Engineering A New Program Part 2: Georgia Tech In The Modern Era
Engineering A New Program Part 2: Georgia Tech In The Modern Era https://digitalalabamanews.com/engineering-a-new-program-part-2-georgia-tech-in-the-modern-era/
This is Part II in Engineering a Program, our series on explaining Georgia Tech’s athletic context to outsiders. If you’d like to read other parts of the series or get a primer on what the series is about, head to its homepage.
After a quick history lesson in Part 1, let’s now trace our way from Tech’s split from the SEC in 1964 to the modern era and discuss how Tech’s position has evolved, especially as Atlanta has continued to grow in stature and sprawl.
Post-SEC Sporting Outcomes
Given that the various changes and controversies surrounding national championship structures in most collegiate sports, the ubiquitous conference title makes for the easiest and most direct semi-modern to modern-day comparison. In the first three decades of the SEC’s existence (starting in 1932), Georgia Tech fielded competitive teams in every sport offered (all of them men’s, as women’s athletics at Tech postdated its departure from the SEC) by the conference at that time, winning at least one conference championship in each of them. Several runs of sustained success — most notably, those of cross country and swimming and diving — were only interrupted by one or more seasons in which the conference championship was not awarded due to wartime measures, and the SEC lacked a golf championship until 1965, the season after Tech departed for the wilds of independence.
Georgia Tech Athletics – SEC vs ACC membership
Men’s Sport
SEC Titles (1932-1964)
Seasons
ACC Titles (1979/ 1983 [football]-present)
Seasons
Men’s Sport
SEC Titles (1932-1964)
Seasons
ACC Titles (1979/ 1983 [football]-present)
Seasons
Baseball
1
1957
9
1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2012, 2014
Basketball
1
1938
4
1985, 1990, 1993, 2021
Cross Country
10
1935, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1940, 1942, 1947, 1953, 1954
0
N/A
Football
5
1939, 1943, 1944, 1951, 1952
3
1990, 1998, 2009
Track and Field
3
1944, 1945, 1949
0
N/A
Swimming and Diving
4
1942, 1948, 1949, 1950
0
N/A
Tennis
3
1938, 1946, 1960
0
N/A
As the Institute’s current conference affiliation approaches 50 seasons for most sports and while baseball and basketball have seen better fortunes in their stints in the ACC, programs like men’s cross country, track and field, tennis, and swimming and diving have yet to win a conference title, despite combining for 20 in their three decade stint in the SEC.
But given recent movement in conference realignment, it is reasonable to wonder if the size of the SEC at the time played a role in the results — IE: did having fewer members make it easier to win a conference title? But interestingly, during Tech’s time in the SEC, it was one of the larger conferences of its time, ranging between 12 and 13 members. Tech’s entrance into the ACC made them the conference’s eighth team, with the admission of Florida State in 1991, Miami and Virginia Tech in 2004, and Boston College in 2005 bringing the conference to 12 before the second-to-last round of conference realignment in 2011. With this in mind, our comparison becomes more even, making clear that the performance of Tech’s men’s sports have been a mixed bag in the ACC era.
That being said, it’s not like the ACC era has come without any success. As mentioned previously, baseball and men’s basketball, along with women’s sports like softball and volleyball, have all put together periods of regular postseason appearances and won multiple conference titles, while golf has established itself as the conference’s premier program. For many of these programs, the present and the future in the ACC is and remains bright. However, we must remember which sport drives the bus when it comes to college athletics: the lack of overall consistency, the lack of truly top-to-bottom dominance, and the sporadic local, statewide, or national spotlight on Tech’s crown jewel — the football team — has set the narrative for the entire athletic program, exacerbating Tech’s drift from the center of Atlanta’s sporting psyche to its periphery.
