more cheaply and with less overhead than their professional counterparts. We'll see.

But what I don't see is Tech stepping up the investment when we hit pay for play so I strongly suspect that whether Georgia drops them or not it's going to be a moot point within the next two decades.

(11-28-2018 06:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Tossing Tech aside has little to do with research. And the track to research status in the Big 10 had it's roots in reconstruction where certain state constitutions were amended to divide up disciplines to prevent the South from regrouping from a leadership standpoint. The states that changed those antiquated stipulations (North Carolina, Florida, Virginia, etc, were able to make those moves toward AAU status a bit quicker than the mossback states that accepted the status quo and moved on.

Conceded. The liberal arts / tech school divide is asinine. It is something that UGA did recently rectify (but some some reason Tech can't)

Quote:Political connections and business connections are more important in the Southern approach to cooperation than trying to emulate the Big 10. The sky boxes are where things happen down here Vandiver. We aren't going to usurp 100 years of AAU regulations to get her done. Georgia and Alabama's Med schools are off campus. Oops a technicality preventing AAU consideration. Veterinary Medicine which contributes greatly in Cancer research isn't counted under AAU stipulations. Oops, there goes consideration for another group of our schools.

Like you I'm not interested in recreating the AAU system. While I'm not as versed in academia as you, I can recognize the gatekeeping that is a hallmark of that club. I don't know if making closed door deals in press boxes is any better though.

Quote:You have to be a bit more mature and admit that the present academic system is jobbed and the stipulations are there for exclusionary reasons. The AAU is their system and the West coast schools had no restrictions placed upon them and knew the route to membership when they were still building their schools up. New England schools helped to sculpt those qualifications as well.

I do want a power block 'of our own'. And you have talked about expansion that brings in schools like VT, Clemson, UF, UNC and NCST. I don't see how GT can't contribute as well if they make the necessary adjustments.

Quote:So playing by their rules isn't going to advantage us, at least not as we try to grow and they try to appropriate our border states. If the new South is going to be a leader we'll have to make an end run around such hurdles at least until the plurality of House seats are within our states. That's how the political game is played.

Nebraska was a small sacrifice to set back schools in the South by requiring an on campus medical school in order to meet AAU guidelines.

It's difficult to get urban population growth without a corresponding political shift.

Quote:And back to Tech you present an argument that can't be justified both ways. If Georgia drops Tech from the schedule that doesn't hurt Tech's academic standing or enhance Georgia's. What it does do is to enable Georgia to enhance its national profile and increase its sports revenue. So the Jewel in Atlanta doesn't suffer anything but an athletic demotion where most Tech grads would be the first to argue that sports has not been their priority.

If the bolded is valuable to UGA, the why should Tech reject it? (Granted, decisions on the Hill trend towards a schools that wishes to de-emphasis sports. That doesn't mean I think UGA should give them a push)

Quote:What else have you got? UGA law grads dominate the Georgia House. So I'm not even going to buy the political fallout angle.

They'd need to move the capital back to Milledgeville

If you're breeding CFB to be a replacement for NFL then buckle up for a host of regulatory changes -- some of them quite healthy. Every professional sport -- even F1 -- has spending caps. Most have some form of luxury tax. Most have collective bargaining between player and team. That's before the politicians -- who btw have authority over all the non-privates -- get involved. As soon as the Alabamas and Clemsons of the world started building laser tag pavilions at public institutions of higher learning for football players largely too busy to ever use them I've been for caps. Facility caps. Salary caps. Consultant caps. Staff caps. That will rein in a lot of the runaway and indefensible profligacy while enhancing competitiveness. I'd argue CFB and higher learning in general is better off without the unused laser tag pavilion for football players. Even Formula 1, where it cost $1,000,000/sec of improved lap time ... the most infamous sport for "the biggest paycheck wins" ... has caps now. CFB will too, and this acceleration towards wanton profligacy will only hasten that correction's arrival.

(11-28-2018 07:40 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 06:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Tossing Tech aside has little to do with research. And the track to research status in the Big 10 had it's roots in reconstruction where certain state constitutions were amended to divide up disciplines to prevent the South from regrouping from a leadership standpoint. The states that changed those antiquated stipulations (North Carolina, Florida, Virginia, etc, were able to make those moves toward AAU status a bit quicker than the mossback states that accepted the status quo and moved on.

Conceded. The liberal arts / tech school divide is asinine. It is something that UGA did recently rectify (but some some reason Tech can't)

Quote:Political connections and business connections are more important in the Southern approach to cooperation than trying to emulate the Big 10. The sky boxes are where things happen down here Vandiver. We aren't going to usurp 100 years of AAU regulations to get her done. Georgia and Alabama's Med schools are off campus. Oops a technicality preventing AAU consideration. Veterinary Medicine which contributes greatly in Cancer research isn't counted under AAU stipulations. Oops, there goes consideration for another group of our schools.

Like you I'm not interested in recreating the AAU system. While I'm not as versed in academia as you, I can recognize the gatekeeping that is a hallmark of that club. I don't know if making closed door deals in press boxes is any better though.

Quote:You have to be a bit more mature and admit that the present academic system is jobbed and the stipulations are there for exclusionary reasons. The AAU is their system and the West coast schools had no restrictions placed upon them and knew the route to membership when they were still building their schools up. New England schools helped to sculpt those qualifications as well.

