Very telling on why we are lagging across the board.
Hokies are 13th in the ACC in overall budget. We are ahead of only two Big 10 and one SEC school in terms of budget. We would be 8th in the Big 12.
We are 10th in the ACC in total number of varsity athletes across all sports. We would be 3rd in the SEC.
SEC has largest television contract/budget and much fewer overall athletes which gives them the ability to spend more per athlete.
UPDATED SPORTS FINANCIALS:Now that we have updated reporting from ALL schools, here's some interesting looks at:- Overall OpEx- Size of Depts- Spend on Olympic Sports (not FB or MBB)- Overall Spend per AthleteNote how the schools rebuilding to elite status stand out, along... pic.twitter.com/IFN1PZzGtb— Tony Altimore (@TJAltimore) June 4, 2025
Comments
So if interested in an Olympic sport don't go to an SEC school.
Depends on the sport but in general yes. Gymnastics has a strong SEC footprint.
And softball, and sometimes baseball.
(sometimes for the Olympics, not the $EC)
So if interested in an Olympic sport don't go to an SEC school.*
*Unless you're a hot girl.
This raises the question of the goal of athletics at universities. Should athletics add value through revenue and thus a school should specialize across a few sports or are they intended to add enrichment to the educational experience by providing diversity that a student may not have the chance to take in otherwise?
Another related concept - in other countries, the olympic sport programs are often directly state funded. In the US, it is done through the university system. I've heard some folks speculate that we could see US dominance in the olympics fall off as a result of the changing college athletic landscape. Not sure I buy it, but it definitely made me reconsider my thought that it's silly for sports to be tied to a university.
"silly for sports to be tied to a university"- funny a bunch of kids playing on saturdays in tuscaloosa alabama not affiliated with the school? must fucking see TV. LOL- pickleball would get much higher ratings.
I'm not sure i completely buy that college sports are important for Olympics. These are outliers, but Ledecky was 15 when she won her first gold, Phelps never swam in college. Most of the swimmers are trained by their club teams, and some of those teams are coached by college coaches which helps, but not all of them.
Most of the female gymnasts start before college. Weight lifting, skateboarding, surfing, climbing, artistic swimming, archery badminton, boxing, canoeing, cycling, Field Hockey, handball, judo, squash, taekwando, triathlons, and table tennis aren't big college sports. Basketball and baseball aren't going away and if baseball did the minors is alternative to college.
Now you can argue the US doesn't compete in half of that and thats true, but basketball isnt going anywhere. Wrestling, swimming, track are the big ones that rely on college however a lot of those athletes are Olympic level before going to college.
I can say for certain that olympic gymnasts start way before college. A cousin of mine was on an olympic track for gymnastics, and she was told she and at least one of her parents would have to move to Texas in order to continue training for that track when she was in/or heading into middle school (I don't remember exactly). She declined, and instead became a multi-sport star at her giant Georgia HS, and will be playing D1 Lacrosse next year, so it all worked out pretty well for her.
Something doesn't seem right on the spending per athlete for the G6 schools - 36-199 million per student?
Math is hard.
The guy that posted it, put there was an error. Those numbers are in $K not $M
I'm pretty sure some of the overall spending numbers are not correct either. Those may be what are reported by someone, but is SMU really spending the least in the ACC? And Yale spending almost as much as many P4 programs? Yeah, I know we had sports like yachting or sailing, but if you went to the Yale Bowl or the Whale (the hockey rink) or Yale Stadium (baseball) and that they do not give athletic scholarships, there is no way Yale Athletics spent as much as these other schools. Not unless things have changed REALLY dramatically in the last 25 years.
How much of SMU's spending was school and how much was NIL groups not under school control?
Just came here to say "F*#k Notre Dame for being included in the ACC reporting". Join a real conference for football or GTFO.
This tweet puts an interesting contrast on the budget conversation.
Hokies are 12th in Revenue per seat and 15th in Revenue per fan in this data. I am sure the administration would use this to say Whit is maximizing gameday but keep in mind Seats don't Seat the same here with many top schools having a significant advantage over the Hokies in total seats.
My take is this points to Whit failing outside of gameday activities in terms of revenue generation. Clearly ACC TV deal plays a huge role as well.
So we lead the ACC here, which is nice, but are not translating this to success. Here are two initial thoughts: either the fanbase has been reduced to diehards and therefore the revenue per fan is up OR we need to figure out how to better get fans to games to maximize the passionate fans. I am trying to find a way to give Whit some credit for this, but the performance on the field and this data just makes me think the AD isn't getting it done with what they have to work with.
