Page 2 of 20 FirstFirst 1234567812 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 192
  1. #11

    Join Date
    November 06, 1999
    Posts
    2,408
    You're surprised that fans expect to beat a mediocre to bad Duke team at home? interesting

    I certainly expected to lose a few games this year but not to keep losing these kind of stinkers that we seem to cough up every year.

  2. #12
    Senior Member Gator Hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    October 15, 2001
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    28,049
    I don't know what Beamer would spend the money on. It's pretty tough to throw more good money to a mediocre product.

    Quote Originally Posted by lawhokie View Post
    The sad and unavoidable fact is that Hokies are average fans and they don't support the program in a manner commensurate with their own expectations.

    Why are we supposed to be better than Duke, or UVa, or Pitt? We have a mid-sized stadium that we can't fill. And it's not just this year - I remember plenty of empty seats for the Clemson game at Lane. Where is the money, the support?

    And let's talk about athletic revenue: why is VT barely in the top 50? One reason is Hokies are some stingy mfers. VT alumni are relatively successful - I've seen the numbers. So why don't we donate? Why are Boston College, UVa, DUKE, WVU, and TCU ahead of VT in athletic revenues?

    So, before you rip off another complaint about VT's on-field performance, consider Hokie fans' and your own off-field performance. I don't consider somebody whose sole contribution is flipping on the HD on Saturday to be truly vested in the program.

    My Hokie Club rep said something interesting a few years back that has stuck with me. He said that Beamer had spent two decades building VT into a national power, yet Hokie fans' expectations grew at a much higher rate than donations.

    Bottom line: 6-2 isn't what Hokie fans should expect, it's what they paid for.

  3. #13
    Old Line Hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Location
    3659′36″N 7813′30″W
    Posts
    3,481
    Quote Originally Posted by javahokie View Post
    Stop losing games we should not be losing, and START winning some that matter, and I'll start giving more.

    I'm sorry but this program started in 95 with a win over Texas, and it peaked in 99 with the trip to the big dance.
    That's a scary thought... That the program peaked over 14 years ago and it has been in a steady state of decline.

    Which big game have we won against a worthy opponent? We are nationally labeled as the Chokies for a reason.
    We lose games we should not be losing while always losing on the big stage.

    Beating Cinci in the Orange bowl doesn't count, cause Cinci that year had no business playing in the Orange Bowl.
    Even between the 1995-1999 seasons Tech lost home games that they should've won. In 1995 Tech lost at home to Cincinnati 16-0. Tech lost homecoming games in 1997 to Miami of Ohio (24-17) and in 1998 to Temple (28-24). That Temple loss was worse than yesterday's loss to a much improved Duke team. IMHO, losing to inferior opponents at home has been a part of Frank Beamer's program from the start. I expect nothing to change. Things could actually get worse when Frank Beamer retires. It is what it is.

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by lawhokie View Post
    And let's talk about athletic revenue: why is VT barely in the top 50? One reason is Hokies are some stingy mfers. VT alumni are relatively successful - I've seen the numbers. So why don't we donate? Why are Boston College, UVa, DUKE, WVU, and TCU ahead of VT in athletic revenues?
    Serious question for you:

    What would additional revenue do for us?

    Would it cause Beamer to take offense seriously?

    Would it have made Beamer fire his prior pathetic coaching staff earlier?

    Would it have made him recruit more than 6 hour drive?

    Would it make him a better special teams coach?

    Would it make him a better game day coach?

    Would it make him a better prep week coach?

    The answer is NO.

    None of our problems are due to money. And money wouldn't fix them...

  5. #15
    HOaKIE's Avatar
    Join Date
    October 07, 1999
    Posts
    1,178
    Quote Originally Posted by lawhokie View Post
    And let's talk about athletic revenue: why is VT barely in the top 50? One reason is Hokies are some stingy mfers. VT alumni are relatively successful - I've seen the numbers. So why don't we donate? Why are Boston College, UVa, DUKE, WVU, and TCU ahead of VT in athletic revenues?

