Life update!! Thankful for my time with Coach Pry and VT Football. Let's see what the NBA has in store, Go Wizards!! So blessed and thankful for this opportunity♥️ pic.twitter.com/dP3oYaaXnn— Jalyn Ballein (@JalynBallein) November 17, 2024
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
If she's working for the Wizards, then "what the NBA has in store" is losing. A lot of losing.
I'm a bit out of the loop. Why do people want the Balleins gone?
There's a lot to unpack, but the basic issue is they are felt to be a major reason why VT Athletics seems to be increasingly out-of-touch and repeatedly inept in decision-making.
There was also a "minor issue" of John actively undermining Fuente during his time here. Somehow Whit feigned ignorance of all this and didn't see this as a reason for termination.
John is a dinosaur and has been with VT football for 37 years. He underminded Fuente daily and likley does the same to Pry. he won't retire it seems.
Not arguing, just asking: how did he undermine Fuente daily?
He was a main character in ESPN's "wtf happened to Virginia Tech" piece that ran last year
Shouldn't have read that again. Now my weeks off to a miserable start.
We will never be a serious program if we cannot change with the times. The Beamer way worked in its era, but that era is long past and we have to adapt to survive.
It's infuriating that the one man who has blocked change the most in Blacksburg still has as much say as he does. I'm real tired of the old boys club in Merryman. Real change cannot happen for VT athletics as long as Ballein still has a controlling say.
Maybe he will retire- when he is 103 years old.
There were areas where the program needed to modernize and he didn't exactly go out of his way to make sure those needs were being addressed.
Maybe the answer isn't to fire Pry, or Whit. Maybe Ballein is the one who really needs the pink slip.
Why not three?
I thought word was she had done well?
People blame her dad for everything wrong with VT athletics, so she suffers by association.
people are kidding themselves if they think one personnel change is going to fix everything and get us back to a decade of ten win seasons.
sure you can make an argument that we'd be better off without John in this day and age, but it's almost becoming meme status at this point
He was one of the few in Whit's inner circle that helped hire Pry and he also had a hand in scuttling Fuente. So he's in the game, but I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. Ultimately though, it all rolls up to Whit. I think even if John was gone, Whit would still fumble the ball.
John Ballein isn't making Fuente ice the Liberty kicker. John Ballein isn't making two numbers 0 run out there on the same play. John Ballein isn't missing run fits, or cursed with trampoline hands.
Is he part of the problem? Sure! Is getting rid of him some cure-all? Nope. Is getting rid of him probably helpful? Sure! Is it THE first place to start? Maybe? Is it a guarantee things would be better? Nope.
Nailed it.
Things ain't getting better any time soon
There is substantial rot in our program and it's going to take a long long time to sort it out, if ever we do. There is no magic bullet for what ails VT. Pry can hire a new DC in the off season and that'll dial back the noise a bit for a year or two longer but eventually he's going to reach the end of his line and Whit (or somebody) is going to have to hire another coach who will come in and continue the trend of struggling more than we think they should.
Get rid of Ballein. That's a start but it's not a fix. Get rid of Whit. Same story. The AD needs to be completely overhauled top to bottom and finding the right mix of people is going to take a lot of years and there will be painful missteps. Beamer is a once in a lifetime type of coach. VT won't replicate his success for at least another 50 years. Like catching lighting in a bottle.
Not trying to be a downer. I just think we need to recalibrate expectations.
I think it is even bigger than the Athletic Department. The whole administration and Board of Visitors does not value athletic success. It's why we didn't fire Fuente a year earlier. The mega donors are courted to contribute to academics, not athletics.
There has to be change at the very top, which I don't think will happen.
I think you're absolutely right. Overhauling the AD is a decision that could only be made if the larger institution is committed to athletic excellence and I don't believe ours is.
In other words, I think our administration and BOV would need to be interested in having a serious football program in order to overhaul the AD - and overhauling the AD will be a years long commitment that will be necessary and painful to do in order to establish a top tier football program.
Sadly, I think that is a pipedream. I just don't believe that the people who really matter are that invested in football.
