@hokiesports 🤝 @PlayflySports Virginia Tech Athletics & Playfly Sports Properties announce a 10-year enterprise & multimedia rights relationship.For more details ⤵️— HokieSports (@hokiesports) October 5, 2023
Playfly Sports, the Fan Focused and Data Driven leader in sports media, marketing and technology, today announced it is entering into an enterprise marketing and multimedia rights relationship with Virginia Tech Athletics. In this broad, 10-year agreement, Playfly will be responsible for driving new multimedia rights related revenue opportunities, including content creation, premium gameday programming and the development of new partnerships, events and activations.
"Virginia Tech is a dynamic University with an incredibly strong athletics brand – we are excited to work with Whit Babcock and team to supercharge Hokie pride," said Christy Hedgpeth, President of Playfly Sports Properties. "Our broad offering of data driven solutions will enable Virginia Tech to tap into diverse streams of revenue and enhance engagement with students, fans and donors."
Virginia Tech's partnership with Playfly Sports Properties will combine the company's multimedia rights expertise with its elite line-up of media and marketing solutions. Playfly aims to unlock new revenue opportunities for Virginia Tech Athletics and strengthen fan enthusiasm by introducing a host of new media and technology offerings. As part of the new agreement, Playfly will build a highly capable team dedicated to fostering and developing strategic partnerships for the Virginia Tech Athletic Department.
"We are ready to bring Playfly's expertise to Blacksburg," said Virginia Tech Director of Athletics Whit Babcock. "Playfly's understanding of the Hokie Athletics ecosystem along with its expertise and passion in the MMR space will bring new energy and innovation."
Comments
Worth also passing this along....
You mean you don't want to see a game on Toyota Worsham field in Kroger Lane stadium?
It better be FosterFuels Worsham Field at Gucci Kroger Lane Stadium.
Worsham Smithfield? Get a win, get a bacon.
We can pimp the new "Tac Light LED Lights" that withstand up to even the worst, spontaneous lightning storms and downpours.
Ooo I like this a lot.
I also thought up Frank's RedHot Lane Stadium after my previous post.
You mean Spurtle Worsham Field.
oh no...
lol you seeing this
to be fair, at least you would immediately be retro cool
Southern Xposure Amateur Night Stadium
LOL
IYKYK
Ok... how does this affect Burnop and Roth?
That was my first thought too.
Same. Hopefully they are brought in seamlessly
I don't care whose company name they read. As long as it's those two guys reading it.
But seriously, anyone have the scoop on this yet? It's only the most important detail.
As far as I know, there should be no impact. While we aren't going to be with IMG anymore, aren't Roth, Burnop, Mackey, and Hughes all VT employees, so they would just transfer over to our new 3rd party vendor?
I don't know and I'm scared.
Me too.
Tech employees, they're not impacted.
I'm gonna hold you to that.
The bad optics of celebrating Burnop's 500th broadcast and then a few days later making this change would be a new level even for us.
Great, something else that's gonna suck that'll take 10 years and millions to fix
Some decent company, at least
There's a lot of toilet paper on that top row.
Call me skeptical; there's a lot of teams that wear nike too....
Basketball is the common thread.
Their President worked at the NBA for 7 years, including being COO of the WNBA for 4 years
Yeah you could emphasize SOME a bit more...
I mean yes I agree, but my point was they work with several blue blood football and basketball programs. Reserving judgement on what this means in practice but in theory it seems fine?
Yeah, it was more a poke at something like "ew, LOLuva....etc"
I'm not always good at internet sarcasm
Uh oh. The Pac 12 is on that list.
Not sure what to make of this. Playfly is a new up and coming media company only 3 years old but already #2 in college marketing relationships. Pennsylvania based, but apparently got some investment from private equity and a Baltimore based broadcasting company. Hoping a fresh point of view can help drive some more revenue for VT athletics.
Playfly Account Executive: We have dug into the details of your current financial situation and come to the conclusion that you are screwed. We recommended finding a new conference and new apparel deal as soon as possible. We'll bill you later.
Playfly Account Executive: "We have dug into the details of your current financial situation and come to the conclusion that
you are screwedwe can make some money off of you".FIFY
10 years is a god damn eternity. How many times do we have to make this mistake? Jfc
The problem is the media distribution companies will not sign the contract if they can't lock in the years.
