According to "insiders" we do not have the money to make the change so everyone's favorite coach will be back next season to drive us further into the ground. Sorry for the ESPN+ link, I assume most people have it now as part of the hulu/disney/espn package so you can read. Hopefully they are wrong, always sketchy when there are unnamed "insiders" or sources...
[mod edit: removed the link to paywalled content as per the community guidelines. if you have to apologize in advance for the CG violation, it's a pretty good indicator that it shouldn't be linked.]
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
Not shocked at all by this. COVID has hit schools across the board. It would be reckless to spend so much to get rid of a coach for that much 💰. As a fan base we have to suck it up and hope CJF figures it out.
I just can't agree with you. I think it is more reckless to close your eyes and pray the cash cow of your entire athletic department can survive COVID and deteriorating support.
Instead you would gamble everything on your next coaching hire instead of waiting one more year for a bit more financial stability. Teams that have done that and lost have been decimated and struggle to recover.
the status quo is almost certainly worse than hiring a new coach
VT can recover from one more year of Fuente. It cannot recover from firing Fuente and making a bad hire.
That's overly dramatic. VT can recover from both actually. It's not like the football program is going to go away either way.
But you are making assumptions on a "bad hire". Whit has made resoundingly good hires in his history.
Fuente wasn't a bad hire at the time, by all accounts it was on paper the best, or one of the best, hires that offseason. He just failed at the job. It happens.
The team is thread bare at the moment and facing an empty cupboard in recruiting just as when Fuente stepped in. Fans are in uproar, donors are turning away. Letting that go on is financially dumb.
A decent hire, not even a good hire as Whit is prone to make, will re-energize the program enough to re-engage fans and donors. That's financially smart. Especially next season when there is now a small potential to have butts in stadium seats again.
Says who?
Completely disagree. We've taken for granted 60,000+ fans showing up for every game for a loooong time. But a big reason for that is because VT football fans have, for the most part, gone into the season expecting 8+ wins at least, along with a good chance that the Hokies are going to win in Lane Stadium.
But with recruiting in the tank, and the team below .500 for 2 out of 3 years, and with our last conference championship over 10 years ago, the fans aren't just going to "suck it up." They're going to stop going to games. And as a result, stop supporting business in Blacksburg, including the biggest cash cow at Virginia Tech: the football program.
If we don't give the fans anything to get excited about, I think that the financial consequences of that is going to be a LOT worse than the hit of having to pay the $10 million buyout.
You gotta spend money to make money.
"Scared money don't make money."
If you mean spend as in invest then yes. You can also waste money if not spent wisely, in haste or on "pretty things".
Not when you have a coach that burns the clock before half rather than try to score.
A lot more broke people followed that mantra lol.
Whit's options are to find the money or get ready to find a new job after the 2021 season.
My question is how would Whit get fired? I honestly don't know where that decision would or could come from. But my guess is that, if it comes from Sands and/or Board of Visitors, the firing of Whit would not happen in late 2021/22.
Whit's not getting fired. Sands isn't interested in football; he's interested in the director's cup. If Whit leaves, it's because he's working for the ACC or the NCAA.
You don't think it would be a problem if the main revenue generator for VT athletics goes into the tank and the donors revolt?
where is this coming from? Whit is in no danger at all
We have the money for the buyout. We've had it for weeks. The problem is who can we afford afterward....
This is exactly the problem. We're not known as a school with large cash reserves anyway. Once we send Fuente on his way we will likely have to take a chance on whoever is coaching at Blacksburg High these days and just pay them in Hardee's coupons
If donors have given us the money for the buyout, that means we have his and his staff's salary to spend still.
If it's true that we have the buyout money, then why couldn't we also raise this amount of cash to hire big time coordinators/support staff? Not saying it would have made a difference to the outcome of Fuente's tenure here, but why aren't donors ponying up to make sure the initial investment works in the first place?
We really need to quit looking at this from a perspective of "paying Justin Fuente $10 million is the only way he leaves." It's gaslighting folks into thinking he has to stay when it doesn't paint the picture accurately. It's not a $10 million lump sum. There is also reason to believe that both parties negotiate that to another number (the guy looks absolutely miserable out there). Other jobs may come calling.
