...and what happened after.
I know there's a lot of football knowledge out there so I thought I'd throw out a question for the community to answer.
Who are some coaches who "earned the right to retire when they wanted," but then stayed too long and hurt their programs?
In these cases, how long did the programs take to recover? I'm hearing a lot of "if Frank doesn't step down soon, we're doomed forever and ever and ever. Historically, is this the case? Bowden/Fisher comes to mind as a counterexample, but I don't have a broad enough knowledge to determine if that's just an exception.
On the other hand, are there any examples of a coach "staying too long" only to right the ship and retire on a high note (or get fired on a high note, Ralph)?
discuss, and try not to double post
Comments
Bowden stayed so long they hired a "coach in waiting", and then pushed him out. I believe that's an example of "stayed to long", and it didn't hurt the program because they pushed him out, and had an excellent coach waiting in the wings.
Lou Holtz left Notre Dame on "mutual agreement". Joe Paterno left Penn State after allowing a pretty inexcusable thing occur, so I guess you can say that was "too long".
Every coach eventually goes out on a winning note, or goes out on a losing one, but going out on a winning note after a long career is more the exception than the rule.
Just a note about Paterno: Aside from the obvious reasons he was dismissed, here is a quick note about their records, (99-09):
1999 10 3
2000 5 7
2001 5 6
2002 9 4
2003 3 9
2004 4 7
2005 11 1
2006 9 4
2007 9 4
2008 11 2
2009 11 2
In 1999, they had a ten win season and finished the season ranked 11th. Four of the next five years they didn't make a bowl and bottomed out at 3-9 in 2003. Starting in 2005, they had five seasons of nine wins or better, with three seasons with 11 wins.
Lots of people were calling for Paterno's head in the early 2000s, especially after the 2003 season, much like we are with Frank nowadays. It took Paterno five to six seasons to turn it around. But it did turn around, so I'm not sure this is the best example of 'stayed too long'.
Now, the 500lb gorilla in the room is what he was fired for eventually, but it wasn't because the program was unsuccessful on the field.
I didn't say Paterno was the BEST example, I just said he was an example.
He was reduced to a figurehead by the time he left, and overlooked pedophilia in the process.
And not to put too fine a point on it, Penn State is a program that could recruit great coaches and athletes in spite of NCAA sanctions. They have two national championships. Penn State has so much influence that they got their penalties reduced. Even after proven pedophilia, the NCAA couldn't make their sanctions stick.
So no, I'm not sure that's a comparable example to what we have at VT. Penn State could weather quite the downturn, and still come back. I think VT would do better not to sink into the abyss. For every Penn State and Michigan, there are many more programs who had a day in the sun, and didn't stay on top.
It seems to me that top programs who can recruit top 15 or top 20 classes in spite of losing seasons would be able to weather a few losing seasons better than programs who can't do that. So I think if you're going to put up a "win-loss" record, you should also put up the recruiting class rankings for those years.
Do we need more examples?
yes, please. That was the point of making this post. I wanted more examples on both sides of the argument.
My point was that Paterno stayed long enough to sell out his ideals.
That's too long. I didn't know how to say it without saying it.
How do you suppose Penn State would have done if Paterno had the courage to let go sooner? Do you think they couldn't have found a good coach?
I'll ask again. How did Penn State do recruiting-wise during those years?
Also, in looking at that data, I don't see any three years in a row where there wasn't at least one with 9 wins. I'm going to guess there was a lot of rumbling going on, but it's amazing how wins erase those, and get people back on the hype train.
According to 247
2000- 5th
2001-17th
2002-22nd
2003-48th
2004-13th
2005-17th
2006-7th
2007-35th
2008-40th
2009-17th
2010-12th
Thanks.
Not too shabby. Includes 2 classes in the top 10, and out of 11 years, 8 classes in the top 25.
I can't find data all the way back to 99, so I'll just go with ssoar's data from 247. I think Rivals only started ranking in like 2002 though, and the other services came along later, so I'm not sure how that data was compiled.
There were not three years in a row where a team didn't have at least 9 wins. But we haven't missed a bowl season in any season, either.
But we haven't missed a bowl season in any season, either.
That's true. I don't so much have an issue with the number of wins, as with some of the teams VT has lost against, and how those games were lost. For me, losing against some pretty average teams, and losing to them via mental errors and costly penalties is a very bad indicator.
It tells me that they have the talent to win, but maybe not the discipline and the will required. There are intangibles there.
Fulmer. UT hasn't been the same since
Fulmers last 4 years; 5-6, 9-4, 10-4, 5-7. That is of course in the SEC and he had a NC under his belt. I do not think he stayed too long, I think UT pulled the trigger too soon and made 2 bad hires after that. If we had gone 9-4 and 10-4 the 2 seasons preceding last year most of us would not be having this discussion right now. Instead we have gone 2-8 AT HOME against weak FBS competition in a very weak division with a 70 year old coach who unfortunately has had recent health issues. We can't recruit because of the uncertainty and the mediocrity of the program.
Yes, this. There's a difference between staying too long and having someone with a short fuse tell you that you've stayed too long. In some of these cases, I think it would be fair to argue that some people didn't stay long enough.
Not sure Tennessee cared about this, but Fulmer also had an Urban-Meyer-like way of recruiting subpar personalities. Hence the annual 'Fulmer Cup' competition.
Mack Brown. The other UT has been down for years.
Maybe someone can answer a question for me? Why does everyone just assume that when Frank leaves the program will get better?
I don't assume that, but I DO assume that it certainly won't get better until he leaves.
I agree with this. I like our chances of turning things around a lot more with a younger more energetic coach who shows a lot of ambition than I do with Frank. I don't think this program is going anywhere but down under Frank's direction right now. As long as he stays in charge I think we can come to expect seasons maxing out in the range of 4-7 wins.
I'm acutely aware that when Frank is gone and someone else is coaching the Hokies there is no guarantee that things will get better. Statistically speaking, it's more likely things will continue on the same path or even get worse (there are only so many coaches who can make a team a championship contender). But I can hope like hell that VT is an attractive enough job to lure in a bright young coach with a passion, a vision, and the ambition to get to the top. I think it's more likely that VT will turn around under the direction of someone new than under Frank.
VT was at peak attractiveness, in my opinion, between 2011 and 2012 when Logan Thomas was coming off his first season, VT won the Sugar Bowl, and the team had a pretty decent outlook. After that it was all downhill. And unfortunately, the longer Beamer stays the less attractive the job is. Unfortunately, VT will get passed over for $EC jobs.
I agree that VT as a job opportunity was probably more attractive a few years ago, but I feel like it is still fairly attractive. I think after Beamer leaves, it will be essentially a blank slate. Expectations aren't through the roof like they would be other places and there is decent talent waiting in the wings.
So, I agree, someone like Fuente would probably prefer Hugh Freeze's job (he earned it by right of conquest) but I think VT could be very attractive to a coach with a strong sense of vision for the program. I mean, really, I think this fanbase would quickly buy in to someone with strong conviction about what he wanted to do and where he wanted to take the program.
I think it's a pretty attractive job. Great facilities, great administration, great fan base.
I'll be interested to see how coaches rate these features, as compared to the other opportunities out there.
Whit is sharp though
He's sharp but he has to be $harp like he was with Buzz.
I am winning the substitute-s-with-dollar-signs game today.
Plus, if he does leave and we make a decent hire, this will create excitement surrounding the program. There will probably be an increase in donations for a while as a result, and more money can lead to all sorts of good things for the program. Recruits will also take notice of a rejuvenated Blacksburg, similar to what happened with basketball. None of this happens as long as Frank is in charge.
