Virginia Tech Director of Athletics Whit Babcock sat down with Bill Roth, the voice of Hokies football, this week to discuss the House vs. NCAA settlement, which was passed on Friday, and what it means for Tech athletics.
The Hokies released the interview, which is 34 minutes in length, on Tuesday evening. Click here to listen. Babcock and Roth recorded the interview in Orlando, Fla., at NACDA (National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics).
It’s the second interview the two have done in the last six months to analyze the current landscape of college athletics and where Tech stands. The first one was in December and centered around the House settlement, the school’s plan for revenue sharing and more.
Chapters
0:00 (-34:11): Welcome
1:15 (-32:55): Implications of House vs. NCAA Settlement
2:33 (-31:37): Financial Impact
9:07 (-25:03): President Sands, The Board of Visitors and Virginia’s Government
13:20 (-20:50): The Hokie Club
14:38 (-19:32): Deals with Student-Athletes
20:04 (-14:07): Triumph NIL’s Role and NIL Enforcement
26:08 (-8:02): Title IX
27:15 (-6:55): The Involvement of Congress
30:33 (-3:37): Closing
Transcript
Bill Roth: Our podcast today is coming to you from the World Center Marriott in Orlando, Fla., where the NACDA annual convention is being held. That’s the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics. I’m Bill Roth, along with the Hokies’ Director of Athletics, Whit Babcock. It’s nice to see you, and of all places, a Marriott ballroom in beautiful Orlando, Fla.
Whit Babcock: Yeah, it’s an annual event down here, as you know, and it’s a great chance for ADs to get together with other divisions of our department and learn from their peers. A great career-development opportunity, and with the recent news, there’s no lack of conversation topics, but great to be here and excited for the offseason.
Roth: All of your colleagues, all of the ADs from around the country [are here]. Before we get going, though, congratulations to your marketing team. Last night, the Hokies were named the NACMA Marketing Team of the Year.
Babcock: Yeah, that’s a big deal. I’m really proud of them. We’re going to celebrate when we get back. To be recognized as the marketing team of the year nationally speaks to their abilities and what they do for us, so incredibly proud of them, they do fabulous work and great for the Hokies.
Roth: Well, I have been walking through the lobby here and I’ve talked with so many different athletic directors — athletic directors from every conference are here. Jim Phillips, the ACC commissioner, is here. And, of course, it is the dawn of a new era in college sports, and that is what everyone is talking about. Brought about by the multi-billion-dollar legal settlement that was approved last week. Starting in July, in just a few weeks, Virginia Tech and other schools can officially begin directly paying athletes through an annual revenue-sharing pool of about $20.5 million. Whit, what was your initial reaction Friday night last week when you heard Judge Claudia Wilken’s official ruling that this was approved?
Babcock: My initial reaction was, “Finally.” Some relief from the uncertainty and the never-ending litigation. It took a long time to get to this point. We really need the structure and regulation and direction, but I also felt some excitement. It’s a new opportunity, a new challenge — a positive for Virginia Tech, and hopefully all of this levels the playing field. It’s taken lots of work, it will take a lot of communication and we’re ready to go. We’ve been preparing for it, but “finally” was the first word that I thought of.
Roth: What does it mean specifically for Tech’s student-athletes and all of our teams?
Babcock: What it means in its simplest form is beginning on July 1, it is now permissive for athletic departments to share up to $20.5 million of our revenue with our student-athletes, either in the form of a direct payment or a new additional scholarship. We have roster limits now, but no scholarship limits. What I would also want to say is we’re here to help support the student-athletes, whether that’s financial literacy with their contracts, their taxation and more. Again, it will be a big communication lift to educate people to this new paradigm, but we want to provide the resources to educate them.
As you know, Bill, during our lifetime, there was an era where boosters could not be involved, zero. And then for the past few years it was the schools can’t be involved, only the boosters can on NIL, so the fact that the pendulum is swinging back to the schools, we like that, it gives us some control over it, and again, our day job is to take care of these student-athletes. We want to support them, help them understand things like the new NIL clearinghouse, the approval process, the guidelines, etc. It’s a big change, it’s great for the student-athletes and finally some structure, and again, hopefully a level playing field that we can all work from.
