VTScoop

at all (to this point). Wake is also not under .500 in the league. We just need to win the last two series'. Don't need to sweep Pitt, but you are correct a series loss there would be tough to overcome. SOS is very strong this year, number of quad 1 wins is top 3 (tied) in the country, and RPI is good. Last few mid week opponents are good enough RPI wise that a loss to one of them isn't going to create a severe drop (maybe outside of a loss to Marshall). It certainly depends on the finish and a lot of goodwill can go away with a very poor finish. And still very hard to tell how the conference records will be evaluated based on the size of the league now (compared to the past). Schedules are very different now internally (more so than the past). And that is something that will be evaluated differently than the past (this comment comes from speaking to a recently exited Vice Chair of the Selection Committee). Both schools (UVA and VT) will have a lot to play for. Miami's resurgence gives you guys a good opportunity to change the narrative from your end before heading to BBurg. I hope the final weekend is exciting and a lot on the line.

wins probably gets us in. We have three series (two of which are very good) wins now with four to go. Carolina, Duke, Pitt, and UVA. We will have a really strong SOS by year's end. Maybe one of the toughest schedules we have ever had (certainly our league schedule for sure). We play 8 of the top 10 teams in the league (which means we only miss one of the top 10 teams because we can't play ourselves). Conversely, we only have 2 of the bottom 6 teams in the league on our schedule. Just a very rough break there, but it creates opportunity, and wins are all the better. That will play very much in our favor come year end as all of these oversized leagues can have a tremendous disparity in their schedules. Don't see any scenario (unless we lost everyone mid week going forward) where 16-14 doesn't get us in. Our SOS is up to 33, and there are only 6 teams (ahead of us in the RPI==we are currently 38) with more Quad 1 wins than us. We have already played 15 quad one games and are 7-8. We just need to continue to grind out some more wins and get a couple of guys going offensively again. Credit FSU this weekend. They certainly are very good, and definitely look the part. The return of their LF was a tremendous shot in the arm for their team (he has been out the last month or so). Both sides of the ball, but especially offensively. Gives them a different speed component to a team loaded with power. They can lay eggs like everyone, but this was the preseason top 10 team most expected to see. Their starting pitching staff is a tough matchup for us right now. Probably the best overall team we will see this year. We pitched well enough to win this weekend. The second game score on Saturday is very misleading, and got away in the last inning or so after it was apparent we had to start playing for Sunday (and an unfortunate throwing error). Our pitching staff has really been good for a few weeks now. Very pleased with how that has progressed. Another big series next weekend with the Tar Heels (who is also very good) coming to town. Just have to hang in there and continue to create opportunities for ourselves against very high quality competition (even some of our remaining mid weeks are tough).

as these types of records are indicative of long, sustained, consistent, and productive careers (from the minute they set foot on campus). Not only is Bre Peck going to leave with the Home Run record, but she is going to eclipse 50 plus games per year, for 4 years in a Hokie uniform, over 200 hits, and a career average north of .330. Not many get to claim those types of numbers either. Just a model of winning production for the program.

right :-).

was 32 in the RPI coming into tonight's game. ETSU was 21-6 coming into the game. First win for them in Johnson City since 2014. ETSU very good this year. Radford is now 14-14 so a very different team/year for them. If they hold serve in conference, they won't be as bad as some are making them out to be. You are right though, that Radford loss (in 2023) was a horrible loss that year, unfortunately. They finished 10-45 (yikes). Agree with you that it can't happen too much during a year (and yesterday was just a bad day all the way around), but ultimately what kept us out in 2023 was a 12-17 conference record. If we get to 15-15 (with five series wins) we will probably get in the tournament. We get to 16-14, we would probably be a lock. We have four really good Non Conf. games left this year (higher than normal for this time of year). Troy, Liberty (2), and ETSU down there. We have lots of good opportunities left to strengthen the resume. And if we perform well in most of those, this loss won't really hurt us. We have already moved up 2 spots from just yesterday. Shoot, even Arkansas just lost to the #223 RPI team at home the other day, so these bad days happen. We aren't Arkansas, of course. But just have to move on. Lots still to play for. Each weekend gets larger as the season moves on. Hate the injury to Michel occurred, as he was starting to really get going again, but the team has shown some resiliency (despite some flaws). Hope we can enjoy postseason play again this year. Time will tell.

road series as well. But especially hard for any road team to ever lead in all 18 innings (of two games) over a program like Wake Forest. Bullpen stepped up today and got us through the final 7 innings. In that park, against that quality of offense, this is a very nice accomplishment. Confidence is improving by the week.

settlement through reserves, insurance, and reducing their own expenses. Then approx. $665M is being covered by the Power Conferences (through reduced payouts) and the remaining $990M, or so, is being covered by the remaining non power conferences (through reduced payouts). That is the bulk of it. There may be a couple of other areas some very small amounts of money are coming from, but this is the nuts and bolts of it. Pending final approval of course.

