BOV Meeting - Discussion and Vote
The proposal to increase funding passed. Nancy Dye voted against it, everyone else voted in favor of it. So almost unanimously but not quite.
108 Replies
10mo
You can't be an advocate for access to and affordability of higher education for Virginia students and vote for it.
No worries - you see this all the time in politics.
(In response to this post by FINGrad91)
10mo
What if it doesn't succeed? To me that's a lot of cash. Failure will not be an option. Now how do we spend the money? How do we measure success?
(In response to this post by FINGrad91)
10mo
We got no choice thus the 13-1 vote.
(In response to this post by likehokies)
10mo
Don't fear failure. Winners never have.
(In response to this post by likehokies)
10mo
(In response to this post by likehokies)
V
VTChemE
10mo
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
10mo
Hopefully it works out! Great handle yourself!
(In response to this post by VTChemE)
V
VaPoly07
10mo
(In response to this post by likehokies)
10mo
That said this should have happened as we progressed from 1993 on........
Not sure as school we had the greatest mindsets for seeing in advance. Not easy to do.
If this fails(i think no matter it will turn out ok to real good). We tried! Actually, I think this new landscape will blow up. Then we will see back to regional play. More playing for the pureness.
I have every idea some of VT issues was jealousy over NIL money distribution. If it happens VT. Why not everywhere? I guess what I am trying to say. Money will make this worse and worse. Time will show us all.
(In response to this post by likehokies)
R
RiverVT
10mo
She is very out of touch with reality and the size of the university.
Somewhat scary to think she is on the BOV and with other things going on .
(In response to this post by FINGrad91)
10mo
Probably not wrong but agree it ignores current environmental conditions. If things would reverse this will be a lot easier to roll up than roll out. Right now it’s a critical business to the university and you’ve got to take some risks.
(In response to this post by RiverVT)
10mo
But yeah, a $200M budget increase means it’s critical. I’m not passing judgement on it being good, bad, or indifferent but that’s a $#!+ ton of money so it’s critical. This was the environmental factor I eluded to so it has to managed well and provide ROI. This is the path large state universities are on and denying it is not going to help make successful in a way to benefit the academic ivory towers.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
10mo
Especially when half of it is a bump athletics philanthropy...at a university with a $2 billion annual budget?
We're talking like 1-2% of the university budget being kicked in by the "academic side"... that's indicative of critical?
It is the path large universities are on. History is riddled with popular paths that don't end well. Following it no more guarantees academic success than deviating guarantees academic struggles.
(In response to this post by Hokiefied)
10mo
(In response to this post by Pylons)
10mo
The Joneses might manage theirs well too.
Athletics is kinda a zero sum game. Investing and managing well doesn't necessarily mean good results.
And even with good results, the return is pretty vague and debatable.
(In response to this post by Hokiefied)
10mo
the chickens will come home to roost.
(In response to this post by RiverVT)
10mo
(In response to this post by RiverVT)
2
2hhoop3
10mo
She is historically reasonable and pragmatic but, in what appears to be a bit of political grandstanding she whiffed this time around.
(In response to this post by BROman Hokie)
R
RiverVT
10mo
Student affordability?
If students cant afford extra 100 perhaps another school should be considered.
Again she provided no solutions but a "nay"
Who our peer schools? What are our student fees compared to our peers?
How does JMU students afford their student fees?
Did she do her homework? What a joke!
(In response to this post by HokieR)
10mo
I bet you could "afford" a lot of things you choose not to buy.
I bet you would vote against certain tax increases even though you could "afford" it.
She stands for affordability of higher ed and voted against making VT less affordable for the sake of sports.
(In response to this post by RiverVT)
10mo
Did she forget the boom after 1999?
(In response to this post by Pylons)
10mo
How have applications done in the VT football era of mediocrity by the way?
** Edited by Pylons at 9/30/2025, 10:29:12 PM
(In response to this post by CPVT3)
10mo
(In response to this post by Pylons)
10mo
But I don't think it was much more...and certainly not a lot compared to actually being a good school in so many other ways.
I started at VT 10 years pre-Vick. I did a fair amount of work for admissions both as a student volunteer as an employee in the early/mid 90's. VT was a very good school on a very nice trajectory before Vick...because of those other ways...sure, an MNC run with an incredibly talented QB was nice exposure...but it's not like it was some transformational event for the university overall.
