I was thinking about it today, would we win a National Championship with Nick Saban? If so, how long would it take for him to do it here. I was thinking about this because obviously Bama has a brand and it's not all Saban but he has a proven method/coaching tree/ability to put players in the NFL. I was wondering if he could take a program like VT to a consistent contender.
This was all just for fun, I think Fuente is doing fine and has a chance to build something great here, I was just thinking what would happen if Saban were to just be here starting next year, what kind of recruiting effect it would have and such.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
Finally! Was waiting for someone to post a hypothetical thread like this. I say yes, or (@ the very least) he'd have us competing (& winning) in BCS like bowls (Orange, Rose, Sugar & Fiesta) on the reg.
If we had the $$$ to hire and resource Nick Saban, then I would say there is a list of a dozen or more guys, including Fuente, who could possibly win a National Championship at VT.
No. It's not even close. He's done what he's done at LSU and Alabama. Blue bloods. Almost infinite money. Recruiting at those schools would be above what any coach could accomplish here over a long term.
There are reasons he went to the NFL and had to come back (beyond the Dolphins front office). He's not god. He's just a solid mini dictator and runs a great program where his style can succeed.
I agree that Saban wouldn't have achieved his legend status if he hadn't coached at blue bloods like LSU and Alabama and believe a large part of his "recruiting prowess" resulted from the resources and prestige of those universities. I don't think Saban would win a national title at VT if he hadn't been a coach at those schools and gained the reputation he currently holds. However, since he's now revered as the greatest coach in CFB and is known for putting players in the NFL, I'd say there's a good chance he'd be able to bring enough elite recruits to VT to take us to the college football playoff within 5 years.
I think LSU still has the same resources and they have yet to be in the college playoff, much less the finals the last 3 years. Alabama was hot garbage pre-Sagan. Give him credit, he deserves it. He gets every team's best shot every week - he doesn't have any odu, jmu, app states on his resume. He's good.
I went back and did some research on Saban.
Alabama was garbage from 1999 until he arrived. They weren't even getting great recruits his first year.
What is clear about Saban is that after MSU, he did not hesitate to bring on the best coordinators he could find.
I see the idea that VT is too remote. I've been to Tuscaloosa. It's an hour and half from the "metropolis" of Birmingham. VT is 40 minutes from Roanoke (about half Birmingham's size) and two and half hours from Charlotte, which is a legitimate metro. I don't think Tuscaloosa commands a location advantage over Blacksburg. It's certainly not nearly as beautiful.
Saban accomplishes what he did with two things. Good recruits and good assistant coaches. He doesn't really carry coaching baggage. Neither does Dabo.
Both realize that not every coach can perform at the highest level.
I know there's the "we can't afford good assistants" crowd out there. Just remember that good assistants don't start out as P5 stars. They have to work their way up and identifying them early is not something VT has ever done well. Then there's the , "good assistants leave" crowd. Yes, they do. But the next set of good assistants see that coming to your program is the doorway to bigger and better things. Is that really bad?
He is very different from Dabo in that Saban is an elite defensive mind and very much participates in defensive scheme decisions and alterations. Dabo is a figurehead.
Not to be argumentative, but Saban never coached offense. As an assistant he was always a defensive coach. That doesn't mean he's not a fast learner but I truly believe Saban chooses his OCs wisely. Also Bama has changed offensive systems based on the OC. I think Saban just knows how to run an organization.
Where Saban has his hand in the defense, I believe Dabo does the same with the offense.
Maybe small innovations but Jeff Scott and Tony Elliot still use Chad Morris playbook. They've added some stuff but the playbook is still 90% Morris'. The offense Dabo was running is 09 and 10 was way different.
Saban still makes the big decisions with his defense. For example, Jeremy Pruitt was a 4-3 guy at Georgia and FSU but at Alabama he was merely a playcaller in Sabans 3-4/3-3-5 over.
The location argument is bullshit.
100% bullshit. I've done day trips from DC when I had to.
Saban showed up at the end of sanctions, so of course they were hot garbage
But, if he came to VT now, after achieving what he has at Alabama, he would get those recruits as well
No.
The primary driver for recruiting is the school. The top schools attract the top recruits.
Alabama will continue to get top ten recruiting classes when Saban leaves. Just as Ohio State did when Tressel left, just as LSU did when Saban left and Les Miles left. Just as USC did when Carrol, Kiffin, Orgeron and Sark left.
Tennessee continues to out recruit us, through Dooley, Kiffin, Butch Jones, the prolonged Jerry Springer episode, and Jeremy Pruitt.
When Chris Peterson coached at Boise, he recruited at WAC recruiting levels (he averaged one 4* athlete every other year). When he showed up at Washington he recruited instantly at their recruiting level (similar to ours at VT).
