There seems to have been lots of comments on VT Not being a big enough school for going all in. But lets review the Public records http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/
Every year VT Athletics has made a nice little bit off the top to put us in a fine position. Thanks to a Conservative monetary policy in spending and fundraising Tech has amassed 50+ million in profits over the last 10 years. Not all schools operated this well, many schools don't, off hand UVA hasn't been
What is Conservative monetary policy? Just like Conservative playcalling it hasn't kept up with those around us.
We were never Top Tier Financially, where Bama is, but look where we were in group 2 and group 2 has past us by. We aren't growing like those.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
Not surprising that VT revenue went down from '06 to '07 and '07 to '08 due to major economic recession. Not surprising that we have flat-lined in recent years due to W-L record and decline of the program. I'm actually pleased that revenue hasn't slipped. Not surprising the other schools on that chart showed growth throughout that period as their football programs have been on the rise and done really well over that stretch. Looking at these numbers, I'm pleased, and expect growth with the right hire and more wins. A return of the Terrordome, if you will.
EDIT: By the way, great job pulling these stats together, thanks.
Do you think this helps explain those numbers?
That's quite a deficit to have to make up through other revenue sources.
The ACC Presidents and AD's really need to be putting pressure on ACC Commissioner John Swofford to get the ACC better TV deals and to finalize a TV / Digital network of some sort. He's definitely has led us behind many of the Power 5 conferences.
Not to mention his involvement in the UNC scandal where he has gone unscathed so far even though he was the AD at UNC when it started with Dean Smith.
The problem is, I think the majority of ACC schools are comfortable with where we are now. The Carolina basketball mindset dominates the conference's leadership and direction. I'm sure the big football schools (FSU, Clemson, us, so forth) would love to see Swofford ousted and better focus on football, but when the big four Carolina schools run the show, you get what we've seen. I think we're perfectly fine with our current deal with ESPN. We play second/third fiddle to everyone in football just to be the focus of attention during basketball season. Football schools just don't have enough power and schools on their side to overrule the basketball schools.
ACC = All Carolina Conference. Basketball drives the bus in this league. I would be shocked if an ACC Network ever happened at this point. Just my opinion.
I completely agree with the Carolina basketball mindset and how it dominates the conference. I do think there will eventually be a network / digital channel as long as they can find someone willing to pay for it if only to appease the football schools you mentioned.
If the ACC wants a future as the membership currently exists, the conference cannot afford to keep falling behind the SEC, Big Ten and Pac 10. Florida State and Clemson will not stay put.
The ACC kind of has FSU and Clemson between a rock and a hard place right now, though. The GoR prevents any movement for the forseeable future (though I'm sure litigation could solve that, would cost a lot of money). I don't see the SEC as a viable option for them. Florida, South Carolina, and likely Georgia would block that, and it brings nothing in the way of new TV territory. The Big 12 is basically held together by a giant Texas shoestring right now. The uneven revenue distribution and Texas dominating that conference likely makes that undesirable. Nebraska and Texas A&M already bolted because they were sick of that.
It has to be more than the Carolina schools though with the expanded league the votes are there if everyone else wanted change the issue is I think Duke, UNC, LOLUVA, Wake, BC and Cuse all block vote whereas FSU, Clemson and VT/GT don't unite to form votes they all push their own ideas and the "basketball block" get their way since no one else has enough votes to go against.
What specific issue are you guys talking about?
I hear this a lot, but are there some instances where having basketball has goofed up a football deal?
I don't think its necessarily that having basketball has goofed up anything football related, but that basketball has been the motivating factor within the conference. We have a cheaper deal with ESPN instead of shopping around because ACC basketball drives ESPN during basketball season. The SEC is ESPN's cash cow, and had we shopped around, we could have maybe found a better deal with another network. The B1G recognized this and got their network deal done with Fox. Same with the Pac-12 and Big 12 striking big deals with Fox. Since the ACC is best buds with Notre Dame, and I don't know why we couldn't have used that partnership to try and strike a deal with NBC.
We're gladly playing second fiddle for ESPN just for the sake of basketball. The Raycom sports deal is pathetic. A conference that can't even figure out a way to have the big name football schools regularly playing shows me that they're okay with the status quo. Basketball drives the bus for the ACC, but they don't realize that's not the case. If it were, the old Big East would still be around.
Good point about the negotiations.
Sadly, they seem locked in for longer than they should be. Plenty of time to negotiate the next one, I suppose.
The good news is that I get to watch almost all of the VT games in football, and lots in basketball that weren't previously a possibility.
