Whit told us about 2 months ago that Tech's new deal won't break the bank"
🤔
42 Replies
H
hokieZ71
11mo
If Whit couldn’t get a deal a decade ago when the VT brand was fresh off 20 years of being ranked top 10/15 annually, 7 conference titles, a natty appearance, double digit wins we’ll over half the time, there’s two conclusions to be drawn.
1) Whit will never get a good apparel deal for VT.
2) If there is a potential AD, other than Whit, in the future that has the wherewithal to land a financially beneficial apparel deal for VT, we are going to have to get better in football again…for an extended period of time.
So, don’t hold your breath. Whit’s presentation lays out quite a few avenues for increased financial gain for VT athletics. Better to focus on those than some apparel deal that isn’t happening.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
saret
11mo
He just signed the contract, probably without reading it. He probably has never read it.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
11mo
He is never BOLD and daring.. WHen he came to VT, Weaver's team had negotiated a terrible contract. THat contract included all uniforms etc. Whit came in, and the first thing on his desk is to sign the NIKE contract. His first bold decision take it....(done by supposely competent staff), or pause it and renegotiate and risking no free uniforms. He took the typical way. risk adversed.
He's done this during his tenure, more a admistrator who guides the ship versus leading the shop.
NOW ITS ON HIM TO SHAKE THINGS UP WITH REALITY.
(In response to this post by saret)
R
RJHokie
11mo
contract when he arrived. So, he really did not have much choice. How much he objected to doing that is not known. But I suspect being the new kid on the block, he just did what he was told.
However, this doesn’t excuse him from subsequent financial and other mistakes.
(In response to this post by 1947Sunbowl)
11mo
That should have been Whit's first warning about the VT administration. He should have done a Dutch Boghman (spelling?)) did and walk out unless, he has control. one thing about Weaver like him or not, he was a bulldog with Burress Hall and the Board. He was blunt, and presented situations like a PSU linebacker. (upset a lot).
When he left Burress Hall got the weak leader they wanted to manipulate
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
2
2hhoop3
11mo
Merc as you demonstrate time and again that you have no clue either.
(In response to this post by 1947Sunbowl)
2
2hhoop3
11mo
pretend to have a grasp of issues when in fact the exact opposite is true more often than not. Your summation is likely much closer to accurate. I am not sure how he was compelled, either with a direct order or a strong hint that it would be best not to rock the boat before he had a chance to get more comfortable in the seat. During that time, as I am sure you and others on these boards know, the department, in terms of direction and oversight, resembled a car on the freeway at rush hour being driven by a blind man. Upon WB's hire, it improved marginally early on, however, the evaluation of the body of work to date is certainly up for debate. There are some insiders here(not me) that can definitively speak to what transpired back then in much greater detail. Suffice it to say, it is rarely a good thing for any organization when large numbers of senior leadership are out the door or reaching for the handle.
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
R
RJHokie
11mo
a 💩 show administratively with Weaver basically confined to home, staff essentially coming and going as they desired (arrive late, 2 hours lunches, leaving early, etc.). And I do remember that Weaver’s assistant Tim East presented the contract to Babcock for signature, and I believe Steger told Babcock to sign it, and move on.
A lot has happened since then; some good, some neutral and some bad. Where we are now is somewhat criminal when you look at where we were as when we were at our pinnacle.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
11mo
it’s about thinking big again, not surrendering to the way it is right now. That takes bold leadership!!
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
11mo
While he's not a guy who would put institutional disagreements in pubic, I think BOV and Burruss Hall had no interest in athletics; they were in another world. and focusing all their resources on other intiatives. There was no connection.... and they didnt want the hands into the mess of college athletics. ...
Also I feel that ACC had a deep discussion to VT as a condition of membership on VT lack of investment in olympic sports and VT was forced to divert resources. WHen we were football focused in the nineties and early 2000's it was only about football, that;s it. (Again, VT vision was only to get into the ACC and coast).
It was automatic with Vick and Beamer road it for a while.... (and that's 20 years ago).
This moment is the same moment for VT athletics as 1953.
(In response to this post by Stech)
11mo
we also joined the ACC over 20 years ago. Sorry Sunbowl, it’s time for an inspirational business minded leader for our Athletic Department. People don’t buy stocks that aren’t performing with the money you invested in them. Whit should take the road that Tony Bennett took, the world changed from a development coach to a business negotiator coach. Whit is completely lost in the current environment, but he doesn’t have the foresight like Tony did to know it.
PS I agree it’s time the BOV and Sands recognize it too, but we need an inspirational business minded AD, and Whit may be a nice guy, but he doesn’t have the skill set for today’s world.
(In response to this post by 1947Sunbowl)
R
RJHokie
11mo
and Ft Knox type of secrecy.
(In response to this post by 1947Sunbowl)
11mo
That's why his staff is limited in expertise and more local in nature. He doesnt have the money to pay for them.
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
E
EDGEMAN
11mo
Keep stringing these together...like Frank stringed those 10+ win season together.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
11mo
Its' simple VT brand value has seriously deteriated over the last 10 years, There is no 9-11 win programs, wins against power four competition, no realistically competting for top level of the ACC. From the rights business that is middle of the pack. and during the 10 yeras VT the instiution has done nothing to invest in the brand.
