if the Athletic World ends tomorrow, Virginia Tech Athletics is okay for at least 20 years, because we are that far behind!! 😳 Seriously, a diagnosis this late in the situation, doesn’t mean we have the leadership we need to solve the challenges. Look at what other ACC members are doing to try and not be left out as we write these post, and we have Deja Vu all over again, it has to be…1953!!!

Institution continues to be comfortable in their bubble and not nimble at all

I’m glad they’re talking about it, but I have my doubts anything will change at VT from this. Personally, I think some rather drastic changes could help, but things I’m thinking of most likely would be unpopular.

BoV will likely not have much info beyond what we have on this board. It's not their main focus. So that means anything that is done will be some form of what is recommended to them by the Athletic Dept leadership. Will the approved changes be drastic? Possibly Will the approved changes be the right changes? Probably mixed (some good, some bad)

Tthis BOV meeting is not only about just athetlics, its about the entire diirection of the university with projected revenues and needs. another subject ia talk about expanding enrollment and if not the related loss of revenue and adding more out of state students to generate more venue. Basically increase in enrollment also means increase in student fees.

universities. Not that we are real southern but kinda...

B10: $75-$80 SEC: $65-$70 ACC: $35-$65 B12: $38-$42

Option 1 (Bifurcation) is already obsolete. Can't see that happening. Option 2 (Trifurcation) is basically what we have now. Option 3 (Super League) needs some explanation. Why 3 Tiers? Is there promotion and relegation? If so, deal me in. But these risk-adverse educrats can't even speak the words "relegation and promotion," so I doubt it. Option 4 (Reorganization) begs the question "Who picks the 72 team? And how?" And what's so magical about 72 teams? Whoever put this together is a bit clueless. I will be shocked if a decade from now we arrive at any of these exact scenarios. Perhaps #2 could happen if the system just maintains the status quo for that long.

More like Top 2, then ACC (with top teams in ACC now roughly equal to the Top 2), then jump down to Big 12.

The BOV and Univerisity hires their AD to present to them the entire battlefied.. Sands is president of the NCAA division 1 council and he already has been read into the slides. They are not using sources from sports websites. THis is BOV of visitors presentation, not for fans.... The BOV are not going to review to see where each reference and facts are derived. THey have 2 days to absorb this, synthesize this and give direction. (and BTW they have other actions during this meeting as well. THis is like President of a corporation presenting to the Board of Directors.

The idea that the information is more reliable because it was prepared by his lordship the honorable Whit Babcock to present to the high lords on the VT BOV is laughable. Let me let you in on a little secret about life: The BS you're sold about meritocracy and the highly educated elite is a giant scam, and all it takes to figure that out is to get in the room with them. Those people may have country club memberships and make a lot of money, but they don't have any better an idea about what's going on that most people on here. They're just winging it, making it all up as they go. This isn't exactly rocket science they're talking about; it's all relatively simple. If they had any clue about anything, VT football, and VT athletics as a whole, wouldn't be in the shape it's in.

Even if the BOV is comprised entirely of well-meaning, diligent, people that take their responsibilities very seriously what choice do they have but to trust the folks who are doing the presenting? It would take a two month "trial" to absorb everything being presented as facts by the administration/AD and have it rightfully analyzed and questioned by opposition "expert " witnesses. Much easier to spend a couple of hours listening with glazed eyes , go along with the folks you hired, and break for lunch. And yes that is more or less true of every BOV of Fortune 500 companies and every other University, hospital etc. The BOV should have hired, at a pretty penny , a non-VT qualified independent blue ribbon commission over a decade ago to consult on this mess- not rely on paid internal staff. Not let Babcock run his studies with people he hired.

Some of the claims made in the VT deck would immediately get a barrage of questions from senior executives about the problem, the proposed solutions, the methodology for analysis, the timelines, decisions needed, and how it will be executed. In my world, this deck would have another 200+ pages of supporting materials in the back pocket to provide in response to any of those questions. And the deck itself would be far more crisp on the analysis and proposed solutions sections. VT did a good job of laying out the problem, so I do want to acknowledge that.

is not the info or presentation. It seems OK and has been updated for recent shifts(House settlement, etc.), however, the basic guts of the presentation are 5, 10, maybe even 15 or 20 years too late. Imagine the possible impact if these questions had been posed and critically analyzed in the early 2000s after the Sugar Bowl appearance OR much earlier in the Sands/Babcock tenure what might have been versus the present state of affairs?

this when Fu showed the disparity using Baylor as an example. Or actually it's literally his job to think, analyze and plan this info continuously so as not to get left behind. Instead, it's been smoke and mirrors and covering up, making things look like we're top third when in fact we suck. We just do. There's nowhere to hide anymore. We posters here provide and show the widening gap just in the crappy ACC by Google research of peer programs. It's not hard to find. Other programs are championing their renovations, improvements, projects, while VT hides everything like it's Ft Knox gold.

Everyone was happy from getting into the ACC and not too far removed from the 99 and 00 seasons. It was a great time for VT athletics, but also a key point where we could have gamed out growth scenarios. However, to be fair to VT, the ACC was still early in their expansion game and ultimately made some terrible decisions regarding football and media contracts. I sometimes wonder if VT would have been better off getting left behind in the Big East for that first round of expansion. We very well could have gotten the SEC invite instead of Mizzou.

criteria/source for that statement? Media contracts, tax returns, conference financial statements?

