HOW MANY ALUMNI DOES TECH HAVE?

[johnnylightnin]

And, farright, please don't misunderstand me...I'm sick and tired of the more with less crap too. If we are doing what we do with less, we need to be busting our butts to make sure we get more. I'm not an administration apologist. I think they've held us back in many ways. I just don't see how moving down to I-AA helps any of our problems.

[Dirtydawg]

Considering VAndy got rid of their complete atheltic dept., I wonder what their budget is nowadays. But in my opinion, the two SEC teams and Tech are not even comparable. I know they arent known for winning their conference in a long long time, but to say that we are a better football program than theirs, I find that stretching it a bit.

I'd say we are on the same level as Kentucky, Vanderbilt and several other BCS football programs.

[dhussdawg]

what is anybody's record against "winning BCS schools"? isn't that the reason they are winning schools -- they win most of their games? gee whiz. i thought you were one of those wackos who honestly thinks there should just be 64 teams in d-1a. but you only want winning programs. that narrows the field to about 30. you see, at any level, there are going to be winners and there are going to be losers. that's the nature of the game. we've won our fair share of games, and we've taken our lumps as well.

Yeh, you just keep narrowing down the field, when you get to 30, there will probably be 15 winners and 15 losers, so you then break it down to 15. Keep going until you get down to one, and they will truly be in a league fo their own. They wont even have to play each year, they will just be considered the DI champs and then there will be everybody else fighting for the scraps, all bowl money would go to them. They would reign supreme over every other football team, and those teams should have to pay royalties to them. Sounds good, huh farright?

[Dirtydawg]

I'd say we are on the same level as Kentucky, Vanderbilt and several other BCS football programs.

Besides, your point wasn't whether we compare to them. Your point was our success compared to the schools we compare to against the big boys. If I understand you correctly, according to you we don't even compare athletically with Kentucky and Vanderbilt which wasn't my point anyway. My point is that BCS schools like Kentucky and Vanderbilt as well as other BCS schools who can't compete with their own conference as well as other BCS schools should drop down to non-BCS conferences or in some instances 1aa also. Because they do as bad as we have against like competition, but also they fair poorly against schools our size.

[PawDawg]

Besides, your point wasn't whether we compare to them. Your point was our success compared to the schools we compare to against the big boys. If I understand you correctly, according to you we don't even compare athletically with Kentucky and Vanderbilt which wasn't my point anyway. My point is that BCS schools like Kentucky and Vanderbilt as well as other BCS schools who can't compete with their own conference as well as other BCS schools should drop down to non-BCS conferences or in some instances 1aa also. Because they do as bad as we have against like competition, but also they fair poorly against schools our size.

Good thing Vandy and Miss. St. got in the SEC during the civil war days or they would doing good to be in the Sunbelt now. Can't say that about Kentucky however. They have brought in more revenue from roundball than several of the others combined.

[farright30]

Yeh, you just keep narrowing down the field, when you get to 30, there will probably be 15 winners and 15 losers, so you then break it down to 15. Keep going until you get down to one, and they will truly be in a league fo their own. They wont even have to play each year, they will just be considered the DI champs and then there will be everybody else fighting for the scraps, all bowl money would go to them. They would reign supreme over every other football team, and those teams should have to pay royalties to them. Sounds good, huh farright?

The only narrowing that I did in my number was if the team was above or below 0.500. Is that too harsh?

[dhussdawg]

The only narrowing that I did in my number was if the team was above or below 0.500. Is that too harsh?

Dude, we agree. There should be one supreme team in D1 and everybody else should quit.

[farright30]

Besides, your point wasn't whether we compare to them. Your point was our success compared to the schools we compare to against the big boys. If I understand you correctly, according to you we don't even compare athletically with Kentucky and Vanderbilt which wasn't my point anyway. My point is that BCS schools like Kentucky and Vanderbilt as well as other BCS schools who can't compete with their own conference as well as other BCS schools should drop down to non-BCS conferences or in some instances 1aa also. Because they do as bad as we have against like competition, but also they fair poorly against schools our size.