Any example of any trend to the contrary (the Kiffin bump at FAU, for example) is almost insignificant. FAU recruits better than before Kiffin arrived, but they still recruit well within the window of G5/CUSA teams.
FAU is still heavily outrecruited by Kansas, Temple, Rutgers, UVA and Illinois.
Coaches are not magic.
It's easy to say that because there aren't very many examples of an elite CFB HC taking a "lesser job" away from a blue blood. Usually coaches move "up the ranks" or within different schools in the same tier. I'm struggling to think of one national championship-winning, blue-blood head coach who then left to take over a perennial top-25 program.
Yes, the school matters, as does the level of the competition (e.g. FAU vs UVA).
But pretending a multiple-time national championship winning coach who has developed boatloads of talent for the next level wouldn't bring an immediate recruiting bump to VT is silly. You're essentially stating that Saban's success in recruiting only helps Bama and not Saban moving forward, and I don't think you can convincingly make that case. Absence of evidence for a claim isn't evidence for the counter-claim.
It's easy to say that because that's how it works.
Kiffin isn't recruiting Tennessee/USC level prospects to FAU.
You can contribute this to being fired, of some failure on Kiffin's part. But then you'd have to assume he became a real crappy recruiter when worked under Saban as OC.
Make no mistake- his hire was exciting and an instant benefit to FAU. They're a rare case- he did get a noticeable recruiting bump.
For a CUSA school.
When Fuente left Memphis for Virginia Tech, he stopped recruiting Memphis-rated recruits. He started recruiting VT-level recruits.
Check the 247 composite (average recruit) for any school.
SEC school: 86-88
Non-SEC P5: 84-87
G5 school: 77-82
It's difficult to predict where any kid chooses to play. As a whole, the prestige of a school is a reliable indicator of the talent they bring in.
The head whistles change schools a lot. They don't take their last campus with them.
This is where your argument suffers for trying to apply the reality of what we've seen play out in CFB to a hypothetical situation that we haven't. Until and unless we see a national championship head coach of a blue blood program leave to coach a top-25 tier P5 school (eg. Nick Saban is head coach at VT), this is a hypothetical situation.
Boise State and FAU are not comparable to Virginia Tech.
Let's take your claims and see how they pan out (BTW, I already started this knowing it would come up)
Alabama Recruiting Classes 247 Rank By Year (I started with 2000 because everyone is ranked #1 in 1999 on 247):
2000: 4
2001: 28
2002: 47
2003: 41
2004: 21
2005: 16
2006: 13
2007: 12
So no. Alabama doesn't recruit in the top 10 no matter what.
And OSU:
2000: 9
2001: 6
2002: 4
2003: 46
2004: 55
2005: 74
2006: 25
2007: 72
That doesn't hold up for Ohio State either.
What about VT in that same stretch:
2000: 37
2001: 16
2002: 43
2003: 27
2004: 34
2005: 20
2006: 31
2007: 26
So, I don't know where you are getting your numbers from but mine say that elite schools can have crap recruiting and the recruits don't blindly go commit to Alabama or OSU baed on their names.
You can verify these numbers starting with year 2000 at https://247sports.com/Season/2000-Football/CompositeTeamRankings/
have a leg for the legwork, appreciate it
Maybe the way to say it is that an elite coach's success has a disproportionate effect on recruiting at blue blood programs which makes it easier for the program to ride the coattails of a coach's success even after his departure. And the fall-off is both way more gradual and probably a smaller difference when all is said and done than if an elite coach were to try to elevate a top-25 caliber program to perennial national championship contender.
Another thing worth remembering is that recruits are 17ish when they sign, so their general sense of college football is necessarily skewed by recency bias for program success. Even if Saban were to leave today, there is a good chance Bama is still Bama in the minds of kids who are signing in December 2018, 2019, and probably out to 2020.
While that is what 247 says, those rankings are clearly the result of an error. Go look at the actual classes and you'll see they have several four and five star players and then 10+ unranked players, which causes their class ranking to tank. Also Ohio State won 5 straight conference titles from 2005-2009 so I find it impossible to believe they had recruiting classes ranked in the 70s during that time.
So what you are saying is stars matter? /s
The numbers aren't wrong. They are based on the average ranking. It's just math. You don't have to like it.
So if you used the composite for early 2000's years they can get a bit wonky. Rivals was the premier and most reliable recruiting site in the 2000's so I'll post Ohio State's class rankings via Rivals for comparison.