At the moment, I have confidence in Whit to make a good hire than I do that Frank Beamer will turn the team around next year.
What does "earning the right" mean? Staying as long as you want could be akin to what a Pinochet does in Chile. You're good as long as your contract says you're good or until you are no longer tolerated and fired. The big difference between those who get fired and those who don't is probably timing, choose the right time or end up like a Paterno/Bowden/Fulmer/et al, imho.
So you are comparing Beamer to a murderous dictator now?
Yes, in the sense Pinochet being a leader who maybe felt he earned the right to stay as long as he wanted, I am making a comparison? Murderous is your word not mine and certainly you can't possibly believe anyone would try to draw that parallel with a college football coach, or would you? Will Frank be pushed out or choose to leave soon? Should he have chosen to leave sooner? Some on this board think yes as early as 2007 to 2011 they've said. I just have a wishy-washy opinion that fluctuates daily, but I don't believe anyone has a right to do anything because they once had a good run, however they might define that. That said, Beamer's good until 2019 as per his contract, so that gives him a right.
Totally agree.... that phrase is the dumbest thing there is. At the end of the day, the football program is a business. It is there to generate revenue for the school. There is NO other business that will let a CEO/principal/VP/etc. stay as long as they want because they brought the business to it's highest peak (however long ago) if the business is in a downfall and the board/stakeholders don't like the direction the company is going. People who say Beamer has "earned the right" to stay as long as he wants are some of the most asinine comments I have seen
EDIT (link added):tell us how you really feel
read above your comment
Business looks pretty good to me
"For the 2013-14 season, Virginia Tech had total revenues of $73.0 million, more than a 62 percent increase from the $45.7 million figure listed for the Hokies when the newspaper began this exercise in 2005. "
From http://hamptonroads.com/2015/05/closer-look-virginia-tech-athletic-depar...
If you look at just about any major program's revenue from 2005 compared to 2014, I bet it has increased.
Also from the article:
"Virginia Tech's $73 million plus in revenue this year put it 42nd of public schools"
"20 programs have athletic department revenues that exceeded $100 million in 2013-14."Note the drop in "ticket sales at the top. This was for the 2013-14 season, so it was the year when the Hokies' football sellout streak officially came to an end"
"Contributions also stayed relatively the same, actually dipping just a little. "
So, while you may look at a revenue increase over the course of 10 years, which is pretty much inevitable for every program, and say business looks good, it's certainly misleading. Declining ticket sales, donations, on-field performance, and recruiting doesn't look good to me.
Ticket sales were down about $1.5 million.
We also can't forget that basketball is on an upswing, and I'm guessing some swag was purchased after last year's Ohio State game. Never underestimate the hype train.
I'll keep donating, but mostly because of Buzz Williams and because it's what I do.
over 10 years, thats inevitable... but if you like the product and the direction this program is going, then business is good!
Perhaps this is just the opinion of my generation (or maybe just my friends/colleagues who have entered the professional world during the boom of lean tech startups), but tenure is becoming a thing of the past (rightfully so). You don't 'earn the right' to leave when you want; if you can't do your job, you get replaced.
The only reason Frank (or any coach in his position) should stay is if he can turn the program around. If you genuinely believe that Frank can turn the program around, then it is reasonable to support him and hold the belief that he should remain head coach. If you don't think Frank can bring the program back to what it was 5 years ago, then there is no reason for him to remain head coach.
"Coaches who stayed too long" / Frank Beamer
Off the top of my head; Paturno, Fulmer, Nehlen, Walsh, Bowden, HBC, Brown,
I don't agree with HBC, the guy took a perennial second tier SEC and made them relevant with more success then they typically ever had before him. This year was going to be bad, a lot of people saw it, and he stepped out on his own to give the school plenty of time to find a quality replacement without ruining his name as well.
As for the rest, they all built them up, stayed on top, and stayed long enough to watch it burn all down on their way out.
Last year was poor for them, too. The SEC has a different standard of a poor season, and some of the nations most impatient fans. that conference is so hyper competitive and has so much exposure that it's as close to a professional league as it gets in this country (some would argue that it IS a professional league, if you get what I mean). I think they should've made the move before this season, to be honest.
As for the rest, they all built them up, stayed on top, and stayed long enough to watch it burn all down on their way out.
Perhaps it is the hyperbole that has me so worked up in defending Frank from all of his detractors
The problem with "stayed too long" is that by the time you realize the coach has stayed too long, he has already stayed too long.
"Earning the right" means this website wouldn't exhist without him, you wouldn't be a fan without him, I wouldn't have been a fan without him, Lane would still be empty on the north and south endzone, we wouldn't have the best practice facility in the country without him, many of the improvements in academics over the last 15-20 years wouldn't have happened, enrollment wouldn't have grown, some of the campus improvements wouldn't have happened. It doesn't happen very often but when it does some coaches deserve the right to step down when they want.
I was a VT fan before Beamer was the head coach. Bruce Smith was one of the two number one draft picks to come out of Virginia Tech. Also, pre-Beamer. VT was a top-rated engineering school before Beamer was coaching at VT.
Beamer did a lot for VT football, and for the university in general, but people forget that VT had football and was a successful university even before he was head coach.
Look, nobody (at least not me) is saying that Tech didn't have a football team or zero success before the Beams came. What does need to be pointed out is that Tech experienced the most and it's highest success under Beamer which is NOT to say that it isn't time for him to go. If it's time for him to go, then it's time for him to go.
I agree with your post entirely.
I'll be very blunt- I wouldn't have applied to Virginia Tech if it wasn't for Frank Beamer. Not to belittle the some of the alumni on the website but look at the average accepted SAT scores before and after the 1999 football season. The quality of the students who were interested in Virginia Tech drastically improved. I remembered when I applied in 2005, my college counselor told me that Michael Vick completely changed how Virginia Tech was viewed nationally.
Football raised the national profile of the school, but it was a top-rated engineering school before Beamer was hired. VT went from a major independent to the Big East to the ACC. These were all good moves, and the football recognition has helped.
It's a university that all-around has raised it's profile, but it's not all because of football. It's because a lot of people in a lot of different departments have worked really hard for that recognition.
You might be right about SAT scores, but it seems to me that the acceptance rate is pretty similar to when I applied in the 1980's. Do you have some data? Remember, you also have to compare them to the overall scores from the same years.
I think I read somewhere that applications to Tech double or tripled in the years immediately after the BCS title game appearance, and have only increased since. Yes, VT was a good engineering school before, but the football program, and the publicity it got for the school, kicked off the expansion era we've been seeing at VT over the last 10 years or so, which is quickly turning us into one of the best academic universities in the country and world.
This is from "Acceptance rates" website, so I can't vouch for it's accuracy...
Acceptance Rate By Year
2009-2010: 66.7%
2010-2011: 67.0%
2011-2012: 66.5%
2012-2013: 70.4%
2013-2014: 70.3%
Projected Virginia Tech Acceptance Rate 2015-2016: 69.0%
I don't doubt that the profile is raised, but I'd be curious to see the data.
At that same time, we're also admitting more students than we ever have before. I think politically, we have an obligation to try and accept a certain % of applications from at least in-state students every year.
Exactly, and that was all Beamer
Oddly enough, UVa is also harder to get into.
Do Al Groh and Mike London get the credit?
Sure dude...whatever
For sure we had a team before Beamer obviously I didn't forget that. However we were an independent team that never made money and had never won a bowl game in nearly 100 years of existence. Yes we had Bruce Smith and Jim Pyne among others but IMHO Beamer has done more for Blacksburg and Virginia Tech than anyone else in the history of the School, especially financially. So if you want to make it numbers argument I would say yes Beamer has "earned the right" to leave when he wants to. Having a few bad seasons (going on 4 now) shouldn't ruin peoples lives like I read on here after every loss. It is only a game played by kids after all.