but wouldn't classify it as voluntary. I suppose one could play games (and I am sure some will). And again, there are some potential legal hurdles despite it being part of the settlement. But this is a good summary of it and hope it will help explain a little better (from a March 2025 article): Deloitte, meanwhile, has been hired to oversee the NIL clearinghouse portion of the settlement in vetting deals worth $600 or more. The vision with this measure is to curb payment activity that is, in practice, pay-for-play being passed off under the guise of NIL deals. A source with knowledge of the committee’s thinking explained the clearinghouse is a structured system with two primary objectives: 1) vetting the range of compensation on varying deals; and 2) evaluating whether those agreements have a valid business purpose. In regard to enforcement if/when discrepancies arise, a second source familiar with the SIC’s dealings explained the penal process is designed to create a consistent and expedited proceeding with clear penalties if rules are violated (Re: circumventing the cap, not disclosing deals, etc.). What those exact penalties are is a work in progress, as a third source suggested the committee is workshopping a handful of options. The settlement also notably calls for an adjudication process in which NIL payment conflicts and new rules created in relation to its terms will be heard by an independent arbiter. “The arbitrator is like a judge, not like a district attorney,” plaintiffs' attorney Jeffrey Kessler told SBJ in July. “The NCAA and some other arm will still be enforcement, but they will say, ‘OK you’ve violated the discipline,’ and the athlete or the school will be able to say, ‘I’m challenging that before this neutral arbitrator.’”

mentioning that this is an angle that we are using to help move along the thinking process for some. But, VT will not push the envelope (knowingly so) with any of dates (should it settle). And there are still many that question the ability of anyone determining "the appropriate market value" of an NIL deal (legally that is). ** Edited by VTScoop at 3/26/2025, 2:26:20 PM

added sense of urgency for many schools due to the April 7th House settlement approval date. Many of these portal additions are going to want to find a home by April 6, as the NIL component would not be scrutinized by Deloitte at that point. After April 7 that changes (if the settlement goes through--and there is still some IF to this). I know that is an angle we are somewhat playing at least. Some schools will thumb their nose at worrying about that :-). But we won't be one of those schools.

VT Athletics (in several areas).

Commonwealth. We technically play a 4th at Radford, but I don't even count that as a "trip" because of proximity to our campus. All 3 of UVA's are within 75 miles from their campus. That is highly desirable and easily navigable. We go to Harrisonburg, Richmond, and Lynchburg. Richmond pushes it for us. UVA goes to Richmond, Fredericksburg, and Lynchburg. None of our 3 in state trips are within 75 miles. Almost all mid-week games are set up to not have to stay overnight (this goes for almost all schools). So, we aren't going to set up mid week contests that require an overnight stay (or certainly rarely). Neither is UVA. Nothing to question about our financial viability, and your peer assessment is frankly absurd.

but will quickly say, in this case, that while proactivity is not our current Administration's greatest strength, there has been engagement with some very high end donors. We are fortunate that some of those donors then took some of the initiative on their own. The masses have not been exposed to the NIL game like we need moving forward. So we shall see how that goes. But, we have actually amassed pretty good NIL that came about with several folks that bought into helping. Then those folks kind of ran with it.

works with is almost 60% higher. So the results are significantly better. Men's golf has by far the lowest budget in the ACC. By far. VT's men's golf budget might be the lowest of the Power 4 and several other non-Power 4 schools. Carol does well with what she has to work with but Sharpie can't compete (financially) right now. Both good people for our programs. But we desperately need a large outdoor on campus facility to share (don't see that happening anytime soon). The River Course facilities were not built to house two golf programs.

