Just to offer some perspective on how much football drive the athletics ship, here's a revenue/expense breakdown for the #Hokies in FY2017. pic.twitter.com/Lc5BIf0j3o— Andy Bitter (@AndyBitterVT) March 26, 2018
Football made 23 million.
Men's Basketball made just over 200,000
Women's basketball lost 3 million or so
Other sports lost 23 million.
For second year in a row the athletic department was a net loss for the year.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
Interesting, thanks for posting. I skimmed the replies and thought this was an insightful follow-up tweet:
In Whit we trust.
Also, as much as we all gave Weaver shit, I'm glad he ran us in the black for so long so Whit could go on a spending spree.
On one hand, yes, I am glad Weaver was frugal and was able to keep Beamer and staff for so long. OTOH Tech fell behind in facilities and all sports other than football.
Edit: also have to give Weaver credit for Tech being in the ACC.
On first glance, it's easy to agree with this. But the excessive frugality really caused the department as a whole to fall behind substantially. If we had stayed proactive and ahead of the curve, maybe Whit wouldn't have had to go investment-heavy in coaches, facilities, support staff, marketing, etc. in both major sports as well as the others in his first few years just to play catch up.
I wouldn't say that the Weaver era afforded us the spending we see now, but actually necessitated it.
Largely, I would agree. But, I don't think Whit would have been able to jump right into making the improvements he has in so many different sports had Weaver not kept us in the black like he did.
I'm not one to sing Weaver's praises, but I think he caused the need, like you said, as well as helped facilitate the fix...
...to an extent.
The other thing is could Weaver have effectively spent the money. That might not have been his strength (and he knew it) so he saved if for the next guy. Clearly, it appears to be one of Whit's strengths.
This doesn't take into account licensing revenue which I think we can all agree at least 80% of that can be attributed to football.
I don't remember what it's listed as, it was something weird on their income statements, we had to do some project on it for accounting. It paid for the athletic program in total. That was back in 2003.
Our licensing agreement is pennies compared to our competition. I'm not even sure it would bump us out of the red, whereas some other schools would have that bump them to $8m in the black.
Tech actually sits pretty even with ACC competition for rights and licensing at 32 million as of 2014.
Wait, are you saying that we are actually somewhere in the neighborhood of 29 mil in the black?
I don't think it counts as athletic revenue.
That number is much closer to what I remember, it was in the 10s of millions for sure. I just remember it was buried in some strange category. It wouldnt be directly attributed to a sport but to the school as a whole. Overall school licensing would be included as well, but again, I would bet at least 80% of those licensing revenues would be directly attributed to the football program.
Althetic marketing and school marketing and licensing are separate. While it doesn't include "exposure" the school doesn't receive direct payment for those anyway.
To this point, how much came out of the budget for the new baseball stadium? I know Whit secured a sponsor but that was still a big project and that expense shouldn't show up next year.
Unless the above is a Cash P/L - spend for new buildings, improvements etc would be captured as CapEx on the CFS - not the P/L.
Allow me to clarify. Improvements to land/buildings/stadiums would be considered a Capital Expenditure (CapEx). CapEx is not an Income or Expense line item, and it therefore would not be captured in a Profit/Loss Stmt/ Income Statement. It would be a cash outlay captured on the Cash Flow Statement and budgeted for. However the original post was about the P/L which would not include CapEx/Improvements to stadiums/facilities.
Would the basketball remodel qualify as capital as well?
Yes. It would be considered a Capital Expenditure.
Another thing to consider is the home football schedule, and the potential for revenue based on the opponents, as well as the number of games.
Last year's was kinda weak and we only had 6 in Delaware, ODU, Clemson, UNC, Duke & Pitt. Clemson was the only big name we had at home. Additionally, we made $2.5 million for the game with WVU at FedEx.
This year we have 7 home games with W&M, ECU, Notre Dame, GT, BC, Miami & UVA. Matchups with ND & The U should bring in big money, and having the rivalry game with UVA at home usually draws a big crowd too. Wouldn't be surprised if football revenue ticks up for next year because of that.
these even years are my favorite. Home games against GT, Miami, LOLUVa (and I think BC is always at home these years, too?). Home away from home games against Duke and UNCheat. Only drawback is playing at Pitt.
Of course, getting all the games I want at home on even years mean the odd years suck that much more (traveling to GT, Miami, and BC all in the same season is the worst).