Not directed at you Jander, but painting it in this light is irresponsible.
Exactly... Fuente is in the prime of his coaching career. He can't afford to sit a year out now and do television. He will be coaching somewhere in some position next year, which minimizes the buy out in a huge way. The guy has run the program into the ground. The longer he stays, the more damage is done.
No offset langauage. It was negotiated in the last deal. We pay him the full buyout (paid over time) no matter what he does/makes.
I think dc means another job could come calling and he could leave voluntarily. A completely believable scenario. His agent should be floating his name for a multitude of jobs.
DC does mean another job, but offset language means if the new school is paying him, we'd owe less. We owe him the full buyout regardless because there's no offset language.
I know what offset language is.
What I'm saying (and what I'm saying DC is saying) is if he leaves voluntarily for another job we won't owe him a dime.
He said minimizes it. If we fire him, we owe it all. If he leaves of his own accord, we owe him nothing. Saying it's minimized insinuates we could pay him less if he gets another job (offset language). It's not true, so arguing for what DC said/means given that he said minimizes, doesn't mean DC thinks he'll be leaving of his own accord. If that were the case, he'd be making his own announcement before Dec. 16th.
I'm not going to get into it with you over semantics. It's a losing battle. The bottom line is my original point was if he leaves on his own the buyout is zero. That's it. But please don't patronize me with the definition of offset language when I have never said anything about that being the case.
No it doesn't... Because Fuente does not have an offset clause in his contract (per Andy Bitter), VT is not off the hook if gets employed elsewhere.
EDIT: Drinking because NitWhitt beat me to it.
And not only to us, but his personal brand, to expand on your point about him being in the prime of his coaching career. It's of no professional benefit to him to continue to wallow here when it's clearly not going anywhere for either party. Go somewhere else, even if it's as a coordinator, hit the reset button and try again. I think of someone like Joe Moorhead at Miss State...just wasn't working out, took the Oregon OC job and in a year or two, he'll get another shot somewhere to make it work.
Television??
Why not? Can leverage the dynamic on camera personality :-)
Dying at the mental image of Fuente trying to add his charisma to a college football broadcast.
Did some quick digging and, if these numbers are accurate, it does argue that we should be willing to pay things. From Hokie Sports:
"Individual game ticket prices start at $45 for non-conference games (excluding Penn State) and $65 for ACC games. Penn State tickets, if available, will start at $135. Family 4 Packs make a return in 2020, with two games being available."
And from Seetgeek.com (not sure how reliable this is and realize this is not face value pricing):
Typically, Virginia Tech Hokies tickets can be found for as low as $22.00, with an average price of $71.00 but can vary depending on the opponent.
But if the $71 per ticket is something close to what VT gets from the sales and keeping Fuente = 5,000 fewer people purchasing we get:
(5,000)($71)(7 home games) = $2,485,000 or about the $2.5 million per year buy out. That 5,000 drop seems very plausible. Then add in concessions, reduced donations and whatever else and you probably more than make up the difference - if the numbers are remotely close to accurate. Again, just ballpark numbers here.
I tweeted out something very similar the other day. Math for the win.
Not to cut down Jander because it's worth posting/talking about, but this article is kind of a joke. It's an "industry source", so not even necessarily someone with direct ties to the program who would know whether or not we have the money. That same "industry source" said "Why would VT fire someone in a COVID year unless it was a dumpster fire?"
We are a dumpster fire.
Came here to say the same thing. My guess is that 'industry source' = agent. It's also not clear if this one industry source saying these things, or two, or three.
Regardless, I trust Whit to make the best decision based on all possible options.
I said it in another thread, but if he didn't cut the fans completely out and proceed to consistently lose big to games that we should compete in, I would be fine with giving him a 3 more years with a complete new offensive staff where we actually spend big money.
If this ends up being true, its the death of Virginia Tech football, and we'll deserve it.
Talk about catastrophizing
The question I keep coming back to . . .
If there's someone out there willing to pony up the money for a buyout, where the hell has that money been the last five years?