Anyways I am obviously in the let Beamer do his thing camp. I would be extremely disappointed in Virginia Tech if he were to be fired.
No one should be able to earn the right to "leave when [they] want to". That's bad for business when said person's employment is no longer a sum positive. You don't continue to employ people strictly because of what they've done previously.
If Whit believes he can hire someone that will be a better coach and recruiter than Frank and that change will be an overall positive for VT Football, Whit needs to fire him.
Now, Frank deserves to be able to "resign" even if Whit is forcing his hand behind the scenes...but that's all.
wow, so insightful. You must really know what your talking about... except, you gave zero context and in fact have no clue what you are talking about. So... well, like you said about rumors, when it comes to unfounded, non-factual statements it's whack-a-mole time.
Stating that VT prior to Beamer was successful with zero comparison as to measurables before and after Beamer is so blatantly ignorant that it's almost laughable. Virginia Tech was a well respected regional school in 1980's. It's reach in terms of market awareness and financial performance was not very large at all. It peaked at Bruce "Sackman" Smith who captivated fans and landed a #1 draft pick, but then quickly faded. Those first 6 years of Frank's employ being the ONLY time that his presence did not directly contribute to the program and school seeing marked improvement across nearly all university metrics.
First let's start off with a bit of history that you seem to forget in your fan days prior to Beamer. Black Monday, Oct 26, 1987 the NCAA dropped the hammer on VT athletics, specifically Basketball and Football, to the tune of reduced scholarships, grants and 3 years probation. PRE-BEAMER.
Those first 6 years of Beamer's employment that he was left to fix with David Braine were so bad that we were hemorrhaging money. in 1991 it got so bad that Braine had to sell a home game against FSU to the Citrus Bowl to raise $850k.
source: http://archive.techsideline.com/columns/1997/stewart9706.htm
Beamer who almost got fired in 1992 but ultimately championed and retained by Braine was incorrectly the patsy for fan's discontent. Bill Roth noted:
source: http://virginiatech.sportswar.com/article/2005/08/22/the-year-of-our-dis...
So the ONLY losing seasons of Virginia Tech football under Beamer are in fact directly due to the shitstorm that it was pre-Beamer. You sure you're remembering things correctly still?
It didn't take long after 1992 for Beamer and Braine to turn the ship around and in 1997 Will Stewart wrote that first article sourced above and notes that the revenues generated from it were now paying for other facilities in VT Athletics.
Pre-Beamer this had not happened often if at all, and post 1997 it has happened EVERY YEAR.
In that second sourced article by Will Stewart, he writes:
Let's look at on the field performance:
1892 - 1986: 6 Bowls (Pre-Beamer)
1987 - 2014: 22 Bowls (Beamer)
hmm... sensing a trend here.
let's look at Athletic Dept profit. In 1997 Stewart notes that we made a $14 Million revenue. Then in this article they show profits as of 2014: http://virginiatech.sportswar.com/free-content/2015/05/27/infographics-v...
where we see a revenue of $73 Million
and here is football alone:
A very BIG difference from the days pre-Beamer. Of course, you didn't say anything substantive at all. Just that we had a football team right? Again, very insightful.
Let's look at the academic side of things. Here are the numbers for the endowment from just 2004 to 2014 during Beamer's heyday.
2004: $370,811,010
2014: $796,436,874
source: https://www.vt.edu/about/facts-figures-2015.pdf
It doubled in 10 years. From 1990 to 2000 it went from about $100 Million to $360 Million, also during Beamer. Pre-Beamer in the history of the school it did not even reach $100 Million.
source: http://www.vtf.vt.edu/media/annual_reports/VTF_2013_Annual_Report.pdf
Let's look at Research Expenditure from 1990 to 2013:
Awarded Money:
1990 - $73,682,060
2013 - $271,109,981
Expenditures:
1990 - $75,714,335
2013 - $286,536,573
NSF Expenditures
1990 - $121,400,000
2013 - $496,169,000
source: https://www.research.vt.edu/research-statistics/sponsored-research-stati...
well, geez, do all of these metrics increasing somehow correlate to Beamer kicking ass on the field? I could actually keep going on and on. Because .... well, facts. That's how facts work. You don't need to make them up, or in this case completely avoid them.
And the FACT of the matter is, that pre-Beamer Virginia Tech as an academic institution was on the rise, slowly. It suffered from low revenue, endowment and research expenditure numbers and very low market awareness. Following the hiring of Beamer and in direct correlation with the on-field success that Virginia Tech experienced the academic side enjoyed a unheralded boon. That boon was due to the football program putting the school in the national spotlight by vastly increasing our market awareness, both in sports and academics. Virginia Tech academics needed only continue to perform at their high level of excellence with the new founded national attention, and reap the benefits.
So in conclusion:
Okay,
I agree with what you're saying and you have researched an impressive array of facts and sources to back up your argument.
However, your tone comes across as a condescending know-it-all, which is just going to turn people off from what you're saying.
Mayhap.
I've been reading fernley's posts on this matter on a number of threads. In some cases, this is the level to which the fact-hammer needs to be brought out to extinguish an argument.
I don't think there is any question that VT football, and VT, are better off than when Beamer arrived. He has had a significant positive impact on the university.
But I do object to the way the OP argues it.
Did the financial resources at VT go up? Absolutely. Was a lot of that due to VT football? No doubt. But did the "slam dunk" argument account for the fact that over 23 years, other things have also happened at Virginia Tech and in the U.S. economy?
What was the value of your current house in 1990? What is it now? What was the value of your 401K? What is it now?
Except for the value of Blackberry stock, and petroleum over the last year, I think just about everything in the U.S. has gone up in value significantly, so some of those things he mentioned were due to inflation, not the hire of Frank Beamer. Virginia Tech has also been working diligently to improve it's academic programs, and has increased the amount of research it does, as well as the number of students enrolled. The government didn't award research dollars solely because of the fun of watching VT football. I'm sure it didn't hurt, though.
This is my major objection to these types of arguments in general. They sound great, but they often make broad, sweeping arguments as if they're fact, when he's mixing facts with emotional hyperbole.
I'd have been much more impressed with a comparison of VT numbers to UVa or UMD. That would have been a much better argument. Then he'd have been comparing things that could be compared. Like a successful football program vs an unsuccessful one.
and yet, you use zero facts about VT to prove your point.
I didn't say it was the only reason. As I said in the other thread Frank's leading of the team to it's success helped propel VT the school into the future, beyond it's normal trend.
If you think I am wrong, prove it with something more substantial than you just saying so.
people forget that VT had football and was a successful university even before he was head coach.
This is the statement you responded to.
Do I really need to use "facts" to prove that? On this forum? Do you think you succeeded in proving that statement wrong?
I have in several posts in this forum agreed that Beamer has had a huge influence on both Football and VT in general, but I object to the implication made by you and others that he didn't have a lot of help by a lot of other people in making VT what it is today.
VT was a great university when I went there in the 1980's. Even football made the top 25 sometimes during the 1980's. VT basketball made the NCAA tournament and the NIT during that decade. VT's profile was rising even then.
Yes, Beamer and Greenberg took the football and basketball programs to higher levels, but it's not like they started from scratch. Beamer deserves a lot of credit for getting VT to a national championship. I would not have imagined that in the 1980's. VT got into the Big East, and then the ACC. Those were both big moves, and both raised the profile of the athletic programs.
