Just read an interesting article from Clay Travis that discusses how recruiting stars do matter if you want to win a National Championship.
https://www.outkickthecoverage.com/who-will-win-the-national-title-in-20...
"Since 1996 every team that has won a national title except for Oklahoma in 2000 has had at least two top ten national signing classes in the four years before a title. So while signing a top ten recruiting class doesn't guarantee that you're going to win a national title — indeed, there are plenty of teams that don't — for 20 of the past 21 years, you can't win a title without at least two top ten recruiting classes. More interestingly, every champion from the past ten years with the exception of Auburn in 2010 and Clemson in 2016 has had at least three top ten recruiting classes in the four years before it won a title."
I think Fuente has taken a great first step in upgrading our recruiting, especially with the NC2VT campaign this year. I think in past years we would have been content to stay in the Virginia area and sign middle of the pack 3 stars. We must continue to up our recruiting game if we ever want to win the National Championship. Finding system guys and diamonds in the rough is great, but you can't build a championship team with them. For every Sam Rogers that winds up being a major contributor and NFL draft pick there are thousands that wash out of programs across the country. 5 and 4 stars bust too, but at a much lower rate. This article illustrates the importance of having a 2 deep loaded with 4 and 5 star guys that is supplemented with some surprise diamonds in the rough. Like I said earlier I think Fuente is on the right path, but if we eventually want a National Championship, we need to be landing the big time recruits.
Comments
Clearly, this is a false article. Every year, 8 of the top 10 teams over the past two recruiting cycles DON'T win the natty. That's an 80% failure rate. Let's keep getting 2*s. That'll do it.
For this to happen at VT
Step 1) return to legitimacy
Step 2) perennial Coastal Div Champ and ACC Championship contender
Step 3) Make a Run
Step 4) After said run, this time, for phuck's sake, invest heavily in recruiting like never before
Step 5) Get to Playoffs twice in 5 year period, top 15 finish minimum every other year. Invest more in recruiting.
Step 6) Get to Playoffs in Consecutive years, top 10 finish minimum in other years. Invest even more in recruiting.
Step 7) by this time we will have top 10 recruiting classes as a norm and not an outlier. Have top 10 recruiting budgets in country.
I'll alert the boosters.
Step 1 has to be to invest in recruiting. Your first 3 steps aren't realistically possible without the investment in recruiting having already been done. Lay the groundwork early so that you're already prepared to capitalize on any success you may have.
If we want to be a realistic contender for the football crown, we must follow the Clemson model. Pour every resource you have into getting the best players to your school. As long as you are confident you have the right coaching staff in place, everything else will eventually work out, but you must get the players in house, first. If we aren't capable of doing that or aren't willing to do it, then its time to admit a National Title will never be a realistic possibility for this program.
If Hokie Club numbers are accurate I think many fans have decided they don't think it can happen.
Frankly I don't think many fans understand what goes into having a successful football program.
I think this sums up the problem. My dad being an ancient Hokie never really saw VT as a football school. When he was there they were good at basketball. It wasn't until Beamer got in in the late 80's and MV7 put us on the national landscape, did VT football really start to take shape. So a lot of the older generations, do not understand this. My brother and I are bigger VT football fans then my pops and neither of us actually went there. Just my 2cents
I'm sorry, but your dad's appreciation of VT football isn't what's holding VT back.
It's not the ancient Hokie fans but the current ones who we need to donate.
Agreed but the we cannot count on the baby boomers IMHO
Edit: I was just using my dad as an example of why I think we are not pulling the type of support the football program needs to compete at the national level every year. That's all.