I just wonder how the sale of season football tickets will be next year given how abysmal our home schedule is. Next year there isn't one marquee home game.
By "next year" do you mean 2018 or 2019?
EDIT: I guess in context you probably mean 2019 but that threw me for a loop at first.
I was talking about 2019. I mean we have Furman, Old Dominion, Duke, UNC, Pitt, and Wake Forest. There is no game there that merits much excitement.
You're not excited to us take on the mighty Purple Nerples of FU?
Last time it was 7-0 at the half against the Purple Palladins. We were that inept on offense.
For me the 2019 is all about tailgating with the lot 18 fam. It may be unreasonable but I expect to go undefeated at home next year. With that home schedule and it being Fuente's 4th year, it will be time to show results.
That is pretty weak, but we're about to be loaded with marquee home games for the next decade or so, and if the team is playing well and garnering excitement, one low key year isn't all that bad.
If anyone looks at Whit's previous track record you can see he likes to invest in projects. I wouldn't say he spends for arms race purposes but he doesn't shy away from putting money down. It's a long term play that can cause donors heart attacks if he isn't being progressively more successful on the field. This is in contrast to the previous admin that was adamant to run in the black year to year.
Whit knows that it takes money to make money.
Maryland tried that. They just ended up in a boatload of debt.
Ok, fine. You have to spend money to make money. You can also spend money to lose money. Spending money is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition for making money.
In other words, just because you spent money, doesn't mean you'll make money, but you'll never make money if you never spend it.
happy?
The thing is though, it's not like Maryland completely spent their way into trouble. They've been run incompetently for a long time.
https://www.si.com/more-sports/2012/11/27/maryland-athletics
Yes, the article goes on to say how much she invested in facilities, but she was already starting behind the 8-ball anyway. It's an apples & oranges comparison in a lot of ways to me.
I agree with you on this one but may I point out that I have noticed at least 3 projects that have massive donor support behind them in the last year. 1 got finished and 2 got announced. I think that Whit is starting to find his groove and that the donors are starting to see what can happen when we work together on this.
You've gotta spend money to make money. Basketball sold out more games this season than I can ever remember, and football attendance should continue to improve from the dropoff it experienced from 2012-2015. Can't speak a whole lot on the other sports because I don't have much knowledge of them, but if Whit keeps making solid hires, you'd have to think they'll gather more revenue as well.
I agree and with the new baseball field opening up this season more people should make their way out to a game or two. The WBB team is getting better and better every year and I think that more hokies will go to support them.
Baseball games are free though, right?
The seats will be tickets and the tiers down the baseline will be free still is my understanding.
Other sports generated $21 million? Color me surprised.
I wonder if it includes ACC revenue sharing? Also aren't there 19 other sports so around a million a sport?
Still.....how did Volleyball create $1M in revenue?
If you told me all those sports created $150K in revenue, I would be like "Yep, sounds about right." $21M? Must be some revenue sharing somewhere. It ain't gate receipts and TV dolla's.
Question: does anyone know how scholarships are calculated? Are they an expense out of our athletics budget, or is that cost absorbed through academics?
I was chatting these figures with someone this morning, and I made the point that football's net monies is even more impressive considering the 60+ scholarships we hand out, vs the 14 scholarships for b-ball. The above question was posed to me.
85 scholarships on the football team, unless there are some NCAA sanctions I don't know about.
Any scholarships not covered by Hokie Club Scholarship fund donations is paid out of the budget.
Also, something to remember if you start to compare VT's finances to others around the country or even in the ACC - the state passed a law in 2015 that limits the amount of athletic department funding that can come from student fees.
McAuliffe signs bill that limits athletic student fees
I can see how this is a good thing. I guess some of my questions are: 1) what are the thresholds for other states (i.e. MD, TN, WV, NC, SC, GA, KY, AR, IA)? I can pretty much guess FL, AL, TX and OH; 2) what did the threshold used to be?
Not sure any other state has a law on this.
Clemson has no athletic fee. They tried to do one a few years ago and it got no where. But in comparison to most othe rpeer schools VT is on the low end at $154. Most seem to be in the $250 range. UVA is something like $650, something everyone should keep in mind when comparing their revenues to ours.
One more reason why ODU's move was a fool's errand and any ambition by JMU to do the same is an even bigger folly.