The ACC had the best media deal, both in terms of payout and being on TV more than anyone else. Don't take my word for it - use Google tools to look up all the articles from the time about ACC expansion (2003-2004.)

what you were basing it on. The ACC did have a good media contract at the time. The tax returns and financial statements were not as clear cut and, more importantly, the large stadiums, large donor bases, demographics and the ascending influence of football were already storm clouds on the horizon for those paying attention and indicative that the moniker of "richest college athletics conference" were mostly fast fading words as opposed to a sustainable position.

And Swofford & Co screwed the pooch.

acknowledge which way the winds were clearly blowing. In spite of all the available information to indicate football should be the sole focus, basketball interests remained the priority for the conference, which couldn't be more clear when you see the additions when the conference continued to expand. Without exception, the ACC added basketball-first schools that showed and continue to show very little interest in fielding nationally competitive football programs. In 2005, 2011, and 2012, you'd have thought it was 1979 when you saw who the ACC was adding to the conference. Nobody since at least 1979 has taken, or will ever again take Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse, or Boston College seriously when it comes to football. The ACC, for whatever reason, failed to recognize this clearly obvious element when it added those programs. The conference was thinking about basketball, and quality basketball opponents for Duke and UNC, and NCAAT units. But, probably the bigger problem is that the ACC allowed, and continues to allow, it's primary "business partner" to disseminate constantly at the loudest possible volume the narrative that the ACC is an inferior, JV product that should only be viewed as an alternative to its primary business competitor, the SEC. This is the most egregious error committed by the conference, and it continues to this day. The damage to the ACC's reputation and viability done by "It Just Means More" is, quite frankly, incalculable. It's a knife that continues to enter the ACC's back every single day. As it stands today, ACC teams can't even get on ABC anymore unless they're playing an SEC team. "Business partner," my ass. The ACC should have had some dignity and demanded that that line of BS get nixed, or it wasn't going to do business with ESPN. Now, they've been enshrined as "little brother" and the inferior product for 20 years, and in another five or so years, the enterprise is going to implode. All of this just goes to show what can happen when you have a culture of self-importance mixed with a stout combination of greed, incompetence, laziness, and cowardice running your enterprise. It's always just a matter of time before they run it right into the ground.

... when Tech was still good, how many times did VT play F$U and Clemson? Swofford & Co never did schedule "must see" rivalry games.

against FSU unless it was in the title game. And, lest we all forget here, Clemson football was the very definition of mediocre back then. They were an 8 win program at best. Nobody really gave a rat's ass about playing or beating Clemson from the early 90's all the way through the 2000s. They were nothing more than another of many speed bumps for FSU in the ACC. Honestly, every time I really stop and start to think about the ACC, and all the incompetence and cowardice in how the lemonade sipping on the veranda country club set has run it, I just end up making myself mad. It was, and is, all so, so stupid. The only way to laugh to keep from crying is to contemplate the extreme irony in the notion that everyone thought in 2003 that VT was going to be set for life now that it finally got into the ACC. I hate this conference, and can't wait to see it implode.

And by how much this "leak" has gotten shared around the internet and discussed. I've been feeling for awhile that VT needed a real hard kick in the butt to get us to wake up and make some changes. Hopefully this is going to be one of those tipping point moments that gets us going. If not, then someone get me 10 minutes in front of the BoV and I will present an alternative deck (with input from the fine people on this board). And I'm completely serious. I will take my free time and make a BoV deck if I knew I could get an audience.

Deal me in.

If Whit has a recommendation and supporting rationale, it is not in the deck.

as public as it quickly became. My understanding is they tried to yank it back, but it had already made its way out into the ether. Also, Babcock clearly doesn't know what he's doing. His big offered solutions in the slide deck are "we need to get our football games on ESPN more" and "we need millions of dollars to improve non-rev facilities and offer more non-rev athletic scholarships." He's all the way out to lunch. Does VT need to spend more money? Clearly, yes. VT is in the bottom of the bottom of the league in its expenditures on athletics. But, on the tennis team? According to Whit Babcock, also yes. He's on Mars.

Any statement from Whit that says we need to spend more money on non-rev sports should be grounds for firing. The items he lists for improving the football program seem reasonable. But I would not trust either him, or Pry to implement them. ** Edited by VT ChemE 1986 at 8/12/2025, 4:34:21 PM ** Edited by VT ChemE 1986 at 8/12/2025, 4:37:35 PM

I get what you’re saying, though: Spending money to spend money is wasteful and doesn’t necessarily equate to results. However, not spending is a sure way to not succeed. You need to spend money to attract and retain top talent, for both coaches and players, among other things. At this point, it would appear VT is not spending enough to show a commitment to being competitive. Also need to ask how committed the state is to funding minor league sports. How many public universities are in VA? Do they really want to be funding that many minor league sports franchises? Especially ones that aren’t competitive on a national level?

It reads like fan fiction with a mixture of real data and "hey I have an idea". We all have ideas here, but the ones that stand out are based on clear reasoning with logical conclusions. And new ideas are explained for how they will work and why they will work. This deck is full of holes and huge jumps to conclusions the more I reread it.

I can't get my data to align with what they are showing (even when I remove 2020 like they did). So... 1. They definitely have ACCN network data and will be using that for the calculations. The order of teams does not match with the publicly known data for viewership so there are non-public numbers affecting the calculations. I can tell because the one that stands out very clearly as out of place (too highly ranked) is UNC based on the publicly known data. 2. They are most likely counting all regular season games (OOC and conference) plus the ACC championship game. I don't think they are using playoffs or bowls. (but I can't be positive because of the non-public numbers mentioned above)