I vote to divert our NIL money to BB. The FB experiment is over.
71 Replies
1y
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
1y
... why do you think that money would still be available?
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
1y
Is that eventually someone is going to sue to own their own TV rights without dealing with the conference. And much like the athlete/NIL question, I'm not really sure the conferences/NCAA will have a legal leg to stand on to stop them outside of the signed GOR from each conference. So finding a way out of those would be key.
But if schools can negotiate directly it would take away the need for a conference arms race and allow schools to move back to regional ties for the conference affiliations (vastly helping bottom lines for Olympic sports).
Granted, I think we are talking decades in scale for when this would happen, but I think that's the next seismic step in this process.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
That's basically what the Supreme Court case in the early 80s was about.
Georgia didn't like the NCAA deciding on their televised games. They wanted to control it themselves, and they won in court. Eventually the schools designated their respective conferences to negotiate for them, but yeah, I would assume that Supreme Court decision would still stand in any potential lawsuit like the one you described.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
1y
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
1y
They're middle of the pack ACC, and ESPN isn't paying Top of the Pack dollars, so I can't see it being too much different
(In response to this post by atlhokie1)
Didn't Texas already do that with the Longhorn Network?
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
1y
In grand scheme of convo below on funding.
I think Tech and uva have gone two seperate approaches and I think each are in danger (as is everyone else apart from SEC and select Big10s). Tech has gone football (funding/focus). Uva has gone Olympic (namely everything but football wrt funding/focus). Uvas attempts at revitalizing football isnât doing too much (uva is 3-1 in football and not many care, I digress).
Pablo Torre did an interview with the US diving coach talking about how now that schools will pay athletes, programs are going to cut âlossesâ - IE the Olympics (swimming, diving, tennis, FHockey, etc) and direct all money towards football. I think uva has gone really all in on ensuring these programs while tech has wagered football success will equate to saving these programs. Ultimately, assuming both uva and Tech make the P3 (uva to big10 is most likely, Tech to Big12 is most likely TODAY), I think both suffer BEFORE the NCAA enters into a CBA with football.
I am worried about techs ability to survive right now with how the football program is moving. A ton of money invested with results not coming so far and at arguably the most crucial time ever. Uvas only saving grace is what GC mentioned (and others) is that donor funding will buoy the athletics department until the ncaa/federal government corals this out of control industry.
Ultimately once the loss of Olympic sports starts happening on a wide scale (various programs have begun cutting swimming and diving, etc). I think we will see that real push to get back to a âcontrolledâ industry where football is king, but all sports are able to thrive. But I think all the discussions below are an argument of a bigger issue that both uva and Tech are facing, in entirely different ways.
Will be a very interesting year to see how both programs continue. I think unfortunately tech has no choice but to keep dancing with the one you brought - football.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
Yes, I think VT ultimately cuts some sports. Very interested to see how
T&F fares here with our coach retiring. I fear Women's lacrosse could be cut and potentially things like Volleyball, Tennis, Golf and Cross Country would be in the crosshairs as potential casualties because of the increased scholarship limits and NIL needed to sustain success in those sports (as well as cutting both a men's and women's sport at the same time for Title IX purposes).
(In response to this post by wahoo2023)
1y
That has positioned uva best for the new era. The wealth at uva doesnât care about football to a degree - with donors completely funding tennis/lax/squash/golf. Those programs are consistently top 5.
I ultimately think it is why UVA makes a P2 once the GoR is dissolved. The athletics departments keeps getting stronger and if football can reach 6-6 this year? (Insane that a 6-6 football year has that potential in this day and age). It arguably may be the best athletics year at uva AT the right time.
(In response to this post by hoosnowahokie)
1y
IMO college athletics should be for the benefit of the student body and largely amateur. I do not support the emphasis VT is putting on a professional FB team, especially in light of their pending failure.