an "investor" mentality the other day in a post and think that is appropriate (along with your shareholder mindset). Several folks in the athletic department mentioned doing that type of meeting (more than one annually actually) with donors a few years back. Unfortunately, it didn't get much traction with Whit. Whit is just not comfortable doing that type of communication. But because of the uncertainty, mounting questions, state of college athletics/how we plan to attack, we desperately need more outreach/communication regarding strategy, needs, and priorities. Not less. As far as donor information goes, we don't have close to 10,000 donors even giving at the $1,000 level, much less being able to divert anything over that amount to NIL. We don't even have half that number of donors giving at that level. And we probably actually have 20-21K actual HSF donors. But we have several thousand giving at a $25 level (including several thousand students). There is certainly nothing wrong with that, but just stating that to show the depth of our annual fund donors. But do like the appeal of asking for funding NIL with sports we choose to be competitive with. As far as shifting HSF dollars to NIL, we just need to make sure we can cover the $15M plus annual scholarship fund bill first and foremost. That is the primary goal of the annual fund. We typically bring in $18-$19M now through the annual fund (including club seat premiums). Then we raise another $2M plus in sport specific giving each year. Sport specific dollars moving forward will be able to be used for NIL, and do count for Hokie Club priority points. So, could we divert anything over our scholarship bill to NIL? Maybe so, assuming other areas are covered financially (or is it robbing Peter to pay Paul)? Unfortunately, the idea of forcing anyone with NIL of $250K or more paying their own way is not legal, nor would it help. You would just be eating into that net NIL if you turned around and made them pay a $50-$60K annual scholarship bill. Understand the thought though. I am in favor of becoming as lean as possible to divert the dollars to support success. Trimming unnecessary staff, maybe even cutting some sports, but being smart as to how we invest moving forward. To your point, the "old way" of doing business is over. Let's pick 6 sports, or so, and roll with proper investments. We may need some new folks to help devise a real strategy. And selling that to our people is vital. We just can't avoid conversation, hide from the issues, and fail to communicate. If we want our supporters to help, we have to tell them how and how it will actually help. Thanks for your post and idea. Thinking outside the box will be crucial moving forward. Happy Thanksgiving!!! ** Edited by VTScoop at 11/28/2024, 8:29:37 PM

30 years ago. I was just helping to point out that sport specific giving is definitely operational enhancement. That will include NIL moving forward (and you should see that in writing here soon). Wrestling will confirm that their budget increases with these gifts. They get a Foundation account report that tells them when additional monies arrive. They just happen to be the most unique sport on campus because they have a legal/compliant method of raising significant money outside of the official university fundraising arm. SERTC, as you know well, has been very good to Tony. And does have a little more flexibility. Hope that helps somewhat.

campus to try to alleviate any discrepancies (outside of one person). Just trying to explain that sport specific gifts enhance the budget. You probably have had the chance to speak with Bill Old before (the softball Dir. of Ops). He does a good job of explaining how he receives their foundation account report and can confirm how each additional gift enhances their budget. He is a really good ops director, btw and one of my favorites. I have often checked on any sport specific giving I have done with the coaches of those sports, including wrestling. As far as the quality of messaging, I will sit that one out this time :-). Only thing I will say is they are getting ready to put in writing, that sport specific giving will help the program with any operational aspect (not scholarships), including NIL. Hope that helps a little.....

game. Multiple sports enhance their budgets from sport specific giving initiatives. No coach would ever suggest/nor fool with sport specific giving initiatives if that were the case. But no sport at VT has their budget reduced/offset by sport specific gifts. Tony has, and still does, prefer SERTC, but giving through the University still helps him in several ways (and that will soften more as the school handles NIL more and more). One of the big differences is the school keeps a portion of each gift for operating costs, whereas SERTC doesn't need to do that (or at not at that level).

necessarily tied to the hip. One would think they should be in many cases, however. Most President's rely on their athletic leadership to do proactive planning/institute new ideas (as they should rely on them) when it comes to athletics. So, normally that means you might need a different approach with different people if things aren't going as hoped or planned. And I am not even really talking about coaching staffs. As currently constructed, we are a reactive athletic department. Not really any doubt about that. But that doesn't mean the University is not interested in competing. I would actually say the interest is there to compete. And some recent investment indicates that. However, while money is important, outreach and communicating strategy is vital to any support base. If you have lots of money but don't spend/allocate wisely, it doesn't really matter how much you have. And almost every athletic department, save 10-12 of them, has to think about allocation because you can't be really good at everything. And you can't be good at anything if you don't realize that!!

now. Each sport can choose whether to offer full rides or participate in the equivalency model and offer partial scholarships. Some sports may suffer and other sports may have more financial resource than previously able (depending how schools approach this model and allocate internal resources). Most schools still aren't sure what they will do (even at the largest resourced schools in intercollegiate athletics). With regards to making everything else a club sport (which is pretty much in existence already at VT for most all sports), no AD in the country can reduce the number of varsity sports (at this time) below the minimum required as a D-I institution. As an FBS member, we still have to sponsor a minimum of 16 sports now. And we have to still maintain a 57/43 men's to women's scholarship allocation (because of the proportional enrollment of the general student body). So, that balance is necessary, in addition to the number of sports requirement. ** Edited by VTScoop at 10/27/2024, 10:00:09 PM

