To me this is much more in alignment with what the fanbase believe success looks like for the athletic department.
One of the biggest changes to the contract is related to the football team's performance.
Babcock's previous contract paid out compensation equal to one and one-half month's salary if Tech made a bowl game and two months salary if the bowl game was part of the College Football Playoff. He would earn an additional $25,000 if the team won the national title game.
Under the new terms, Babcock will receive $25,000 if the team makes a bowl game, $50,000 (noncumulative) if the Hokies make the FBS Playoff.
He will also receive a bonus based on how many games the football team wins — he gets a $25,000 bonus for six wins, $50,000 for eight wins, $75,000 for 10 wins and $100,000 for 12 wins. The regular season win bonuses are non-cumulative with each other, but are in addition to the bowl bonuses.
The parties also agreed to end the Director's Cup incentive — he was due a bonus of $50,000 for a top-30 finish and an additional $50,000 for a top-25 ranking — on June 30, 2026.
https://roanoke.com/sports/college/va_tech/details-from-virginia-tech-at...
Comments
I like the added football stuff but the directors Cup should have stayed or add a bonus for any team that finally wins Tech it's first NC in any sport.
I don't care about the director's cup at all, so I'm glad those bonuses have been replaced by football focused one.
Agreed. Honestly, I root for teams that are wearing the VT logo, but I don't actively follow much aside from football (including basketball). I want us to win a championship in any sport and not be last and I want all of our teams to do well, but football is the only one I actively care about winning in
I honestly don't understand this. Could you expand? There are no schools that are tops in football and not at least decent in most others. 2019 (because 2020 was a shit show) directors cup standings have schools like Texas, Michigan, Stanford, USC, UF, Notre Dame, Bama, UNC all near the top. A well rounded sports program is important.
Cash flow and lots of people applying from having a dominant football program plays into the rest of your athletic programs getting better. The only one you listed for which this isn't the case (until recently) is UNC, who is instead one of the biggest national brands in college basketball, a rare but legitimate exception. But now they are positioning themselves to be the 2nd most talented team in the ACC in football in short order.
Clemson applications have gone crazy since the football team blew up with OOS students.
I just don't understand not wanting A other sports programs foe your favorite school to do well B not actively rooting for those sports to get support which means having an AD and department wanting them to do well.
I didn't say this. I said I was fine with removing Director's cup bonus objectives, and then further explained how I think they are almost redundant to football based incentives, which often drive the success of other athletic programs.
I'm not rooting against our other sports teams. That was such an unnecessary leap to make.
The measuring device used to evaluate total sports of a university. If you don't care about it at all how can you say you care about where other Tech sports finish or accomplish in a year?
He's saying the bonus is tangential and redundant and shouldn't be the defining goal for whit
Not once did he say the bonus structure was the issue not the cup and what it measures, making non football a priority for the athletic department.
Success in other athletic programs (the Director's cup) is often a natural result of a strong football program and national brand. I'm not really sure how much more clear I can make my stance on this. I don't think focusing on the director's cup itself is worth it because, imo, it's redundant to incentivizing football success.
I think you two are closer to the same side than you think you are. We aren't doing well in director's cup without football doing well. So honestly, I don't see much difference one way or the other as far as the contract goes. If I were in charge though, an AD has to be involved in non-revenue sports a disproportionate amount more than fan following you have for those sports. So, all in all, I would probably prefer keeping references to the director's cup but it is about six one and half a dozen the other.
uh
I've seen comments by others in n here and other social media platforms that they wouldn't care if every other sport at Tech was underfunded and deemphasized. Even if it meant every other sports failed in some attempt to make football better. I don't know if Chris feels that way, it's why I asked him to expand and explain, but his wordage has the same feeling as those peoples views. That nothing but football Matters.
As someone who hasn't lived in Virginia since 2008 I can tell you I've seen more none football events than football. From softball, to women's basketball, to baseball, cheerleading and dance teams to golf in three other states. It's the only Hokies teams my 4 kids have seen in person.
