I came across this article by Norm Wood and I couldn't help but feel frustrated. 5 years ago, that list of commits would have been littered with the name "Virginia Tech" beside them. This post isn't here to bash the previous staff and their recruiting efforts but more so being hopeful that this new staff hones in on the Commonwealth of Virginia in the coming years. There is a ton of talent in Virginia and I personally miss the days where Virginia Tech gave every recruit from this state a reason to not look anywhere else. Start winning games and I'm sure we'll get back to those days but man, this really just puts it into perspective.
From top to bottom, it seemed like a relatively typical class from Virginia this year. Good mix of great players as well as some potential role players. What I found odd was that unlike previous years, several of these names I had never even heard before reading this article.
Taylor- 5 Star
Bracey- 4 Star
Birmingham- 3 Star
Robinson- 3 Star
Yulee- 4 Star
Davis- 4 Star
Floyd- 3 Star
Ball- 4 Star
Campbell- 3 Star
Kamara- 3 Star
Yarbrough- 4 Star
Givens- 3 Star
Rene- 3 Star
Bruton- 3 Star
Comments
2/3rds of those kids didn't even consider us. Two factors I can think of:
1. Beamers age had really hamstrung us. The perception was that we would be going thru massive change in the next five years. The perception was right.
2. It's been since 2011 since we were nationally relevant. Or, since these kids were in Middle school. It doesn't take long to pass from the memories of a teenager.
The recruiting game has changed considerably in the last 5 years. Social media, Hudl, vastly increased recruiting budgets, camps, etc. make it much easier for every program to expand their recruiting umbrella.
Now instead of just a few schools reaching into Virginia (and other talent rich states) for the top 10 players, you've got dozens. And if you notice, you don't see the kids outside the top 10 getting recruited by the blue bloods - they focus their resources on only the top kids in every state. Which makes it easier for the rich to get richer because they don't waste their time on more than a few kids in each state.
True, but this year, we saw Duke and UNC come into VA and clean our clock. Those aren't blue bloods, those are solid programs with stable leadership and energetic recruiters. Things that we lacked last year (and the year before when many of these decisions were made).
Beamer's retirement and our back to back to back lackluster seasons have vastly reduced our brand equity in the state. It will be interesting to see how Fuente can turn that around. Like you said, geographic preference is more diluted than ever, but you still gotta do better than this in your own state. We may not be able to get the 5 of the top 10 we could in the mid 2000's, but we need at least 2 of the top 10.
Duke got three kids out of VA only two of them held VT offers and one of them, Bracey was more worried about the academic ranking, especially of the engineering school at Duke vs Vt than anything. While UNC did come in a just plan beat VT at recruiting the state I don't think Duke really did anything to get these kids that you can point to the coaches and ask them to do anything different.
I wasn't aware that we should be worried about our engineering school ranking.
Duke has a slightly better ranking.
According to where? USNews tabs us at 21 and Duke at 28.
http://www.bestvalueschools.com/top-25-ranked-engineering-programs-with-...
That is an extremely narrowly focused evaluation. Duke has a total of 3 engineering programs in the top 20 as opposed to the 10 programs at Tech that all place in the top 20. If Bracey knows he wants to major in BioMed Engineering then fine, Duke may be for him. Otherwise, his best bet, strictly from an overall engineering education's perspective, is without question Virginia Tech.
Same article lists the US News Engineering Rank and has Tech at 15 and Duke at 19.
Thanks. Wasn't trying to be a stickler for sources, was just curious as a VT engineering student.
To be fair, the triangle is closer to eastern VA than Tech is. Other than state pride, there's really no downside to recruits looking to stay in the region.
Richmond is closer to Duke than VT is also.
Honestly I'm over the must win instate recruiting. I find it short sighted and too simplistic for the modern era.
Yes, in the early day of Beamer it was a must, but kids these days have a broader sense. Parity has occurred, and being a top star at a P5 team can happen. So VA kids are looking elsewhere, whether it's for immediate playing time or the desire to get away. Imntired of people a using the staff, new or old, of dropping the ball because a top recruit chose some other school.
In addition, I don't want to only keep my sights on VA recruits. I want top kids from FL or OK to play for VT. To me, that means more than a VA kid playing at VT.
