#Hokies have a #Wakeyleaks problem. Statement from AD Whit Babcock imminent.— David Teel (@DavidTeelatDP) December 15, 2016
Virginia Tech released a statement shortly after Teel's report.
Statement from Director of Athletics Whit Babcock pic.twitter.com/4OK6iT8YS6— HokieSports (@hokiesports) December 15, 2016
Frank Beamer maintains he had no knowledge of the allegations.
#Hokies Frank Beamer on #Wakeyleaks: "I can assure you, that while I was the head coach at VT, I had no knowledge of what is being alleged."— Mike Barber (@RTD_MikeBarber) December 15, 2016
#Hokies Frank Beamer on #Wakeyleaks: "I've built my entire career and life on doing things the right way and that will never change."— Mike Barber (@RTD_MikeBarber) December 15, 2016
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
Link to full statement
sorry, on mobile can't embed.
So of the coaches : Shane Beamer, T Gray, Loeffler, Stinespring, Moorehead or Brown who got the info?
Impossible to be anyone from the offensive side of the ball....
It would be hilarious if someone from the offensive side had info. I watched that team and can believe the offense couldn't even cheat properly.
Again this chick is hauuuut!
Well, if we have anything to fall back on, besides Beamer and Foster denying any knowledge of this, it would have to be the outcome of the game, cause if we really did receive any intelligence from Wake, it was either a setup by feeding us the wrong information, or else is a demonstration of the complete incompetence of our offensive coaching staff. You should be able to run dive plays out of a pee-wee football playbook all day and score more than 3 point in a 2OT game. We're talking WF here, not the Steel Curtin.
it could have been a grad assistant or a "quality control guy" you know one that maybe "transferred"
im afraid when we find out who it was (which I doubt we will) the pitch forks for that guy ekkkkkkkk
It's possible, although I am sure the statement was worded with great care. As such, I would be surprised if it was a staff member and not an actual "former assistant coach".
Could it have been Loeffler?, and he just didn't understand it... it was football plays
I know that Loeffler bashing is a pretty well thought of pastime on TKP but this isn't fair to say. The man knew football inside and out...that wasn't his problem. He outsmarted himself sometimes and I think ultimately he just wasn't very good at teaching his offense to the players and setting them up to be successful. He showed that when he had the time to get the players up to speed he could be an effective OC but I think his system was just too complicated for the college ranks. I do think he'd have better results in the NFL where the players can dedicate more time to understanding all of the nuances of the scheme
I am also just not comfortable hating on Scot Loeffler in general. I haven't heard him say anything nasty about Virginia Tech, so I just don't think it's warranted. Do I think he's a good offensive coordinator? Not really. But it's not a good look to pile on him either.
And as has said been said before, he did actually improve the offense from what it was before he came. He deserves some recognition for that.
yep. Beamer/Stinespring/O'Cain/Newsome drove the offense off a cliff and Loeffler + Grimes showed up just in time to strap a parachute on it. That kept it from hitting rock bottom long enough for Fuente to strap rocket boosters on.
Lefty laid the foundation for a lot of the success we're having on offense- Ford, Phillips and Hodges aren't the players they are today if Lefty didn't have the balls to play young guys and relentlessly develop them.
He's a great coordinator but he needs to be at a school 3-4 years (and not have his starting QB break his collarbone during the first game of the season) for his philosophies to take hold...in today's college football landscape, nobody has that type of patience...I think given the right situation and given enough time to develop his players, he can create an offense that's damn near impossible to stop. Unfortunately for him, I don't think any administration will give him enough time to get there.
It doesn't really tell me that he's a good coordinator if he needs literally the perfect situation to get decent production out of an offense. I take it if you were the AD, you'd have retained him for another 10 years a la O'Cain and Stinespring, instead of bringing Fuente in?
So it's ok to bash Stinespring but not loeffler? Never heard Stiney say a bad word about VT either. Loeffler was a terrible Offensive Coordinator and it's not because he's too smart, it's because he's too predictable. Not saying he's a bad person; seemed to be a hard worker, but a terrible oc.
No. I've defended Stinespring equally. Whatever Loeffler's shortcomings are doesn't matter. He worked hard for Frank, helped to restock the cupboard, and never said anything nasty towards Tech. At the very least I think he deserves to be left the hell alone
To be fair, I don't see Strinespring mentioned much around here, he's pretty old news by now. Though I do remember the pre-TKP days when Stinespring was a favorite punching bag for the fan base. I don't "hate" Stinespring but I do remember two key legitimate criticisms:
1. He really had no vision for the offense, whereas Loeffler did (even if Loeffler failed to execute that vision).
2. He had a waaaay longer leash than Loeffler ever had. Some of the Stinespring hate is borne out of the frustration that he was clearly underpeforming yet we still kept him around for what seemed like forever.
Regardless, I think some level of criticism is probably fair, but we don't need to be making any kind of snide comments about either one. They don't really deserve that.
Can we criticize loeffler for costing us $25k and still not scoring a point in regulation? And before you say it couldn't be an offensive coach since we didn't score, remember he's had a front row seat to bud fosters practices for three years and couldn't score a point against him either. This is not meant to be snide, it's just meant to be humorous and probably true.
For some people, the depth of their knowledge is an impediment to teaching, since they don't understand that what's obvious to them, isn't obvious to others. At this point, I think Loeffler needs 4-5 years with skill players to get them to understand what he's doing. That formula doesn't work in the college game.
I too think that Loeffler get's too much of a bad rap, regarding the O. He not only had to teach his way, but had to undo what Stiney & O'Cain did. Clearly, he was taking steps in the right direction, since Fuente and Cornelson could come in and have the success that we saw this year. Anyone who thinks that they would have a similar turn around the 1st year Loeffler was OC is kidding themselves. They may have had more success than Lefty had, but not the success that we saw this year.
Thanks for the assist
Fuck
Ear muffs!
Hopefully the information not being shared narrative will continue through this process. Either way... here we go.
Well shit
clearly no one making any play calls knew anything because WE FAILED TO SCORE A DAMNED POINT IN REGULATION!!
I'm sure hoping it wasn't used at all and that it doesn't affect any current staff or players.
Am I the only one who thinks this whole thing is the most overblown scandal ever?
Ever heard of Deflategate?
He said overblown. Not under.
i would love to upvote this, but then it wouldn't be 69 anymore, and bill wouldn't approve.
I removed my upvote to return it to 69.
Edit: Now downvoted to return it to 69. No malice intended.
I love that the comment score on this is 69.
Edit: OK, so it's been said already... I guess I left this page open for a while...
Funny, that's what Dave Clawson said, too.
SAVAGE
/thread
Nope, it seems like a whole lotta nothing, until now, and it's still just potentially bad press for us.
What? How could you say such a thing? Clearly, Wake would have been displaying Alabama-esque levels of dominance over the ACC if not for this egregious violation of their trust. /s
I don't think it is. None of it may have had an effect on any games, but it's cheating, and it needs to be punished. Unfortunately, everyone involved should be.
If Tech used the information it's most definitely unsportsmanlike and perhaps it approaches cheating. However, by the definition of the word, stealing signals is cheating too, and it's an accepted practice in football. There are lots of things players, coaches, and teams do across all levels of football to gain an advantage outside of rulebook that could be constituted as cheating, but happen anyways because they are accepted.
This is different because it's new, but I don't think its severity is relative to the amount of reporting done. (Although, I seem to be in the minority.)
Also, there are so many unknowns here, that I am hesitant to jump any harsh conclusions until something more substantial is made public.
For example, there's a scenario that exists where a former Tech assistant was approached right before kickoff, and blew Tommy Elrod off because of the absurdity of the proposition. (Coach Joe would think it was a hoax and would trust in my game plan.)
And I say all of this having not cared about this story since its inception. I am actually annoyed I have to read about it because of Virginia Tech's, at this point, minimal involvement.
This is exactly how I feel.
My question is: how did this knowledge give us an advantage in beating Wake Forest....uh... we did win right?
tempestinateacup.jpg
Also... lol Trevor Matich... Drama queen extraordinaire:
http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/18272514/wake-forest-finds-radio-announcer-leaked-game-plans-opponents
It's a good point about accepted practices. I hate the fact that something like stealing signals is currently "against the rules" but nobody cares that it is practiced anyway. With this particular instance, Elrod is deserving of punishment, and if he is then the NCAA/ACC has to be transparent and punish everyone else as well.
"blew Tommy Elrod off"
Maybe I'm immature but I had to reread this a few times.
had to.
I agree that there is a scenario where a Tech Assistant Coach gets the email, text or phone call... Shakes his head. Thinks to himself, "What's up with this crazy m-fer?". Moves on. Not once thinking that no action would become tantamount to using the information. Of course, we could find out later, that this assistant was in constant contact with Elrod and was providing suggestions that were canned because they sounded insane.
gotta disagree with you on this one joe, the only reason its not as big of a deal is because its wake forest, but you still had somebody with inside information handing out info on their own team. Its kind of sad really and if you have a team preparing special plays for a big game that their big opponent knew about it makes the plays way less likely to be pulled off.
Remember all of the crazy plays loeffler called at the end of the first half of the ohio state game? Stretching the defense back and forth? What if Ohio State knew those were coming, the plays would be SHUT DOWN misdirection is key in football and even more so in college football and its a whole lot harder to pull that off when the opponent knows whats coming.
I obviously dont think it was on the offensive side of the ball, and if it was my god those guys should be disappointed in themselves, but our defense played lights out that game and would certainly be a lot easier if you knew what your opponent was going to run
Gonna be honest, I still wouldn't rule out the offense.
I don't know Joe if it's overblown or not just yet. Whit's comments seem appropriate and I'm glad he was out in front of this. Good management. Allegations of cheating of any kind have to addressed in this way. Time will tell if it gets more press than it deserves or if the ACC or NCAA try to assert themselves. For now now I'd call it appropriate with a reserved right to join in with your opinion at a later date.
Under Grobe, all Wake's practices were open to the public.
Maybe but if this was Florida St or Clemson people would be even more upset. This is a big deal as far as ethics and fair play are concerned
An Ole Miss football player admitted on live national television that he was given money by Ole Miss football coaches, and absolutely nothing happened.
This will quickly blow over.
Bingo!
I think this stuff goes on all the time, just ask Jimbo Fisher. But it's no substitute for game-planning an opponent, and probably most of this "intelligence" is taken by competent coaching staffs (worth their salt) with a grain of salt. And again, we're talking about Wake, who really didn't win much of anything in 2014 anyway - except beating us. But who knows, maybe without Tammy Elrod, WF would have been Alabama-like in the ACC.....we'll never know.
Well is it overblown b/c it's WF? I think it's bad thing that coaches accepted this material. The guy giving it way is blacklisted for life , so I'm not worried about him, but if you were willing to accept it , that's not good and they need to suffer some consequences for it. The fact that this went on and no one turned the guy in just gives off the bad vibe that coaches really don't care bout ethics at all. The ACC can't have one of its members (doesn't matter if its poor ole Wake or not) be subjected to this. I'd put this on par with the Patriots taping the sidelines.
