Oh, a winning football team gets people stoked and then they spend money on football related experiences and merchandise?!?!?! Stop the presses!!! Here's the real stinger - If Clemson University can figure this out, then Virginia Tech can figure it out. There is absolutely no reason that Clemson can figure it out and make it happen, but Virginia Tech cannot. Anything anyone can think of to ***** about Virginia Tech, they could ***** about even worse at Clemson, yet Clemson has figured it out and made it happen. I don't want to hear about how difficult it is to do this or that - CLEMSON UNIVERSITY IN SOUTH CAROLINA FIGURED IT OUT AND MADE IT HAPPEN. Not a "blue blood." Clemson. Not Southern Cal, Not Ohio State, Not Alabama, Not Texas, Not Oklahoma, Not Nebraska, Not Notre Dame - CLEMSON UNIVERSITY. You can miss me with any of the other BS, because that's the bottom line here.

“The economic impact is real,” Babcock said. “I’m very pleased with the business community ... that (does) support us but I also think there’s a lot of businesses In Blacksburg that we need to approach and have a campaign for. They’ve had a free ride for a long time and made a lot of money on game days. They’re going to be impacted if we fall backwards.”

It's about time VT started running a mafia-style protection racket.

cartoons and have him go around and extort the local businesses. "I need to wet my beak, see, myahhhhh"

as his free ride quote likely applies just as equally to some VT administrators.

I would say that Clemson is about as close to a blue blood as you can get without being in the SEC or BIG 10. They won their first football national championship in 1981 and then two more recently. Back when I was a freshman at VT in 1989, we were just amazed at all the fans that showed up from Clemson wearing orange and had school spirit. None of that existed at VT back then to that level. So I would be hard pressed to say that Clemson isn't playing at a different level than VT. We need to worry more about Georgia Tech and NC State passing us at the moment than even getting close to Clemson.

First and foremost, the idea that Clemson University is a blue blood is, if you spend 60-90 seconds thinking about it, just as laughable as the idea that Pitt is a blue blood. But, I'll leave that can of worms off to the side for a moment, because I fully understand that there is a large contingency of posters on this board that have some kind of weird fetish for Clemson, think they're the be all end all, and will rush to defend their honor at the drop of a hat. Frankly, I'm not interested in dredging up that argument here again - if you want to see what people not-on-this-board think about the idea of Clemson being a blue blood, go post that over on the CFB subreddit and see what kind of responses you get. Clemson is a well-run football program that has had recent national success, but that's going on a decade ago now. They're not a blue blood; if anything, they're the exact opposite of a blue blood - in their entire history, their zenith of success began about ten years ago and has been waning of late, stealing a bid to the CFP notwithstanding, and even then, they just got slapped around by Texas in a game that was never competitive. All "blue blood" talk aside, everything else in your posts has zero to do with what I posted before. I will repeat my point for you: everything anyone can think of to whine about that makes things hard for VT to compete, you can whine about at Clemson University, and it's usually worse. Clemson University is in South Carolina, a much worse-off state than Virginia by any applicable measure. They enroll 10k fewer undergrads annually than VT does, and they have (estimated) over 100k fewer living alumni. Their campus isn't in a major metro, and they're just as hard to get to as VT. Reality notwithstanding, they get knocked by national pundits because they're not the "flagship" state university, just like VT does. They play in the exact same crappy JV athletic conference that VT does. AND YET THEY HAVE MANAGED TO FIGURE THINGS OUT. Are they "playing at a different level than VT," as you put it? Yes, but that's because VT is apparently being administered and governed by abject morons that clearly do not understand how to fundraise, and who weren't even aware that VT's athletic budget was 14th of 14 public schools in the ACC, or how revenue sharing under the House settlement works. My point remains - If Clemson University can figure it out and make it work, then VT has zero excuses when it comes to resources and the ability to compete at the same level. Zero. Nada.

Go back to around 2010. At that point, from 1960 to 2010, Virginia Tech had the better record in those years and was on different playing field. Clemson at that point had gone 20 years without winning 10 games in a season. Over that same time period Virginia Tech had 12 seasons with 7 in a row. If you asked anyone to compare the schools, everyone would say, Virginia Tech is the better football school. They were winning 10+ games a year, were in the national championship talk every couple of years, had the better coaching staff, had more alumni, had the better players and the best outlook on the future. So, I agree with all your points that if Clemson can do it Virginia Tech can also.