(In response to this post by wahoo2023)
H
HokieRat
1y
problems that stemmed from roster limit/expansion ruling that just came out. Mainly this is effecting walk-ons, but from non-revenue sports that rely on them for training or team points (like wrestling, swimming, etc), it has huge effects
Not arguing with you on if UVA does or does not put more emphasis/funding on its Olympic sports (i believe it does), but that path is not without its casualties.
Source/Doxxing: Im an Assistant Professor at UVA (got my education from VT though!), and a few of my students are Olympic sport athletes who I shared my white paper on athletic departments role/title as Auxillary service for universities and publishing on Educational Resource Management field
(In response to this post by wahoo2023)
2
2hhoop3
1y
with plenty of food for thought on all sides. Thanks for getting it started. Successful programs have a very good grasp of who they are, a good grasp of who they can be and a proven working model to generate the level of resources needed AND, most importantly, efficiently spend those resources to get the desired results.
Fans may desire a particular level but, are they willing to spend to make that happen? Administrators may have a different vision or desire but, the question is whether they are willing and committed to developing the infrastructure to make it happen. For quite a while now, VT, both fans and administrators, have not been able to craft a consistently aligned vision and develop/execute a plan to make it happen. To add another variable to the mix, the collegiate landscape is in such Flux at present that it is even more difficult to know where they want to go or how to get there.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
1y
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
the book in its entirety but, have seen a variety of its concepts/ideas/thoughts discussed in various settings.
(In response to this post by ColoVT82)
1y
path for VT out of this fast lane and into a post-ACC reality that is sustainable for Virginia Tech. They need the cards to fall so that other schools have to deal with this at the same time. If NIL is allowed to continue like it's headed for 10 more years, it will be detrimental to our university and drain all of the goodwill out of our fan base.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
1y
This kind of discussion needs real data. The overall revenue impact of football is massive. And VT canât afford to risk the entire athletic department by having football be horrible. Changes will be made with that staff and team because they have to keep the money train going.
And as much as I would love to see VT win a title in any team sport, there is too much at stake with the budget until all the courts finalize what the future looks like for players getting paid, maybe being employees, and maybe having unions. It would be mismanagement if we didnât focus on football at this current point in time (yes even knowing how frustrating that is for all the other sports).
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
1y
And VT is in the Top 40 in revenue
So no...the W-L product of football is not driving revenue
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
1y
If we can get good or great football then that number goes up (ACC is now on the unequal revenue sharing path). Good football can increase our revenue significantly by tens of millions of dollars per year. No other sports investment will come close to that.
So no, the W-L product of football is not driving our base revenue. But it is keeping us from (and offers the opportunity for) significantly more additional revenue.
As a data example, in 2022-2023 football was 3-8 but just on ticket sales alone it brought in $15m in revenue. That's equal to the entirety of men's basketball for the year (media rights, ticket sales, ACC/NCAA distributions). And that's with a bad football team. Good football teams mean lots more revenue.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
1y
That will launch them into the Top 20 in revenue, then we cannot have a serious discussion
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
1y
That would require an extra $40m per year. That kind of money is only coming from large media contracts (BIG and SEC, which are football driven). I'm happy to discuss what I actually wrote, but your statement is something that I very clearly did not write.
We are talking actual revenue numbers, potential revenue of each sport, value vs investment, and what is the right business decision for the athletic department.
Yes we all know that an extra $5m spent on basketball will benefit that sport far more than if it were spent on football. But things have gotten so much more complicated in college sports with a lot of uncertainty about future costs on the athlete side (pending court decisions on the settlement and other topics) and uncertainty about future revenue on the ACC side (pending ESPN contract decisions and court cases with FSU/Clemson). VT is forced to think as a business and football investment is the safe path among all this uncertainty. And it is the only path that might keep us in the P2/P4 mix going forward.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
1y
If you're not going to get into the Top 20 in revenue...then you're not going to put a football product out that pleases fans on a year to year basis
Virginia Tech has issues beyijd resources that other schools do not contend with, so you have to significantly outspend them just to stay on the same plane.