How long will it take till the picture is posted....
Not as long as it took for a score in that game
what picture?
hokie07ME off the top rope!
I've always found the gif to be less depresing than the still shot.
It's worse. Beamer even does a bad version of the Tiger Woods Sinking the the Huge Putt fist pump.
That is his patented "they missed a field goal" arm pump.
I think this gif is all the proof I need to believe that Frank Beamer didn't have a clue about any of this. Either that, or CFB deserves an Oscar for this performance portraying unbridled enthusiasm and relief.
Now, Louisville scored 44 points in their 2016 win vs. Wake, which was around their scoring average, and the outcome was pretty much as expected. Again, unless we find out that Wake was losing games because of this leakage, it is making a mountain out of a mole hill. I think we need to find out how Bill Bellichick feels about this before commenting further.....
But the 34 points in the 4th quarter was the highest single quarter of scoring they had all season. And Wake had a 12-10 lead going into the final quarter.
That's when they busted out Wake's playbook
This isn't great.
This isn't bad.
This is a thing.
It's a distraction and a reminder of that game which really should be forgotten completely.
Didn't we lose that year, 6-3 in OT?
I can't see that this is all that significant, as long as it's a FORMER assistant, and the information wasn't shared or used. I'm hoping the impact is minimal.
2 OT
You realize I was just trying to soften it just a little.
But I guess that which does not kill us makes us stronger.
Good thing we decided to vacate the win the day of the game.
This doesn't have nearly enough legs.
I laughed...and laughed and laughed...you win the thread!
so how do we feel about Petrino saying he was unaware of it now?
Considering I would trust a mesh condom in a whore house before I trusted anything the comes out of Petrino's mouth, I don't think it changes anything.
I feel the exact same way as you re: Petrino. As far as I'm concerned he's a worthless, good-for-nothing, sleazy, vile scum-bag and he can rot.
That being said, if Frank and Bud truly didn't know (and I'm more willing to believe them than Petrino) that does actually give credence to Petrino's argument that he was unaware of it. It is entirely likely that a single assistant could accept the information and keep it from his supervisors because he knows it's morally wrong.
I also think, given that Bud apparently didn't know, that it's possible Loeffler also didn't know either. It could have been a grad-assistant for all we know
I don't think you can draw that conclusion. I would think someone working with Beamer would know his ethics and morals vs. someone working for Petrino. If it was a grad assistant I could see them purposefully avoiding Beamer whereas someone on Petrino's staff may know that he would be down.
well, for starters, I'm not drawing any conclusions.
I'm simply saying that it would be hypocritical of us to slam Petrino for "claiming" that he didn't know and then turn around and blindly believe Beamer when he says he had no idea. Petrino could just as easily have known as not known. I would absolutely believe that he did know and lied to the press (given his personality and track record) but I have to accept the possibility (however slim it may be) that he actually genuinely didn't know.
Based off their respective reputations I personally don't think its hypocritical nor do I have an issue doing just that.
That's fine, and I agree with you. I tend to think Petrino knew and is lying.
I just think it's a potential boy-who-cried-wolf scenario. For all the bad shi* Petrino has done he deserves to not be trusted but it is actually possible that he genuinely didn't know (this one time) and actually isn't lying (this one time)
No, it's still hypocritical.
OK so explain me to me how is it hypocritical to believe the statements by someone who has proven time and again to be honest while at the same time disbelieving the statements of a proven habitual liar?
We aren't talking about belief, we're talking about plausible deniability. If a head coach says he wasn't aware of something his assistants were and everyone calls him out saying that's impossible, you can't turn around and say that a different coach could have reasonably been totally unaware.
If you want to claim he's lying and Beamer's not, that's fair, but to do that you have to admit that it's possible for a head coach to not know what his assistants knew.
For what it's worth, I think Petrino's probably (but not definitely) lying and Beamer isn't. But I believe Petrino's lying because he's untrustworthy, not because it's impossible for a head coach to not know something about their staff.
Thanks. This is what I was trying to say. You did it better.
Uh What? We're not talking about whether it's possible for assistants to hide things from their HC.
I'm talking about how some people are being called out as hypocritical for trusting Coach Beamer and not trusting Coach Petrino when they make similar statements. Period.
These folks are applying the same standard of trustworthiness to both coaches when assessing the veracity of their statements. Does this guy have a reputation of being honest or a reputation of being a liar?" "Does this coach run a clean program and do things the right way or does this coach cut corners and try to win at all costs?"
The fact that two different outcomes are possible from that judgment implies that we recognize that yes, it's possible that assistants can hide stuff from their head coach....
Then we are arguing different things.
Then we are on the same page.
Cheers!
I just hope it doesn't come out that it was Shane who got this information, because if it is, all plausible deniability for Frank will be gone based on the family ties alone.
That said, the fact that VT was actively releasing statements from Frank at the same time they were implying they knew who it was, but aren't yet willing to release the name leads me to believe this isn't the case, which is good.
Why? You've never kept a secret from your parents? Perhaps it makes it less plausible that Frank had no knowledge, but I certainly wouldn't say it makes it completely implausible.
THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS. WE SHOULD HAVE TO VACATE ANY WINS WE HAVE AGAINST WAKE USING THIS UNETHICAL INFORMATION!!!!
Wait a sec, which game would this have affected? Um...I thought we already agreed to have that one stricken from our memories...
Virginia Tech had an obligation to report this, and seemingly did not do so.
I am disappointed.
Well, if the information not being shared with other coaches is true, then that obligation rests on the former assistant. But I can see how someone would just move on and not really mention it.
I always find it difficult to believe that coaches don't know about these things.
I have the utmost respect for Frank Beamer and Virginia Tech football, I want to believe that he ran his program the right way and would not have used this information for his advantage.
However, were a rival school involved in the exact same way I know I would absolutely be rolling my eyes if the head coach claimed that they had no knowledge.
I agree. There is a huge difference between no knowledge and not using the information.
I think its going to become clear that everyone who played Wake the last 3 years had this information. Those who claim they didn't are lying assholes.
Without this knowledge we probably would have been shut out in the game.
Agreed. What's worse, we'd probably have started asking Frank to step down "for the good of the program."
(and Lawson would have transferred, but you already knew that)
What drives a person to turn on his own? Clemson, 2011, where was this guy, working at Tech?
I don't follow
Two losses (sort of inexplicable to me) to Clemson. Their D was not good that year. All my opinion which no one here may share.
Okay,
now I'm caught up. I don't really think anyone was leaking info to Clemson (though I suppose it's possible)...I just think our offense was so horrendously basic and predictable that they knew what we were going to run before we did.
Actually, I agree.
That was a decent offense. Predictable, yes, but they averaged 29.7 points per game. Clemson had the #81 scoring defense in the country, giving up 29.3 points per game. We scored 3 and 10 points in 2 games against them. If we take out those outliers obviously both averages go up.
Either they really figured our offense out better than they did against anybody else that year (possible), or they cheated (possible) , or it was random chance. Odds of it being solely random chance are really not high. This is one of several things from that year I have a hard time letting go...
Was their defense better or worse than GT and Syracuse this year? Because we heard all about how bad they were before they spanked us, and I don't recall any accusations of cheating.
could see us vacating wins that season which means goodbye bowl streak :\
which wins? the loss to WF?
haha i wish we could just erase that game. I just really dont think Whit is going to mess around with this and i could see him vacating wins for the season. I'd rather be proactive than risk becoming a poster child for "DONT DO THIS"
I don't see anything coming of this, especially if everything in that statement holds true.
Yeah, I don't think you can vacate wins because A former assistant coach got info from a staff member for A game. Which we lost anyways. It's not like we were paying players or offering fake classes or doing sketchy things in the recruiting game.... Shoot, UNC did those things and made Coastal Division championship rings.
I don't hardly think there is nearly enough information to make this leap yet. A thousand details could turn this from virtually nothing to something pretty serious. For now, I think the evidence points to something on the less serious side.
If we had to vacate wins for this while UNCheat has received no punishment then there really is no good left in the world.
Swofford has UNC ties. Swofford never wanted VT in the ACC.
What do you think will happen with this?
Honestly there are so many hot takes going on right now I really don't know. On top of that we still only have very minimal information to speculate from.
But this is the best time for speculation because there are no silly facts to undermine our speculation!
The best kind of correct.
Doesn't the vacating of wins involve the exact games during which malfeasance was committed? If so, we're safe.
The only way that Whit lifts another finger on this is if somehow Beamer or Bud is connected to it by the former assistant.
He'll be lifting a finger for sure, to sign the 25,000 dollar check to pay the fine.
Not great timing with the Drive for 25 announcement this week...
I think this news is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to joining the Hokie Club and supporting VT athletics.
If anything this should become a booster for enrollment in the Hokie Club and donating to athletics/scholarships. Whit handled this as perfectly and morally correct as an athletic director could have. That should give every Hokie fan a nice warm, fuzzy feeling that their hard-earned dollars will absolutely be going towards doing the right things for the student-athletes, the sports, and the university as a whole.
And I wouldn't be surprised if, perhaps behind closed doors, Whit made sure that all staff involved in athletics get a refresher course on ethics and the proper way to handle such things in the future.
At least we know that Whit has the guts to take care of the situation as fast as possible, there are probably give or take 15-20 other schools who were involved who will probably have to fess up eventually.
That 0-0 picture is going to follow me the rest of my life. Its sole purpose is to end up in my news feed every time I finally purge it from my memory. It's my Final Destination, after buying a coffee somewhere 10 years from now it will be pasted onto the side of the bus that runs me over when I go to cross the street.
Lol
We're going to fry for this.
No, seriously, we're going to fucking fry. The media has whipped this up to a shitstorm and they just caught their first name football school with their hand in the cookie jar. The ACC is going to fuck this up and overreact with a postseason ban for football at the very least and possibly a scholarship reduction.
Jeeeez..Mr Pessimist. Calm your tits!
Its the ACC and John Swofford I'm now worried about. This conference oozes incompetence, slamming the door shut on programs with minor violations while letting major infractions skate. And to top it off, the majority of the conference is still incredibly bitter that we obtained entrance in this conference using the leverage we had to strong arm UVa.
I really, really hope I'm wrong, but I just have a baaaaaaaaad feeling about this.
Your take sounds too conspiracy-theorist for my taste...I'm in wait and see mode, but I think it's super unlikely what you've predicted will happen. I certainly hope it doesn't.
I think Whit handled this about as well as we could have asked. In the grand scheme of things, I don't think the media is all that interested in this "scandal" because it doesn't involve anything super juicy (sex, drugs, money, etc.) and it appears to have originated with a disgruntled, rogue worker at a mid-to-low tier athletics program (as far as the media is concerned, no dis-respect to Wake) so there isn't really much of a story here IMO.
Now if it came out that somebody for Tennessee was selling information to other teams (like Bama) then it would blow up big...but this? I doubt it.
Growing up in NC, I've grown up knowing how badly the ACC has screwed up these kind of things before, so maybe I'm just a little overly biased and they won't mess this up. I just learned long ago that when it comes to the ACC handing out punishments, the punishment will rarely fit the crime.