Virginia Tech is a better place because of Beamer. Let's not pretend that it didn't exist before him, though. I'm just pointing out that VT had a lot going for it even before the football success of the last two decades.
Alright, you two, settle down.
lol
The funny thing is that we're both strong advocates of VT.
Well, there are two scenarios here.
A: You mean what I and others inferred from this post. That you believe Beamer's impact on VT was not as much as what I and others have stated, which is markedly more than you give him credit for.
or
B: You literally believe that people actually forgot that VT had a football team and was a successful university. Which you reiterate here in this post by saying:
This is how many people forgot VT had a football team and successful university before Beamer
which if you truly wrote that post to state the people "actually forgot" then I revert you to Joe's comments about signal versus noise. This comment basically is meaningless because absolutely no one believes that. Not a single person. So why make it?
Otherwise, we are back to Scenario A where you are making a comment that is ambiguous on purpose to be argumentative which is happening with more people than just me. Again, why make it then?
And yes, you don't have to use facts to prove your statement because it's pointless. But I in fact said:
If you think I am wrong, prove it with something more substantial than you just saying so.
If you can't then stop stating to the contrary with no proof.
Of course, the third scenario is that I was just pointing out the flaw in your statistical argument. Correlation isn't causality, and in matters of finance, one shouldn't ignore basic elements like inflation.
This strand of this thread started with someone saying that we wouldn't be fans of VT football if it weren't for Beamer. WTF? I attended VT before Beamer was the coach. I was a fan of both VT football and basketball before that.
As far as the increase in research dollars, I'm going to guess a lot of professors think they have more to do with that than the success of the football program.
We can agree that Beamer has had a significant and positive contribution to Virginia Tech without exaggerating that impact. I love what Beamer has done in terms of the VT brand. Football fans are at least aware that VT has a decent football program, and there are a lot of intrinsic and direct benefits in that. At the same time, we can disagree about the future direction of VT football.
I agree with much of what you have posted Vtkey. I too attended VT before Beamer was hired and have witnessed the highs and lows of this program for 4 decades. I'm not sure why you have been attacked like this (in this thread) it makes no sense to me. It looks like someone is just trying to pick a fight. Fans are just frustrated with our struggling program and looking to vent against each other. It's ashame when we turn on our own. But we have been there, done that, and persevered. We will do it again.
Thanks for the kind words.
Fernley is on of my favorite posters on TKP. He is eloquent and factual, but he does not suffer fools gladly.
He is one of my favorite posters as well. He often provides insightful comments on thorny issues. I am aware that he's been going back and forth with people quite a bit about this topic, so was probably quite riled up when he wrote it.
The fact remains, though, that *this time* the snide comments interspersed throughout his post made him come across as a bit of a dick. Which is why my response was, essentially, "I agree, but you might want to dial it back a bit."
I am by no means trying to attack him, and it is a testament to his reputation that two people have already come to defend him. But if someone is being a butt, I will tell them so, regardless of who it is.
Thanks Illinois Hokie. Right back at you. Even though you can't see it, I gave you a leg.
The zero-sum leg is the greatest leg of all.
"but he does not suffer fools gladly"
Nor should he. Fernley routinely posts what I am thinking in a much more eloquent and effective way than I ever could. He also takes the time to do research that allows us to better form our opinions. When such posts are met with disagreement that can basically be summed up by, "Nuh-Uh, because... reasons", then he has every right to get condescending. Nothing ruins well-thought out, well-reasoned discussions like posters that just want to have their unsubstantiated opinions validated without any disagreement or rebuttal. Why should that behavior be humored?
Sorry 10Techman01, I appreciate what your saying. And yes, I was overly condescending on purpose. If you follow my posts I don't usually take that tone. I would say I normally try to bring the tension down, but I've reached my limit on this particular person's tendency to state things with no factual backup, or with ambiguity and feign that people are misinterpreting what he is saying.
But I appreciate what your saying and will tone down the condescension.
you're*
*ducks*
Careful, he doesn't like to be told when he's wrong.
No worries! Like I said, I agree with what you're saying and I figured you were riled up. I just didn't want things to get too far.
I wish you had also mentioned something about Braine forcing Beams to make personnel assistant coaching changes too.
And Beamer was well compensated for his efforts. It's not about giving Beamer respect or not, it's about what's best for the university. Saying he had earned the right to stay as long as he wants is saying we will continue to pay him millions of dollars a year to keep tech on the path to mediocrity, making it harder and harder to bounce back once he does move on. Is the warm sentimental feel you get from that really worth it? And remember, even after he leaves, he has a garunteed high paying job in the athletic department per his contact. It's not like we are throwing him out on the street
To me, 'earning the right' means we're resolved to the thought that our program is only as good as Beamer will take us, and once he's gone we'll struggle to ever regain the level of play we had. I disagree with this notion, and believe that he established a very good foundation for the program, and we will very quickly get up to the level we were playing, assuming we have a good coach coming in.
My problem with the 'earned the right' mentality is that it comes with an unstated mantra that Beamer has the leeway to completely unravel everything he has built, because he built it. I don't believe that at all. This program is bigger than one man, and we should do everything we can to ensure it has long term viability, even if that means asking a true legend of a coach to hang up the whistle one year before he really wants to.
What does "unraveling" mean though? When I say built I literally mean built buildings, stadium additions, classrooms, businesses. Those things will not fall to the ground because we lose some football games.
I also don't think that Beamer coaching 1-3 more seasons will cause our tradition to "unravel" and alums to turn their backs on the program forever
100% correct
Well someone isnt buying the tickets they used to buy.
Since 2010 the last sellout year, Year over Year ticket sales change
2010 +/- 0% Sellout
2011 -1%
2012 -2.5%
2013 -5.0%
2014 -5.3%
Projecting 2015 -5.7%
2015 assumes the average thru 4 games continues with Duke and UNC. In 2014 BC and UVA had below average attendance for their respective games for a 5-5 and 5-6 team in a rivalry game with bowl game at stake. that same effect could knock 2015 down to -6%
So far those numbers means VT has lost ~$6 mill in ticket sales. If the average fan spends half there ticket price for a drink and a shirt there's an additional 3 million lost. If that fan spends 25% of the ticket price on Pre/Post game things in Blacksburg then the City has lost about 1.5 million in economic impact
Now follow that trend 3 years out, Lost ticket sales $15-$20 Million over those 3 years, plus the already lost 6 million. Concession sales lost $5-$10 million, plus the prev $3 million
Unravled to the Cost of $10 million thru this year to total $40 million possible 3 years down the road
Where are you getting this years ticket sales from? Season tickets and mini packages sold out. The only non sold tickets left for home games are returned tickets from opponents.
http://www.hokiesports.com/football/stats/2015/?gbg
Tickets sold through 4 games
Current average 59,013
edit- included image for source
And we would be remiss in not pointing out that most of that is because of the Ohio State game.
Still doesn't mean the money hasn't come in.
Revenues will be down, because people who don't actually go to games don't spend money there. Do you think VT jerseys are flying off the shelves in record numbers this year?
You can debate him on the details, but his overall point is valid.
I agree with that.
First, your link is broken
http://www.hokiesports.com/football/stats/2015/?gbg
Second, is attendance the same as ticket sales? I know of people who have tickets, but don't make it to games. So the money has come in, the tickets show as sold, but there's no butt in the seat.
I would say it's not based upon VT football saying "tickets returned from ___ are now for sale, only tickets left" but I'm willing to bet Poole will say it is.
My only source for that is Andy Bitter. In an article he said the official attendance policy is tickets sold.
