On Friday the NCAA voted on some significant reform to the college football recruiting calendar, and among other changes, it also approved programs to hire a tenth assistant coach beginning January 9, 2018 (the day after the national championship game).
Both ESPN and USA TODAY had solid recaps and reactions to the new legislation: http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/19157689/ncaa-division-c... and https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2017/04/14/ncaa-approves-ear....
What role/position do y'all think Virginia Tech's new coach should be? And given the choice between one or the other, would you hire an ace recruiter or a strong on-the-field coach?
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
Ideally one that is both, but I would go recruitment. Teams have been winning championships for a long time with the existing number of coaches on the field, so I see no reason why Fuente and Foster couldn't do that.
I had a similar mindset after seeing this as well. Feel like this could be a slippery slop (decision wise) because you have coaches who are great coaches, but mediocre recruiters and vice versa. I agree, we have plenty of on field coaches. Seems like almost every position has their own dedicated coach now, so a dedicated recruiter with some minor on field supplementation would be most beneficial IMO.
I'm not sure what the most efficient use of the 10th coach will be, but I am almost certain they will be chosen to be/for being an ace recruiter. Recruiting has become such a ridiculous and time consuming thing, no doubt that will be the focus of most schools with this extra coach.
Finally! We have needed this vacancy for so long. We can finally hire a full time Boxing-Glove-On-A-Stick coach. We just locked up the Natty boys.
Yeah, I really miss this guy.
Y'all joke but compare the fumble stats.
There was a thread months ago discussing the 10th assistant coach. I'll stick with what I said then. I would hire a great recruiter and keep him on the road every possible moment he can be. Every Friday night he would be at a high school game.
Full time Recruiting Coordinator with the flexibility to scale the salary to that of the OC and DC. Then consider the viability in taking as assistant coach from the offensive and defensive side of the staff and having them also report up to the RC.
Not sure if that's allowed, but its how I would try and angle this.
It looks like most of us are in agreement that this 10th coach should definitely be an ace recruiter. I feel like we need one of those types on the staff, preferably someone with strong 757/mid-Atlantic ties.
Any ideas on who would be a good fit in this mold? One who popped in my mind would be Chip West, who is currently the Co-DC and Recruiting Coordinator on Mike London's staff at Howard. I'm pretty sure he interviewed when we had the DB coach opening, and he's had great success in the 757 while at UVa with London. Would probably be fairly easy to lure away from an FCS school. Again, whomever we go after, I want someone who has had strong, proven success recruiting over a strictly Xs and Os background.
Chip is really a recruiting ace we need. The guy landed more top100 players by himself than VT. Make jokes about how UVA wasted their talent, but Fuente and Foster could do damage with Eli Harold, Blanding and Smoke.
I like this plan. Hey Mike London, we got you again!
http://gph.is/28TlpW9
I'm including the link, I just couldn't quite bring myself to include the gif....
EVERY team needs a Leonard. I've been saying this for years. It would be so cutting edge and bold for the Hokies to hire one.
Small snippet from his video interview:
Qualifications:
His wife is also highly qualified.
I'd be OK with either an ace recruiter or ace position coach, but I think I prefer recruiter.
Everyone else gets one, too, so it's just more "arms race".
I like that they're moving towards an early signing period.
Okay, I'm gonna be "that guy." I don't like the early signing period because I feel like it screws over the athlete more than anything. I understand it could be good for certain school to lock in a croot and move on to the next one, but that really sucks if you're an athlete.
Hell, we scooped a late LB from Penn State because they slept on the recruiting game. I really don't like it as schools can make changes as their recruit list changes. Without certain provisions, what's to stop a school from firing a coach and having all their recruits locked in? Just doesn't seem great, Bob.
We've also lost recruits late in the game.
I'm not sure how early signing "screws" an athlete, but I'm open to hearing arguments on both sides of the issue. Seems to me that some athletes get bumped late. Wouldn't this help mitigate that?
I guess you're right about some programs sleeping on recruits once they're locked up, but hopefully we don't fall into that trap - even if we've signed them.
I think it comes down to helping some athletes some times and hurting some other times, whether it's an overall plus or minus is a huge question mark. SBNation's article does a decent surface level review I think
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2017/4/16/15309680/new-ncaa-foo...
Basically, kids struggling with academics may get left out, late bloomers who shoot up after teams review senior film could have their options limited since so many spots would be taken, and kids who get pressured to sign early could end up losing their opportunity at bigger schools.
Yep, there's always more than one side to the story. Honestly, the biggest proponents for an early signing period are simply
1) locking up your scholarship early, this can certainly benefit a student athlete who doesn't wanna lose a scholarship to a top team if they wait too long.