If someone is already giving $X/year, they probably didn't want to give more than that until they absolutely had to.
I don't think that our rich donor base is rabid enough to just throw out that kind of money without it being a last ditch, no recovering situation.
People with that kind of money probably/should have good access to Whit, Fuente, and scores of others in the football program. That means they either realized that a) Fuente wasn't allowing that access to what is going on inside the program (like he does to fans/media, or b) Fuente isn't the kind of coach they want to be throwing tons of cash at for what is apparently a decaying program, or c) both.
I'll believe it come Dec. 16th and then there will be hell to pay because after the losses we've stacked up this year the fan base is going to spiral into apathy and indifference which is the real killer.
It's been said above me, but this IS NOT a $10mil lump sum buyout. It's $2.5mil for four years...it's entirely reasonable to expect the department to be able to pay that. BUT WAIT...THERE'S MORE! There is no way that Whit & Fu's agent can't work out some sort of reduced settlement. If Fuente comes back next year and throws out another shitty year, his stock is at an all time low, maybe unrecoverable. In 6 years he took a somewhat respectable program and in the easiest conference (somewhat debatable) drove it into the dirt. It would make so much more for him to take a reduced buyout and go find a G5 school that needed a new HC or a P5 that needed a new OC and start rebuilding himself while he still has some credit and can still claim the COVID card.
Whit has managed to work quite a bit of magic during his tenure at VT and I CAN NOT accept the fact that he can't do something to get the ship turning around in the right direction.
Which is extremely likely considering the recruiting trends. This season was his ceiling in terms of talent, lest we not forget.
Why would Fu negotiate down his buy out? What incentive does he have?
Did you stop reading after "reduced settlement?" Because he explained why there is incentive right after that lol.
Yea, I read it, but it didn't make sense to me. Grummanhokie is arguing that Fuente's stock hasn't hit rock bottom, so it would be wiser for him to leave now instead of next year. I just disagree with this, for two reasons:
Okay, then don't ask what the incentive is. Just get straight to your point. He explained in his opinion what the incentive is. Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it's not there.
Maybe he does, but it sure does seem like he's out of ideas. He will have to clean house on both sides of the ball to save his ass.
He can use covid as an excuse this year for another job. That won't be the case next year, at least at this severity. Basically, all signs point to his stock being higher right now than a year from now.
Suppose Whit tells Fuente that he has two options: stay another year if he cleans house, starting with Corny and going from there, or accept a reduced buyout and an amicable separation. Maybe he goes a step further and reinstates the Jerry Kill position, whether Fuente likes it or not. Does Fuente want to be known as a head coach who needs a babysitter?
No guarantee that this gets the result that we want, just pointing out that there are ways Whit could encourage Fu to come to the table, and that a reduced buyout is one potential outcome of those negotiations.
What if Fuente says 'I don't want to clean house, and I want the buyout that is stated in the contract?' Then we wind up going to court, and every coach/agent is going warn coaches about going to VT, where the AD is going to try to avoid honoring the contract.
Pretty sure my second paragraph covers that. You obviously think this will never happen, and you may be right. But it's at least possible.
Either way, we'll know more in 9 days.
I doubt that would be the path, if we follow this scenario and neither of those options are taken then option 3 would be to fire him and hire someone else.
Maybe so should that occur, but let's not forget that AD jobs/power 5 schools willing to pay coaches multi-millions of dollars are less scarce the football coaching jobs and there is always one willing to sign the dotted line for the opportunity.
The main point in my OP was 100% predicated on the fact that Whit has the money to let Fuente go. If he doesn't then trying to negotiate a reduced settlement is a bluff on Whit's part and I don't see Fu falling for it.
So...if WB has the money and a negotiation is opened up, the AD's position is to save money and Fu's position is to get his, but I think that Whit holds the cards. Issues in the locker room, inability to establish an identity, ending the winning record streak, ending the UVA dominance streak, poor recruiting, inability to develop players, etc., etc. Fuente just doesn't have that much stock left and if he can't see the writing on the wall then that's a character flaw and another strike against him.
