Hokies get a commitment…
From unquestionably the highest rated player by far from either the portal or high school ranks. This looks like a difference maker for the basketball program. 6-5 wing from the Northeast and it’s believed we had to go pretty big with our NIL dollars to snatch him away from some heavyweights seriously involved in his recruitment. Gotta love snatching guys right out of the hands of others. That’s a skill. Anyway, let’s welcome….Apologies for not recalling his name. Starts with a B or R or maybe P. I need to go find the correct spelling.
165 Replies
H
HokieNL
2mo
(In response to this post by GretnaHokie)
2mo
The financials that are reported by VT are very clear. Football in the 2024-2025 fiscal year brought in $76m in revenue, basketball brought in $9m. That is 47% and 5% respectively of the total VT revenue for the year of $161m.
The responsible approach is very clearly to support football as much as possible. Revenue from that can be used to help all the sports. And yes a single elite player can make an impact on a football team and have a direct benefit of more wins.
The changes in the NCAA and loss of court cases has completely changed college sports. The money HAS to go to football for a school like VT at the point in time we are in with a weak ACC. If football thrives, then all VT sports will benefit. If football fails, all of VT athletics will be hurt. The same cannot be said about basketball and will never be the case in this new college sports model.
(In response to this post by Rev.Zeke Vodka)
2mo
Where I have said I want “VT athletics burn just to get better basketball.” I will wait..Making up crap rarely advances any cogent discussion. And then there is this quote of yours, “ the responsible approach is very clearly to support football as much as possible. “ Very clearly perhaps in your opinion, but there are often multiple avenues to a satisfactory solution where various, invested parties are concerned. That is your opinion. Fine. Doesn’t mean it is the opinion of everyone. But you have zero idea of my thoughts on football. You have zero knowledge of my thoughts on Softball. Or Baseball. Or Women's basketball. Or any other VT athletic program.
My posts recently have not been attacking posts directed at football. Rather, they have been the poor support for basketball. And by far the issue that bothers me more than anything are the broken promises made. Football is getting more money. We all know that is happening and was going to happen. I personally have always known that was going to occur and don’t have strong feelings about Football receiving the lion’s share. But here is the rub for me…This is where I get chapped. Football was told they are getting X number of dollars. Other programs were told they were getting X number of dollars. My problem is broken promises. If you say the basketball program is getting a specific amount of money then they should get that money. It shouldn’t disappear. Just vanish. Then end up elsewhere. That is an integrity problem. Doing that becomes a trust issue. I don’t know where that money that was promised ended up going. I don’t know for a fact. But I have pretty strong feelings where it went and that bothers me. Not because someone else got the money but the manner in which this money disappeared from its intended and promised recipient. THAT is the issue I have.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
1mo
(In response to this post by Rev.Zeke Vodka)
T
TDVick
2mo
expense of the other programs. They created a "black hole" and then continued to throw money at it, so that it would merely look "charcoal."
Often crappier than JMU, Marshall and ODU.
Give away the store, back-end loaded contracts.
Dumbass contract extensions and raises. About as dumbass as could possibly have been made.
Ill-conceived, cobbled-together, incoherent staff from the BEGINNING. Most of us scratched our heads but gave them the the benefit of the doubt - which they didn't deserve.
And Mike Young who runs an organized, efficient, shoestring operation and keeps his team within 5 points of UNC and Duke, who have at least twice hoops resources we do, gets left to just come up short. He can't straddle the canyon that Whit dealt him. So sick of that garbage!
(In response to this post by Rev.Zeke Vodka)
S
saret
2mo
just ineffectual and incompetent. Our mistake is to trust them to do better and act with integrity when they are just incapable of doing so. How can you tell when they're lying,.....when their lips are moving.
(In response to this post by Rev.Zeke Vodka)
R
RJHokie
2mo
related personnel changes after the new AD or the equivalent is hired and in place.
We know of two changes at this point - Babcock and Ballein will no longer be there, and I would anticipate some other management folks to move on as well and some other folks too, either through retirement or taking other jobs (both within the university and/or other organizations).
(In response to this post by saret)
2mo
We are already into late May and the fall sports season is just three months away. That is far too close for any widespread changes to be made. And we don't even have the new AD yet, so that is even more time that will be lost.
I anticipate that this is basically a transition year where the changes will likely be mostly behind the scenes with org structures and processes and budgets and priorities. But the new person will have to be careful about any people changes/additions while sports seasons are in progress (overall AD people who run all the departments and services across VT athletics).
I'm assuming that an athletic department is not as flexible and quick to change as the corporate world that I'm used to seeing. If this was a corporate change, then I would expect to see very significant, visible, and tangible change within the first 3-6 months (including people changes with new hires/promotions/layoffs at senior levels that often trickle down into the various functions and staff very quickly for additional change). And process changes would be almost immediate, depending on the scale and complexity.
** Edited by HokieAl at 5/17/2026, 4:45:52 PM
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
2mo
That's how it was last time. Whit brought some people with him, like Desiree, but it took a year or so for certain personnel from the old regime to cycle out. That's pretty typical.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
1mo
hopefully no one was renewed lately knowing new AD coming.