2) meaningless peace of mind to fans who desperately want recruits to sign on early so Bama/FSU/etc doesn't swoop in and steal them around NSD.
Only the first reason should matter in this rules consideration. I honestly don't know how I feel about it completely, either way kids could get screwed over. However, I would feel way worse for a kid who fought like hell to get his grades up and qualify who missed out because of an early signing period than a kid who waited too long to commit to Bama/FSU/etc and then had to sign on with a "smaller" school. The second kid just waited too long and is still going to college for a free education. The first kid might seriously miss out on playing a decent school/playing altogether because he was fighting to get his grades up.
What about the kid that already committed to Bama only to have his offer pulled as a grey shirt last minute for a higher rated kid.
I agree that this is mostly just going to shift who gets screwed, not reduce the total number. But if it means less power for blue bloods and more reason to have your grades in order before senior year than I think its a net positive.
I have no bitterness towards blue bloods so hurting them is not part of what I consider a positive. Additionally, "having your grades in order before senior year" is easier said than done for some people. Some of these kids academics are neglected by their parents and teachers right up until the moment it matters that they might play football and make somebody some money. Not always the kids fault, particularly when they are coming from a really shitty school in a terrible area.
Its less hurting blue bloods and more understanding they have power to string along kids and bump them all the time. This lessens that at least. We've done it too and there is nothing I hate more in recruiting than someone thinking they have a scholarship lined up only to get it "pulled" a week before NSD. That fucks with their future because now they have a big scramble to find a spot with even less time when they did everything right.
I understand getting grades in order is easier said than done. But they'll still be able to get a spot somewhere, they'll just have less choices.
I'd like to commend you on using less correctly so many times in one post...
FFS
pretty sure it should be "fewer choices" instead of "less choices" but I'm no English major
no it's actually "lesser choices" I didnt major in english either, but I taken it since elementary school so im prety damn good qualified.
if you can count it, it's "fewer." If it's just a smaller vague quantity, it's "less." Fewer apples, less porridge. Fewer choices, less variety.
Simple stuff like this just blows my mind. How friggin' hard was it for my English teachers in grade school to tell me something simple like that? Maybe I just had crap English teachers when I was a lad
one of the (very) few benefits to having a former English professor as a dad.
I've always maintained that despite having a dodgy English education and pursuing a degree in Engineering the little bit of English knowledge I do have is largely due to my father who is actually English and was educated at Oxford and the School of London.
Schools will definitely have better optics of their positional needs after an early signing period, but how is this a disadvantage to the recruits?
I expect that every school makes more offers than they have scholarships. The fact is they aren't going to get every kid to sign, so they "overbook". Often you hear of (blue blood) schools pulling back an offer late in the game. Sometimes it is done quietly, and sometimes the school acts like the offer never existed. Sometimes the kids go onto social media platforms and raises hell.
The kids understand this and many have to wonder if the verbal offer will actually result in an LOI being sent.
Nothing says that a kid has to sign early, but it allows the ones who have made up their mind to avoid any such drama. I expect some kids will appreciate and take advantage of this conservative route. I am sure that every early LOI that gets sent out will have a clause "only good for this signing date".
Will the schools only send out the "premium" LOI's for the early signing period? Probably, but for sure they will only offer this to kids they really want.
I hear United university is vicious when they pull a scholarship at the last minute.
I don't know. This reeks of early decision in the college admission process to me. It locks down people early but it creates this panic and lack of clear decision making.
I don't know, a signing period where coaches could still be on the hot seat just seems wrong to me unless there is a clear clause stating that players can get out of their LOI if key coaching personnel changes.
It should be a rolling signing period, in which an athlete can accept as soon as he's offered. If a school offers you a scholarship in September of you senior year, why should you have to wait until February to sign?
Oh man, there would be some serious hard sells then. I think its good to have a cooling off period before signing an LOI.
I ain't even lying - bring Mike London in as an ace recruiter and pay him a good chunk to do it. Our on field coaches are good. I am happy with them for the most part. We need a straight up lights out recruiter.
Time Out!!!!!!! Keep that dude as far away from our program as possible.
I dunno
He was one of the coaches who most benefited the VT program the past 10 years.
If you think about it, he was always on our side -- even if it wasn't on purpose (Thanks, Time Cop!)
Just don't let him near the field.
Or, to be perfectly honest, near our program.
Don't be so quick to that. Unfortunately, our handling of the Tahj Capehart situation burned some bridges in the 757 and like it or not, we need to be on good terms with the state's most talent saturated region. Zohn is working night and day to make amends, but he could use some help.