"But are not translating this to success". Correct. We simply do not have the talent in the 2 major sports. Full stop. I was hoping Pry could/would raise the talent level on the roster, but he really hasn't. High school recruiting should have improved but it hasn't significantly. We have done OK in the portal, but not any better than Clemson, Nc State, Louisville, Maryland. We are treading water there too. Objectively the 25 portal haul is meh as well. We do not have the talent- that is what needs to "translate" into wins. In hoops, the only way CMY is going to win here and make the dance is to get "old" with his roster and shoot the lights out. Well it's tough to get old when players play for 1 year and leave or you have no money to pay your 5th year senior point guard. Pedulla's replacement wasn't near as talented. It's a talent thing if we are being honest.
The data by seat says we are getting fans to games and those fans are spending money.
The biggest issue with that data is Lane capacity compared to other top schools. 65K seats versus over 100K seats. Even if those schools were behind us in per fan/per seat, if they get 90K in per game and we sell out every game, it's a 25K shortfall in terms of total revenue. Multiply by 6 and you have a 150K shortfall per season.
Clemson is 81K so 90% would put them around 73K or 48K more attendees across a season. We are about $6 per seat better than Tigers. By this data Clemson brings in about $320K more than us. Not a large number but still shows there are some flaws in presenting the data by seat without including total seat impact
maybe it's finally time to build the North Endzone to stretch almost to the East and West. Build it back over the road (but leaving access for emergency vehicles under) and right up to or even encroach a little on the practice field. There is the Beamer barn now, football team has plenty of space, give the students a bigger North Endzone and sell more seats in the East.
They said long ago that there's no way they could replicate the South Endzone in the north. Given where the practice fields are, they need that pedestrian pathway between the Lot 1 entrance and the East Stands. It wouldn't be possible to build a North Endzone structure and still retain that footpath outside the ticketed area.
Beamer pushed for years to move those outdoor practice fields (stadium Woods/where the soccer stadium went) etc. He wanted 2 full fields. That could have given you the room to build a new north endzone too.
SEC: "Let's pay the players millions, tax free."
VT: "Let's save some old trees."
I walked by those trees on the day of the Metallica concert. There are multiple dead and falling over or already down. They aren't that healthy as that area isn't being taken care of by the forestry or grounds department.
They're probably Ash trees, and there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about them dying. I can cut firewood all day long on our farm, and never run out of downed, dry logs. The emerald ash borer has wrecked the forests of southwest virginia.
https://www.facebook.com/StadiumWoods/
No need to replicate the South, just widen the North and build it back to over the road. Can keep the road section outside the stadium if you want to maintain gate access. People would just wait in the shade under the north stands to enter.
Then where would people go when they walk down the tunnel from the stands to the north endzone concourse? If that's the road part outside the stadium (fenced off), that doesn't leave much room for people to walk that are already inside the stadium, concessions, bathrooms, etc.
Nebraska and Penn State have the huge wide enzone sections- the worst seats in football. Many NFL stadiums are designed not to have those seats at all. That's not a good plan.
Texas A&M, too. The endzone stands are much bigger than the sideline stands.
That program and attendance really fell off after generational star Manziel left.
That one got me laughing at work, bud. Touche.
Exit left or right toward the east or west not directly under.
So if you look at overall (not just football) VT's revenue from ticket sales is about the same percentage of revenue as the rest of the ACC. We have the sane funding profile of the ACC as a whole. So while we are awesome at football, we suck elsewhere it seems.
Tangential to this, but i was surfing the net and found out TCU's football stadium capacity is:
47,000 !!.
They have had more success than the Hokies in the past 15 years (yes, some bad seasons as well....)
I think DCwilson is spot on that it's about talent (in the context of good coaching.) We haven't had a lot of either. A program can use facilities, academics, $, coaching personalities, fan base etc to attract the needed talent to win. But we haven't. (And this formula is changing as NIL/House ruling/potential Congressional bills, etc are getting on line)
We certainly have a rabid and loyal fan base. Living in South Carolina has been interesting to watch Clemson's rise (and fall?) and now Shane pulling USCe up. But they are both using all the variables to attract top talent to their rosters.
Bingo. SEC/B10 teams get an extra $30m each year for just existing. We can't make that money up in Nike Deals, Chickfila kickoffs, and student fees.
