Whit Babcock Q&A, Part I: ACC Network expectations, legalized sports gambling and replacing Michigan on the football schedule

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

AB: You just got back from the ACC meetings. It doesn’t seem like there were a lot of big-ticket items this year. Is that fair?

WB: I would agree with that. It’s kind of nice when it’s business as usual, and certainly a lot of continued talk on the network, but I would not say there was anything too earth-shattering.

AB: What is the latest on the ACC Network, which will launch in August of 2019? Is it full systems go at this point?

WB: It has been. And the ACC has been optimistic, but just good to get updated with that. We’re meeting more with ESPN and it’s moving along in a way that we’re all really pleased with, but it’s still at a point that we don’t know of exact numbers and all that. That will depend on distribution. But the thing that we talked about a few years ago is now in a year and a couple months. So it’s coming on. It can’t get here fast enough.

AB: How are your preparations going for that? Has construction on the studios started?

WB: I don’t believe it’s started down there, but it will be in the south end zone down there, down in the media room. A lot of the structure is in place. And out of that $9-10 million for the studio, I think a million or a million and a half is construction and all the rest is equipment. But we’re starting to get all of our people in place. We’ll have about 10 new employees to operate that. And we were very fortunate to have the team that we have now in Hokie Vision, but we hired back a couple of Hokies who had gone and worked at the SEC Network in Arkansas. They were two guys that had worked in our Hokie Vision that went off. So we’re pleased with it. But it’s a major undertaking and we have really good people working on that right now.

AB: That $10 million figure is higher than you originally anticipated.

WB: It was. Yes. And actually, I don’t know that we will spend that much. The Board of Visitors just gave us the ability to that. So hopefully we don’t have to go that high. But yes, it was a little higher, once we really drilled down on it with what it truly cost our SEC counterparts and all that. We kind of had an idea of that. But hopefully the network goes so well that the money we spent to get it off the ground, it will take us a year or two or three to pay it off.

AB: What kind of expectations do you go into that with initially? I assume you’d try to be somewhat conservative with expectations. And you’ve seen the Big Ten pulling back a little bit in terms of its distribution in out-of-state markets. Do you go in with a number in mind of what you expect to get out of this thing?

WB: Yes and no. Of course we see what the Big Ten numbers and the SEC, and to close that gap on that line item is huge. So anything is better. But yeah, I think I probably have a couple figures bouncing around in my head. But the ACC has always cautioned us on that. The performers will start to get built more as these satellite renegotiations come up.

AB: Do you plan a figure into the 2019 budget or is that kind of a bonus whatever revenue it produces?

WB: The ACC gave us some preliminary performer numbers on distribution. And so far, from what I understand, we’re at or better than that. But no, they’ve been very careful not to give us a number. But they also know we pay attention to what the Big Ten and SEC do. So I just want it to be as successful as possible to help recruiting. The revenue will certainly help. But that one line item, as you probably know, I think it’s public info, but the ACC distributed about $28 million per school with their revenue sharing, and the Big Ten and SEC, I think, were between $40 and $50 million. So we don’t need to be the best funded, but we sure would like to close the gap on that.

AB: The ACC coaches' position coming out of the league meetings was that it would like to expand the NCAA Tournament from 68 to 72 teams. Were you a part of any of those discussions?

WB: That was talked about. What we do when we go down there, we have a lot of different kind of meetings. But then the football coaches go off and meet, basketball coaches, women’s basketball coaches, and then they come together and say the things that they want to say. The first, to my knowledge, that any of us heard that, was down there, and it was just a thought process from our coaching group, and it’s just something that maybe the ACC will put out there and kick the tires on and allow the other conferences. But that was a new one, and I don’t know if I’ve put enough thought into it to have a stance on that yet. So I thought it was creative by our coaches, but there’s a long way to go before that becomes a reality. But it was interesting and we’ll learn about it.

AB: The timing of this Supreme Court decision clearing a path for legalized sports gambling came right in the middle of the ACC meetings. Is that a topic of discussion down there, considering the timing?

WB: We didn’t hit that one much. I think everybody’s waiting. We spent more time on the transfer working group and some mental health-type stuff with student-athletes, we spent time on that. But the gambling piece, that’s another one: I don’t know how I feel on it. It’s been approved. I don’t see it at this time of being a revenue producer for athletic departments. If it ever works out that way for schools or athletic departments, great. But I’m not quite sure what to do with it. I still like the amateurism model. I don’t know. Maybe it won’t change much at all. I also think there’s, just like with a lot of vices, there are certain people who might have a hard time controlling their gambling and other things like that. So I just think the social awareness or programming is there too. But I don’t know. That’s a complicated one. I’m not so naive to think that people don’t gamble, but I don’t even know where Virginia stands on the topic.

AB: I think it’s behind some other states that are gearing up for it, but if that does come to Virginia, does that add another level of concern that you need to address within the program?