VT has a higher win %. People forget how bad Clemson was from 1960 to there National Championship year in 1981. Just in the 1960's and 1970's, Clemson was barely a .500 team. Even though Virginia Tech was horendous during the 70's, VT actually won more games than Clemson if you combine the 60's and 70's. Virginia Tech DECADE G W-L-T AVE 1930 96 46-39-11 0.536 1940 76 28-41-7 0.414 1950 100 48-48-4 0.5 1960 101 62-37-2 0.624 1970 110 47-61-2 0.436 1980 113 65-46-2 0.584 1990 117 77-39-1 0.662 2000 131 99-32 0.756 2010 133 83-50 0.624 2020 62 28-34 0.452 TOTALS 1,039 583-427-29 0.575 Clemson DECADE G W-L-T AVE 1930 95 51-37-7 0.574 1940 94 51-38-5 0.569 1950 101 64-32-5 0.658 1960 100 50-48-2 0.51 1970 113 56-54-3 0.509 1980 116 87-25-4 0.767 1990 117 69-47-1 0.594 2000 126 79-47 0.627 2010 140 117-23 0.836 2020 66 50-16 0.758 TOTALS 1,068 674-367-27 0.644 ** Edited by HokieZig at 8/21/2025, 4:34:51 PM ** Edited by HokieZig at 8/21/2025, 4:36:01 PM ** Edited by HokieZig at 8/21/2025, 4:36:40 PM

Thanks for enlightening me on that. I knew VT was horrible in the 1970s, but these are very interesting numbers. The mantra for everyone, fan, university administrator, athletic department, coaches, players, should be - there is ZERO reason that Clemson University can figure this out and Virginia Tech cannot. None. Nada. Zip. No excuses.

Once we start getting reduced payouts from the ACC due to playing too many games on the ACCN & CW? BTW, having a 10-2 team go 6-6 last year didn't entice new/additional contributions to VT athletics.

part of any coaching job. Especially until we hire an AD that doesn’t know how to build relationships across the country and even the world.

It was a down year for both programs. But I'm cautiously optimistic football will be improved, and I definitely know BB will be better.

...fans simply being sickened by the landscape of modern "college" athletics? For me, it's the latter. I want no part of contributing to the new status quo. If that means VT has to drop down to Div. II or Div. III, so be it - I would welcome that versus the insanity going on right now.

Fans tend to point at coaching decisions, but not having enough depth to execute the plays once the injuries start, is a much bigger factor IMHO. (and injuries always start). PS Pry in years 1-2, not mainly on him, years 3-4, it’s totally on him. Did he wait too long on DC change especially? Young gets a pass from me because IMHO they did so little to help him last year. John Wooden and Coach K would have struggled with that talent last year. ** Edited by Stech at 8/19/2025, 9:23:20 AM

...in a 1 score game, one would expect a team to win about half of those, not go 1-12. That screams coaching. Coaching on the field. S&C coaching. Head whistle, etc.

because of talent, plays a bigger role. I think both got out of coaching because they could not stockpile talent when the injuries start with the portal and NIL.

...squads, really don't think talent was as big of an issue as many have made it out to be. I would grade our coaching last season with a solid D. 7-5 would have gotten a C. 8-4 a B (since we reached our "floor"), and 10-2 would have. been graded an A+.

Please help me to understand, are you saying we didn’t have a depth problem last year? If so, we agree to disagree. If we agree there was little depth (which as I said was on Pry in his 3-4th year) then not being able to execute key plays with the 2’s is a bigger factor than coaching decisions. I have mentioned two that were arguably the best in the last 30 years, but I talk to college coaches all the time, and they all say the same. Heck Will and Chris say it all the time too. No offense Edgeman, but I am going with the HOF coaches on this one no matter what argument you put forward.

Vastly overrated. Need more coin because we need more talent.

Of your argument, then you’re going to lose for eternity. The only thing they should be focusing on is the school and how to make the school competitive.

First get win-win partnerships with local businesses, there should be someone dedicated just for that. Second, work with the chamber, municipalities and state to get businesses to locate there, and last get an interstate from Richmond to Southwest Virginia. I just drove through North Carolina where a sign said during construction area, we are building a new interstate 87. The state of North Carolina beats the state of Virginia in roads and what they do to an area. We just keep widening the same roads, instead of developing new ones. That thinking has a huge impact on Virginia Tech.

It would take forever though and require a Herculean effort for most of it to succeed. It would be easier to move VT athletics out of Blacksburg. University athletics is morphing into minor league sports. Does the state want to support 15+ public university minor league sports programs? We say VT might end up having to cut some non-revenue sports programs? If we’re worried about VT, then what’s going to happen to ODU, VCU, JMU or George Mason, etc? Academics isn’t the same as it was 10-20 years ago because of the internet and new online programs. Being onsite to learn is becoming less and less necessary, in some respects. Now athletics is changing due to the dissolution of amateurism. The university landscape extremely different than it was when all of these schools were established and there seems to be a fractured, every man for himself, reaction to how to navigate the new landscapes. The state could get ahead of the curve and make changes to its public university structure to have more boats rowing in the same direction and cut down on how many different minor leagues programs it’s supporting.

