Info stating that whomever the new HC is, Bud is sticking around. Not sure if that is in a HC position, or a DC position (I guess the latter more likely), but that bodes well for VT. We need Bud to stick around!
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
That would lead me to believe its got to be Richt as the guy. IMO he's the only one of our (speculated) candidates that I see Bud working with and for.
I'm not so sure, I'd almost put money on Bud sticking around if it was Fuente/Rhule/etc, offensive-minded coaches doing great things at the G5 level. They'd probably do just about anything to work with an elite-level DC, as well as maintain the stability that would bring with it.
If we go after another big-name coach who already has success at the P5 level, then I'd agree with you, unless we pulled off a major coup and pulled Sumlin from aTm (not that there is any indication that we have even spoken to him about anything).
Sumlin would be a Whit type of hire though. Someone we never even considered. Of all the off the wall candidates and scenarios we've heard, having Sumlin come in and keep Bud is the dream in my mind.
It immediately became my dream too, as soon as I saw someone mention it in another thread as sort of a "what-if" scenario. And I think if we got him, Bud would stick around, since he is on record as saying he was almost hired away by Sumlin last December.
Sumlin hasn't done much at aTm...with quite a bit of talent.
Sumlin also has a $5M buyout clause if he leaves prior to the end of the 2016 season...
add that to the fact that he would be walking away from a $5M/year salary (meaning he would demand the same to leave), i just don't see how that is on the table for Whit.
Here's what I don't understand about this argument. Same applies to Mark Richt: The only sure fire bet coaches, IMO, that we could hire and say we're going to win the natty are Saban, Meyer, and maybe Jimbo Fisher. And those guys are winning titles where they are and aren't coming to Blacksburg.
So, you're left to choose between either an unproven up-and-comer like Morris, Herman, Fuente (loads of potential, tons of risk) or a known quantity/strong candidate like Sumlin or Richt (track record of success, but hasn't quite gotten over the hump/safe hire). That's really about the only two options. Would I get behind Richt or Sumlin coming to Blacksburg? You bet. Maybe a change of scenery in the ACC, picking up our recruiting, and partnering with Bud would be what they need to get to the top. That could also happen with a Morris, Herman, Fuente, etc. but those guys are unproven in a big time job. You're taking on a ton of risk, but it could pay off.
So that's really what we're looking at. We're not getting Saban, Meyer, etc. But I would absolutely get behind a Sumlin or Richt if they are chosen.
There are no sure fire bets. You're mostly looking at largely untested and brief overachievers, past achievers on the downward trajectory of the career, or underachievers who've done so on the big stage.
That's why most coach hires do not live up to expectations. I would personally favor #1 or #2 over #3. And IMO, Richt is more #2 than #3 and Sumlin is more #3 than #2.
You say this a lot, so let's discuss.
SEC jobs when last filled that met expectations: UF, USC, UGA, UT, UK, Bama, Auburn, Ole Miss, Miss St, LSU, aTm (remember, they were bad before Sumlin)
SEC jobs when filled last that did not meet expectations: Vandy
ACC jobs when last filled that met expectations: FSU, Clemson, GT, UNC, Duke, VT, Pitt, BC, Lville
ACC jobs that did not meet expectations when last filled: Syracuse, Miami, UVA.
ACC jobs still TBD: Wake, NCSU
There are a handful we could debate like BC, Lville or aTm I guess. Maybe we are too early on UF and Pitt, but early returns are great. Still, we are talking well over 50% success rate for schools in this region. Quick review of other conferences shows a similar rate.
We have some risk here, but to "Meet our Expectations" shouldn't be hard.
Why would he leave Texas A&M? They just expanded the stadium to over 100,000 seats, he has brought in a ton of quality recruits, and has won big so far. It's not as good as TCU or Baylor right now, but it's doing better than Texas.
Fuenete is best friends with his DC, hard to see him getting rid of him to make room for Bud. The ONLY possibility would be if Fuente's DC went back to coaching linebackers under Bud, but that doesn't seem to plausible
Unfortunately it might get too complicated if Sumlin did want to come to VT and vice-versa:
December 12, 2013 COLLEGE STATION, Texas -- Texas A&M's board of regents approved coach Kevin Sumlin's new six-year contract during a special telephonic meeting Thursday, and the deal includes a handsome raise and a hefty buyout for the sixth-year coach. The school announced that Sumlin's salary has been elevated to $5 million, up from the $3.1 million annual salary from the contract he signed in January on the heels of the Aggies' 11-2 debut season in the SEC. The deal will pay Sumlin $30 million over the next six years. It also includes a large buyout. If Sumlin leaves before the end of the 2016 season, he'll have to pay $5 million to get out of the deal. A source told ESPN.com's Brett McMurphy that the buyout on Sumlin's end goes to zero after 2016. The school announced there is also a buyout clause if it terminates the deal without cause, and that clause extends though the length of the contract, which expires Dec. 31, 2019.
Holy hotlinks, Batman!
Why not Morris or RR? Both have connections with Bud, and Morris at least has a ton of upside
every time i hear RR linked to VT, it makes me want to punch a kitten.