As for the second point, which circles are those? He may be well liked, but I can't imagine he's well respected. The program he runs has sunk to mediocrity/obscurity, he can't recruit, his pretty forgiving fan base hates him...I mean, I just don't see it. ESPN did an interview with another frickin QB IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR GAME. That doesn't show a lick of respect for us. If he's got a shit season next year, he's toast. He'll have driven a program into the ground and won't have an excuse to fall back on.
Yea but I'm not sure the incentive he gives really makes sense. Fu still has the leverage here and I doubt he thinks he's going to do worse next year and ruin his career.
When a buyout is negotiated down, I believe it is typically just cutting ties before it drops for the amount it would drop to, to give both parties more time. For example: say we fire Fu after Pitt and both sides agree to go with the $10m buyout instead of keeping both parties locked up for another month when the end result is inevitable.
That clearly did not happen. He's here through the 15th and he's getting $10m... Or he's back next year and I'm sad.
If he wants to the head whistle at another P5 job his incentive is to save face with future athletic directors. That circle is not that big and ADs absolutely talk to each other. If you are a future AD do you go with a guy that will hold you to the fire or the guy that is willing to work with you? It wouldn't surprise me if that conservation has already taken place with finishing out the season being a condition for Fuente. The number might not change much but its possible it gets spread out over a longer period.
Yea I doubt this. We've seen Will Muschamp, Butch Davis, Willie Taggart, etc get second chances. As much as we like to believe that college football is some meritocracy, it's not; it's about being a part of the right old boys club(s).
Of course he'll get a "second chance" but it won't be at a P5 school. Both Davis & Taggart are coaching middling G5 schools (and not doing that great of a job). Muschamp just got fired and while he'll get another position, I don't foresee it being in the P5 unless someone gets desparate.
Muschamp got fired from UF then hired by SCar. Sark is another example of a coach who failed up - dude won 7 games twice at UW and got hired by USC. I wager Fuente will have a P5 HC gig other than VT in the next 3 years.
I commented on another thread as well, but the 60 Minutes piece last night paints a pretty good picture of the financial landmines college athletic departments are facing. Even if we have the money for the buyout, the look won't be too good if we have to cut other programs as well. I have no insight on whether that is an issue for VT, but I have to think we're not too different from the programs featured in this regard.
The hell with the optics.
I'm sorry, but a healthy football program is the single most important thing that Virginia Tech needs to worry about. Financially, everything we do is propped up by having a competitive football program. It drives donations. It drives revenue sharing. It drives advertising, merchandising, etc. Financially, we're fucked if the football program goes under. It is not a scenario under which Virginia Tech athletics financially recovers over the next 10-20 years, minimum.
I don't care how bad of a look it is, if we need to cut other programs to make football healthy, that's a decision that absolutely must be made. The financial issues we think we have now will pale in comparison to the reality we will see if football goes into the gutter.
yes, this exactly. I've been trying to say this for weeks now...I just don't get the "optics" argument. So what if we have to cut the swim team right now. If we keep Fuente to save the swim team now then in 5-10 years we'll not only lose the swim team but also tennis, volley ball, wrestling, soccer, field hockey, baseball, softball, etc. etc. Football is the cash cow. Kill it and everything else dies with it. Plain and simple. We don't have the luxury of huge endowments or other assets to keep sports programs which don't make any money going without football. We're not Princeton. Virginia Tech needs football for any of their other sports to survive. Fuente is actively killing the football program. If we don't make a change now we won't have a sports program in 20 years.
I agree, we're definitely at an inflection point for the program that will shape our trajectory one way or the other. The timing is just particularly awful given all that is going on and the ripple effects that will be felt. That doesn't mean it's not necessary. The piece I mentioned just puts some faces on the impact these types of decisions are making.
1000 times this. I could not agree more. We need to take a hard look at where our money is going and who is producing revenue. Clemson has (I believe) 16 programs, VT has 22. If we cut 8, how much money would we save? I don't know, but I would be in favor of the thought process if it kept more revenue for football, which would in turn strengthen our football program. Also, my God do we need to fix recruiting. Just throwing that in there.