Tell me how football and university $ go hand-in-hand. Cover Vick and post-Vick along with the last 15 years...how both eras demonstrate that relationship.
(In response to this post by CPVT3)
10mo
I don't know how I can prove to you what actually happened against what never happened (not having football success and the impact on the university as a whole).
If anyone is really upset that they have to pay $100 dollars, they can attend any number of other universities, no? No one is forced to attend VPI (as far as I know).
Clearly we have donors (e.g. Kellogg, Red Gates, Mitchell) that may or may not care about athletics, so if anything, it's a net positive, no?
I would wager that the Blacksburg economy benefits from athletic success, but again, I don't have a database of numbers to back that up.
In a way, the fact that you have an account on a for profit pro VT Athletics website and are posting on a football message board kind of proves my point.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
10mo
VT sports fan, yeah, definite impasse. (fwiw, I cancelled my membership last week...not that I'm stopping being a fan, but things have changed in lots of ways that make subscribing not worth it to me...I'm certainly not the same kind of fan I was for many years.)
And it's not about the freaking $100...as already addressed.
The local economy argument is actually a worthwhile one. Far more than football success leading to academic success at the university.
And I'm not asking you to prove anything (neither of us can), but if you're sold on 1999 and Vick being such a boon to the university and an example of this "hand in hand" relationship...why isn't lack of football success for 15 years negatively impacting things (or do you think it has?)...why does the hand in hand only work in one direction? And if it takes something like 1999 and Vick to make a difference, don't hold your breath on this budget increase (half of which feels like pie in the sky wishful thinking for fundraising) to bring an encore.
(In response to this post by CPVT3)
10mo
I don't really have any empiric data, so this is mostly gut feeling: I honestly think it does work one way.
I was trying to find an article about the best football program in the past several decades (Alabama), relative to the improvement of their academics, as I think this would be the easiest to find. Like we've kind of discussed, there's not something that has it all laid out.
Obviously everything doesn't exist in a silo, but I would wager in the past 15-20 years, undergraduate students who attended Virginia Tech care less about football than myself (or possibly yourself) because the team was bad. It's possible this may lead to less nostalgia or feeling of connectedness over time. It's very difficult to gauge how this affects non athletic donations.
THAT SAID, I have an incredible sense of loyalty and have many wonderful memories and connections to Virginia Tech, regardless of football standings. So in that sense, you may be right: If VT is good or bad at football, it does not really affect the core of what makes VT, VT, the draw if you will.
I'm so thankful I attended VPI. I will say, I did not watch any college football before attending.
Not mutually exclusively, I would like to see competitive, well-coached football and basketball programs.
I guess on the flip side, judging from your replies on this thread in general, you seem against the funding as a whole. What is the alternative or why are you so against the idea of at least attempting to achieve greater athletic success? You have tried to prove that university success and athletic success are independent of one another, so to put it bluntly, why do you care? Does this money come out of otherwise non-athletic funding?
If your ire is directed at the increase in college tuition over time relative to increase in income or increase in student loan interest rates or something of the effect, this seems like being mad at the symptom, not the disease.
** Edited by CPVT3 at 10/1/2025, 6:20:55 AM
(In response to this post by Pylons)
10mo
I'm pretty ambivalent about it really. I *am* against the argument that it's some slam dunk because athletic success is such a boon to the university overall. It's not all being "taken" from academics, but $48.3 in "institutional support" certainly is. $21.3 million in student fees sort of is...people keep saying "it's only $100"...well then make this increase to tuition and use the money to market what VT actually is...an academic institution...rather than some weird branding end around...as if there's any logic to say a school good at sports is strong academically. The 39.6 million in bridge funding, I don't understand well enough to comment. $120 million in increased philanthropy...first of all, I'll believe it when I see it. Secondly, I think if effort were put into boosting academic donations by even half of that, it would be a better, more direct impact on academics. Plus, the more money people give to athletics, the less they have to give to other parts of the university.
I do think it's important for the local economy to have successful sports...that's the argument that makes sense.
The other concerning thing is the uncertainly associated with throwing more money at the problem. Sports are a zero sum game. For every winner, you need a loser. Simply keeping up with the Joneses merely gives us a chance to be a winner. It's hard to be a winner. So the argument for boosting academics is hurt further by that uncertainty.