Nebraska signed for 15 years, LSU signed a 6 year extension to make theirs a 10 year deal. I looked, somewhat but not really much, for the pro teams length but didn't see anything as easily as I did with the college teams. So it seems to be a par for the course for that type of deal with this company.
It's Whit, so I am guessing Liberty has a better rights deal now.
I wouldn't be surprised if Biberty is about to announce FlamesTV. Start each day with a little player to defeat the enemy, then play Uncle Baby Billy's Bible Bonkers until game time.
Hehe leg for the baby billy reference. Wish I could give you another for the bible bonkers. lol
Nebraska's deal is $300m over 15 years (source). Any idea what ours is?
Given our track record we probably took off those two trailing zeroes
Would not be one bit surprised if it was half of that.
How would you feel if it was half the money ($150m vs 300m) but the contract was 2/3 the length (10yr vs 15yr)?
I'd feel great about that
The deal is worth at least $77 million over 10 years and could be worth as much as $112 million over 10 or $150 million over 13 years. Seems like a good deal for us. Sure, it's not Nebraska's deal, but we aren't the only game in an entire state who has also won (multiple) national titles.
https://247sports.com/college/virginia-tech/article/inside-virginia-tech...
ouch, it was a quarter of Nebrask's
More like a third (7.7/year vs 20/year).
But that sounds about right to me. Nebraska is a program where state prisoners VOLUNTARILY DONATED to the program to build their stadium. Nebraskas fanbase has absolutely next level devotion and interest.
with each passing day, literally every aspect of the VT program is mid as fuck. Every aspect, and it gets worse by the day/deal/event. It really does. 1/3 of fucking nebraska's deal? laughable. Wonder what JMU's rights deal is?
I dont think a comparison to Nebraska is fair. Given that this is a regional broadcasting contract it would make sense for Nebraska - they are literally the only program at the collegiate or pro level. We can't say the same in our state where we have UVA, JMU, and to a lesser extent we have schools such as GMU, Richmond, VCU, and W&M, plus the DC and Charlotte areas and the pro sports draw covering MLB, NFL x2, NHL x2, NBA x2.
That said... our money still isn't great and we're stuck in neutral.
OK, so which non relevant P5 program is a good comparison for us? Iowa State? Oregon State? Wake?
Virginia also has more than 4x the population of Nebraska (and that doesn't even factor in the regional population comps). Dirt doesn't vote, watch football, or spend money, people do. Virginia's economy is also 4x larger than Nebraska's with a median income nearly $20k higher.
Accepting a long term deal for a third the value of a peer institution is the essence of middle market thinking. And until that attitude and approach to VT athletics changes, and the school stops letting middle market managers run the show, people should expect more of the same middle market results.
Amen. Everything about this program right now is so fucking mid. I am going to stock up bourbon for when Whit bends over AGAIN for Nike and our deal is like Chapparal High Schools and WVU, K State, Ok State have 6X the value we do.
Virginia Tech fans have this weird notion that Hyundai salesmen should be able to sell cars to Porsche consumers. You could argue that the Hyundai we have to sell is because of Whit & Company, but to say that we're not getting enough money for the Hyundai we do have seems unrealistic.
My guess is the AD isn't turning down better offers (nor is he not seeking out better offers) in favor of these "mid" offers.
No, we have the notion that the same guys that sell Hyundai cars to Nike and media companies would also buy from VT. But they don't. They pay VT much lower prices for the same Hyundai
That's what kills me. It really doesn't seem like the people in charge have a real sense of the value for VT or a real vision for what it could be... at least when it comes to athletics. It very much seems like a "well that's good enough" approach. The "walk down the hall" version of a rights deal. And 10 years is a lifetime for this kind of thing... did they learn nothing from the century of indentured servitude to ESPN?
That you're comparing VT to a Hyundai says a lot to me about how you see the program and its potential. Do you think Whit also sees VT Athletics as the Hyundai of college athletics? Is that an acceptable frame of reference?
Deals are made and contracts are signed not on potential, but on facts on the ground. IMG and Nike aren't going to give us sweet deals because they have a fan's hope that "next year is the year". That you think "potential" has anything to do with the cold, cruel world of business negotiations says a lot about you. (See how condescending that historically lame method of debate is?). It's not up to Whit to decide whether we're a Hyundai or a Porsche. It's up to Nike, IMG, etc.