So when I talk about VT needing to get into the Top 20 to put out a good football product, you're actually talking about a Top 25 or Top 30 team, still not one that is going to be competitive nationally year to year
VT is Top 40 in revenue and getting Top 50-60 results...and that's about what it should be given all other factors
However, the basketball program is 11th in the ACC in operating budget and hasn't once finished below that mark since Buzz did it one time in his tenure. So they are consistently outperforming their budget.
You cannot sit here and tell me that the only method to increasing revenue is a good football team when both Virginia and Indiana are in the Top 15(!!) in revenue and couldn't possibly care less about football.
VT football can win 6 or 7 games on any budget they've had in the last 20 years.
This year is different for basketball because funds have been actively taken away from the program, and it can't surprise you there's a lot of anger when those redirected resources mean zero wins.
We both agree basketball would do a lot more with the funds and provide the university and athletic program with an actual team they can rally around. Football simply cannot do that.
There is no more room to grow for football. The stadium is packed. They're not gonna sell more tickets. They already sell alcohol, so there isn't a significant new stream of food/beverage revenue. They would have to increase prices by 67% to make up for the gap between them and the Top 20.
This need to spend their way to success on the football side has gotten them nowhere in two decades...but now they're trying to drag everyone else with them
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
1y
Let's say we fail in our quest to make the P2 conferences. Let's say we fall to B12 status. If we play good, competitive football at that level, I absolutely believe VT fans will be wildly supportive.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
1y
If your revenue is middle of the pack
We can 'if' and 'maybe' our way to a national championship, but at a certain point reality is that VT has given all it has to a football program who returns mediocre results on its best day.
The football team is begging for more cash from a fan base who is at their zenith for willingness to give. And the fan base is begging for better performance from a football team who has shown this is their ceiling
(In response to this post by Atlee Hokie)
1y
Geography is one. What are the others?
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
1y
And those three points touch almost all of the factors in revenue, expenses, donations and most importantly recruiting
(In response to this post by hokeyhokie)
1y
In the early 2000s? Then SEC and Big 10 pulled away from the ACC. So it was a failure of the conference not just VT.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
1y
Yes, the ACC has done a myriad of things to shoot themselves in the foot the last 2 decades. The largest of which is not pushing their basketball narrative enough and allowing a false narrative that the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12 etc are either ahead of or on equal footing as the ACC.
The BigTen did a great job of steering the narrative before they even dominated like they are now. They haven't won a National Championship in almost a quarter century, but the narrative of the average fan is they're one of the top conferences.
In the same time span, the ACC has won 8 national championships, not even including the Syracuse or Louisville championships before joining the ACC
(In response to this post by hokeyhokie)
2
2hhoop3
1y
could have been done differently to combat the narrative? Aside from actually performing better in early season OOC I am not sure the other options they had. CBS, ESPN, etc. pushed their chosen properties and largely ignored/minimized their unchosen.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
You know all those commercials we've seen in the past year
about how many games the ACC has won in the tournament, and tournament success and all that? That's the first commercial I've seen in my life (that I remember) of something of that caliber. Self-promotion has not been the UNC....I mean Southern.... I mean ACC way until now when we're WAAAAAAAY behind the 8-ball.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
1y
When the SEC or Big Ten or whoever tout whatever accomplishment they want to push out, hit that narrative with the actual wins the ACC has and the disparity between it and the other conferences. They've been either sitting on the sidelines or just pushing out half-hearted cheers when someone does something nice.
You have to also combat what the other conferences are saying, you can't simply take a stance of standing on your record. The large majority of people are dumb and they think with their feelings. If the Big Ten and SEC dig into their feelings, then they're gonna win the narrative. You have to combat the narrative
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
on being the bully but, when somebody has a larger media megaphone the bullying approach is likely limited. That challenge is pretty evident looking at media today that largely has morphed to propaganda arms as opposed to news gathering/dissemination operations.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
1y
That can reach far more audiences than TV
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
but, those megamedia companies have their own Twitter, IG, etc and far more communications professionals to circulate their message.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
1y
You could get away with finding a Kam Chancellor who no one else knew about and have him actually be one of the greatest safeties in the NFL during his time.