Just get over it. People are going apeshit on high school kids making choices. When I graduated high school, I wanted to be an engineer, after some course correction, I realized I was and always had been an interior architect. Decisions like these happen. So stop being a bitch.
You can overlook in-state recruiting all you want so long as we are successfully bringing equivalent talent in from other states. Over the last few years, we can't claim that to be true. Along with places like California, Texas, and Flordia, Virginia is one of the most fertile recruiting states in the US. Its not a coincidence that VT was most successful when they could consistently bring in the top talent in VA.
UNC has been in VA for talent forever - well, at least as far back as William Fuller (all-pro), from my memory.
But having followed recruiting for a long time, it sure seems to me that VT was at its best when soundly beating UNC for VA recruits. I can't really think of a way to prove this, but I really believe it is true. I ran into the article below when briefly googling "UNC football players from VA" that is about Fedora's success in NOVA. It certainly demonstrates his use of Twitter in his success, but it also details some very familiar themes/tactics we have employed (honoring scholarships after injury).
The good news, at least for anyone (like me) that feels that UNC is a major threat, is that Fuente can beat Fedora, given a short period of time to get his feet under him. It doesn't appear to be rocket science. It is energy, persistence, social media, and face time from the head man. THAT is really what seems to be needed, and a lot of posters here seem to be zeroing in on it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/recruiting-insider/wp/2016/02/03/north-carolina-football-continues-to-make-recruiting-inroads-in-northern-virginia-maryland-under-larry-fedora/
Lawrence Taylor...
Ronald Curry, but that worked out for us in the end. (see page 1998: Vick)
Beat me to LT. Stupid work slowing me down!
We should have offered his family a cord of firewood. Maybe things would have been different...
is that a Bruce Smith reference?
Yes
YEP
Plus- as I have said repeatedly
1) Virginia doesn't produce great offensive linemen.
2) The "757" post-Vick Hokie era I think has impacted the recruitnicks, and some overrate 757 players. The 757 particularly doesn't produce offensive linemen. Other players have not developed well (Richmond as well) at VT or other schools, especially over the last four years. As I have noted, VT only had 3 starters from the 757 (Clark, Hodges, and Motuapuaka.) Out of state recruiting has produced the Hokies best players lately, and when you look at young players counted on to step up next season, most are out of state or non-757/Richmond players. The Edmunds brothers are from near Danville. McMillian and Teller are NOVA kids. Mook and Alexander are North Carolina kids. Ford, Lydon, and Lawson are Florida guys. Nijman is Jersey; McLaughlin is a South Carolina kid. Gallo is from PA. Evans (and Brewer before him) are Texans.
3) Prior to the Vick era, when you look at all the guys who went to the NFL or were all conference in that era where the the program "was built" (pre 1999) you notice that a bunch of kids were out of state guys. Gray was from Florida. Antonio Freeman, George DelRicco, Billy Conaty, and Eugene Chung were Maryland kids. Jim Baron was from Tennessee. Jim Pyne was from Massachusetts. Will Furrer was from PA. Tyronne Drakeford was from South Carolina. The program was built where VT got their top talent from out of state. In that way, the ACC move may have hurt the program. VT was on network TV (CBS) throughout the northeast and when Penn State and Syracuse started to falter, VT made headway in PA, MD, and NJ (culminating in the recruitment of Kevin Jones.)
Get your Virginia targets, and find projects locally. But, I want Fuente to be regionally and nationally focused. Focusing efforts mostly in Virginia is a formula that is doomed to fail.
I think the whole taking back virginia campaign is being done with a realistic goal of landing just a few more of the top recruits. I hope the administration doesn't think it's realistic to truly seal up the borders, and like you have pointed out, I don't think it would be wise anyway.
To expand on your second point, I mentioned in another thread, just cause these kids are top in state in Virginia, didn't necessarily mean they can be top in state elsewhere. There are the exceptions, Vick, Hand, Nnadi off the top of my head. But for the most part, mid level talent from Florida could very well be top talent in Virginia. They just happen to be in Florida with the rest of the diamonds. Same with Georgia or Ohio. Beamer talked about the 6 hour radius. Expanding that radius gets us beyond Jersey, beyond the Carolinas, and to more talent.
Nailed It!
That's a good point about the VA offensive lineman talent. I've always hoped we could move more towards a Stanford reputation in that regard.