Currently, VT isn't a super attractive candidate. We can beat our chests all we want about our fans and Enter Sandman and "potential" but as folks around here are fond of pointing out, football drives the bus (with men's hoops riding shotgun). We don't have the buzz now that we had 13 years ago. And there's no guarantee we're gonna get it back.
Without that guarantee, we're very much a Hyundai right now. Add into that incontrovertible reality is the very murky future of our conference home. Why on EARTH would anyone give us any amount of money for any length of time when we're equally as likely (more so, I'd argue) to be in the SunBelt in 10 years as we are in the SEC.
And for the record, Hyundai makes a very nice car. I rather like the Palisade.
I read this kind of simplistic, black and white thinking on this website all the time and it really makes me wonder what kind of business or business negotiations people are engaged in. I'm no fortune 100 CEO but I do have some experience in the arena. And I'm pretty sure nothing in business, law, or politics is as black and white as "Deals are made and contracts are signed not on potential, but on facts on the ground." Clearly you've never done a discounted cash flow analysis or been part of an M&A transaction if you think this is accurate.
So what do you suppose makes a Nebraska rights deal 3x as valuable as a VT rights deal? On-field football performance? Nebraska has been the definition of mediocre... and for longer recently than VT has been. Eyeballs? Demographics favor VT. Market value? Again, advantage VT.
I'd love to see the story our executives are presenting to these companies to pitch the brand value of VT. Because whatever it is, it sure must not be that compelling.
Perhaps I oversimplified. Deals can certainly be done on potential. Potential that is clearly realizable and measurable. We have no such potential right now. Cash flow analysis are fine when you can make forecasts. I defy you to predict VT's record (or TV eyeballs) or whatever in 2026. Lacking that ability (and you have to admit, you have no such capability), one deals with the facts they have at the time.
M&A is executed on business plans, with run rates, MRR, users, etc. Whatever the metric. Please tell me what metrics VT can point to that would warrant better deals. Can we say we'll be in a top 2 conference in 5 years? Can we say we'll be winning 10 games? Can we even say we'll be the preeminent football program in the state/area? No to every single one of those. What is the future value of the Virginia Tech Athletics/football program that would present a favorable cash flow analysis?
As for Nebraska, they at least have a stable conference. One of the big two. And I don't see how you say their market value is less than VT's.
I do agree that whatever they're pitching isn't very compelling. Where we differ is that you seem to think that our execs are missing some opportunity to tell a more compelling story.
Well based on this, FSU is lucky they didn't do their TV deal a few years back. A brand is bigger than "right now"- even in the M&A world, which I am familiar with. Is JMU a bigger brand than VT?
Maybe this is the crux of the issue. Maybe our brand isn't as big as we collectively seem to think it is. A bigger brand will buy a program some time to get out of a shitty "right now". Our brand clearly isn't buying us that time.
The folks at Nike gave us a shitty deal in 2015. In hindsight.... they weren't wrong to have done so, were they? Maybe their foresight was pretty good then, and is impacting our ability to make deals now.
The VT women made the final four last year.
Men's Basketball won the ACC the year before that.
VT isn't the top brand, but it likewise isn't an inconsequential brand in college athletics, and the brand does have some value. The folks at Nike know what they're doing, but part of it is also what your negotiators are willing to accept.
Would help if VT could get better at football, which is by far the best money sport, but that may take a few years.
Great point. So many on here seem to love to hang their hat on the notion that they're being "realistic."
AllI see is rationalizing mediocrity.
p r e a c h
So I agree that conference affiliation is concerning but this, as far as I understand, is for third tier rights, not marquee games. It's also curious that you're implying forecasting future cash flows is all that different than forecasting future college football results. But neither really addresses the question of value directly.
However, a quick Google search turns up a whole list of metrics that directly indicate VT's market has much greater value (potential or otherwise) than Nebraska's.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/VA,NE,NH/RHI425219
At worst I'm not seeing anything that supports the narrative that VT is 1/3 the value of Nebraska over the next 10 years.