If I have ire, it's because people here give so much credit to football for making VT what it is. The ire comes from being a VT academician. I spent 10 years earning 3 degrees from VT. I worked with a lot of faculty and administrators in various capacities over those 10 years, right up to multiple presidents. I also worked at VT as faculty and in administration for about 8 years, including in the highest academic office at VT (the Provost's). The credit people give to football for making VT what it is feels like a slap in the face to the academic folks who have worked hard to make VT what it is.
I care because I'm as loyal to VT as you or anyone else. I do want to win. VT sports (far more than just football...the pendulum has swung away from football and toward wrestling, basketball, baseball, etc. for me over the years) are great entertainment for me...and it's better when we're winning. But I think it's fair to question when playing the crazy game big-time college athletics has turned into doesn't make sense anymore. VT and many other institutions have painted themselves into a corner over the years and no one wants to be the first to say "uncle." It will take some type of concerted effort to turn sports for the VT's of the world into something that seems more sensible.
(In response to this post by CPVT3)
10mo
Link:
Flutie Effect
(In response to this post by Pylons)
10mo
There's a lot of stuff in there that is contradictory to what you're arguing. There were efforts to enhance visibility and reputation to grow the university pre-Flutie. Post-Flutie, there were things that happened that don't support this purported link between athletic success and applications/academics.
(In response to this post by CPVT3)
2
2hhoop3
10mo
and cause to admissions jumps and increased applications is very difficult to accurately evaluate. However, far less difficult to evaluate is the marketing, exposure and other expanding opportunities at the school, locally, regionally and nationally. VT was clearly viewed differently in a variety of areas, both in comparison to prior times and, while not as much, it's subsequent regression to more comparable former levels.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
10mo
JMU is one of he highest student fees in the country, over 1000 dollars and ODU the same. JMU does not comply wiht the limits on spending of athletics (over 3 times their limit and no one complains. VT has been saints in keeping the lowest surcharge in the commonwealth, and they increase it by 100.00 (which still keeps us the lowest) and there is an insurrection. If folks have this problem, demand the state, direct JMU, ODU, UVA to reduce their student fees to VT level.
(In response to this post by RiverVT)
10mo
success at football without donating / spending money lol
(In response to this post by 1947Sunbowl)
10mo
(In response to this post by 1947Sunbowl)
10mo
And VT is going in the right direction in Sports. Wished it had been done about ten years ago. But the main thing everyone is on the same page...future is looking brighter
(In response to this post by FINGrad91)
10mo
IMO opposing viewpoints are good.
That said - WE’RE RICH!!!!
(In response to this post by FINGrad91)
10mo
She is a big advocate for affordability of higher ed
(In response to this post by Hokie98)
R
RiverVT
10mo
NC State
UNC
Iowa State
Maybe TSL can help to do the research :
Peer Schools Student fees vs VT student fees
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
10mo
(In response to this post by RiverVT)
10mo
I have the exact same concerns even though I do support the funding increase overall for athletics.
Ultimately though, approval of the funding is a decision that VT had to make at this time.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
10mo
Like it or not...deserved to not...athletics positively impacts general university awareness and recognition. This pays dividends for university grads in the long term. Is it worth the amount that students are paying? I don't know. But it does matter to potential employers - if even just subconsciously. And she doesn't address that in the least.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
10mo
People who like football want to fund it and find justifications to do so...based on emotion.
Maybe even just subconsciously 😉
Wanting to make college affordable and opposing things that make it less so has a pretty strong basis in fact...even if there's emotion too.
(In response to this post by marcbvtgm)
10mo
Nor does the success of the football program correlate to a higher % of new grads receiving jobs at VT.
(In response to this post by marcbvtgm)
10mo
The perception of JMU and its grads is considerably higher regionally and nationally than it was a decade ago. And that's been far more significantly on on the backs of the students than what is being proposed for VT.
Again, I'm not claiming the return is less than, equal to, or surpasses the cost. I'm just saying it's not a zero ROI - and that's not being taken into consideration at all by those arguing against it.
** Edited by marcbvtgm at 9/30/2025, 2:49:11 PM
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
10mo
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
10mo
How much weight is debatable. But you're just putting your head in the sand if you don't think it does.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
10mo
Or know that it produces quality graduates.