2003: 41st (small class but 7 four stars)
2004: 9th
2005: 12th
2006: 12th
2007: 15th
VT's Rivals Rankings during this period
2003: 27th
2004: 41st
2005: 14th
2006: 32nd
2007: 29th
I'm not disagreeing with you just offering some alternate sources because the 247 composite is not very reliable for the early 2000's. They lack data for their model to work properly and often assigned blanket grades like .8 or .85 or .9 to recruits who they don't have information one, whereas Rivals had more dedicated rankings at the time these guys were going recruited.
The "class rankings" for 247 composite are top weighted, so the "average recruit rank" and the class rank are not the same number.
When I was making the Bud Foster football cards, I was essentially compiling a crude "talent composite" for all of the FBS programs. (I was comparing the talent levels of the DCs not only by the talent on each defense, but the talent of the average opponent over the season. I had to generate numbers for the whole FBS to do this from 2007-2016, and then each season I had to plug the numbers into the schedule. I had a floor number- 70 or 75 that I simply plugged in for FCS teams).
I started using 247 data in 2007. Technically I was using data as far back as 2003 (the talent composite was 5-year value of average recruit weighted by both class percentage and number of recruits). I wanted to have 10 years of data since I couldn't go back and analyze each coordinator's entire career. (Like you said, there's NO data pre-2000).
For each coordinator, I made a year-by-year tackle-weighted average of the top ten tacklers they relied on to play for them, so it wasn't exactly apples to oranges (for the opponents, I used the roster average I described above).
Naturally if you want to compare results over time, taking the earliest data available and comparing it to now is what you'd want to do. But the early data is full of giant holes- the Ohio State glitch that shakeitallabout is one indication of that. Kentucky recruits didn't get ranked, I think one of the service academies had like 50-some recruits in one class. A bunch of schools still showed 0 or 1 recruits for those early years.
I'll try to fashion a reply to your above post tonight.
Ha. Sure the numbers aren't wrong in sense that they are published on a recruiting website that is now popular but wasn't even founded until 2010. Using those rankings ignores the history of recruiting services, their rankings, and how 247 compiled them. If you want to pretend Ohio State was pulling in 70th ranked classes while dominating the Big 10 for a decade, be my guest.
CLASS RANK VS AVERAGE RANKING
247 data is a work in progress. In 2000, there was only an evaluated recruit for 42 teams.
Nowadays most FCS teams have at least one or two evaluated recruits on the roster. The entire FBS is generally represented by recruits that have been evaluated by at least one major recruiting service. This is a pretty gradual change over time, so it's not likely that picking an exact date when 247 data became reliable is an objective fact.
You can see this progression in from below. In the first row below the long black line, here's a progression of the average recruit ranking from 2003-2017. The numbers climb from ~80.39 to 83.60 over time with a few large course corrections every couple of years or so.
The course corrections are likely either calculation conversions, or adding and dropping recruiting services from the composite. But the trend slowly rises; this indicates more and more kids are being ranked (disclaimer- in seasons where teams were either FCS or their entire team went unranked, I plugged in "70" as the floor value).
There are 2 ways to compare numbers; the 247 class ranking, and the average recruit score. Both numbers can be useful.
The Class rankings are top-weighted (the information icon next to their update info gives their Gaussian distribution method information. Their verbal explanation doesn't help a ton).
The TL;DR on that- top recruits are more likely to contribute, so they count more. The bottom recruits in your class only add a small fraction of their ranking to the Class Ranking.
The calculation is pretty top-heavy, some people voice displeasure in them and say they're too far skewed. It tends to make signing day more exciting when calculated this way, which is where I would assume the greatest skepticism comes from.
Personally, this doesn't seem like a bad method.
WHY I RESPONDED TO THIS QUESTION
When I went to compare teams over the long-term, I devised a scoring method using the class averages. My end goal was to compare the defenses of the DCs in my project to those of the rosters they faced.
My goal, coincidentally, was also to arrive at the team talent composite. I didn't discover the talent composite until I had mostly completed my spreadsheet. In the heat of the moment, I was a little upset.
Still, I couldn't use the talent composite- they only have it calculated back to 2015.
So if you take the annual average ranking of a team, multiply it by the number of recruits, and then weight the number over time (Freshman 10%, Sophomore 20%, Juniors & Seniors 30% and r-Sr 10%), you can make a good guess at what the talent level of each roster is (without having to go through all 130-some rosters each season.
How did I do? Here's a 2017 comparison (my numbers are in red. Again, my calculation attempted to duplicate the average ranking, not the talent score):
While this next screen shot appears a little busy, you can see both Notre Dame and Ohio State have some pretty irregular data between 2003 and 2007.
(Basically, the values are color-coded hot to cold; bold numbers are the calculated values. Each column has: the average recruit score, number of recruits, and my homemade talent composite calculation for each year for each school).