(In response to this post by Chris Coleman)
R
RJHokie
1mo
(In response to this post by atlhokie1)
R
RJHokie
2mo
I also don’t believe there will be immediate upheavals and changes will gradually occur. The new boss(es) will have to figure out who does what and the current employees need to adapt to the new boss(es) and their expectations.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2mo
And I’ll be honest, when I first replied after reading some of the thread, I had just read a GC post and thought I was replying to him. I own up to that. I have a lot of respect for both of your basketball knowledge and connections. But I also have my personal opinion about the many snarky posts over time (my view, again thinking it was GC), which I responded as I did. I have no doubt this will be unpopular with some and that’s fine. That’s one thing I like about TSL is that people can disagree or have style differences and still stay relatively civil.
As to the meat of what you said, because that is important, thank you for sharing. If there were promises made and then broken, then damn the VT athletic department failed everyone. It’s the same in any business, trust is vital. If we didn't stick to our plans or went against our word then that is a failure.
And that is the key to all of this interesting discussion over the past day. Some are talking about strategy and some are talking about execution. Both of those have to be solid in order to succeed. I’m very focused on financial strategy. Others look at team building or game winning execution. Others at facilities or staff building. All of it is relevant and connected and is worthy of discussion.
Back to the original posts, my view remains that it’s silly to complain about football (setting aside any broken promises that most of us never know about), when football is keeping the lights on and keeping us from financial pain. We are among the lowest spending ADs in the P4 and have been for years. We created our own problem. Now we need to fix it. This is a business need that might require some tough choices (and I say that as someone who has been laid off twice from a corporate job and might face that fate again next year). I’m very aware of the impacts that business decisions can have on people.
(In response to this post by Rev.Zeke Vodka)
2mo
As for your points...
It shouldn't be lost on everyone thatbthe largest increase in the athletic department budget (in the entire history of the university) has come when football is at its worst.
No one will ever convince me you need to take away money from a revenue generating sport to give to a larger sport as some means to create money for the original revenue generating sport.
No one is advocating for basketball to be on equal footing in the budget with football. Not even 75-25. A great start would be 80-15 (with 5 going to the rest)...but the absolute floor is simply giving them the money you said you'd give them
There isnt a ton of room for revenue growth in football. The stadiums are largely sold out in bad years. The TV contracts are set for a while. So it literally boils down to making the CFP and advancing which VT isnt going to do next season and certainly isnt the type of money increase that would trickle down to basketball. It would all be reinvested back into football and we'd start this cycle all over again
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2mo
Two things stand out to me.
1. Several of you have mentioned broken promises regarding funding for basketball. Which I completely understand the frustration that would cause. My question, are those NIL promises that are not kept or more formal AD spending promises (recruiting, staff, facilities, equipment, etc.)? I'm curious where and when the trust broke down. And hopeful that the incoming new leadership will have a different outcome.
2. I would challenge all of VT on thinking that revenue growth is limited. There are numerous creative ways for VT to pull in more money during football season and in the off season. But the key word is creative. My view is that VT has been very stubbornly old school and local/small scale in strategic thinking and execution. That approach is why we are at this point where the AD had to present a doomsday presentation to the BOV and trigger some change to adjust to modern college athletics. Same as above, I'm hopeful that the incoming new leadership will have a different outcome.
These internal conflicts and spending decisions between sports is clearly causing friction. Just on this board it has generated some very strong opinions. But I think it is healthy discussion that needs to happen. Ultimately the bigger competition is VT vs FSU and Clemson and UVA and all the other ACC schools. And VT vs the ACC at times. And VT vs the B12, Big Ten, and SEC. We need a holistic VT strategy that is intentional and specific for the next 5 years.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
S
saret
2mo
the Roanoke Times this morning re: moving the columbarium near the Inn to somewhere else on campus. Families paid for those spots in the columbarium for their love ones. The remarks by Mark Owczarski (VT spokesman) deflected from this venal move by VT to erect a building. This post attempts to do the same thing,... deflect and redirect the conversation away from the issue that the AthDept is breaking promises made (which has happened before), and selling out to the god that is football.
I enjoy advocates for various programs at VT, and encourage them ( @VTChlp and SERTC are great examples). That being said advocating for football is great, and I encourage it. But, when advocating crosses the line into hurting other programs, that's not advocation, that zealotry.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2mo
1) for this specific instance we are talking NIL funds. But there is also a larger conversation at hand that involves mot being given the resources for decades in favor of "fixing" the football program. Those resources and that discussion are a part of your latter category of recruiting budget, staff, expenses, facilities, etc. They ultimately tie in together but the instance of blatantly taking from basketball after being promised a different amount has now happened twice (this coming year and 2 years ago)
Those are all facts so Ill differentiate this as opinion...
I suspect they are dwindling the funds of basketball on purpose for a new AD. It helps their position in recruiting an AD to say:
"Hey we just increased our departmental budget by 200 million, signed a highly sought after football coach and you will be able to choose a mens basketball coach as soon as your first year on the job."
They cant tout that last part if MY has another winning season. You dont fire winning coaches when youre a school with middling resources. So if you take away his resources and break promises you can help on both fronts either pushing MY into retirement or making it easy for a new AD to fire him after a losing season. Theres a reason VT hasnt officially announced a new contract for MY...