You are right about their competitiveness (sp?), although it is still very debatable as to how we would compare to them. Hey, why dont we play them? Oh yeah, we have to play the big schools that pay the money for us to show up. My point on why should move down was referring to our budget in 1-A. I'm sure that they spend many times more on their football compared to what we spend on our whole athletic dept. That is why they can stay in the SEC, etc.

[farright30]

Dude, we agree. There should be one supreme team in D1 and everybody else should quit.

Hey, look who rejoined the thread. Where have you been?

[Dirtydawg]

I'd say we are on the same level as Kentucky, Vanderbilt and several other BCS football programs.

You are right about their competitiveness (sp?), although it is still very debatable as to how we would compare to them. Hey, why dont we play them? Oh yeah, we have to play the big schools that pay the money for us to show up. My point on why should move down was referring to our budget in 1-A. I'm sure that they spend many times more on their football compared to what we spend on our whole athletic dept. That is why they can stay in the SEC, etc.

Well, obviously, we're able to stay 1a with our budget. I know you've addressed this many times, and I honestly can see a point in moving to 1aa. However, I'm not sure what your main reason for this move would be as you've made several statements to the fact. If your point is that we should move down to 1aa because Dan Reneau and Jim Oakes aren't going to do anything to make sure our budget grows so that we won't be passed up by the current d1aa schools, then I would agree. However, if your argument is that we should move down because we don't have the money to be competitive on the football field with the BCS teams we play, then I disagree because as I have pointed out, there are BCS programs with the money we don't have that aren't competetive with the BCS teams we play. If we were able to schedule the Temples, Dukes, Vanderbilts, Kentuckies, Stanfords, Miss. States, etc...then you'd see we can compete with BCS schools. The problem is they don't pay as much as the BCS schools we play, and they won't schedule us because they know they would lose. So if you're basing your opinion on moving down because we aren't competetive on the field, then I disagree.

[farright30]

Well, obviously, we're able to stay 1a with our budget. I know you've addressed this many times, and I honestly can see a point in moving to 1aa. However, I'm not sure what your main reason for this move would be as you've made several statements to the fact. If your point is that we should move down to 1aa because Dan Reneau and Jim Oakes aren't going to do anything to make sure our budget grows so that we won't be passed up by the current d1aa schools, then I would agree. However, if your argument is that we should move down because we don't have the money to be competitive on the football field with the BCS teams we play, then I disagree because as I have pointed out, there are BCS programs with the money we don't have that aren't competetive with the BCS teams we play. If we were able to schedule the Temples, Dukes, Vanderbilts, Kentuckies, Stanfords, Miss. States, etc...then you'd see we can compete with BCS schools. The problem is they don't pay as much as the BCS schools we play, and they won't schedule us because they know they would lose. So if you're basing your opinion on moving down because we aren't competetive on the field, then I disagree.

You are 100% right. I would love to see us play teams at that level instead of the money games. I just dont want to be at a point where we HAVE to play money games. I was actually pretty happy to see the thread today that said we are playing Baylor next year. That is the type of game we need to be playing OOC. My point has been all along, if we have to play the big money games to stary above water financially, then it is not worth the trouble. As time went along, other things were brought up, but those can mainly just traced back to personal frustration with the program that I am sure most on here have as well.

[DocMarvin362]

You make a good point on Oakes, but we all know that now (not 4 years ago). Since you have all the numbers, tell me the travel costs that Tech has for all sports in the WAC. That is my point on the money side. I know we make money (to be honest, we can still do that at 1-AA with no postseason penalty) of those games, but you are not considering why we HAVE to play those games. We have to play them just to not lose money and thats my point. We cannot afford to play right now and since we havent done much to justify the 1-A status, I concluded that it would be best in 1-AA. It has not only been a financial argument on my side.

Lesson #1 in Monopoly... I learned this when I was 5.

YOU MUST SPEND MONEY TO MAKE MONEY.

[Cool Hand Clyde]

To answer the question, TECH has 82,000 alumni.
Not certain how many are living.

[farright30]

To answer the question, TECH has 82,000 alumni.
Not certain how many are living.

and we have come full circle.

[PawDawg]

...and you are still wrong.