Any resume reviewer materially influenced by that is being kinda stupid...heck half of them probably don't even know if VT is successful in athletics.
(In response to this post by marcbvtgm)
10mo
I've always thought the school perception angle was overblown. Maybe for the very first job out of school it can matter (some fields or companies can be picky). But overall, hiring comes down to three things.
1. Networking. Guaranteed resume review and flagged for HR attention if the person come recommended by someone I know and trust.
2. Skills/experience. Can they do the job that I need done?
3. Personal bias. Did I like them in the interview and think they responded well to the questions and think that they will fit the team?
I know that the HR people are just throwing the piles of resumes into AI tools and looking for key words and minimum qualifications. Where a person went to school only ever comes up when people chat on Fridays or Mondays and talk about the weekend or at happy hours.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
10mo
What a dumb statement. She said Grad Students don't have the desire nor time to attend VT athletic events and hoped that they wouldn't be required to pay the increase in student fees. I don't use the city bus, but it still comes out of my taxes as a community enhancement/benefit. Welcome to the real world, kid.
(In response to this post by FINGrad91)
10mo
athletic events. In fact, the highlight of me going back to school full time was that I actually had more time to do things like athletic events.
I am not sure she speaks for all grad students.
(In response to this post by VTFinance10)
10mo
...so the fan POV is clearly dominant here. But certainly there are LOTS of students, undergrad and graduate, who don't care a bit about football specifically or athletics generally, and would rather not pay the fees. Additionally there are lots of state schools, flagship universities even, that don't come anywhere near close to competing at the top of the NCAA.
Collegiate Athletic flag waving is largely the province of alumni and non-associated fans. Shuffling the cost to students (and their parents or loan officers) is the collegiate equivalent of corporate welfare
(In response to this post by VTFinance10)
V
VaPoly07
10mo
clear some space for the people who do
(In response to this post by Beerman)
10mo
"Does VT want to be a big time football program?" is what was on the ballot. "No" is perfectly valid response.
(In response to this post by VaPoly07)
10mo
You think Maryland dont have student fees, NC State UNC or UVA.
And frankly, a date with meal and beer for 2 gets you over 100.00 so if you are that strapped maybe there are other options.
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
10mo
Agreed?
(In response to this post by 1947Sunbowl)
10mo
is with the seat licenses, and the reseating every 3-years. Whether or not you agree with the student fee increases or not, fans are paying their fair share. As VT Scoop posted yesterday, these student fee increases are being offset by reductions elsewhere.
** Edited by BackInTheBurg at 9/30/2025, 12:34:42 PM
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
10mo
It's like the statement "All people receive money"...correct.
However, some people work for their money while others receive money because other people work and pay taxes.
(In response to this post by marcbvtgm)
10mo
(In response to this post by VTFinance10)
10mo
(In response to this post by ModerateHokie)
T
Truthahn
10mo
The only things that are certain are death and taxes, and student fees.
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
10mo
and more to support millionaires and highly paid athletes...
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
10mo
in this? I genuinely don't know how the BOV works.
But if this does not have anything to do with the state government, Tech is definitely not conservative - hasn't been for a long long time!
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
S
saret
10mo
the state. VT has the lowest. JMU built it's athletics programs on the back of their student fees. Finally, a few years ago, the VA state legislature took notice, and instructed JMU to reduce its athletic fees, and also limited all VA state school in re: how often student athletic fees could be raised, and by how much. @RJHokie can explain it much better than I.
As a result, VT could only raise its student athletic fees a certain amount, and can't do it again for a specified amount of time. I can see the argument of those people who have (or soon will have) students attending VT. From their viewpoint, the rise seems unfair, especially since they cannot opt out of paying them (I think that's right).
On the other hand, those people not in the aforementioned group see nothing wrong with the raise, deeming them reasonable. And, as many of them say, if you don't like it, don't go to VT.
I, personally, see both sides (FYI, my son and daughter graduated from VT in '00 and '03). It's easy for me to Switzerland. From my viewpoint, the BoV is tapping whatever revenue streams it can legally do to fund the increases.