It's interesting when some of the rumors start to match each other.
"Offensive-minded coach" potentially mixes well with "Bud sticking around" in a DC capacity.
Un-identified #sauces being what they are.
please be true. My heart won't be able to handle all of the feels if Bud is gone after this year too.
That gif looks like the 'V' for Vendetta guy took an emotional turn...
Spirited Away. One of my favorite movies of all time.
It seems to have quite the following.
I should hope so, we still got 4 games left
Five.
ACC Champ Game?
Wouldn't that be up to the incoming Head Coach?
If this rumor is true, it means that the next Head Coach has already been decided
Perhaps, or it's just a deal breaker on Whit's end.
My opinion, and take it for what its worth, if you're going around shopping for a new head coach and you're already dictating who the new coach can bring in, that's going to severely limit your prospects of who you can land.
Which is why I believe we already have a new coach, it just isn't going to be announced until after the season. This talk has already happened, the new guy has already bought into keeping Bud, and its all under wraps to allow us all to focus on sending Beamer off the right way. Plus, it also lines up with the fact that recruits are already being told they'll be meeting with the new coach in December.
as an aside, this also eliminates Chip Kelly or anyone currently in the NFL as a candidate, as the NFL season won't be over under this timeline.
So I guess that means Richt's interview went well a few days ago.
It really does seem like the rumors are confident that something is a done-deal already, and that certainly wouldn't surprise me.
I would be very surprised if it was a done deal at this point. The only way would be is if VT is the dream job for the same person that is Whit's dream hire. And that's not likely.
Why would any desirable coach with options and/or an AD with options looking to fill a desirable job commit to something now when so many chips are still to fall -- some likely, some possible, some unexpected -- that could impact both?
My guess is that a deal won't be made for at least several weeks -- and maybe not until a lot of dust clears in early/mid-Dec.
It would explain why Richt seems to be mailing it in at UGA now too.
And how news came out that the Georgia "powerbrokers" were in talks about firing Richt after Beamer announced his retirement. I could be wrong, but it seems like this is the first time Georgia megadonors have publicly made it aware that they are meeting to consider firing Richt.
'
where is this coming from?
Been said a few times in various threads this week that recruits are being told that Whit's plan is to have the new coach, whoever he may be, in place soon enough that he will be meeting with them in December.
From what Whit has been telling the recruits. From an article on Myles Wolfolk:
Wolfolk said Babcock promised the Hokies would have a new coach in place before Wolfolk enrolls early in January, and that the plan was for this new coach to visit him and Virginia Tech's other 2016 prospects some time in December.
I sincerely hope that isn't the case. I just don't think that sets the right precedent. It says "hey, our guy here is more important than you, but you can be the head coach."
I think most college football coaches would be quite alright with keeping things hush-hush so the focus can be on Beamer. He's a legend, and a class act. I sure don't think it sets any precedent, other than we're treating the guy who has MADE this program like he should be treated.
You can look at it the other way too. Any head coaching candidate who honestly believes it would be prudent to dismiss Bud Foster as DC is not the type of head coach we want in Blacksburg.
Sure, but it's not wrong to think that there are coaches who would not want Bud as DC. They may want a different style of defense. Perhaps they are a defensive coach and want to use their system. I would hope Whit would encourage the new coach to keep Bud, but never force him to. I love Bud, but Whit's job should be to find a Head Coach that will take us back up the mountain and let that head coach decide his staff. If he feels Bud isn't going to be here because that new coach wants someone else, then personally Whit owes it to Bud to point him towards and connect him to new opportunities.
It's also Whit's job to decide what he himself believes is the path that will lead us to the mountaintop, and then hire the coach he believes will accomplish it. If, in Whit's estimation, that path includes Bud Foster as our DC, then coaches who do not share this vision are eliminated from contention.
I think it's perhaps even more likely that Whit approached/is approaching it somewhat differently. "We have a strong tradition of defense here at VT. What is your plan for maintaining or building upon that tradition?" After getting a response, "How do you feel about working with Bud?" Maybe some candidate(s) answered the first question with, "I want Foster." Or maybe Whit wasn't satisfied with the answers to the first question and liked what he heard from someone about the second.
And that's fine. If Whit wants to say "we would prefer if you kept Bud because we believe he's one of the best" then I have no problem with it. But I think it's too much meddling with a coach's staff to say "you must keep him." Give him the keys to the car and let him drive. Don't limit the amount of gas he can put in the tank.
Exactly. Whit doesn't need to be upfront with every candidate and tell them they have to retain Foster. It's also solid that Tech has a top-notch defensive coordinator wrapped up from now through 2019 at about a million bucks a year.
Maybe not a deal breaker as much as a tie breaker.
Consider this: You have a list of coaches that all meet your criteria - young, offensive-minded, HC experience, in the budget, etc. - and there isn't a ton separating them on the list. You are either confident or have received assurances that one or more of them wants to keep Bud. Any candidate who won't keep him will cost you Bud's buyout, and will almost certainly bring a downgrade at DC with him. That's not Whit strong-arming anyone into keeping Bud, but it damn sure factors into the equation of the hire.