I don’t think any reasonable mind expects to do this overnight, but I do think the B1G and SEC want to see Virginia Tech do bold initiatives ASAP!! PS I have close relatives that have attended all the schools you mentioned, I expect them to do the same. Some people are whining about JMU being so aggressive, but they have had no problem with applicants and their standards for students going up. They are getting a return on investment with their success. We have economic mechanisms in the system that can help those that need financial help that go unclaimed every year. Some further education at the Middle School and early High School level could be a great way to help them, and even motivate them.

through hotel taxes and the like. What is VT paying for game day law enforcement and utilities, for example?

already quite high. VT is a wholesale supplier of electricity, and is a member of and has agreements with other local utility and other authorities.

Just curious

Doubt those are being funneled back to VT. With that in mind, what if VT allowed commercial properties (like a few hotels) to be built on VT land. Would the sales/hotel tax go into VT's pocket, and not the town of Blacksburg's pockets?

VT (Foundation) does have land lease arrangements on some of its properties around town, particularly those in the Prices Fork Rd area (old Red Lion Inn area). It also owns the University Mall northwest of campus and leases property there.

marinate, a questioned popped into my head. Can the relationship between a school and its town/city directly or indirectly impact whether the school's athletic teams are successful or not? For example, if the relationship is sour, then the town/city may be less willing to do the school any favors. The town/city council may even decide to pass laws/ordinances with the intention of making things more difficult for the school. For example, Blacksburg could pass an ordinance requiring all athletic events at any level to end by 9pm. As a result, it could negatively impact VT athletics (think basketball game during the week) because it would limit the time slots the games could be played in and even whether the games are broadcasted or not. The other thing that crossed my mind is if any of the athletes got into any sort of trouble with the local authorities (not necessarily just the police). If the relationship is soured, then the officials may not be as forgiving, will to let stuff slide, or willing to work with the athlete/school to quietly resolve the issue. The reason I thought of these is because I grew up in Harrisonburg and on JMU athletics. Growing up it was common knowledge/running joke among the locals that Harrisonburg and JMU had a love-hate relationship. Harrisonburg loved the money that JMU brought into the community, but they "hated" whenever the students came back to town.

Not the Town of Blacksburg. It’s 2025. If there are any members on the BOV that don’t understand the positive collateral economic impact from hosting popular large-scale events, then they shouldn’t be on the BOV. It should be understood and implied, so the AD speaking to that would be wasting everyone’s time. The presentation should lay out why VT isn’t competitive, how much of a gap there is, and recommendations for fixing it. Anything beyond that is fluff. Maybe location plays into the problem? But how do you fix that? Move?

not because VT athletics doesn't live in a vacuum. It is fine for the AD's presentation to only focuses on what is needed in order to make VT competitive again because at most schools it is the BOV and college president that are responsible for dealing with any politics that may exist between the school and host city/town. If the local government operates with a small town mentality, then they can sometimes make decisions that weren't in their best interest out of spite. I saw it firsthand in the '80s and early '90s between the City of Harrisonburg and JMU. The city would make a decision because they either didn't like the "problems" that came with JMU's growth and expansion of the campus. Then Ronald Carrier, who was president at the time, would have to work his magic to get the city to relax its position so JMU could go ahead with its plans. Sometimes Dean Ehlers, who was AD at the time, had to get involved because it involved JMU athletics. Hence why I said in another post that Harrisonburg and JMU had a "love-hate" relationship which still exists today to some degree. Unfortunately, there are still enough people living there who don't want to see the 'Burg grow into another Charlottesville, Winchester, or Roanoke even though they like the amount of money that is being generated in those size cities. Likewise, there are even people who would prefer if JMU had remained a small public university like Eastern Mennonite University (EMU) or Bridgewater College (aka the other BC) and not crossed over to the other side of I-81 or been allowed to buy up property (including the old Harrisonburg High School) throughout the city.

completion times within campus boundaries. I know the town whines and *****es about cooperation with VT and related student behavioral and other issues. But the town, county and other area localities generate very significant revenue from VT’s existence and operations.

That's a bit of an overstatement, but it and Christiansburg would be SIGNIFICANTLY smaller without VT. At most, 1/4 the size they are now.

local government has passed ordinances requiring outdoor concert venues (i.e. Jiffy Lube Live) to end concerts at a specific time.

Every time a city, state , university etc. wants to build/"invest" in some major endeavor they pull out the glossy economic impact studies to wow people to their side. It is always astronomical numbers about dollars "generated" which never are really define as to what that means or what dollars would be spent anyway. I suspect any details trying to quantify the "value" of a good football team to the university or community are equally meaningless and only meant to attempt to sway people with BS or give them a way to publicly justify supporting a particular position . My bottom line is yes there are benefits to the university and community to having a strong football team - but attempting to quantify them is almost all hogwash.