UNC has used systematic academic fraud for decades to keep basketball and football players eligible and recieved a slap on the wrist. If we got a postseason ban the NCAA/ACC offices would disappear in a worm hole formed from a vacuum of immense hypocrisy, the likes of which this world has never seen.
If the ACC tried to punish us for something with no proof while ignoring the widespread corruption at other schools, I really hope Tech would tell them to go $%#* themselves and just ignore them.
I really don't see that happening from the info we have right now.
Your blood pressure can't be good
lol!
touche
Nah
I seriously doubt the conference even has the jurisdiction to do that. The NCAA holds control over such things. The ACC can probably issue fines and suspensions, but beyond that, I really don't think we're going to "fry" aside from temporary perception, likely from people/groups that disliked us already.
Oh look... its the calm, cool, and collected voice of reason...
But seriously, timestamp. We should revisit your slight overreaction in six months.
Too early with too little info to be too concerned yet but I hate that anyone who was on our staff would accept the info and not report it.
the problem is we have NO idea what capacity this took place. it could be a guy coming over and saying "hey if we get in a 3rd and 6 near the 50 we put in this fake punt pass last week be ready for it" or "hey coach Red heres our game plan for the game this week" ill wait for more info before I jump to conclusions.
bobby petrino= coach red
I would choose not to trust him if that's the insight he provided.
Almost there.
what did I just watch? can someone link the post-game presser where the colts explain WTF they were thinking here?
I think they said they were trying to get the special teams coach fired.
They started in a regular formation then shifted into the one you saw. They were hoping for the Pats to make some kind of mistake in terms of alignment or substitution (such as too many men on the field). In the case the Pats did not bite they were supposed to take a delay of game penalty. Well... Neither of those two things happened.
This is what happens when you keep your gameplan secret from your own players (the backup longsnapper didn't get the message that he wasn't supposed to snap the ball no matter what).
Any guesses as to who would do that?
No
Not a good look for the program. Glad Whit has already addressed it formally. Hopefully it's nothing. However, if it's something significant, I hope Whit sacks-up and hands down the appropriate punishment.
When you're in the real world and your company fucks up, if you pay the fines, take your medicine, and make the appropriate investments/steps to correct the issue, you can typically save face in the eyes of the media/public.
Hopefully, if need be, we take the same approach. And I'm sure we will.
Well, it's a former assistant so Whit can't really do anything in terms of punishment.
I just noticed that we got 2 more CB's for Bell... with that being said I really hope this doesn't scare any recruits. Even if nothing comes of it I can see opposing coaches trying to use it against us.
The fact that UNC has been able to keep recruiting at a solid level recently tells me that this shouldn't be any kind of excuse to lose our recruits.
I didn't say anything about an "excuse." I just said others might possibly attempt to use this against us. And there is no telling whether or not UNCheat's actions impacted any of their individual recruits. They very well may have.
WE LOST THE DAMN GAME... So all of this kinda just cancels itself out.
At least in the statement Whit makes it very clear it was a former assistant.... Considering the shitshow we looked like on offense that day, makes you wonder who it could have been. Certainly seems like the signs are pointing towards Torian Gray.
Perhaps Bud found out and this is why we weren't exactly anxious to keep him around town when Fuente came in.
If you have a source that it was Torrian Gray, you should cite it.
If you don't have a source it was Gray, you shouldn't implicate him. In the aftermath of a bombshell announcement with minimal details, this is exactly how rumors get started.
No source, just speculation from knowing it was a former assistant who likely was on the defensive side of the coaching staff based on the kind of information Elrod was able to provide.
Then you probably shouldn't say something like "all the signs are pointing towards Torrian Gray"
How did you come to this speculation when it was the Louisville Offensive Coordinator Lonnie Galloway who received the plays for them?
Galloway has a direct connection to Elrod. VT assistants, that year didn't, so completely different issue. Since the O was a shitshow, it's not unreasonable to think that it wasn't an O assistant. FB coached spec teams and wasn't an assistant so, he's not likely. TG and CB are the only "former assistant" on that side of the ball, who coached that year.
This isn't proof of anything, but it's no flawed logic either.
....or Brown.
but if Bud knew why would he lie and say he didn't know anything about it?
Considering the shitshow we looked like on offense that day
Counterpoint: Scot Loeffler was known for tinkering with the offense and making it so complex that it became too much thinking not enough playing football. My thought is that he had the info, completely overthought it and effed with our offensive game plan soo much that it became virtually ineffective.
Or he could have had the information, though it was trick by WF to mislead him, and designed the entire game plan around them NOT doing what the report said they would do. I am, however, pretty sure this did not happen, despite all the evidence on the field that it did - specifically the multiple blitzes where they got us to change protections away from the blitz by defensive alignment, and we never corrected for it.
You could give Loeffler a hooker and $300 bucks and he'd still fail to score.
via GIPHY
reminds me of a time I stashed a rubber snake in a co-workers desk
Is anyone else not worried at all?
Whit handled this so well and his statement contrasts with the Louisville one so much that it feels like we can just point at them and say "they're the bad guys in this situation."
I don't know, just feels like if someone had actually come to Beamer with this info, he would've gotten literally kicked out of the building.
I feel like Frank would've had the assistant come in and have a seat. He'd offer him a Werther's Original and start telling him a story from his youth. When the story was done he would relate it to what the assistant had done. He would've told him how disappointed he was in him and how he let the team down. The assistant would then do the right thing and report everything and resign.
*Andy Griffith Show whistle*
Or the assistant comes in and Beamer still offers him the Werther's original. But then they suck on the candy for the next 15 uninterrupted minutes of silence sitting there and looking at each other until Beamer says, " son I'm really disappointed in you" (not implying who the assistant was) followed by Beamer offering him another Werther's original candy followed by another 15 minutes of just sitting there in silence.
30 minutes staring back at this is enough to break any man.
Yeah I'm not really on the panic train. I could be missing some vital info but from everything I've read here it doesn't seem like a big deal.
Anyone remember to the "Bud Foster fines his players!" scandal where we were all convinced we were gonna die? Let's not do that and have a beer instead.
Do you think that's why Lawson transferred?
Big if true.
Ugh guys the Lawson jokes are sooo boring and stuff. Cam we just get back to freaking out? I was looking Ford to reading a bunch more blazing hot takes.
How ken we settle down at a time like this?!?!
You had a leg, until the Ford part.
Shove it up your Motuapuaka...
Am I doing it right now?
Wait, Lawson transferred?
No
I'm going to withhold my judgment/pitchfork and torch until this comes to a close. I want to know who the assistant was, what he was offered and provided, and who else may have known. If Beamer says he didn't know, I believe it. I would have hoped that a VT coach would have had the integrity to turn Elrod down and report what happened, but I guess not everyone has the same ethical code.
This is a bad look for VT and anyone involved, but Whit's statement is a master class in "get out in front of this thing, express remorse, and promise action." Now I want to see what that action brings to bear.
look at the responses on the tweet, every one is like "See Louisville, this is what you should have said", lol
Re: ethical code, if it was as simple as doing the right thing, surely somebody would have gotten it out. It's odd that not a single person reported it, implies to me that there is more to the story.
Or that the context that the information was received, or the quality of information was not significant and therefore was not reported. Nobody wants to be a little tattle tale over something potentially insignificant
1) The media didn't nail VT, Whit was forthcoming and is cooperating fully.
2) I'm ranking our former coaches by probability of
having an SEC skill sethaving received information.3) We lost one of the most embarrassing games in my life.
I think this story is a 'big enough' deal to get attention, but I don't think it'll cause us much actual heartburn. I'm happy with the way Whit is handling it now, we'll hopefully be transparent throughout the whole investigative process.
cough SEC skill set cough
If heat comes down on VT, I think the best defense is "If any other coaches, besides the one former assistant, had any game plan knowledge, how in the hell do you explain 0-0 in regulation and losing 6-3 in two fucking overtimes?"
Its probably been said before but this is a long thread. I hate this controversy for the simple fact that it makes me remember that game.
I'm just waiting to see if any more evidence comes up because it seems that the investigation is still going on so there won't be much information now. It's good to see Whit saying something now, while not throwing someone under the bus, and acting accordingly.
I'm not worried right now, but I guess that's because I'm in a good mood that I can finally get to graduate and get my degree this month.
Maybe it was an offensive staff member and we were so paranoid that we would be accused of cheating that we refused to make any adjustments all game resulting in our 0 point offensive field day.
I don't see us being raked over the coals for this any more than we were for fining players. Expect us to look better when/if one of the schools that has denied involvement gets exposed.
Question from someone who never played football...how much information exactly does a "game plan" represent?
Just based on watching and listening on this site and others, it just seems like you've got a plan, and then you've got to go execute it. You might have a fully scripted set of plays for the first couple of drives, and the rest of the game is improvising around the plan based on how the defense reacts. Much is made regarding "adjustments" as the game goes on...so does prior knowledge of the game plan include the likely adjustments/counter-adjustments?
The funny thing about this game in particular is that (as French dissected previously) Wake Forest's defensive game plan was based on manipulating O-line calls by the defensive alignment in such an extremely specific way that it almost SEEMED like they knew the call beforehand. But, as French pointed out, a knowledgeable football mind could easily spot the tendencies. WFU didn't need insider info, they just needed to have thoughtfully watched some Hokie football that season.
So, I guess my real question is, to what degree would prior knowledge of the official game plan give you information you couldn't glean from film study and scouting? I think if you had knowledge of specific down-and-distance situations, or exotic trick plays, then yes, big advantage in the event those situations come up. But you'd still have to recognize it in real time, relay the info to the players in less than 40 seconds, and then execute the play.
In all likelihood, unless you get darn near the entirety of the gameplan - how specific areas are going to be attacked, perceived strengths and weaknesses of your team and how those will be addressed, etc - it's pretty trivial. Even then, you'd need the information with enough time to actually implement and practice an appropriate strategy to get anything useful out of it. Really, the only thing noteworthy about any of this is that it was a former WF player/coach and it happened in the lull before bowl season. So yeah, of course everyone's gonna talk about it, because there's literally nothing else going on in the college football world right now. Shoot, even the coaching carousel has pretty much stopped for the time being.
It entirely depends on what type of information was passed along... For example, seemingly specific information like "What hot routes does WF run against a nickel blitz" can be found on game film pretty easily.
Down and Distance game planning... that'd be gold. Most coaching staffs have an understanding of what plays they want to run in what situations. They base this off of personnel mismatches, how comfortable their players feel running certain plays, opposition tendencies, breaking their own tendencies, etc.
Knowing ahead of time what you're likely to see on third and short on your own 30 yard line is quite valuable. Considering the guy who leaked this information was a former coach, I'm sure he knew what other coaches were looking for.
Aaaaaaaand there's Mason with the one thing that invalidates my post: yes, down and distance game planning would be gold. Still, apart from that, my thought is most of what could have been given would be largely trivial.
Agreed
You mean, 3rd and Logan?