Its disgusting, but happens a good amount. New ADs want to make their mark on revenue sport hires. Its the biggest way they can leave their mark on the program. Whit did it for both sports when he was hired. The new AD will turn over basketball quickly and then football when JF leaves.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2mo
And all we were sent was his original contract and the extension he signed a few years back. So he either hasn't officially signed the new contract, or the plan has been scrapped. But it's interesting that they would announced the Chester extension, which I don't believe was technically an extension...it was just a raise.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
2mo
Id like to think MY said "wait a minute" and is negotiating better terms for an exit...but likely just fighting for his life
(In response to this post by Chris Coleman)
2mo
Darius Maddox hadn't hit that buzzer-beater in the first game of that ACC tournament a few years ago.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
2mo
And he wasn't a really nice guy who was a great fit for the athletic department as Mike Young is. And it still wasn't the lack of tournament appearances that got him fired.
(In response to this post by YBYSAIAHokie)
2mo
Hes had one losing season at VT and the AD knows exactly why that happened...
(In response to this post by YBYSAIAHokie)
S
saret
2mo
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
2mo
The only chance of making the pie bigger is via football. Giving MBB a bigger piece of the pie right now can only shrink the pie.
** Edited by marcbvtgm at 5/17/2026, 12:36:37 PM
** Edited by marcbvtgm at 5/17/2026, 12:37:37 PM
(In response to this post by saret)
1mo
... renege on the promised amount?
There can be honest disagreements and discussions on how the budget is divided between the different sports.
IMO, there can not be, or at least should not be, any disagreement on how bad it is to renege on the promised amount of money to any sport.
(In response to this post by marcbvtgm)
2mo
basketball in order to make football better - and it wasn't more wins or success for football and fans showed up anyway. Meanwhile, the funds taken from basketball resulted in a losing record and fewer fans engaged with basketball.
Now, football has had some meaningful changes that provide hope that providing them with more resources won't be wasted as it was 2 years ago. At the same time, if the athletic department budget is getting a massive increase, it makes 0 sense for basketball funding to decrease or even stay flat, which is what has happened from last season to now.
Basketball is being hung out to dry, which is a really terrible approach to take when you only have 2 1/2 revenue generating sports to begin with.
(In response to this post by marcbvtgm)
2mo
Carleigh Wenzel driving around her pretty pink Bronco shrinks the pie, as an example. Having the highest-funded WBB program of all public schools in the league shrinks the pie. In fact, revenue sharing/NIL and any decent investment for any other sport besides football shrinks the pie. Why don't we just cancel four of our worst Olympic sports and give the money to men's basketball? That would ultimately help the school more than those Olympic sports, right?
(In response to this post by marcbvtgm)
S
saret
2mo
reading the posts by @Rev.Zeke Vodka and @GCHokie34 correctly, neither are suggesting for more MBB money, just what was promised previously. Additionally, many on here are saying that this lack of candor and surety re: budgets will last 4-5 years. To me, all of you football-centric proponents are more than myopic. You demonstrate a certain narcissistic, ravenous group whose lust can never be sated. You all have assumed a greedy, football-first position on funding that defies reason or moderation.
(In response to this post by marcbvtgm)
1mo
... 1) After the decisions are made vis a vis division of funds between all the sports, then those funds should be spent that way. No reneging on money promised.
Also, even though I tend to be football centric, it doesn't mean I want to throttle all other sports.
(In response to this post by saret)
S
saret
1mo
importance of football. But once promises are made, they should be kept. Hopefully things will change under the new AthDir.
(In response to this post by Atlee Hokie)
H
HokieNL
2mo
"Good. I'm *glad* those promises were broken! Football über alles!"
(In response to this post by Rev.Zeke Vodka)
1mo
From the university and VTAD perspective. The worm has HOPEFULLY turned from a sinking fund to POSSIBLY a revenue sharing instrument, i.e., "let Franklin cook!".
Thanks to @VTChip and SERTC for providing discretionary funds to support successful programs.
(In response to this post by HokieNL)
S
saret
2mo
to your proposition is that it is OK to sacrifice MBB and a bunch of other sports for the sake of football. When reading your post so starkly, it would seem you're just as biased to football as you accuse GC of being for MBB. Your postulation shows no concern for any other VT sports other than your beloved football. imo, GC seems to argue that repeating the same mistakes over and over (as Whit and his Minions have shown) is repeating the same mistake over and over and expecting a different outcome. Whit has now repeatedly shortchanged MBB, and I would argue that MBB has been relatively more successful than football given the investments (or lack thereof) by Whit and the AthDept.
** Edited by saret at 5/15/2026, 6:13:17 PM
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2mo
It is recognized that a step up in overall AD revenues is necessary to support MBB properly.
The best way to achieve that extra funding is to improve the FB program.
Once that extra funding arrive MBB will receive its fair share. So the goal is only to shortchange MBB in the near term.
We shall see.
** Edited by VT ChemE 1986 at 5/16/2026, 12:32:16 PM
(In response to this post by saret)
2mo
Is to properly allocate the 200 million increase in departmental budget (while still giving football the lions share)
VT athletics fell backwards into 200 million dollars despite the worst 6 year run in the history of the program...yet we have people here telling us the only way to generate money is for football to be good.
Lets say football generates 200 million dollars tomorrow...theyre not giving a dime to basketball and the same people will make the same argument "wE nEeD tO rEiNvEsT iT iN fOoTbAlL" and its just and endless cycle until VT spends 200 million dollars to watch James Franklin go coach at Florida.
But hey...VT will for sure be in the SEC by then, right?!
