Recent Comments

Right, and my language should have been more precise above. It's not that universities are 100% subsidizing it, but they are bearing a large cost that other nations don't. And the time will come when the public will be asked if they want to put money behind those teams. Most people probably have no idea whatsoever about the current state of things.

I do not have a 100% answer on that, but I think basically if they exited at the time they did, the ACC would have largely folded and left everyone scrambling. Cut a deal, survive and advance knowing full well that things are going to shake up in the next couple years.

There is drama among the AAU institutions now, related to politics. I won't get into it because of CGs, but suffice it to say some AAU schools want to deal with the federal government differently than others. We are positioning ourselves in many ways to be attractive to AAU institutions, but it's one of those unspoken rules - don't ask to be invited. And we're not. We're strengthening what we do well, and looking for areas to grow our reputation and influence (including a University Mission Initiative to provide better resourcing for doctoral student education that I was deeply involved in - I wrote the thing). But we're watching what happens across the landscape of higher ed, for sure.

SEC makes a lot of sense athletically, Big Ten may make more sense academically. I have no idea where that might land, but I know we want to make ourselves attractive to either in the case of realignment.

See my post from yesterday - the BOV would literally throw piles of money at Athletics if the money were there. They want our athletic program to be top notch, but there are constraints. Sands knows the game, he gets the importance. He chaired the NCAA Presidents group last year so he has all the insight in the world right now about where things are going. We're not sitting on our hands, but we have a lot of squandered years to account for.

When that happens, we hope to be in a position to attract attention from the P2. We have to win on the field to get a higher share of revenue and to put some luster back on the program. It all comes down to winning.

I agree

I also have overwhelming doubt that the current leaders from the BoV to Sands to Whit have the insight or ability to position us to be attractive. We are at a point where we must borrow money against our future, much like Maryland did when they joined the Big Ten. Go into debt for the next few years to position ourselves to be an attractive get for the P2. If it works, the additional money we bring in from the TV will quickly pay that debt down, if it doesn't, its not like it matter anyway. And the absolute cynic in me (who has seen this play out in other areas) says the most likely scenario if we do this is that regardless of where we end up, in about 10 years or so after everyone has forgotten about it, the state government just writes it off, eventually having the taxpayers cover it with public funding anyway.

But I don't have any faith that anyone involved wants to actually play the game to do that. They don't have the appetite for playing in the mud like their peers are doing. We'd rather die with our heads held high than do whatever it takes to stay alive.

I updated my comments to be more accurate/less exaggerated, but I think the point stands: 75% of American Olympic medalist in the Paris Olympics competed as college athletes where they presumably got a lot of training. This is unusual across the global.

The American collegiate athletics system plays a vital role in Team USA's success on the Olympic stage. This summer in Paris, 75% of U.S. Olympians will have competed collegiately as part of their journey to Team USA. In total, 169 schools from 45 different conferences will have one or more U.S. Olympians competing in Paris. Twenty-one teams have at least 80% collegiate participation on their U.S. Olympic rosters, including 15 teams that are comprised 100% of collegiate athletes.

In addition to the well-represented college athlete contingent, several U.S. Olympic Team coaches will also have ties to American colleges and universities.

Fact. The only way its sustainable is to tie the actual huge money - TV money - directly to paying players. This will not happen until there is contracts and collective bargaining. ESPN is not going to tie money to the punter - even in the SEC. They aren't going to do that without collective bargaining. The shitshow will 100% continue as long as billionaire boosters are funding the top 10 teams payrolls. Unless you reign that in, shitshow is what you have.

Ummm..USA skiing, basketball, hockey, gymnastics are huge funded orgs not affiliated with any colleges. Pretty much all of "USA" olympics is not funded nor supported by college athletes in any considerable way.

We had several of the "Hoakies" cups from that season. I think the last one broke 20 years ago after being retired to the dog kibble bag for the last couple of seasons of it's sad existence. One of my buddies still will call them the Ho-ack-ies upon occasion. Football was a lot more fun in those days, the cup fiasco notwithstanding.

I'm right there with you all. Do I want more public funding to be paying for VT athletics? No, but at the same I also realize that other states are funding their public schools athletic department and allocating more tax money to keep their athletic departments afloat, so if we don't we are going to fall so far behind where even 5 years from now being a perennial .500 team might be a pipe dream and it'll be impossible for us to catch back up.

At this point, make a decision. Are we going to do this or not. Are we going to bend the rules to the extent that everyone else is, operate like everyone else where we push every boundary and threaten lawsuits when we are caught to get away with it all, or are we going to keep doing what we have been doing. Are we going to do everything in our power to squeeze every penny we can find in extra university funding to pay for our main revenue driver or not. And if we aren't, we are accepting that we are in the death spiral and we are choosing to not pull ourselves out. And if that is the case, at what point does it make more sense to go the IVY League route where you eliminate scholarships and just treat the athletic department as a more formal club division of the university, taking in revenue while spending the bare minimum on expenditures, accepting that your days of having nationally relevant and competitive teams are permanently behind you.

I'm checked out on any specifics, or really anything that's happened with this program in the last 8 months. So considering my ignorance, this all seems too little, too late.

It's 20% from Athletic Fees for Students. Law applies to UVA and us. It was put in place before any other public university in Virginia moved to D1.