I see your point, but isn't that the whole chess match one of establishing tendencies with success, and then breaking tendencies for big plays? If VT ran QB Sneak on 3rd and very short 85% of the time, and was 85% successful at converting, and then game planned a pop pass out of that alignment, the DC is still gonna want to have his LBs/safeties filling gaps hard on the QB sneak, even if he knew the pop pass might happen. And those pop passes happen all the time, and they always seem to be obvious in hindsight.
I guess I'm trying to explain to myself why a VT coach would accept the information and not do much with it, and not report it. And perhaps it's because the information itself wasn't all that important to how you were preparing for the game.
I'm not sure I took the time to fully flesh out my point on Down and Distance. It's not a matter of the DC having a specific play that he has to stop on third down. It's more about giving a DC (or OC) a better feel for what he will face in specific situations during a game. A better feel for tendencies, which will nudge him in the right direction when making play calls.
In baseball, it would be the equivalent of tipping off the batter on what type of pitch is coming but not it's location. It makes the batter more comfortable attacking the situation by eliminating some of the unknowns, although it doesn't guarantee success.
Knowledge of the game plan could also give you information about trick plays or rarely used formations that you might not normally prepare for since that takes time. One report I saw about Wake/UL said that Wake had a couple special plays they were going to run but the first one UL had perfectly schemed so they scrapped the rest.
Ehh.. a lot of overreacting going on right now with little info. Only way this thing goes south is if there was $$$ involved. If it comes to that, we're fucked. Until then, just some bad press.
Clearly the higher ups didn't know about the information. Otherwise they would've made Elrod an offensive quality control coach...
Well the good news is that on around the horn they talked about wakeyleaks and Louisville. No mention of the good guys
Is that show live? If not, it probably filmed before news broke. Even if it's live, might have broken so close to air that they couldn't comment on VT's involvement.
Well pti also talked about it. And they did mention VT :( Wilbon took the "meh" angle and Tony was much more "HEADS NEED TO ROLL, THIS IS REALLY BAD" angle
surprising to hear that, Wilbon's wife is UVA alum so he trolls Tech as much as he can
Yeah it surprised me as well...when they started the story and I saw VT was implicated I braced for the worst from Wilbon. When he was very blase faire about it I sort of relaxed a bit. Tony, predictably, took the other tack because that is what he's paid to do. I got the sense that they felt obligated to report it and present an opinion on both sides but they don't really expect to ever speak of it again.
We won't be the last ones, it will be everyone who was offered it.
Mike/MIke tried to get Spurrier to say this morning that he wouldn't do that, but he basically said he would take the info and let the coach know about it later. Everyone will take the advantage when given.
The difference between us and Louisville is a retired Frank Beamer vs. a Slimy Bobby Petrino.
This seems like an appropriate time to make and Elrod / El Rod's joke that has something to do with shit storms.
I gotta admit it, I'm freaking the f@ck out. The former coach's name is ELROD.
We have not one, but two EL RODS in Blacksburg. It's obvious that sensitive information was secretly passed over to the Hokie Bird by Elrod, at El Rod's, for endless chips, a bowl of delicious queso dip and lunch special #9.
I'm going to need at least one Jumbo Texas Margarita to calm down....
edit: Was writing this before my friend Mr. Russell posted said previous post. Terrible timing
We were on the same page, which is not that strange. Cheers buddy!
Waiting on how this pans out...abandon thread
I think we just vacate the loss and move on.
Does this mean we qualify for the Belk bowl now?
Waste of digital ink. Whit handled it fine as he does. This is WF! No one GAF! We will be fine. I can see espn dragging Petrino through the muck. Who knows.
Why haven't they come out and said who it was on the staff? Clearly they know. Otherwise how would they know it is a former member and not a current member. And that person should face whatever penalties there might be, or forced to explain what they did or didn't do with the information. Or why they didn't report this. Or maybe they dismissed it as unimportant, or a shakedown, or a sting, or unreliable info, who can say? But to let it hang out there with no explanation leads to rampant speculation and is a poorer look for the school than if they came completely clean.
And if the original information turns out to be wrong? Shoot first and ask question later? Let's say Elrod said, "yeah I gave a copy of the game plan to [VT coach]" and it's all BS because he's going to try to take anyone down with him. If Whit comes out and says that said coach did something unscrupulous, which is false, then VT is liable for slander. Lawsuit city. No, thank you. So what if we sit here and speculate? The truth will come out after a fair investigation and if Whit delivers on transparency, we're all better for it.
You heard it here first: Bryan Stinespring was the culprit!
Not buying that explanation. Whit wouldn't have made a statement acknowledging any wrongdoing without knowing, for a fact, that someone at VT received information. He would not have made a statement off allegations from Elrod. So he knows who it is, and that it happened. I don't know whether that person has admitted it, or Eleod has him on tape, or what evidence is out there, but there is something. So come fully clean. Don't dance around it. And receiving information does not necessarily imply wrongdoing as explained in my earlier post. The VT coach may not have used it, may have dismissed it as unreliable, may have thought that this alumni from Wake was trying to feed him misinformation. Or it may have been generic info already know. From watching film. But let's hear the full story it feels like they're trying to hide it
I don't feel like they're trying to hide it. They made a statement.
I just don't think that Whit is going to announce the name of the coach. It isn't his style
I just don't think Whit would do anything that isn't the absolute best option for VT. This guy is a PR master. Do you not trust him?
This right here. Whit's job is to be the face of VT athletics. He sets policy and makes important decisions.
Right now, we have an allegation that a former employee was complicit in an effort to undermine Wake Forest. It serves everyone's best interest to
1. ascertain whether or not this allegation is true,
2. determine if anyone else was aware or participated,
3. determine VT's place in the scandal - was it just VT and Louisville from the ACC, or were there others,
4. decide on what action needs to be taken within VT to prevent this from happening again, and
5. determine the consequences of the ACC's investigation
Then, Whit can make ONE statement about the whole thing, answering (hopefully) all of the above. Makes no sense for him to out the person now to simply satisfy message board posters' demands to know. Address the entire situation when everything is known, rather than trickling out details over days and weeks, which would only serve to drive more unnecessary negative press and actually more speculation - now that we know one piece, what does it mean? And if this, then that...
We don't have an allegation. We have an admitted fact, Whit acknowledged, someone at VT received information. Period. Read the statement by Whit. So who was it? What was the info? What was its use or non use? No matter how you try to spin it, those are the facts. So come clean. You can say it's all PR and try to spin it however but people are going to see right through all that and the fans and supporters and season ticket holders and athletes and students deserve an honest explanation
Read this and tell me it's still wise to out someone before the full extent of the story is known.
http://www.si.com/college-football/2016/12/14/wake-forest-football-leak-...
There are a variety of levels to which this can escalate, including ACC, NCAA, and actual criminal charges, depending on what is actually true. Whit is probably being told by VT counsel to acknowledge that there's something to look into and otherwise keep his mouth shut.
Also note the wording of Whit's statement: "apparently received" information. He's not confirming that he knows it for a fact. He's saying he's been informed that an event happened. He's been told something, which he acknowledges and expresses regret at the situation.
In Whit's statement, he says that a former member of the staff received information. Unequivocally. No "alleged", no qualifiers, no "possibly" it is an admission that it occurred, period. Any of these doomsday criminal charges or civil suits, are on the table regardless if you now reveal the recipient. It just seems like this person is being shielded. And I don't see how that helps the university once you've acknowledged what has been acknowledged as occurring. What you are referencing is an "ongoing investigation " that Whit is not saying whatsoever
Clearly we disagree completely on this, but I will ask one final question: what beneficial purpose does it serve for VT to publicly name this former assistant in the midst of an ongoing investigation?
Where does it state there is an ongoing investigation?
Please find that in Whits statement.
This is your own preconceived interpretation I don't read anything that says there is an investigation. Seems pretty clear cut - the information was given and received but not used.
Revealing the identity shows integrity, morality, transparency, sportsmanship, etc.
What if Penn State said "well we had a former coach who was raping kids in the shower but no one else knew about it" end of statement.
The ACC is actively investigating this entire situation, as reported by ESPN, local beat writers, and pretty much everyone else in sports world. Wake Forest provided the results of its internal investigation to the ACC, which subsequently publicly confirmed that it would be investigating Louisville the day before the VT news was revealed.
So no, it's not my own preconceived notion. It's fact. This is why, at the end of Whit's statement, he says "We will, of course, comply fully with the ACC and all relevant parties as this unfortunate situation unfolds." The story isn't over and Whit knows it.
An ACC investigation is different from VTs investigation. Whits statement seems clear that our investigation is completed. We know it happened, we know who did it, and we know the outcome. So come clean, completely. The ACC will investigate all schools and all games for the last 2-3 years but that is a separate issue. Complying with the ACC means revealing the name to them but not the general public? Seems shady, and the appearance of impropriety is as bad as the actual impropriety
Louisville announced and suspended Gallowsy as their coach involved why can't VT? Even with the "investigation" and "charges" pending? Is Louisville more transparent than VT? And that was a game VT lost from 2 years ago. Give me a break
Galloway is currently employed by UL. He is subject to their policies and rules. The unnamed former assistant is no longer employed by VT and therefore no longer subject to Whit's discipline or VT's policies; any action taken on this individual will likely have to involve his current employer and probably the NCAA, as the ACC also holds no jurisdiction over that coach. The ACC will likely report its findings to the NCAA, because indeed the NCAA rules mention fairness and ethics in several of their clauses.
UL has also botched this from the get-go. "Yeah, we got some intel but it really didn't matter so let's move on, nothing to see here." They got pilloried in the media, so they offered up the guilty party to quench the anger of the pitchfork and torch crowd. Whit takes his usual approach - measured and analytical - and wants to see how this plays out to determine what action he needs to take and what punishment VT will face. He's not going to act like Jurich and shoot from the hip, hoping for the best.
Unless I'm reading the wrong statement, Whit actually said:
Emphasis mine. I think Whit/VT counsel are being very careful with their words, hoping that this dies down but not saying anything that will come back to bite them should it not. For example, if Whit names a former assistant who denies it, and it comes to light later that it was actually a different assistant, now Whit has created a new mess to clean up. Unless there is pressure from outside, I see no reason to say anything else. We accepted that it happened, we apologized for not handling it the way we should have, we promised to be completely transparent if there are additional developments, and we vow to do better next time. Case closed IMO.
I read the statement 2 or 3 times and never saw this word until you pointed it out. Maybe counsel being too careful.
Someone no longer employed at VT received information. Unless a current employee is implicated, VT is limited in what it can say/do. Frankly, if the party or parties involved are no longer employed in the ACC, there is little the conference can do. The Elrod and Galloway actions were employee conduct issues.
NCAA could decide to make it an issue but it is not yet established that any NCAA rules were violated. Hell, the NCAA, an organization that enjoys not for profit status because of its academic mission, is currently struggling to make the case it has standing to take action against acknowledged widespread academic fraud and an acknowledged attempt to cover it up.