WHY RELYING ON EARLY 247 DATA IS NOT RECOMMENDED
It's not likely that Ohio State took only 17 recruits- TOTAL, between 2003-2005. As Chris pointed out, a ton of unranked kids signed in 2007. This data doesn't make sense. They didn't even have numbers like this from tatto-gate when their scholarship numbers were reduced.
To put it another way - in 2007 did a historically great blue blood FBS power, in between two consecutive seasons where they played for the National Championship, suddenly pull in a class almost identical to San Diego State's? Considering the other Ohio State data from this time period was still unreliable, probably not.
There are anomalies all over the place in these years. A couple more that stick out.
- Most G5 teams are comprised of mostly unranked recruits until around 2010.
- Kentucky had no ranked recruits in 2004. They 'posed to be SEC? (They are, their rankings caught up in 2010).
It's more likely that these recruiting class outliers are the result of the giant data anomalies early in the 247 data compilations.
In the past decade, you can see the data smooth over quite a bit, and that's the data I'm looking at. Post-2007 data, which corresponds to the years I started calculating my homemade talent score, appears to be much more reliable.
WHY I DISCOUNT COACHING HIRES IN RECRUITING DATA
Are there any large changes in the reliable data? Here's a couple seasons at random -
2010:
- Florida (Muschamp) dropped 3 points when Urban left from. It continues to decline. (93-90-91). went back up a little until McElwain took over.
- Maryland - Dropped 4 points when Friedgen left. Rising over time. Almost back to normal (86)
- Stanford - Harbaugh showed up. The next season the average jumped 3 points, went back to normal (87-90-87)
- Miami - Golden caused a one-season drop (4 points), numbers went back to normal (88-84-88).
- Pitt - Wannstedt left. average dropped six points, returned 5 (86-80-85)
In 2012, Urban Meyer took over at Ohio State. The average recruit ranking went up from ~90 to 91. It continues to rise (90-91; in 2019 they have 14 recruits at 92.5).
2014
- Florida again - McElwain was worse. Number had returned to ~91, went to 89
- Nebraska - Pelini was canned. Ranking dropped 2, bounced back (87-85-87)
- Michigan - Spoiled bastards. The Harbaugh hire dropped Michigan's average. It came right back, though (91-90-91)
- Wisconsin - Anderson out (thank god), Chryst in. Jumped from 85-86. Stayed there.
- Pitt - Lost this one to the fuckin' Badgers. Nardz in (for multiple years, they hope) (84-86-85)
- Kansas - dismissed Weis. Dropped from 83-81 and stayed.*
* Not the entire picture here- Kansas didn't come close to 85 scholarships after this
In 2017, FAU hired Lane Kiffin. Their average recruit jumped from 80-82, which is basically the ceiling of G5 teams (and the floor of P5 teams). They exceeded the ceiling in 2018 (83)! Their 2019 class has 5 recruits at 81. Kansas, by comparison is at 22 kids at 84 for 2019.
If you want to look at the spreadsheet, hit me up. I have an apple address with my username.
Leg. I will take you up on that offer. When you say apple do you mean @me.com?
That's correct!
The email will come from a gmail address that is similar to my tkp username.
VERY IMPRESSIVE work.
I see where you are coming from but I still think VT could get in the mix here. If Beamer hadn't made it to the 1999 Natty I would think the answer would be no but I believe a resurgent VT could start climbing the recruiting ranks and potentially displace Clemson.
In terms of a coaching hire (totally hypothetical, I'm not suggesting we fire Fuentie) it would have to someone still in their prime and looking for a challenge. To some extent Saban's age may be a factor and if he were to show up here people may just assume he's past his prime. Also can't be a big name that fell on their face.
Would Napolean have conquered half of Europe if he started as the Emperor of Prussia?
He started out as a Corsican.
So, probably.
He did finish off the ice cream at the Ziggy Pig
Good lord, if this gif doesn't sum up this season.
Nah.
Yes, easy question he is the greatest college football coach of all time. Best leader, recruiter, hardest worker, gets the most out of his talent, and survives coaching staff turnover without missing a beat because it all hinges on him. Nobody could lose coaches to HC jobs as often as he does and keep chugging without missing a beat. He's on his third OC in 3 years and has the best offense of his career so far. He replaced his DC twice in the last 3 years and still have a great defense (his DC's run Sabans defense by the way, not the other way around). All those coaches left for head coaching jobs except Brian Daboll who got an NFL OC job. His former OL coach Mario Cristobal has Oregon recruiting as a top 5 team right now. The common denominator is that they worked under Saban and saw The Process first hand.
Then again, sometimes it's just luck with programs like ours. An average coach could win if we got another Vick/Cam Newton/DWatson/Tua type player and hit a good year defensively at the right time. Throw in a few down years for top conetenders and who knows. Lots of variables at play.