I will say about in home recruiting is that, its a hope that these kids grow up Hokie fans. It's a pride thing. When the time comes to choose a school it would be nice to get to a point (I don't think we've been there ever really) but outside of playing time concerns or depth at a position or the occasional out of state fan, Virginia Tech would be there dream school. I too share that dream and I hope one day I can make Network Anchor.
Don't you think we should have more than 3 starters from the 757? There was way more talent than just Bucky, Moto and Clark. THAT is the problem...
Yeah, I'm with you - that IS the problem. We are getting smoked in state, where we should have an advantage - even by a sanction challenged, non-football blueblood UNC- and the answer is to head to OTHER areas and cherry pick there?
All these stats of top guys from other states leaving for out of state schools...where are they going? Houston? Memphis? TCU? VT????
WE are somehow going to be in the mix for all of these state defecting guys? Just like that...
Fuente has stated VA is a priority. All I can say is, "Thank God" to that. He seems to know what's up.
6 of the top 10 Florida players and 11 of the top 20 went out of state. All four of the state's 5 star players went out of state.
It's not unique to Virginia. Get over it.
I feel like we rarely cover what attracts the top recruits the most:
1) Winning
2) A shot at going to the NFL
All in all going 7-6 isn't going to land 5 star recruits. We aren't losing these guys to nobodies, they're going to programs of recently great seasons. Take UNC as an example. They haven't historically recruited well but they JUST had a 10 win season and they've already landed five 4* recruits. We'll be fine once we get rolling and put together some wins.
Program perception is what attracts recruits at every level. Winning long term (as in generations of mostly winning) is a compenent of program perception. As does financial resources, the breadth and depth of local/regional fan/alumni/business, and national media presence.
Boise State has won more over the last 15-20 yrs than almost every Pac-12 program that it competes against for recruits, but it lacks the other three - and thus doesn't out recruit them.
VT has won more games than a handful or so of schools over the last 20 years, but it is much further down the list on the other 3. In order to move up the ladder, VT needs to continue to win, but it also needs much more than that.
I agree with this. VT needs more than just wins. But I think the first thing VT needs to do is win games. Winning will make Whit's job of doing those other things much easier. Winning games can be done in less time too. It's a whole lot easier to sell an attractive product than a stagnant has-been.
I think Whit made a very calculated decision to hire someone offensive minded. He knows that fans want to see lots of points and fireworks. The short term goal here is to get VT scoring lots of points and winning exciting games. That will make the longer term goal of selling the product of VT football extremely less difficult.
Win games first. That is the most important variable that can be changed (relatively) quickly. Leverage those wins improve those other components.
I would say it makes it slightly less difficult. 75% (and maybe more) of schools are running some form of a spread offense now. And winning and losing is still a zero sum game...losing a high scoring game with a "fun" offense is still losing (as folks are going to soon appreciate).
All VT is doing is preventing erosion, not separating itself. Much, much more is needed off the football field. The most important people by far in determining where VT's ceiling is athletically and whether it gets reached are Timothy Sands, Whit Babcock and the Board, not Justin Fuente, Buzz Williams, Bud Foster, et al.
What is the difference between VT and Clemson? It's not money (both around $70M in budget). It's not history (Clemson has one NC in the early 1980s, nothing anyone remembers). It's not fans (ours are just as good). They've got 4 hours better geography.
VT isn't going to become Ohio State with $125M in revenue (and ....what...twice the enrollment?) But UNC, UVA and Clemson are all within reason to our athletic budget. None have significant advantages in respect to history, facilities or recruiting. But Clemson has a great (begrudgingly) football coach. UNC has a very good coach in football and a HOF'er in basketball, solid programs across the board in other sports. And UVA is superior to almost anyone in the overall balance of their athletic program....because they have fantastic coaches in basketball, baseball, soccer, tennis, LAX, etc.
The argument could be made that Fuente, Buzz and whoever coaches our wrestling, baseball, swimming, track and soccer teams are exactly the people who will make the difference. Just because you've said it about a dozen times over the last month that VT needs a lot more money doesn't make it the case. More money doesn't hurt, but we need to get more value out of the money we are spending. That starts with our two biggest personnel investments: Buzz Williams and Justin Fuente.