The product is not 30 mil per team better... its simply not. I don't care what espn says. Nobody watches Northwestern/Maryland on a saturday- zero people watch that.
On average... I think it's close... OSU/Michigan is one of the top 5 games every season. Penn State, Wiscy, Iowa, USC, Oregon all have national followings.
This is why I think that in the 2030s - when SEC and B10 GoRs expire - we see the top 20-30 programs pull away into their own league. Ohio State and Alabama are done subsidizing Rutgers and Vanderbilt, respectively.
VT fans pay more for less basically? Consider me SHOCKED.
Something that scares me, as an athletics booster, is if we give 10% more, where is that actually going? There is the chicken & egg issue, but I worry if I give them more eggs, will I see more chicken? Or will it be squandered away on things like ridiculous plastic seats attached to bleachers and cute Hokie colored socks mailed to HC members instead of making the actual programs stronger.
I say this because there is so much talk about the lack of parity in revenue and investments, and rightfully so, but I have so little faith that more money will solve VT's real athletics problems. In fact, I could see a future where an influx of cash would cause more harm than good because it would mask all the existing shortcomings of our program, maybe even breeding more complacency and "Just like the Beamer days" mentality.
This was the problem I started fully realizing the last several years. Whit is what the powers that be at VT want. He runs the department in the black, seats are full, the money comes in, people get raises and life is good at the Blacksburg Country Club. VT fans are loyal and many will continue to show up and pack the stadium, regardless of the quality of the product. Until we reach a tipping point where the results are unacceptable and the revenue starts drying up, the status quo will persist.
Which started happening under Fuente, we went from having sold out stadium with season tickets every year under Beamer to value bundles being available. We are starting to slip back to that level. That is why has this year to figure it out or he is gone.
If Pry doesn't "figure it out" and does get fired this year, I worry we are going to slip into nothing as a program. We will be known as that stepping stone school where you can go cash out for retirement (Pry, Fu) or a young up and comer will be here 2-3 years max for the next big job. We will be done as a program.
I don't see this changing at all until we get better leadership and commitment to winning. Key word - winning. Right now we have commitment to doing things the Beamer way, commitment to golly shucks. More cash from donors right now isn't what we need - we need organizational change, or any additional funding is futile.
This is what -could- happen when you hire a guy that has never been a head coach before. The list of "top" college basketball assistants that got the head job because they were seated 12 inches away from the iconic coach for 20 years that failed is long. Its not the same gig. Pry had zero experience, so we are surprised he's not winning 10 games? That's not logical or realistic. Would a Matt Campbell, PJ Fleck, Napier done better? maybe, but what you do know is that they had head coaching experience. Justin Fuente had that, but what he didn't have was recruiting experience at the P5 level when recruiting was 90% of the job- an era of insane social media, facilities etc and he never recruited against the big boys. If I were Whit, I would have hired someone with at least one of those two backgrounds vs. none. But hindsight is 20/20.
Can you point to an athletics department that went deep into the red that rebounded in a good way? Is there a model where this has actually worked?
Off the top of my head, I think the UCLA and Rutgers ADs both went into pretty substantial debt, and neither program is better off as a result.
I'd be interested to see if an Ole Miss (who has rapidly ascended over the past decade) or a Clemson or some other school that has changed their position in the college football pecking order has been able to find long term success by borrowing cash.
To be clear I'm not advocating for borrowing money or deficit spending with the AD. I'm just saying VT institutionally likes to run the department in the black and has a loyal fan base that shows up. But the attention on the quality of the product itself is sorely lacking and I think the fan base support is largely taken for granted. Just wonder when the tipping point is where a large bulk of the fans that show up on Saturday's check out because we aren't enjoyable to watch. That's the only way I think culture and mentality with the program will change.
That was me during the last year of Fuente. I was literally sitting in the stands thinking there were other things I should be doing.
Yep- 100%- Tennessee- college football playoff, Super Regional in baseball, elite 8 in mens hoops- something VT has done one of the 3 in 175 years.
Great example - didn't realize that Tennessee was $200m in debt a decade ago.
UCLA is much better off right now.....because they are a part of the B1G. That invitation will get them on a path to being in the black in no time.
for now... they'll get ditched when the super league is made in 5-10 years.
That's not a strategy. We can't just go to the SEC whenever Whit/Sands decide to. VT could do everything 'right' for the next 5 years, and not get an invite to the SEC. UCLA got the call because (a) their rivalry with USC and (b) their LA location.