I think we've had this conversation before - this is still my take (copying and pasting from an old thread):
He is a rock for sure, but let's take a look underneath for a second. At Alabama he gets resumes from the best coaches in the world whenever there is an opening - he can hire former coaches and make them assistants; he can hire former assistants and make them analysts. Coaches are okay with this b/c they get 'Alabama' on their resume and they know the history of his former coaches too, plus they get paid (Alabama's assistant coach budget is almost double that of VT). These coaches spend years in the system, so when someone leaves he can promote from within. A huge plus - they already know the system inside and out so there are no transition pains, plus it takes the guesswork out for Saban (he knows firsthand if they can do the job). Yet, if he's not seeing what he wants from within, he can still can hire from outside and have his pick of the best. It's a system, and it's smart, but he doesn't get to do that at any program, only those that have the brand recognition and the money to support it.
But he hasn't done that. Most of his assistants did not come from big time programs.
Let's go over the impressive list of his assistants.
Jimbo Fisher went from Cincinnati to LSU in 1999. You can't tell me Cincinnati was a big time program in 1999.
Will Muschamp when from Valdosta State to LSU in 2001. He was the DC at Valdosta State but Valdosta State is an FCS school. Here he identified FCS talent that CAN take the next step but instead of making him DC immediately hired him as an LB coach.
Kirby Smart went from being a GA at Florida State to a DB coach at LSU in 2004.
Jeremy Pruitt was a high school coach before he was hired at Alabama.
Lane Kiffin is pretty much the only HC that became an assistant under Saban.
Dabo had similar success with Chad Morris pulling him from a Texas high school. I can assure you that the name Clemson means nothing in Texas even now.
So we can keep believing that success is entirely related the name of the school and money if that makes us feel better about our misses. Or we can learn how these things are done without making the assumption that it has nothing to do with effort and talent. But it's just easier to go the other way.
Edited: unnecessary snark. I'll do better, Selhini.
Alabama has been a great program for a long time. Nick Saban building that school's program from spit & grit is not accurate, either.
While Dabo's rise at Clemson represents a step change from good to great; that rise preceded him by many seasons through fundraising & facility upgrades.
Success is not entirely related to the name of the school and money; true. But it's pretty significant.
Easy answer. If Nick Sabam cant make VT a championship program, then no one can.
If the greatest coach ever cant do it, then what hope does VT ever have? You think we can only win it if VT gets a coach better than Saban? Wow, then we are fucked.
Doesn't have to be Saban or someone better than Saban but has to be good at the things Saban is good at: recruiting, hiring assistants and winning games you are supposed to win.
I mean, if saban cant do it, no one can. Those are facts.
Consider "Fit". Charlie Strong is great at Louisville and USF, but in between he had that stint at Texas.
We're likely talking about two different styles of coaching. At smaller schools on the rise, he's a miracle worker who rolls up his sleeves and gets to work building. He only fails to accomplish that when he runs off to the next job. (Think Fuente with Memphis, even still they're much better off having Fuente).
At Texas, they don't need him to build them into a blue-blood Power- they're already there. They just need a coach to mold the silly levels of talent on their roster into a champion again.
Charlie Strong, and Fuente, are young and hungry. They're still "builders".
Fuente's a good fit, and bodes well if we can keep him around.
If you look at Jimbo Fisher at FSU; he got tired of trying to "Saban" his way around a university that he felt stopped meeting him halfway. Texas A&M practically showed him a blank check and told him to do his thing.
Someday Fuente and Strong might very well want to end up setting up at a place that has all the resources in the world. They might very well be great in that role.
Charlie Strong would have to propel USF past their G5 status at his current school. That's a huge hurdle Beamer cleared with us.
Dabo figured out his situation pretty quickly and figured out what they needed him to do for the success at Clemson. It's probably not as fun as what Fuente is doing, but I'm sure he's fine with keeping that job. (the job probably wasn't as much work as he felt it would be when he first took over. He didn't need to "build" a ton; they already had that program, to some degree, poised for success.)
But it wasn't easy; he had to fire coordinators he respected when they weren't getting results, and he had to live with the consequences had their replacements not been an improvement.
He chose well.
The only track record we have of "Saban the builder" is his time at Michigan State, a school similar to ours.
And it's not a doom and gloom tale. He succeeded there, they had a good thing going. And they reached the championship in Dantonio's reign. They don't do it every season, but it's not any worse of a program for Saban's efforts.
Beamer was around when we were a G5-ish independent, and he ushered into an era where we're a P5 mainstay. We made a championship game, but we haven't yet returned since. We're capable, but quite a few things need to fall in place for us to do it again.
We're not an elite power that a coach like Saban can just step in and work his current (manage & mold) style. Yet.