London isn't going to happen. Wouldn't be affordable, and he isn't going to go from being an FCS head coach to a recruiting coordinator. I do agree though that we need someone with strong ties and success in the 757/mid-Atlantic region, and London's staff has had success there to our detriment. That's why I suggested Chip West, who has been London's recruiting coordinator at both UVA and now Howard, and was the primary recruiter on all of UVA's big recruits.
Someone on another board actually suggested we rehire Stiney and/or Coach Cav. I almost fell out of my chair.
Chip West would be a great hire. He's from Hampton, VA and has coached at JMU, ODU, and UVA. Major ties to the 757 and is a proven ace recruiter.
This might be a minority opinion, but I don't know how much positive it would add to get another recruiter with 757 ties. Seems like most of the talent we lose out on is the top shelf talent that wants to go to blue bloods, and as much as I would like to start keeping those guys I'm not sure a new sales pitch would change it all that much. I wonder if an ace recruiter with Georgia or Florida ties would be more valuable.
i agree with this.
disagree. London has/had a single bill of goods, and not what i would call a great recruiter. a schtick only keeps working when u can perform on it otherwise its a house of cards, and his "i'm a cop" routine is old news in a fallen house.
plus, thoroughbreds. if you pander to shitheads like those coaches then you don't deserve to call yourself a Hokie.
The new coach should have a specialty role in switching tight ends to quarterback and vice versa.
Well lets just hope this doesn't make lawson transfer......I'm sorry.
Recruiting ace all the way without question. VT has done more with less for years. Lets see how much we can do with more.
Treading lightly here:
Stiney
Well, he could flash his national championship bling.
I was hanging out with the Associate AD for JMU this past weekend at a wedding. He said he has tried to schedule us in football a bunch of times, but Whit won't do it. (Which is probably for the best right now)
I'm OK with that.
I'd also like to bump ECU for someone else once in a while.
ODU and ECU should be competing for the same spot in the schedule.
One thing to consider: This means 129 (or whatever it is now) new coaches being recruited/hired all at the same time. Will be mayhem from a coaching carousel perspective, including the potential affect on Tech's existing staff.
I think if at all possible, and if it somehow doesn't break any rules, we should try to identify this person and bring them on staff as soon as possible as a non-coaching quality control/analytics person or recruiting assistant, then promote them to the 10th assistant coach position once the date arrives. We can go ahead and be proactive in finding who we want, planning what type of role we want them to have with the staff, and have them adjust to the program over the next 8 months or so.
Didn't they recently bring someone on in a role like what you mentioned?
I think a new recruiting assistant position was part of the terms in Fuente's latest contract extension, but I don't believe they have hired anyone yet.
Do whatever Saban does.
Release a Power Rangers movie?
Well done
Hire one of the dirtiest recruiters in college football?
Not only no, HE double hockey sticks NO.
Integrity is overrated.
Hire a good recruiter or a good coach? How about both?
I'd pick up a defensive coach to help either Wiles or Foster. Our current staff structure is weighted towards offense, with 5 assistants coaching offensive positions, while defense has 4.
The biggest thing our defense is missing is more talent. I don't think another position coach evaluates our defense as much as more talent.
What part about a coach who teaches and recruits (just like the other 10 coaches) is so revolutionary about this 10th assistant position?
Of course they're going to be expected to recruit well. They're also going to be expected to make contributions to the development of the skills and abilities of the players already on the team.. ya know.. by coaching.
Someone with some history of putting D-linemen in the NFL. Or something that helps with Offensive line.
Either way, it needs to be a recruiter.
Another thing to think about- if everyone's hiring a great recruiter with this new coaching spot, is there really value there? Basically, how many great recruiters are there floating around? Shane Beamer was supposed to be a great recruiter and look how that turned out.
How about an ace recruiter from the state of NC.
How about Marc Yellock?
Has been at ECU since 2010 working on the defensive line. Not sure if he is an ace but he is only 39, knows the state, and might have some connections already established.
How about we take Cris Carter's advice and hire a Fall Guy.
I would like to see a proven recruiter with ties to either Matthews/Butler in NC or Baltimore/Jersey. Maybe be a director for player development, and work primarily with the scout team and red-shirting freshman, hopefully with NFL OL experience.
What are the chances we can lure RichRod to the 'Burg?
Incoming gif in 3...2....1...
1 hour 16 minutes and still no fireman? Must be a lot of fires today.
Wifi's down at the firehouse.
At Disney all week.
I love this.
He'll likely be out of a job next year, and we always hear how close he is to Whit...sounds like a done deal to me