I think you're hitting at least part of the problem on the nose. The indifference of the older generation plays a BIG part of it. My dad is the same way. My parents are the reason I'm a Tech fan/went to Tech, but they went through so many shitty years of football that they'll forever be in the 'just happy to be there' category as far as success on the field goes. Football just isn't something intrinsically part of being a Hokie to them. They have plenty of friends with plenty of money who feel the same way. They certainly enjoy the team, but I doubt they would ever consider donating with the motivation simply being to make the team better
But the ancient Hokie fans are usually the ones with the most money
Exactly
And we don't have that many older alumni. Beyond the fact that alumni numbers for a given graduation year decrease as the years pass because members die off, our foundation of older alumni aren't of a demographic that can financially bolster the program over the long haul, and likely won't be for another 20-30 years. The Old Guard consists exclusively of older Cadets who went to college to be in the military, because we were exclusively a military institution until civilians were admitted in large numbers in the 70s. While other schools (UVa, UNC, Tennessee, etc) were pumping out alumni in high dollar fields (business, medical, legal) we were sending all our alumni to the military for mandated service before they could come back and make money. Those schools always had a leg up on us from the start just because of what they were vs what we are. And realistically, we're just not going to make a dent by trying to focus on the older alumni, which is why we need to focus on the recent generations.
I agree, but just because it's a problem that would be nearly impossible to fix doesn't mean it's not something that's holding us back. That's the part I was responding to
Edit: That sentence is straight painful to read with the double/triple negatives, I'm sorry
Yeah, agreed with that. It always makes me shake my head when I keep hearing people try to claim the older alumni not giving is why we're bad at fundraising. Not that the statement is incorrect, but its the lack of understanding on what that statement will always be correct that gets me. Our peers are bolstered by endowments given from alumni who graduated during a time when VT was literally a small military college. That gap won't be made up from that generation, or really by any generation before we started legitimately growing our admission numbers. By no means am I saying you were claiming that, just making the statement in general.
In about 20 years we'll be a donation powerhouse
Awesome. So our experience as old fuck Hokie fans will be a lot more fun (on field success) than the current old fuck Hokie fans. I like it. Something to look forward to.
Step 1: Have Kids
Step 2: Make sure they go to tech
Step 3: Make them get me tickets
Step 4: Enjoy National Dominance
Don't confuse problems inherent to a terribly run Hokie Club to general fan apathy.
Maybe if 15 percent of last years Hokie Club members didn't drop out in a single year that would be a better argument.
I reiterate my statement
Don't confuse the problems inherent to a terribly run Hokie Club with general fan apathy.
What's the big change we've seen since last year? Drive for 25? What has that meant to us, the fans? Oooh, the chance to help shade in our state? Yeeeaaaah, that's not going to cut it. VT has a fanbase that is growing younger by the year. We're essentially pumping out more alumni every semester right now than we used to have admitted to the school until civilians were allowed to attend in the 70s. And this young base is dealing with more economic struggles than we've really ever seen. The cost of tuition for these young alumni was about 7x what their elders paid (inflation-adjusted) so the vast majority is still needing to pay off their student debt while being funneled to places like DC, Richmond, Charlotte, Raleigh, Baltimore, and Atlanta, which have some of the higher costs of living in the country. They're having to make hard decisions about where they spend their money, which is why you constantly hear questions about needing to see something in return other than a pat on the back for a contribution. And what is the way the Hokie Club has decided to move?
Help paint your state orange on the Hokie Club website.
Its this kind of lack of awareness on who the Hokie Club is reaching out to on why we are seeing fundraising struggles now. We're operating like we can rest on the laurels of the Old Guard and Baby Boomers to get us through when we really desperately need to be doing whatever we can to latch on to Gen X and the Millennials. For us, that's where the money is, and for us, that's where we are absolutely failing the most.
And yet other schools don't have this issue, he'll the academic side just hit a major record in donations. So explain to me how about 2,000 people decided after giving last year they won't give this year.
When were the first Drive for 25 HC members tallied into the total number of donors? I'm wondering if a bunch of people who donated after hearing about the Df25 just made a one time contribution.
I think a lot of your average fans don't see the big picture and don't want to play the long game in regards to building a program and fundraising. Some people are tired of having their hearts broken. Other than last season, which was our best in years, when was the last time we genuinely met or exceeded preseason expectations? I would argue 2008, when we somehow managed to overcome a great deal of youth and growing pains to win the ACC and a BCS Bowl game. '09, '10, and '11 were big disappointments relative to expectations, and the slide started the year after.