That's why I think we need to reset our expectations. VT is what it is. A middling program in a middling conference. We're probably lucky to have a .500 football team over the last 5 to 10 years. It's going to get worse before it gets better. And I see very few signs indicating that it's going to get better any time soon. Probably not until I'm retired, at best.
But a simple stroll down memory lane should be all it takes to convince them otherwise. Applications soared on the back of the 1995 and 1999 football seasons. Having top tier athletics is like having a free marketing campaign especially when you get nationally televised games. Whether the BOV likes it or not. having top notch sports teams helps legitimize the University as a big time school and change the perception from just an engineering school in the hills. You think anyone outside the state of Alabama would be trying to get in to either Auburn or Bama if they didn't have the sports notoriety that they do?? Hell no. Also I would be interested to see if overall donations and/or licensing take go up when the athletic department is successful. I would think people find more pride in their University when the successes are so public as they are with sports. They buy more shirts, car stickers, license plate holders, flags, etc. This should be an easy sell to the BOV.
I agree with you 1000%
I just don't believe our administration sees it that way
Not to mention the 460 bypass that was built after the Michael Vick years. I remember the old road to Tech during my time there in the early 80's and the trips back until the 460 bypass was built. I may be wrong but I don't think it was coincidence the road was built shortly after Vick's years and the success of the program.
There is absolutely zero chance those two are remotely connected. It's simply not how highway funding and project timelines work.
If any capital improvement of that sort happens, it probably languished in a planning phase for at least a year. Then a budget approval phase for another year. Once the state approved the budget, it was either done as a design build, or traditional design bid build. But in no case was a design ready in less than 6 months. These are minimums. In reality, it was probably a decade of planning and design to make that work happen.
The funny part was when the smart road was being constructed, the plan was it for it to be extended to Roanoke by 2020. I don't think they are ever extending it but I remember going to the public hearings and reviewing the completed construction plans for a transportation class.
I hate it when solid facts get in the way of a random theory. /s
I would like to direct you to Guitarman's post on this last week (of which I recommend you read in its entirety):
I want to believe Guitarman. Really, I do. But I just don't see evidence to support the claim. I think, for me, VT voting to add Stanford, Cal and SMU was the point where it seemed clear to me that the administration wasn't serious about football. Maybe they want football to be good. Maybe they understand the importance of having a good football program. That move makes it pretty clear that they don't understand how to have a good football program.
Adding those three schools to the league did nothing to help football, long term. Maybe for the next 7 years it means a few extra pennies in our pockets but we also just added huge travel expenses so.... And eventually those teams will start splitting an ever shrinking pie more ways, meaning less resources for VT. Additionally, the move effectively destroyed any semblance of hope VT (and other possible high profile targets) had for an exit strategy from a dying league. The ACC is sinking fast. Adding those teams just wrapped the anchor around our own necks.
Adding those teams to the league was a shortsighted, scared, chickenshit move with absolutely 0 long term benefit for VT football. People who make that kind of choice might say they care about football but they have no clue how to deliver.
As a fan of college football, I hate the idea of those teams in the ACC because I believe conferences should be regional. As a fan of Virginia Tech, I don't see anyway that it's detrimental to football?
I do see potential upsides:
It's detrimental so far as locking VT into a dead/dying league. Our escape hatch was locked shut by adding them.
Sure, we make a few mil. We also spend a few mil traveling out there and back over the course of the 7 years. We might still be net positive but not by an amount that is worth noting. The downside of the ACC remaining intact is that it is highly unlikely the next TV contract the league gets will match or exceed the per/school payout we're getting right now. The major networks are putting all their eggs in the Big10 and SEC baskets so there won't be any eggs left over for the ACC when the time comes to sign a new contract. And by locking ourselves into the ACC, we're locking ourselves out of the (perhaps improbable) potential opportunity to join one of the P2 and secure the type of funding we'll need to stay competitive.
peanuts. We're well behind the P2 by far more than 2-5%. And it's pretty shortsighted to take a 2-5% raise over the next 7 years when that number is going to drop off and, in all likelihood, become a deficit beyond those 7 years. I don't see a realistic path to the ACC making more money once those schools start taking their full payouts. I think, long term, we're going to see a decrease in revenue because the networks won't sign a bigger deal with the ACC and we're going to be splitting the money more ways.