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
S
saret
2mo
point. But I don't agree with the decision to go so totally football-centric funding wise that other sports should suffer to the point of being non-competitive. We all saw what happened to MBB year before last when the described philosophy was implemented. And, as an aside, if Whit, his Minions and the Hokie Club had done a better job fund raising the AthDept would not be in this predicament. Piss poor fundraising and fiduciary acumen has put us here, with other sports having to compete for minimum funding because of leadership deficiencies.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
2mo
Basketball needs it's own advocate/fund-raiser. Somebody like Scott Davis, who played basketball at Tech and was in the Hokie Club for a long time before he left after Bill Lansden got here. And I still see Scott with donors at VT basketball games, so he still has those connections. It doesn't have to be Scott, of course, but I'm just using that as an example of one of the things I would do to try and improve the program.
(In response to this post by saret)
R
RJHokie
1mo
They might be able to work out something…..
(In response to this post by Chris Coleman)
2mo
... someone similar. Either volunteer or paid?
Do you think the new AD will hire a sport specific fund raiser for say MBB, WBB and another one for the balance of the sports, not counting SB and Wrestling?
(In response to this post by Chris Coleman)
2mo
Both paid and a volunteer...but...not anymore.
(In response to this post by Atlee Hokie)
2mo
Negative pressure by AD? Lost of interest of those running those organization?
(In response to this post by I love VT!)
S
saret
2mo
volunteer organizations, much like they did the area Hokie Clubs.
(In response to this post by Atlee Hokie)
2mo
A volunteer wouldn't be able to raise enough money to move the needed.
I have no idea what a new AD will do.
(In response to this post by Atlee Hokie)
S
saret
2mo
has complete sway. And, the financial appetite of this group is insatiable. I get, absolutely, that football funds almost everything. I get that football is the cash cow. But, that being said, the seeming quixotic nature of funding for MBB (and the other sports) is, from my viewpoint, indefensible misfeasance. But, that's been the history re: Whit's financial acumen.
Somewhere in this string, you mentioned FOIAing CMY's contract, and getting nothing about a new contract, You also mentioned that Frazier's contract was upped and extended. Could that be a clue that CMY is contemplating retirement, and that his replacement would be Frazier? And, if that happened, Frazier would be cheaper and would be touted as a "continuation" of CMY? What I just described would be typical CMY, who I believe to be "old school." And, that "old school" mentality would be typical of someone who remains publicly silent re: his treatment by Whit and his Minions.
(In response to this post by Chris Coleman)
2mo
Not with nastiness, but hard ball.
(In response to this post by saret)
S
saret
2mo
that would be retribution.
(In response to this post by TomTurkey)
2mo
Maybe future candidates if asked.
(In response to this post by saret)
S
saret
2mo
CMY got screwed, reportedly yelled behind close doors, then did the best he could with the had he was dealt. He'll do the same this time.
Also, when MBB declined to go the the NIT this year, I was very disappointed in the decision. CMY lost many points from me because of that decision. That being said, I have no idea what dynamics went into that decision (i.e., Avdalas, agents, the AthDept, etc.). I cannot conceive of a scenario where CMY would throw anybody under the bus, whether it was justified or not. That's what I mean by "old school."
(In response to this post by TomTurkey)
2mo
Spoiler: a little of all of the above.
(In response to this post by saret)
2
2hhoop3
1mo
perhaps consider viewing David Teel through a different lens, at least on certain subjects. Teel has long been considered, IMO, one of the gold standards when it comes to Virginia Sports journalists. He still occupies a lofty perch IMO, however, I no longer view any article he writes that has a slant or connection to Whit Babcock as a completely unbiased and objective source.
(In response to this post by TomTurkey)
2mo
HIGHLY skeptical of the execution and the prospects for follow through and a successful conclusion.
Also...just curious...when should we expect MBB's "fair share"? 2029? 2035?
Sometime before I die?
If you don't have an answer to that question, it's okay...that's partly the point.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
2mo
The most support VT hoops ever got in comparison to our peers was when we hired Buzz, and that was a couple of years after football started trending down and was winning six games a year.
So yeah, I get the argument and it makes sense on paper, but it's never seemed to line up that way.
(In response to this post by I love VT!)
2mo
It ain't coming...
1999-2009 VT football was the most prolific decade in VT sports of any sport...ever.
Ask Seth Greenberg if that turned into more basketball resources
** Edited by GCHokie34 at 5/16/2026, 9:50:44 PM
(In response to this post by I love VT!)
2mo
It will take that long for the benefits of the ACC success payments to be fully realized. In the meantime I expect MBB will tread water, at best.
I understand the anger and frustration with the incompetence of the athletic department. However demanding immediate change isn’t productive. It is what it is. As long as we are on the right path, which I believe we are, I am willing to give it a few years before I throw in the towel.
(In response to this post by I love VT!)
2mo
Some have been questioning the path for 5+ years so the fatigue and disappointment is real at the prospect of cashing in more than a decade of a revenue sport, all while being told it's because the support just isn't there. When you know it is...and aren't sure it will be there again after 10+ years of everyone being crapped on and discouraged from it.
Hopefully the football people will step up to the plate when the time comes.
Meanwhile, maybe the MBB team can hold some bake sales to help the football team out some more in saving their sport for them.
