VT football pulls in tens of millions of dollars per year. Unless someone's donation level is 7 figures per year, anything they're giving is of such individual insignificance as to be wholly irrelevant from the perspective of program 'ownership.'

Look, it's totally understandable for people to care more about the "health" of the program than they do the individual players. I mean, it's kind of like hoping Apple makes more money because you love Apple's branding so much, but it's some unbelievable idea to hold. What I, and frankly very few other people on this forum, am pointing out is that this system of college football is "mutually beneficial" only in the most technical and tenuous sense of the phrase. The programs reap far more and greater rewards than they ever return back to the players, as a whole. Again, the fact that programs are directly negatively impacted by things that improve for the individual players SHOULD clue people into the fact that the system is far more exploitative to players than it is beneficial.

What's absurd to me is the mental gymnastics people go to avoid confronting that truth. It would be a lot easier, and more respectable in at least a cynical sense, if those people would just admit that they don't give a shit what happens to a player before, during, or after they graduate or otherwise leave the program, unless it benefits the program (e.g. NFL publicity). They just want to see people put on a jersey with the same logo as the college they attended, and go beat the players who have someone else's logo. And I get it, I like that too. But I'm not going to resent players who "hurt" the program by doing what they think is best for their own life. Honestly, considering that transfers are increasing at every program as a result of the rule changes, if Virginia Tech's football program starts "hurting" more relative to their peers, the only people who would deserve resentments are the ones in charge--the coaches, the athletic department.