I don't see how AAU status helps VT. I also don't see how adding Cal and Stanford to the ACC helps VT get AAU status. Only a fool would think doing two schools a small favor by voting to add them to a sinking ship will result in VT getting AAU status. Maybe Sands did a handshake deal but I doubt very seriously that it'll result in VT getting AAU status.
They may "talk" about it, but I am not convinced they are doing anything to improve the situation.
I'm okay with that approach.
Yeah, I mean at the end of the day Virginia Tech is first and foremost an educational institution. I have no problem with the BOV and school president prioritizing academics over athletics. That is their job and I would have a huge problem with VT diverting academic resources to athletics.
I know there are some people who would take a national championship in football at the cost of academics, I wouldn't. And frankly, say what you will about Stanford, but they are proof that you can be successful in both academics and athletics. I would love for Tech to be great at both, but if we can only be good at one, then it should be academics.
Stanford also has most of their sports coaching positions paid for at least partially by established family trust endowments though. Their women's basketball head coach isn't even referred to as coach. She is the "The Setsuko Ishiyama Director of Women's Basketball". Three of their assistant coaches are also named endowments. Men's basketball head coach, same thing.
The head coach for football has three endowments titles.
He is the
1. Bradford M. Freeman Director of Football
2. Andrew Luck Director of Offense •
3. Kevin M. Hogan Quarterbacks Coach
Four other football assistant coaches also have endowment titles.
While I doubt the endowments cover 100%, not having to come up with 100% from revenue makes things much simpler to hire the best coaches.
Stanford also knows how to win championships. They have 123 from 20 different sports.
To be fair, it's not all or nothing. If we're top 25 in academics and top 40 in athletics, and could shift funding around to be top 30 in each, I'd say 'hell yes'
Duke is
ND is 18th
Michigan is 21st
UNC is 27th
UF is 30th
Texas is 30th
anOSU is 41st
UGA is 46th
FSU is 54th
VT is 51st, why do we have to sacrifice athletics when most of the top football and basketball schools are above us?
I assume your question is rhetorical, but in the event it's not, the answer is likely money. I'd wager those schools all get significant more donations, have a bigger endowment, etc than VT.
Then send a message to our high dollar donors to up their giving or we are shutting it all down.
What we are getting right now isn't good enough. We have more donors than Clemson but we are bringing in less money. Our high dollar donors are cheap as hell compared to everywhere else, and yet they seemingly have our Athletic Department by the balls harder than most other schools.
We are so mismanaged it's mind boggling. I'm tired of the excuses. If we are that poor then gut ourselves of the waste until we can be financially solvent again.
Are they cheap or just not rich (relative to donors at other programs)? Genuinely unsure.
Terrible idea imo. Despite the underfunding, VT is by all accounts a bubble P2 program if/when the ACC collapses. We need to do everything possible now to make that cut if the opportunity arises. Giving up now would be dumb.
I always though of athletics being a way to get more recognition for academics, but at the end of the day, academics is MUCH more important.
All of that said, I'd like to see more success in athletics, because I don't think it's either/or.
Sounds like addition by subtraction to me.
So you're saying the same thing as me then?
sort of? like did john ballein make us pay up for ali jennings only for him to low key suck? or are we saying the team's performance is somewhat his fault because he pushed us to hire pry who can't manage a clock? Nobody here is complaining about John Ballein if we're winning games, but since we're not, here we are. I personally just have a really hard time thinking that he is responsible for us losing them.
Just fucking retire already. seriously. 37 years in one job is enough my guy. College football is much different now than it was in 1987. It's a different sport. Apparently he ran the ship under Fuente- we saw how that worked. Either give him a meaningless job since he wont retire or get someone in there that knows modern college football.
I'm with GGC here in that this feels like we are going out of our way to scapegoat Ballein.
Apparently he ran the ship under Fuente
World class reporting here. I'm sure this is the unfettered truth. If it is, shame on Fuente not Ballein.
