Just as it's been ruminated on here re: how does the disparity in NIL deals affect the locker room, it's a natural extension to your query, "Think about the student sitting in class next to some football player and knowing they are helping finance the $20.5M salary cap." To both situations, I surmise it would hurt the locker room as well as the classroom. But, apparently none of the powers that be seem to care. It's sad.

And the BOV might ultimately agree and tell him to kick rocks and not try to be good at football. If we had a lot more money in donations or licensing fees or media rights, things would be different, but we don't. I personally would prefer cutting about as much spending as allowed from nonrevenue sports before requiring students to pay more. But I'm not sure how that fits in with what the ACC requires or what a P2 conference would want. VT is already fairly expensive. Tuition is 50% higher than at UNC, for example. It's about as much to go in state to VT as it is to go out of state to FSU. At least compared to UNC, that seems to be from getting less money from the state. ** Edited by hucareshokiesrul at 8/20/2025, 3:58:37 PM ** Edited by hucareshokiesrul at 8/20/2025, 3:59:41 PM

At Virginia Tech, approximately 39% of undergraduate students use federal student loans to help pay for their education. Among incoming freshmen, about 42% take out loans in their first year, with an average loan amount of $8,785.

almost all of the power 2 does this surchage and VT is the lowest in the state. another effort VT is the bubble while the industry moves out in this front with more student fees. You can put your flag in the sand, and Fade into a community college or you go out... what is it??

doesn't make it right. One of the first lessons that most of us learn as kids. It's one thing to gouge fans (via ticket prices and ever-higher donation requirements) to fund the never-ending corporatization of "college" sports. All of that money is forked over completely voluntarily, as it should be. It's entirely different to fund it via mandatory fees on a captive population, many of whom are attending school for, you know, actual "school", and not because they are super interested in watching semi-pro sports. Shame on anyone who wants to tax students to pay for somebody else's entertainment.

It's not like I could pick and choose which costs were important to me and which ones weren't. Maybe I would've been fine eating slop for having a lower meal plan cost, but slop wasn't an option, having a quality dining experience was just part of the Virginia Tech package. Things that I paid for that I never used or cared about didn't affect me directly, but they did affect someone else's experience, and the student community as a whole was enhanced because of this. There's no way I would feel the same affinity for Virginia Tech if I had lived a much more atomized life there, where the only thing I have in common with someone else is geographic proximity to them. People on this board have argued for years that athletics is inseparable from the success of the university as a whole, that the university would be smaller, lower enrollment, less prestigious, etc., if not for the prowess of sports and especially football in the 90s and 00s. If this is true, if it's to be believed, there's no way around it, it's either part of the Virginia Tech experience, or it's not. Babcock's greater point to the BOV is that the landscape is shifting such that it's forcibly shunting everyone who is only half-committed to athletics into the "not part of the experience" group, the group where sports are so insignificant that they provide no meaningful benefit to the university or its community. And that's the worst spot to be in really, it costs the most money and produces the least results. If the the board doesn't care about the results, great, let's just scrap sports entirely, they'll save at least $100,000,000 per year that they spend on academics instead. I mean look, if you're a prospective student, the only time to decide which factors are important to you and which aren't is at that selection time. If you want an engineering degree but you don't care at all about sports, there's 21 schools in the state that are ABET-accredited in at least 1 program, like a half dozen of those schools have multiple accredited programs. At the undergrad level, you will get as good of an education at any of these programs, you will come away just as smart if you went to VT or UVA or JMU or CNU. It might make a difference in terms of networking effects later which particular school you went to, but, what's a big factor in the strength of that alumni network? The affinity and camaraderie that was developed by having a strong student community, where there was something for everyone, even if it meant that you were helping subsidize someone else's experience.

"People on this board have argued for years that athletics is inseparable from the success of the university as a whole" Not me. My VT degree has zero to do with the success of the football team. Anyone who thinks like that is a moron who never played anything and jacks off to Hustler in the crapper.

I think scrapping sports entirely leads to cost savings but, a big BUT, it also leads to corresponding declines in revenue, meaning the savings you project being plowed into academics is significantly less.

