Virginia Tech’s Board of Visitors Approved $229.2 Million Budget Increase for Athletics

The Virginia Tech Board of Visitors approved a massive budget increase to Virginia Tech’s athletic department during a special online meeting Tuesday morning. The proposal to add $229.2 million to Virginia Tech’s athletic budget over the next four years passed by a 13-1 vote.

Athletic Director Whit Babcock’s Power Point presentation to the Board of Visitors meeting on August 18 described in detail the evolving economics landscape of college sports, where Virginia Tech currently fits in this modern era, and the strategic investment opportunities to WIN.  Here is Babock's slide presentation.

Doug Bowman of 247Sports posted a detailed breakdown of the presentation on social media.  You can also watch the Sons of Saturday podcast featuring Doug Bowman for more insight.

Babcock laid out three essential (existential?) questions to the Board: 

• How important are athletics at Virginia Tech?
• Where does the Board of Visitors want Virginia Tech to be?
• How can the Hokies “evolve and modernize” to thrive in this new era?

Key points in White Babcock’s presentation:

• Virginia Tech’s athletic department’s $122 million budget is ranked 14th in the ACC
• If Virginia Tech wants to be in the top echelon of the ACC, its budget needs to be in the same neighborhood of its top tier programs - Clemson ($190 million), Florida State ($170 million), and UNC (estimated $145 million).

His line that resonated:  “it costs money to win, it costs money to lose.”  

While Babock’s presentation provided the impetus, Board members J. Pearson and Ryan McCarthy spearheaded the plan that would test how important the Board of Visitors believed athletics is at Virginia Tech. Message received.  As Virginia Tech chief operating officer Amy Sebring put it, “The Board’s assignment was clear:  Increase funding to athletics and increase it now. They’ve worked to find the path that will allow us to do that, but make no mistake, it was a heavy lift.”

Change will be immediate as the Board’s approval of the plan provides an immediate $47.1 million injection into the 2026 fiscal year budget.

The break down of the budget over the next four years is depicted below:

Where is the money coming from?

Of the $229.2 million, institutional support will cover $48.3 million, bridge funding will provide $39.6 million, and philanthropy will be counted on to bring $120 million. This means that donors are being counted on for over half the projected increase.  Virginia Tech’s chief financial officer Simon Allen said this is “aggressive but defendable.”

In addition, student fee revenue will add $21.3 million, which will require increases in student fees in future years, consistent with state limitations.  Amy Sebring said this would increase the percentage of the athletic budget funded by student fees to 20% - the maximum per state law.

The Virginia Tech administration indicated that the school will continue to be among the lowest in athletic fees in Virginia, and the university remains committed to protecting lower-income fees in Virginia.

The lone vote against the athletics budget increase was Dr. Nancy Dye, the academic, research, and student affairs committee chair. Her reason for voting "no" was the effect on student fees. She is quoted as saying “I’ve always taken principled votes to keep in-state tuition affordable and Virginia Tech Advantage funded for first-generation students and others needing assistance. I am beyond grateful for those with the financial ability and incredible generosity and vision to support the academic research and athletic goals of our university. However, in recent weeks, I’ve heard from too many families who have struggled and sacrificed to send their children to Virginia Tech, who have paid Virginia taxes for decades. … I cannot support the increase in student fees as a built-in requirement to finance this.”

While the budget increase is about the entire athletic program, football is a major driver of college athletic programs, so talking about college athletics often focuses on football.  

There are watershed moments in a college program’s lifespan that can define that program for generations.  Numerous high-profile football programs have experienced valleys. Between 1997 and 2007, storied Alabama won between 3 and 7 games in 8 of those 11 years. It was not until Nick Saban’s second season that the current juggernaut we know as Alabama got going. If you look at  the University of Texas’ history, it feels like a yo-yo, but from 2010 to 2021, Texas only had two seasons with more than 8 wins. Notre Dame experienced its own doldrums between 1994 and 2016. While Notre Dame had 8 seasons with 9 or more wins, there were numerous 5, 6, 7-win seasons. From 2005 to 2019, Michigan had more 5-7 win seasons than there were 10+ win seasons. We all know what happened in the final Bobby Bowden years and the inconsistency that followed him at Florida State.  Other major programs such as Oklahoma, Auburn, Florida, Penn State, USC have had their down years. How many times were we told that “Miami is back.”  Finally, we all know the story of Clemson’s rise from also-ran to perennial national championship contender.

These programs, however, had or have the cachet and finances to recover from downturns. Whether it was the right coach and staff, the willingness to spend money, or the inherent blue-blood ability to recruit, most major programs eventually climbed out of their valleys. Though, some, like Florida, can’t seem to get it right.

Virginia Tech is in a watershed moment in which the choice is either to relegate the program to near-permanent irrelevancy or to elevate the program.

While not necessarily a blue-blood program, Virginia Tech’s football story is one of Frank Beamer elevating the program from nowhere to an annual top 10 powerhouse that won 10+ games thirteen times between 1995 and 2011. Since then? Since that Sugar Bowl loss to Michigan in 2011 in which Virginia Tech rose to a high as number 5 in the rankings, the program has essentially been mired in mediocrity. Fuente gave the appearance of a return to prominence in 2016-2017 but that proved fleeting. Those inside the program perhaps held out hope that coasting along would fix the problem.