The team is doing well (last year's stumble aside), their brand recognition and respect in the area is at an all time high, and they are situated in a region that is exploding and they are positioning themselves to become a part of that community. People are legitimately proud of having gone to ODU these days, and that's never really been a thing before, they've played this well and are positioning themselves nicely to take a big step up as a university.
ODU can sustain a decent G5 program with the 757 players that Bama, Penn State, UNC, Clemson and OSU don't want or don't recruit. VT will get their high 3/4 star 757 kids, but we are not sexy there anymore- not even close. So plenty of players for ODU to grab right in their back yard.
So basically, what I hear is, ODU > Tech in time.
No, because VT will recruit better overall, and the "757" is not the only place where good/great football players are in Va or other states, contrary to popular belief. But there are enough "good" players there for ODU to be competitive in the G5
That wasn't my point. It's not about being able to field a "competitive" team - whatever that even means.
It's at what cost and to what end? And not just now, but 10 years from now when the P5 schools might very likely break off and essentially form their own division. Programs like ODU will for all intents in purposes be back to where they were 10 years ago - essentially 3rd tier programs in terms of revenue and exposure - with little to show for the millions of dollars in student fees/alumni contributions and infrastructure development other than a "competitive" team.
Agreed. And as a state university they don't really scare me. Liberty on the other hand, they are pouring money into football at no end.
No matter how much money liberty pours into football, they will still have to recruit against the idea that the players have to attend liberty University. And that some of the best negative recruiting I can think of
Competitive team= not going 3-9 every year, winning more than losing, going to the occasional bowl.
It's good we don't mandate students to pay too much to athletics, but damn it would be nice to have an additional $1,400 per enrolled student going to athletics. With about 25,800 undergrads that difference would be an additional $36m. If we matched UVA's fee we would bring in an additional $9.7m.
It'd be nice, but It's also the fastest way to burn any goodwill the university has with athletics agnostic students. I'm glad we have the most successful football program in the state in spite of having the lowest fees in the state. Hopefully soon we'll be able to say that we have the most successful all around athletic department too.
Agree- VT just raised tuition for the 17th straight year. Cost of attendance is "high enough", a VCU-like athletic fee is not appropriate at this time, IMHO.
Women's basketball running $3.3MM in the red, that sticks out. I'm interested to see what that number is in a couple of years, especially in relation to on-court performance.
It's weird to think the WNIT run wil actually end up costing more money to 5em than it will bring in.
That's the case in minor league baseball too. Making the playoffs is usually a net loss, it's just fun to win a ring.
Like most of our bowl trips. Including last year's..
Yes but for what 4 games the women played in Blacksburg. No trip costs. Their first road trip won't even require a plane. Just wish the women got the same exposure for this great NIT run they are having.
I'd be more interested to see what the ceiling is from a national perspective. I'd be willing to bet that's on par for most mid-tier women's programs.
I'll bet that net number changes little. Even a 30% increase in revenues (not likely, IMO) would only result in additional $400-$450k in revenues. I would imagine salariy increases and tuition expense increases would quickly eat up a big chunk of any revenue gains.
The exposure that the athletic department brings the university is worth every penny spent. There is no better marketing for universities than a succesful sports team. The athletic department could have lost twice as much money and it would have still been worth the investment.
I read a BBC or some other British news puplication about the impact the single win will be for UMBC, they calculated each minute of the game was worth 1 million in just new admissions advertising.
If only beating UVA was that profitable to us...
Playing them in football every year is "the gift that keeps on giving", Clark.
I would argue the years where we needed to beat them to get bowl eligible or make the ACCCG made beating them that profitable
Found this interesting about UCF's recent success.
UCF's recent National Championship. FIFY
Lane Kiffin's twitter alone is worth at least $60m of that figure. Also does this mean that the Tennessee coaching vacancy debacle generated something like $10m in value for UCF?
Why would the FAU coach's twitter generate revenue for UCF?
I am a ding dong
But I think your point is relevant for FAU.
This is total and complete BS.
This. If there's no hokie sports, the alumni simply won't care and you lose a crucial part of your identity as a university. There's a reason you see so many VT logos in Radford.
The existence of this site kinda proves it too.
1. That hoops net income has got to be one of the lower in the ACC? wow. would love to see Duke's/UNC's by comparison. 2. There doesn't seem to be "millions" to pay the players here as is the popular narrative recently.
I'm willing to bet we're in the middle 50% in the ACC for men's basketball net income after this season. Attendance at BC, Pitt, GT, and Miami are all terrible.