I do want a power block 'of our own'. And you have talked about expansion that brings in schools like VT, Clemson, UF, UNC and NCST. I don't see how GT can't contribute as well if they make the necessary adjustments.

Quote:So playing by their rules isn't going to advantage us, at least not as we try to grow and they try to appropriate our border states. If the new South is going to be a leader we'll have to make an end run around such hurdles at least until the plurality of House seats are within our states. That's how the political game is played.

Nebraska was a small sacrifice to set back schools in the South by requiring an on campus medical school in order to meet AAU guidelines.

It's difficult to get urban population growth without a corresponding political shift.

Quote:And back to Tech you present an argument that can't be justified both ways. If Georgia drops Tech from the schedule that doesn't hurt Tech's academic standing or enhance Georgia's. What it does do is to enable Georgia to enhance its national profile and increase its sports revenue. So the Jewel in Atlanta doesn't suffer anything but an athletic demotion where most Tech grads would be the first to argue that sports has not been their priority.

If the bolded is valuable to UGA, the why should Tech reject it? (Granted, decisions on the Hill trend towards a schools that wishes to de-emphasis sports. That doesn't mean I think UGA should give them a push)

Quote:What else have you got? UGA law grads dominate the Georgia House. So I'm not even going to buy the political fallout angle.

They'd need to move the capital back to Milledgeville

Qoute 1. Agreed.

Quote 2. Agreed again. However, since we lack a formal consortium in which to discuss "Corporate Grants" and that is what many of the sky box deals are about, it'll have to do in spite of its obvious deficits.

I was at a dove shoot where a major international banking matter was decided. Golf course guys can tell you similar stories.

What the athletics between Southeastern schools permit is a social backdrop in which these kinds of matters can be born, resolved, or turned over to the attorneys for finalization.

Qoute 3&4. A power block is precisely what we need to engender, but one that crosses party lines. We need Republican and Democratic Senators and House members to intentionally push economic initiatives for all strata of life in the South and to do so unabashedly.

The Big 10 wants to push into North Carolina and Virginia for 1 reason only. They know that given the shifting demographics that they must at least divide the loyalties of those two states (and Maryland) in order to maintain enough representation to continue to land as many Federal Grants. Thy may land grants on merits, but grant guidelines are set by the House Committee. Guidelines can be tailored to fit potential recipients.

If our region is to benefit as we should given demographic changes then keeping all of Texas, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Missouri, and North Carolina is essential and Virginia needs to at least remain divided with regard to state school allegiances if we are to benefit by the shifts.

When Delany expressed interest in North Carolina, Virginia, and Georgia Tech the only interest he had in those schools was not their AAU status but the ability to split representative allegiances in those states between the Big 10 and ACC / SEC. It's political apportionment power that the Big 10 is really after because they can read a political map the same as we can.

There's your best argument for the inclusion of Georgia Tech.

Quote 5.

Then the contra-positive of that argument would be that the state should take an interest in assisting Georgia Tech to make the moves they need to make to keep up. And if that is the case then bravo. Otherwise UGa should not be encumbered.

Quote 6. Milledgeville, huh? That can be taken as a practical suggestion to get it out of Atlanta, or as a professional proscription to have them committed!

(11-28-2018 07:43 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  If you're breeding CFB to be a replacement for NFL then buckle up for a host of regulatory changes -- some of them quite healthy. Every professional sport -- even F1 -- has spending caps. Most have some form of luxury tax. Most have collective bargaining between player and team. That's before the politicians -- who btw have authority over all the non-privates -- get involved. As soon as the Alabamas and Clemsons of the world started building laser tag pavilions at public institutions of higher learning for football players largely too busy to ever use them I've been for caps. Facility caps. Salary caps. Consultant caps. Staff caps. That will rein in a lot of the runaway and indefensible profligacy while enhancing competitiveness. I'd argue CFB and higher learning in general is better off without the unused laser tag pavilion for football players. Even Formula 1, where it cost $1,000,000/sec of improved lap time ... the most infamous sport for "the biggest paycheck wins" ... has caps now. CFB will too, and this acceleration towards wanton profligacy will only hasten that correction's arrival.

If we move to pay for play many many things would get healthier, not the least of which is above board tax dealings, and having caps then would be in everyone's interest.

(11-28-2018 08:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 07:43 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  If you're breeding CFB to be a replacement for NFL then buckle up for a host of regulatory changes -- some of them quite healthy. Every professional sport -- even F1 -- has spending caps. Most have some form of luxury tax. Most have collective bargaining between player and team. That's before the politicians -- who btw have authority over all the non-privates -- get involved. As soon as the Alabamas and Clemsons of the world started building laser tag pavilions at public institutions of higher learning for football players largely too busy to ever use them I've been for caps. Facility caps. Salary caps. Consultant caps. Staff caps. That will rein in a lot of the runaway and indefensible profligacy while enhancing competitiveness. I'd argue CFB and higher learning in general is better off without the unused laser tag pavilion for football players. Even Formula 1, where it cost $1,000,000/sec of improved lap time ... the most infamous sport for "the biggest paycheck wins" ... has caps now. CFB will too, and this acceleration towards wanton profligacy will only hasten that correction's arrival.

If we move to pay for play many many things would get healthier, not the least of which is above board tax dealings, and having caps then would be in everyone's interest.

Assuming soccer doesn't put football out of business first.

I'm only half joking.