Again, I think it's going to take Fuente and Bud putting together a big time run in order to spark great interest for fundraising. One where we are in playoff contention or pull off a big NY6 bowl win. We need that type of momentum combined with continued efforts to improve recruiting. I know a lot of casual fans who were extremely excited after last season, but the early departures of Evans, Ford, and Hodges cast a lot of doubt on our offense this season. And I know the new seat donation system soured quite a few people as well.
If we can pull off a big time year with all this young talent on offense, I think you will probably see those numbers increase again. Fans are fickle, but I think Fuente will continue to build confidence among the fanbase. Performance on the field is a great way to build that confidence.
I can see a couple reasons. Existing members got bugged a lot about this 110% campaign and to continually give more. I got a letter asking for money at least once a month.
Second, they added a per seat donation value to every football and basketball seat worth owning. For some long time givers that meant that they could not continue to get their seats as they didn't give enough. This per seat value is on top of the South End Zone and West Central area premium charge according to everything that I read.
They also changed the value of giving required for the various Hokie Club Levels. For example Golden Hokie went from 2K-5K to a minimum of 2.5K.
I continued my membership but was downgraded from a Golden to Silver because I wasn't willing to fork over an extra 25%. Sorry, but I might get a 3% raise and that is not enough to justify an additional 10% let alone 25%.
Like it or not this is what all the big boys do. Whit had to make a calculated decision predicated on enough people putting up with the change outweighing the people who would be so pissed about this that they quit giving altogether. Allowing people to write a big check once to get good seats and then rest on those laurels indefinitely wasn't sustainable.
Every P5 team does this or will in next year. We were among the last.
Not denying that but it is a reason for some people to not re-up or re-up at a lower level than previously.
In the grand scheme of things, athletics just don't mean that much. This might be an unpopular opinion, but I'd much rather donate to the academic side of things than the athletic because the big thing I took away from VT was my degree and the community and friends I made there. The university does a very good job of keeping students engaged in giving back to the community, and that just seems to move into the alumni giving back to the school. The whole Ut Prosim thing is a really big deal around campus, especially lately.
Given the choice between (a) a university that is known for its cutting edge research and amazing community feel while also fielding competitive athletics teams and (b) a university that has elite sports but so-so academics, I think most Hokies would choose (a). That's where we've been, and that's where we're at.
Sign me up for a one time donation once I can afford it. But there are just so many things that I think are more deserving of my sustained contribution.
I think people should donate both to the academic side AND the athletics side.
The athletics side has unquestionably helped the VT brand and made my degree more marketable.
We sponsored a foreign exchange student, and I introduced her to VT football. While not a football fan, she appreciated the fun of decorating the house for game day. She's now back in Germany, now, but still wears the VT swag that we gave her, and people occasionally yell "Go Hokies" at her. She just thinks it's the funniest thing.
Right, and also to everything else that needs my money to succeed.
For me, a donation to the athletics department is pretty low on the list of priorities for where my disposable income goes. I'm sure it's the same for a lot of other Hokies because the whole atmosphere of the school doesn't revolve around our sports teams - which is exactly how a university should be?
I'm saying it's a synergistic effect. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
I care about the reputation of the university because I have a degree from there. I appreciate the academic growth and success, and I also see the success of the athletic teams as a positive.
I can get on board with that. It doesn't have to be an either-or when it comes to having a good university that can win championships. I don't mean to detract from the success of the athletics programs or the effect that can have on a university's profile, etc -- just to say that athletics' contribution the overall contribution towards "the whole" is
a lotless than so many other factors.Edited to better reflect my actual position.
This is absolutely correct. I want to say I heard that applications to VT doubled after the BCS Title game run. This allowed us to be more selective about the students we brought in while also realizing demand for attendance was growing and prompted the recent push to increase the size of admissions per year. I believe since that time we've seen admissions grow by >50% with no downturn in sight.
I'm sorry but I am of the exact opposite opinion.