    Bottom line: 6-2 isn't what Hokie fans should expect, it's what they paid for.
    I'd like to see objective analysis that more $$$ equates to consistent Top 10 football teams. The schools you mention certainly do not fall into that category.
    "The point of the journey is not To Arrive"....Neil Peart

  6. #16

    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Posts
    15,119

    Take a look at the top ten revenue producers in college football...

    Quote Originally Posted by HOaKIE View Post
    I'd like to see objective analysis that more $$$ equates to consistent Top 10 football teams. The schools you mention certainly do not fall into that category.
    Texas, Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama, Florida, Penn State, LSU, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, and Auburn.

    And tell me what you think about those programs over the last 20 years. Winners generate revenue from their fans. Small time programs have fans that stop donating when they fall out of the top ten. I can't prove causation, but could anybody in their right mind argue against the correlation between revenue and success?

    Nobody is going to waste time with an objective analysis proving that programs need money to win. That is axiomatic, otherwise every single college athletic department in the country wouldn't be chasing after donations 24/7.
    Last edited by lawhokie; Sun Oct 27 2013 at 12:20 PM.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Posts
    15,119
    Quote Originally Posted by NokieHokie View Post
    Serious question for you:

    None of our problems are due to money. And money wouldn't fix them...
    That is my favorite excuse for Hokies who won't donate. Despite the fact that we have an entire department whose sole purpose is to generate athletic revenue, you say that revenue generation is irrelevant to athletic success. There is not a single AD in this country that would agree with you.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    August 27, 2002
    Posts
    4,272
    Quote Originally Posted by lawhokie View Post
    Texas, Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama, Florida, Penn State, LSU, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, and Auburn.

    And tell me what you think about those programs over the last 20 years. Winners generate revenue from their fans. Small time programs have fans that stop donating when they fall out of the top ten. I can't prove causation, but could anybody in their right mind argue against the correlation between revenue and success?

    Nobody is going to waste time with an objective analysis proving that programs need money to win. That is axiomatic, otherwise every single college athletic department in the country wouldn't be chasing after donations 24/7.

    All of those schools either are much larger than VT or have a much longer football tradition (some fall into both categories). There's a college athletics bubble and it's about to burst. Only a small percentage of schools actually turn a profit at athletics -- that's why schools chase donations. They need them to simply balance the books. That's as true for the doormats as it is for the perennial top ten programs.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Posts
    15,119
    Quote Originally Posted by Gator Hokie View Post
    I don't know what Beamer would spend the money on. It's pretty tough to throw more good money to a mediocre product.
    Correction: It's tough for HOKIES to throw money into a mediocre product. There are plenty of schools with far less successful programs, smaller alumni bases, lower starting salaries, etc., that donate at higher levels. They support their program just because.

    There is nothing wrong with failing to financially support your school's athletic programs. It's not a moral imperitive. It just indicates that VT is not a real football school. We just think we are.

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by HOaKIE View Post
    I'd like to see objective analysis that more $$$ equates to consistent Top 10 football teams. The schools you mention certainly do not fall into that category.
    Sort this list by total revenue, and count the number of programs below Virginia Tech (#34) who are consistent national title contenders (i.e. more than one every 5-10 years). Obviously, this doesn't tell the entirety of the story, since this is just total athletic revenue of public schools (no USC, Notre Dame, Miami, etc.), and some programs like UNC and Kentucky, which ARE ranked higher, spend much more of their money on basketball. The fact of the matter is that the programs with the most money are the ones that are able to consistently compete at a high level, and no one outside of the top 15 or so ever has more than an outside shot at making the national title. Virginia Tech has actually overachieved in the past, finding themselves in BCS bowls and top-10 finishes, despite the fact most programs of similar revenue end up with 8-4 seasons in December bowl games.

    http://www.usatoday.com/sports/colle...ools/finances/

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •