Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 112
  1. #61
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    November 18, 2012
    Posts
    254
    Back to the OP's thread topic, whether it will hurt us or not, whether we pay our coaches enough or not, sounds like LSU thinks he is going there.

    http://blogs.theadvocate.com/tigertr...su-o-line-job/

  2. #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    November 18, 2012
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by EddieVT View Post
    I have a bad feeling about all of this. VT needs to do what it can to keep Grimes.
    Sounds like he would come close to doubling his salary. Probably not a lot we can do looking at it objectively.

  3. #63

    Join Date
    October 12, 1999
    Posts
    8,543
    Quote Originally Posted by VTHokie2000 View Post
    Yes, I agree with you that Cassell would be full on the weekends. What about during the week? If a NOVA/757 Hokie Club member decides to get season tickets (even though the member will only be able to attend half of the home games), then the member will be forced to try to sell the tickets for the weekday games or eat the cost. VT will still have an attendance issue to deal with for the weekday games. I am not saying that revenue can't be made from basketball. What I am saying is that a lot more money can be made from football because the entire home schedule is more friendly to a wider pool. Location is not a crock when you are speaking about attendance. The reason Iowa St and Wichita St do not have attendance issues is because a large percentage of their fan base is located within a 1 hour radius. It is no different than the luxury that JMU, GMU, Richmond, ODU, or W&M have compared to VT. I am not suggesting that VT can't overcome this issue, but it is a challenge that most schools don't have to deal with and places VT in a somewhat slight disadvantage.
    You just couldn't be more wrong. I'm a NOVA Hokie Club member with basketball season tickets. For many years I have sold off weekday ACC games for 30-60% above face value. I never lost money by purchasing season tickets. And there were 4,000-5,000 more people in 2004-2009 that purchased season tickets than this year. That's approximately $2Million/year the basketball program is leaving on the table in season tickets alone. Let alone concessions, merchandise, advertising, etc. The basketball program, when competitive, can be a profitable operation even if we were to pay a head coach $2M/yr.

    Right now, though, it is a joke and a money-losing proposition all the way around (for the school and for the fans alike).

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by King of Hokies View Post
    You just couldn't be more wrong. I'm a NOVA Hokie Club member with basketball season tickets. For many years I have sold off weekday ACC games for 30-60% above face value. I never lost money by purchasing season tickets. And there were 4,000-5,000 more people in 2004-2009 that purchased season tickets than this year. That's approximately $2Million/year the basketball program is leaving on the table in season tickets alone. Let alone concessions, merchandise, advertising, etc. The basketball program, when competitive, can be a profitable operation even if we were to pay a head coach $2M/yr.

    Right now, though, it is a joke and a money-losing proposition all the way around (for the school and for the fans alike).
    Re-read what I said. I never said that the basketball program could not make money. I said that the football program will make more money for the school. There is a big difference. Just because you are a NOVA Hokie Club member with season tickets that made money from it, does not necessarily mean that other NOVA Hokie Club members had the same fortune. I know a NOVA Hokie Club member that had season tickets during that same time period and had trouble giving weekday tickets away and decided not to renew after the 2009 season. Likewise, another assumption that cannot be made is that NOVA and 757 Hokie Club members have the same level of interest in purchasing basketball season tickets (even when they were good) as they do for football season tickets. I would probably even include interest in individual games is not even the same between the sports.

    Femoyer74 made the following statement, "so unless someone out there has an idea of how we can increase our annual revenue from $72 mil to $120 mil, all of this salary talk is mute point." Given that the athletic department has limited resources to invest, then which sport offers the university the potentially bigger return and will significantly increase the annual revenue; football or basketball? If the athletic department wants to see growth in its revenue, then it should invest in the sport that will give it the most bang for its buck. Now if it does not care about revenue growth then it can continue to invest in both sports and accept whatever consequences comes from the decision.

  5. #65

    Join Date
    September 27, 2004
    Posts
    2,274
    Quote Originally Posted by Tombo View Post
    Sounds like he would come close to doubling his salary. Probably not a lot we can do looking at it objectively.
    You have to open up the wallet if you want to play with the big boys.

  6. #66

    Join Date
    May 18, 2006
    Posts
    4,112

    The NEW AD

    Quote Originally Posted by VTHokie2000 View Post
    Yes, I agree with you that Cassell would be full on the weekends. What about during the week? If a NOVA/757 Hokie Club member decides to get season tickets (even though the member will only be able to attend half of the home games), then the member will be forced to try to sell the tickets for the weekday games or eat the cost. VT will still have an attendance issue to deal with for the weekday games. I am not saying that revenue can't be made from basketball. What I am saying is that a lot more money can be made from football because the entire home schedule is more friendly to a wider pool. Location is not a crock when you are speaking about attendance. The reason Iowa St and Wichita St do not have attendance issues is because a large percentage of their fan base is located within a 1 hour radius. It is no different than the luxury that JMU, GMU, Richmond, ODU, or W&M have compared to VT. I am not suggesting that VT can't overcome this issue, but it is a challenge that most schools don't have to deal with and places VT in a somewhat slight disadvantage.
    retty simple. The NEW AD needs to get the locals back involved with both B-ball programs. For one thing bring down prices. LOL until mens program gets STAR quailty who in the hell would pay those prices. Cut your losses. Attract families again. Right now our thinkers at VT are way behind.

    Women. Get it back to days of Bonnie. Bring in a coach like her that is not afraid to go out into public and WORK. The women was and should be the LOCALS team. But no.....Weaver priced em out. Plus he hired Beth. Good grief Charlie Brown. Our new AD has to have a plan. Not the Weaver tight scheme!

  7. #67

    Join Date
    May 18, 2006
    Posts
    4,112
    One other thing. If we are going to treat b-ball like JIm has. Why didnt we go to SEC? Simply we play like alot of their teams.....which means SORRY!

  8. #68

    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Posts
    15,119

    The fans have to open up their wallets. VT could be outbid for a key coach....

    Quote Originally Posted by EddieVT View Post
    You have to open up the wallet if you want to play with the big boys.
    Yet there are posters on this site that say VT has plenty of cash - too much cash actually. The same lot say alumni should not donate because VT has too much athletic revenue. No, I a not making that up.

    When we are publicly b-slapped by a big money school like LSU, I wonder if alumni will respond.

  9. #69
    Edgeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach
    Posts
    49,228
    Quote Originally Posted by lawhokie View Post
    Yet there are posters on this site that say VT has plenty of cash - too much cash actually. The same lot say alumni should not donate because VT has too much athletic revenue. No, I a not making that up.

    When we are publicly b-slapped by a big money school like LSU, I wonder if alumni will respond.
    LOL, we'll never have enough cash to compete with a large SEC school. They bring in a lot more money than VT now, and the difference it going to skyrocket once the SEC channel starts flooding their schools with cash.

    Yet the mythical ACC channel is still only a dream...lol
    "You start a conversation you can't even finish it
    You're talkin' a lot, but you're not sayin' anything
    When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed
    Say something once, why say it again?"
    - David Byrne

  10. #70
    Senior Member NCHokie83's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 02, 2012
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    1,857
    Quote Originally Posted by lawhokie View Post
    Yet there are posters on this site that say VT has plenty of cash - too much cash actually. The same lot say alumni should not donate because VT has too much athletic revenue. No, I a not making that up.

    When we are publicly b-slapped by a big money school like LSU, I wonder if alumni will respond.
    First of all, the Hokie Club is a joke of a fundraising organization. The single most passive fundraising body I've ever encountered in my life. The problem right now is that a vast majority of the alumni base doesn't even KNOW that our alumni giving pales so bad in comparison to other places. They just don't KNOW that the Athletic Department is run off our alumni contributions. Hell, most of them think when they give to the Alumni Association, that money goes to the Athletic Department. And this goes back at least 5 years to when I was working the phones for the VTAA. The Hokie Club has absolutely failed at cultivating a knowledgeable alumni base when it comes to Athletic funding. That organization is in desperate need of a revamp.

    With that said, no amount of alumni giving is going to make up for the sheer blunder that Swofford made when he gave away our second tier TV rights to Raycom for pennies on the dollar. The SEC Network on ESPN this year is set to make them upwards of an additional $15M per school per year going forward. To put that in perspective, the ACC currently only makes $18M per school per year, and the SEC already has that number beat BEFORE this network begins to air, and because of the sweetheart deal that Swofford gave to Raycom (mind you, his son is on the board at Raycom) we are 2 years away, minimum, from seeing any kind of movement in regards to an ACC Network coming to fruition.
    "I love it when you guys try to write off a Frank Beamer team -- no one is going to win this conference without Virginia Tech having some sort of say in it." - David Cutcliffe

Posting Permissions

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