1) Clemson recently announced the cutting of their Men’s Cross Country team, Men’s Indoor Track team, and Men’s Outdoor Track team. Clemson already had fewer scholarship programs than VT, and now they are cutting even further. The belief is that they are cutting these non-revenue sports to further focus on football. How do you feel about this “all-in on football” approach? Would it help VT to do something similar? Does VT have an obligation to continue non-revenue sports? What is the value of continuing such programs? Basically, what are your overall thoughts on a robust athletic department with many sports versus a football-centric approach? – Pride_and_Joy
Chris Coleman: From a business model perspective, I think it’s important to compare Virginia Tech to those schools who are similar in terms of overall revenue. With that in mind, I took the five teams ahead of the Hokies in revenue, and the five teams below them, and did a comparison....
Subscribe to read full story
Tired of low effort articles and clickbait? So are we. Subscribe to read great articles written by a full-time staff with decades of experience.
Already a subscriber? Login Here