Roth: Well, I hope it’s level. But how about for Tech? Break it down, sport-by-sport. How much money is Coach [Brent] Pry going to have for his guys? Men’s and women’s basketball? Because the coaches are talking about it — how is much Tech’s kids are getting, how much is Clemson getting? Do you have a sense, can you tell our fans how it’s breaking down?
Babcock: I certainly want to tell our fans. I don’t necessarily want to tell our competition, but football generates approximately 75-80 percent of the revenue, so it’s logical to invest in that manner. What I’m also looking forward to is about a year from now, there will be some transparency of that $20.5 million — how did each school spend it, on what sport and even down to the position group that it was spent on. We have educated all of our coaches on what they can expect, we’re ready to go and next year that 20.5 number will go up at least 4 percent, and you have the opportunity to adjust and tweak, but we feel like we’re in a really favorable position, strategic position, and ready to go.
Roth: Revenue generation. Let me ask you about this because since we visited back in December, Tech announced that it will increase student fees and direct a larger portion to athletics. What other avenues do you envision pursuing to increase revenue for Tech’s athletics program?
Babcock: Yeah, it’s definitely launched us into that and looking at things through a creative lens, more of a pro sports lens, whether it’s concerts, whether we put a Topgolf event in the stadium, I think you’ll see some use-type things. Logos on the field potentially. Corporate naming, premium seating, creating memorable experiences and content. On down the road I could also see some examples of public and private partnerships. I really like with what Iowa State has done with the Cytown area or even the Packers around their stadium. I could envision something on down the road, potentially on Chicken Hill or at the Corporate Research Center, but those capturing entertainment districts around the stadium, I think you can certainly look at that. There will be a definite refocusing on the Hokie Club and on that message.
As far as student fees, we were grateful to get that boost. We still have the lowest fees of any school in the state, and I hope that will continue. The Cox Bill in the state of Virginia, which limits how much you can increase student fees, was originally intended to limit some of the non-Power Four schools in the state. Hopefully we can get that changed. Right now, the inability to do some things really is punitive to us and UVa. In the state of Virginia, you’re not allowed to use state funds, so it can only be through fees, so we certainly want to keep tuition and costs low, but that was a nice and appreciated gesture by the university.
Roth: What about trimming expenses? What have you done so far and what do you envision down the road to help minimize your expenses?
Babcock: At this point, a question I get asked a lot, we’re not dropping any sports, I don’t see that in the near-term future. We have 22, we’re comfortable with that number, but we’ve got to be strategic in how we fund our programs, and trimming expenses is part of that. We’ve had some staff reductions, we’ve not filled some open positions and then, quite frankly, with the new roster limits that are in place, we’ll have approximately 60 less student-athletes. I wish that wasn’t the case, but there is also some cost reduction in that. Our budget was already low. We trimmed a lot, but we’ll continue to try to operate lean and manage those expenses, but more focused on generating revenue and getting help from campus and the business community.
Roth: No athletic director ever wants to drop sports, right? No one does, but you and your other colleagues — in all honesty, how can you not?
Babcock: I haven’t seen anybody do it nationally yet. We are resistant to that. Sometimes it runs you into some litigation. There’s been a few schools that have done it and others that have done it and gotten stung pretty bad. As a former baseball player, Olympic sports, they train just as hard, they care just as much about their program. Sports are not created to generate revenue, but trying to enhance that student-athlete experience and keep them going. Maybe on down the road, but for now, we’re in a good spot, and I think you’re seeing the national trend that everyone’s trying to hold onto the sports.
Roth: When you visit with the Board of Visitors, when you have your one-on-ones with President Dr. Tim Sands, do you get pushback on any of this? Are they as supportive as you’d like? What’s your temperature as you read the room as you’re in those meetings?
Babcock: Dr. Sands is incredibly smart, as is the Board of Visitors, so they’re quick studies, but I’m very pleased with the process. I know athletics is important to the board and to the president and certainly to our fan base. For this next upcoming athletic year, we’ve got the $20.5 million identified. There are some one-time campus money, there’s some utilization of our reserves and then a slight increase in the student fees, but we’re now working on developing a sustainable model for the coming years.