I do agree that the presenter can easily cherry pick data to make a point (and even manipulate the data if they wanted). That is always a consideration. And yes, estimating dollars can be especially tricky (estimating people counts is much easier). I disagree about there being no value in high level estimates. It can establish a baseline for discussion, questions, and challenges. If there is no data at all to reference (even if just an estimate), then the risk is having leaders discussing the wrong items, being too confused/uninformed to make a decision, or wasting time by not making a decision. I've been in too many leadership meetings where they want to be provided a proposed solution and the rationale that was used for why this is the proposal. So that is the basis for my perspective.

than when we hired Whit. The College Athletic world is a big business now and impacts so many people and organizations. To keep up, you have to understand the business part of the equation and how it impacts fundraising for instance. ** Edited by Stech at 8/18/2025, 8:19:58 AM

Not an academic auxiliary operation.

Maybe in their mind all athletics are an auxiliary to the main academic and research mission.

River in NY I'll sell you for a really good price!!

He will retire soon with the whim he helped VT athletics take leap or he and VT go down hole as pretenders.

Many fans do not see relationship between money and team execution. they still believe just hard work and development can be the difference. Blaming Coaching and Pry is the problem. Has folks thought, he's doing the best he has with the LIMITED resources he has. For example, when he was looking for DC, he was going after the best, which is needed however, reality VT does not have the money to pay for a 1.3 to 2 million for Defense Coordinator from power 2. Recruiting (this is not hand shakes bout behind the scenes staffing and development (successful programs have 80-90 we have 50. We pulled Pry from PSU, got him for 4.2 look at average coaching salaries now 6-8 million going rate and coordinators are 1 1.2 million if you want to pursue excellence. or you get rookies, like we are a grouip of 5 program. So if VT fires Pry they are going to get sticker shock because the market has escallated. Same wth AD. So the reality is Athletic business is exppensive and gone up significantly. IT will cost alot to lose as as well as cost alot to win., or the final choice is abandoned FBS level competition, and withdraw from the ACC to Sun Belt. Fans cant criticize if the institution does not make athletics a prioirty with UNC level of investment NOW.

Correct me if you agree. I think they do have to invest. The school future also depends on the one thing that got it in acc. AThLETICS. Being in got academia better.

palatable. When we came in we actually elevated the conference’s profile in football. We have since regressed to the mean obviously.

And be bold -no platitudes 100 percent all in with tangible actions.

WHit got the information he knows, he dont have the economic data. However, this briefing is not about just athletics but the eintire university operation, and from the entire university enterprise servicing the commonweath and nation, not just local. From the BOV they are looking at the entire university, on the 4 pillars or excellence that guide everything and matching it with projected revenue, the endowment (From VT developmetn office lead) and sources (or lack of sources) and ways to still achieve these pillars. They are looking at pluses and minus of increases in enrollment changing percentage of in state versus out of state to generate more revenue , better valuation of VT portfolio of real estate. etc. AND adding (or not) the pillar of increase in athletics. From a VT strategic plan perspective, athletics was never part of the process so they were not considered. (thats another discussion), however I know when Sands lkicked of the strategic planning effort, The Athletic dept leaders did nto partiicpate at all. Now the university challenge is 1) Is Athletics important to the university ?? 2) If so should it be a pillar like VT Advantage 2) WOrld CLass ranking 3) Top 25 in R&D and 4) Innovvation and entrenueriism. (should it be no 5). and if so how to redevide a constrained resource stream to be nationally competitive as with the rest.

I have no idea what Whit has access to for data. So you could be correct. I would just be disappointed if he did not consider external data that could support his pitch and help to sell VT athletics. I would also think that data would be needed for external negotiations as well. But now I'm just speculating. Can't wait to hear what comes out of this BoV meeting and what path VT chooses for the future.

Its alot to cover in 1 day or 3 day. I espect a task force to work details, on all these matters for decision in next meeting November. (or called special meeting before hand). also, there is a tact when giving these briefings. cant be too preachy to the BOV, they can push back but also fine line with facts. WHit will not just read the slides but have a conversation on impacts with the BOV. WHat is said and by who would be interesting. This BOV meeting is more strategic and an off sight in a more informal matter to have frank discussions. The Commonweath freedom of information rules stil govern so they have to give out public read aheads. (In the package, the VT attorney gives a law 101 on freedom of information, notes etc. They are prepared.

the personalities and viewpoints he’s dealing with. Their decisions may not break his way; but at least the issues should get properly weighed and measured.