So VTs budget was in line with everyone else because everyone else was staying in their regional footprint. They were getting outspent by ND, USC, Miami and a few others who ventured out some, but the teams VT competed with each year were relatively in the same boat as VT.
Those schools had opportunities for growth and the financial backing to make it happen. Then when the BCS crowned an actual national champion TV dollars increased, which meant schools were more incentivizdd to be bigger and do better. So an arms race began.
You're not going to pull off what Frank Beamer did at VT unless you exploit a very different market inefficiency than what he did.
My argument is that market isn't necessarily football at all
(In response to this post by hokeyhokie)
1y
Frank Beamer had the same geography, much less population and demographics was even worse.
These âissuesâ are a red herring.
The problem is that, as much as our fans love our football, they see that they cannot win the arms race in football.
Worse, the AD (and ACC) has been asleep at the wheel while the football landscape has changed before his eyes.
Quite frankly, Iâve been for reverting to the Ivy league model in football and just have student athletes.
Unless, of course, Elan Musk wants to jump start VT into the P2 with a $B dollar donation.
** Edited by VPI63 at 9/24/2024, 5:56:23 PM
** Edited by VPI63 at 9/25/2024, 5:22:58 PM
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
1y
(In response to this post by VPI63)
1y
Nebraska generated $204,831,356 in revenue between July 1, 2022 and June 30, 2023.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
1y
Link:
Virginia Tech has "limitations" in its athletic budget. Here is how Tech compares to other schools.
(In response to this post by huskerHokie)
1y
The city where alumni can stay and have a job and be involved with the university without ever needing to leave, has a population of 300,000
That's 7 Blacksburgs...
(In response to this post by huskerHokie)
1y
I'll let all my kids know they could have stayed in Lincoln or Omaha and found jobs. The biggest lament in the State is that young people (Nebraska graduates) leave the State to find jobs. That's why the population is aging. Heck, even if your folks are farmers or ranchers, the family farm/ranch can't support everyone.
** Edited by huskerHokie at 9/24/2024, 11:52:18 AM
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
1y
(In response to this post by huskerHokie)
There are opportunities, people just don't want to live in a place
without Wegman's and other amenities that they grow up with in other metropolitan areas. It's funny seeing newer students whine about not having the things they are used to (generally food and shopping choices) that will never be sustained with a 45,000 person population during 1/5th of the year.
That and housing is disproportionately insane in this area, meaning newer people need to live in a cheaper area like Radford, Pulaski, Giles or Christiansburg, and a lot don't want to do that to start.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
1y
And we are saying essentially the same thing. There are opportunities, just much less of them and further out from what a typical student/graduate/young adult would want in looking for a permanent location
That's the same with athletes looking at VT versus other schools
(In response to this post by hoosnowahokie)
1y
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
1y
Here is what I'm using.
"Sportico maintains an interactive, real-time database that tracks the official balance sheets of public university athletic departments..."
And according to this, Indiana is #27, UVA is #32 and VT is #35.
When you look at the data, it is very clear why some schools have higher overall revenue than VT. Just using the two schools from your example, it's either higher media rights/conference distributions (Indiana in the BIG), higher donations (UVA), or higher licensing and ads (Indiana and UVA both much higher than VT).
Football is nowhere close to being out of room for growth. The physical side of things (tickets, food/beverage, etc.) are not the key growth areas. It's licensing and ads, increased conference distribution from winning more, extra payments from ESPN for big matchups, higher level bowl games, playoffs, etc. That's where the money is and the opportunity for football is vast.