We do need campus support and subsidy, everyone in our profession does, so there’s a lot of pressure on campuses. Many are ahead of us, and Virginia Tech has historically been pretty conservative on this front, Bill. It’s important to be top tier. The value of athletics to Virginia Tech is immense and we need that support and feel that it’s justified, and quite frankly, when you can get more resources, whether it’s from campus or the public, it leads to winning, and now in the ACC, as you know, we’re competing for viewership, we’re competing for success in men’s and women’s basketball and there will be different allocations from the ACC. Really grateful for it. Campus has been wonderful and hopefully they can continue to do that, but we work really well in partnership and everyone’s been very supportive.
Roth: It’s been so important because even in our league, even in the ACC, the rules of engagement are different. As you mentioned, in Virginia, you and Carla [Williams] and the folks at UVa can’t use state funds to renovate stadiums or for athletics at all. Well, that’s not true for every school in the ACC, so your hand is different. Some schools can raise student fees. At Tech and UVa, for example, you can’t raise student fees and you can’t get state funds for facilities and athletics at all. That’s not true for any other state in the ACC.
Babcock: Yeah, there are some that have some advantages. With the number of private schools in the ACC, they have some inherent advantages and people expect us to beat them, I do too, and we’ll find a way, but yes, the state of Virginia is conservative in that nature. But things are starting to loosen up, and again, state funds should be used for education, campus initiatives, things like that, but it would be nice to have a little flexibility, absolutely. And you think of the economic impact we bring to the area, the PR value, I do believe it’s justified, but we’re getting there and there are some things we can do better and I know we have some legislators that are interested in working on that.
Roth: By the way, it’s not just a college rule. Anyone who has followed the NFL situation in Washington with the Commanders, and before that the Redskins, and the inability to build a stadium in Virginia, we know why. It impacts pro sports as well. Tax funds aren’t going to be used to build an NFL stadium in Fairfax County.
Babcock: Correct, and we’re all trying to have stadiums or multi-use facilities that can entertain our fans and generate the most revenue. One of the coolest examples I’ve seen of that, I went to an Atlanta Braves game not too long ago and I thought, “Man, their previous stadium was pretty good. Why the heck did they move?” And then I realized how much of the surrounding area they own, the restaurants, it was really impressive. Again, we’re going to remain college sports, but it’s sure going to look a little more like pro, and we want to view things through that lens and that’s the direction we’ll head.
Roth: I have this image of the Hokies buying Center Street and turning it into some sort of pregame party.
Babcock: We’d be in good shape.
Roth: I don’t know if you want that headache just yet. Hey, let me turn the page here to the Hokie Club. The ruling by Judge Wilkens and what is happening now, how does that impact the Hokie Club and its philanthropic mission?
Babcock: It remains the same, but I will say this, our fan base will see a renewed emphasis on the Hokie Club and consolidated messaging. Again, I think it was a little confusing the past few years. “Hey, give this to the Hokie Club, but we need you to do this to Triumph or the Hokie Way.” Now with the recent House case settlement, we can bring a lot of it in-house. Really looking forward to Danny White leading that unit. We will be offering 45 new scholarships — that’s approximately $2.5 million. We’ve got $18 million on top of that in revenue sharing.
We want to continue to be strategic in our facilities, and an interesting point to note, the Hokie Club membership is first or second in the ACC. We’re above 25,000 donors, but the money that we raise is around eighth or ninth in the league. The Hokie Club has always been our bread and butter, we had to kind of bifurcate the message the last few years, but people will see a renewed emphasis on that, and there’s no better way to help the Hokies than be part of the Hokie Club. We really need it.
Roth: We’ve seen some schools that have already signed athletes to revenue-sharing agreements around the country, either through a school’s collective or through the university itself. This all goes into effect on July 1. Has Virginia Tech athletics signed such a deal with any student-athletes yet?
Babcock: Oh, absolutely we have. With the settlement now in place, the deals will start to be entered into the software program — it’s a group called LBI that does Major League Baseball’s salary cap. Now that we’re working with the revenue-share cap, that group will manage it. When it comes to revenue share, we’re only permitted to share cash only, there’s no gifting kind, apartments, cars, things such as that. If that’s in play, that has to be done through NIL. The cool thing about revenue-share agreements, it’s more of a contract. You can even put performance incentives in there, you can put graduation bonuses, you can work on the structure, and hopefully that and the transparency with it, along with the new NIL procedures, will slow some of the transfer process down.