In another alternative, Bud could be used to allure a coach. For example, perhaps a coach that once tried to hire Bud as DC, because he believed Bud's D would take his team to SEC and National championships. Or, an up and coming coach that sees Bud as one of the greatest defensive coordinators in the game.
lol, this would be so ironic if true, given all the teeth-gnashing about his shortcomings on the recruiting trail.
Pair him up with a head coach who can recruit and you might be on to something.
I just meant it'd be funny if Bud was used to recruit such a person. ha.
Yea, that is funny.
Or pair him up with a coach that he beat the pants off of. Who might be a HC in the state of TX and his name rhymes with Shodd Thurman...
I feel like that was pretty much set in stone when he signed a 5-year contract. It was pretty clear that Frank wasn't going to make it past 2016 when the contract was signed, and it ends well past 2016.
Thats how I feel about it... everybody around here is getting all pissy about forcing Bud Foster upon the new head coach. Whoever is it, their stuck with him unless Bud decides he wants out.
The defense has been our mainstay, why destroy that? If you hire an offensive minded head coach, who cares what his thoughts are on defensive scheme, somebody else will be implementing it and be responsible for it. I'd like to think a head coach would be ecstatic to have a solid defense with a nationally recognized coordinator waiting for him, assuming the head coach and coordinator can simply play nice.
Agreed. We're basically saying you get to be the head coach at a great school AND get a 4-year world-class education on defense at the University of BUD, tuition-free. How's that for rounding out your resume?
Ah, sources.
Can't trust 'em, I only believe #sauces
#marinades
It's a marinade, c*#ks^ckers!
#sauces, they'll get after ya
I'm just waiting for TheFifthFuller to drop an in depth insider #sources article revealing the next coaching staff and their vision for the future....
putting out an APB for TFF
Why don't you just PM him?
Keep banging that drum man.
seriously...that's just going to annoy Joe more than entice him to make a change. I banged a drum for a specific Sarcastica Font for a while and it went no-where. I'm done banging on drums for TKP updates. Joe has a great thing going here and I trust him to make the appropriate updates which are in line with his and the site's best interests.
Which is sad, because ACC font being Sarcastica had so much promise
I've been asking for a way to dispense liquor from this website for nearly two years now and he won't even reply to my carrier pigeons.
Horse. Shit.
Wouldn't it be pigeon shit?
Bud's the new Director of Football Operations?
I couldn't imagine VT football without beamerball or the lunch pail defense.
This is probably not the way business should be done, but I want Bud to get a HC shot simply because I think he's earned it. If we give him 4 years and it doesn't work out, I'd be comfortable with that. There are Fuentes, Hermans and Rhules out there every year. Just because you hire Ron Zook, doesn't mean u can't hire Urban Meyer a few years later. I'm willing to give him a shot.
Do you think Bud can improve our recruiting dramatically?
Based on what?
I may be assuming too much.
Do you think recruiting is not our biggest challenge?
I would agree it's "not the way business should be done," but I just can't see how "he's earned it." He's done a great job at a different job, and had he been a recruiting force, I'd have the world's biggest hard on for Bud Foster, HC.
Nobody knows, obviously. Unless and until he is the big whistle, we won't know what he can and cannot do, would or would not do, but the prospect leaves me uneasy.
Bud's superb DC reputation plus even a modicum of recruiting ability should equal some crazy talent -- but it doesn't seem to work out that way.
Then maybe it's time for whoever is the new HC to come in and change culture and expectations. I think it's pretty clear that, though we've made some strides recently, our current recruiting efforts, overall, aren't enough. Maybe Bud can do better with someone at the helm who has more fire for the process.
Quite frankly, I don't get hung up in recruiting. As it stands right now, we out recruit schools like TCU, Baylor and
Michigan State. But look at where we are and look at where they are.My number one concern is getting a guy who can coach. Find a guy who can coach football. When I say "he's earned it" I mean that his dream is to be VT's head coach and all he has done for the past 25 years is become one of the best defensive coaches of all time. I just want to see if he can succeed or if he'll fail.
VT isn't outrecruiting any of those teams this year.
This year, I'm seeing MSU is 22nd, VT is 29th, Baylor is 36th and TCU is 43rd...so maybe not MSU, we bested them in 2012 and 2013.
For 2016 (this year), Baylor is currently ranked 23, TCU is currently ranked 19, and VT is currently ranked 33.
Per 247.
I do see that you're right about the rankings last year, but I'm noticing that the rankings change based on program perception.
Ok thats fair. I'm the first to admit that I don't follow recruiting like most fans do.
I just want an HC who can coach guys up first and foremost.
I don't think Foster can improve recruiting dramatically because no coach can improve recruiting dramatically.
The only school that has even remotely cracked into the top tier in the last 15 years in Oregon. And even with ridiculous financial resources and on-the-field success (that arguably surpasses that of VT), they're only on the edges of the top tier. They still aren't there year after year like the 12 blue blood programs that are in the top 15 almost 90% of the time.