I've seen this a few places, but I feel like this is trying to chase wins by looking like Clemson instead of doing the things it takes to win (better coaching, better preparation, better recruiting).
If VT wants to add/drop sports, they should evaluate the cost/benefit of the sport to the university as a whole and not as a part of football. The fact that Clemson only has X sports isn't why their football team is successful.
I get that football is the big revenue driver at the school, but football should not be the sole factor in all school decisions, athletic or otherwise.
The overall point is that if we don't drop Fuente now and move in a new direction Football is going to fall so far into disrepair that there won't be any money left for the other sports anyway
Football needs to be the primary factor in all decisions athletically at VT. Period. Anything we can do to maximize our competitive advantage in football will come back to us with added interest with additional donations, advertising, merchandising, etc. Clemson realized this. They cut sports, underfunded others, and poured money into football right around the time Dabo took over. The return on that investment has been so vast that they are now able to fund their non rev sports higher than they were able to before.
That's what I would look to do going forward. Go all in on football. Let whatever is earmarked for basketball continue, because I think we're on the verge of a pretty good ROI there, but focus everything else on football.
Get the best coordinators out there right now, and don't let cost be a reason it can't work. Pour money into completely overhauling our recruiting profile, with a vastly expanded recruiting staff that is able to go toe to toe with anyone. And this also comes with a dedication toward making sure our football facilities remain on par with everyone at the top of the game.
And if making this happens means eliminating multiple non revenue sports, then we need to do it. And the reason is, if we make ourselves the best version of VT football that can be created, the return on that investment will be higher than the money we put into it. We'll be healthier in the end by maximizing our profile in our highest profile sport.
Piggy backing on Alum's post... it's not like VT is the only school to do this. Other programs are pulling trigger soon. The 'optics bubble' has been broken. I say ignore the optics; the blowback won't be specific to VT, it will be specific to college football as a whole
I don't see anyone on this board calling out SCar for buying out Muschamp amid this shit show of a situation
The optics issue won't be with college football fans; it's with other people associated with universities at large and tax payers.
Not saying I agree with these optics, just saying that's the reality.
I have no idea what weight to give to the bad optics. But there will be bad optics for sure. If I had to guess, it will blow over quickly. However, I did hear on ESPN radio this morning bitching about buyouts and millions being thrown around while players play for free (nevermind that players were overwhelmingly in favor of playing this season)
I don't think the look would be other than an attempt to be competitive. We have 22 other programs running. Clemson has 15. If anything we'd be trying to level the expense field.
This opinion may not be popular on this site, but I think some would agree that it would be a bad move to pay Fu $10M to walk. I hope our athletic department doesn't do that.
At what other program's expense would that be? As non-revenue and Olympic sports are cut at other major universities, it doesn't make sense to throw $10M around just to hire a new football coach.
Maybe Football brings in so much revenue that you might want to argue that we can't afford not to pay his buy out...but last I checked, Clemson currently has one of the best college football programs in the country, and will not have men's track and field and men's cross country next year.
University of Maryland has one of the finest aquatic facilities on the east coast - FINA World Champs, USA Swimming National Champs, etc... No college swim team to speak of.
There's no swim team at Clemson either. One of my fondest college memories was taking a bus trip from Blacksburg...seeing those big orange paw prints on the campus roads, and representing VT in the pool while competing against the Clemson team.
I love watching Hokie football, but I'd hate to see moves made that would eliminate opportunities for today's young generation to realize their lifelong goals of competing for their university in their sport of choice...even if that sport isn't football or basketball.
it's an unpopular opinion because retaining Fuente risks fan apathy which leads to significant declines in revenue streams for the entire athletic department. I don't really care if Clemson only has 16 sports programs to VTs 22, or that their men's track and field and men's cross country teams are being eliminated. Football is the main revenue generator for VT's athletic department and if fans opt out and revenue shrinks considerably (very likely if we stay on this trajectory with Fuente) then we won't have any sports to speak of. If you want VT to be a place for today's young generation to realize their lifelong goals of competing for their university in their sport of choice then you should be in favor of saving the football program. Pinching pennies now will cost us far more down the road. Making a change and reigniting the fanbase's excitement around the program is essential to the future of all sports.