What this also does is with the revenue-share cap and these contracts is it really launches you into data analytics and a Moneyball-type approach, right? If everybody has the same amount, where are you going to spend it, what’s the return on investment? And we do have a front office-type structure and we also lean really heavily on Jeff King with the Bears, Erik Neander with the Rays and Bruce Arians, to a lesser extent. But trying to learn how the pro sports do it with the cap and how we can best implement it and be strategic about it, but it sent me back to read the book Moneyball another time. Heck of a movie and a heck of a book and that’s the world we’re in right now.
Roth: Let me follow up on your answer there. Do you have performance clauses in these contracts with our current players?
Babcock: We don’t in this initial round. We wanted to be pretty basic in it. Some of these contracts may ultimately involve buyouts if a student-athlete leaves, but no, at this time, it was pretty straightforward, and if they transfer, obviously, the payments stop, but it is a new world order and getting used to it.
Roth: A buyout, so they would have to reimburse the athletics department?
Babcock: Or the school that they went to. I’ll make up a number. Let’s say we have a student-athlete in football making $500,000 from the revenue share and let’s say we had a $200,000 buyout in that clause. Let’s say that student-athlete transfers to Ohio State to receive $1 million in revenue share. Well, either Ohio State or the young person would have to pay the buyout. We at Virginia Tech would get to keep that, and then Ohio State would have to count that buyout money against their cap, so instead of the student-athlete receiving $1 million from Ohio State in this example, Ohio State would be charged $1.2 million against the cap. That’s some pretty foreign-type stuff.
Roth: Did you ever want to be an NFL general manager? Because this is exactly what one in that role does.
Babcock: Some people are talking about doing revenue share and deferred comp, things such as that, but it has to be received during their eligibility, and any year that any money is received through the revenue-share cap is the year it counts against that cap.
Roth: This is interesting. It’s an academic fiscal year, right?
Babcock: Correct.
Roth: So, in football, for example, you’re overlapping. It’s 25-26 at this point, correct?
Babcock: It’ll run from July 1 to June 30 of each year, and again, through the revenue-share portion, we can offer 20.5, Alabama can offer 20.5, Ohio State can offer 20.5. So it should level the playing field. Anybody that circumvents the cap, the penalties and the new enforcement structure, which I know we’ll talk about later, really needs to have some teeth to it, and I believe it will, but something to level the field and put some guardrails on this. I believe it’s a good opportunity for Virginia Tech. We’re learning as we go, just like everyone else, but trying to learn as much as we can in this new era.
Roth: You might not know the answer to this, and if not, that’s fine. There’s a trivia question here and an answer: Who is the first Tech athlete to sign a pro contract for Tech? Who will be our first-ever Hokie to get paid?
Babcock: Well, there’s a number of them on the football team, [men’s] basketball team and women’s basketball team that have already signed and will start to receive funds direct from the university beginning in July. You could do the payments monthly, you could do them quarterly, you could do them during the season, but again, any time cash is received, that counts against your cap. That’s a great question. I’m not sure who the first one was.
Roth: I’ll find out. Whoever signed it first. That’s interesting.
Babcock: We proactively had those deals signed anticipating the settlement of the case, so we’re in a good spot there and up and running like our competition.
Roth: Well, in our league, football and basketball get all of the attention on this, but there are others. You guys have to find other ways to supplement the salary cap, and that’s through NIL. What is Triumph’s mission now and how does this ruling affect collectives nationwide?
Babcock: The settlement had no jurisdiction over collectives. They’re outside of the athletic department, so Triumph will still exist, the Hokie Way will as well. We may bring some of that in-house, we may bring it all in-house, I’m not quite sure yet, but there’s still a function for them, and instead of collectives I could see them morphing into advertising agencies.
As far as supplementing with millions of dollars in NIL on top of the revenue-share cap, I would say maybe to that. As you may know, in addition to the rev share, now with NIL, before a deal can go forward, once a student-athlete signs an NIL agreement, within five days it has to be put through a clearinghouse with Deloitte. Deloitte will declare very quickly whether that is true range of compensation for that work, and Deloitte has come out, I believe, and said that of all the deals done in the past year with NIL, 90 percent of them wouldn’t qualify now.
So with us sharing that significant amount of money with student-athletes, I’m really hopeful that NIL comes back down to what it was intended to be. We’ve been in this era where billionaires can, quite frankly, buy players for other teams, it creates a false market, we’ve got college players making more than pro players in NIL. I’m hopeful for this new NIL structure, the rules and enforcement may be the most important part of the whole settlement — the NIL component. We’ll see, but I will believe it will bring it back down and some control over it.