And VT is already fairly consistently near the top of the 2nd tier in recruiting so a "dramatic" improvement would be to become an occasional member of the top tier. And the best thing by far that a new VT coach can do to accomplish that is WIN. That's the only chance a new coach can have to even modestly improve recruiting - let alone dramatically improve it.
The data clearly show that recruiting follows winning and money, not the other way around. And it also shows that coaches have a very small impact at best.
You keep saying that defeatist message, but have absolutely nothing to back it up.
Schools move up and down in the recruiting rankings all the time, and the coaching staff have a lot to do with that.
The reason Michigan is always at the top is because 1) they have a great reputation as a football program, and 2) they hire coaches who can recruit.
The data clearly show that recruiting follows winning and money, not the other way around. And it also shows that coaches have a very small impact at best.
Show me some data that proves that. Yes winning, great coaches, and recruiting go together. I think you'll find that all of those are correlated.
But I'll be very impressed with your argument if you can prove that great coaches have nothing to do with winning or recruiting. Great coaches are measured by winning.
So stop with the nonsense about programs not being able to change their program for the better by hiring great coaches. We see programs moving up and down all the time. It's a slow process, but there is movement if you do things right. Otherwise, why bother to even play?
I don't think his point is that coaches can't improve recruiting in general, but rather in the position that VT is in recruiting (mid 20s in ranking), the only place to move up to is a spot typically occupied by schools with much more history and success than VT. To move up into that spot means consistently convincing 5* players to come to your school.
I really think that a new coach will improve our recruiting process, which should lead to deeper teams, but I don't believe that it will lead to more talented recruiting classes than the traditional top 15 recruiting schools. Its really really really hard to out recruit Bama. Even with an equal recruiter to Nick Saban, or even a better one, you are still gonna lose that fight more than you win. So, in summary, I do think that a new coach will improve recruiting, but it will be with the number of 3 and 4 star players, not grabbing the 5 star kids.
I think success and program reputation improve recruiting. It takes a long time.
But I do think that you can get the occasional 5-star player (particularly the ones in Virginia) if you have a coach who can sell.
I'm not talking about beating out Alabama, though it's probably possible sometimes, but VT has missed out on some 5-star players to the likes of UVa.
VT has had a lot of success in recruiting. They get some four stars and a lot of highly-rated three stars. I think there is room for improvement, however.
VT has improved their recruiting status over the years, so I disagree that it can't continue to change, either in the positive or negative direction.
I don't think its unreasonable to expect a new coach to come in and bring in 2 5* players per year. Don't think we will have class after class full of them, but we should be able to bring in enough that we're dealing with nearly half the starting lineup at any time being 5* players, with the bulk of the depth and solid contributors being made up of 4* and high 3* guys.
Right now, we're a full star behind that kind of system, and its no coincidence we've regressed this much.
You truly think we can get two 5* players a year? Regularly? I'll have some more of what you're having sir.
If I'm not mistaken there's generally 40 or 50 five stars per year so I think you're a tad bit optimistic but I'd be pretty thrilled if it happened.
Yeah, looked into it and there aren't that many... I thought there were more and the first 100 or so were in that realm, and at least for 2016, it appears to be 1/3 that if not less. So let me clarify what I meant.
I think its not unreasonable to get 1 5* player per year, and multiple Top 100 players. The bulk of the roster should be high to middle 4* players, with enough 5* players to give us multiple elite weapons on both sides of the ball. You get a great recruiter in here, who emphasizes the recruiting aspect of the game, and that's not unreasonable, especially with the talent the 757, DC, and Charlotte areas routinely produce.
I think it's a common misconception that there are more 5 star guys than there are. That's why Bama bringing in a hand full each year is so impressive.
Yep. Even schools like Ohio State and Florida probably only bring in 1 to 2 per year.
I'm not so worried about the 5 star players, but I'd like to see more four star players.
VT already does a decent job of getting upper-half three star players.
Here's some food for thought.
Using the 2015 class as an example, only the top 14 schools (per Rivals) have more combined 4 and 5 star guys than they do 3 stars. This is the type of recruiting required to have the depth you are describing. The unfortunate reality is that every school in that top 14 has more resources and almost all have more prestige as a football program than VT. Those schools are as follows:
USC, Alabama, FSU, Clemson, Tennessee, Georgia, Auburn, LSU, Ohio St, Texas A&M, Notre Dame, Texas, UCLA, Oklahoma
Using the 2014 class (again, per Rivals), there are 11 (1 to 10 and 18 from their rankings) schools and the only names that change are as follows:
Added – none
Removed – Clemson, Oklahoma, Texas
I am all about a world-beater recruiting staff and agree 100% that our recruiting will improve with a new staff, but to go from where we are to what you describe is an enormous leap that is more of a dream scenario than a realistic expectation. Again, I agree that this is what we want but know this is huge step and that even a very good coach may not get us there.
Notice how these names coincide with names I listed below when looking at historical data since 2002? There has been virtually no change in the top 15 or so programs in at least the last 14 yrs (and probably well before that with the possible exception of Oregon).