You're conflating population w/ market. We all know that Rutgers doesn't have the market VT has, despite what your census site above would say. That's a lesson the Big East learned the hard way.
I think you're conflating "market" with "customers"
And then there's "paying customers" vs. "non-paying customers "
Yes to the above two comments. Which makes citing census data not really material. Again, these are lessons the Big East learned 20 years ago. ;And that VT fans were gleeful to note.)
I get the Big East reference, but VT is not Syracuse or St. John's or BC. It's a big state school with a strong following, a recent record of success, a 65k seat stadium that it has demonstrated it can consistently sell out (despite being 5 hours from its' population centers), and large alumni bases in major media markets in the northern and eastern parts of the state (to say nothing of alumni bases in Charlotte and the triad).
Can confirm the large alumni base in Charlotte
And despite all those self-evident facts, we got the contract we did. What exactly is Whit not selling that leads a contingent of this board to conclude that these poor deals are on him rather than arrived at by unbiased third parties interested in making money.
How much negotiating leeway does Whit have and why do you think he has it?
This is where I'm at. My perception of Whit - based on (a) my experience as an HC member, (b) the interviews I've listened to, and (c) what Godfrey has said about him on SZD patreon - is that he's a fundraising/money guy, and doesn't micromanage sports.
Maybe I'm overestimating Whit and underestimating the strength of the VT brand, but I don't see much evidence that shows he's being swindled on deal after deal.
I'm very open to changing my mind, but I haven't seen evidence that suggests Whit leaving significant money on the table.
There are any number of reasons. Maybe his market analysis is bad. Maybe he doesn't have much experience at this level and is still learning on the job. Maybe the people assisting him aren't very good or have conflicting incentives. Maybe he's just not that motivated. Maybe he lacks vision. Maybe he's overworked and doesn't have the bandwidth to tackle the number of things he has to deal with on a day to day basis and hasn't surrounded him with the right people to whom he can delegate.
Maybe I'm in the wrong, but any one or combination of those things seem more likely than VT being 1/3 the value of Nebraska.
Now, if your argument is that Nebraska hit the window perfectly and signed a great deal when the market was experiencing irrational exuberance then I could buy that. But I have a hard time swallowing the idea that VT is 1/3 the value of the NU brand, crazy farmers or not. And I have an even harder time understanding why VT alums seem so eager to make that argument.
I don't understand the question. Are you suggesting Whit is being capped by his superiors on the amount of money he can negotiate for? Are they arbitrarily restricting his "leeway" to negotiate for more money?
No. I'm not suggesting he's being capped by his superiors. The sentiment amongst your cohort of Hokies fans is that Whit is negotiating terrible deals when we could be getting much better deals.
I want to know what leverage Whit has that he's not using to get these deals? What bidding wars for our IP is he not spinning up? What hidden fact is he not highlighting? What likely future state that would make us more attractive is he not pointing out?
What is Whit doing wrong wrt to these deals? You say we're settling for mediocrity and not actually being realistic. OK. Tell me how we could have done different.
Well if total market value and growth potential are off the table then you got me. I don't know. But I haven't read a convincing argument for why they aren't supportive of the idea that VT is worth more.
I think both of those are on the table. I just don't think they're a big as you seem to think. Or at least not with as much confidence as would be required to justify better contracts.
how many millennials are braves fans because they watched games on TBS as kids?
larger potential audience is literally "bigger market" that is there to turn into "bigger market share"
TBS and Richmond Braves made most of us in Richmond ATL fans in the 80's and 90's.
Count my son and I as two Braves fans from the 80s and 90s TBS.
This is completely incorrect - has nothing to do with TV rights; it's radio, advertising, and other stuff. Here's an excerpt from a really good piece by Matt Brown:
If you're interest in the business of college sports, I highly recommend Matt Brown's newsletter
You're right. I misspoke when I said 3rd tier rights. But it doesn't really change my argument that you really have to work hard to conjure up a reality where VT is 1/3 as valuable as Nebraska given respective market demographics and relative brand value.
I think limiting using state demographics is not a particularly useful metric in this case. For one, the Nebraska fan base is not at all limited to Nebraska. The entire northern Midwest is composed of Nebraska fans. If you didn't go to college and you lived in the state of Iowa, Minnesota, SD, ND, Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, or Kansas, chances are you were a Nebraska football fan during their dynasty. Even if you did go to one of the other state schools, chances are you still had a big affinity for Nebraska. As Bar said, they are a blue blood brand still to this day results be damned.