The last four years saw Virginia Tech hire a first-time head football coach who gave the fan base and national pundits a tease at a return to relevancy. However, we know Virginia Tech’s record against Power 4 teams, the record in close games, and the descent into the abyss that necessitated acknowledging a mistake and firing Brent Pry. Sometimes, you don’t see the need for real change in the middle of a problem until it is too late. Sometimes, you need a cathartic wake up call. 

Being manhandled 62-0 over four quarters by Vanderbilt and ODU was the smack in the face that illustrated from a big picture point of view, other than a faint heartbeat under Fuente in 2016-2017, that Virginia Tech has been a non-factor in the ACC championship picture and irrelevant on the national scene for a long time. More importantly, the upturn that we fans had hoped for was not happening.

The status of Virginia’s Tech’s athletic budget and the comparative value of conference television contracts have been constant reminders of how behind Virginia Tech is.

For a look at VirginiaTech’s spending on football in 2018, read this Sons of Saturday article “Show Me the Money: A Comprehensive Overview of Hokie Football Finances” by the Elder Scribe. An interesting section of this article shows the relative limited increases in the Virginia Tech football budget given the increases in the overall athletic budget over time.

Look at the comparison of 2024 revenue and expenses of the top athletic programs. The revenue and expenses of the top programs in the country compared to Virginia Tech is pretty stark.  Note these numbers do not indicate the actual budget for the football programs.

The Board’s own presentation explicitly states why now.

• The intercollegiate athletic landscape has evolved dramatically over the past year 
• Widening gap between top tier programs and the remainder
• Although investment will be needed, being a quality, competitive program has the potential to generate significant outside revenue to the institution
• Without investment, the university and region risk declining revenues
  • Potential losses to the university – existing revenues (e.g., media rights, ticket sales, sponsorships, etc.), negative impact on non-revenue sports, brand value, alumni connections
  • Potential losses to the broader community and region – lodging, meals and sales tax revenue, affiliated jobs, community vibrancy
• Demonstrating the university's commitment is critical to attracting the external partnerships necessary to achieve success

The Board of Visitors has changed the status quo with the vote that John Rocovick, the Board’s Rector, called “a pivotal moment” for Virginia Tech. Virginia Tech President Tim Sands acknowledged that “Virginia Tech really is at a historical juncture in the history of Hokie athletics. The tumblers of the institution, conference and national levels are aligned. Today’s actions unlock the door to future success."

With the financial influx, Virginia Tech will have an estimated athletic budget of $190.1 million for the 2026 fiscal year. The increase automatically vaults Virginia Tech among the top three programs in the ACC in terms of the budgets of the conference’s public institutions, making the school a financial peer of Clemson and Florida State.

The first natural question is how the increased budgetary resources will be spent. Virginia Tech’s press release outlines a number of broad areas that the increased funding will be used to modernize its athletic operation and improve its position to compete in a new, more professionalized environment. Financial targets include:

• A new “front office” for football to manage recruiting, talent development, and operations.
• Resources to attract and retain talent coaches in a highly competitive market.
• Additional operating support for athletics teams
• Investments in Olympic sports
• Infrastructure improvements to several facilities to improve the athlete and fan experience.

Tim Sands will also appoint an Athletics Investment Oversight Committee to advise him and the Board of Visitors throughout the process. The Board also has the ability to amend the supplementary budget for future fiscal years as necessary.

Increased funding will improve Virginia Tech’s ability to attract coaches, elite players, support staff, and facilities across all sports. However, let’s take a look at one aspect of the equation for football: coaching salaries across top programs.

Coaching Salaries, 2024

https://sportsdata.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/football/coach

The 2024 numbers suggest that, if Virginia Tech wants to be in the top 20 in terms of football head coaching salaries, it needs to pay in the $7,000,000 per year range and the salary pool for assistant coaches needs to be north of $7,000,000 as well. In fact, many of the top programs in the country pay their coordinators between $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 or more annually.

This is the real question, isn't it?  Success isn’t just about the money. Simply pouring money into a coaching staff does not guarantee wins. Despite a large athletic budget and significant spending on coaches such as Jimbo Fisher (Texas A&M), Gus Malzahn/Bryan Harsin/Hugh Freeze (Auburn), or Bill Napier (Florida), some programs are underachieving relative to their available resources. Michigan State seems to be fading and may be due for a change. At the same time, while several of those programs’ football teams have not finished in the top 25 of the final AP polls in certain years, it is hard to argue that they are not nationally relevant. For all the fuss over Dabo Swinney and Clemson’s recent issues, Clemson has averaged a final AP ranking of 9.57 over the last seven years. Swinney’s program has only finished outside the top 25 AP rankings once since 2009 (16 years). Yes, there may be questions about Clemson’s direction, but some people might beg for that type of consistency and relevancy.

President Sands himself issued a cautionary thought. While Sands said that the increased spending is "critical for the regional economy” and that sports are important to a college because they create “an indelible shared experience” for alumni and draw attention to the school, he also stated that “We also recognize that this strategic decision to invest discretionary resources in athletics now may limit our flexibility in the near future, and we will be closely monitoring this investment to ensure funds are spent wisely.” In short, it is imperative the Virginia Tech athletic administration gets it right.

Now that Board of Visitors has approved this massive increase in Virginia Tech's athletic budget, there are going to be more questions:  NIL, the impact on hiring and recruiting, the effect on all sports, plans for instructure improvements, and the ability of Virginia Tech to compete at both the ACC and national championship level.  Stay tuned.