Athletics have one revenue stream, the fans and their desire to see their teams succeed. If we want to see our athletic teams have more success, it is up to those with the additional resources to provide them to the athletic department.
It is my opinion that there is no need for donations to the university, it can accomplish its mission without any of our donations because it has other independent revenue streams. I want to go into it deeper, but I won't because "politics."
Appreciate the level-headed discourse here. Do you think that maybe saying "one revenue stream" is maybe a little overly reductionist considering sponsorships, student athletics fees, etc? I wonder what the breakdown of revenue is for the athletics department (genuinely curious. if anyone has numbers, I'd like to see them)
I still stand by my original point though with respect to charitable giving. There's just so much else that's worthy of my money before I start to think about VT Athletics as being a top priority for sustained donations. Maybe we're the strange ones or the outliers - lord knows it wouldn't be the first time - but the general crowd I graduated and keep in touch with would probably agree with me.
I can see how it could be interpreted as overly reductionist, but if you think about it each of those revenue streams they lead back to the athletic fans. I like to utilize the 5 why method to analyze why something occurs and it can be applied here.
Why are sponsorships a revenue stream for athletics?
Because the athletic department gets money from other organizations to fund their activities.
Why does the organization want to fund our athletic department's activities?
Because an organization's marketing team sees value in associating their brand to our athletic teams.
Why would an organization's marketers see value in associating their brand to our athletic team?
Because our athletics team provides them exposure to their target market.
Why does our athletics team provide them exposure to their target market?
Because we have lots of fans attend our athletic events.
Why do fans matter?
Because they are a market that is already proven to spend money on something they are passionate about.
The exercise can be applied to athletics fees as well, the students get subsidized ticket prices and high value endzone seats for that contribution by the way. The athletic department does that as a chance to create more passionate fans that hopefully will join the Hokie Club and be lifetime contributors.
I agree that VT Athletics is not at the top of the priority list for charitable giving, nor should it be. My only argument is that VT Academics should be lower on that list than VT Athletics.
Probably a decent chunk passed away
"until civilians were allowed to attend in the 70s" isn't a true statement. A quick search didn't give me the exact year, but I began classes in 1968 and there were plenty of civilians already on campus. While I agree that the numbers rose in the '70s, it was certainly before then that civilians routinely attended VT.
A friend of mine was class of '67 and when he started two years in the corps was still mandatory before going civilian for the last two years. So there were a lot of Jr and Sr civilians, but that's it.
Suppose i could have clarified but thought obvious that steps 1 to 3 require whatever minimal amount of recruiting investment it taes to achieve. From there it's a monumental step up which is why i noted investment from that point on.
I agree with this logic. I've been saying for a while that in order for recruiting to drastically improve to a top ten level, levels we should/could have gone to after our title run in 1999, we have to put all the pieces together and make another similar playoff run to grab the nation's attention once again. This time, we need to capitalize on it and not become complacent. We're going to have to get over the hump and make a big statement sooner or later to take things to the next level. A constant cycle of preparing for next year is what got us into trouble in the first place.
Exactly. This guy gets it.
Soooo, it's not happening basically lol.
Fuente's first class was solid from a star rating perspective but it seems to have taken a step back this year.. I realize it is a long way from NSD, but as it sits now we have a whole bunch of 3 stars with a chance of signing 2, MAYBE 3 guys with a higher star rating than 3. Also, 21/22 starters recruited by Beamer staff, and his recruits were good enough to get us to the ACCCG last year so lets give credit where it is due (Thanks Frank!).
Coaching-wise, Fuente is an absolute upgrade and I think the offensive numbers clearly show that. Recruiting-wise, I will hold my judgment until this recruiting cycle is done.
I agree that our current commitments for 2018 do not stand up to who signed for 2017. But, remember that Hunter, Proctor, Garbutt, and Rivers were not verbally committed to the Hokies a year ago. Those commitments came after the season.