WB: You’d certainly have to work hard as an institution to maintain and make sure there’s the integrity of the games. I don’t know. I’d prefer it probably not be there, but now that it’s there, we’ll figure it out and work it through. Now if [the revenue] ever comes our way, I’m going to be very happy. But I’m not one of those ones who is like, "Oh yeah, this is going to mean more money for athletic departments." I don’t see that. I just think it’s another societal change we’ll all have to get used to. But it makes me a little, uneasy is not the right word, but if you play it out and people could actually bet on your games from seats in the stands during the game … I don’t know. Maybe I’m just old, but getting used to the new way of it. But we didn’t touch on it a tremendous amount. I think we’re all just waiting and seeing and everybody’s state’s at a different point politically.

AB: What was the transfer discussion like? Are there a lot of varying opinions on how that should work?

WB: It was more reporting back to us. The Rice Commission, we talked about that too. It was more updates on what does it really mean. The [Senior Women’s Administrator) at UVa, Jane Miller, is on the transfer working group for the NCAA, so it was a lot with her. That’s another opportunity with your coaches down there for the people on the transfer working group to truly meet with the coaches and the people with their boots on the ground, so to speak, so the coaches were able to give a lot of feedback. But that’s another one I think that times have changed and we’re playing a little bit of catch-up on that.

AB: It does not seem like there’s an easy solution to that, whether it’s unfettered transferring or not. Obviously that’s a little too liberal for a lot of people.

WB: Yeah, and I still hope there’s a happy middle ground. I don’t believe in true free agency. But I also certainly see the point of schools not having the ability to restrict anymore. I didn’t think that was good or right. But just free transfer all over the place and no sitting out, that would be tough. A little bit of the Wild West there. But I’m all for the student-athletes having an easier track to transfer and not so much requesting permission but notifying. I like all that stuff. I don’t like the immediately eligible. And, as you probably know, we have sports that are different, right? Certain sports that you have to sit out a year and certain sports that you don’t. And ideally you’d like to have the same approach across the board. But it needs to be a data-driven decision. And if you’re saying it’s a year of academic readiness and you’ve got a kid who’s got a 3.8 and wants to transfer? I don’t know. But I’d like to see every sport be the same, but maybe it’ll still end up what it is now. But ideally I’d like to see it all be the same.

AB: Does tying it to a GPA solve some of those issues or does it pop up new ones?

WB: I don’t know. I’m not being sarcastic. What do you think?

AB: GPAs are not all built the same. If you want to discourage people from challenging themselves academically, that’s probably a good way to do it. And I think it’s a line that could be abused by coaches.

WB: I agree with what you said as well. And I know they’re looking hard to find some data-driven stuff, and it is to give more freedom and flexibility to the student-athlete, but also, quite frankly, trying to navigate a legal landscape to try to make all of that work.

AB: Virginia Tech won the Commonwealth Clash over UVa for a second straight year, and you didn’t need the smallest of margins to get by this year, winning 12.5 to 8.5. What does that say about some of the non-rev sports that are competing in this and made the difference?

WB: We’re proud to beat them. And we do track it and keep up with it. And it’s out of respect to UVa. But I love it because it’s something our entire athletic department can root for. Football is equal to track is equal to tennis. Again, UVa has had a lot of across-the-board success, and if we start beating them more than they’re beating us, I think that will translate to ACC championships and hopefully NCAA championships too. So we like it, but it’s a compliment to UVa too. We measure it, we keep up with it, we do a lot of things. It’s good for morale and we’re proud of it and now we hope to do it three years in a row.

AB: I wanted to ask you about alumni relations with former football players. I talked to former offensive lineman Dwight Vick for a podcast. Dwight is obviously very well-spoken and outspoken on that. Do you feel like there’s still an issue there a little bit with regards to inclusiveness of some of the former players that first popped up a couple years ago? And do you feel like you’re addressing it?

WB: I have not talked to Dwight. A couple years ago was really just a bit of a misunderstanding. And it was good to meet with the players and work that out. Shoot, they built the program. Those relationships are important to us. I’m not sure what’s on Dwight’s mind, but it’s gone a lot better. It’s good. We’ve made strides in that area. We want them to feel welcome. But I don’t know his specific issues. I’d be happy to talk to him.

AB: I think he had some fairly simple requests. Just an area on gamedays for former players. An association they could pay into for access to certain things. He said a lot of former players have not even been in the indoor facility. Do you feel like these are issues that are easily bridged?

WB: Yeah, and I feel like we’ve already done that. I’m certainly not here to say that Dwight’s opinion was wrong. I just felt like we had addressed some of that. But we can always improve on it and yeah, we’ve engaged the former players. We certainly want them to feel welcome here.

AB: I know you had Kevin Jones in that role previously. Is there somebody specific for that now or is that a task that several people handle?