A new coach may be able a small difference, but the absolute priority should be on a coach who can get a team playing well first and winning. If enough money and media love follows that, that's the only chance of significantly improving recruiting. Otherwise #19 or #31 or #24...it doesn't really matter. The differences are nominal and really only meaningful to the measuring manhood crowd.
There are usually about 25 Rivals 5* each year.
I agree that it will change, I just think it won't change in the area of the ever elusive 5* player. I expect that we will get more high 3* and 4* players which will make our team significantly better overall. I don't disagree there. I just don't think that we will necessarily get more 5* players and I hope that we don't judge the new coaching staff on their inability to pull in the 5* guys when they are getting a larger load of 3* and 4* guys.
I am working on the assumption that we already get the occasional 5* guy (1 per 1.5 yrs or so) which it seems like we do.
Put it this way... I don't think its unreasonable to think we should be able to secure something like 7 5* players in a 5 year period. At that point, you're rolling 2-3 elite playmakers on each side of the ball every year. If you round it out with the vast majority of the remainder of your class the high to middle 4* guys, with a few 3* guys you're willing to take chances on as potential stars, then you're set for success.
And I wish I had two supermodels for girlfriends.
What you describe are what Ohio State or Georgia does over a 5 year period. Maybe a hair better.
Just look a the published Rivals data since 2002 (14 years). In avg star ratings (not the nonsensical rankings), these 12 schools (in no order):
Texas
Tennessee
Georgia
Florida State
Ohio State
Oklahoma
USC
LSU
Florida
Notre Dame
Michigan
Alabama
Have filled 12 of the top 15 spots 87% of the time. They have been there almost every year since 2002, were probably there for at least the 10 or 15 yrs before that and will likely be there going forward. Almost all of those schools have gone through at least one coaching change since '02 and yet it has had nominal impact on recruiting -- positive or negative. They might go from great to really great or vice versa for a few yrs, but that's about it.
So that means a whole bunch of schools are fighting for the other 3 slots. The problem there is that another 7 schools (Auburn, Miami, UCLA, aTm, Penn State, Clemson, Oregon) have been in the top 15 at least 5 times and have filled those remaining 3 slots almost 50% of the time. And -- this is where my point really lives -- there is little pattern for when they go in and out of the top 15; there's little recency bias either positive or negative.
Even Oregon made the list before Chip Kelly and fell off it with Kelly; Clemson was on it before Dabo and has missed it with Dabo. And those are really the only schools that could be arguably viewed as recent "entrants" to the top tier (and have the least number of appearances at 5 each). None of the schools listed above has appeared to fall out of the running for a top 15 slot for a substantial period of time.
The most common denominator among these schools is what I'll call "program cache" -- historical record of the program; national media presence; financial resources; the depth AND breadth of support for the program by alumni and regional fans and business. The other common denominator is that most have proximity to strong recruiting areas. Most qualify on all 5; Miami seems to be the outlier and IMO is the candidate most likely to fall off this list (although their location in the middle of perhaps the highest concentration of talent may be enough to sustain them).
The only other pattern I can see is that recent program performance might have some impact, but it's not very strong. Post-season bans and scholarship losses can hurt a program (Bama was not in the top 15 during probation and scholarship loss from 2002-2005, but it re-entered for the 2006 class (at least one and arguably two classes before Saban's first class), but even then it didn't really impact USC or Ohio State. [EDIT: Conference affiliation appears to have helped aTm, although they did also appear in the top 15 twice before moving to the SEC]
For VT to drastically improve it's recruiting position -- which in my mind is to move into that group of 7 that moves in and out of the top 15 every 2 or 3 years -- it needs to continue to develop program cache. And the best way to do that is WIN. Winning brings in fans and media exposure. Winning and fans and media exposure brings in money. And winning and fans and media exposure and money brings in recruits.
The data just don't show any evidence that a smooth talking new head coach can make much of a long term dent in overall recruiting -- particularly for a school like VT that often only lags maybe 1/10th or 2/10ths of a star on average behind the group of 7.
Of those 12 programs you mentioned, how many have head coaches who can speak intelligently to the media, and impress a recruit in a visit?
Better yet, how many CAN'T do that?
Your mistake is in pretending that recruiting is some type of skill that's different from having a strategy and being able to talk intelligently and confidently about your program in a persuasive way.
Nobody is advocating a snake-oil salesman. What people are saying is that the ability to recruit is an important trait in a head coach.
I'm making no comment about what makes one a "good" recruiter. And I have no idea how good a recruiter Steve Sarkesian was or Jim Harbaugh is or Jim McIllwain is. But I know their recruiting skills instantly got better at USC and Michigan and Florida than they were at Washington or USD or Colorado State.
I'm simply saying that it really doesn't much matter with recruits whether a head coach is a so-called great recruiter (whatever that is) or not -- particularly as it relates to a school like VT that already recruits reasonably well and the next club it needs to join to appreciably improve is very exclusive and not prone to allowing new members -- great recruiting head coach or not. What matters far, far more is the logo on the polo jersey. And I believe the recruiting data supports this.
I see head coach recruiting abilities like an indoor facilities; not having any ability can be a big minus and great ability is better than average ability, but it just isn't much of a difference maker in the long run. The difference maker in the end is the program cache way more often than not.
