In an interview with David Teel, new Georgia assistant Shane Beamer discussed the Dawgs recruiting Virginia, among other topics.
Georgia has little recruiting history in Virginia – offensive tackle Alex Essex from Richmond is the only player from the commonwealth on the current roster – but Beamer hopes Smart's new staff can make some inroads.
"We talked about it during the interview," Beamer said, "and a couple times over the phone, that Georgia probably needs to have more of a presence in Virginia. It's a national brand with great tradition, and you see guys from Virginia leaving the state to go to Tennessee, or go to Alabama. To me there's no reason not to come to Georgia also."
There's a bit of irony in that quote. Beamer had some early success recruiting the state of Virginia while at Tech, but struggled landing Virginia's (Richmond area) top talent at positions of need throughout most of his tenure as a Hokies' assistant.
If Shane can help Georgia establish a Virginia pipeline, then perhaps he wasn't as culpable for perceived recruiting misses while at Tech.
Comments
Too bad he recruited Fisher and that didn't work out...
Hm... Uga sells itself, and with Smart's backing...they could see them setting up a nice little pipeline to Georgia.
I wonder though, did he recruit Va when he was on the USCe staff?
Same thing could be asked when he was on the VA TECH staff because we missed a lot of guys.
ZING
I never heard of Alex Essex.
It's a national brand with great tradition, and you see guys from Virginia leaving the state to go to Tennessee, or go to Alabama. To me there's no reason not to come to Georgia also."
Frikkin' sellout. /s
Virginia Tech is also a national brand, by the way.
I hope Shane does well, but not so much in recruiting Virginia and North Carolina. If he's successful and eventually gets some experience as a head coach somewhere, I would like to see him back at VT one day.
Ehhh not the way Georgia is. People in the west coast know how UGA is doing, kind of like how people on the east coast have a pulse for how USC is doing. I don't think the same can be said about VT, or many schools for that matter; there's less than 15 schools that are true national brands IMO.
I think you're a national brand if people have heard of your team, and I'd suggest that going to a national championship, going to a BCS bowl, winning the Big East, winning the ACC, and beating Ohio State make you a national brand.
Sure, Georgia is a bigger brand and better known, but VT has been growing in national prominence, and expect that trend to continue in both football and basketball. I don't blame Beamer for using "but we're a national brand" as a part of his recruiting patter, but it is just recruiting-speak.
Of course what we're really talking about in the states between Virginia and Florida is regional branding, for both teams. Anybody who follows college football in the region is aware of both teams. The people in Virginia and North Carolina aren't worried about what people on the West Coast think.
I think every team in the P5 have a national brand, just by virtue of being in relevant conferences. If a team wins on of those conferences, you better believe they're nationally relevant in today's football environment.
I think you are being too literal. By national brand I think we are taking about a relevant national brand. I Know that Oregon State and Indiana exist as schools, but they don't have a national brand.
Do you think they're comparable to Virginia Tech?
I don't.
Name two schools who are comparable, and let's retest the idea.
Wisconsin and Michigan St are very similar in name brand to VT
I think Wisconsin has a better brand name than Virginia Tech, certainly a more established football program. I would agree with Michigan State, probably also toss in Texas AM, TCU, maybe Missouri
Michigan State has 6 claimed national titles in football. They also have a massive number of alumni.
They may claim 6, but the NCAA only recognizes three, and two of those were shared (1965 with Alabama and 1966 with Notre Dame). The only outright championship the NCAA recognizes was in 1952.
http://www.ncaa.com/history/football/fbs
There's nothing unusual about that. In the 90 years since naming a national champion was popularized, there have probably been at least 300 claimed championships. Michigan and Notre Dame both claim 11, but only one and two respectively were outright.
Wisconsin and Michigan State are certainly national brands.
Ok West Virginia and Washington. Georgia over both of those, as well as VT.
I'd argue that all of those teams are national brands.
Alabama over Georgia. Doesn't mean that Georgia isn't a national brand.
What's the criterion? Top 5? Top 10? Top 25? In a P5 conference?