Some of the following guys are a long shot, but we are still in contention for 5* KJ Henry (will be a tough fight but we're still in it), 4* Dax Hollifield (we've been a leader for a while), maybe still in for 4* Alim McNeil though he seems like an NC St guy, and 4* Kalon Gervin.
If a couple of these guys commit, then 2018 and 2017 are pretty similar recruiting classes.
And if he has a good year Quincy Patterson will probably be bumped up to a 4*.
FWIW - Alim is gone and Kalon is soon to follow. I'd say of the four, we are only in it for KJ and Dax at this point.
Eh I was going to say Alim and KJ are out with Gervin heading that way.
Fair enough. I have no insider information. I just haven't heard any updates on them for a while. Which I guess that's a pretty clear indication by itself.
Recruiting is key, and contributions are important, but I think people are overlooking some other keys to success that Virginia Tech has. Excellent facilities, great coaching, a terrific football atmosphere, and a good, family-friendly corporate culture.
Sure, higher donations and revenues will help. I think VT will get there. I'm guessing they're both up this year.
It's as if people have forgotten the major changes the VT scholarship fund made THIS YEAR. Did you really think major changes in the way contributors are handled wouldn't upset some people? Do you think maybe some people who had donated in the past and who had become essentially "free riders" wouldn't be upset if the rules were changed to require a higher donation? I'd be curious about the turnover this past year, because I'd guess that there was some. People looking for an excuse to withdraw their financial support will likely find one.
I'd bet that though the Hokie Club membership numbers haven't jumped significantly that the contributions will be up in the current year. I've also reviewed the changes that Whit made to the program and I think they're sound in the long term. It's was a risk to make some of those changes, and probably cost some Hokie Club members, but they'll put the program on stronger footing for the long term.
If Fuente can repeat last year's success, I'm going to guess that the Hokie Club will have more members next year. This program wasn't built in one day, so I'm not sure rebuilding it in one year is a fair expectation.
All of that said, if you like this program, join the Hokie Club and donate to it. It costs only a minimum of $100 a year. They send you a glossy magazine every month and you get the knowledge that you're contributing to the program that we all get some entertainment value from. This team does need your financial support if you want it to be more successful. Support the causes you love.
VT image was hurt the last 7 years because the offense was terrible until JF took over . You can talk recruiting all you want but the product that was selling it is the product on the field and anyone who watched the Rutgers bowl game and the Wake game had to be frustrated to the point to why put myself through that . ECU defenses were terrible and we would be in 17-10 games with much more talent and much more everything. The ACC changed when Dabo decided to go get Morris when he was on the hotseat the year before because the Clemson O was bad . Clemson always had talent but were poorly coached . They marched into lane and 26-3 and that was that, Franks run was done because we weren't changing with the times . VT is a entirely different animal now but it will take time for the nation to recognize we are not the same boring team . In short Football had become painful for the fans . It is changing quickly VT is fortunate we got who we got and he knows what to do with talent when he gets it . I mean how many big games did we lose on big stages the last 8-10 years ? VT needs a big win and I think JF will get it sooner rather than later.
There is alot of info out there on donations. Why is our alumni base in worse shape then any other alumni base out there? Every other alumni base deals with the same financial decisions as VT's alums, however, most other schools alumni donate way more to athletics. I will tell you though, that most of the upcoming cap improvements will be going to non revenue sports, which are necessary.
http://virginiatech.sportswar.com/free-content/2016/04/14/virginia-tech-...
http://virginiatech.sportswar.com/article/2017/07/26/power-5-donations/
IMO, three major challenges at VT:
http://247sports.com/Season/2017-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite
The updated 2017 team talent composite just came out. Seems timely. We are sitting at 34 overall.
We legitimately need to double our blue chip rate.
Looks like its missing the rating for a few of our higher rated 2017 guys. Still need to double it.
Context might be important here. We've moved up the only year that Fuente has been 100% involved in the recruiting.
http://247sports.com/Season/2015-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite
http://247sports.com/Season/2016-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite
Oh and of course, note that UVA is higher than we are both previous years, but nowhere to be seen this year.