Here is an interesting article, by Tomahawk Nation on SB Nation, discussing some of these topics. While ESPN may lead the ACC to having more eyeballs on it, there's no denying we left a ton of cash on the table in negotiations. While viewership is lower on Fox, the split deals for other conferences with ESPN and Fox are far more financially-lucrative. In a perfect world, I would find a way to have all the ACC football powers playing regularly to boost the football TV schedule and use our new partnership with ND to see if NBC is interested. We definitely got the worst of the tv revenue deals, and we have little leverage when it comes time to renegotiate.
http://www.tomahawknation.com/2014/10/9/6951519/the-acc-gave-up-cash-for...
Interestingly enough, that article points out to ways in which the deal isn't as bad as it sounds.
Exposure is a nice intangible.
I've watched all of VT's games on TV this year, and I doubt that would have happened under a Fox deal.
Yea, they should have made more money, for sure. I like watching VT sports, though.
The problem is exposure is a double edged sword. The easier it is to get the games on TV (or computer, phone, etc.), the easier it is for people to just decide to watch from home rather than actually go to the game. That is one of the big reasons attendance is lagging at most programs around the country, even successful ones. And once ticket sales start lagging, there is a domino effect in donations because access to tickets is one of the biggest incentives for people to donate to an athletic program. There is only so much you can do to fight that battle, so you really need the TV revenue to increase enough to offset the loss of ticket & donation revenue.
Exposure is nice, but look at it this way: Aside from a marquee game or two, when most of your football games are on ESPNU/3 or Raycom sports vs. ESPN platforms plus Fox or FS1, it seems to me like other conferences are getting the better deal. Viewership on the Fox channels might be lower, but those conferences also have ESPN deals and are getting substantially more TV revenue. Our second-tier deal with Raycom frankly blows. I think the ACC figures exposure and ratings can lead to better recruiting, better product, and better money TV deals in the future. But I think the other conferences figured out that more MONEY now leads to better recruiting budgets, better coaches, and better on-field product. The ACC is still dead last out of the Power 5 in TV revenue.
I think ratings can be interesting. I think East Coast bias is largely at play in college football. Your casual East Coast football fan will be more inclined to watch SEC/ACC football than second-tier football games from the Midwest, Southwest, and West Coast. I think the ACC could be more vigilant in striking a second deal with a Fox or NBC instead of Raycom and have better revenues and more leverage with ESPN. ESPN has gone all in on SEC, and I think other conferences realized that and went for split deals with more money.
It's an interesting and complex issue, and I don't doubt that exposure has been good. But that ESPN exposure isn't leading to more money, which the other conferences have.
Ultimately, you need both exposure AND money. You'd think one might lead to another, but you have to achieve that.
It seems to me the ACC has been building it's reputation in football.
I don't see how being good at basketball means you can't be good at football.
VT has a legitimate shot at both right now.
I think an ACC Network would mesh well with a strong basketball conference. Basketball has a lot more game inventory than Football...
.
What, you mean signing a low-ball agreement with Raycom Sports (who, in a completely unrelated matter gave Swofford's son, who worked for them and helped broker the deal, a huge bonus and raise shortly thereafter) signing away all of our 2nd tier rights until I believe 2023 was a bad idea?
Yeah who would have thought?
...something something ECU something...
Invite ND and Navy into the ACC and sign with NBC. Insist top-tier ACC games are free online like CBS has with the top-tier SEC games they give away free online.
What's ND's incentive to do that? They already have kind of a sweetheart deal. They can play in the ACC for everything, and keep their own independent football revenue.
Actually now that I think about it, an NBC deal might be terrible because Comcast owns NBC.
Personally, I'd like to see you guys join the B1G. You are a great fit academically despite not being in the AAU but neither is UNL and VT is certainly academically a peer if the AAU schools. The money boost would help you greatly. You'd extend our reach and if we added GT as well give us a solid footprint in the south. Rutgers, MD, PSU would not be a travel stretch over what you do now and we could still allow UVA to be an annual rival.
That's only 8M in difference, a large sum but the bigger point to me is the flat growth. South Carolina and Washington have had higher growth every year. That's not just from TV rights
Tech has grown it's contributions 57% in 10 years. Washington has grown 240%. Ticket sales for Tech up 6.4% Washington up 209%. South Carolina 189% Ticket Sales increase, Contributions +186%.
I think some of the fan base has been miffed for a few years, after the 2012 season.
VTBeergut has described the rationale behind that.
I'd be curious to see athletic giving per alumnus or per student. I'll bet VT is one of the lowest of the power 5 schools.
Part of this is probably due to few big dollar contributors and some due to fund raising inadequacies. But not all of it.
VT fans don't know how good they've had it. The football program has - and arguably still is - outperformed the fan base's athletic contributions for years and years.
Hokie Club fundraising over the last 10-15 years has been abysmal. They completely sat on the "give to better your football seats" mantra and ran with it. They got complacent and lazy and its absolutely showing.