Unless it is shown that Elrod was trying to fix games for betting purposes, this is an issue of embarrassment and nothing more. Disgruntled employees do shit. When you catch them, you punish them.
No I don't buy the argument that because this was no longer an employee that VT can't say anything. He was an employee at the time of the occurrence, VT and this coach will be held accountable for his actions regardless of whether he is still employed or not, and it is VTs choice on how much information they want to disseminate. This employee was not acting under direction by his employer by performing this action and is not owed any duties of privacy. As long as they don't slander him and only report the facts, such as, this person received an email from Elrod on such and such date that contained X, Y, Z information
VT isn't releasing the name for the same reason that Wake isn't releasing the name. [edit: Swofford and the ACC as well]
The only purpose served by VT (or Wake) releasing the name is to have an adverse impact beyond the scope of their legal influence over that individual. There is no benefit to VT or Wake in releasing the name.
Wake isn't releasing the name because that's not their responsibility. They released the name of their person involved, Louisville released the name of their coach and VT? Mum.
They may not tell the general public who it is, but they may be using back channels to let the coach's current employer aware.
Wake's person was identified because he was actively screwing the program over. Louisville's person was identified because they got caught with the smoking gun. In both of those cases, there was a reprimand by that university to the involved party.
We know that whoever was involved on the VT side isn't employed by VT anymore. VT is unable to reprimand that person. Therefore, what would happen to that individual if it became public knowledge? Nothing other than a witch hunt. Fans and media would get all up in arms, and would just end up harassing the individual.
VT has no employee involved.
edit: I'll be a little surprised if VT has a "smoking gun" in its records, hence the "no further comment" response re: the $25K. But we will eventually know if it shows up in a FOIA.
VT is not going to be the first to publicly name the coach. Totally inappropriate.
A beat writers FOIA request is going to name him at some point. That coach would be better off coming forward himself.
Any coach would absolutely be better off coming clean [I'm still not sure any rules were violated by anyone, even Elrod, as he was neither a coach nor player at the time].
However, potential legal action involving Elrod/former players complicates things...and how badly do you want to be deposed?
FOIA rules vary widely but none of them supercede Privacy Act laws. The FOIA releases may have the names redacted.
I'm guessing Babcock contacted the coaches himself having been advised by Wake that VT was on the list.
ESQ need a legal opinion: in VA would the sender and recipients email address be redacted in a FOIA request?
Not a legal opinion, but as a VT employee, they constantly tell us anything is, at a bare minimum, discoverable as part of any legal or HR action. Here's a link to info on Virginia's FOIA.
Interestingly - some people at the University routinely submit FOIA requests to our own employer to ensure pay equity and the like. I can tell you that most of the people in our office are VERY deliberate and careful what we browse / email / store on state-owned property and via state-owned systems.
So somehow our current Athletic administration was able to get a confession from a former staff member? I don't get it...why would said staff member say that? I mean honesty is respectable and all plus the right thing to do but it just seems very odd to me
I was guessing based on emails or some other form of verified correspondence.
I have a few thoughts on this matter.
0. I trust anything that comes out of Frank and Bud's mouth.
1. Whit handled this well.
2. So Elrod was pushing/peddling info for three years trying to undermine their program. Are they really saying that VT and Louisville were the only two times he "reached out"? Sounds like someone has a vendetta against VT to me.
3. I have it from a good sauce that Bud Foster leaked info to LOLUVA before our last game. He let it be known that his worst fear was that Bronco would come out with the ol' revolving quarterback scheme.
.
I would imagine more schools will be implicated in the near future, but we'll see.
It is being reported that Army was also offered information.
I'm not sure what to think. You never want your school to receive bad publicity, but the other part thinks if someone came upmto you and said WF is going to do X if in this situation then it'd be hard not to listen. I think it is wrong, but I can see a coach being tempted.
We lost the game anyway.
One thing I know...Whit will do the right thing
I suggest that everybody read this article. I think the other schools will come out in the next couple of days and admit their guilt in a way similar to what Whit did today. This quote stuck out to me:
The fact that we're getting good press out of this situation proves how damn good Whit Babcock is.
I get the sense he read the Louisville statement(s) and said, "Okay, now we're going to say and do the exact opposite of that."
This is much to my (and near as I can tell most other TKPer's) relief. The man sure knows how to push my all buttons to get me to join the Hokie Club... the beautiful, sly bastard.
It worked beautifully for George Costanza.
I thought I read in one of the articles today from Bitter/Teel/Norwood today that it was Special Teams plays that were "leaked" to VT. The worst case scenario in my mind is that it comes out that Shane was the leakee. Still not current staff, but it would taint the legacy because it was CFB son. No Sauces, just speculatin...
Let's put all of this in perspective:
1) No recruit is going to decommit because of this. No recruit is going to rule out Virginia Tech because of this.
2) It's Wake Forest. Nobody cares about WFU football.
3) We lost the game anyways.
4) The coach in question doesn't even work at Virginia Tech anymore. It's not even clear if we gained a tactical advantage from this.
5) Beamer didn't know about it. Bud didn't know about it. Whit handled as well as you possible handle it
6) UVa still blows.
7) Fuck Matt Ryan.
8) This story will blow over when bowl season starts.
9) Fuck Pat Narduzzi
I agree with most of your points (and point #9 as well).
The only one that I have a hard time with is #2. The football reputation of the school that had proprietary information stolen and then offered to a competitor should not impact VTs response (and I don't think it has). VT has discovered that a former staffer has received this stolen information. Whit has laid out our response, admitting to the facts as he knows them to be at this time while avoiding any potentially slandering allegations.
Trust in Whit.
100x this ^^^
I'd like to say that I've reported every illegal activity I've witnessed but I haven't. Frankly, a radio announcer trying to screw over an employer with unethical behavior comes up short of that. Now if he was betting and trying to fix games, this could get interesting, but it isn't yet.
Coaches talk to each other all the time about what they picked up on opponents, especially if they need them [that opponent] to lose. I don't think anyone expects that to change.
Yeah I've been trying to find a way to word this and you've done it well. I can see a lot of situations where you wouldn't go through the hassle of reporting this.
I don't know where everyone is from or how you're raised, but there's a lot of cultural nurture towards not being a snitch or a narc, particularly over things that aren't a big deal. If I received an attempt to give information, and deemed it insignificant, I can't honestly say I would go out of my way to report it.
Agreed. It is difficult to judge if you weren't there. The optics look bad though. You would think someone would have reported it.
I expect there are a lot of ACC teams who want to talk trash about our program right now, but are waiting to make sure their team isn't named.
I think there is an ethical flip side to this. If I'm a coach and some douche reporter trys to peddle game planning info that he stole, I think my consideration would be to my coaching brethren. I would want them to know they had a snitch amongst them. Coaches are a pretty tight nit group. Just a different ethical lense to view this through.
It was the guy who inflates the footballs!!!!
My Thoughts:
I'm thankful that whoever got the leak isn't still on staff. That would open up a whole new world of potential punishments.
I wholeheartedly believe Beamer and I would need strong evidence for you to change my mind.
Babcock has done a great job with major decisions so far and I trust him.
I am cautiously optimistic about what the punishments will be. I doubt we can get away with this one even though the coach/staff member in question is gone. That's just not how college athletics works. Punishments are levied to programs, not coaches (ex: Pete Carroll)
I hope that Beamer doesn't have to vacate wins but that seems like a logical punishment.
Vacate wins for what?
We lost the game in question?
there is no rules violation
As much as it sucks that VT is a part of this, I'd just like to say that 'Wakeyleaks' is an amazing name and I will open up any thread or article that uses that phrase.
I have heard:
WakeyLeaks
Leakin' Deacons
and
Wake-a-Mole.
any others?
.
I like Leakin' Deacons, but nothing stood a chance against Wakeyleaks.
It's so perfect it wasn't even a fair race.
I like Wake-a-Mole, because I love the game.
Reminds me of LOLUVA on the schedule each year.
Whack. Whack. Whack. Whack. Whack. Whack.
Whack. Whack. Whack. Whack. Whack. Whack.
WHACK!
.
"We have recently been made aware"
Some of these have been touched on, but some specific questions to quell my own speculation or hand wringing:
1. How recently was Whit made aware?
2. How did "we" find out? An admission from the former staff member? Paper/electron trail? Communication from Elrod or WFU?
3. What was done with this information when "we" (the AD) found out, and how long did it take?
4. and of course the one that has been asked already, what were the circumstances of the information exchange (blew him off, took it but had no intention of using it, wanted to use it, $, it never really happened in the first place, etc.)
Were you by chance on the House select committee that investigated Watergate?
Impossible, we did not score a single fucking point until OT
Loeffler. My money is on old Lefty. Whit isn't announcing the name because he is giving BC the chance to handle it internally.
time will tell...I suspect it's someone even lower than him on the totem pole though...my money is on some position coach
probably this guy
Maybe, but our offensive staff refused to adjust to the blitzing schemes Wake's D ran that day. And if I remember, French's review showed how clear and easy some of the adjustments would have been, but for some reason, we never even attempted to make them. Perhaps, just perhaps, Loeffler was given the info, and he refused to adjust any game plans according to that info, that way in good conscience he can say they never used it to their advantage. I mean really, this makes so much sense. We've been trying for years to understand what happened in that game, and this explains it!!
Loeffler assumed the gameplan was a diversion and ran exactly the opposite of what would have worked. Simple.
Read entire thread and didn't want to comment to just one person.
The reason VT and other schools are finding out that Elrod contacted one of their employees is from FOIA requests and Wake Forest going through his outgoing emails and text messages and tracing who they were sent to. Several media outlets have made FOIA requests to every team Wake has played the last 4-5 maybe longer seasons.
Thanks. I admit to not looking it up myself, but someone should have mentioned this sooner.
Question regarding FOIA requests, are private universities required to disclose information under FOIA or are they exempt? I would assume they are exempt. If that is the case schools like Duke, Syracuse and BC could have all received information and not have to release the information.
Wake is private too.
And, thus, was very useful in the ACC's expansion discussions.
Each state is different when it comes to FOIA and what they require. Pennsylvania is a really bad FOIA state for example even public colleges don't have to reveal too much information.
Well and not only that, almost always "proprietary information" (Whit's own words to describe the game plan info) is exempted. So perhaps Whit would have had to acknowledge the existence of emails between Elrod and our staff, but not divulge their contents. Which would have just created more questions than answers. So he got out in front of it like the rock star he is.
Any links behind this? Because my google fu is coming up empty. I don't doubt that the press has filed FOIAs, as part of a fishing expedition, especially considering I expect this story to continue to play out into the spring. Need something to fill that dead time. But it seems like a bit of jump to go from that to saying that's how Whit & co found out about VT's involvement.
If I were I betting man I would say Elrod is spilling the beans, or the former the assistant contacted Whit about it so VT could get out in front of this. My guess is Whit is waiting to get all of the facts in order before releasing anymore. Yesterday's statement was to avoid any possible accusations of VT trying to cover it up.