Roth: Major League Baseball executive Bryan Seeley was named the CEO of the new College Sports Commission. That’s his role, right? Stop boosters from using NIL deals, but I don’t know, Whit. Are we naïve to think it can be enforced? Are we naïve to think people won’t cheat? How can it survive litigation?
Babcock: There’s a few ways. As a part of the settlement, there are some court-mandated limited antitrust protections in there, so by all of the power for schools and many others that opt in to the settlement, you’re opting in to the structure, the penalties, the review. You can’t sue in this regard, so another part that’s really interesting about all of this is NIL will now be outside of the NCAA. They will have nothing to do with it. Deloitte will be a part of that and this new enforcement agency. The NCAA won’t have anything to do with rev share, that goes through LBI.
And then this new enforcement mechanism, one thing we all agree on is if there’s not real teeth in the penalties, if there’s not real expediency, if that’s the right word, it’s not going to work. The penalties and the structure that we’ve heard do have some teeth, and I guess people could still find a way to cheat if they wanted, cash under the table or not turning in NIL deals, but if you find out about it and you turn people in, I feel a whole lot better about this group than I did the NCAA. Bryan has his hands full, I’m wishing him the best, but none of this works if the enforcement doesn’t work.
Roth: That is the key to it because hypothetically, let’s say there’s a BMW dealership in some SEC town. That gentleman or woman, whoever runs it, wants to pay seven figures to his or her favorite team’s quarterback to quarterback that team, hypothetically. That sets the market. If BMW of Lexington, of Baton Rouge, of Oxford, whatever, thinks that the next Jayden Daniels is on the team now, how can Bryan stop it?
Babcock: Yeah, we started off using the term “fair-market value,” which is what you just described — whatever somebody’s willing to pay for it. But the terminology through Deloitte has changed. It’s now a “fair range of compensation,” and I would come back with this: That example you just gave me, you can’t do that in the NFL. If Travis Kelce does an ad on TV for Wheaties, that has to clear a fair range of compensation benchmark with the NFL because the NFL doesn’t want their salary cap being circumvented in ways as well. If Travis Kelce and Patrick Mahomes get an NIL deal of a certain value, fair range of compensation for a college athlete, it would be significantly less, so it all points back to this Deloitte clearinghouse.
Again, the deals are supposed to be entered up front before any student-athlete would receive NIL money. Very quickly, Deloitte will rule whether it’s acceptable or not acceptable. If it’s not acceptable, you’ll have the ability to adjust the amounts. There is an appeal process and then there’s an arbitration process, and that arbitration is binding and final. So the process will be much quicker. We’ll find out, but $7 million from a car dealer doesn’t strike me as fair range of compensation. But it keeps pointing us back to the enforcement and the penalties need to have real teeth. As we all learn this, we’ll figure it out, but again, sharing tremendous amount of revenue, bring NIL down to its more pure form and what it was intended to be, and I’m hopeful it works. And again, Mr. Bryan Seeley and his team have their hands full, but we’re rooting for them.
Roth: How will Virginia Tech and other schools comply with Title IX? That’s the federal law that prohibits any gender-based inequity.
Babcock: We’re still obviously going to comply with Title IX — in particular with scholarships and participation opportunities, facilities, support staff and the like. We’ve had tremendous success in our women’s sports, it’s a point of pride for us. However, at this point in time, revenue share and NIL is still market-based, and again, if football generates 75 percent of your revenue, it’s pretty easily justified to why football should get 75 percent of the rev share.
I would also argue that we’ve been revenue sharing for years, right? We have 22 sports. Football makes a tremendous amount of money for us, basketball does pretty good and the money from those two sports fund the other 20. Title IX is always going to be something we comply with. Heck, it’s a federal law. But right now with revenue sharing and NIL, that is still market-based and that’s the direction we’re moving in.
Roth: Jim Phillips, who is here today, and Charlie Baker is here today as well, many of these colleagues say that the only way to really solve these legal problems moving forward is for Congress to create new laws, which will prevent athletes from essentially becoming employees. It gives the NCAA and schools an antitrust exemption to make rules limit players’ earning power. Is that on the table still? Do you guys still want Congress to act, and is collective bargaining next for our athletes?
