David Teel had an article this morning on a topic we have often debated here on TKP. I found it interesting that he believes teams can succeed without top-tier level revenues. He uses ACC teams, especially VT and Clemson, as primary sources for his conclusion.
But it's also wise to periodically remind ourselves that sports aren't Monopoly. Championships aren't awarded to the richest. They're earned by athletes and coaches living at the intersection of talent, innovation, motivation, resources and good fortune.
Case in point, the ACC.
....
Further proof that cash is not always king:
# Clemson ranked 30th among 65 Power Five schools with $95.8 million in revenue. The teams it defeated in last season's College Football Playoff, Ohio State and Alabama, were Nos. 2 and 3 at $169.9 million and $164 million, respectively.
# Virginia Tech ($84 million) was the the lone Power Five to report less than $90 million in 2015-16 revenue but win at least 10 football games and reach the NCAA men's basketball tournament in 2016-17. West Virginia ($91.4 million) and Oklahoma State ($90 million) were the only others to accomplish that double with less than $100 million in revenue.
What do you all think? Can VT win a football national championship without SEC-level money? If the Drive for 25 is successful, what are everyone's expectations for VT?
Comments
I read this today at lunch. Teel is so damn good at his job. Definitely recommend a read.
Clemson has less sports than a lot of P5 schools, I'd like to see how much they place into football alone versus other ACC and P5 teams.
I wonder how Clemson gets around Title IX requirements when they build football exclusive facilities, or as you say they field a lot less sports than most P5 schools.
Title IX allows schools to spend differently across sports but not in a discriminatory way. It's okay that football or men's lacrosse costs more money, but you need to fund women's sports to the same quality, not necessarily level if that makes sense (aka guys can't have cutting edge Nike everything while women have 1990's Starter jackets).
I thought Title IX just meant you had to provide an equal number of scholarships for mens and women's sports?
I wish. Title IX is a no discrimination law. It has massive breadth to it which is why students can be dismissed by title IX with no trial.
It's what I personally think forced Reavis out.
Can? - Yes
Will? - Probably not.
I hate this mentality (partially because it gets rammed down my throat at work) that it's this great thing to do more with less. All it shows is that you are underfunding spectacular employees and athletes and you are proud of that. It's doable in the short term but college athletics isn't a short term thing.
There is no better way to drive talent away then to say how much you love their work, respect them on social media, and support them everywhere except financially. You take care of good people if you care for them.
the flip side of this is the idea of a point of diminishing returns. Does Clemson's laser tag/mini-golf athlete rec center add much value for the athletes? Will that really translate into results on the field? I can't say for sure, but it's a huge expense and, very likely, an example of indiscriminately throwing money at something that straight up doesn't matter. It could be that our "more with less" is actually a case of doing "enough without being extravagant."
I guess what I'm saying is that there needs to be discernment in how we spend our money to maximize the results on the field, rather than simply saying "mo money mo betta."
Usually capital projects like that are not included in a yearly budget for a particular sport.
That revenue doesn't exist without these players and coaches. I am 100% fine reinvesting in the guys who go out there every Saturday in the fall even if it means jacuzzis with pool side service.
I don't want to get into the paying players debate but we act like they are getting their education paid for and they should shut up and take that. The demands on their time, social lives, physical well being, and many other things are ridiculously stressed. My brother's girlfriend is a swimmer for VT and I was floored with how busy they keep her. If these athletes need a laser tag rec center to unwind and have some time to just relax, hell, they made us the money, I say go for it.
Given the school's push for more donations, it would seem a slap in the face to donors to spend the money on superfluous window dressing type things.
I'd rather pay for nice facilities and coaches/assistant coaches salaries than a laser tag rec center, which for me is more of a distraction than a need.
These things aren't eye candy and impulse buys. This is government money being spent which needs some serious approval. If they don't have trainers, doctors, team psychologist, and a bevvy of other professionals recommending it, it isn't going to happen. They are well thought out purchases.
Clemson's lavish facility isn't funded by a dime of government money.
http://www.postandcourier.com/sports/athletics-arms-race-how-and-why-cle...
I believe Whit has gone on record stating that he thinks some of Clemson's recent investments have been overkill. Even though Hokie Club, like IPTAY, is the major fundraising wing for athletics, I would imagine the Board of Visitors has to approve all major capital expenditures and construction projects on campus, regardless of funding source. I just can't see Whit seriously going to the BoV asking for a putt putt course and laser tag for football players.
I want VT football to have coaches, facilities, and support that allow them to compete with any other NCAA program in the country. I think they've made great strides, and I have no doubt they'll continue to do so.
I'll leave the financial priorities to Justin and Whit, though. The changes they made to fundraising, and the improvements they've made to sports facilities seem to me to be a step in the right direction.
*Insert obligatory Fireman HC plug here.
Something something give to the Hokie Club something something our coaches will leave us something something we're not a good enough fanbase something something join TKPC.