frame when this comes up. I think your list is certainly fair, and obviously it is somewhat of an opinion based topic so no definitive right or wrong list here :-). I do think when talking about a "brand" we are talking about something that has been developed, or built, over time (not just the past few seasons). So, just using the the 20 years we have been in the ACC as a measuring stick, I would have us a pretty clear fourth "brand" ahead of State, NC, and Louisville. In those 20 seasons, Clemson (8), FSU (5), and VT (4) have won 17 of the 20 ACC titles. VT is second in ACC title game appearances (6) behind Clemson (9). Carolina has two appearances, Louisville one (realize they have been in the league for 10 years or so). NC State has zero. NC State hasn't wont the ACC since 1979 and has never even been to a "major" bowl game (Orange, Sugar, Rose, or Fiesta). Carolina hasn't won the ACC since 1980 and has been to three major bowl games: two Sugar Bowl's in the 1940's and the asterisk Covid year season they went to the Orange Bowl. Louisville hasn't won the ACC yet (they have 3 major bowl bids). David Teel just wrote a piece about televised games since 2013 with viewers of 2M or more and VT is fourth in the league during that time frame, and that has been our "down" decade. VT is ahead of Carolina ($67M), NC State ($57M), and Louisville ($56M) with $69M in football generated revenue(2022-2023 year). The reason I bring that up is.... of that $69M in football generated revenue, the media rights component of that for VT was close to $32M. That is almost $6M more than Carolina, $7M more than State, and $8M more than UL. That is a substantial difference in media rights, which typically comes from a better brand. Now if we are talking about the last few years, it may be a little different. Just think when it comes to football branding, your first four is ahead of the others over measurable periods of time. And those are the football brands that the league needs to get going again (all four together). VT needs to do their part for sure. Anyways, fair list on your part.

no longer going to be "headcount" sports. So any school can give a partial or full scholarship to an athlete. Just can't exceed approved scholarship limit for said sport. So in Volleyball's case, we don't have to give full scholarships anymore should we choose not too. VT just needs to maintain a 57/43 male to female scholarship ratio (this is where we currently are because of the male to female proportion of the student body), and make sure the sports we do field have equal access to all of the ancillary benefits such as tutoring/academic support, nutrition, housing, travel, per diem, equipment, facilities (for the sport), etc. We could move scholarships from certain sports to others that are much more competitive if we wanted to. We could take scholarships from a Volleyball and give them to women's soccer or softball (as an example). Should we cut sports, we may not save on all of the scholarships costs, but we would save on coaching salaries, trainers, some academic support, some nutrition, some S&C, possibly an admin person or two, team equipment/supplies, and travel. Plus it would eliminate the image of not being able to compete. That is just a cruel and vicious cycle to watch happen over and over. VT doesn't need more than 16 (minimum) sports at this point in time, or certainly don't need any more than necessary to balance out the proper scholarship allocation. There is not just one way to get there so too hard to list the options without going crazy (LOL). The landscape has changed, and that is all out of VT's control. No one wishes to talk about it, and it would cause substantial job loss for folks. Not sure the University really wants that either. And nationwide, no school wants to be the first to cut sports. But as this thread got started, we aren't remotely competitive in a few sports now. Not sure what I think the ultimate outcome will be here at VT. I have my own thoughts, but don't wish to pick sports over others, nor pit one versus the other.

uncertainty and I am tied up some today. Saw your question earlier. What @2hhoop3 is saying is true relative to scholarships counting as part of the revenue sharing. Here is a little more on that from a post I made the other day when @Chris Coleman was asking why scholarships were being increased and was using baseball as an example. Some of what you are asking is in this post and should help a little: "If I could answer your question as to why scholarships are increasing. The whole reasoning behind this is to "unlock" the restrictions needed to help with the revenue sharing "settlement." Schools are allowed to count additional scholarships as part of the revenue settlement amount. I believe it is in the neighborhood of $2-$3M (of the ~$22M). So, all of these scholarships (of which your math illustration is not coincidental ~$2.5-$3M for 63 scholarships) will come close to adding up to the dollar figure allowed as part of the revenue. But, unless the NCAA lifted the restriction on scholarship numbers, the additional scholarship dollars would NOT have been allowed to count as part of the revenue sharing. So, using your baseball example, the scholarship additions would be their revenue sharing and there would not necessarily be a need to share any more with baseball (in theory). There is obviously a cap on the amount that can be used for scholarships because a good portion/majority of the revenue is going to be allocated to football and basketball and those folks are already on full scholarship. So their revenue enhancements would have to come from sources not tied to scholarships. I do realize the adding of 20 football scholarships is now available, but that is not going to move the needle on revenue needed for football. In fact, if I am any school, I would think long and hard about adding football scholarships so I don't dilute the "revenue pie" with more players. That doesn't really make sense as a school can't exceed the CAP that has been installed. Some of the revenue "decision making" is still yet to be determined, as many are going to have to guess/assume risk as to the Title IX ramifications of this. If anyone is curious, the revenue sharing is based on including what a school typically spends on scholarships already. Generally, most schools spend around $15-$16M on scholarships. The additional $22M from the settlement brings the total revenue sharing to $37-$38M per school. That is considered half (like the pro model of 50% revenue sharing) of what the typical Power 4 school brings in from ticket revenue/sponsor revenue/conference payout. Crazy times. Thank goodness the additional revenue is also coming from the new CFP payouts also. I still expect some significant changes within our athletic department (relative to expenses)." Me again. That should give you some background. Most of the Power 4 schools will want the majority of revenue going to football for obvious reasons. Don't think we have made any final decisions yet as to how we will proceed just yet.