It's not just because football's the most expensive sport to run. It's also that it's the sport that VT alumni care the most about, and it's also the sport developing a competitive cutoff such that below it, spending 10 million below the cutoff is as pointless as spending 80 million below it. Not just VT, a lot of universities are going to be making the same decision (or maybe it gets made for them), whether they're willing to spend higher and higher as that threshold for competitiveness keeps rising over time (because there are no guardrails in place, e.g. salary/spending caps as found in professional sports, there's nothing preventing the increasing consolidation of wealth to the largest programs, and, by extension, consolidation of on-field success). Personally, I think given enough time at a high level of success, I think basketball could substitute well enough for all those broader community benefits, student affinity for the school, etc. Like, imagine if VT started spending enough on basketball, men's and women's, such that they were in the Sweet 16 most years, multiple Final 4 appearances, maybe even a title somewhere in there. A brand new student, 17-18 years old, maybe doesn't have a strong sports favorite yet, but does like to be part of the most exciting event on campus, they would quickly find their fervor with a team that wins 90% of the time. But, where would the money for this kind of success come from? Probably at the expense of football, but that goes back to the issue of how football is what the alumni care the most about. Will they choose to sacrifice their own favorite sport in the hopes of developing a powerhouse program in other sports, for the benefit of kids who are still years removed from becoming students? I don't know, I kind of doubt it.

amounts and would not have such a disparity in funding. I think if you fund winners, people will develop a stronger affinity. Basketball (men and womens) is smart but couple it with a few non revenues that have actual changes to win NCAA team titles and you have winners.

incompetent fundraising operations...

advocating for schools to become UConn. The issue with that is there can only be a certain number of UConns and that cannot lift other sports. Even UConn is somewhat unique with powerhouse programs in both men's and women's BB.

considered.... If your revenue declines, you cut spending to stay profitable and decide a new path that creates a new revenue stream and extends the life of your brand.

done, but the only one Whit talks about is more spending. I posted a link to an MTSU article re: cutting uniform costs. What about those $500K/year for Lane seat backs? What about efficiency of operations, especially at the Hokie Club. How about utilizing all that AthDept staff to communicate vice bunkering. The possibilities are mind blowing. Again, Whit just wants more money. Where's the leadership.

I am an alumnus there as well so I am always interested in the Blue Raiders...

My daughter had thought about going to MTSU for softball and when we met the Athletic Department folks, there was an Assistant AD or compliance guy from Virginia Tech. Nice guy.

to survive its athletics.

I was just pointing out to the OP the calculation was not likely as straightforward as he believes. The reality is none of the calculations, be they cost savings, revenue losses, new revenue sources or uses from a shift in direction are likely simple straightforward calculations. All are rife with a variety of assumptions and very much dependent on the expertise and financial acumen of those doing the estimating. That last sentence, troubling in its own right, and not really bolstered, IMO, by past performance of those most likely involved.

** Edited by marcbvtgm at 8/20/2025, 4:23:05 PM

OR working full time jobs that do not allow them to go to all of the football and basketball games that they "pay" for with their student fees. Maybe the people in favor of raising taxes on students to pay adults 5, 6 and 7 figure annual amounts can call them "tariffs" in order to feel less slimy about it.

Why not face reality that VT is a "have not" and focus on the things that we can do well without "taxing" students to pay other students on scholarship 5 or 6 figures per year to play a sport? Why "tax" students to pay for salaries for coaches making 6 and 7 figures? Good luck getting those kids that have student loans thanks to the rising costs of education to be donors of the Hokie Club.....

way but given the incompetence of leadership within the athletic department, the football program, and the Hokie Club for the last 10+ years, I think our fate is likely sealed at this point.

Wish we would focus on basketball and the non revenues. Win titles and generate media dollars through building a better basketball brand.

is based on basketball viewership. So concentrating on basketball just means falling further and further behind the schools excelling at football. It’s a death spiral.

It's burning limited resources chasing a dream. We increased spending dramatically with Pry and instead of wins, we have a piss poor record to show because the money is (1) too little relative to the price of sustained success in College Football and (2) too late because it should have happened 10+ years ago when the P2 conferences raised the stakes. We could destroy the rest of the programs at VT and still, it won't be enough for sustained success on a National scale that would increase the profile to attract top end talent on a consistent basis.

every day. What you said is accurate. But there's a dearth of leadership at VT, and a total absence of responsibility assumption. No one will accept what our real circumstance is. But the acceptance must precede the decision making and the necessary leadership. No one, Pry, Whit, Sands, BoV, etc.want to make the hard decisions. Maybe Rocovich will be the first, but I'm not holding my breath. And, people like you, me and other posters on this board have no "juice" to affect anything. All we can do is lament and debate. It's like watching a slow motion car wreck. We're just watching to see the extent of the ultimate damage.

to what are in effect professional athletes. Disgusting.

At what point will the administration and the segments of the fanbase be honest with themselves and realize that VT Football is a "have not".

I still hope we drop both football and basketball. I certainly have.

Let’s not stray from the facts. For example, my kids went to UGA - pretty respectable athletic program. Athletic fees were $51 per semester. The need for the high fees is the fault of the ACC (I’m looking at you, Tobacco Road) and its members (presidents and ADs) for very poor negotiating and poor product quality.

However, the vast majority of P-4 schools have these fees. We can blame the ACC, John Swafford, whoever all we want. The bottom line is that we either figure out how to raise the money or we don't. This is just a piece of the puzzle IMO.