Clemson spends far more on their football program than VT, it was posted elsewhere but their Alumni also give far more than our own.
http://www.roanoke.com/sports/columns_and_blogs/blogs/andy_bitter_virgin...
Clemson has a bigger support staff, pays their assistants a lot more, and is in the process of building a brand new tens of millions of dollars facility for their football team that has laser tag. They have considerably more money
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25444412/ala...
Total amount of money and how that money is spent are separate issues. Maybe Clemson is going to haul in a lot more money and put some distance between them and us in overall revenue, but at this point, based on Andy's numbers from the USA Today database, we are on pretty equal ground. None of that is even mentioned in the article you linked, which is just a listing of various individual's salaries and does not show anything to demonstrate they have "considerably more money." So for those who think that suddenly throwing more money at VT is a panacea, that is wrong. Sure, more money gives you more flexibility, but it's not like we're at a disadvantage in terms of cash relative to a team of similar pedigree, in the same conference and geographical region. Clemson is just being more proactive and efficient than we are. We just hired more recruiting support staff, but we're still catching up in the arms race.
It's all about smart management. We're not going to crack the top echelon of programs like Oregon, Texas, ND, etc. any time soon. We have to be smart with our money and punch above our weight class for a little while, or at least keep up with Clemson's model, because clearly they're doing well.
Their overall Athletic department budget isn't particularly relevant only what the football budget is which is substantially more than VT.
Can you provide a source that provides football-only numbers for each school? The most recent I've found is Clemson in 2012, with expenditures of about $17M, but (1) that's certainly changed and (2) I don't know how VT compares because I can't find that.
I can't find anything recent. But I think it is a safe bet considering they spend more on assistants, nearly double our recruiting budget, and a larger support staff. Apparently their booster donations are misleading, looks like their overall AD is growing pretty rapidly with their success. http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150823/PC20/150829752
And if our Football budgets are similar, I'd like to know where the difference is, I can't imagine our travel costs differ much
Nearly double our recruiting budget is $350k. That's not a problem in a $70m budget. It's a matter of allocation and priorities.
It's probably important to point out that Clemson has less varsity sports overall. So I'm assuming that helps them focus more of the budget to football.
Men's teams that VT offers that Clemson doesn't: Wrestling / Swimming & Diving - 2
Women's teams that VT offers that Clemson doesn't: Field Hockey / Lacrosse / Swimming (Clemson has women's diving) - 2.5
Women's teams that Clemson offers that VT doesn't: Rowing +1
So that's a total of 3.5 less varsity teams to support.
If Clemson has a similar overall budget and spends more on football, is that what we want? Which non rev are you recommending we cut?
More money would be better, but we are sufficiently funded to meet our stated goals of being a Division contender in football and an
overall well rounded athletic program. I would like to see our levels of debt service for facilities compared to UVA, UNC and Clemson.
Well that's interesting for sure.
I don't think anyone is saying it is unique to Va. It's more the fact that we used to land a decent amount of the top 10 (~3 or 4 players per year) and we didn't sign any in 2016.
The four power 5 schools in California kept just 6 of the top 10 and 10 of the top 20 in California.
Texas? 6 of top 10 and 11 of top 20...between five power 5 schools + Houston.
Ohio? 4 of the top 10 and 7 of top 20. By the only power 5 school in the state.
Georgia? 3 of the top 10 and 6 of the top 20.
The bigger point is that the recruiting game has changed. Schools can't (and probably don't even try) to build a wall around state borders any more. Everybody recruits regionally now (with some schools having bigger "regions" than others) and a handful essentially recruit nationally.
People really do need to get out of the 90's and 00's recruiting mindset. Zero isn't good, but the days of VT getting 5 of the top 10 and 10 of the top 20 in VA are gone.
Some schools can still lock down states, LSU got nine of the top 10 in state in 2016, Alabama and Auburn got 6 of Alabama's top 10 but they landed every blue chip recruit but one, UNC has landed four of the top 5 for 2017. We should still be aiming to land as much of Virginia's top talent as possible, since in theory this is the easiest talent for us to land. Realistically 4-5 blue chip in state every year would be continuing our historical performance
The value in doing well in your state is still there. Pipelines are still relevant. Investing in the Commonwealth's HS coaches is still a good strategy. The old Beamer'ism that the in-state kids are the kids you know more about is still accurate. Virginia is still a very good state for recruiting.