center at VT and never indicated it was. My post was only indicating there is revenue associated with the sport. The College Factual website that you link is older and has several data points that aren't accurate. We don't spend $109M on athletics now and don't earn $109M on athletics and have a net zero wash. Again, baseball has approx. $100K in premium seating revenue from the jump before any ticketing and/or concessions. They also have a $350K yearly sponsor from Atlantic Union Bank. That is $450K before the first regular ticket/concessions. Then there is sport specific giving that is considered revenue when going to operating costs. We also have to consider a turn style/gate of 42,000 plus during the season (mostly weekends) and what an average consumer spends at a 3 hour plus baseball game. Most are purchasing some sort of food item/beverage (many purchase several items) in addition to their individual ticket. Here is the Sportico Baseball ACC revenues from the FY 23 season: Choose a Category Revenues Choose a Sport Baseball Choose a Year 2022-23 Choose a Conference ACC Rank School Baseball Revenues 2022-23 1 NC State $9,759,915 2 Florida State $4,826,297 3 Clemson $2,887,635 4 North Carolina $1,860,380 5 Virginia $1,722,286 6 Virginia Tech $1,594,073 7 Georgia Tech $1,122,756 8 Louisville $403,324 Total $24,176,666 Average $3,022,083

around 28 premium tables that generate approx. $100K per year before the first regular stadium ticket is sold, and the first concession/beer is sold. Think baseball generates close to $1.5M each year in revenue (give or take). I actually think each sport that hosts team vs. team competition should charge for admission considering all of the changes going on in athletics today, and that helps create a clear identification of how sports generate revenue. Plus it helps create a "big time" program feel to said sports.

hopefully help explain a little more.

baseball program on a regular basis. The year you are citing involved significant improvements to the suite areas and conversion of areas for offices and the ability for the players to eat together and also the start of the pitching lab development, as well as some other one time expenses. While I realize it says no debt payments/CAPEX stuff is included, I think those numbers are not coincidental and somehow we aren't including those as debt/CAPEX (there is a baseball support group that is similar to the football and basketball groups). All of those were privately funded by baseball supporters (completely funded). The previous year we spent $3.7M in expenses (and that was the 2022 championship year). We didn't increase our baseball budget by $2M that is for sure (not even remotely close). There are not any inherent differences in baseball and softball relative to travel advantages, quality of hotels when on the road, per diem, etc. Baseball doesn't charter flights on road trips and buses even to places like ND (like softball does), GT, etc. Think they will only fly to BC, Miami, and at times FSU. Relative to the sports peer groups (ACC), there is not any real inherent salary differences within the staffs. That is what is tricky about trying to compare the different sports within one institution. Baseball is much more expensive and it isn't a situation where you just move more money over (I know you realize that--just stating for others reading). Gameday operations alone is much more expensive as baseball plays like 32 home games to 16 or 17 for softball and has a larger operations staff. We are probably middle of the road in ACC salary expenditures. While the baseball salaries are higher than softball, they aren't relative to other baseball coaches salaries. Pete is probably closer to the top of ACC softball salaries than Szefc is (when considering all compensation). The main difference is the facility/its upkeep/improvements/enhancements. I do advocate for a new softball facility. But as far as operations dollars, we aren't spending at a clip (regularly as a Top 20 program). As far as the two programs go, softball has a better pedigree. While Scot tailed off at the end of his time here, he had still been to 8 tournament appearances (all since 2005) including a WCWS appearance but softball wasn't at the same spot as baseball when Szefc took over. When Szefc took over our climb to baseball competitiveness (don't think that is a word LOL) was much much steeper than the climb when Pete took over. Unfortunately, while I liked Pat Mason a lot on a personal level, we just weren't remotely competitive in the league. And ACC baseball is a much much deeper league in baseball than softball (and not a situation where one or two players can change the trajectory). I only post this to say that these spending numbers are not necessarily all that they appear to be. It will take several years to determine what we truly spend on any sport. But when there is a large jump from one year to the next, it usually indicates some one time expenses not normally associated with a regular operating budget.