I understand that you want to pound the basketball drum. But to say that football has reached max revenue is just wrong. Spending on football is the smart business move. VT's mistake is that they spent stupidly on bad coaches. But the decision to spend on football was the right one and will continue to be the right one.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
H
HokieRat
1y
Its football,, because they are able to secure the biggest contributions: media rights within a conference (#2) and donors contributions (#3). #1 is government support at ~35% (not specific to sport). These things are what set apart the difference between which schools have to subsidize more or less of their budget (on average 80% of the budget is subsidized). You can find any of this looking at Axios, Sportico, old USAtoday, College Factual (an awful source as they do not keep up on reporting)
However I do disagree/agree with your point abouts sales being the lowest influence, but it can't be understated that #4 revenue is ticket sales at ~10%, and can change the outcome of profit vs. loss (which stadium is bigger, which sport schedule is conducive to filling seats and which ticket costs more). An example would be looking at this report of UCONN athletic budget and revenue showing they were still at a loss for profit even with 1. Basketball being their biggest revenue earner and 2. coming off National Championships
** Edited by HokieRat at 9/24/2024, 10:52:30 AM
Link:
UConn
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
1y
It might just be a placeholder or it might be a database error. But for 2022 their data is wrong.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
True, the actual numbers are inside...
Randy does a great job for us in this article every summer.
"Contributions decreased by just over $23 million primarily because of a $38.248 million transfer in FY 2022 that was used to pay athletic debt service on capital projects."
That said, I agree with GC's basic take. I feel like it's the Cold War, and we are the Soviet Union. It's a football spending war that we can't possibly keep up with.
Link:
Financial report
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
I love your analogy. So are we actually hurting our competitiveness by
trying to be something we are not?
I will use the basketball analogy of a "system coach". Should we be making a longer term system investment and using our football resources to maximize our investment in that system?
(In response to this post by Chris Coleman)
1y
My thoughts around a system coach were not solely meant for VT Basketball
In order to succeed at a school like VT you have to have a system that makes the whole greater than the sum of its parts. That's football, basketball, soccer whatever.
To a certain degree, you could argue that's exactly what made VT football good to begin with...
Special teams - Beamer made great strides and evened the playing field utilizing special teams as a weapon rather than a transition. Now everyone does it.
Defense - Bud Foster's scheme was something that allowed undersized Defensive Ends to become the most feared sack leaders in the country.
Then they made a good evaluation in chasing Michael Vick rather than Ronald Curry and it all came together.
That's it. That's the blueprint.
But it is incredibly difficult and can take years/decades to catch that Michael Vick type of evaluation.
If VT were recruiting against FSU and Miami for Michael Vick, then it might have been a different story. But it was Syracuse and East Carolina. Recruiting has changed and made prospects like Vick slipping through the cracks nationally more difficult, so the road is even tougher.
But none of the recruiting wins will matter if you can't elevate everyone else around them. There has to be a system in place that allows you to be solid when your talent is average so when your talent becomes above average to solid you are ready to take a leap.
I'm not into football schemes and coaching philosophy like I am basketball. But I recognize market efficiency when I see it, and Beamer capitalized on that in a multitude of ways that Fuente and Pry have not.
None of this changes my larger point that the athletic program can gain both notoriety and revenue with simple modest shifts in resources rather than moving the chips to football without evidence it will be useful there
** Edited by GCHokie34 at 9/24/2024, 11:11:17 AM
** Edited by GCHokie34 at 9/24/2024, 11:12:47 AM
(In response to this post by Femoyer Hokie)
1y
From reading everything, it seems like everyone agrees that shifting money to basketball (m/w) specifically would result in much larger benefits compared to what it does for football. Benefits being wins, post season results, and national attention for the VT brand.
The difference in perspectives is around scale. Some of us are talking about wins/championships/immediate impact. Others are talking money at the overall athletic department level, media contracts, conference alignment. Both perspectives are valid. But we can't do both things with our current situation.
What's at stake is possible future P2 invite (with lots of additional money that can be given to basketball), ability to satisfy the terms of NCAA litigation (payment to past players), ability to pay current and future players, ability to eventually make needed renovations to Lane and Cassell. It's no longer just a simple decision of what sports to prioritize. The money is now tied to much bigger issues.