Honestly, I don't see how MBB can make more money. They may be able to increase ticket sales, but there will be a real ceiling on that. Our alumni base is too removed geographically from Blacksburg. Very hard to fill the Coliseum on week nights. When Duke and UNC have games over winter break, they can still fill their venues, because they are in Raleigh/Durham. That'll always be a problem for Tech.
Ours/Buzzes shoe deal with Nike is roughly 10% of Dukes/UNCs..... that's one way to make more money.
Duke/UNC also have the brand recognition that makes them the Yankees and Red Sox of college basketball. Nike could very well move enough Duke/UNC basketball merchandise to justify paying that much more for their shoe deals. How much VT basketball gear is being sold outside of Virginia? It probably isn't much. Can't say that about Duke/UNC gear.
That is not and would not be includ pedi in these profit loss numbers.
sell single game tickets directly to students and weight them appropriately.
Schedule better non conference games against geographically closer opponents. Get the better games in weekends/Friday nights
This article from Syracuse.com gives you a good idea, at least based on numbers from 2016-17:
Which schools make most money from college basketball?
It might surprise you, but this list shows that we were ahead of the following ACC teams in men's basketball revenue: Notre Dame, Boston College, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest, & Virginia.
So.....are we ahead of UVA because the revenue for 20 sold out games is not greater than their debt cost on JPJ?
This is just what the school gets from very specific sources. Doesn't count the millions going to the networks, the ncaa, the conference commissioners, or count the apparel and licensing generated. There's also the idea that coaches' salaries and spending on capital improvement projects (Clemson's waterslide, say) are artificially inflated because the money can't go to the players, so it goes elsewhere.
The money is absolutely there, it's just being accounted for elsewhere at the moment.
All true, all good points. Could Nick Saban live on 4mil vs. 9 and pay his players some salary? sure he could. But his players - like it or not- are far more interchangeable and expendable. Look at how many failed coaches they had from Stallings to Saban. He clearly has more value than a run of the mill player, thus is paid accordingly.
But is he infinitely more valuable than his players? That division by 0 will get after ya.
The things student atheltes receive have a value greater than zero.
No one takes a job with no salary just for benefits.
Edit: Like the value of being able to use their own likeness as every other student does? Oh wait...
Like the value of getting a piece of the revenue they bring into the NCAA? Oh wait....
Like the fact that even the player who doesn't get famous enough to warrant monetizing their likeness gets free education at a minimum where as some of us who will be equally un-famous had to work our way through college/go into debt to get the same education? Oh wait...
I'm sure you're bitter about student loans, I'm sorry about that. But that is not equate to the loss of value that some (a lot of) players experience via the NCAA.
This narrative that us non-athletes would be so happy to get a scholarship and that they should be happy with the status quo is just childish. Every athlete should be able to market their likeness just as any of us would. That does not mean that every player would make money off their likeness, just that they would be able to do so... again, just like any of us are/were allowed.
I think paying players and allowing players to market themselves are completely separate issues. As you said, non-athletes are able to monetize youtube channels, sell t-shirts with our face on them, create summer camps and such. Athletes cannot do any of that. There was the UCF player that had to demonetize a youtube channel where he just kicks trick shots. He was trying to make money himself.
We're going to disagree here but instead of rewriting the same commentary for the 50th time. How about we stick to numbers.
Quantify the loss of value that these players have. Give me a figure and then I'll quanitfy the value they get. Let's see which is greater.
I agree that the NCAA should be overhauled or better yet set aflame and rebuilt though. Lots of changes should be made.
Beer + Football = Revenue + 1
Won't be enough.
LINK
So, then the concessions need to offer a stronger option: bourbon.
Won't be enough for what?
516k could cover 10 support staff for football, or a full salary for a very strong coach.
It's an idea we should explore
How much of that money would have to go back into licensing, extra officers required by ABC board etc?
from the article, it sounds like $516,000 (WVU) and $200,000 (Troy) is net revenue, not gross sales.
What's the difference between revenue and gross sales?
Revenue- total dollars from beer "sales" to include advertising signage, promotion, etc. Gross sales-total dollars from actual beer product sales that day/period.
Revenue = gross sales, when it is only product being sold (i.e., not services).
Net revenue = gross sales - cost of goods.
Who cares? It's money being left on the table.
Money that Whit, Sands and the BoV feel isn't worth it at this current time. I think it will change in the future but not in the next five years. I know VTPD doesn't want it.