Thankfully, we now have people in place to reverse and correct these errors.
Good point. They've made contributions all about Lane seating, which isn't quite the same incentive if you don't live in Virginia.
Access to better tickets, parking, etc. is always going to be the biggest driver in athletic donations but you're right that you can't have it be the only driver. Whit has been making strides in this area- the Pylons of Promise initiative and 110% campaign have both been largely built upon the idea of there being intrinsic value in donating to the program and supporting student athletes.
Great point. Maybe we should brainstorm on benefits that could be used to provide benefit to people outside of Southwest Virginia.
Interestingly enough the numbers for the Hokie Club were just mailed out. We still have less than 11,000 members but they made it over the 10,000 member mark this last year. But it's just not enough to sustain the upkeep and upswing this program is headed.
I'm guessing they made it over because people wanted OSU and Battle of Bristol tickets.
They were headed that way with Whit and his new in house hires in the Hokie club and Athetic depts but yes I think those two made it happen faster.
Hell, even basketball might bring in some members. Imagine that!
I guarantee you those numbers will swell if we hit a Grand Slam with our football coaching hire after Frank retires. Give people a reason to buy back into the program, and a lot of problems will solve itself.
But for how long? Tech needs long term support there is no excuse why the Hokie Club is so small.
All you need is momentum. Give us some positive momentum and excitement, and let Whit do his job. Yes, he's been awesome at guiding our Athletic Dept in a new direction, and he has absolutely nailed the personnel decisions he's made so far, but remember, he was specifically brought in because he knows how to fundraise. Just jump start it in the right direction, and let him and Jim Pearman, who he appointed to lead the Hokie Club, do their thing, and it should snowball in the right direction.
a win at Bristol under a new coach would absolutely help.. follow that up with a strong acc showing and a close game vs ND add in a 20-30 ranked recruiting class and the $$ will come in container ships
I think all of those things are extremely doable with the right hire.
Two things that will drive additional members, donation, and revenue: Winning and hope. Winning is instant gratification and losing, in some ways, is the exact opposite. Hope in this case is just speculation of winning in the future. We haven't had any real hope in a long time and we all know the direction we have headed in terms of wins. As much as we have tried to hope Beamer would turn it around the same old crap every week has led to many people losing hope. Which mean loss of incentive to give money.
A new coaching staff and cleaning house top to bottom changes all of that. No more coach speak, no more ridiculous running back rotations, no more dumb play calling.....on and on and on. A home run hire changes all of that and we all of a sudden have hope. Then comes the money once hope is established. Its up to the coaching staff to coach and get players here that can win....then you are able to sustain the money.
That's just how it works. You can have the cart before the horse. I get what you are saying...its a gamble. But that's the game we are in.
You will never get rid of coach speak because well.....coaches.
you will however get/hear more accountability
Except donations weren't great when there was winning either.
I was posting about this last night on another thread. The ACC TV revenue is lagging other conferences by a substantial amount, but even so, it has still increased a significant amount in the last several years. Meanwhile, our total revenue has been almost flat for about 8 years. If you remove the increased revenue from ACC distributions and solely looked at school generated revenue, we are bringing in less money now than 2007. That's not surprising if you have looked at the stands in Lane or Cassell the last few years, but it's concerning. We definitely need to find ways to bring some excitement back to the football program. It is also why Whit was hired, as one of his strengths is supposed to be fundraising.
What does HOATs table look like when you factor in Basketball TV deals as well (or is that in there). Is this just football TV deals?
No idea whatsoever.
HorseOnATreadmill, what year or years does that data represent?
Also no idea. Sorry folks, after finding the image on businessinsiders, I'm coming up empty. I'm sure the numbers are out there, just too lazy to go find them.
Given the positioning of the PAC12 on that graph, and given their deal is probably the most recent, it's probably pretty recent. I guess.
wow the badgers are #1? i mean tickets arent cheap here but still didnt think theyd be higher than bama
That chart doesn't include Texas. Texas's numbers are off the top of the chart.
Those numbers are 2006. Bama is higher than Wisconsin on the 2014 data point. Oregon is highest, if you click the link.
Money will at least flow back in if a good hiring decision is made. I know I'll give the program some money for making the investment in change. The program has aspirations to be 100 mil program. I don't doubt whit
A third of the power 5 are already $100M.
Hopefully by the time VT gets there, $100M isn't just the new $70M...
Silly question: what are the dollar amounts in the legend representative of? I can't seem to see where ~$45mil would apply to that graph.
My guess is that it's starting revenue in 2004, while the graph starts in 2006.
Total revenue each school had in 2004. the easiest comparison of how close VT was to some other schools, and where they have grown to. Graph starts with 2004 but for some reason first year it would list was 2006