Three new TKPC members today two of whom are long time lurkers, hi guys. And the Hokie Club is underfunded and under represented.
VT has always done more with less, but recently I would have thought their revenues may have increased.
I'm amazed at the revenues of some of these programs. How does UVa have over $100 million? Where is this income coming from? Certainly not from ticket sales. These numbers look different from ones I've seen before.
Does JPJ money go to athletic dept?
Sincere question: Does the footprint of our demographic affect why we have such little alumni support? Is someone from New Jersey or Nova more likely, as likely, or less likely to donate than someone from like Richmond or Hampton Roads? Does the location of our school affect donations? Blacksburg is pretty far out there and IMO out of sight, out of mind is a real thing. Being in Ann Arbor, Columbus, Austin, Tallahassee, Knoxville, Atlanta or even Charlottesville seems like an advantage for attention.
The reality is that we have a school that takes about 3-4 hours to get to from the most populated areas of the state. I have no real solution or point, but I do think it comes into play. More than just "we have bad fans".
I believe it does.
Football wise, our typical alumni footprint also taps areas with strong NFL (and other professional sport) allegiances. People seem to spend the majority of their attention on whichever team they are invested in that's doing best.
When I interact with fanbases that are at the top of that cash list they seem to have more fans that essentially only follow the school's football program.
Yea forgot to include this. A lot of Panthers, Redskins, Ravens, and Eagles fans. Tech isn't the monopoly like in Alabama. There are plenty of exceptions though. Michigan fans are also very strong lions fans. Georgia fans are usually followers of the Falcons.
So the Skins and Panthers, primarily.
I fail to see how this should be hurting Tech in any meaningful way.
I've got family in Southern Virginia who didn't attend VT, but are Panthers fans. And of course the Redskins are very popular around Washington D.C.
So I think the point is valid. In Alabama/Florida Panhandle, there's no professional football, and the basic greeting is "Roll Tide". There's never any question as to which college game will be on the biggest screen in every bar in this area.
Edit: the point being that people generally identify with one primary sports team. If there's no NFL team around, it may well become the college team, like in Alabama. People in Virginia have the Redskins or the Panthers, and as the Redskins prove, those loyalties are there if if the team doesn't have much success. I hear there are even some UVa football fans in Charlottesville, but I can't confirm that.
Oh, I was more referring to the fact the Panthers and Skins have historically been a complete mess, and if you're only following the team that is doing better, VT should still be the one getting attention.
What is your criteria for a "complete mess"? The Panthers have been to 2 Super Bowls and made the playoffs several other times. There's 25 teams that have had less success in the last 20 years (since Panthers became a franchise).
The Skins have been a mess in the last 15 years or so, but their overall history is pretty good in the NFL
The years between Jake Delhomme and Cam Newton felt like an eternity for us. /s but not really.
The Panthers went to the Superbowl 2 years ago.
What have they done lately? /s
1 second round draft pick from 7 years ago?
It does. I live too far away to use the advantages of being high up in the Hokie Club so I only donate the minimum. If I were close enough to get tickets to more than one game a year I would probably donate 5x more to improve my seating and access to tix.
Oh, definitely. I've met a bunch of Hokies out here in different cities and some donate, some don't. Others do a very small amount. Mostly because there are no benefits to donating. You'll probably go to one game a year or an away game, who what's the point of donating enough to use the benefits you can't use due to geography.
Plus, I get a company match to my donations to the actual educational side of the school. So I end up choosing that.
"Teams can succeed without top-level revenues"- David Teel
"Cash rules everything around me"- Wu Tang Clan
Wu Tang > David Teel
Basically, it is possible to chop down a tree with an axe, but having a chainsaw makes it much easier.
but some people are shelling out for this:
How does WVU end up with $7.4M more than us in revenue? C'mon man!
Beat me to it. My first thought.
an entire state supporting a single team and a lot of coal money?
I can tell you for certain that the entire state does not support WVU. Plenty of Marshall fans in them thar hills, and they loathe the 'eers.
Their boosters donate over 25 million in last info I can find plus BIG 12 as bad as they are give out a decent chunk of money each year.
i think scholarship limits are more important than money but there is a certain critical mass that you have to achieve.
Note the numbers are for total revenue, not total revenue spent on revenue sports. Fu is 32nd in P5 salary. Buzz was 10th in salary of coaches who made the NCAA.
Yea, I wonder what that critical mass is. I'm guessing Whit knows. And I'm sure we're still behind it right now. Hopefully the Drive for 25 will get us over that mark.
Finally had a chance to read the source article. This caught my eye:
Time will tell, but based on what we've seen so far on the field last year and the recruiting trail last class and this one - Teel may owe Coach Fuente an apology for even putting those names in the same paragraph.
Also, although technically not a miss, leaving Kevin Dresser off this list of coaches that have 'contended nationally' and not mentioning Hokie wrestling as a nationally ranked powerhouse the last few years seems sloppy.