I'd agree with that since the Clemson game was a sellout but there sure wasn't a packed house that night. Or many other games I was going to during the streak
Are we talking about ALL, SOME, MOST, or HANDFULL? I mean what are we getting at in terms of %s??
Not sure what the response is you're looking for is but here is the data
102,000 unsold tickets in 4 years
Sorry jpoole. My question was directed at ssoarever. I agree with your statements.
Once fan apathy sets in, and the money stops coming in, it becomes VERY difficult to get it back. We're in our 4th consecutive year of being a very clear non-contender for the ACC title, and this year, in what was supposed to be a year we took a step forward into being that kind of program again, appears set to be the worst of the bunch, with our bowl streak very much in jeopardy. You cannot allow negative momentum to hang around for too long, or else it becomes the accepted norm, and once you have that set in, you're done.
I don't think that is true, I think every program in the country has had up and down times
Alabama was 74-55 from 1997-2007 and pretty mediocre for the entire decade, I wouldn't say they were "done"
they also had 6 different head football coaches during that period with Saban beginning in 2007, they were not settling for mediocrity
Chiming in with the prototypical "we're not Bamy" remark because it is true AND they've got deeper pockets and a wider and vast alumni base.
I love this picture so much. Because, she actually does look like an elephant! It's hilarious!
/boards train en route to hell
Not to mention the vast non alumni fan base that Bama has attracted over the last 100 years.
Where I live, "Roll Tide" is an acceptable greeting.
If you born in Bama there is a greater than 50 percent chance you are an Auburn or Bama fan, in VA, not so much.
Fan apathy is a fan problem. I'm not saying it's not a real problem for the school too, but the cause is that fans feel entitled. You say a coach can't earn the right to stay a few extra years and yet you feel the fans have earned the right to have better when they won't even support the players unless they are winning.
There's always the Bill Snyder example. He took over a terrible program and turned them into a championship contender. After a couple seasons that looked a lot like VT's current funk, he retired and the program fell back off a cliff. Only Snyder's un-retirement has righted the ship. Those calling for Frank's immediate departure would be wise to study this case history.
Agreed, Snyder is a pretty good comparison. But KState did just lose to Oklahoma 55-0 last weekend. We haven't hit bottom like that, at least not yet.
yeah, no points scored in regulation. That would be embarrassing. I'm glad we haven't done that recently.
Or lost by 55 at home... ever.
Only one of us is typing in sarcastica.
VT might be bad, but at least we aren't getting eviscerated by teams. Losing 55-0 at home is almost unfathomable to me.
The Miami game last year felt like 55-0, regardless of what the scoreboard said.
There is another aspect to consider. The way Beamer is treated on the way out could change the opinion a potential coach has of the program. Cutting contracts short is not an attractive trait for new hires. The best case scenario is that Beamer leaves under his own terms soon.
My real position is I am still hoping we turn this season around and would be happy to see a Beamer led team beat Tennessee next year. But why if we go looking would a potential coach think that Virginia Tech is a program that habitually cuts contracts short? Beamer in the beginning had a rough go for over half a decade and was still here. Hech, he's still here going on nearly 30 years, and these most recent four seasons of that have not been overly kind to him as a coach. Coaches in this profession can take a look around at a myriad of other schools and see that is what they do and what apparently happens quite frequently if indeed 50% of incoming players will not be playing for their current coach when they finish school. It goes with the territory.
I should have pointed out that I don't expect Beamer to be treated unfairly. But remember it was Whit that gave the extension and not Whit that was around for the 30 years. A new coach is coming in to a new president and AD. If Beamer says he wants to finish out his contract and Whit shoves him out the door anyway, not a great look to some. You're right though that most coaches would understand, but maybe not all.
VT football existed before Beamer and it will exist long after he's gone.
At this point, he's in danger of permanently damaging his legacy by overstaying his usefulness. His legacy is quickly migrating from "he took VT from a nothing and turned them into a power" to "he took them from a nothing, turned them into a power, and allowed it to sink towards irrelevance as he coasted towards retirement". If we miss a bowl, and I fully believe we will this year, and he sticks on while UVa goes through a coaching change and nabs one of the top minds in the game, that will be his lasting legacy. He brought us to relevance, and didn't leave until we were right where we were when he started.
That brings up another interesting question:
If VT and LOLUVa are both interviewing the same guy, which school has the edge?
I really want to just outright say VT, but, honestly, a couple selling points for LOLUVa come to mind immediately:
Whit Babcock >>> Craig Littlepage
yep and, as a fan, I agree and am really glad of this. As a coach, however, which AD do you think will give you more autonomy/slack if things start a little slow? I'm not saying Whit would be too quick to drop the hammer, but I think, as a coach, I'd rather have an AD with a proven record of giving coaches a really comfortable grace period over one who is making his first football hire (and second high risk/high reward revenue sport coaching hire) at a school with a fan base itching to get back on top.
Other than Whit Babcock hiring Buzz Williams to VT Hoops, what else are we basing this unshakable belief that Whit Babcock will hire the right Football Coach for VT?
I'm not necessarily saying he will not hire the right coach, I just don't get the whole aura of infallibility that currently surrounds our AD.
Please remember, he is also the same guy that hired Tommy Tuberville to Cincinnati and their fans are clamoring for a change in the head coaching position.
First of all, the only bad decision Whit has made since becoming VT's AD is extending that damn ECU series until infinity and beyond.
As for hiring Tuberville at Cincy, that's actually a pretty good get for a program of that size. Besides, what fan base doesn't turn on their coach after a while? For example, Miami is always wanting to fire their coach, no matter who it is.
Fair enough, but so far, at least while Mr. Babcock has been here at VT, the only coaching hire he has made is Buzz Williams for VT Hoops, correct?
Again, I'm not saying Mr. Babcock will hire the wrong coach, I just wanted clarification for all the faith my fellow Hokies were giving our current AD.
Thank you for the reply.
I think this all the time too. The fanbase is incredibly high on Whit, and honestly the evidence of his infallibility just isn't there. While I do believe Buzz was a good hire, and the AD decisions have been generally positive, I think you need more time to truly evaluate Whit's success (or lack therof) at VT
I suspect that the complete 180 from Weaver is just a breath of fresh air for most people. Whit values fan engagement, Weaver only listened to the old-money donors. Whit went out and hired the best available basketball coach, laying out more cash than we expected. Weaver liked to hire whoever was easiest and cheapest.
So irrational exuberance...okay. Let's hope Whit works out better than the housing bubble.
This question is probably worth it's own thread.
I was thinking the same thing last night. Other points I thought of included geography -- the same recruiting issue we've been hearing with London. Hooville is closer to the 757 and Richmond, and not isolated in the mountains. But, on the flip side, could VT have an edge with different academic requirements?
VT is a football school with the resources and support in place to quickly gain long term stability with success.
UVa is a basketball and olympic sport dominated school where a new coach would have to rebuild the support structure for the football program from the ground up.
That right there is why we will be an attractive destination for coaches. I also think, depending on which other schools are looking, we'll be a Top 3-5 destination should we make the decision this year.
If the coach is thinking this then they made the right call going to UVA. I want the next coach to be thinking way bigger than 6 wins or how to keep his job. That's what we have with Frank right now. Sure he wants to win (tell me one HC that doesn't) but he's not willing or maybe not able to do the things it takes to win. I want the new coach to do what it takes to win.
I want the new coach to do what it takes to win.
And that comes down mostly to recruiting, coaching, and demanding excellence.
So basically, you want accountability out of the coaches on the staff. And I agree with this. I think one of our biggest problems has been the lack of accountability, and the length by which our coaching staff would dig in their heels at the first sign of criticism.
