Unfortunately for you, college athletics is changing at a rapid pace.

The can of worms has been opened with the cost of attendance payments. I feel something like what I'm suggesting will be a more viable alternative to the status quo, which as I've pointed out and as you've not been able to refute, is ridiculously inefficient. SOMETIMES, folks just have to step away consider something new.

Realistically, I recognize schools will not support only mens basketball and football. There are TitleIX and traditions to consider. However, what we will likely end up with is a minimum of a dozen sports being required for the breakaway division and schools progressively dropping sports until there are only the minimum required left.

Again. Is there truly a reason for VT to field 20 or more programs? Who would be served by that? The school? the students? the fans? the community? As you've failed to refute, it's a tremendous drain on resources.

(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)

Posted: 03/03/2016 at 3:05PM

PREV NEXT REPLY

Insert a Link

Enter the title of the link here:

Enter the full web address of the link here -- include the "http://" part:

Current Thread:

What is the next step? -- Guy LeDouche 03/01/2016 11:46AM

IF the break the Men's BBall Tourny goes too -- BigCrumpy 03/04/2016 1:59PM

P4 is next step -- nebraskafaninwi 03/01/2016 7:11PM

Moving FAST, paying players and playoffs just happened. ** -- chuckd4vt 03/02/2016 2:48PM

Even though on paper breaking away seems like a no brainer -- VTHokie2000 03/01/2016 12:17PM

The SEC probably doesn't care, since they support so few sports... -- EDGEMAN 03/01/2016 12:54PM

The SEC may not, but I am pretty sure the ACC, Big Ten, and Pac-12 -- VTHokie2000 03/01/2016 1:14PM

If a split occurs, the P5 should mandate a minimum # of non-revenue... -- EDGEMAN 03/01/2016 2:11PM

Who do these nonrevs serve? Fans? Schools? Athletes? localities? -- chuckd4vt 03/02/2016 2:58PM

Ohio State's athletic department fields more than 35 teams, gives money to -- reestuart 03/02/2016 10:20PM

Football has a nice return on investment. Tell me why nonrevs are important -- chuckd4vt 03/03/2016 12:48AM

They aren't if you don't want a well-rounded university. -- reestuart 03/04/2016 09:18AM

But football brings in MAJOR coin and exposure. More than dorms. ** -- chuckd4vt 03/04/2016 3:53PM

You can't lump all the non-revenue sports into 1 basket -- VTHokie2000 03/02/2016 3:24PM

Either they make money or they do not. Only keep minimum TitleIX allows. ** -- chuckd4vt 03/02/2016 3:30PM

Ummm.they can do both. -- VTHokie2000 03/02/2016 3:59PM

They're called nonrevenue sports for a reason. -- chuckd4vt 03/03/2016 12:53AM

They are called "non-revenue" sports because historically -- VTHokie2000 03/03/2016 10:45AM

I'm all for a school keeping programs that make them money. Why not? -- chuckd4vt 03/03/2016 10:54AM

You can't equate revenue sports with profitability -- VTHokie2000 03/03/2016 11:36AM

So practically every U from sea to sea should spend millions for Olympics? -- chuckd4vt 03/03/2016 10:52AM

You do realize that VT is just 1 of many schools that -- VTHokie2000 03/03/2016 11:51AM

Academics aren't served by a 2.9 softball player being admitted. Ridiculous ** -- chuckd4vt 03/03/2016 3:07PM

Unfortunately for you, college athletics is changing at a rapid pace. -- chuckd4vt 03/03/2016 3:05PM

Just because a school offers a student a full or partial athletic -- VTHokie2000 03/03/2016 4:50PM

So VT should pay tens of millions of dollars/yr for 1 bronze medal? -- chuckd4vt 03/03/2016 5:49PM

Again you are only looking at it from the athletic department's perspecitve -- VTHokie2000 03/03/2016 6:53PM

I do agree there should be mandate at some level -- VTHokie2000 03/01/2016 2:43PM

Unfortunately for you, college athletics is changing at a rapid pace.

Insert a Link

Tech Sideline is Presented By:

Our Sponsors