Now here we are
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
saret
11mo
BoV et al. Shame on them all.
(In response to this post by 1947Sunbowl)
O
ombandit
11mo
we WERE NOT a brand equal to Tennessee. Johnny Majors, Fulmer, nope…UT was a National brand going back to ‘40’s and 50’s… Tennessee & ‘Bama was THE college football game every year for decades.
(In response to this post by 1947Sunbowl)
V
VPI_1998
11mo
38-7. The Alabama coach at the time - Mike DuBose - said "VT is the type of program that we aspire to be". We are talking the Alabama Crimson Tide, aspiring to be like VT. But then again - DuBose was fired 2 years later so there's that...
(In response to this post by 1947Sunbowl)
11mo
playing in half empty ACC stadiums with poor tv ratings. Playing against WF Duke UNC UVA is destroying VT's brand power. Although credit to UNC for attempting to address their situation. Self infliction you point out but I also see VT as a victim of the environment.
(In response to this post by 1947Sunbowl)
V
VPI 1924
11mo
(In response to this post by thebluelot)
11mo
(In response to this post by 1947Sunbowl)
11mo
(In response to this post by 1947Sunbowl)
11mo
They have lots of premium seating, box options, all monetizing everyhing and the fans buy it.
Go look at Nashville new NFL stadium, less seats but more boxes and luxury premium seating with surcharge. and they will get it. THe day of seating for the general public is leaving.
UT (like PSU ) are engines, the instituion understands it, supports it, finances it... Places like VT pontificate and think while time marches buy.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
11mo
in helping a school build its brand because it can influence the perception of a brand's value. If you look at the most valuable collegiate football brands, then you will see they most/all play their home games in a large stadium. I don't think the relationship is a mere coincidence either particularly when you consider very few (if any) valuable college football brands play in mid-size stadiums.
Comparing college football to the NFL is an apples-to-oranges comparison for several reasons. First, the NFL TV contracts are negotiated completely differently than college football because the NFL received antitrust exemption via the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961. Second, the NFL business model is completely different than college football, so NFL owners don't need large football stadiums to build their brands which can impact the franchises values when negotiating the next TV contracts. Third, there are a lot fewer NFL franchises than college football teams so there really isn't any sense of competition for ratings because of how the respective TV contracts are negotiated. Fourth, college football has regional broadcasting of games which can contribute to a brand's value. Whereas that concept really doesn't exist in the NFL like you see with the NBA, NHL, and MLB because of how the NFL has chosen to negotiate its TV contracts.
(In response to this post by 1947Sunbowl)
V
VPI_1998
11mo
amenities or suites, but that is in the bottom half of ACC stadium sizes
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
11mo
connection to Phil Knight and Nike. If a school wants to increase its brand value for the long-term, then at some point stadium expansion will need to enter the equation because banking on becoming another exception is too unreliable.
(In response to this post by VPI_1998)
11mo
right?
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
H
hokieZ71
11mo
If you are suggesting that Adidas just has money to throw at every school that signs for them, and all that needs to happen is for Whit to just call up Adidas and grab a couple million a year…sorry, that’s not happening. It’s Adidas who are being strategic and calling up a few select schools and offering some bags. SEC and Big Ten contenders would certainly be the primary schools they would call.
From VT’s perspective, we are probably in a state where we can select our apparel partner and get free gear but no money. So at that point, it’s picking the apparel brand that flashes best with recruits, which is undoubtedly Nike.
This whole apparel deal, from a “financial edge” perspective, is a non starter for VT.
(In response to this post by Stech)
11mo
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
11mo
FWIW in 1968 Neyland Stadium's capacity was 64,429 after a couple rounds of expansion. Then more expansion was done in 1972 and 1976 to increase the capacity to around 80K. The reason I mentioned the size of Neyland Stadium is because I do think the size of a school's stadium can help with their athletic branding at least from a perception standpoint. If a team plays in a larger stadium relative to the other DI-FBS schools and they are consistently selling out home games, then I do think the media and potential sponsors considers them to be more valuable because their home games can potentially reach a wider group of people. I realize the definition of a larger stadium is subjective and it is a somewhat chicken and egg position since the schools are doing other things to help build their brand. However, in terms of the most valuable football brands, there are a lot fewer examples where the team plays its home games in an upper mid-size stadium (assuming 80K is defining point).
(In response to this post by Stech)
11mo
for the uniforms and gear. VT presents very little value for Nike. VT plays football in a cut rate JV league, and, on average, they've been a .500 team in that cut rate, JV league now for a decade. ACC basketball has also been sliding right down the poop chute now since the advent of NIL and the SEC and Big 10's blockbuster media rights deals. It's become a farm league.
Frankly, I don't think it's going to get any better. It will likely just get worse and worse and worse for VT; they've been left behind.
(In response to this post by Stech)
O
ombandit
11mo
Winning some football games will help a lot, pressure is on Pry…if we’re 6-6 again or worse he better be looking for work and Babcock too.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
11mo
It's widely acknowledged as one of the worst "power conference" deals that currently exists. There's really not a lot to be positive about in that regard.
(In response to this post by ombandit)