All that said, I completely agree that what football needs is a better system with better coaches. Money and players are not the problem right now. This year has proven that point without a doubt.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
That's more of a one-time thing for UVA.
They were at $105 million the previous fiscal year, and between $92 and $106 million in previous years. Their "contributions" jumped up by about $40 million, which means some donation got applied that they count towards the bottom line, but which won't be there on a year-to-year basis in the future.
Of course, you can make the argument that our FEF money is similar, and it's not guaranteed to be there after another couple of years.
Link:
UVA year by year
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
1y
VT got a similar bump at the same time ($23 million) but still winds up $40-$50 million behind
Looking through each program, they seem to have all gotten a bump around those time periods, so I'm not sure there's anything to detract from the original statement.
All schools are growing, other schools (including schools terrible at football) are growing faster
(In response to this post by Chris Coleman)
Yeah, definitely agree there.
Tech needs major, major changes in the Hokie Club. For one, they should actually go out and hire somebody to run it full-time rather than making it somebody's part time job. Absolutely ridiculous.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
V
VTDC
1y
unnecessarily so across Colleges, AD, HC, etc. But the HC has been behind the times forever. It needs a full overhaul.
(In response to this post by Chris Coleman)
1y
(In response to this post by Chris Coleman)
1y
...which is that the AD is making bad decisions and probably needs to be replaced with somebody who will make better decisions.
Whether you think the bad decisions revolve around taking money away from other sports to go all-in on football or you think the bad decisions revolve around *how* we have chosen (and failed) to deploy that money to benefit football, the conclusion appears inescapable: somebody new probably needs to be steering the ship.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
S
SC_Hokie
1y
Take the L on this one, so we can start giving King Mike the royalties he deserves.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
W
win-tech
1y
After reading the back-and-forth posts between GC and P&J below, I think that they both make valid points. So, I tried to summarize each position (without the insults đ).
P&Jâs position is consistent with the current direction of the VT Athletic Department. P2 has broken away from the rest of college athletics in terms of money. The money comes from TV rights, which are driven primarily by football. P2 will invite a select number of schools to join them in the next few years, and VT wants an invite. The best chance to get an invite is for our football program to become relevant again by winning on the field. As a result, directing as much funding as possible to the football program, even at the expense of other sports programs, is in VTâs best long-term interest. Should VT receive a P2 invitation, then it can better fund other sports programs with the P2 football money. Should VT not make into the P2, then VT will have to reallocate limited resources based on the new landscape.
GC calls for a change in the direction of the VT Athletic Department. VTâs on-field football performance over the next few years will have little impact on whether VT receives an invitation to the P2. As a result, it is not prudent for VT to direct money from the only other revenue sport (menâs basketball) to football. Instead, VT should leverage its limited resources where it can have the most impact on wins and losses. Given the much smaller team size for basketball vs football, spending on basketball has a higher win-loss impact than spending on football. Should VT receive a P2 invitation, then it could spend more money on football to be competitive at that level. Should VT not make it into the P2, then it will at least have a stronger position in the only other revenue sport (i.e. menâs basketball).
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
1y
than VT, based on our football/basketball programs, demographics, and finances. That says a lot about how futile our football spend is right now. I think our chances are close to nil. UVA/NC go to the Big Ten. VT, NCSU, Wake are left to beg the American or SunBelt to take us in.
(In response to this post by win-tech)
1y
There is a ton of good info and fact based speculation.
In summary, VT will not be left begging. If the ACC implodes then we either get a P2 invite or we go to Big 12. And the chances for a P2 invite are not nil. Itâs low but not nil. We are in a state that would be new for the P2. Itâs a highly populated state. We had solid school size, stadium size, attendance, and proven investment in athletics.
Nobody knows what will happen to VT but we will not be left begging for the Sun Belt.
(In response to this post by WildTurkE)