WB: We’ve split up some of the things that we do between Andre Davis and Bimbo Coles, but that’s outreach in a lot of ways. Not just former student-athletes. We’ve done some work in our Monogram Club. As far as a space to meet, I think we have some places that we can look at for football, but we’d really like a space for all former student-athletes to come back. So football kind of wants their own thing. We’d like to look at all sports. But I’m confident we’ll get there. And even with the new baseball stadium, even though that’s not football, there’s some spaces over there and things that we can use in terms of hospitality. So I feel like we’re making good strides. I got a couple of emails on it. Again, I don’t fully know Dwight’s position, but I know he’s a true Hokie and yeah, we’ll work on it. But I’m not hearing quite as much on it.

AB: I know as an athletic director, you can’t really anticipate everything that happens. This offseason, you have the women’s lacrosse video that drew national attention, the Galen Scott resignation that popped up out of nowhere. Do you feel like you handled those situations adequately as an athletic department?

WB: Yes. And we do the best we can. And I’m pleased with the way we handled it. And no, I don’t have any regrets on that.

AB: Have you ever encountered something like the Galen Scott situation where something private spilled over into such the public sphere so much?

WB: Not exactly like that. No. I certainly root for Galen, and I hope that all that come together, he and his family. All that stuff.

AB: Is that a personnel decision that you stick out of? Is that purely Justin Fuente’s call?

WB: Justin’s recommendation would mean a lot in that setting.

AB: Shifting gears, I know I give you crap about scheduling teams 15 years down the line, but now after Michigan cancels a series in 2020 and ’21, it’s suddenly very difficult to find an opponent and you’re scrambling.

WB: We are scrambling a bit.

AB: How difficult is it to fill those spots only a couple years out?

WB: It’s tough. I feel like we’re really close to it. I’m not being coy with you. We don’t have everything buttoned up. But I feel like we’ve got somebody who can help there. It will not be — anyone can beat us — but it will not be at the Michigan level. We’re pretty strongly scheduled that year [in 2021], but yeah, when you get down to two or three years, it’s slim pickings and people can hold you hostage for money and other things. So it might cause us to play a home-and-home with a non-Power 5. It could do that. But John Ballein is really good at scheduling, he and Jim Weaver and coach [Frank] Beamer before. Scheduling out a decade or more is a little ridiculous at times, but it’s easier than doing it two or three years out and less expensive as well.

AB: Was it disappointing losing the Michigan game? I know a lot of fans wonder what’s the point of scheduling these things if they’re going to get canceled five years down the line.

WB: Yes. That’s true. But it also happens a lot more than most fans realize I think they just pay more attention to Virginia Tech. But games get shifted and moved. Texas and Alabama, one of them dropped UCF to make that happen. So even though you schedule 10 years in advance, there’s still some shifting and things like that. We’ve picked up a Maryland series coming up, a four-year series that we like. And Jim already had Penn State and Wisconsin and West Virginia, I think we added a couple there. So anyways, we always want to have some marquee opponents, we always want to have strength of schedule, but under-scheduling and over-scheduling is a difficult position to be in.

AB: So you don’t want to share who you’re playing in 2020 and ’21?

WB: I can’t yet. Because I don’t have anything signed, but John Ballein is really good at it and he helps me the most with scheduling. So was Desiree [Reed-Francois], just John has a more historical knowledge. But shoot, when schools are asking for a million or more on buy games and things like that, it’s also a financial component. Like the Old Dominion series, we can take a game over there to our fans, we don’t have to pay big guarantees, hopefully it’s a team we should beat, but the recruiting component in the state of Virginia. Same with Liberty. So some of that is competitive. Some of it is financial. It’s an inexact science. There’s an art to it, I should say.

AB: I know I’ve asked you this before, but what does an ideal schedule look like in your mind?

WB: When you win them all. [Laughs] For us, and it’s a requirement for the ACC and the new network, but we’re always going to have one, preferably two, Power 5 teams. We might play a, quote, lower Division I team, and then maybe a mid-level Division I team. I think that shakes out well with ticket sales. Again, you don’t want to over-schedule, but if you under-schedule, that would be a shame to left out of something because of a soft schedule. But I’m pretty pleased with what our schedule is. ’19 will be a little bit tough. We don’t have the marquee names as much as we usually do, but other than ’19, for about the next decade, we feel really good about it.

AB: How do you sell tickets for a 2019 home schedule — Furman, Old Dominion, Duke, North Carolina, Pitt, Wake Forest — that on paper is not in the neighborhood of the teams you play this year (Notre Dame, Miami, Georgia Tech, Virginia)?

WB: Quite frankly, if we have a good year this year and we win and there’s momentum, that will help tremendously. So you certainly want to have your program moving in the right direction. I hope Hokies, there’s going to be a lot of them that are with us any year, but there are going to be a few that are just going to jump in on marquee years like Notre Dame, Ohio State, things like that, that may not be there. But hopefully Hokies will answer the call. Again, we don’t say anybody on that schedule is weak, but only six home games and maybe not what our folks are used to seeing. But hopefully they’ll hang in there with us and if we have a good year this year, I hope there’s a better likelihood of that happening.