Marc is right, geography has changed dramatically in recruiting. But that still doesn't change the fact that if VT does well in Virginia. that would be a good thing. For now and for the long term.
I'm concerned about Fuente's staffs ability to recruit, but they have brought a national/regional mindset and skillset with them. We will do well in not just within 6 hours drive, but within a 6 hour flight. But a focus on the state of Virginia is still our goal. Fuente has been clear on that point.
I don't imagine much will change in terms of our recruiting footprint, Fuente basically said as much when he was hired. I imagine next cycle we may offer some kids outside of our traditional footprint that were already being recruited by the Memphis staff but we will still largely be recruiting along the East Coast. I doubt we will be landing many kids from the West Coast anytime soon until we grow our brand. I think the exceptions may be at Quarterback and Defensive back where we have a good enough reputation to pursue national targets
I think that's half lip service for the very reason the term exists...because it's what some people want to hear.
I'm not saying VT will ignore Virginia players, but I do think it will be more selective with those it does recruit. I think when it's all said and done, the roster will reflect an increased emphasis on regional recruiting. More players - not less - will be from out of state.
I'm curious, how many 6 hour flights go in and out of Roanoke?
None, Roanoke is a very small airport that only flies direct to a handful of places. We won't be recruiting in a 6 hour flight footprint
The problem is you're comparing VT to Auburn & Alabama & LSU. Going beyond the decades and decades of football tradition of those schools, the significantly greater resources, and the national media presence they have, they are relatively small states with a breadth and depth of passion for those football programs which is at an entirely different level than VT and UVA in Virginia. They aren't just local football teams, they are the identity of the state for a significant portion of the population.
When VT has a budget comparable to those schools, another 2 or 3 decades of football success, and the local and regional fans/alums/businesses/media/politicians are as involved and passionate as Bama, Auburn & LSU, then maybe you can try to compare them.
I don't disagree that a school like LSU is better able to lock down a state, I'm simply pointing out that some schools are still able to do it and I don't think UNC falls into the same boat as the SEC schools I mentioned
First off - this discussion would be so much easier if everyone simply stopped comparing state talent by Top 10s. Different states have different depths of blue chip talent.
I hope you and others understand that when FSU gets 10 of the FL top 50, it's the same as VT getting all TEN of the VA top 10. So they can afford to let lots of instate talent slip through their fingers, to the degree that we cannot.
That said, you're correct that VT has to rely on out of state talent more than we have in the past. But this isn't new. It's mostly because there never HAS been enough talent in VA to sustain a Top 10 program.
We need to get our share of the VA blue chippers because we're a state university, and we have a VA first philosophy as a program. But we need to get the majority of our blue chippers from out of state. Maybe 1/3 VA, 2/3 out of state.
Sir. There is no place for this kind of educated, rational objectivism in recruiting discussions. Please use only false equivalencies, straw men, circular logic, and emotionally charged true hokie-isms.
The decrease in landing Va talent has a lot to do with the world shrinking. We will never seal up the state like we used to. However, I don't fault the staff for making the state a priority because it's the easiest place to improve due to the geographical footprint. Similarly, we should be hitting the equivalent radius out of state. We also can't stop strategically targeting recruits that are outside the convenient footprint. So the whole virginia recruiting campaign will hopefully net a few more talented guys and will also continue to seek talent elsewhere.
Recruiting won't be fixed overnight. Road miles will pay off, but we have to come to terms with the fact that some kids just won't have us high on their list for all kinds of reasons outside our control.
I feel Ohio is an opportunity we overlook. Especially SW OH. A lot of Catholic schools and it is an easy drive to Blacksburg. Trench players could be found.
I can get on board with this.
Slightly off topic question: does the athletic department have to pay back the School more money for a scholarship for an out of state player?
I know this probably doesn't matter much either way, I was just curious.
Yes
Yes, and it DOES matter. It reduces the cost of sustaining the program.
Really you just have to hit lightning in a bottle. Deshaun Watson, Michael Vick, Cam Newton. You can build a championship or near championship team around that. Unless you have 3-5 star guys a year which Tech is never going to have. You build a solid team of hard workers and then 1-2 studs