I see head coach recruiting abilities like an indoor facilities; not having any ability can be a big minus and great ability is better than average ability, but it just isn't much of a difference maker in the long run.
We can't begin to pretend to know what might affect a particular recruit.
Each of those things: indoor practice facilities, coaches being able to speak in public or in private, shiny lockers, cute girls at a welcome event, or going to a raucous night game, all might make a difference to an individual recruit. All of them together add up to an overall difference in recruiting.
You're right. Winning is key. But having a coach who can sell their program to players and inspire their players to win is at the center of that.
Agree.
But when Beamer had VT winning, the alumni and fan base did not step up to the plate vis a vis other winning programs. VT ranks 42nd of the 54 public Power 5 schools in revenues - and a big chunk of that is athletics donations and ticket sales (and yes VT had the sellout streak, but it was a medium sized stadium and, even for all of the complaining, VT tickets were and remain relatively cheap). When I refer to the breadth and depth of fan support, this is part of that.
I'm sure Weaver will get blamed for some this (and perhaps deservedly so) and the lack of major benefactor doesn't help, but a significant chunk also lies at the hands of alumni and fans.
How much winning tradition and how big is the indoor facility at Temple?
Recruiting is all about relationships. Hugo Freeze, Dan Mullen and Steve Spurrier all walked into situations where the schools routinely invested less into football than VT did. All have significantly improved recruiting at their respective schools.
Thank you. I've got to believe that coaches have come into programs and had an immediate effect on recruiting, but I don't have time at the moment to find examples.
I agree that on a micro level, relationships are big part of recruiting. But on the macro level, they pale in comparison to the logo on your gear.
Routinely invested less than VT? South Carolina's athletic budget in '08-'09 was just shy of VT's current athletic budget. Miss St and Ole Miss were roughly the same as VT in '08-'09. If anything, given that VT's athletic budget grew precipitously after joining the ACC, I suspect that Ole Miss and MSU were investing more into their programs than VT, not less.
Regardless Ole Miss, Miss St and South Carolina were all tier 2 recruiting schools before those three arrived and they remain tier 2 recruiting schools today. Those schools all had recruiting classes in the early 2000s as good or better as those later by those 3 coaches. They got the shiny new toy improvements and after that the recruiting leveled off where they were before when winning...by winning.
Ok, I understand your point, and your absolutely right - certain schools will forever have an 'aura' around them that they can use to their favor when recruiting (The three Florida schools, UGA, Bama/Auburn, Mich/OSU, Texas, ND and USC). They can recruit on reputation. They can go through down years, and still recruit well. In any given year, half of these schools will have top 10 recruiting classes, with at least 3 in the top 5.
Conversely, VT cannot land consecutive top 15 classes without posting multiple 10 win seasons and winning big games. I think your micro/macro comparison was pretty spot on - Recruiting one individual is all about the relationship, but consistently recruiting a top class requires a certain culture.
The thing is, the change must start on the micro level. By building relationships with high school coaches and players, you land good recruits. Then you develop those players, and your prove yourself as a coach. Then your recruit better players, develop them, and the trend keeps going. This is part of building a program; it's how Frank took us from a bottom feeder to a good program, and it's what our next coach will need to do to take us from good to great.
So, to return to your initial comment:
We gotta take it one year at a time. If new coach can get us one good recruiting class, and develop that class, it makes it easier to another good class. So and so on. This is how you create a culture change in college football, one recruiting class, and one winning season at a time. And it all starts with selecting a staff that can both build relationships and develop players.
Is that good news?
Great DC + poor recruiter = what?
a wash?
more trouble for the OL?
Can we sacrifice 14% of our recruiting manpower and still improve recruiting enough to climb back atop the ACC and beyond?
I dunno. Nobody knows.
I hope so, but it looks like more of the same to me.
Commit to recruiting or commit to retreating.
His shortcomings in recruiting can be overcome with the new hires specifically for recruiting.
I'd rather have a great DC that needs recruiting support staff than an average DC
That equation has actually = a perennial top tier defense (this year, not so much). I prefer a high caliber coach, which we know Bud is.
top recruiters in the conference. per CBS sports
ACC -- Tim Brewster, Florida State: The Noles' recruiting coordinator and former Minnesota head coach had a hand in seven pledges for the Noles and was the primary for five-star running back Dalvin Cook (Miami, Fla./Central) and five-star receiver Ermon Lane (Homestead, Fla.) -- both of whom flipped from rival Florida. Brewster still may not be done, as five-star defensive end Mailk McDowell (Southfield, Mich.) still has not signed a letter-of-intent with Michigan State, where he verbally committed. The Seminoles are in the thick of things and have some support within McDowell's family and very well could land him when all is said and done (Ohio State and Michigan also are in the mix), which would make Brewster's haul even more impressive.?