Institutional Alignment
The logical end for this football-dominated narrative is the broader question of the ideological alignment of the athletic association and other significant campus stakeholders on the importance of collegiate athletics. Certainly, there have been times where this structural agreement between all parties has ebbed and flowed — notably, almost ending one of Tech’s golden eras just before it began. The first major challenge to Tech’s tradition of blending athletic prowess and academic rigor came in 1951, as a vocal movement developed amongst educational leaders to deemphasize athletics at both the University System of Georgia’s schools involved at the highest levels (read: Georgia Tech and the university of Georgia). These critics called for the implementation of several measures aimed to decrease financial costs of sustaining athletic programs in the wake of the implementation of the “two-platoon system” (having different players play offense and defense) and the salacious fallout from various postwar cheating scandals on the court and the gridiron. But this challenge eventually abated, with Tech collecting the 1952 national championship title, along with two other awarded (but unclaimed) national titles in the years that followed.
However, in the 1970s, the doldrums of independence, financial doom and gloom, and the evolution of Tech from its roots as a plucky practical local engineering school into a modern research institution in the model of MIT or CalTech set an increasing number of students, administrators, and (in particular) faculty on the path towards a University of Chicago-style full cessation of the athletic program. As the winds of deemphasis swirled through the decade, Tech’s athletic department faced an existential crisis: faced with the possibility of financial ruin, what really was the future of athletics at Georgia Tech? The answer to that came in the form of a blue ribbon panel, which convened athletic directors from Miami, Delaware, and North Carolina (notably, the latter of whom was future Georgia Tech athletic director Homer Rice). This panel made three key recommendations for returning the department to solvency:
Athletics should directly solicit alumni for donations.
Athletics should levy a student fee to help cover operational costs.
Tech should seek conference membership once again, as television and bowl revenues had only grown since Tech departed the SEC.
Thus, alumni donors were courted to fund the program much to their chagrin (and the constant ringing of their telephones, as the Alumni Association and the Athletic Association often competed for dollars). A student athletic fee was eventually created, and Tech found a willing conference partner in the Metro (McMath, 1988).
However, Tech found the Metro neither financially lucrative nor compelling to fans and general competitive interest, both in part due to the lack of a football association amongst the members, who were smaller, basketball-oriented schools outside of its traditional geographic footprint. The SEC rebuked several Tech attempts at a return, citing both its contentment with its current ten team membership and noting that the institutional memory of both Tech’s arrogance while it had been a member and its controversial departure had not yet and would not soon be forgotten. Without a football partner, Tech was left adrift.
“Ivery, Eddie Lee,” Georgia Tech History Digital Portal, accessed October 12, 2022, https://history.library.gatech.edu/items/show/6406.
Georgia Tech Archives
Then the Atlantic Coast Conference extended an olive branch, offering to make the Institute its eighth member. Not only was Tech perceived to bring the benefit of a consistent top football team to the table — despite being essentially a basketball backwater in the hoops-heavy league, historically inconsistent in baseball, and all but irrelevant since the 1950s in the “country club” or Olympic sports that the conference historically dominated — but it also made the conference the preeminent power in television markets from Washington, DC and Baltimore through to Atlanta and Savannah (or so the league thought).
So rather than applying a complete deemphasis of athletics, Tech found itself shifting focus: the football-dominated world of the SEC gave way to a broader base of other sports, especially as Title IX incorporated NCAA-sponsored women’s sports into athletic programming. But this shift didn’t just happen in athletics: in the firm belief of administration and faculty on the Hill, the ACC itself was more academically compelling and compatible with the postwar focus of the Institute as a formidable modern research institution than the SEC had ever been. On the whole, the ACC’s positioning as a collection of holistic academic institutions that simply shared a bond via sports rather than football factories that occasionally provided educations was seen as an acceptable tradeoff, especially considering the call of the late 1960s and early 1970s included calls for Tech to drop to Division III or even close up shop on athletics altogether.
Today, concerns of athletic deemphasis are more intangible, more focused on perception than fiscal reality (Tech’s debt situation aside, but we’ll get there soon enough). One could make the argument that the shift to a more holistic athletic program was not only a necessary compromise, but also one that was historically overdue, given the importance of offering women equal opportunity in athletics. While the number of men’s sports at Tech has fluctuated around nine, the addition of eight women’s sports (with softball and volleyball notably excelling in terms of conference titles) offer some evidence that Tech’s move to the ACC broadened and diversified its athletic base. Howeve...