Virginia Tech removed the trophy case in 2012. Beamer was a hell of a builder, but he wasn't going to fire Stinespring to make the rest of the community content. That's not how he got to where we were, and he wasn't going to change the way he did business.
Let's finish with this- We are in way better shape than most schools. There are over a hundred FBS programs that would trade circumstances with us in a heartbeat.
I don't think he's being emotional by making his point and supporting it with a bunch of examples of how Sabans identified and helped develop all those guys into great coaches well before they were established.
The last sentence strikes me as a little aggravated.
I didn't agree with a couple examples, but after typing a while I didn't think it was meaningful to counter; Saban & Swinney are good evaluators & don't always grab the most established coaches. Valid.
I could have reworded the lead-in.
It is really hard for an AD to hire a coach that will succeed. Look @ the number of coaches blue blood programs have to hire after a national championship level coach departs until they are back on top. Alabama, Notre Dame, Michigan, Florida all have had big misses in hiring a coach.
It is also really hard for a coach to consistently hire good coordinators and position coaches. Saban has proven time after time that he can evaluate coaching talent and then provide the resources to let them excel.
All too often an AD or coach will hire someone with a novel concept but if they are unable to effectively make adjustments and evolve as other coaches gameplan against them at the P5 level, they will be another flash in the pan. Saban has avoided this problem multiple times, I hope this is not the problem with staff at VT right now.
Only guy I could definitively say would win one here is Art Briles. Anyone else it kinda depends on game performance and recruiting momentum.
I think Art could as well
We'd have roughly the same success he had at Michigan State.
I was kinda thinking about that, but I feel we could/would exceed it.
It's him, not us. He has to have the resources to get the absolute best recruits, best facilities, etc. He's the Frank Beamer of the upper echelon, consistently elite where Frank was consistently good-to-great. But he's completely vanilla. He could never overcome the hurdles a program like VT faces, where were just on the outside of elite looking in. He wouldn't have even had the success Frank had.
I don't know. I think we would have more success with him than he did @ MSU. But what makes you call him 'vanilla'??
It's not a derogatory term exactly. I just mean there's nothing innovative about the scheme they run. They aren't catching anyone flat-footed. They play power football and recruit well enough and have a good enough S&C program to be able to just straight up outman 99% of everyone they play. What Saban does is keep his players 100% engaged and bought-in. He could do that here, too, but without the resources of an Alabama or an LSU, he'd be a consistent 8-5 or 9-4 team instead of a consistent national champion. You need to throw in a little trickeration and ingenuity to get a program like VT a step above that, and Frank did that for us by developing the best DC in college football and pioneering such a strong focus on special teams.
This would make more sense if you only watched his first four years at Alabama. Saban has made multiple major schematic innovations to his team. After 2013 or 14 they decided they weren't getting enough pressure on QB's and were struggling against talented spread teams with the base 2gap 3-4 and in the off-season Saban implemented some 3-3-5 over and 1 gap principles for pass rushing situations, and they went from the 50's, I believe, to #1 in sack rate the very next year...
He also knows when to delegate out, they still run a lot of power football but he went out and got Kiffin to implement spread concepts and make their offense more dangerous and more versatile. He knows when he can fix things (defensively) and when he needs to go hands off and make hires and let them make changes he's not familiar with (like Kiffin).
Your reply is exactly what I'm talking about. It isn't that he doesn't adjust. Coaches that don't adjust end up as ESPN commentators. But I absolutely stand by my assertion that he doesn't innovate. Yes, he brought Kiffin in to implement some spread principles, and he was very late to the party doing so, because straight power worked for them for so much longer than other programs. The point is, he is in a position with recruiting and resources that he doesn't need to innovate, and that's a good thing for him. When he's on more equal footing with his competition, his results are more Michigan State and Miami Dolphins than LSU and Alabama.
You're also dead on about him stepping back and letting his coaches coach, another similarity he shares with Beamer.
Saban is the best coach in the past 20 years. Look at his record rather than cherry-picking things that he does poorly or doesn't excel at.
As an analogy, Apple doesn't exactly innovate either but they are one heck of a tech company.
His record suggests he couldn't win a championship at Michigan State or with the Miami Dolphins, but he can, and has at LSU and Alabama.
Nobody here believes he isn't one of the most successful coaches of all time. Nobody on this thread has said anything like that.
Is he pure, unadulterated evil? Sure. He's not magic.