No need to get into the debate about automatically offering kids of former athletes just because. Don't know of any coach in any sport that would subscribe to that mindset. But more to the point of the closing comment. Seth definitely wishes things would have been different at the end. The VT job/timeframe was very good for him and he has maintained some very strong relationships from his time here. But he will always have a permanent bond here (that goes beyond a former employer). He has two daughters and a son-in-law with degrees from VT. He holds the University in very high regard, and will always have bloodlines that are forever linked to VT, like you and me.

waivers. The NCAA granted the DIII waivers for the obvious Covid season in 2020, but also granted the 2020-2021 year as well (for all athletes at that level) since that level had a lot of schools that still canceled so many sports for the Fall of 2020. That is how Ference at UVA will return this year for them. So, from an eligibility standpoint, the 2020 and 2021 seasons did not count.

potentially put an ACC school in those ranges. That is good for those that can achieve that, but it does create some budget issues. How do you plan on that every year? If you do budget for that and don't reach that level what happens? You would be talking about an additional $20M plus that MIGHT or MIGHT NOT be there. That is the big difference in competing with those other two conference payouts. Not sure I think it would be better than the bottom half of the P2, however (at least from a predictability standpoint). But if we do our part, it would be nice to see us bring in that money :-).

still not sure exactly how much of an approximate $22M, or so, will be shared via scholarship enhancements. And part two will be how equally does the revenue have to be shared (Title IX), if equally at all? I don't know how this will shake out exactly here at VT (how many more scholarships will we offer above current limits for the equivalency sports) and how many sports will we increase scholarships for?? Lots and lots to see play out, both nationally and here at VT. There may be some picking and choosing and enhancing sports we compete well in currently (or have a chance to compete well in).

would not be eligible for the draft until the July 2027 draft. An exception to that would be if he turned 21 before a draft earlier than three years from enrollment. So, in theory, we will have him in a VT uniform for 3 baseball seasons (this is assuming he stays at VT and continues baseball). I have no idea when he turns 21, but thinking that is not likely to be before his junior year at VT since he is planning to graduate high school early and playing what essentially would be his senior high school year at VT.

with the coaches ejections was all because of Jack Leggett really. He is not even a "coach" by designation or title. He is a second level guy on the team. And NO umpire is going to allow a second tier position/role within any baseball program yell/cuss at umpires constantly (especially if warned) and eventually run out of the dugout onto the field. He is the equivalent of the Dir. of Operations, Director of Analytics, etc, etc.. He is a retired former (2015) coach that should and knows better than to do that. His ego put his head coach in a terrible predicament. It was nice of Coach Bakich to include him with the program but sometimes these are examples of why your former head coaches need to move on. Imagine having Coach Beamer (who last coached in 2016) on the sidelines with Coach Pry as a Director of High School Relations and him running onto the field (at a critical time or any time for that matter) because of a missed Pass Interference call. Most umpires, referees, officials, etc. give the head guy some leeway but not staff members. And to your point, let's see what they are talking about before creating that mess. But Bakich wouldn't have been thrown out if not for Leggett's actions.

what we spend (if not more). Interesting question, though. Comparing programs between a superior conference relative to the sport and a conference that is, to be kind, rather bad (top to bottom) is extremely hard. They did win their league this year and won it by 26 strokes. We won the A-10 one year by 36 strokes (as a comparison example). My point with that is that they have a different access point to the NCAA tourney than we do. But they only have two At Large bids EVER, in their history (13 overall). So without winning their league title, they don't typically qualify. Not sure they have had tremendous amounts of success. They are the best program in the Atlantic 10. This was their first time in the NCAA's since 2019. They don't typically play in the top regular season tournaments either. That is what is hurting us now (we have lost out on being invited to the best tourneys). But we aren't baselining our program off of other league's best at the lower level. We are trying to compete in a golf league where finishing in the top 8 or 9 probably gets us in the tourney most years. Problem is, even if our assets are better than a VCU (as an example), they are so far off our peer group (that impacts performance relative to our peer schools) and you aren't rewarded with NCAA tournaments. We did tie for the league title in 2007. But, I sometimes wonder if we didn't have divine intervention winning the title that year. And if you have ever heard Jay tell that ACC tournament story (like you were sitting around a camp fire and listening to a ghost story), it is riveting and tear jerking to hear all of the things that went right for us (some borderline miraculous). That was roughly a month after the most tragic day in our school's history. And total class by GT, by the way, to insist that we took home the actual trophy that year. The reason I bring this up is that we are pretty much always going to have to qualify for the NCAA Tourney as an at large. That is harder on a program. We may not win an ACC golf title ever again (hope that is not the case). If we were trying to win the Atlantic 10, we could probably finish ahead of VCU most years without changing much anything we do. Only difference is Richmond is a much much better late Fall, Winter, very early Spring climate. I don't discount what you say that some coaching can't help with overcoming a couple of program shortfalls. And I would say I am fairly close with Sharpie. I would say he wishes he would have done a few things different when he took over the program. I would just say, the talent had fallen off quite a bit during Jay's last two or three teams. And Sharpie didn't want to run off anyone. I think that plays towards your "getting tough" comment. Now, we have struggled to get off the mat. To close with your last point. I agree it is hard to accept being in last place. No one likes to see that, most certainly not me. But we aren't seeing people at our level do more/better with less funding. I think that is an important distinction. As discussed earlier in the post. Other leagues have to have champions (that is not meant to sound like it might to some but think most understand what is meant with this comment) and, therefore, access to the NCAA tournaments. We can't operate in that world, though. While there have been good donors that have helped golf, there is very very little "operational" dollars to impact budgeting. Very little. And we/VT Athletics aren't going to add another $500K to the golf budget, short of a group of donors doing it (every year). Did not mean to have this long of a post. Interesting discussion regarding golf, however. Thanks for your post. Always enjoy reading your thoughts.