I don't think Pry and his staff are going to be the group that leads VT back to relevance. Seen enough, don't think they have it. However, for as much as everyone wants to blame Whit or Ballein, they are discounting just how hard it is to hire the right staff. There is no formula. Everyone uses hindsight to say that Fuente and his staff were G5 guys and didn't know how to run a P5 program. Well Cignetti took his FCS turned G5 staff to Indiana and is doing just fine. Plenty of coaches with P5 head coaching experience don't work out. Schools with way more resources that VT spent years in the desert:
Tennessee, Texas, Oregon, Michigan, Florida, FSU, Auburn, Nebraska, Miami, USC
All of these schools have had 5-20 year periods of bad to mediocre football in the last 20 years. They burned through money, coaches, and ADs trying to rebuild a decent football program. Great coaches are special and most them are not identifiable in advance. It is with hindsight that the ones that work our seem like slam dunks but for every Cignetti there are 10 Justin Fuente and Brent Pry.
This was literally done 5 years ago. He has nothing to do with football anymore. He referred Pry and got his interview process started. He didn't cajole Whit into hiring Pry.
He may not have the direct connection to football but a large number of the people working in the Athletic Department, he was directly responsible for bringing them in. Definitely still has a large influence regardless of his title.
The only direct influence is he had a big hand in hiring Pry. Even in that case, in a vacuum, he's not the cause of losses.
The bigger issue is simply he has influence and that's because the athletic director is proving to be in over his head.
Whit's the cause, everything else are symptoms.
I wondered when I saw this if it might be related to getting out because there was negative sentiment related to her dad and hoped it might foreshadow him being let go.
I'm happy she's getting an opportunity to further her career.
She shouldn't be denigrated for the perceptions about her father.
yeah seriously wtf is this
Absolutely a great career move for her and shouldn't be anything personal from anyone.
However, when you zoom out and look at the macro issue, especially now with some of the dirty laundry about John hanging around and sandbagging the previous staff, the issue to me is just cronyism/nepotism. When you see a Beamer holdover getting that position of power and wielding his influence in the background, somehow his wife is the most qualified person to be MBB Chief of Staff and sort of/kind of works under him, somehow his daughter is the most qualified to be a major football recruiting director...I mean maybe they are, but it sure has the appearance of impropriety/nepotism from the outside. I don't know if this is a cause or a symptom of a really small town mindset AD department at VT. But I can see why people are rightfully not happy about the situation considering the direction our programs are heading.
There's just a very small circle of people with too much power and influence over VT athletics and it's got to change IMO.
This is the job description for the Director of On-Campus Recruiting:
The Director of On-Campus Recruiting for Football will coordinate all prospect visits to the Virginia Tech campus including game days, junior days, prospect camps, official visits, and unofficial visits throughout the year. Assist with the admissions process for prospective student athletes.
It just seems to me that criticisms of her dad aside (and you may be right about those), she was surely not a significant part of what ails Virginia Tech football, and we should all be thanking her for her support for the program, and wishing her the best.
If we're going to level criticism, let's make sure it's laser-focused, and in the right direction.
Agree, by all accounts was a really great part of the team and will be missed.
Seeing as she probably grew up on campus and in the football operations, she probably was very qualified to organize recruiting visits. On the flip side of most arguments of her being a crony, she likely had a better than most chance of getting her dad to change with the times.
...and now her dad will have a hand in picking her replacement so further down the slippery slope we go.
She was qualified and not a crony/old guard blacksburg- Bruce Garnes on the other hand.....
Sadly, I can't see that and wonder if she was qualified or "Qualified".
I put her in as a strong Q2, but not quite making it into Q3.
Why is this even being down voted? Q2 is a solid position to be in...
If it's good enough to keep Perez at Red Bull....
John had a lot of influence on the complacency during the Beamer era that we have never recovered from.
He liked the job security and consistency of 10 win seasons. Resisted change.
Sauce: straight from a close family member of John's in 2011.
I am comfy so why get better?!?
Yeah agree. This is a pretty big loss for the recruiting staff.