To me, it's also incumbent upon VT athletics to cut expenditures where possible, as well as exploring additional revenue streams (i.e., charging admission for all sports, perhaps charging a talent fee on season tickets, etac.). Some of the contracts VT athletics has should be revisited and administered for cost savings and ensuring compliance to the contract by the vendor. The Hokie Club should be revamped and new personnel hired who actually fund raise. Outreach should be increased to attempt to win back former donors/ticket purchasers. Software used by athletics should be reviewed for compatibility between each other as well as with the scholastic side of the house. I would put the Hokie Club under the control of Advancement with input from the AthDept.
A lot of things need to be done to ensure efficiency and effectiveness of the monies spent.
(In response to this post by 3011Cochrane)
10mo
A relatively culturally conservative VA also creates admission quotas at VT that benefit applicants based on demographic factors entirely unrelated to academic merit.
It is a truism of human nature that people often first make the decisions that benefit them personally, and then construct rationalizations afterwards that fit it within their ethos. It is what it is.
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
10mo
"Scared money don't make money."
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
10mo
He had the hots for my oldest via Instagram and she used to show me his comments because she knew that I knew who he was.....
(In response to this post by VTFinance10)
10mo
and corporations.
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
10mo
VT bringing athletics above par, but totally understand that many don't care about sports nor subsidizing/paying other peoples tuitions/bills/etc.
(In response to this post by VTFinance10)
10mo
It isn't really as simple as "I don't care" or "I don't need it" so I don't think we should pay for it. There are much better arguments against increased funding than that one.
(In response to this post by VT757to276)
10mo
students may not enjoy or have time to enjoy?
Using this argument, the school should not spend money on anything.
(In response to this post by Rationalist)
10mo
We also worked harder on our studies. There are plenty of grad students who have fun and go to games to enjoy the social aspect and not just study all the time.
(In response to this post by VTFinance10)
10mo
grad student.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
10mo
sports and partying especially with a family.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
10mo
As been noted time and time again, VT has some of the lowest athletic fees across the entire country, and they will still be low with this increase. Also, the success of VT Football will only increase the University's profile and standing (e.g. a successful football program will lead to more, and likely higher quality, applicants). It's a very small increase for students with the potential for a big return.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
10mo
I got my MS in Geodetic Engineering at Ohio State. I had a massive lab due on a Monday with the OSU-Michigan game literally across the parking lot going on. Had to bike in down Olentangy Road in late November and bike out. I still remember hearing the roar of the crowd while we were running plots and burning up the mainframe. To add the joy, my lab partner's bike got a flat on the way back, and we had to push the last two miles. Spent a lot of Saturday nights doing labs. I though grad school would be a breeze after working full time three years. Then I found myself writing C++ code while watching SNL.
I agree with not charging grad students athletic fees.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
10mo
Grad school was a great boost for my career, but I didn’t really use any of the specific things I studied. But that seems to happen to a lot of people as their careers progress and change.
(In response to this post by Happy Dog)
10mo
Was a huge career boost. Some of the research I did at the time eventually became what you see in Google maps and streetview. But I have to say it was a miserable 15 months. Of the 5 quarters I was there, only one of them wasn't absolutely brutal I did well enough to go on to get my doctorate. I think Ohio State must have been very generous to let me in because my undergrad performance was nothing to get excited about.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
10mo
I wonder if that's the committee that will lead the reorganization of athletics and the hiring of the GM and coach.
Very interesting discussion
(In response to this post by FINGrad91)
10mo
a committee!
** Edited by VT ChemE 1986 at 9/30/2025, 1:30:20 PM
(In response to this post by 1947Sunbowl)
10mo
Is that just football? Why wouldn't the AD oversee the funds? Hope they don't make it so bureaucratic that we can't get the money where it needs to go in time to help.
(In response to this post by 1947Sunbowl)
10mo
was they changed the wording of the resolution from being competitive at the top of the ACC to being competitive at the top of the NCAA. All of the previous funding talks had been about positioning ourselves in the top third or so of the ACC. This flat out states that we want to position ourselves at the top of the NCAA. Now they are just words on a resolution, but still felt big.
** Edited by VTHokieTBone7 at 9/30/2025, 10:21:31 AM
(In response to this post by 1947Sunbowl)
K
Kid Rock
10mo
(In response to this post by VTHokieTBone7)
10mo
(In response to this post by Kid Rock)
V
VaPoly07
10mo
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
10mo
is far from settled.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)