Page 3 of 20 FirstFirst 12345678913 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 192
  1. #21

    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Posts
    15,119
    Quote Originally Posted by SVHokie View Post
    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.
    Why are you surprised to lose to Duke? We are a mid-level football program and we can expect the pleasant surprise win (e.g., at GT), and the unpleasant surprise (loss to a good 5-2 Duke team). That's what tier 2 football programs do. Hokies have a completely unrealistive view of their athletic program. We're top 50 funded, we recruit top 30, and our coaches often get top 20 performance out of our team. It's not spin, it's just fact.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    January 14, 2012
    Posts
    354
    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.
    So the way to improve the program is simply to throw more money at it? If I didn't know any better, I'd guess you have a degree in Education and work for the government.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Posts
    15,119
    Quote Originally Posted by Perfesser View Post
    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.
    How about Washington, or TCU, or Baylor? We are way down on the list of revenue, and we had a real shot to lift ourselves into the top tier of college athletics in the mid-2000s. If the equivalent of just a few graduating Tech classes signed up for a $500 annual Hokie Club membership, we'd be a different program. We just aren't a true football school. I've seen it happen over the last 15 years. We had a real shot though.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by lawhokie View Post
    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.
    Please show me how additional revenue would solve any of the issues we are having. Oh that's right you can't so you avoiding answering.

    We could have higher revenues if we had an athletic department that was competent in fundraising. They are only good at cost control.

    So again all of our limitations are self-inflicted and could easily be corrected.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Posts
    15,119
    Quote Originally Posted by I85Hokie View Post
    So the way to improve the program is simply to throw more money at it? If I didn't know any better, I'd guess you have a degree in Education and work for the government.
    Well that's a guess, but certainly not an educated guess. I have an engineering degree and I donate to the engineering school. Alumni donations have helped that department.

    And no money donated to VT is wasted. We have one of the best-managed departments in the country. We have to, because we are trying to be big time with small-time money. The point of the post is that VT has fans with big-time aspirations but small-time donations.

    But hey, let's make a wager. If you find anybody in the VT athletic department or even the university administration that believes that greater revenues won't improve athletic department performance I'll write my next check to you. The SEZ cost money - do think that helped or hurt the program? Money matters and we don't have it.

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by lawhokie View Post
    Money matters and we don't have it.
    That is completely false.

    Frank doesn't even use all the money he has available to him in recruiting.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Posts
    15,119
    Quote Originally Posted by NokieHokie View Post
    Please show me how additional revenue would solve any of the issues we are having. Oh that's right you can't so you avoiding answering.

    We could have higher revenues if we had an athletic department that was competent in fundraising. They are only good at cost control.

    So again all of our limitations are self-inflicted and could easily be corrected.
    Are you comfortable being part of the problem? Why do you need competent fundraisers? All you have to do is write a check. Do you need a personal call from Coach Beamer?

    And how about the South End Zone? Any idea how much that cost? It helps with recruiting, and VT is NOT a top 20 recruiter. Why should we be in the top 20 if we can't recruit there?

    Look, fans can't really control the football program, although if you donate enough you do have a voice. We can however, make a minimum donation to Hokie Club. Our donor numbers suck and it's depressing as He#$. That's on US. If the equivalent of a four year graduating class at VT did that we'd be flush with cash and all kinds of cool projects would happen instantly. Hokies are relatively well off: a check for $500 or even $250 by large numbers would transform our athletics.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Posts
    15,119
    Quote Originally Posted by NokieHokie View Post
    That is completely false.

    Frank doesn't even use all the money he has available to him in recruiting.
    Recruiting was not the subject of the last fundraising drive. The subject of that drive DOES help with recruiting. It took forever to get the money, btw.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    August 27, 2002
    Posts
    4,272
    Quote Originally Posted by lawhokie View Post
    How about Washington, or TCU, or Baylor? We are way down on the list of revenue, and we had a real shot to lift ourselves into the top tier of college athletics in the mid-2000s. If the equivalent of just a few graduating Tech classes signed up for a $500 annual Hokie Club membership, we'd be a different program. We just aren't a true football school. I've seen it happen over the last 15 years. We had a real shot though.
    When did you start following college football? 1999? Baylor and TCU have a tradition that goes back to the '30s. Washington has a shared national title (coaches' poll) from '91.

    You're right -- we aren't a "football" school. We won't ever be Auburn ... and the vast majority of Hokies are fine with that. We're an academic institution first and foremost. From Burruss on down, that's the priority. And hopefully always will be.

    And your retort still doesn't obviate the fact that we are very fortunate to turn a profit and that every school, top ten or otherwise, scrambles for donations just to help balance the books. Indeed, if Hokies did donate more, perhaps we could have better non-revs. I don't see what extra money would do for football beyond maybe boost some coaches' salaries. And unless you're using the money to buy out Beamer, you won't change much in the football program.

  10. #30
    Senior Member Mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    February 13, 2012
    Posts
    1,186
    your opinion is noted, but there is a schism with Hokie fan base, the Young fans and alumni expect VT to be football power, that is what they have seen and expect. they are the FUTURE contributors.

    THe older folks baby boomers, older generation, seen VT in the eighties and earlier and have seen VT horrible for years, and their perception is VT is never and will never be a football factory; just enjoy. they donate heavy now but are quickly retiring or dying….

    THe key is the future fan base prospective is That VT is not meeting their expectations, then next step is I DONT care and I have other things to do (including direct deposits to VTAA…..and less purchases of VT season tickets.

    SOME ONE IN VT athletics have to think strategic, rather than comptroller bean counter who just wants to balance the current paycheck.

    Quote Originally Posted by Perfesser View Post
    When did you start following college football? 1999? Baylor and TCU have a tradition that goes back to the '30s. Washington has a shared national title (coaches' poll) from '91.

    You're right -- we aren't a "football" school. We won't ever be Auburn ... and the vast majority of Hokies are fine with that. We're an academic institution first and foremost. From Burruss on down, that's the priority. And hopefully always will be.

    And your retort still doesn't obviate the fact that we are very fortunate to turn a profit and that every school, top ten or otherwise, scrambles for donations just to help balance the books. Indeed, if Hokies did donate more, perhaps we could have better non-revs. I don't see what extra money would do for football beyond maybe boost some coaches' salaries. And unless you're using the money to buy out Beamer, you won't change much in the football program.

Posting Permissions

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