And don't get me wrong...I wholeheartedly support the football team and want them to succeed beyond any of our wildest imaginations...I just don't believe it requires embarrassing their fellow revenue sport.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
S
saret
2mo
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
2mo
I am stating the facts as I see them. I am not defending the situation. I am just trying to be pragmatic about how we improve the situation.
(In response to this post by saret)
S
saret
2mo
cavalier attitude of IIWII.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
2mo
slice of the pie to compete with the top 7-8 in the ACC. (Glass half full hope).
(In response to this post by saret)
2mo
Football is the big monster that drives almost half of all revenue for VT athletics. That is not an opinion, it is a clear and documented fact as shown in VT financials.
VT athletics, ALL sports, needs that revenue to survive. I want VT athletics to not only survive, but to also thrive. And the way college money is now built, that only happens if there is money coming in. I will repeat what I said originally, this is about doing the responsible thing because we care about all the sports.
And next time, consider pausing before you make an assumption about people’s biases. I’ve been supporting VT men’s bball since Ace was playing. And I’ve supported women’s bball since they were a bad A10 team and I was one of 100-200 people in the stands. I care about all Hokie sports and athletes. So I strongly disagree with your perspective.
(In response to this post by saret)
S
saret
2mo
espouse abandoning all the other sports except football. And, that espousal is NOT, "...doing the responsible thing because we care about all the sports." You are obviously "football biased" not football centric. And, I did pause and consider what I posted, and I'll stand by it. You can point out how big a supporter you are all you want, espousing neglecting all the non-football sports for the supposed survival of football is equivalent to what Whit did to the AthDept for the last ten years.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2mo
Nowhere in my posts does it say to neglect all the other sports at VT. Those are your words.
My words are about survival of the entire VT ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT (all sports).
I’ve been studying the money and contracts and conference movements for years now. This is a very important and dangerous time for VT athletics and the ACC. I’m focused on making sure that VT does not become like Washington State and get stuck in a G6 level conference with half the money we currently have. That’s the risk and it is very real.
Think what you want of that. I’m staying focused on how best to navigate VT through the next five years so that we come out on the side that can continue to fund ALL sports at a power conference level.
(In response to this post by saret)
S
saret
2mo
better basketball." If you didn't say it, it strongly implies in your response to @Rev.Zeke Vodka that he would want to "burn" VT athletics just to get better basketball. RZV didn't say that. In fact, he just said don't overly fund football and neglect MBB, which is what Whit did year before last and apparently intends to do again this year. From my reading of RZV's post, he just wanted a little more equity/awareness. Of course football is gong to get the preponderance of the money, but I read your position as give it all to football, and everybody else should just suck it up and hope for the best.
We've seen what happens when Whit is left to his own devices, when he funded the Olympic sports to the detriment of football, which brought us to where we are now. Now, it looks like the AthDept is over compensating to fix their self-created shortcomings.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2mo
support basketball ALSO want VT Athletics as a whole to thrive. It's an equally crappy assertion on your part to suggest someone doesn't want the best for VT Athletics because of their belief that basketball is worth a greater level of support than it's currently receiving. Note that nobody is saying basketball should be prioritized over football or really even equally to it...almost everyone recognizes the reality and the importance of football to the bigger picture. But there is a way to handle this current moment in time that isn't just downright embarrassing. And basketball DOES have the capacity to make $...the more you invest, the greater return you get. Currently we are literally and metaphorically opening one of eight concession stands and then shrugging our shoulders and acting like we have definitive proof that somehow concession stands just don't/can't make money at VT. You can fund football to a HIGH degree, invest enough in basketball to have it make more for you, and maybe most importantly, just not degrade the basketball program to what could be an unrecoverable position...even when the mythical revenue ship hopefully...eventually...some day...comes in.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2mo
I have been very clear. My focus is on revenue and the survival of all VT sports at the power conference level. There is a significant amount of risk coming within the next five years based on large media contracts that will impact conferences and schools.
I have no doubt that the gameday experience can be improved. Or that basketball could do more if they had more. But in the bigger game of survival (in the current media environment) the best hope for VT to keep up revenue and increase revenue is to lean in heavily on the sport that is bringing in 50% of all revenue. This is not a sport bias. This is business. This is reality now in college sports.
(In response to this post by I love VT!)
S
saret
2mo
position, just the degree to which you are willing to go for, potentially, a winning football team. To me, your overly strident use of the word "survival" implies (to me at least) that under funding the non-football sports is requisite to your survival paradigm, and would be a price worth paying. I cannot go that far. I've often found that the explanation that it's just "business" is a euphemism used by zealots.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2mo
...better basketball"
That's not made up - that's exactly what you said.
As to the rest of your post, guess what I "get it" too. Read MY post again to understand what I am saying in response. It obviously didn't sink in the first read.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2mo
And yet, in the 2020s football has averaged 5 wins per year
Maybe a significant increase in money to football will finally get us to 7 wins
VT will finally achieve every fan's dream of playing in the Coterie Diaper Bowl brought to you by Paramount Plus. And all it will cost is men's basketball, baseball, track and field and soccer.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2mo
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
2mo
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
2mo
Is the equivalent of 29 football teams
Hope this helps!
(In response to this post by marcbvtgm)
2mo
Just because those programs are "D1", that's in name only. They're basically the basketball equivalent of the FCS and below.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
2mo
So even if you remove them from consideration you remove their auto-bid so the ratio remains the same
Hope this helps
(In response to this post by marcbvtgm)
2mo
Is there really any difference? The bottom line is...RIGHT NOW - for a number of reasons - allocating as much as possible to football is the best long term play for VT athletics. Only BB myopic fanatics on message boards would think otherwise.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
2mo
You were trying to equate 84 out of 135 being the same as 78 out of 360...dumb
You then said "well the low majors dont count"...except their auto bids do count. So if you remove them, you remove the auto bids further diminishing the number of bids available to VT...dumb
And now youre trying to make the numbers so small that the differences seem minimal...except the difference between 8 teams making the NCAAT and 12 teams making bowls is the difference between 42.1% and 67.7%...this is the difference between the 150th ranked team and the 250th ranked team...again...dumb
Hope this helps
** Edited by GCHokie34 at 5/19/2026, 11:48:57 AM
(In response to this post by marcbvtgm)
1mo
(In response to this post by marcbvtgm)
S
saret
2mo
posters who would tear all the athletic programs down to the bone in tribute to the god that is football. And, he will attempt to minimize any arguments you make to the contrary. Your post is right on point.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
S
saret
1mo
You reply to my post of May 19 on June 25. I had to go back and re-peruse the string to get some context. Uhhhhhh,...I'll stick with my post of May 19.
(In response to this post by marcbvtgm)
S
saret
2mo
you and @Rev.Zeke Vodka are right on this issue. If promises are not being kept, then the people who made the promises should be ashamed.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
2mo
Has the money spent over the last 5-10 yrs been wasted? Yes.
Does that necessarily mean that future monies will be wasted? Not at all.
I think it is clear to even the casual observer that VT finally has created a real football program - complete with competent coaches and full institutional support. I believe the chances of returning to ACC contention are high.
Could we fail? Sure. But please stop pretending that past incompetence has doomed the program forever.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
S
saret
2mo
No. But 4-5 years of underfunding brings doom a lot nearer. You're essentially betting the come, which is more favorable to the bettor, but the odds still favor the house. And, if you're wrong, doom arrives with no alternative avenue of redemption. And, don't forget, football demands are going to increase every year, just like Franklin's salary. Some of ya'll are being very cavalier about under funding MBB. It's that attitude that some of us find so galling.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
2mo
When we are ready we get a top tier coach and provide top tier funding. I think it is possible to rebuild the program in 4-5 yrs.
(In response to this post by saret)
2mo
Complaining about things we can’t change just causes unnecessary misery.
(In response to this post by saret)
S
saret
2mo
disagree). Venting on a board is, imho, cathartic and good for my mental health. Plus, we don't know if one cannot affect change unless one tries. By your thought process, we should just allow ourselves to be indoctrinated into the Borg, because resistance if futile.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
2mo
This body has been voicing concerns with strategy and WB for many years now. Did we influence the final decision or were we just tracking in parallel with the decision-makers?
I agree that we need to continue to be honest on this board.
(In response to this post by saret)
S
saret
2mo
So far, I've seen no indications they care what members of this board think or opine.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
S
saret
2mo
the brain trust we call an AthDept. And, the execution of the AthDept ideas are even more poorly done than their ideas.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
H
HokieNL
2mo
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
2mo
Used properly this board can be a tool toward that end
(In response to this post by HokieNL)
2mo
In 2024 when VT football only won 6 games, they had 7.8x more revenue for the year compared to basketball.
In 2022 when VT football was epically bad and only won 3 games, they had 4.5x more revenue than basketball (a 19 win team the year after we won the ACCT).
Football should always get more investment because it produces more results. Bad football still makes enough to support the rest of VT athletics. VT basketball cannot do that.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
T
TDVick
2mo
enough money to be good if people (Pry) and Whit knew what they were doing. I can come up with about $10 million that would be lying around if they had.
Such as ....
Buzz's backend loaded contract that left us with an empty cupboard (Whit only).
Pry's severance ($3 million)
OC and DC extensions that should have never been made ($3 million or so), plus hiring their replacement and having to pay redundant salaries. Correct me if I'm wrong but this screwup wasted $6-7 million total?
Pry's extension after our glorious win over UVA to go 6-6 and beat a decimated Tulane in a bowl?
I make the case that he should have paid up for Matt Campbell in the first place, which - to your point - would have been a drawdown, but it would have been a smart one because it would have paid for itself.
You all might be really sick of me bringing this up, but if people keep having amnesia about why our hoops got stiffed, I will keep bringing it up. BTW, Clemson and NCSU have gone to the Final Four, why have they been so much better positioned than us?
Can VT close that gap? I think it can. They are better-managed. I doubt it is luck or randomness.
Yes, we should overweight football, but we can do some of both if football doesn't completely brick it - which they did. A coach made bad decisions and his superior signed off on them. Wake was a screwed call away from making the ACC title game last year. I doubt they had near the football money we spent. Lots of us thought this looked very disorganized from the start. I doesn't look like bad luck - which is more forgivable. It looked really stupid and turned out to be stupid. I don't say that about Fuente. I don't say that about Mike Young. I say this about Pry and Whit. Most of us believe this to be true.
Feel free to push back on my calc that about $10 million was squandered. Maybe over 2-3 years? Well, that is $3 million a year that could have elevated the hoops budget.
We had some very "left-tail" performance.
** Edited by TDVick at 5/20/2026, 3:47:44 PM
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2mo
produces more results" immediately after pointing our that when football received money taken from basketball, they only won 6 games... that is the issue - VT fans continue to show up for terrible football. If we are going to generate a ton of revenue with bad football, what is the point in continuing to throw money at it? Football has historically demonstrated that more money does not equate to more wins, so why dump money into it?
Meanwhile, in 2024 men's basketball attendance tanked. On top of that, the amount of money that would make meaningful impact on basketball is peanuts, relative to the overall budget and also miniscule relative to the amount VT football wants to just win 3 games.
No one arguing for MBB to get more revenue wants football to be underfunded. The increase in department funding SHOULD allow both programs to be funded at a level that results in being competitive with our peers but only one of those things is happening. MBB doesn't have to lose for FB to be successful and it is asinine to think so.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2mo
Rather than a 40ish/5ish split in payroll, which gives football every chance to win and basketball no chance to win, maybe a 35ish/10ish split would be better, which would still give football every chance to win while also giving basketball a chance. That's where I'm at.
The main reason basketball doesn't bring in more revenue than it currently does is because Cassell is not equipped to be a modern money generator, and it needs to be replaced as soon as possible.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2mo
Allocating more money to MBB right is a long term financial loser - for every sport. Particularly when the head coach has not shown the ability to adapt to the NIL era.
I’m not advocating firing Young; I’m advocating that VT more of a long game financially. Mike Young is treading water. Wait until the time is right holistically before putting any more of the pie into MBB.
** Edited by marcbvtgm at 5/17/2026, 12:51:51 PM
(In response to this post by Chris Coleman)
2mo
Word was they were getting a boost, and then magically they didn't. But communication has never been their strength, and Whit has been overwhelmed for quite awhile.
** Edited by Chris Coleman at 5/18/2026, 8:46:09 AM
(In response to this post by marcbvtgm)
2mo
(In response to this post by marcbvtgm)
2mo
VT is just treading water with MBB right now. If VT was serious about MBB in the near term - and providing the $$ commensurate to that commitment - Mike Young would have been shown the door IMO.
That's honesty with a coach.
** Edited by marcbvtgm at 5/19/2026, 9:33:34 AM
(In response to this post by Chris Coleman)
2mo
(In response to this post by Chris Coleman)
S
saret
2mo
with us.
(In response to this post by BROman Hokie)
2mo
The same folks who like that we play VMI. It's really lack of money
(In response to this post by Chris Coleman)
2mo
really miss about Cassell ...just like NC State still does...and just like UNC still does...there are real trade-offs no matter how fashionable it is to dump on Cassell these days.
I hope you all get the fancy basketball palace you envision. Not sure what it is about VT's approach to basketball that would suggest that will be even close to the case...but someday when you're getting adjusted to the (most likely) soulless, sterile, and not quite as nice as you envisioned new arena in the first few years after it opens, even you may find yourself missing the intensity only those old school viewing angles and a big a** fan can bring.
And fwiw, I'm not sure that even people who really want a new arena are exactly giddy at the prospect of seeing Cassell imploded. Love it or hate it, it holds a lot of memories for a lot of people across a lot of years...some thrilling, some tragic, many sports-related, many not.
(In response to this post by Maroon Effect)
2mo
...aside from whatever happens with it or a different building down the road.
This season I started to think that is by design.
(In response to this post by Chris Coleman)
S
saret
2mo
when I was a student (Chicago, Peter Paul and Mary, Mitch Ryder, etc.). I understand mega entertainers want larger venues, but why not try to get non-mega (is that a word?) entertainers in there. I've seen no evidence of the AthDept/Burruss making any effort at all, other than Metallica to generate revenue using Lane or Cassell.
(In response to this post by I love VT!)
2mo
...concerts there are a pipe dream (and to be fair, not at all an expectation of mine given acoustics/modern equipment/etc) I think they are actually doing a good job on the concert front overall. Metallica was gold standard. And there's going to be more to come...those aren't things you do with great regularity when/if you're doing them well.
All I want is for us to operate the basketball venue like a basketball venue and maximize what is available from it for that purpose.
(In response to this post by saret)
S
saret
2mo
so far, is a pipe dream with no indication of any effort by the AthDept to have Metellica redux. So again, MBB fans should just accept our fate, and ask for more like Animal House?
(In response to this post by I love VT!)
2mo
...they certainly aren't going to put a public press release out to say so or have a fireside chat...and neither would anyone else, including Clemson/George Strait, UVA/Luke Combs, and others. Metallica was a year and a week ago. It's completely reasonable and probably prudent not to do another one until next year.
Also, across college athletics as a whole...not just at VT...I'm not sure the concert revenue proposition is all it's cracked up to be, even though they are outstanding events. Zero of my heartburn over basketball had anything to do with concerts.
(In response to this post by saret)
S
saret
2mo
concerts/MBB nexus is pretty tenuous. As far as what you describe as ongoing efforts, that's right up there with the phrase I heard when I worked for the federal govt, "I'm with the government, I'm here to help, trust me." And, based upon the historical record of AthDept efforts, the axiom I quoted is just as accurate and disingenuous.
(In response to this post by I love VT!)
2mo
involved in the contract negotiations yourself, there will be no convincing you anything is happening on that front. The fact you don't trust the info doesn't make it untrue.
And when it comes to concert production and execution, what's disingenuous is to suggest they didn't absolutely knock it out of the park last May. Their historical record on that point is outstanding and deserves full credit.