This deal is a big upgrade over IMG who were shafting VT so bad. There is also a sizeable commitment in this deal to VT NIL which we desperately need. This is VT betting on an up and coming media company. Maybe we get it wrong, but this isn't VT walking down the hall and saying yeah that looks good enough.
Also VT is definitely mid haha. We just are. We had a great run but we aren't a special brand by any means. If we can get back to winning and become part of one of the big 2 conferences we can become a better brand but our history alone isn't enough to move the needle.
I'm not suggesting the VT's deal should be more valuable than Nebraska's. I'm saying I'm having a hard time understanding why it's merely 1/3 the value of Nebraska's.
Brand value. Nebraska is one of the 8 undeniable blue bloods in the sport (OSU, Michigan, Notre Dame, Nebraska, OU, Texas, USC, and Alabama).
Not really connected, but the conversation reminded me of this....
I get that, but what is their reach? There are 2 million people in the entire state. Let's say they reach an absurd ratio of 80% and our reach is just 25% off VA and DC, we reach 2.3 million vs 1.6 million people. so if it's purely based on ad capability, we got shafted. Our floor is much higher than Nebraska's ceiling if you factor in NC and Maryland where we have a large alumni presence.
$7.7m/year puts us above the average for every P5 conference (source)
It's tough finding good data on MMR, but it appears that at minimum this deal puts in the top half of P5 publics.
Until they're renegotiated next year?
Well, given the learfield bubble popped (see the article I linked above) - I think that's unlikely. Learfield is pulling an Under Armor and trying to renegotiate contracts lower because they're in debt and can't afford to pay them out. As a result, schools have less leverage, and learfield competitors have more.
Sounds like a great reason to not sign a 10 year deal.
Less years = less $/year. Gotta strike a balance between managing risk and gaining potential upside.
I genuinely don't know if Whit struck the best deal. But, based on my perception of the sport, 1/3 of Nebraska's (one of the 8 biggest brands in the country) annual take home feels right.
Correct. Learfield owes VT millions in backed payments.
Could be, just like insurance fine print. It's 112 million if you make the playoffs AND it snows 4" in Miami on July 23rd... /s
Not a direct correlation to this deal but more and more I read articles daily mentioning UVA and now Pitt being valuable additions and better by the BIG and and no mention of VT. At first i thought it was just biased articles with an objective; but now ive seen enough that never once mention VT but always UVA and I'm starting to think I'd bet big money we get left for dust by UVA for a P2 because our school is happy playing in the corner. Have we seen one big time "wow great job by our admins negotiating this" yet? Seems like everything is mediocre when it comes to VT and expectations
Edit: attached latest link for everyone's viewing pleasure BIG Realignment
"Within the Big Ten office last summer, then-commissioner Kevin Warren led an expansion exploration that spanned more than a dozen schools, many of whom reached out to the league about an acquisition after the Los Angeles schools joined. Conference office administrators created a list of desired programs thought to be attainable, according to multiple sources who have seen the list.
They included Notre Dame, North Carolina, Clemson, Florida State, Pitt, Kansas, Cal, Stanford, Arizona, Virginia and, of course, Oregon and Washington. In fact, outside counsel for UO and UW met with Big Ten administrators twice last year — once in Chicago and another in New York."
I'm telling you right now, no way PSU is letting Pitt get into the B10.
PSU only gets one vote in the decision process, and I think that the decision in the B1G does not need to be unanimous. The Nittany Lions will certainly lobby against Pitt as vociferously as possible.
Yes - only one vote, but they will have support. Plus, Pitt isn't a good enough get to justify rocking the boat within the conference.
The reality is, in no world is the B10 taking Pitt. It's going to upset existing members and provide no new upside. Unless 75% of the B10 really wants to stick it to PSU, they're not doing that.
Some may be more comfortable with (or even prefer) that reality since it doesn't threaten the cultural archetype of VT as the permanent underdog.
I've seen a lot of comparing this deal to Nebraska's but I'm not sure I've seen anyone compare it to our old deal with IMG. Is this a big upgrade from that?