Link to what? Multi beat writers said they have filed FOIA requests, this means Tech had to start looking at emails and other communications. Elrod saying he sent something isn't proof enough to make this statement. They know who it is and what was sent.
I don't understand. Everyone keeps talking about 2014 as if we played WF that year; we haven't played Wake since we beat them 38-17 in 2011.
Damn he's right
I think I'm most interested in this as an Ethical case study. It's much more interesting to have this discussion with both Bobby Petrino and Frank Beamer as the responsible parties. For comparison purposes, consider this scenario:
{You walk into your HS cafeteria at lunch, your buddies are all huddled together in the corner. You sit down and they pass you a piece of paper, it's the quiz for your class this afternoon, one of them took it this morning. You have three choices:
1. You absorb the answers as quickly as possible. After all, your performance on this quiz determines if you play in the game this Friday night or if you get to take out that smoking hot cheerleader afterwards. One more bad grade and your parents will be at home watching Seventh Heaven reruns.
2. You pass the quiz along to the next guy at the table, say something like "I'm good, studied hard last night."
3. You snatch up the paper and take it immediately to the teacher. You tell them, "That's not how we are going to do this. If we are concerned about the quiz, let's study as a group during lunch."}
I think we all assume that Petrino is in Category 1 and Beamer is in Category 3. But both are probably more in Category 2, with maybe the caveat that we aren't even sure that this quiz will be the same in period 6 as it was in period 2....the data may be invalid. We all know we would be better off passing the quiz on and studying during lunch.
As an adult and parent, I would say I'm more a Category 3 now but lived my HS life as a Category 1. We all focus first and foremost on self preservation, no more so in the HS scenario than the difficult life of a college football assistant. That's probably why neither the Louisville or VT scenarios ever make it to their HBC's, it's the assistants that are the most exposed and need to do whatever they can to survive.
Mike/Mike had Spurrier on yesterday, trying to get him to say he is a Category 3 but he said he was a Category 1 or 2 and would tell the Wake coach "at a later time" about what was going on. Tommy Bowden said that it is normal for the home team to go through the away teams trash.
The ethical continuum of college football is fascinating.
Yeah I think we all need to set aside our own ideas on ethics here. The person who is ethically wrong is not VT's coach, it's Wake Forest's radio guy. And, in my opinion, Wake's coaching staff look naive and ought to be more circumspect. VT didn't let the media in for much of the spring and fall camps, to much grumbling from the media, but it's good practice to keep leaks to a minimum.
I mean...weren't we all admonished not to video tape the spring scrimmages and open practices a few years ago (completely unenforceable nowadays anyway)? We weren't asked to abstain because the CFB coaching profession is full of nice guys who aren't looking for advantages when they can... And frankly, if I'm Frank Beamer, I'm sending a grad assistant to the spring games of all my upcoming opponents, no matter what. (Which should explain the 12 people who attended the UVa spring game). You'd be a fool not to do so.
Someone above mentioned stealing signs..."everybody does it" sounds bad to the ears of a lay person, but it's the law of the jungle.
And for that matter, think about recruiting, for goodness sake. Misinformation, negative recruiting, non-committable offers just to string out the process while the recruit you really want decides, etc... How can we reasonably expect a coach be pure as snow and turn down game plan info (that may have a direct meaningful impact on wins and losses), and then see the obvious ethical problems that surround recruiting, which is at the end of the day a crapshoot about whether the player pans out (and may have no direct impact on winning or not). It's the same set of people, with the same incentives to seek out advantages.
It's Wake's responsibility to be tighter with their info. Not VT's responsibility to refuse advantages when offered. We're not "better than that".
Which should explain the 12 people who attended the UVa spring game
we can probably cut back on that a little bit next year
It was their 11 opponents - Richmond sent two.
There is a #4 option: You take the paper and throw it away.
I know because a similar situation to the above happened to me in HS. I didn't cheat, nor did I snitch.
This is something that I think some people are not stopping and putting themselves in the situation are missing. If you receive a piece of paper, an email, and unsolicited phone call, you can't unsee or unhear tips given to you, but you can discard (and not distribute to other coaches, as is the story so far) the information and move on.
I've seen some very aggressive uppity responses about how they should have dropped everything they were doing to snitch on this guy. I think this ignores a few possibilities, perhaps the information was deemed untrustworthy or insignificant, no need to create something of what you perceive as "nothing." Additionally, the possibility that they just weren't raised to be a snitch. From the time you're a little kid you're taught not to be a "tattle tale" especially about more minor offenses, it's part of growing up, it's instilled into people through culture and social interactions. It's unwise and a little meaningless to make such bold claims about how you would have stormed into the ACC offices and demanded justice be levied against Elrod when you don't know the context or the significance of the information being received.
There's also the problem that, if you do snitch and it somehow gets out that you were the one who broke the news, the coaching community will turn its back on you forever. I heard on the radio this week that the guy who basically broke the news about the Dennehey murder at Baylor (man, with all the Baylor rape stuff, I forgot about that one... damn, that is a shady ass school) was shunned away from basketball and is now working as a mall cop somewhere, and he did the right thing. So if you're a coach and someone like Elrod tries to do this, knowing what happens to snitches in the coaching ranks, why the hell would you ever say a thing?
No different from the business world. They have measures in place to protect whistleblowers, but you're crazy if you think that stuff doesn't blacklist you. This all just further illustrates how strong the not snitching culture is.
For what it's worth, the VTCC honor code has a "toleration clause". Effectively if you know someone cheated and you didn't turn them in, you have violated the honor code and will be punished accordingly. It's kinda like the old saying that integrity is doing the right thing even when no one is watching. Not reporting receipt of the leaked information shows a lack of integrity.
Tiki Barber (Deadbeat Husband and LOLUVA alum) was on CBS Sports Radio a bit ago arguing for stiff penalties against Tech for allegedly being involved. He said even thought we lost the game there should be penalties for accepting the information.
13 years of butt hurt must be taking a toll on Tiki. Anybody calling for any sort of punishment without the full details being known is just plain ignorant. We don't know what was divulged, was it a couple texts that said lookout for these trick plays or was it an email with a 10MB pdf containing their entire playbook.
I'd be more worried about hazing allegations. If those are found to have merit. The unethical behavior toward students is a far more disturbing act than accepting some game notes.
I am still disappointed we're even involved in this crap though.
Wasn't Tiki Barber the one who tried to tackle the returner (unsuccessfully) by the throat as the Tech DB ran back an interception of Mike Groh to end the game? AFTER the fuckU,VA coach tried to trip him going down the sidelines? It's in billdozer's power hour.
stay classy tiki. stay classy loluva.
Stiff penalties for what exactly? What is the rules violation other than an ethical blackmark? What is the precedent? Maybe it's best summed up as "Screw Tiki and the horse his mascot fell off of."
He's not known for his brains.
Gonna be hilarious when UVA gets accused and he makes an excuse for them.
I don't think LOLUVA played wake during that period.
Wouldn't that make it funnier?
Headline: Mine London Cribs Gameplan From Wake Forest to Show AD That He Knows What a Gameplan Is.
Didn't they play the very week before the Louisville game?
Yep, they lost 27-20 I believe.
Hey Tiki, give us your thoughts on ethics
OMG Tiki is such a POS I had no idea about any of this
Louisville makes the first move.
Gotta make sure they protect Petrino. I wonder if they are paying Galloway under the table to take it on the chin.
Considering whoever had the information no longer works for us, assuming it wasn't shared, doesn't that put us on par with that move.
That being said, we know how the NCAA loves to punish current teams for things that happened years earlier.
If VT played Wake in 2014 and then Wake played Louieeeeeeville in 2016, and both teams apparently got info, then Wake had this going on for 3 seasons and the only reason they found out is because UL self-snitched on Twitter?
Am I right with that? If so, Wake's AD has to reevaluate the program.
I think it was after the Louisville walk through before the game that the WF equipment group found the game plan notes on the sideline after Louisville left for their hotel. The equipment folks took it to the WF HC.
Then during the game when it was obvious to WF that Louisville knew the plays, the OC had to scrap the game plan including brand new plays put in that week.
As quickly as it began, it ends.
I find it hard to believe that only four of the ~36 games WF played from 2014-2016 were involved in this.
Hopefully the fines will be the end of this, and I'm glad whoever was at fault is no longer representing the school.
Oh those were the only games, huh?
Bullshit
Utter bullshit
Can't wait for the FOIA that national publications are issuing for this uncovers the actual truth.
"no further comment"
So much for quelling speculation.
For all you people who get all holier-than-thou about Hokie Cub, it would be nice to know my prospective money isn't going towards fines to pay for failed cheating attempts to lose to Wake Forest.
Yeah... I'd much rather be paying for successful cheating attempts! /s
This is ridiculous for so many reasons. At the moment, we are told the information was not distributed to other coaches on staff, and what does this have to do with Hokie Club. If you want to reflexively bash the vehicle that funds and supports VT sports why are you even a fan?
HC money only goes towards scholarships. Money for fines would be derived from another source of income, perhaps the bowl income or t.v. income.
I wouldn't be shocked if VT Athletics had an insurance policy for this type of thing.
My money goes towards paying for scholarships for non-revenue athletes.
Bye.
This belongs in the Hot Take Hall of Fame
It's right up there with "Recruits don't come to Tech because we call our upvotes Turkey Legs."
... no way haha
The sad part is that this is more of a punishment than UNC will ever get.
probably because whit came right out and said this is what happened, we apologize, and accept whatever punishment is necessary. Not the UNC classic response of "nuh uh"
but if you disregard how well Whit handled this, he handled it pretty poorly
Am I the only one who thinks this punishment is a fucking joke?
Not saying I have a problem with it though... Would much rather pay this than forfeit wins.
Without any further details on what happened in VT's case, it's hard to say if the punishment is a joke. Evidence would suggest it was a horribly spent $25k though.
Nah, I'd rather forfeit the win in the game where we committed this infraction.
I do. However it's one of those deals where you are guilty by association. There's no evidence that points to Tech leveraging the information. The Tech assistant supposedly remaining silent is the worst offense.
With that said, $25,000 to make this go away is a bargain for Whit Babcock and co.
The fact they fined us and didn't fine Wake... GoACC
Why would Wake be fined?
It's the max the ACC could impose, but yes, it's almost nothing.
Man I'm just glad this crap is over. Time to get back to freaking out over recruiting.
The way the months leading up to signing day should be.
But is it the end? What is the likelihood the NCAA takes up the issue?
I don't see why they would. The assertion is that a single game was affected for each of the teams (VT and Louisville). The conference came down basically as hard as they could. VT already lost its game (what are we going to do, vacate a loss?), Louisville has already suspended its OC. With the fact that the NCAA currently isn't exactly renowned for its aptitude in handling more important matters, and the fact that they're backlogged in their investigations pretty badly, I'd say they're going to look at this and consider it small potatoes. Case closed, handled by the conference.
Alright then, I'm all for that. Water under the bridge. Bring on the Hogs!!
Yay, resolution. Any one else notice that quite a few of our former assistants from the 14 team are now at $EC schools? Moorehead, Gray, Beamer, Grimes???