Babcock: They’re still students, and who would you collective bargain with?
Roth: I don’t know. It’d have to be a union of some sort.
Babcock: But we’re in Virginia, which is a Right-to-Work state and unions aren’t allowed, so maybe on down the road. Maybe collective bargaining is the next chapter, but this settlement and then, quite frankly, getting some help from Congress, and finally there’s some momentum on that much-needed front. I just saw another bill being introduced from the House of Representatives. Congress seems more educated on this subject matter. I think we’ve got our act together or, pardon the pun, our house in order, after the settlement where Congress can get involved.
Previously, our industry had a really difficult time articulating what we wanted from Congress, and now we’re doing a better job of that. Without true collective bargaining, we’re going to need Congress’ help, and here are the things we’re looking for: One national standard from Congress on NIL. Right now, we have 50 different state laws. That’s kind of a race to the bottom as people are hyper-competitive, but sometimes the state laws circumvent the NCAA and now Deloitte laws on NIL, so we need a national standard on that.
We’re also asking for acknowledgement that these are students, they are not employees. Like I mentioned, collective bargaining with no employee status and union is null and void, so with Congress’ help, we can get some protection, try to end this never-ending battle of lawsuits. And then finally part of the ask is, which we’re already doing, but to make sure everybody is doing, is student-athlete protections. There’s no agent registration. We’re implementing mandatory mental health training, medical support even after graduation. I believe the most recent bill I saw offered 10 years — not of eligibility, but 10 years to complete the degree. Some financial management protection.
That’s a long answer, but one NIL standard, national protection from lawsuits, acknowledgement that they’re student-athletes and then protections for the student-athletes. And I do believe it’s something that both sides of the aisle can get behind and it seems to be picking up steam, but the House case settlement was a big step to getting Congress involved and that’s something else we’ll follow. Again, something else when I was coming up through this profession I never thought I’d see happen, but we dang sure need it.
Roth: It’s interesting because you and I should be talking about our players and coaches, and I want to ask you about scheduling and I want to ask you about television revenue and I want to ask you about the Metallica concert and I want to ask you about what you think of our coaches and our players and how excited you are for the start of the season, and we will do that when the time is right. Not revenue sharing and salary caps and buyout contracts for current athletes. It’s such a new era for all of these ADs that are here, this is something that is so different from what you guys were expecting.
Babcock: We’ll get the hang of it. And again, whatever this next chapter is, I’m convinced it’s better than the chapter we just went through. And you look at the NFL, they’ve got a draft, they’ve got a salary cap, they have tampering rules, they have free agency rules. College sports for the last three years has had no structure, none of that, and college sports is such a uniquely American enterprise. Again, I think everybody in the country can get behind that, protecting the Olympic sports opportunities, and we just want it based on fairness, right? That’s competition. Here are the rules, here’s the structure, let’s all play by them and I’m confident it will be a beneficial era for Virginia Tech, and interesting times to say the least, but we’re ready for it.
Again, I’ll end where I started with the word “finally.” So now we can get moving, but we’ve been preparing for it for a long time. We’re still going to have students out there wearing Virginia Tech proudly and I’m going to cheer for them just like our fan base will. But yes, sir, it’s a dang sure new era and time to adapt and get going.
Roth: OK, let’s wrap it up. For our fans, Hokie Club membership, huge. Triumph, Hokie Way, huge. Everyone knows that the deep-pocketed alums of some of our schools in our league, we need our fans more than ever to step up, whether it’s buying tickets. Whatever you can do is really critical, more than ever.
Babcock: It absolutely is, and another great revenue-generating idea is winning some dang games. Every minute of every day, my mind is on that.
Roth: I like the Center Street entertainment complex. I don’t know where we’re coming up with that rev.
Babcock: You win every Saturday on that one. But actually, while Triumph and the Hokie Way will exist or morph into in-house, the Hokie Club is the best way to do it. It’s now simplified messaging: Please help us out and we’ll handle the rest. Money flows in pretty well when you’re winning and everyone is pleased with things. We haven’t met that standard to our satisfaction, but really now is when we need it the most and that’s the best way they can help. I would ask people to hang in there with us, renew, but the Hokie Club leads the way and 25,000 strong, but yet we have 300,000 living alumni and equally as many Hokie fans elsewhere, so help us out, we’ll try to make you proud and certainly count on doing that.