Or, (I don't like this option, but it's there) deprioritize football, cut costs and focus on other sports. No new facilities, no new coaches, accept reduced income and act like a MAC school.
It's a sucky option, but it is there.
Do not know if we have the money to (1) buy out Fuente and (2) pay for a competent new staff (real good point by gjpvt09 above). And I'm not going to pretend to know the internal finances. But if it is true that we cannot practically get rid of Fuente yet, then at a minimum Whit needs to go over Fuente's head and dump Cornelsen, Shibest and maybe Hilgart. We all know Cornelson, as someone pointed out earlier, we should be able to find someone cheaper who can not teach people how to field a punt, and for all the beach muscle changes we see with Hilgart, it does not seem to make much impact on the field. They are all on short-term contracts with no massive buy outs, right? And if Fuente does not like it and leaves, so much the better.
Or, God help us, is keeping the staff somehow in Fuente's contract? I tried to do some digging and could only find this year's salaries as well as the contract extensions from the past that supposedly expired in June 2020. Something more recent was behind a pay wall on The Athletic.
All of Fuentes staff is annual contracts.
Thank you. On more levels than one, thank you!
The money is there. It depends on what the administration prioritizes in their budget.
I'll leave it at that. I have no idea how to run a state university. I do not have a degree in economics or business.
Administration as in athletic department, or the university at large? Because there's a big difference.
I assume WB has to sell his vision for the AD to Sands. I mean the University at large.
My point is this: if a buyout is the right move they can find the money.
It is also possible to fire CJF for cause and let the courts sort it out.
If the right course of action is to move on from CJF, these accomplished/smart people will figure out a way to do it.
Even though there have been countless claims to the contrary, Fuente has done absolutely nothing to be fired with cause. He could counter with a defamation suit and be more likely to win.
I'm not a lawyer. I don't know what constitutes proof of behavior to fire with cause. My point is these intelligent people (if they are unscrupulous) can push language of the contract as far as they want. Suppose the monetary loss from a defamation suit is less than the buyout (it isn't) the it might make sense to pursue that course of action.
Overall, its a terrible idea. Bad publicity, will probably cost a lot more than a buyout (and the cost isn't structured temporally that allows you tot plan for it), and it will effect the search for the next candidate e.g. a potential head coach will wonder "Will they do that to me?"
If worst comes to worst, we could always remove Fuente and keep an interim HC at $1.5M and our HC budget line remains the same until the buyout ends.
(this is not a good idea)
This would be a great move if you had a specific willing candidate in mind that you thought could either be an effective stop gap or a potential diamond in the rough. Not likely either way. How is Bud's heart doing? Jham has been mentioned, mostly jokingly, but hey who knows.
I'd like to see Vice as interim HC. He's a proven recruiter and developer for his position group, and is the only person on that side of the ball worth bringing back.
Not the worst idea I have heard. It isnt traditional thinking so there would probably be raised eyebrows but it isn't a traditional situation either.
It's a terrible idea from a recruiting standpoint. But our recruiting is already bad so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
What are you talking about our current recruiting class has out recruited Duke, Syracuse, WF and no one else in the ACC 😂
but... but.... but we have everyone returning. I was told in the Clemson game thread that alone is worth keeping Fuente around for another season
Let's give it 3 more years and 4 more bottom acc recruiting classes. Fuente likes where we are at per his presser
I could love this. Vice with his backward ball cap, farmer's tan, and mullet, leading the team from the OL coach position.
I could also dig JHam if he were to maybe bring in a Torrian to be DBs coach and have a DC as either Torrian, Claeys, or Deerlick.
I actually like this quite a bit as a low cost holdover option to potentially make a change post COVID. Especially if they can find someone to bite on the staff who has an outside chance of winning the job full time to keep around most of the coordinators and support staff. Might be better than another year of status quo Fuente and his terrible relationship with the fanbase and media.
I meant for the duration of the buyout. For a single season it could probably work.