I don't know how long it would take to get it done, but I bet you could find a correlation between our average penalties/game and our drop off. We used to be a very disciplined team...not so much anymore.
exactly...the things we're doing now we NEVER did in our heyday. Beamer stressed he wanted us to be the toughest, most disciplined team in our conference...we're not even close to either. we used to be the big bully on the block in the Big East and the start of our ACC membership. we're a soft touch which commits a lot of penalties and mistakes now
The real problem with the penalties is that we knew about this LAST YEAR, and it still hasn't been fixed.
I agree wholeheartedly, but this is college football. A new coach has to deal with a roster that was built by the previous regime. Except for Fisher (special case), can you give me an example of a new coach coming after a program has been driven into the ground and he didn't need a season or two to turn things around? My point above is not that I want a coach who is just looking to keep his job, but that a coach needs to discern how much support he'll have even after a season or two of rebuilding. If it takes two seasons to get back on top, no coach wants to have people calling for his head. I'd think that anyone would rather hear "I think this is the season, all the pieces are in place" than "this better be the season or we're kicking that guy to the curb"
Most coaches get a few years to burn in, and the fans just want to see progress after a point.
^This.
I don't want a coach that is worried about the bare minimum. I want a coach that's aiming for the stars. The best I've ever been at any of my jobs is when I walked in the door and just started doing. There was never a thought in my mind worrying about what my review was going to be like. I figured if I worked my ass off and did what it took to do a great job it would be fine. That's the mentality I want out of a coach.
I'd nominate at least Steve Addazio, Brian Kelly and Brian Harsin (off the top of my head). I would actually argue, that keeping a "legendary" head coach who's seemingly lost it and thinking you're better off waiting for him to turn it around is more of a longshot than bringing in a whole new staff and rebuilding the program.
Going the whole new staff route is certainly no gimme but it's more likely to work than waiting for said coach to "go out on his terms". If our AD makes a good hire (and granted, that's not an easy thing to do), I'm confident we can be good/great again pretty quickly. We have good facilities, good history and name recognition and great fan support.
There's no reason to think we'll be terrible for a long time if Beamer leaves. He did great things for us, but I don't believe he's capable of turning it around unless he completely changes the way he does things, which at his age, is probably not going to happen.
Agree with most of this post , but not Steve Addazio and his dumpster fire of an offense. We need an actual offense to win acc champion ships.
Florida and Michigan. And that's just this year
That was not a rhetorical question. I really did want to know some examples. So, thanks.
Gus Malzahn at Auburn 3(?) years ago?
Huge asterisk with Malzahn.
He was the OC, then left for one year, and came back as head coach. In theory, he already had a hand in recruiting 75% of his roster in the first year, as opposed to the 25% most new head coaches get. Plus, all of the players other than the freshman class that Lefty got already knew his system.
Another pretty drastic one, OSU went 6-7 the year before Meyer. With sanctions still in place, he went 12-0 his first season
Pitt just achieved their first ranking since Dave Wannstedt was there and they are currently 5-1. This is Narduzzi's first year at Pitt. I know the season isn't over, but they are looking like a 8 - 10 win team.
I think the jury is still out for both of those teams, while better than last year I would not say they are completely back yet.
I don't buy the sink into irrelevance bit. Yes it has happened, but I don't think its preventable or inexcusable. These last couple years haven't really had an effect on the future of VT. Either way, the next coach that comes in is going to have to be a hit. Meanwhile the last couple years haven't really done much to affect VT as desirable coaching job. Coaches care more about resources and the departments dedication to football because when they come in they're going to clean house and bring their own guys and do things their own way. Yes, if Beamer had left after 2011 MAYBE we would have been able to get a marginally better coach but how a coaching job stacks up is much less fluid than wins and losses. Especially a program, that despite fans saying has hit rock bottom, has still not had a losing season since 1992, unlike Florida, OSU, Notre Dame, Texas, Alabama and USC. I don't mean this to say we should be complacent about having mediocre seasons, I just mean even football royalty slides towards the bottom due to the cyclical nature of sports and its impossible for any program to constantly make the right moves to stay on top. Saying that will be his lasting legacy is a complete disregard to everything hes accomplished. College football is about legends. Beamer is a legend
You ever notice how coaches go from 'top coach' to 'legend' right around the time the game has passed them by. Almost as if people are rationalizing why a guy is still in a job despite underperforming. Nobody is calling Nick Saban or Bill Belichick a legend, because they're still regarded as 2 of the best coaches in the game.
So what did you want? Us to give Beamer the ax when he was still on top?
This discussion is about what should happen next, not what didn't happen earlier.
Considering your post was about how Beamer "let VT sink back to irrelevance", I would say the discussion is about both. Otherwise you wouldn't be bringing that up.
We're 3-4 and you want to take issue at the claim that we're irrelevant right now?
Did you even read my original post? I fully acknowledged that we're irrelevant
It's pretty sad when we're debating the various stages of irrelevance.
"Loose one turn"
this must have been made by a graduate of FSU
Name one school that has been a top 25 team every year forever? People need to calm down with legacy talk, his legacy is fine. He took a school that had never won a bowl game before and took them to a national championship game and 7 conference titles. You can't be good every year, fans are so silly these days. Okay the team tailed off his last few years BFD! Its College Football! We have built world class facilities and a strong tradition over the last 30 years we will be good again some day until then I'm for letting him ride out his time.
Also UVA nabbing one of the top minds in the game is laughable. They couldn't get anyone to come to Charlottesville they had to sign a FBS coach and don't think they didn't try.
Depends on how you define "top mind". I don't think they really had anyone on the list last time after "Mike London".
But it's not really the worst situation, depending on what someone is looking for as a head coach. Go to UVA, you have the same easy path to the ACC/CFP that VT does; you have a chance to build a program up, and take a shot at the in-state rival that's had your number for years -- which would give you an instant one-up if you can pull that off.
I mean, if Duke can get two coaches in a 30 year span that can get them just sniffing winning records, I think UVA could find a coach that can get them into relevance in the ACC.
JMHO but I don't think we're that far off from getting back to 9 or 10 wins a season and being in contention for ACC Championships again. Of our losses this year:
I think Beamer isn't able to go like he used to. He got more personally involved prior to NCState, and low and behold, we came out and won handily. The guy is still a really good coach. For whatever reason, health, age, etc., he just doesn't do it week in week out anymore.
Losing Brewer really screwed this season. Motley tries hard, but he just doesn't have the "it" factor. I think CSL is running a system that allows Motley to put up good numbers, but it's a system that is flawed because of Motley's short comings. And I'm scratching my head at why we refuse to run TM more. It's really dumb. This is something where Frank needs to step in and direct his assistants but he isn't doing it. I don't get it.
Franks age and the uncertainty over how much longer the coaching staff stays is definitely hurting recruiting. I'm also not certain but maybe we have an issue on player evaluation. Both for recruiting and the players we currently have. We keep playing guys that are clearly not the best options. We used to be able to turn unheralded players into NFL prospects. We're not churning out those prospects anymore, is it because we're evaluating guys wrong and picking the wrong guys? Are we playing guys that don't get it done because we're evaluating the guys we have wrong? It's a trend throughout the program.
I'll also say, I love Bud. But I do think we're running a system on defense that naturally isn't attractive to top defensive line and LB talent. The NFL doesn't run the Bear or Washington defense much. Too high risk. Against top competition, the other team is going to make a few plays not matter what, and when they do against that high risk defense, they score on big plays. It's just how it works. I'd love to see us switch to a more traditional 4-3 or 3-4. Can you imagine Dadi, Ekanem, and Seth Dooley type athletes playing LB? The DT's we have, with their twitch, at DE? A couple of big boys like Settle in the middle? It would only take one or two big body recruits, and honestly, a switch in DL coaching and coaching up the guys as LB's, but that's not a long term switch. It can be done in an offseason. Find a few big DT's to bring in, maybe a big JUCO guy, and switch the positions of the others.