Saban at Alabama is the best coach in the past 20 years. People forget that coaching success is a marriage of coach and program, and Saban and Alabama have the perfect marriage.
needed to relipicate Bama
1. MONEY
2, X'S O'S
3, RECRUITING
4. MONEY
5, TOTAL COACHING / STUDENT LIFE STYLE SYSTEM
6. MONEY
7. A COACH THAT CAN MANAGE A MASSIVE ORGANIZATION AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS
Yeah, it's a firm no. and it's not even close. Changing coaches doesn't solve the underlying problems. Saban's had decades of endless budgets, of top recruits, of the best assistant coaches and training staff possible, and until this year, his team's couldn't pass the ball. Drop him at VT, that doesn't have any of those, and you'd be foolish to think this would suddenly be an elite program.
You forgot #8: MONEY
DANG YOUR RIGHT I FORGOT MONEY
You just forgot to double down on it.
Well yeah Southnorthern Canada Tech would win a natty with Nick Saban WTF
Southnorthern Canada Tech is my favorite Canada Tech! Go Fighting Hosers!
Michigan State is saddened by SNOCAN Tech's suppositional triumph.
Their employ of the dark lord yielded no such success.
Did they change their mascot? I thought they were the Fightin' Apologies.
Sorry SoNoCanTech, sorry
It's actually pronounced 'sorey'
No that's their fight song.
It's only fittin', yeah? That second rouge against Tim Horton's shouldn't a counted and they shouldn't a won the title, and that's the gosh-durn truth.
Sorry 'boot the curse words but it all just makes my blood boil and that. See, even I'm saying sorry now, and it's them Hosers that should be sorry, in my opinion.
No real Canadian would call Tim's, Tim Hortons
^^HE'S CANADIAN! GET HIM!
Take off........it's the beauty way to go!
But how much wood could a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck would?!
3
Hmmm curious to know VT vs Alabama football budget in 2008 when saban was a year in. Anyone able to find these?
Recruiting would be easier because of the proximity to Charlotte, NoVA, 757. A lot of talent might stay in state. But don't conflate this with the fact that Bama can pull nationally, including from Alabama and Louisiana. Saban would still have to get the Florida, Georgia and Alabama guys that'll get him over the top.
I agree with all those who say no, but I think we're leaving something out.
Doesn't Saban's pedigree go down by leaving from Alabama to go to VT? If his skill, the money in the program, everything else all stayed the same, but our reputations as programs stayed the same...I think his recruiting would go down. It'd be similar to what happened with Beamer where everyone said "oh he's getting old, don't go there." People might argue Saban doesn't have it anymore and is going somewhere with less pressure.
I would say the majority of Saban's success at Alabama is his ability to recruit, and that is not Saban alone. A large portion of that is Alabama, and having the right man there for the job. I sadly don't think that translates to us.
Current Saban: Yes he can basically recruit on reputation alone now.
Pre Bama Saban: Maybe, but it would have taken a lot longer.
Pre LSU Saban: Doubtful. He would have do based off a few MV7 like Star players vs having a 2 deep stacked with high level recruits.
It's crazy to me some of you guys are still so caught up with money. We wouldnt' have enough money if Saban was our coach to compete for or win an National Championship? Seriously knock out the whole excuse 'bingo card' and gtfo with that shit.
Saban was the one that helped make LSU a blue blood. They had a natty in the 50s, then he won one, and basically set the table for LSU to win another with his guys shortly after he left.
Saban is widely regarded as the hardest working guy in the business. It's not just bc he has some magic check book that says Alabama - it helps, but isn't factor #1. Kirby Smart and others who've worked for him have noted this specifically.
We hired a coach who admitted he doesn't like recruiting.
Urban Meyer went 8-3 and then 9-3 at Bowling Green. He then went 10-2 and 12-0 including a BCS bowl win at UTAH
Did Utah have 'enough money' to compete? We surely have a lot more than Utah.
Elite recruiting and coaching > money.
Also if we're acting like donations/contributions to the school wouldn't sky rocket if we were able to pull off a hire like Saban, then you're crazy. Not saying we'd all the sudden have the money Texas has, but support and interest would go way up from alumni and fans.
Only if the donation emails were correctly timed after big wins and not sent after the loss to Louisiana Tech in year 1.
/s
Here are the top 10 money makers in college football based on the most recent info I could find (*ND did not report any $$ figures, so I'm not sure where they fall): Texas, Texas A&M, Ohio State, Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma, Florida, LSU, and Auburn. It's a point in time metric, so I don't give this much meaning, but it does look a whole lot like the current top 11.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting money is the only factor, but I am suggesting there's no coach past, present or future that can make this program a consistent national championship contender without first addressing the core problems - public perception and money are the two I see, but I'm sure there's more.
I'll take this all day, 'Elite recruiting and coaching > money', but if the question is about wining national championships, I would change it to 'Elite recruiting + coaching + money = Consistent National Contender.' Two out of three will make you good, but you need all 3 to run with the best year after year.