been neglected to the point our coaches don't take recruits to see the locker room. Have been some discussion on some partial renovations but not sure where that is right now frankly. Have had some nice equipment bumps in the last few years, but........Jim and Terry try hard, but our facility is light years behind. Both are nice representatives of VT. This is another example of no pressure to win sport because we realize the support is not there to win on a larger scale and doesn't really matter who coaches the programs. That is why Terry was extended a couple of years ago (even though she was like 2-30 in ACC play--something close to that). We really let Tennis down when they were left out of the $30Mplus Olympic Sports improvements (Rector, Baseball, Indoor Softball). Very unfortunate misstep there and then we pretty much had the money pledged but held off too long and then Covid hit.....But yet another example of what @Chris Coleman was referring too today in his article.

Putting year round weather aside. We spend (By FAR) the lowest amount on Men's Golf of anyone in the ACC (public schools). I know that Wake, Duke, and Notre Dame spend more (Don't know about BC). When I say we spend the lowest by far, I mean there is a $250K difference between us and NC State (the next lowest). We only spend something like $575K on men's golf. We are the lowest spending Power 5 (using FY 23 data) public school in the country, and there are 16 non Power 5 schools in front of us. We were the only Power 5 public that spends less than $600K. You don't have to be the top spending school, but it is nice to be in the middle to upper tier. You mention Auburn. Auburn, on the other hand, is the top spending (public) in the country and probably the top overall. They spent $2.6M last year. FSU is the highest spending ACC school at $1.8M. There is no comparison between the programs. The River Course is nice, but our practice facilities are way behind these schools. And for most of the school year, the River Course is not particularly nice to play because of weather. The early Fall and very late Spring (and the season is pretty much ending then) are nice but getting ready for Spring season is not fun. Our golf training facility (at the River Course) is not big enough to house a women's and a men's team at the same time. It is 20 minutes from campus. BCC is fine, but neither are on campus. If you get a second, google Auburn's facility. Google Illinois' facility. Both have awesome indoor and outdoor facilities. The training/practice facilities are where the difference is and that is where the most time is spent. With our budget and facilities right now, it doesn't matter who coaches VT. Sharpie is a great person and a true VT guy. Heck, even the administration knows/wishes they could give Golf more money. We spend more on the women's program than the men. By a significant amount. Sharpie has tried with all of the "local" guys. Many wish to leave the area just to leave the area (even if all things equal). But things aren't close to being equal and the financial deficit is growing. There has been some preliminary talks/concepts of building an on campus training facility (indoor and outdoor) over near the Huckleberry Trail, but would guess that will be put on hold for a good while (absent a major benefactor taking care of it of which there are some high level VT golf people). Just don't see that moving to the forefront until the collegiate landscape settles down (mainly financially). Golf is an example of what @Chris Coleman was talking about in his Friday questions article today. Just spending the bare minimum. When that happens, the results are fairly predictable.

and feel like opportunity is there for current roster guys and potential transfers. Summers are important for younger guys and their growth. Hope we can see some of that and we see guys come back in the Fall that have gotten better.

and choose our spots. But like most everyone, sports that fall below football and basketball(s) have to see how the landscape shakes out. We do have some sport specific help for baseball and that is good. Expect that to continue to grow over the next few years. Baseball has some more concern than other sports as the good players go spend summers away and are around lots of people that can tempt fate a little. But NIL will continue to get better here.

at the next level love a good left handed hitting second baseman and that has boosted his draft status. He is also a high level defender. I don't think anyone at VT is expecting his return (because of his success). He is going to be missed (on and off the field). The group that is leaving this year (that was part of the 2022 team) has worked hard to change VT baseball, and while we are disappointed we aren't playing today, will forever be part of a pretty good run here. We hope they will continue to do good things at the pro level, both personally for them, and for the continued elevation of our program.

very very busy time. We will have two infield starting positions open going into the fall (3rd and 2nd). Outfield is wide open (and as you noted may or may not come from within but will probably bring in more than 1 outfielder). Pitching will depend on some injury news and the potential return of a former Friday night starter. May not know the latter until after the draft.