Anyway, like I said, I do think the pieces are in place to turn things around quick. It's not automatic, but if you can get a few key positions upgraded via recruiting, and fix some the coaching gaffes that are leading to the penalties, turnovers, etc., we're winning a lot more games.
true, but we've been saying the same things for at least 3 years now and the same gaffes continue to happen, in some cases with new coaches. really...it's time for Frank to hang it up. there's no way this turns out well for him if he continues to do what he's been doing lately.
With CFB trying to rationalize losses by stating "we were only x plays away" or "non-conference games are exhibition games" just proves the point that he's lost the fire-he NEVER would have said that when we were winning 10 games a season.
I'm actually amazed he hasn't retired or resigned already.
To be fair, guys like Saban are constantly criticized for "making excuses" after losses
I've seen this sentiment in various forms across several threads, and I'm genuinely curious - who is riding the bench that should be on the field? Which backup is demonstrably better than his first-string counterpart?
To me it's simply one or two positions and really more situational than anything else. I'll list:
-The RB committee vs. just giving TM the rock and letting him pound it. If JC Coleman can get in a groove by the end of the season like he has, imagine what TM would do once he got in a groove over the course of a season.
-The decision to start Stroman a few weeks back, when he hadn't practiced and been prepared for it. No telling if Riley or anyone else would have done better, but preparing one guy, then playing another...just a head scratcher.
-If Brewer was really ready, he should have been in quick vs. Miami.
-Jonathan McLaughlin has struggled a lot, and it's looked to me like Nijman has performed better overall.
-Dadi - if his hands are hurt and he can't tackle, then someone that can needs to be in there. They might not be able to perform like Dadi, but geez, if a guy is hurt and can't perform, he needs to sit and heal.
-Motu at MLB just looks lost sometimes. He's been in there long enough, but things aren't clicking. The backups, to me at least, seemed like they got it done better.
And then when a guy struggles, they leave him out there too long or don't adjust scheme to help him. Case in point again - Stroman. If he hadn't prepared for that role, no wonder he got burned over and over. I feel bad for the kid. It really sounds like he was put in a bad position by a coach that didn't evaluate his guys correctly.
I love CTG, I guess everyone makes a bonehead decision sometimes. But that's what oversight is for. Shouldn't Bud be quick to say "Hey CTG, put the guy in that practiced that role now. Stroman is getting torched." And if he doesn't, shouldn't Beamer? Why isn't Beamer or the OC/DC stepping in quicker and correcting things that are clearly not working well during the game?
And if Beamer isn't stepping in the game regarding player evaluation, how much is he stepping or not during recruiting? How involved is he in screening our kids now? I don't know for certain, but I'd bet he's gone more hands off in that arena as well. And I'll reiterate I know he used to be more involved, and did well overall. He's got the skill and knowledge to spot talent, but I suspect he's just not as involved now.
I guess the question is "Who didn't stay too long?" There are probably lessons to be learned there.
And that discussion should have happened in 2011.
Jimmy Johnson for one...did he coach at the U long enough for this to apply?
First name that comes to mind is Tom Osborne. Who knows how long he could have coached and had success. Finishing a career with 3 national titles in 4 years, talk about going out on top.
Let's pump the brakes. If Whit fires Beamer...don't we have a massive payout on our hands? I mean, the contract is a contract.....
I think it's important to note that the university pays Beamer's BASE salary. IIRC, that's about $250K a year for the remainder of his contract.
Also, Beamer has a contract to pay out $250K a year for eight years AFTER he gives up the coaching position, so I think that's what you're looking at.
It's very difficult to pull a UVa, and let a coach run to the end of his contract. They were thinking ahead in a big way, and it hasn't hurt their recruiting as much as one might have thought.
I can't imagine Beamer will be fired. He has a contract to make $250K/Year for a long time (5 years?) as an Ambassador to the program. With Beamer's health issues and our current program state, it won't come to that.
Hopefully we can add London to the list. UVa needs to keep him around a few more years.
I'm confident that UVa-VT will be his last game.
I wish I could say the same of Beamer. I just can't. As much as I think the best decision moving forward is to part ways with Beamer at the end of November, I don't see it happening. If I were a betting man I'd wager that Beamer will be coaching in the Battle at Bristol
I wouldn't take either side of that bet right now. If VT doesn't make a bowl game, or loses to UVa, his seat will be pretty warm.
This is exactly the boat I'm in. Right now that bet's a hold, because I think that decision gets made by our performance the rest of the season. If Brewer's return ignites a massive turnaround and we finish the regular season 8-4, I think Frank is definitely back. If we limp to 6-6 and a third tier bowl, I think it's a tossup. If we end both the bowl streak and the UVA streak, I think he's gone.
I'd say that's a pretty accurate assessment.
Regardless of his record the past 3 1/2,years I totally expect cfb to be on the sidelines next year and would be in total shock if he was't. None of these long term coaches know when it' time to hang up the whistle( Brown , Bowden, Paterno , Walsh, Holtz ,Spurrier ( not shure how much pressure to resign he was under). Most kept asking for another year , but were forced to retire under pressure. Don't see Babcock firing Beamer, nor do I see a resignation( Shane). And that after the performance of these coaches the last few years is leading to the frustration , demoralization,low expectations & negativity about this program by a lot of people.
I agree with Frank being frankly (haha) at the end of his career. However, I don't think he's to completely blame. Lefty has to go. This guy can't consistently do anything. Finally find a #1 RB and we abandon him in the critical stages of the 4th quarter. Using Sam Rogers every 10 plays. We have so many guys that could be factors and yet we aren't using them to their full potential. This weekend giving TMac 25 carries, and keeping Rogers on the field for even just blocking purposes would be huge.
Edit. I had Shane added in there also but that didn't make it to the post I submitted.
Frank hand picked Loeffler after finally having his hand forced and replacing Stiney and O'Cain, two other guys he hand picked. That's 0-3 on playcallers over the last 15 years. Loeffler WAS the last chance. If Loeffler didn't go well, it was understood at that time that it was the end for Beamer. That was his last ditch effort to right the ship and it blew up. Again.
Frank doesn't get another chance. Beamer and Loeffler are tied at the hip. You do not fire one without firing the other.
Alum you have been beating the drum for two years at least now about firing Beamer more than anyone on here.
2012 or 2013 should have been his final season. I wanted him gone after it was clear nepotism was the only reason Stinespring was OC as long as he was.
It is posts like this that make me wish we could giveout "eye rolls" in addition to up-votes and down-votes.
Loeffler is almost a carbon copy of Stinespring. I remember the Chic-fil-a bowl against Georgia. Brandon Ore was suspended for the first quarter. He then plays like a man possessed and rushed for 100yds IN THE SECOND QUARTER. VT jumps out to a commanding lead and the D has the Georgia offense shut down. 2nd half commences, Stinespring immediately goes pass happy. O-Line can't block for Glennon, plus interceptions, D gets tired being on the field for all those 3 and outs, lose the game.
This just isn't true though. He may also be bad, but definitely not the same.
Eddie Robinson probably overstayed his welcome at Grambling. After winning the SWAC in '94, he went 11-22 in his last 3 seasons. But Doug Williams got the program back on track in a couple of years.