Compared to the effort they put into the drive for 25, setting up Lane stadium for beer sales has to be worth it.
Once infrastructure is in place for beer sales its a revenue stream that keeps giving. Not to mention increased ticket sales that usually follow.
I have a friend who works in the BC athletic dept. and BC started selling alcohol at football games this year and it was a big success, it was a spike in revenue and increased ticket sales so they quickly expanded alcohol sales to basketball and hockey games as well.
True, and if they are smart- they will have "premium" beer options as well. Some good IPAs and charge $1.50 more a piece for them. I have zero interest in buying a can of Bud light in Lane. Zero. Not after I walk away from my tailgate drinking a dogfish or troegs or even a mixed drink. No chance I'm buying a miller light for 7 dollars. Now, add a craft beer stand and I'm in for a couple during the game. WVU's beer options are terrible for example, and so were the options at the camping world bowl- "Heineken" was their premium choice. Get smart and sell good beer Whit, and this will make you more money!
Ohio State does this with beer sales. They got the cheap crap for like $7 and $9 for the premium/craft. Don't remember the exact selection, but it seemed pretty good. That seems to be the norm for any sporting venue that sells beer now.
Pretty sure the Caps and the Nats do either $9 and $10 or $10 and $11. It works on me since I always go for the extra $1.
$516,000 is equal to 5,160 Hokie Club member minimum contributions. And they don't even have to push it. Beer sells itself.
Turning away that kind of money is silly when it doesn't require all that much effort.
Does VTPD think they're going to have to deal with more drunks than they already do? Probably less. You would probably see fewer people trying to drink enough to stay buzzed through the whole game. A lot of these folks go in shitfaced at the start. Selling inside, they can keep their buzz going, but not have to go full hammered.
Provided that we're, you know, winning (or, if against a superior opponent, putting up a damn good fight).
Proceeds from one game could build quite the drunk tank for those that get out of hand. Most people won't buy excessive quantity of $10 beer. On the flipside, I do think the number of overboard drunks would go up slightly. For the most part though, I think you would simply see about 20 percent of the crowd purchasing a beer or two during the game.
My only concern would be for those that get behind the wheel immediately following a game. A lot of people have a few at the tailgate and burn them off during the game. Stadium sales are going to tempt some of those folks and could lead to people driving that shouldn't. One could argue not much different than any bar or restaurant though and people have to make good choices.
Make Hokie Club membership mandatory to be able to buy beer... That might get those numbers up.
great idea. I mean, it mirrors what Joe did, making TKPC membership a requirement before the [private] function works
[private] why are you telling them about this? Great now they all know!
Is it [Private] or is it [private]?
Try them both by telling two of your deepest and darkest secrets. Then you'll know!
Most venues stop selling beer at the beginning of the 4th quarter. That would alleviate at least some of the problem.
Wrist band with a 2 (or other number) beer limit. That's how it is at every festival I go to.
We shouldn't have to enforce personal responsibility
Very true. But unless the idiot who drives drunk and kills himself has the hokie club in his will, it's hard to keep making money off of patrons who are dead. Dead men pay no tabs.
Not to mention if someone is oversold alcohol the group or place where it was sold is liable if they crash and kill someone.
VTPD shouldn't be calling the shots for the university
As the agency with primary law enforcement responsibility inside and around the stadium they don't call the shots but their input is very important. At OSU the money made off alcohol sales pays for extra OSU police along with alcohol education programs on campus.
I care because it may push local booster organizations and on-campus student organizations out of earning money for their programs.
You have to be 21 to serve alcohol and a lot of times I go to a concession booth and get served by... a high schooler who is working the booth as part of whatever booster program. Having worked concessions at the Diamond, Richmond International Raceway and Richmond Coliseum when I was in high school, a lot times it's the students and not the parents who the majority of the booth, but only the parents can sell alcohol. As for the on-campus student organizations, most of the student body is in the 17-20 range which makes it illegal for them to sell alcohol.
That means one of two things in my book:
1. you'll need more parents/older students working the booths so you can actually sell the alcohol
2. VT will have to dedicate certain booths to selling alcohol, which could hurt the proceeds these organizations get.
Not saying you can't have your beer, just saying there's a bigger picture involved than "more revenue for VT".
How much of the men's basketball expenses are going towards fired coaches? Are we still paying Greenburg?
We are out from paying Greenburg and Johnson at this point.
The divorce is final!