You just messed up your entire argument. Your argument was that Virginia Tech is a national brand because of the following premises:
1) A national brand is a team that people are aware exists
2) People are aware Virginia Tech exists
However, when presented with the counter example of Oregon State and Indiana, (both teams that people are aware exist) you claim that this is not comparable.
I'm not trying to be an ass, but I would like to know what your argument is.
I would argue that UGA is a more powerful national brand under the following premises:
1) A brand's power is improved by its visibility
2) More people have network television than people have cable/satellite television.
3) A brand's power is improved by the chances that it will impact a team that is currently on the television.
4) SEC games are featured on CBS.
5) UGA is in the SEC
6) UGA is pretty decent at winning games in the SEC.
7) Whether or not UGA wins or loses a game on a given Saturday will probably impact the SEC team that CBS is currently cramming down all of our throats.
7) A brand's power is improved by coaches with pedigrees from other powerful brands.
8) Kirby Smart comes from Alabama (The strongest of brands)
9) Shane Beamer comes from Virginia Tech (A pretty strong brand)
Compare this to:
1) ACC games are featured on... something?
2) Virginia Tech is in the ACC
3) Virginia Tech sometimes wins games in the ACC (A long time this wasn't true, but it's been true lately)
4) Whether or not Virginia Tech wins or loses a game on a given Saturday will impact the wheel of mediocrity that is our division of the ACC... probably.
5) Most of our coaches come from Memphis (Ho God, how not strong this brand is).
I reach, based on these 14 premises that Virginia Tech is not as strong a brand as Georgia. Certainly, yes, it is stronger than Oregon State and Indiana. The question though is where in the strength of a brand you draw the line for "This is what it takes to be a national brand."
Personally, I would subscribe to the concept that all of them are national brands, but some carry more power than others. It's like we have Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Dr Pepper, Mountain Dew, 7up, and Seagrams. Clearly, some of these products will have more brand strength than others, but that doesn't make them any particular one not a national brand. An example of a non national brand would be Ski or Ale-8.
Edited.
I didn't mess up the premise. I just pointed out that I didn't believe that Oregon State and Indiana are comparable to VT in terms of branding. I think the existence of a brand is, in fact, the awareness of it. If you're going to produce an example, it should be a comparable one.
And by the way, my comment was that VT is a national brand. I didn't say it was a stronger brand than Georgia. Who'd have thought that I'd have to defend the premise that "VT is a national brand" in THIS forum?
Part of your argument that "VT isn't a national brand" is that the new coaching staff came from Memphis? I don't see what that proves or disproves, but Fuente was one of the most highly-acclaimed "up and comers" in this year's coaching search, and obviously he believes in the VT brand (and potential).
A good bit of your argument is "SEC vs ACC" strength in football, but I'd argue that they're both national brands, even if one has a better reputation in football. One of those is better in basketball, and it's not the SEC.
Your argument doesn't prove that VT isn't a national brand.
And I think you are confusing national brand with national power. I would consider a brand to be recognizable only, not necessarily great.
They are connected. They undulate with one another. You have to remember we are talking about recruits here, so if a team hasn't been relevant in 5 years, they don't have a national brand to them. For us, we remember teams that have been good even if they aren't now.
I would call what you are describing relevance. I know we are just arguing symantics and perception so probably not going to convince one another.
To me,
Case in point.
I think Clemson is a pretty fair comparison. Unlike us, they are (obviousl)y nationally relevant right now, perhaps on their way to being a national power, but not yet a national brand. Here's some examples of what I consider 'nationally relevant' vs 'national brand':
I think we definitely have the potential to be national relevant again, and even a national power. Becoming a 'national brand' really requires far more history and alumni. We need a lot of NY6 Bowl wins, more famous players, more alumni, and more time before we become what I consider a 'National Brand'.
I guess I see your point.
VT doesn't have too many non-fans from California buying hats because they're fashionable. Then again, neither does Georgia, though I'm certain they sell more hats overall. And that's certainly a way to measure branding.
I can see Notre Dame, OSU, Michigan, and Florida State meeting your criteria, along with Oregon. Also, any team that has the playoffs in recent memory.
Yes, there are storied programs, but you know what? People's memories are short. Recruits these days don't even remember when VT played for a national championship. Their parents might.
