It runs through 2032. As for the rationale, that's difficult to ascertain., Outsourcing is very common, as many on here have noted, and in most instances, it can be a good thing. However, it isn't necessarily the contract itself that may be the problem, it could be the administration of the contract that could be the problem. The AthDept awarded the contract to Paciolan. I cannot ascertain who else was solicited, if anyone. Almost the entire ACC utilizes Paciolan, as does most other colleges nationally (I previously posted a map of all the schools). Also, remember IMG/Learfield owns Paciolan, and most college sports are handled by IMG/Learfield, including VT. Whether it was laziness, naivete, or herd mentality that resulted in this contract, it is difficult to ascertain because none of us were privy to the negotiations. And short of filing FOIA requests to hundreds of entities, it is impossible to see how VT's contract is unique. But, let's go back to the administration of the contract. After many discussions with @VTChip , it would appear that upper management in the AthDept is timid in their dealings with contractors. It was the AthDept that awarded the contract, and it would appear that rather than VT directing their contractors on what the AthDept wants to do, the AthDept seems to acquiesce to the what the contractor wants to do. In short, it appears to me that the tail is wagging the dog. Another inference I draw is that Paciolan (which also includes Ballena (does ticketing) and SideArm (does Hokiesports.com)) has become so large and ubiquitous, that it has become less nimble in its customer service to its hundreds of customers, of which VT is just one. Looking at dozens of athdept webpages, it would appear that Paciolan has a one-size fits all group of products, and that their various customers have to conform to the Paciolan packages, vice Paciolan customizing its products to its customers needs/desires. Paciolan has, to me at least, become de facto monopolistic. Again, imho, the tail wagging the dog. In my old life, I ran into this quite often in the federal govt. The govt would award a contract to a vendor, and a low-level govt employee would be designated at COTR/COR, who had little or no power or will over the contractor. The contractor would run roughshod over the COTR/COR, and the tail started wagging the dog. Again, imho, @VTChip , has run into this with other VT contractors/vendors, such as Nike. And, when Chip, or someone else, attempts to do something out of the norm, Whit/Helms/Wurthman run interference for the contractor. Whether they consult with the contractor prior to dealing with Chip, or whether they self-initiate the interference run, I cannot tell. The only equivalency to Chip I know of is SERTC and wrestling. I'll be watching open season seat selection this year, to see how it goes. Paciolan handles the re-seating, but must interface with the HC donor database. Historically, when this interface occurs (Ballena to HC back to Ballena), problems occur. That's why I always ask for real time assistance from my ticket rep (an IMG employee, usually), because I get kicked out during the Ballena to HC back to Ballena transfers. In short, as long as the AthDept continues to unilaterally subjugate itself to its contractors, the status quo will thrive. Sorry for the long dissertation.