Virginia Tech leaders will meet next week to discuss a plan to inject $229 million over the next four years into the school’s flagging athletics program, which the AD, Whit Babcock, has been saying for months is struggling to keep pace with its peers in the ACC, in the area of about $60 million a year.
Tech Athletics sent out a media advisory announcing a special session of the Virginia Tech Board of Visitors that has been scheduled for Tuesday, Sept. 30, at 9:30 a.m.
ICYMI
- Virginia Tech | Brent Pry fired: ‘Results on the field were not acceptable’
- Virginia Tech | Whit Babcock makes his case: But is it time for the school to move on?
The plan that will be the focus of the meeting includes a proposed fundraising campaign with a four-year goal of $120 million, and increases in student fees – which the school already hiked $295 per student per year for the 2025-2026 academic year, giving the athletics department $10 million per year in new money.
“University leaders believe the proposed amended budget, if approved, will position Virginia Tech to compete at the highest levels of the conference, resulting in significant increase in media rights and conference revenue,” the media advisory tells us.
Reality check: if Tech was able to raise the $120 million, and if current and prospective students didn’t revolt against even higher student fees, all that would do would be to get the athletics program within hailing distance of the top athletics programs in the ACC and the Power 4.
But, hey, gotta try.
“Without additional investment, the university and the region risk declining revenues,” the media advisory tells us. “Potential losses to existing university revenues such as media rights, ticket sales, and sponsorships, for example, would likely have a negative impact on non-revenue sports, brand value, and alumni connection.
“Attracting more than 500,000 visitors to the university and region annually, the potential loss of competitive sports programs would also have broader impacts on the community and region, including the possible loss of lodging, meals and sales tax revenue, affiliated jobs, and community vibrancy.”