Certainly people in Georgia remember how great Georgia is or was. But most people have to be reminded by ESPN of the "largest cocktail party" history right before the Florida-Georgia game. I guess your point is made there, though. Which game has more prominence, the Florida-Georgia game, or the Virginia-Virginia Tech game? Ooooops.
So what we really need is for Miami and Virginia Tech to start winning again. Clemson and Florida State seem to be doing their part.
I've met a lot of people even on the East Coast that don't know who VT is so, it's hard to say we're a national brand outside of CFB enthusiasts.
When did you meet them? I'm just curious because I find it hard to believe there are currently people on the East Coast of the United States who have never heard of VT. The tragic events of 2007 made the news world-wide and I have to believe that unless US Citizens were living under a rock they had to have heard of VT at least in that capacity. If you met people in 2005 and they had never heard of VT then I could believe that more easily.
Yep... not to mention the respect our students and alumni are earning in the job front. VT has become a very well respected Engineering school, especially on the East Coast. We're also known to have one of the top Architectural and Design schools in the country. And in one of the more exploding employment fronts, if you have a VT degree, you'll automatically get an interview for a computer sciences position in most places.
It also doesn't hurt that the VT student body and alumni base has absolutely embraced the orange and maroon color scheme since the 1999 season. Its so unique that it sticks out when people see it, even if they know nothing about sports.
Last summer at Army Basic Training, was there with a bunch of 18 yr olds. Many of them didn't know who VT was, I was shocked. And yes, they very well could have been living under a rock but still, they're out there.
Is it really a big surprise? It has been 4 years since we were relevant
idk how true that is. people in SEC country barely even know how GA is doing anymore. they were 10-3 this year and in the top 25 all season. the pulse around here and that I get from folks is that GA is a barely .500 team even when they win 10 games. they were never really considered a threat to anyone outside of Athens. specially after Chub went down. theyre kind of like the UNC of the SEC. every year they are predicted to take the conference and then they end up in the middle of the pack somewhere.
id also say that until the last 3 years everyone on the west coast new how VT was doing too. they still do they just now know that VT isn't doing that well. I honestly don't think UGA is anymore of a Brand than VT is. heck atleast VT has marketed themselves well with all the Jersey combos that gets us some PUB. UGA hasn't had a different Uni combo in 10 years other than wearing black (which is one of their primary colors anyways)
I don't think it is fair the criticism Shane got as a recruiter, he brought in more 4* talent than everyone and while he struck out at Richmond it needs to be kept in mind that Fisher, Caleb, Reavis were all kicked out/transferred/never developed doesn't do much for selling kids not to mention CFB being a lame duck
If it's fair to give him credit for his early successes, then it's fair for him to get blamed for the late misses.
Also, as I understand it, Cav set the table for Shane on Joel Caleb.
His early successes didn't involve his dad being a lame duck or every high profile Richmond recruit failing miserably at tech
So on the one hand, you want me to consider Frank's lame duck status (which isn't relevant anyways because Frank got a contract extension in August 2014 through January 1, 2019), but on the other, you gloss over Shane's successes occurring on the heels of Tech's 10-game winning streak. That doesn't make sense.
Right because until Frank retired everyone expected him to be here through 2019.... And we had 8 other recruiters none of them got as much talent other than maybe Stinespring who had been recruiting the region forever. Not to mention a lot of his recruits were NOT coming on the heels of 10 win seasons. In the 2014 signing class our top three recruits were all recruited by Shane, that's after two mediocre seasons.
I think it's fair to say that the recruits saw the writing on the wall with Frank and that "contract extension." Even if they didn't, I'd be surprised if they didn't sense some weakness.
"Lame duck" may be a little harsh. But I think it's relevant in all but the most literal of interpretations.
I'll follow-up by saying that I'm not sold on Shane's recruiting abilities, but it's fair to say that he may have been a little sand-bagged at VT.
Landon Dickerson, our top target for this year's class, repeatedly cited Frank's uncertain future as a reason for his shakiness with VT
Really? Because I read that when Frank announced his retirement he took VT down a peg on his board.
http://247sports.com/Bolt/Hokies-Coaching-Change-Affecting-Landon-Dicker...