You could make the argument LaVell Edwards stayed too long at BYU if you wanted to. After the big time run he had in the mid '70s to 80s, BYU wasn't as consistent. He retired in 2000 and the next sustained success by BYU begin in '06 with Bronco Mendenhall.
Robinson and Edwards....nice pulls.
A lot of people thought Lloyd Carr stayed too long at Michigan because he wasn't winning bowl games or beating Ohio State and he lost to Appalachian State ("you can't spell LLLLoyd without 4 L's"). I don't really want to put him on the list because his 2nd to last year he was facing Ohio State to get a shot at the national title and went to the Rose Bowl. His last year he was facing Ohio State for a chance to go to the Rose Bowl and also beat Tebow in the Capital One Bowl fresh off his Heisman season.
You also have cases like Bob Stoops at OU and Mark Richt at UGA where the fanbases are just tired of them but they are still winning a lot of games
Nice call an Lloyd. I think he got out a little late, but still the program wasn't plummeting while he was there.
Big Game Bob's days are numbered, I think. Baylor and TCU are up, OKSt isn't a pushover, and Texas may be on the way back up (and beat OK two weeks ago). It isn't looking good in Soonerville
Those are the fanbases who have experienced success but don't feel like they'll ever reach the pinnacle with those coaches. Kinda like more successful Seth Greenbergs. Always competing, never championshiping.
They say good is the enemy of great.
So, basically us seven years ago?
Bingo.
I didn't want to say it. I'm glad someone else picked up on it. I kinda feel like at that point in time we should have seen the writing on the wall, or at least Beamer should have. If we didn't make it in 2007, 2010, 2011 we were never going to make it. The 2010 team could have been really special and looking back you have to wonder what would have happened if that team beat Boise, didn't flounder against JMU and still ran the table. If so, is Frank still coaching? Probably.
Ramble ramble ramble. Sorry guys. The bottom line is 2010 was the peak for Beamer. 2011 wasn't bad, but he could have went out as a hero then.
Damn. Rumors are flying out of Blacksburg today. Not IF but WHEN Frank will announce his retirement....
UNC tix might be more valuable than they were yesterday.
I want this to be true. Not because I'm frothing at the mouth to fire Frank, but because he has to r realize, despite all the coachspeak and excuses, that he doesn't have the answer. He said he would coach until it wasn't fun anymore. How the hell could he be having fun?
I also want it to be true because, in its own fucked up way, it would salvage the season for me. I would watch the next five games with a mindset I've never experienced before, knowing that we are witnessing the end of an era. Win, lose, whatever. Just knowing that we would be seeing the end of one if the most incredible, improbable head coaching tenures of the modern era would make me glued to the TV like never before in my years of following the Hokies.
Looking to the future makes you pause and appreciate the past. If this is the end, I want to know it, so I can savor it properly.
+1
My #marinades are saying the same.
Frank will announce his retirement during the bye week, UNC will be his last home game.
Are #sauces and # marinades the same? Who would have thunk it....
I truly hope he announces it before GT as I and you have heard. That UNC game will be awesome. I am doing my damnedest to get there. Will be a sad day but a great day.
And the names being floated around are exciting for the future....but those are just wild rumors....at this stage....
Yes.
Initiating autoleg protocol...
if photo_content = 'Marinade'
then leg+1;
end
...Leg granted
I'd say we have reached a point where we need to appreciate these last games and stop bitching about coaching.
We go 5-7 next year and the bowl streak ends (assuming it doesn't end this year), what happens then?
FB decides he does not want to hang it up yet. Are we still riding the "give him one more year" train? We can echo the same sentiments after a unfulfilling season next year as we are now. Unfortunately, current college football exists on a "what have you done for me lately" business model and FB is struggling.
Hypothetically, at the end of this year Whit publicly endorses FB and lauds his tradition of excellence while acknowledging that the greats have struggled, but it's the struggle and the rise that defines and solidifies the name. Additionally, Whit states that there are no plans to remove FB against his will and he and FB have come to an agreement that he is free to remain with the University for the duration of his contract, and if he desires to do, may extend said contract for a yet to be determined term. All of this is applauded by donors, VT executives, etc.
Next year is a bust. VT goes 5-7 and the bowl streak ends (assuming it doesn't end this year). However, FB and VT Football have a strong tradition of winning, in addition to other traditions. After all, the program, town, and school were nothing until FB became the HBC in Blacksburg (that may sound extreme, but it's been stated here as well as in other threads on similarly related topics or where someone went on a diatribe off topic). FB for one reason or another decides the fire still burns and he wants to finish on top, never mind his previously understood desire to leave when he became a burden. This is understood by Whit, the donors, and other important people per my hypothetical first paragraph. VT Football continues to struggle and fails into anonymity – something akin to LOLUVA. Recruiting is poor, fan attendance suffers, and the University begins to see the unintended consequences of a bygone era. The program falls into irrelevance and some 4-5 years later remains an afterthought in college football. End hypothetical.
Is that likely to happen? No.
Why the unsubstantiated argument that giving him one more year is going to produce something magical? If Whit decides that's the best case scenario then he'll have to deal with final result. But let's not pretend like this is going to end in Hollywood fashion. I am not here to boast that I have an answer, or that firing him or forcing a resignation will yield positive results, or that hiring a new coach next year will mean anything positive. But the argument that static tradition trumps negative results is nearsighted and silly. Now again, before I get flamed for this "fire FB post" (<--which it's not) let me state that I DO NOT believe that if he steps down next year for whatever reason, the program skyrockets back into national relevance. It's likely going to be a bumpy ride for the next 3-4 years. Call me negative or pessimistic, but I can't get swallowed up by nostalgia. If he's concerned about securing his legacy then he need not worry, it's secure. The positive posts regarding his accomplishments and the net effect he's had on the school, town, lives of VT followers, etc. is more than sufficient evidence. Unfortunately, he's now being cast in the same "old glory" mold as Bowden and Peterno. That's a disservice to his accomplishments.
I know, I know. I must hate tradition. Actually, it's quite the contrary. I love the tradition that is VT Football. Heck, I've been around the program equal to the amount of years I've been alive. I used to play in the field house during games when it was open to the public; I played tackle football behind the SEZ when it was nothing but wooden bleachers that went 20 rows up; I've stormed the field when all you had to do was hop a 5' chain link fence and run through shrubs along the SEZ. I remember a program long before anything we've experienced in the past 10 years. VT Football for me is family and friends that I love, the crisp fall air in Blacksburg with just a slight aroma of cow manure, and screaming till my head hurts. I grew up in Blacksburg and in 2006 graduated from the only University (VT) I ever wanted to attend since I was a child. So please before you label me as someone who hates tradition and everything FB as built, understand that I recognize his accomplishments as a coach and a person. I applaud and thank him for it, but this farewell tour seems to be sullying what he's built in the mind of a lot of people within and outside the program.
One name you could bring up here is Kirk Ferentz. From '02-04, his Iowa program was killing it and his name was always in the mix for NFL jobs. 11 wins, 10 wins, 10 wins. Then he had a dip with a few average seasons and you could have said he overstayed his welcome. Then he comes back with a 9 win season and 11 win season and he was hot again.
Since then his seasons have been 8-5. 7-6, 4-8, 8-5, 7-6. Once again you could say, "hey, Ferentz had a good run but maybe it's time for some new blood." And now, he's led Iowa to a 7-0 record, a #10 ranking, and they're right in the thick of the playoff hunt.
I think the relationship between Iowa and Kirk Ferentz is interesting. Ferentz coulda bailed when his name was hot and he never did. Iowa coulda bailed on Ferentz when the program became stagnant but they never did.