Recent Comments

"VT will never be Ohio State/Texas/Georgia in terms of resources in any sport. They can spend more but they have to spend efficiently."- very true and I bet you any amount of money that any successful football season in the near or distant future will be because we had a stud QB, a true standout at several positions, vs. a team of Sam Rogers. Or a QB by committee moneyball approach. Both are true.

If this premise were valid, there would be much more crossover between the great pro sports towns and their major schools- Boston, NY, LA, Chicago. When in fact it is schools in those markets that care the LEAST about big time football- Save USCw. Nobody on earth has ever cared about a BC, Rutgers, Northwestern football game ever. Nobody.

Ha, ha! We were there at the same time, and I remember those teams. Also known as "The Chokies". There was an article in the CT and it was saying how Tech was something like 3-8 and if the games had ended at the end of the third quarter we would have been something like 6-3-2. Note, I know those specific records are wrong/I've made them up, but you get the point of what the article was saying about the late game collapses.

87-91 as a student and then worked for a year as a lab tech 91/92 before going to grad school.

EDIT: You wouldn't happen to have been in Biochemistry (unlikely as a very small major then) or one of the life sciences? Wonder if we were in any of the same classes. Or if you were active in the Newman Community.

When you have the best player in the sport- it's not moneyball period. Moneyball is Scott Hattieberg, not Pudge Rodriguez. That's the point. Yes the As scratched out wildcards with low payroll. Congrats. the better players made more money, weren't on the A's and won something meaningful. Also the A's scouted Mark Mulder and Tim Hudson- they hit on those 2- that's not moneyball, that's scouting. the moment those 2 wanted a wage comparable with performance the A's let them go and tried to find 5 pitchers that sucked in reality, but could equal mulders strikeouts over a season. It's never legitimately worked in terms of winning when it mattered. Never. The patriots had Randy Moss, Mike Vrabel, Richard Seymour in his prime, etc. They never had low payroll, they never tried to duplicate Ty Law's 8 interceptions with 3 backups. If VT mens hoops goes moneyball, I'm sure we can find 3 centers to grab a certain number or rebounds in december but we will also be sitting home in March again.

Jaydon averaged 16 ppg over the final six games, against some good teams no less (Clemson, Louisville, UNC). You could tell it was really starting to come together for him.

This was my point above. Well and concisely stated.

I want to go to college because Go football team or go basketball team were prevalent

There's a difference between "I want to go to a college because I want to be a fan of a football team" and "I want to go to this college (instead of that college) because this college has a fun football team."

I grew up in MD. I know a lot of people who chose VT over UMD because VT cared about football and UMD didn't. 18 kids from my high school graduating class went out of state to VT. Was football the only reason? No. But it was absolutely a contributing factor.

The market supports it, sadly. There is a ton of money out there. Davidson is raising a NIL war chest. College applications are up. There is monopoly money in NIL. Cooper Flagg is considering staying at Duke because it pays better than a rookie contract. If anything college tuition is too cheap.

Sometimes my dumbass sense of humor just doesn't come through the computer screen

"All this to say, if consumers want a college experience, and having a big time football team is part of that college experience, then it does kinda make sense that consumers (aka students) subsidize that experience?" - If this was remotely true mouth breathers wouldn't fight in the upper deck at every NFL game, and Giants and Jet's fans that boo crippled people and throw beer would have went to Rutgers as opposed to the army or GED route. Generalizations yes but the whole - welp I want to go to college because Go football team or go basketball team were prevalent - NBA areans and NFL stadiums would look a hell of a lot more like golf tournaments than constant MMA fights, etc. and Northwestern, BC, Rutgers and UCLA would not have swaths of empty seats at every FB game.

I didnt say a lot of wins, just that the upaide of a flash does get wins... the time you arent fladhing we get boat raced by everyone.

I hate the idea of students directly subsidizing athletes (as opposed to donors subsidizing athletes).

BUT I've also come to believe that universities (especially the top 100ish universities) are selling not just an education, but also a brand, a professional network, and a college experience.

I'm not even saying this is a bad thing... when I look at what I got out of Virginia Tech, the actual material taught in class to me has been absolutely useless. Now, I did 'learn how to learn' when I was in college, and I think that skill was invaluable, but I maintain that a diploma with the VT logo is more valuable than anything taught to me in undergrad. Anyways...

All this to say, if consumers want a college experience, and having a big time football team is part of that college experience, then it does kinda make sense that consumers (aka students) subsidize that experience?

There's a bigger problem afoot - a college degree is becoming less and less accessible to a lot of Americans - and this further exacerbates that issue (which is the primary reason I don't like this).

correct