Big Ten -- Mike Locksley, Maryland: Locksley had the best individual effort in the Terps' new league, playing a part in seven verbal commits, including five-star offensive lineman Damian Prince (District Heights, Md./Bishop McNamara) and U.S. Army All-American defensive end Jesse Aniebonam (Olney, Md./Good Counsel). Locksley, Maryland's offensive coordinator, is one of the best in the country at landing DC-area talent, which is good news for Terps fans as the metro area figures to be a huge Big Ten battleground with Larry Johnson now at Ohio State and former Maryland assistant James Franklin leading the Penn State program.
Big 12 -- Kendal Briles, Baylor: There is a strong argument to be made that the Bears signed the best class of receivers in the country in 2014 -- and Briles, Baylor's recruiting coordinator, was the primary recruiter of record for the headliners, including KD Cannon (Mount Pleasant, Texas), Davion Hall (Texarkana, Texas/Liberty-Eylau) and Ishmael Zamora (Houston, Texas/Alief Elsik). Briles, the son of Baylor head coach Art Briles, is one of the best in the country at early identification of elite talent. The Bears annually are the first scholarship offers of many for the best in the state of Texas.
Pac-12 -- Tee Martin, USC: The Trojans finished the 2014 cycle with a bang -- sweeping the "Los Angeles Three" -- cornerback Adoree' Jackson (Gardena, Calif./Serra), safety/athlete John "JuJu" Smith (Long Beach, Calif./Poly) and offensive lineman Damien Mama (Bellflower, Calif./St. John Bosco). Martin was the primary recruiter of record for all three and finished No. 2 nationally behind McClendon in the national recruiter rankings. No single recruiter had as big of a national signing day as Martin.
SEC -- McClendon: Landing five-star defensive end Lorenzo Carter (Norcross, Ga.) on signing day pushed McClendon to the No. 1 spot. He was in contention the entire cycle, however, as the primary recruiter for both of Georgia's five-star running back signees- Nick Chubb (Cedartown, Ga.) and Sony Michel (Fort Lauderdale, Fla./American Heritage). He also landed four-star receiver Isaiah McKenzie, Michel's teammate, on signing day without McKenzie making an official visit and two more Florida four-stars- defensive end Keyon Brown (Wauchula/Hardee) and offensive guard Isaiah Wynn (St. Petersburg/Lakewood).
TOP 10 individual recruiters in the NCAA
1. McClendon (84.18 points): Two five-star running backs and Carter on signing day sealed the deal for McClendon.
2. Martin (83.28): Martin had the best single signing day of any recruiter -- landing three highly-regarded prospects, including two five stars and a high four star, for USC.
3. Kirby Smart, Alabama (82.36): Smart was the recruiter of record for top outside linebacker Rashaan Evans (Auburn, Ala.), who surprisingly picked the Tide over Auburn on signing day.
4. Frank Wilson, LSU (81.30): Wilson was the recruiter of record for the No. 1 overall prospect -- running back Leonard Fournette (New Orleans, La./St. Augustine).
5. Billy Napier, Alabama (81.27): Napier led the Tide's charge in northern Louisiana this cycle -- No. 1 offensive tackle Cameron Robinson (West Monroe, La.) was a huge get.
6. Corey Raymond, LSU (79.82): Raymond landed elite safeties Jamal Adams and Edward Paris out of Texas and swiped elite defensive tackle Travonte Valentine (Miami, Fla./Champagnat Catholic) out of south Florida late.
7. Brewster (78.91): Brewster's run may not be over as McDowell looms, but Cook and Lane were both impressive gets.
8. Chip West, Virginia (78.12): West topped the ACC for a good chunk of the cycle- he landed No. 1 safety Quin Blanding (Virginia Beach, Va./Bayside), No. 1 defensive tackle Andrew Brown (Chesapeake, Va./Oscar Smith) and four-star receiver Jamil Kamara (Virginia Beach, Va./Bishop Sullivan Catholic) for the Cavaliers, who went 2-10 last season.
9. Dameyune Craig, Auburn (77.96): The man responsible for recruiting Jameis Winston to Florida State (he was an assistant there until this season) continued his recruiting prowess at his alma mater -- the nation's top junior college prospect, receiver D'haquille Williams (Mississippi Gulf Coast College) and five-star linebacker Tre' Williams (Mobile, Ala./St. Paul) were among his gets.
10. Tommy Thigpen, Tennessee (74.76): Thigpen was involved as either the primary or secondary recruiter with a whopping 17 prospects in the Vols' class. One of his biggest gets- warding off Florida State, Georgia and Clemson for in-state receiver Josh Malone (Gallatin, Tenn./Station Camp), who could make an impact this coming season.
Not a lot of head coaches in here. so im not really sure how Bud becoming head coach is going to DOOM our recruiting. if he makes good hires. or just keeps T. Grey and Burden around and add some folks that people want to play offense for then I think we can recruit good enough to compete for a national championship and isn't that the goal here? or is it to win the recuiting poll ala Tennessee, Miami, USC, heck even UVA etc who don't have a whole lot to show for it?
Very LOLUVA to read #9 and it ends with "who went 2-10 last season."