You are an extremely rare exception. I live 1.5 hrs from Blacksburg and unless I'm already there for something and can catch a non-rev game, I'm not driving down there for those events. VT Athletics is built on football first and then basketball. As a school that isn't exactly flush with cash for athletics, it makes little business sense to emphasize an all-sports model while we let our biggest cash cow wither and die. Baseball, volleyball, etc. aren't paying the bills. I see this contract modification as a very good one, and honestly I see it as a message to Whit about the school and BOV's expectations for football moving forward. I like Whit a lot, love how he has revitalized basketball, but he has been very lukewarm with football since he got here, and that's not going to fly.
Lukewarm with football? Major renovations to every part of football facilities, major fundraising for football, major increased coaches and staff salaries.
He's done great with infrastructure and funding, but the results haven't been there yet. Hopefully with renewed focus and funding for football, plus the Reach campaign, we are on the right path.
It is fantastic that non-rev sports are getting more attention and funding, but VT athletics, the University and Blacksburg as a whole is better off if football and basketball are consistently top 25 then football and basketball being mediocre, while non-revs are doing well.
Not saying VT isn't capable of successful non-revenue and major sports, but considering the revenue comes from the major sports, less bonuses should be tied to non-rev/Director's Cup than football/basketball.
VT should aim to be a Top 25 athletic department across the board, but viewing a top 25 track and field and football as the same for university success is not realistic.
If women's softball won a natty I would be excited for a day, if we won football I would be excited for the rest of my life
Bad news about which one is more likely to happen.
Yeah, it's a shame the ladies will have to wait a bit longer
I'm well aware, but we have a tight window. Once Keely leaves, we will likely regress to the norm
The belief of most fans is that Football is priority #1, and the non-rev sports are priority #2. Let's fix football first, then leverage that as a jump off point for other sports.
I agree that there is correlation between a strong football program and strong olympic sports, but I don't see anything that suggests causation - does having a well rounded Athletic Department will drive improvements in football? Very open to having my mind changed if you can provide opposing data.
I'm pretty sure basketball is #2 and non-rev is #3, but kidding aside ...
I doubt there is a lot of data that says having good Olympic sports = good football. OK State has 52 men's championships, they are 4th over all in NCAA championships. But I can't say that has helped football, Mr. Pickens large wallet helped football.
A well rounded department might be able to save money on multiple use sporting facilities like a smoothies bar. But reality is only football and basketball bring money so it really doesn't matter unless what you do supports them.
I will argue that having lots of sports that do well is good for the university as a whole. VT is an engineering school, engineering brings in the money (and business school), but there are lots of other major that make the experience and the school better as a whole even if they don't make the engineering department better.
We're paying him out on a 6 win season?
It's replacing the wording of a bonus for making a bowl game, before he got 1.5 months salary for a bowl game now he gets 25k for a bowl game and 25k for 6 wins to be eligible for a bowl game. So last year when the players voted to not go to a bowl game for example that cost him his full bonus.
This feels like it could easily get into the realm of lawyers and whatnot because what does bowl eligible actually mean?
If we voted to not go before receiving an invite, were we actually eligible? If we got an invite late in the process because another team dropped out, would it count? If we schedule two FCS games and only make it in because a bowl doesn't want to take an at-large G5 school, does it count?
Either way, I think this is a good contract considering the general consensus is "Whit does a good job with everything, except football..." so let's tie more bonuses to football. I want a championship, regardless of sport, but if this gets us back to really contending in the ACC for football - I'll take it.
In 2020, if you played a game, you were bowl eligible.
I think it also significantly reduced his bonus amounts.
Love it. Sounds like we're putting our money where our mouth is.
As for Chris' comments above, I 100% agree. A rising tide lifts all boats and the tide is fundamentally linked to our football success. The additional programs will follow suit.
I remember there was a very big jump in SAT scores when Vick helped lead us to the Natty against FSU. Football moves the needle for academics too when the applicant pool improves. It would be nice to emphasize everything but football has by far the largest influence on the university as a whole. It makes sense that the bonuses would be heavily weighted against football performance.