Yup, I see what you mean. Worst case hire a new coach next year, best case you hit on a great up and comer and save some money while buy-out is being paid off.
I mean, considering that Shane apparently just signed a contract for $2.75m/year, and Fuente was making $4.5m, not just $4m, had we pursued that avenue and made that deal instead we'd only be looking at a loss of $750k/year.
Where is the salary data from? Not a single SC beat writer is showing it. What's his yearly increase? Assistant pool? Insensitive bonus?
I parroted it from a comment further up on this same thread, but Google led me to here as the origin of that particular claim:
https://sportstalksc.com/2020/12/07/beamer-officially-introduced-as-new-...
No idea how credible they are, if at all.
JMHO - Given the financial crunch, I'd rather take a stab at keeping Fuente (who I believe is a good coach while I recognize he's not necessarily a good recruiter and he doesn't have the PR chops for the public interfacing) and spend that $2.5 mil per year on upgrading the coaches and staff. Corny isn't getting it done. I don't think Hilgart is either. And we need more "non-coaching" support somehow. Recruiting support, something.
I don't think JHam ever had a chance this season either. I'd say give him a non-COVID season where he gets a spring and summer to install the scheme, and where he isn't dealing with being sick himself, and having whole position groups out for weeks at a time.
Fire Fuente and that $2.5 mil doesn't go to investments with a potential to have a return. Go find a better OC, find a better head trainer, and make the rest of the money an investment in other support for the program that our competitors have and we don't.
I guess overall, I'm not certain Beamer, or anyone else we could have hired after Beamer retired would have had overall better results than Fuente with all other things being equal. Therefore, I say give the guy (that the whole extended profession respects and agrees is a good head coach) more resources and support, with the exception of telling him he's gotta make a change at OC if he wants the extra budget spent on his program.
the issue with this is that the money is likely earmarked for a buyout. if a booster is going to pony up for a coaching change, it seems pretty silly to take that money and then invest it in the current staff. sounds like a good way to signal to boosters that their money isn't "well spent"
I get it. I just wasn't thinking of it in terms of boosters ponying up $2.5 mil per year for 4 years. I was thinking of it as increase the budget to support new OC, training, and support and recruiting resources by $2.5 mil per year permanently. Cut something else to make it happen. If the boosters will commit to the expense permanently, that's different.
But yeah, you gotta clear on the money you're asking for and what you're going to do with it. I just think that between not being able to really get anyone better, and the rest of the well documented issues, I think we might get more traction and more return on investment with increasing the support and getting better OC, etc. than by paying Fuente to not be here.
Even if Fuente still doesn't better his results in the future, the extra resources being permanent make it permanently more attractive job to other HC's than it does now. Chances are if we get rid of Fuente, we don't end up with an upgrade right now. So stick with Fuente, expand the resources, and if Fuente gets the boot later, we've got a more attractive position when times and new HC options are better.
We're VT, not 'Bama, tOSU, Clemson, etc. We don't have the same resources, and unfortunately for right now, we need to be smart both now and for the future. Reactionary "he sucks, he's gone" without addressing everything wrong, and even hampering the ability to address everything that's wrong, won't help.
And Fuente isn't the only problem. We've fallen behind the curve to stay competitive as a program. The program doesn't have the resources allocated to it for anyone to come in and make a quick fix. Unless we up the ante we're investing, the next coach will have the same problems and similar results.
A big part of this issue is so far Fuente has been completely unwilling to retool his offensive staff when not forced to.
FYI, I removed the link to paywalled content as per the community guidelines. if you have to apologize in advance for the CG violation, it's a pretty good indicator that it shouldn't be linked.
Lads and Lasses. We got the money
Fuente said in his presser today, "I don't want them to play for me, I want them to play for each other".
He's been told. Dead giveaway. Dec 16 can't come soon enough.
I doubt he has been specifically "told," as then he could argue he was effectively terminated or not to be retained prior to Dec 16. But I'm sure he definitely sees the writing on the wall.
I hope Whit does it like that ^^
You're all whiners. Suck it up.
Fuente, is that you?
PMS indeed.