(In response to this post by saret)
S
saret
2mo
excellent. It was also very fortuitous.
(In response to this post by I love VT!)
2mo
We are at a transition point in an organization that can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. As such it is imperative that leadership keep the organization focused on the most important thing until it is proven they can get that right. When that has been accomplished we can start adding other objectives.
Your position ignores the smoking crater that is the VT athletic department. The foundation must be rebuilt before we can start adding rooms.
(In response to this post by Chris Coleman)
2mo
regard to Cassell and concessions. Seems like VT could recruit local vendors, food truck types, to use the concession areas to sell their own goods. Do it for free. Just make sure the basics like electric, water, and sanitation are working.
(In response to this post by Chris Coleman)
S
saret
2mo
It would seem the contractor performance is lacking.
(In response to this post by 40ozDistrict)
2mo
And the player that started this is one of the best recruits in the country at the most important position. It’s a big get on top of other recruiting uplifts (as you know more than any of us).
The focus on players and the teams is why I have been highlighting the financial impact of those teams. Yes I fully understand the basketball view that just a little more could make a huge impact for the program in terms of wins. But as you pointed out, the revenue limitations are partially due to Cassell, and that is an expensive and time consuming fix. That would take a lot of time.
Which brings it back to revenue. Many here may not like it, but VT athletics is a business. The highest paid employee is making millions per year. And inflation impacts facilities and salaries and travel for VT sports the same as it does for everyone else. So there is a very strong and clear need to be revenue focused right now.
It’s an uncomfortable topic. But media contracts, ACC payout changes (success initiative), and the ability for VT to continue as a power school are all considerations. And the very clear driver of that for VT is football. It’s just simple numbers.
(In response to this post by Chris Coleman)
S
saret
2mo
and be fine with an historically poorly run business? I gotcha! No hard feelings. We should just be grateful for getting "knocked up" because the BMOC football captain impregnated us? Now I understand.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
S
saret
2mo
in the a$$. The gift that keeps on giving.
(In response to this post by Chris Coleman)
S
saret
2mo
But, I would expect such numbers since Lane sits ~67,000 and Cassell sits <9,000. That being said, I can't fault @GCHokie34 for arguing for DECENT support for the sport he loves. And, just how much did each football will cost as opposed to each basketball win? Your bias really shows here.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2mo
Touche - you are a bad man!!
(In response to this post by Rev.Zeke Vodka)
2mo
(In response to this post by Rev.Zeke Vodka)
2mo
funded properly? Doh, what am I thinking, lol.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
2mo
And I am FOR funding football very, very well ...
But this idea that someday we will just be swimming in so much money that everyone's dreams will come true is very naive.
But what you've described is the "plan"...and gosh, it's been really fun so far, hasn't it?
(In response to this post by 40ozDistrict)
S
saret
2mo
(In response to this post by I love VT!)
H
Hokies81
2mo
in additional donations so they could compete with the big boys. Things are only going to get worse until it all implodes or some form of collective bargaining is instituted.
(In response to this post by 40ozDistrict)
2mo
(In response to this post by Hokies81)
2mo
the NFL has it and that helps with salaries (i.e. revenue share) but that doesn't cover endorsements (NIL) by NFL players. NIL will just continue to be the big differentiator in college athletics.
(In response to this post by Hokies81)
S
saret
2mo
the schools to quit funding/subsidizing/arranging NIL deals for the athletes. Pro athletes, with their agents, arrange their own NIL deals. Most of these college athletes do not. Let these agents work for their 10% and find the sponsors. Then, the agent/athlete just reports the substance of the NIL deal to the school, who can forward it to the clearinghouse for review. The schools should quit helping/buying these athletes. If it's true NIL, sponsors will pay for who they want.
(In response to this post by BleedinOandM)
S
saret
2mo
control the purchase of players. I was just being wistful.
(In response to this post by HokieNL)
2mo
They'll probably screw it up.
** Edited by vtbball80 at 5/15/2026, 12:44:39 PM
(In response to this post by BleedinOandM)
2mo
It could. It doesnt need to because teams aren't skirting the rules to pay athletes using endorsements at an exorbitant level.
They couldnt keep their players from getting endorsements deals, but they could mandate any deals be reported and recorded to make investigating circumvention of the rules easy.
The NCAA currently has this idea as a framework with the CSC, they just dont have the authority to do anything about it if they catch someone not reporting...so teams dont report.
But a CBA gives you legal authority to create whatever penalties are agreed by both parties which can significantly reduce or eliminate that circumvention
(In response to this post by BleedinOandM)
2mo
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
2mo
It's the NCAA, so I'm not confident they'll get it right.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
S
saret
2mo
to have an agreement. I don't see any reason for the players/agents to want a CBA, because it might slow down the gravy train. And the blue bloods probably don't want a CBA either, because the lack of rules is to their benefit. The NCAA has no power to either get all parties involved or to act as an unbiased mediator. I assume your hope is a very, very faint one.
(In response to this post by vtbball80)
2mo
It hasnt for 70 years...but maybe this is the year
(In response to this post by 40ozDistrict)
2mo
Resource management lets go!
(In response to this post by Rev.Zeke Vodka)
2mo
I was really excited for a new MBB recruit. Oh well...
(In response to this post by ancient alien 2018)
2mo
(In response to this post by Rev.Zeke Vodka)