I think the root effect was that the total applications skyrocketed after the '99 season. I would have to research but as a student at the time I thought that I had heard that total applications doubled (maybe tripled) after that year. That gave the university a much bigger pool if candidates to select, and part of that was that SAT scores went up.
VT athletics ain't healthy financially if football ain't healthy so it's a good thing we are incentivizing success in that area over others. If it means that some sports might have to temporarily die off so we can put more money into our cash cow, so be it, we literally cannot afford football to fall off.
One interesting thing here is that I wonder if part of this is a mindset shift of the entire school. Its entirely possible that Whit pushed for this change so that he could have a little more leverage with coaching changes, which possibly became a contentious affair with the BOV in the timing around the infamous press conference last year where his decisions were rumored to have been overruled.
When the Reach for Excellence campaign was announced, Sands said for the first time that football was a priority. Maybe that was lip-service, or maybe that is true, and this new contract is Sands finally putting his money where his mouth is. That's my hopeful/wishful interpretation.
Sands comes from the Big10, this shouldn't have been a revelation for him.
I mean, he was at Purdue, so maybe he didn't get it.
Whit's New Bonus Structure Football Heavy
It is as it should be.
Getting a 25k bonus for going 6-6 is kinda odd to me... Literally rewarding for mediocrity. Would have liked to see it start at 7 or 8 wins so it means a winning (regular) season.
But all in all, I think this is smart and a no brainer. VT athletics/funding starts and ends with football's success... Put your money where your mouth is.
A reward for keeping the bowl streak alive
didn't the bowl streak end last year? I guess we would've gone to one, but opted out.......
All of the streaks have officially ended under Fuente's watch. Bowl streak, non-losing seasons, and UVA win streak.
all that's left for him to do is give up the Black Diamond trophy
via GIPHY
Cue the "Don't you put that evil on me" gif.
It was TIC way of taking a shot at the 6 win bonus
Do you really consider these strong incentives? For top executives you almost live entirely on options based on performance. This is another soft salary with some modest pops for performance, but also a lot of hedging. 75k difference (7.5% of comp) between a 6 win and 12 win season? Give me a break.
He's getting his money either way.
"He would earn an additional $25,000 if the team won the national title game." - really? I want 5mm in whoever gets a nattys pocket. Screw you all put some hits out on the street. Raising 400mm successfully? You get 4mm.
I would rather see a comp schedule tied to revenues and performance almost exclusively. If you want results you need to put peoples feet to the fire and also offer upside.
Sorry to say but this is salary man comp schedule
Yeah, not sure why there is a bonus for 6 wins either... Shouldn't kick in until 10 wins. Should also be a bonus schedule for recruit class ranking at this point... if not for the AD then at least for the HC...
When tech is ready to put hits out in the street for some stone cold killers they'll get a natty- not with this crap.
Mark my words - VT will never win a National championship in football so long as whit is AD with this comp plan
It's a pretty sleepy schedule that indicates low expectations to me. But I wonder what the comps are for someone in his position.
I dont understand what "hits out on the street means". But VT won't ever win a title period. It lost its one and only chance. It has nothing to do with Whit and everything to do with the structure of the sport. Calling out Whit is a bad take.
I'm discussing whits comp plan no need to personalize it to him.
Are you familiar with capital raises and percentages from that for the ib group? 3-5% fee. Now he's an employee so does he get that whole piece? No- but he should make some money out of it - I want him financially incentivized to grow money like the big boys in capital do. Why not?
Isn't he doing a bunch of membership drives, capital activities etc? That's what he really is other than a deal maker. The secret to Capital is just growing the pot- that's what I wish we had someone that was focused on and if you want someone focused on it and really good you need to incentivize it. I would be interested to see if there's any ads that have a incentive schedule like that and if they don't they should
Meant to post this under fireman's comment
Avon Barksdale coming in hot on TKP
Hahaha - nobody gets to first doing what everyone else is doing as second best.
No AD is working for that kind of contract. Also no AD is making more than 3.5 million per year and most of that is not salary.