Really a paywall article?
Shit didn't realize it was paywalled. It basically said he is concerned about coaching stability but he will consider Tech based on whom they hire and retain
Wuuuttttt? Using Frank's contract status to support stability? Joe Lanza, you are a more astute follower of college football than that. Contracts don't mean anything in college football, nobody thought Frank would coach to the end of his contract.
UGA will make Shane look like a better recruiter than he is. UGA recruits itself. Reicht is thought of as a great recruiter and everyone thought once he left GA, the #1 2016 QB Jacob Eason from Washington would decommit. Eason stuck with GA anyway.
All of the blue bloods make guys look like better recruiters than they are...
I totally agree with marcb2. Alabama, USC, OSU, FSU all pretty much recruit themselves with name recognition. 99% of kids have a dream school and if a HC or lead recruiter from that school offers they will pop...........
To be fair Shane was a good recruiter at South Carolina too, a program on a similar footing to ourselves
Im not sure why people still can't take off the Blinders with Shane Beamer. He was very underwheliming as a coach and couldn't recruit Richmond. Sure he got some kids to come, no need to list every recruit he got. He came in over hyped as a recruiter and missed out on a lot of high end talent in the Richmond area. VT fans fell in love with the story line of kid comes home to coach for dad, but forgot that story could end ugly if the kid can't coach. I'm not trying to be a Debbie Downer but if his last name wasn't Beamer I can bet fans would have been calling for his release way before Frank stepped down.
Aside from the rotation which may have been more on Lefty anyway, what is there really to complain about with Shane? He did well at the military bowl and despite misses was still our best recruiter while here
Well the rotation thing is a pretty big one haha. He was the running back coach.
Yes but was that his decision or Loefflers?
Either it was his call and he made it poorly, or he had zero decision making power which is just as bad
A coach with his resume normally wouldn't have come to coach for Frank.
edit
Yes...
So...
"Coach (insert name) coached at South Carolina under Steve Spurrier (2007-10) and Mississippi State under Sylvester Croom (2004-06). He also held graduate assistant positions at Tennessee under Phil Fulmer (2001-03) and Georgia Tech (2000)"
What would we think if we hired that unnamed coach? Be pretty pleased I bet.
LOL Resume too good you mean? VT's offense was the thing that turned the tide against the program in VA.
It took ten years of abuse, neglect, and incompetence to ruin what had been built up. Shane's resume was a step up from many of the young men who were entrusted key positions in the coaching staff.
And yet good coaches at good programs keep hiring him...maybe, just maybe, he's better at what he does than the perpetually underwhelmed peanut gallery thinks.
double-edged sword here i don't want to lose recruits to ga, but i want lil beamer to do well and come back one day when the time is right
We actually recruit Georgia well. Georgia now has GSU, G Southern, GT, and UGA, along with the SEC to compete for recruits, which is the same as we have to deal with in Virginia with the out of state recruiting recently. He didn't do very well last couple of years recruiting. I don't expect that to change, but he has a more stable situation and money in SEC country.
"Well" is a relative term. There are 3 Georgia kids currently on the VT roster.
Facyson -- modestly ranked and recruited coming out of HS (Georgia #52/#37 per Rivals/247) with some solid power 5 offers (VT, UNC, Louisville, Ole Miss, Miss St), but mostly low power 5 and mid-major offers.
Santamaria -- Kicker (who will likely never be the #1 kicker)
Plantin -- lightly ranked and recruited (#133 in GA per 247 and only other power 5 offers from Illinois & UVa)
We've had a history, with 3-4 kids out of a single state consistently on the roster, means we have a working relationship, pipeline so to speak. Look at Bama's roster, they got about 4 Virginia kids, two who had big games last night. They consider Virginia an important pipeline. I guess it's relative.
Bama only recruits and gets a few top kids from Virginia. VT gets a few kids way down the list in Georgia.
"Recruiting well" is a relative term.
Georgia high school football is stacked, getting middle of the pack is not mediocre when comparing to top talent in Virginia. Facyson played right away. Bonner played for several years. Same with Sergio Render and Dorian Porch. Point I'm making is that it's a pipeline state that has worked out well for us.