Correction, Grimes left after the 13 season
...and now that its been Settled...
The focus is now on pork bellies!
Mark me down as disappointed in Whit Babcock for the first time in his career at Virginia Tech. He handled this perfectly all the way up to the end.
It's one thing to not reveal student-athlete infractions that cause them to be suspended or dismissed, citing privacy concerns for the student-athlete.
It is another entirely to not reveal the name of the coaching staff who committed an infraction.
Look, this whole thing is a nothing-burger to me. It's a tiny scandal that obviously was not beneficial to the team.
But it was an ethical lapse by an employee of a public university no less, and one that incurred the maximum fine allowed by the ACC. Adults should be expected to take responsibility for their lapses. That information should be made public.
How's this for a crazy theory: It wasn't limited to one assistant. Loeffler knew, told Beamer who in an abundance of charity didn't turn in Elrod but instead gave him grandfatherly advice to clean up his act. Then, in order to avoid any semblance of taking inappropriate advantage of the situation, our offensive game plan was completely thrown into disarray, resulting in the turd of an offensive game we had.
Without full resolution of the issue by naming names, theories and suspicions will follow Virginia Tech for a much longer time that it would by simply naming the guilty party, and putting them on the record with a statement.
That information is going to come out anyway. FOIA will come into play. Someone will utilize it to force the name out. Might as well get ahead of that.
As always, sunlight is the best disinfectant.
I disagree with you. I think Whit handled it perfectly.
For a University to name the offender is going to be seen as petty by more people than not. You even say this yourself:
Whit Babcock is not responsible for publicizing the actions of someone who works for another employer. The onus is on that individual, like you said. If that individual comes out and admits it that is the only way we'll find out. It's poor leadership for Whit to throw him under the bus. If VT's internal investigation unearthed the transgressions of a specific individual who is STILL ON STAFF then it is Whit's responsibility to levee punishment. But for someone who doesn't even work for him, he has to do exactly what he did. Admit it happened, make it clear that person cannot be punished by VT (and thus, there is no reason to name said person), apologize, take the punishment on the chin, and move the f*** on.
10/10. Whit nailed it.
This. Whit handled this situation with class, brevity, and initiative. He did exactly what he was expected to do and didn't overreach beyond what was necessary. His handling of this was clinical and professional.
I think I'm going to be in the minority here but....
EDITED:
How is Whit NOT publicizing the name of the offender "handling it perfectly"? The actions of this individual is a black mark on the CURRENT staff (at least in the eyes of the public). It's not petty, its taking care of business by saying "this guys screwed up, he's not on the staff anymore. We don't tolerate this." I have to agree, I think this is an excuse to clean this up INTERNALLY. Its not a good look and its a bit embarrassing.
exactly. It wouldn't be handling it perfectly. That's why it's good that he didn't do that.
I think you are very much in the minority and I'm having a really difficult time understanding your last sentence, and I'm really trying to.
I don't understand how this is a black mark on the current staff at all, he is no longer here (whoever it was), and as far as we've been told Bud and Beamer had no knowledge of the information at the time as well.
I really don't understand how this is embarrassing in any way, shape, or form. What responsibility do we have to throw someone under the bus who is no longer employed by VT? It seems like you think somehow throwing this guy under the bus will make us look better? In practice, this would be taken as us smearing a former employee in an attempt to clear our name, and would very much be viewed as petty and defensive.
It's not smearing. An individual on our coaching staff CHEATED, or attempted to. Why is there value in not showing our commitment to fair play by not letting that person feel the repercussions of that action? If this was any other school, we'd probably be saying "foul play" or "protecting the current staff". I hold our staff to the same standard.
VT accepted the fine; they've already accepted guilt for allowing this to happen.
The name is going to come out eventually. These FOIA investigations will get to the bottom of it quickly, especially considering it was apparently that easy for us to find out that it happened. And really, with the precedent already being set that whichever coach was involved would need to be suspended, it makes us look kind of shady to still keep the name secret instead of getting ahead of it, as if we're trying to hide something. If we're going for a look of transparency, you need to be transparent.
I think this part is less clear than what you're assuming. We don't know the context in which the information was delivered (possibility that he read the email before realizing the legitimacy, or lack thereof of the contents). Additionally, we don't know if the information was even deemed significant enough to use, or as the story holds now, to distribute as it is claimed the information was not even shared with other coaches. That makes me less eager to jump on the "This guy is morally corrupt and actively sought out and embraced the opportunity to cheat!" train. There are too many scenarios where this plays and out and they just closed the email, hung up the phone, etc. and thought "crazy mfer" and moved on.
There was an attempt by a party to give or receive information that gives a competitive advantage. If they guy did what was expected by the ACC/NCAA, then this would be a non-issue. Hell, someone might have even been lauded as a champion of fair play. But thats not what happened. I don't care how severe it is, a Hokie did something shady, it looks bad on the school.
Do people in coaching know that's what is expected by the ACC/NCAA, do you even know if there is some protocol in place for this?
Additionally, I think you're underestimating how much discussion goes on between coaches who have already played teams, etc for tips and hints. Not to mention, some schools even hold practices completely open to the public (including Jim Grobe's time at WF). I think you've twisted this into something where we actively sought out the opportunity to cheat, and we just don't have teh information to support that.
Also, whether you like it or not, coaching is a very macho profession, and tattling is not viewed in a very positive light. I can damn near say for certain if I received some info from a radio announcer I would ignore it and move on, no need to be a snitch.
I don't think anybody disputes this point. Whit even said it was embarrassing.
Does accusing someone who could potentially deny the accusations really achieve anything, though? Wouldn't that just turn out to be more embarrassing? Making enemies is far worse than taking the (relatively trivial) heat for the transgressions of an un-named previous employee and moving on.
the problem is that VT can't actually punish the offender...VT is kind of in a tough spot right now and by naming an individual without being able to actually punish said individual does nothing. That individual, more than likely, would deny the allegations and this whole thing will blow up into a much bigger mess. A $25k fine is a pretty small slap on the wrist in the grand scheme of things. I think Whit is okay with a pretty clean resolution and path forward.
And see, this is why I think VT should just release everything they know about this. We already admitted we screwed up, we already took the punishment. Yeah, I mean it would suck harming a coach's name, but you know what, that coach already harmed ours, and if I was the employer of that coach, I'd want to know about it so I could deal with it before it has a chance to blow up.
For example, lets say it was Torian or Lefty. If I was Florida or BC, I'd want to have the opportunity to know and be able to be proactive about this and get out in front before the investigators find out. Maybe this has already happened behind the scenes, but if that has, what's the point in waiting anymore. Just get out in front of it, show what happened, and put it behind us for good.
it is possible VT has no records.
VT counsel probably advises against releasing a name for several reasons. I'm not a lawyer so I can't say for sure. Here are some guesses:
1. Name that person..they could deny it. Now it's a matter of he-said, he-said
2. Name that person...turns out the information VT was working off of was incomplete or inaccurate and that person is actually innocent. Now VT has a slander case on their hands.
3. Name that person...they aren't the only person and they name others who have not yet been named. Now VT looks like they WERE covering something up when in reality they just had incomplete information. That's going to look really bad.
4. Name that person...That person is actually guilty but manages to bury evidence and fights vehemently (and successfully) to maintain their innocence. Now VT looks bad for naming the wrong person and loses all credibility.
Additionally, Tit for Tat is unprofessional. VT, as an organization, has an obligation to dole out punishment to their own staff but calling for punishment to be doled out to someone who isn't on their payroll is petty and acheives nothing.
I also want to point out that this person didn't actually break any laws. Rules, sure but not laws. There is no benefit to naming him and too many potential problems could crop up by releasing a name. I think VT has made it clear they will cooperate fully with investigative committees but there's no benefit to releasing information publicly. It's better for VT to be transparent with the authorities and let them publish a final report. Any discrepancies between what the final report of the ACC or NCAA reads and what VT releases publicly will look bad for VT.
I was going to try to break this down by scenario but you already nailed it.
via GIPHY
Don't see much value in continuing this merry go round.
What if Whit called this guys new AD or Head Coach and let them know of his involvement as a professional courtesy and kind of a "heads up" that he may eventually be identified in the media? He would then be dealing with repercussions of that action with his current management, but just not publicly so that you feel justice. Dude can be punished without us knowing.
any interested AD can/should talk to their employee, not Whit.
And that's not to mention it would come across as callous. VT has no jurisdiction over people not currently on staff. A move like that makes VT look like it will do/say whatever it takes to make itself look good at the expense of others. The key here is that the offender no longer works at VT and therefore VT cannot punish the offender. At that point, it's best to just acknowledge it happened and move on. Naming said person achieves very little. And, as has been pointed out before, if that individual denies the claims it turns into an ugly PR mess and could potentially wind up with Whit having egg on his face. Nobody wants that. There is literally zero benefit to naming someone that VT can't actually levee any punitive actions against.
So cheating is ok, as long as your leave the institution in time to not feel any of the repercussions?
Pete Carroll, is that you?
I understand your position, I just also see another side to this. In the public's eyes, this LOOKS more like a current staff coverup
agree to disagree then?
I don't see any benefit to naming someone who doesn't work for VT. Yes, it sucks that he can't be punished for cheating. I think VT (Whit) would duly punish anybody on staff if evidence showed they cheated. But where the evidence is apparently pointed is someone Whit has no power over, and thus cannot punish.
The public might see it as a "current staff cover-up" (I doubt it...seriously) but it's a whole lot better than getting into a he-said he-said battle with some former employee. That could give us a much worse public image. Not worth the risk.
Its not a good idea to get into a he-said-he-said battle with someone who has the evidence, which we apparently do.
he said she said battle wouldn't be about us proving the offending party did it, but he could, in retaliation, lie to implicate other coaches who weren't involved. Let's say Beamer had no clue about this as has been suggested so far, and this guy turns around in retaliation for being named and creates a narrative that Beamer knew about it and did nothing, or worse, that he attempted to use the information. Regardless of how true it is, Beamer's name will be tarnished because all the articles will come out quick about Beamer's alleged involvement, and that will stick in people's minds even if it comes out later to not be true, but it's difficult to expressly prove it isn't.
I'm torn. I see the value in both approaches.
FWIW I badly want to know who screwed the pooch but I understand why VT didn't release a name. It's infuriating my curiosity but when I step back and look at the big picture I agree with how Whit handled it. Naming someone could potentially turn really ugly. It's best not to whack the hornets nest and just let things play out. If the info VT has is good and Whit doesn't feel the need to go beyond what he's done that makes me think VT feels comfortable with what the outcome of this ultimately will be after all the FOIAs are exhausted for info.
VT is guilty of not reporting a Wake employee attempting to cheat. There is no information at this point to suggest VT cheated.
I'm not holding my breath waiting for a FOIA request to VT shedding any additional light. There may not be any records in VT's possession.
Most of my reply to this would just be rehashing what I already typed in this thread, so:
http://www.thekeyplay.com/comment/506785#comment-506785
Other than that, I will add that if all of the information is to be believed, then the individual in question was not removed from his position due to this incident, so there's no reason to call him out.