other 6 being ECU, UC Santa Barbara, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arizona, and Oregon State.

not sure how that will transpire depending on injury status.

supplement equivalency sport partials with academic aid (need based or merit based).

scholarships. This would be done as part of the revenue sharing model. Both men's and women's sports. Maybe not all sports, but there will be increases for sure. I expect softball and baseball to be included (as examples since those are two sports we have been talking about). We will not let other peer schools increase theirs significantly and we sit still (at least in some sports). Now to what level, time will tell. Any scholarship increase will have to be done judiciously with respect to Title IX.

check on that actually. In theory (and practically), someone has to pay for that revenue difference. And it would be applicable to all public schools in the state. But will try to find out some more about that soon.

speculating as an alternative to monies that could go other places, there are some advantages to trimming to 75 (should we ever decide to do it). And some of this depends on what comes down the pike re: distribution of revenue sharing (several issues with this), and eventual contracts for players (how long they are committed to being here). We aren't sure how the revenue distribution will impact an entire department. Do we have to distribute per sport? Does football revenue still need to be spread over some other sports? How does Title IX impact this? Just lots of unknowns still. It is easy for the House settlement to say each Power 4 school needs to share $22-$26M dollars annually, but hard to untangle so many questions as to the how's and where's. There is also some discussion to reducing rosters anyways, and we are moving towards a more pro like football environment. NFL rosters currently are 53 players, with (I believe) 16 players on a practice squad. That is 69 players (and I realize an NFL team can sign anyone from another teams practice squad). And I am not suggesting the NFL roster format. But, I think 75 is very doable. Part two of a 75 man roster, you can maximize your revenue distribution (on a higher per capita basis per man). You can get more bang for the buck. If the sport goes to contracts, the transfer out scenario changes dramatically. We now know what the roster would look like so that bet becomes hedged. I think you still will have enough roster room to add transfers if needed. The JMU's of the world are going to have a harder time handling the "bright lights appeal" of the new revenue sharing model around the Power 4 level. I also think the days of keeping a roster of 85 and being able to properly develop all of them are slowly going away. Just don't see that the patience is there anymore (from both the coaching staff and the players). It is also more cumbersome with "keeping guys engaged" in future plans. I am not saying this will happen, but think that COULD be an option for us and we could survive fine being down 10 overall scholarships. I am quite certain, however, we will be increasing scholarships to some of the other sports, and that will be part of an interesting financial scenario for us (and everyone) to navigate. We do have some "room" in our current budget to add expenses, and the new CFP payouts will give us approx. $14M per year. Will be interesting to see what we end up doing. ** Edited by VTScoop at 5/25/2024, 3:41:37 PM

certain sports. We may/could also consider funding (full scholarships) for a majority of a full roster. Either way, I don't envision us not increasing scholarships to at least some of our sports. Softball being one. Not sure there ever needs to be the maximum allowed in any sport moving forward. Including football. I could see us funding 75 football scholarships (as an example) as an offset (down from 85) to helping other sports. We don't need that amount for football in today's environment. I do see this as part of our revenue sharing moving forward. Glad you posted this, we were just talking about this the other day on the baseball board.

that will come from the House lawsuit settlement is the ability to add scholarships to sports like baseball (assuming we pay for it). If that happens, the playing field will level big time for VT. And then we don't have to compete against Duke, UVA, UNC, Notre Dame's, and Stanford's endowment's. Will be a tremendous advantage in catching up. ** Edited by VTScoop at 5/22/2024, 9:32:18 PM

State and Kentucky are comparable (within a few hundred thousand). We are just slightly behind them both but again pretty much right there. Wisconsin is double of our endowment.

very well for them. They have a whopping 11 or 12 Grad students on their roster. They make a very strong appeal to "come to Duke, we are elite academic institution" and get to play baseball in one of the two best leagues in the country. Right, wrong, or indifferent, that works well for them. They match their school to the grad level equivalency of the Ivy League. The Ivy League sends a lot of good players to major college ball now. Duke has four of those kids in their lineup. Including their best offensive player and their elite closer. There is tremendous maturity with those guys. But 11 or 12 Grad students is a lot. Ironically, the second baseman that hit the two homers last night is actually a VMI grad student. Duke supplements their baseball scholarship money with significant academic aid. Just the reality of things with them. And for guys looking for a grad degree from a place like Duke, that can be enticing. As far as VT goes, we have a lot going well. And we have grown a lot in the last few years. But like anything, getting to one level is a big step, but keeping at that level and even taking one more step takes some continual innovation and evaluation. I do anticipate we will be evaluating things moving forward (with respect to philosophy, program setup, etc.). Will be interesting to see how we look heading into the Fall. ** Edited by VTScoop at 5/22/2024, 1:35:47 PM