I'm not worried. If he can't convince VA kids to go to a VA school then they aren't going to GA. And the majority of "his" guys never worked out so you'd be better off without those guys to begin with. Waste of time waste of scholarship. Of course he has to pump up his VA pipeline to get a job that's natural.
I see it as most of the bigger names he missed out on went to powerhouse schools like FSU or Alabama and GA is much closer to them then to VT in being attractive due to larger resources and brand name. VT is a tougher sell than GA so I believe that he will excel just like he did at USCe.
All this talk about whether or not we're a National Brand....
For my honeymoon in 2013, my wife and I went to Italy and I brought my throwback VT logo'd track jacket to wear around. In every single location we were (Rome, Florence, Cinque Terre, and Venice) I got at least one 'Go Hokies'.
Yes, we're a National Brand. If your brand is recognized Internationally, you're at the very least National.
That's awesome! For my 1 yr anni back in 2014, my wife and I went to NYC. I was walking close to the memorial of the WTC wearing my black Hokie VT beanie and got a 'Go Hokies'.
Absolutely.
I took a cruise to St. Petersburg Russia two years ago and found Matryoshka dolls painted as VT players. (LT, Byrn, Knowles, Coles, and someone else) I bought it of course. They had a lot of other teams from other sports but thought it was really cool that they still had VT.
how I feel about Shane recruiting VA kids to UGA:
Hypothetical: If Shane is coaching as an assistant at UGA and VT and UGA meet in the Natty, who will Frank be rooting for?
Frank has no clue how to root for anyone but the Hokies. Sorry Shane
Johnnie Walker black label.
That can't be a serious question, right?
....it's the off-season. If you take everything seriously you're being too serious. If you have to ask, err on the side of 'not serious'
I was just surprised that of all the questions someone could think of, that one bubbled to the top of someone's list.
Particularly since, as someone pointed out, Frank is still on the staff.
I think you need to lighten up a bit. It was a hypothetical, and quasi rhetorical, question intended to poke fun at certain commenters who are lashing out at Shane unnecessarily. The point of the question isn't to launch into a discussion of who Frank is going to root for in the unlikely event that UGA and VT meet in the National Championship in Frank's lifetime while Shane is on staff at UGA. The point of the question is to provoke thought and bring to light just how silly and juvenile it is to jump all over Shane for "stealing our recruits from VA." You're not supposed to take the question seriously or even try to formulate any sort of reasonable answer. You're supposed to realize that Frank's enduring loyalty to VT is an unmovable object where Frank's wishes for his offspring to be successful is an unstoppable force. Frank is going to be supportive of Shane so long as he works hard and remains honest to himself, his peers, his subordinates, and his superiors. Frank is never going to turn his back on VT. We are all loyal to VT. Frank would appreciate that. We should all also be thankful for what Shane has done and wish him success in his career. Frank would appreciate that. I think it's ridiculous that people are jumping all over Shane for saying he wants to recruit a part of a country which he is familiar with from an institution where it makes sense to recruit said area. Leave the man alone. THAT was the point of the question.
Maybe you should lighten up.
I think most VT fans appreciate Shane and wish him well, but not necessarily success in establishing recruiting ties for the University of Georgia in the state of Virginia, or in situations where he's competing with VT for recruits.
We're all on the same side here.
Agreed, I don't want him taking "our" kids outta state to UGA the same way I don't want Chip West from loluva taking our kids to Charlottesville. Hokie Pride.
Isn't Beamer staying on as Special Assistant to the Athletic Director? Seems to me, ignoring all else, it would be unwise to root against your employer.
I'm so confused, how has no one used this yet? I don't think this includes any spoilers.
TR8R! /s
I want to support Shane, but he's become a rival, and rivals cannot be tolerated....
Guilty
I'm happy for Shane for landing on his feet, but at the end of the day, he is trying to recruit the same top tier talent in VA as we are.
Why is Vader about to board an airplane?
And how did he get through security?
Do not question the powers of the dark side of the force
Shane is a Hokie through and through and I wish him well, just not in recruiting against us in the state of Virginia.