There seems to be a notion that a great recruiter is going to show up at the blue chip recruit's house and he will magically choose your school. Does such a power really exist? It seems to me that the recruit is picking a program, not necessarily some coach blowing smoke up their butt. And, if a coach does have a reputation that the recruits want to play for them, what does the repeated visits to their home add to that? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying recruiting doesn't matter, I'm just trying to understand how it works and how some guys are or aren't good recruiters. It baffles me to some degree.
this is like assuming products/services sell themselves and that there is no need for salespeople. a coach who can properly sell himself, his program and his university will outrecruit one who can't.
If coaches didn't think they could affect recruit's decisions, they wouldn't be bothering with home visits.
I think the head coach establishes the culture AND sells the program.
Look at what Buzz has done on the basketball side of things. Is anyone really convinced he hasn't changed the prospects of VT basketball?
I know this. But help me understand how, and how much time does it take to make the sell. I guess I just have a hard time imagining myself in the players shoes. At some point I would think that you would have all the information you need and you just have to weigh the options.
the head coach and position coach are going to be family for the player for the next 4-5 years of his life. some players grow up loving a school and nothing else matters, but i think MOST players will abandon childhood dreams to ensure they are playing for a coach they believe will have their future in their best interests. maybe more importantly, i think moms want their son to go "live with" coaches who will have their son's future in their best interests.
It's easy to sell a known product that works well, has financial resources behind it to guarantee further development and is easy for a customer to buy.
It's harder to sell a product that isn't as well known, works pretty good, has more modest financial product development resources and isn't as easy to buy.
You're placing way too much emphasis on finances, as if they're the sole determining factor.
I think finances are important, but if they were the sole determiner, Oregon and Texas should be the number one and number two teams.
I haven't said anything about correlations of financial resources or recruiting success to near term winning. I'm only discussing the correlation between financial resources and long term recruiting success.
Look at the athletic revenues and budgets for the programs that historically and currently dominate recruiting. Of the 10 recruiting blue bloods and 6 occasional party crashers I mention elsewhere in this thread for which public info is available, 14 of them are in top 19 athletic budgets.
Financial resources and overall recruiting success is very strongly correlated. It's not the sole determining factor, but it matters...arguably more than anything other single factor.
Michael Vick was just on ESPN this week saying it was a home visit from CFB that sold him (and his mom) ... I think the audio was posted on here somewhere
You're right, he did say that.
He said he just felt more comfortable with Beamer.
It's ironic that an example of the importance of in home recruiting is of the man nearly universally accused of being a horrible in home recruiter.
I think recruiting is all about making a connection with a particular recruit.
Beamer definitely was able to do that earlier in his career.
It may well be, though, that the game has changed.
Coaches can definitely win the home visit.
Here's a real life recap from Leigh Anne Tuohy mother of Michael Oher from the book "The Blind Side" written by sportswriter Michael Lewis of course it later went on to become a hit movie.
I couldn't find the exact quote from the book, but was able to find this recap from this Alabama message board: http://www.tidefans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76601.
so, the next guy needs to be dreamy too
Yes and we've found our guy
That really illustrates where many of these parents' priorities lie.....sad
She also hates Tennessee so its no surprise she talked shit about Fulmer like that
Sup bro?
So according to #sauces on the site so far we have....
Rict becoming the next HC. Not a splash hire for me but I'll be behind him and anxious to see what he does at the helm.
Morris becoming the next HC, which is a very exciting hire IMO.
And RR becoming the next HC, which I do not want to see at all.
So yeah.....
Edit: I still love it all. And this is how I feel about it all.....
I don't understand why Bud would stay if he doesn't get HC. That's a slap in the face. Pure and simple. I don't understand why we'd delude ourselves into thinking it either. The ONLY reason I can see him staying is that the new HC wants to pay him a ton of money to stay (in the neighborhood of $1.5mil+).
It's really not that difficult. He wants to stay for the same reason we want to keep him. He bleeds O&M and still wants to bring the natty to the 'burg. He makes good money under his current contract and loves where he lives.
When Foster agreed to an extension as defensive coordinator through 2019, he had to be at least semi-aware that he could be spending some of those years under a different HC. It would've been irresponsible or dishonest for him to agree to a DC extension otherwise.
What? More like it would be irresponsible for Tech to offer him a long term deal. If Tech fire Bud or a new coach doesn't keep him Bud gets paid off. How is it Buds problem regarding who is the head coach? Maybe he figures he will get promoted?
Awesome news that Bud stays!
Per Richt's agent, the coach expects to sign his new contract "very soon"....
Based on this article, his agent may not be referring to a new contract at Georgia.
Theory. What if everyone knew this was Beamers last year in 2014. They already decided on a coach last year, but are waiting for a contract or something else to age. This could then had been discussed and coordinated with Bud as part of his contract renewal last year. Basically a HCIW scenario that was kept under wraps.
Anyway, just a thought.
Not sure which coaching thread to post this, and didn't want to start a new one, but the coachingsearch.com ticker has this interesting note about Richt.
Georgia: Mark Richt has yet to sign a new contract drafted more than nine months ago, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution. As a result, he has forgone $600,000 of the $800,000 annual raise, but the school says it will honor the terms of the deal retroactively.