Recruiting ratings are like economics. There's the macro-level and the micro-level. On the team-wide macro-level, they really matter. On the individual player micro-level, they matter much, much less.
So getting excited about high-ranked class after high-ranked class is justified. On the other hand, getting excited about a particular high-ranked recruit is a mostly pointless waste of energy - particularly with non-top 100 players.
So what you're saying is we're in that perfect sweet spot where no matter what happens, we just bitch and moan?
4 star recruit commits to VT:
Recruiting class finishes with < 50% 4-star and 5-star players:
Pretty much, yep. At least until the athletic budget goes up by about 50%.
So I shouldn't get excited about Dwayne Lawson? Aw shucks.
Get excited about Kurt Benkert! Try to keep up man.
Very well put.
I would always say that recruiting rankings only worked in the aggregate but this is much better said.
I wonder what recruit ratings they were looking at...according to 247 Composite scores, Clemson's last 4 recruit classes were ranked 11 (2016), 9 (2015), 16 (2014), 15 (2013).
While Clemson is definitely a step above us in recruiting, they aren't quite to where Alabama and OSU are where they are pulling in top 5 classes every year. If Fuente can show recruits that we have an exciting offense now and improve our brand, get some upsets, win the ACC, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility to get our recruiting up to a top 15 level. If we can do that for a few years I would be excited to see what Fuente and Foster could do with that talent.
Long story short: Clemson just won with a 12.75 recruit ranking (not top 10), and if there are any coaches that can win at that level with less talent, I'm putting my money on Fuente and Foster.
Big thing for Clemson is they've been good at landing QBs lately (Boyd and Watson). That helps close the gap.
Yeah. If you can get top-15 classes and land a once in a generation QB, you are going to be just fine on your journey to the Natty.
FWIW, a mean ranking of 12.75 doesn't necessarily mean Clemson wan't in the top 10 in recruiting over that period of time.
In fact, I say they likely were in the top 10.
Good point, that's true.
What I was getting at though is if you had asked me what their recruiting classes were ranked as over the last few years I would have thought it was higher than 12.75, maybe closer to perennial top 5 classes. Average classes of 12.75 seems a little more attainable for us in the future than what I assumed they were getting.
But you're right, there is something to say about consistently getting classes in that range. Add in a great QB and our coaches and I think we would have what it takes.
Winning is the only thing that matters
One thing that certainly doesn't help, is that we don't have any celebs that went to our school. The majority are football players and a ton of the rest are Engineers or Historical Military people. Arguably our most notiable no athlete Alumnis is someone I cannot even put his name down, because he is Political.
You need your heavy duty recent alumni involved in football games for fundraising and probably should get some special treatment to get eyes on the program during games.
Also, as a former head of an Alumni Association, people do not donate when the team loses. Turn outs for watch parties drop off drastically as soon as you get that L, and then if you get another one it's even harder to get people back. I raised money for scholarships and sometimes it was me and 3 other people at a watch party when the team tanked.
Hoda Kotb isn't too political to mention. Kathie Lee is the political one.
Not even close to the guy I didn't mention. He is often portrayed as the Reaper on SNL, and also runs a certain news outfit now that he doesn't have his former position.
I had no clue and I wish I still hadn't that clue :C
Well someone needs to get on the horn with Homer and ask him what's up then huh?
Or maybe that's just my West Virginia upbringing making him seem like a huge celeb... your teacher isn't feeling up to doing a lesson today? Guess we're watching October Sky.
I did just see that you said 'recent' as well, so I guess you've got me there as well.
It's also a fantastic book. Super interesting and goes by quick.
Oh like Steph Curry?
Stating the name of a politician when he/she is relevant to the conversation isn't political unless you make it about politics (ie, stay strictly within the facts)
Y'ALL DOWNVOTE ME IF YOU WANT BUT I'M ABOUT TO SPEAK THE DAM TRUTH! BUCHANAN WAS THE GREATEST PRESIDENT OF ALL TIME!
DON'T @ ME!
I never understood anybody who thought stars didn't mean much.