It will be interesting to see how this web was spun. Was it based on relationships? Was it based on coaching similar positions? Maybe peer age group (35-45)? Lonnie Galloway falls into two categories. He's in the same age group and coached on the same staff as Elrod. Ray McCartney coached at Wake Forest with Elrod. That suggests having an existing connection to Elrod is the key. It's possible with respect to Virginia Tech that could be a connection of a connection. There seems to be no direct connection between Tech Assistants and Elrod.
Nah, there's no connection, we went rogue and set up this back channel with Elrod to get an upperhand in a game where we finished with 0 points in regulation. The ACC said so, it must be true.
You know, because if people keep digging, schools like UNC might be implicated... and we can't have that
well this is a far cry from your apocalyptic termination-of-the-VT-football-program prediction
There's still time for Swoffy to fuck this up. Remember, with all the FOIA investigations out there into this, as soon as other programs start getting implicated, the ACC would most certainly feel compelled to show how serious they are with this by punishing those who took part even harder...
But yeah, bad week last week. Lots of stupid pointless shit at work
well hopefully this is the end of it. There isn't really anything juicy about it (unless $$ comes into the picture) so I expect that by January most people will forget this was even a thing
I hope so. I just have an unbelievably low confidence level in the ACC to handle this properly. I've seen them screw so many things up in the past I can't help but think they'll screw this up, too. I also think its utter bullshit to already claim this is the end of it and that there was nobody else involved, and by doing so they're setting themselves up to look like idiots when the FOIA investigations uncover more.
I hope it comes to light that LOLUVa had help losing to wake this year...
I really doubt that only 3 teams were involved in all of the games during those years. Seriously, only Louisville, Army, and VT? Yeah right.
So I still don't get the person's name. Not interested anymore. Until I get who did it.
Over and out
LOL.
http://www.thekeyplay.com/comment/505927#comment-505927
Sigh.
If Shane knew, Frank knew.
This is assumptious. In his statement he claims he told nobody. I posted his statement below. If you choose to believe that he absolutely told Frank, go ahead, but there is nothing to support it beyond conjecture.
And common sense, but sure.
Nope, there's so many scenarios where he didn't tell Frank. Shame, embarrassment, not thinking it was a big deal. Not hard to believe we didn't use it considering the way that game went. Frank has denied involvement, Shane has said he didn't tell anyone, so it's really just you choosing to believe that he has to know.
Is there some kind of clause in the world you live in where you have to share all information you receive with your dad?
Again, were this...lets just say Tommy and Bobby Bowden - would you believe them?
No, I wouldn't think the Bowdens are lying just because they aren't from my coaching family. I'm not saying this because it's Frank. If you've read my other comments, I have consistently doubted the significance of the information exchanged and at length expressed my belief that grown men would probably inherently not snitch on this stuff in a very macho profession where everyone knows everyone. There is no reason he received that information and leapt from his desk to go tell his dad about "some plays they might run."
You clearly have that super cynical, everyone's hiding something until their exposed, view of humanity. I'm not surprised, our entire culture is fixated on finding little ways to cut down good people and expose them as frauds. Especially my generation.
Talk about conjecture.
Nope let's consider the information.
Frank Beamer claims no involvement from himself or his staff, this second part makes sense if he didn't know at all.
Whit says we believe the information was not shared
Shane says he didn't share the information with anyone.
Your response:
Frank definitely knew.
Because???
I'm of the belief that Frank and Shane Beamer are human beings who over their lifetimes have likely made mistakes.
I'm of the belief that no human being is perfect and the both of them have likely done things during their lives that they are not proud of.
I find most situations where head coaches claim no knowledge of wrongdoing suspect as most coaches are incredibly tuned in to what is going on within their locker rooms and on their staffs.
In this situation, where Shane recieved some information that he shouldn't have I find it very hard to believe that years have passed and him & Frank never spoke about it.
It's fine if you personally think it's more likely that Frank knew, but stating it as fact, or even likely, is nothing but conjecture and pessimism.
While this isn't totally unrealistic, let's put it into perspective with the timeline. If Beamer knew Shane had been contacted by Elrod prior to the game, regardless of if he told him before the game or years later, why would he have come out with a statement that neither he nor anyone on his staff knew this information BEFORE we were implicated in Wakeyleaks? He would be shoving his foot in his mouth for no reason. If he knew Shane was contacted, then he also knew that all it would take is Elrod dropping his name to have this result.
^^^^I cannot stress enough how much this point makes me confident Frank did not know^^^^
Additionally, I think people make mistakes too, I don't think anyone is perfect and I do not hold a larger than life image of Beamer, although I do admittedly respect and admire him as a person and football coach. He has a long track record (he coached at VT longer than I have been alive) of doing things the right way and I don't have a lot of issue trusting him as a result.
I don't think the "unaware of his locker room or staff" comment really applies if Shane, as stated, didn't share the information with players or coaches.
Additionally, the outcome of the game does not suggest that we utilized this information in any discernible way.
Respectfully disagree... We were given information on offensive plays that Wake could potentially run that day. Outside of the 2012 season, when we gave up 27.25 ppg in ACC play, our defense in 2014 was scoring-wise the worst we've ever had since we joined the ACC in conference play, giving up 20.5 points per game. The point totals we allowed at the end of regulation in ACC play were as follows:
27
17
21
30
33
16
0
20
And now we know that that '0' comes with a giant disclaimer that our coaching staff was informed of some of the offensive plays that the opponent was going to run that game.
Now, I'm not saying its impossible that we legitimately shut them out, but its one hell of an outlier for the trends we were seeing that season and the following.
WF was 3-9 that year, and their offense was not very good. It isn't hard to believe that could have shut them out. But see my first point again as to why I am absolutely sure Frank didn't know.
Absolutely its not hard to believe, but when you're averaging giving up 20 points a game in conference play, you hadn't shut anyone out in the previous 2 years, your next closest game that season to a shutout in ACC play was allowing 17 against UNC... And yes, while Wake was a bad team that year, their offense was also good enough to score in regulation in every other game they played that season, even managing to hang 20 on Clemson.
You can see how the numbers themselves do raise a few red flags, knowing that all of these things happened to play out in the (supposed) one game where their opponent now admits to knowing at least some of their offensive plays prior to kickoff
The same could be said for Wake. So do we conclude that they had to cheat because they shut out a team that averaged 24 pts/gm (10 more pts/gm that WF averaged, btw)?
Edit: WF allowed 26 pts/gm that season (10 more than VT), making it even more unlikely that they would shut out an opponent.
Yes, but outliers like this do happen, and not so infrequently. This season for example, Clemson shut out Syracuse, but gave up points to BC, who we shut out, but we gave up 31 to Syracuse. I totally get the point you're raising, but given how a defense plays in a specific game has a lot to do with matchups, opponent scheme being favorable or unfavorable, results can vary significantly from game to game. So for me, this doesn't raise the red flags as prominently.
Note that WF was also the worst O, that the team faced all season. They averaged 216 yds/gm and 14 pts/gm. They had 4 other games that season where they scored 10 or fewer points. The game was played in poor conditions, in late Nov. It's not much of an outlier, if you adjust for points scored by WF in other games and weather.
Sorry, I probably missed it, but where was it stated that we received offensive plays? What I read previously was that the info was regarding special teams fake plays that might potentially be run.
I don't think there's some massive conspiracy here where Tech is buying info from other schools.
Nor does this change my overall opinion of Frank or Shane.
I simply disagree with you and am of the opinion that the information likely made it to Frank at some point.
Then explain my first point, because there is no reason for him to make that statement beforehand knowing that all Elrod had to do was drop Shane's name to make it look like he shoved his foot in his mouth.
It's possible but I seriously doubt it. The way Shane explained it sounds plausible enough to me
so have you told your dad about every single little thing you've done? Or your boss?
you're twisted man. Is it possible that Shane told Frank? Sure. Is it possible that he didn't? Yes, just as much, maybe even more. The fact that you're just assuming Frank knew because Shane did it is absolutely asinine and nonsensical.
Andy Bitter had an interesting point on the "did Frank know" matter. This was during the time that FB was having medical issues. He had surgery a little over a week after this game. It's highly likely that Shane wouldn't even mention it, because FB was somewhat removed from the team and decisions at that point in time, in part due to those medical issues.
I wouldn't tell my dad if I did what Shane did, especially if my dad was the head coach, and super especially if my dad was Frank Beamer.
this.
Considering that in the long history of parenthood a son has never hid anything from his father, I'm inclined to agree with you.
Also, considering that in the long history of employee-boss relationships a subordinate has never hid information from a higher-up so as to not make themselves look bad, I'm also inclined to agree.
Not sure how this double post happened.
Statement from Shane
Nice response by Shane.
I wouldn't be surprised if this was a quid pro quo agreement between Whit and Shane...Shane takes one on the chin (but not enough of a infraction for UGA to fire him), current coaching staff is scot free and Whit maybe rehires Shane within the next ten years as a coordinator if he proves to be component coordinator at a different school. #FrankUnderwoodShit
Edit: /s
That is not fair to either Shane or Whit. Whit has done nothing to indicate that he would take that approach.
Sorry, forgot to add a key element to that post. Edited.
If Whit's ever hiring coordinators we have a whole new set of problems.
Have you seen how good of a job he's done filling head coaching vacancies? It may be unorthodox but I'd trust whatever decision he made.
This does nothing to tarnish either one of them to me. I'm just glad it's all out of the bag and there won't be any surprises. Everything else is just speculative
The revelation about Shane makes so much sense it should have been obvious.
Shane Beamer had a front-row seat to watching his legendary father's career come to a pretty sad close with how badly the team had been playing for several years, and the toll it took on Frank. No one would have known better, aside from maybe Cheryl. What son wouldn't be tempted to help his father? It's really simple, in my mind, to see how Shane would have been receptive to getting some insight, anything to help the team and his dad. We were sitting at 5-5, having lost 3 of the previous 4 games. Winning over Wake would have sent us to a bowl. I can imagine how much Shane must have wanted that for the team and for his dad. He was tempted, and gave in. Then, being a man raised by Frank Beamer, the paragon of "The Right Way," he didn't use or let on to anything he learned.
Anyone think it's interesting he got fined 25k, the exact amount VT got fined? I feel like UGA will use that to pay our fine
Maybe he should donate it to the Hokie Club.
Was this the final horcrux so we can destroy this game from our memories?
(Is Shane Beamer Harry Potter in this metaphor? Sacrificing himself for everyone else so we never have to think about this horrible game ever again? He made himself the final horcrux by listening to Elrod's info.)
It's gone. Finally.
I have some very good sources (a player on the 2014 team) that say Shane basically was running the team at this point. He did officially fill in as the head coach from the end of the regular season through the bowl game which lends credence to that information. If Shane was basically running the team, then I think it was highly likely Frank was unaware of this type of minutia.
Finally, look at the difference in the amount of detail Frank and Shane go into in terms of football
around that timein the final years:Frank's Press Conference
Shane's Press Conference