But then its chicken or the egg. Look at Clemson for example, what comes first money or fame? Was Clemson making a lot of money before winning? Was bama making a lot of money before saban when they were bad? Or does winning get more money for the school, increase recruiting and national perception, which then drives more alumni support and donations, better tv exposure, etc
Help me understand what I'm missing ... in my mind, Clemson has always had a greater image/perception than VT (even pre-Dabo), and I don't recall a period in my life where Clemson was ever losing recruits to VT. Even when 'Clemson-ing' was a thing, the image of Clemson was better, and better players would go there. That's a large part of the underlying problem I'm referring to. On the other hand, Michigan State is the perfect example - if I were to pick one football program that most closely resembles VT in terms of image, conference, recruiting grounds, money, etc., it would be Michigan State, and Saban actually coached there.
VT is far better than MSU in almost all respects especially image.
Clemson was largely an afterthought from the 90's until Dabo took over.
Winning is the root of success in football. You want recruits? Win. You want money? Win. You want great coaches? Win.
After you start winning then you have to put guys in the NFL to get even better recruits.
Ultimately none of this happens without great coaching.
I'll never agree to your first two points; agree to disagree I suppose. :)
Yes. Saban is one of the best coaches in CFB history.
Until people who never went to Tech give to the Hokie Club the way Bama fans and IPTAY do, no chance.
Tuscaloosa may be in BFA, but there are people who give more money a year to Bama than their house (trailer)s are worth.
I don't think most Hokies understand this. To most fans in Alabama and South Carolina, God, country, family and football are all that matters, and on Saturdays in the fall, guess which one comes first.
That's not how things are here. Face it. When the schools down South have down years, the fans say wait till next year and keep shoveling money into the athletic department. When we have a down year, we have a bunch of people who question why they should continue to donate and why do our coaches suck. The culture is completely different between the schools on top and Tech.
One day VT fans will have the realization that they will be a VT fan far longer than any coach will be there. Coaches come and go; good ones will move up and bad ones will be fired. Once a good one leaves, I think VT fans will be much quicker to have an underperforming one fired.
Having Beamer around for such a long time did not foster this concept. In the psyche of most, it was Beamer's program, and everyone was in it together for the long haul.
Being born in late 92, I have never seen a VT team finish a season with a losing record in a full season I have been alive for, and I had never seen another head coach other than Frank Beamer on the sidelines for VT until two seasons after I graduated college. So yeah, our fanbase has had a very strange understanding of college football compared to the average fan in a lot of ways.
If that's all it takes Texas should be a perennial national championship contender as they are #1 in revenue and Texas A&M (#2 in revenue) is #1 by far in contributions ($93M in 2017)
Alabama is #5 yet they are always in the CFP. So apparently compared to their competition they are doing more with less.
Your point about giving no matter what is false. When Tech was doing well and Alabama was a hot mess (2007) VT's contributions were comparable. Alabama: $26,979,612 vs. VT: $22,251,053
In the years since Bama's contributions rose to roughly $33M and VT's has fallen to around $16M and I assure you that's all about the teams' respective performances.
Texas A&M recently had $93M in contributions. In 2007? $13M.
The top teams today had comparable contributions to VT in 2007. In the years since the fan base lost confidence in the program and expected more from their contributions.
In the years since the biggest giving here is what VT's seasons looked like in summary.
2007: 11-3. Loss to Kansas in the Orange Bowl :/
2008: 10-4: Opening loss to ECU (that's a money loser). Beat Cincinnati in the Orange Bowl. Uninspiring win (but not our fault).
2009: 10-3: Opening loss to Alabama by 10 points. Still not winning the big games. Beat Tennessee in the Chick-FIL-A bowl. Good record. So-so bowl.
2010: 11-3: Deflating losses to Boise St. and James Madison. Got completely embarrassed in the Orange Bowl by Standord.
2011: 11-3. Lost to a newly resurgent Clemson twice (not known at the time). Sugar Bowl loss to Michigan (it was a catch!) but lots of questionable decisions that makes fans question coaching staff.
I don't think I need to say much about 2012 until now. It should be noted there was a major jump in contributions in 2016 from $16.7M to $19.3M.
I don't really think there is anything wrong with contributors pulling back money when the program falters. It's a check and balance against complacency and is a direct measure of fan engagement.
We'll see how the 2018 numbers look but I anticipate they will not be higher.
All revenue data referenced came from this page http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/
You deserve way more upvotes for all the data, examples, and references you have been bringing in this thread. You've been bringing the objective heat. Kudos.
Thanks, I appreciate the recognition. I'm grateful for the upvotes I get. Ultimately I suppose I get the up votes I earn based what most people want to see. Either that or I am getting slightly more upvotes than downvotes. LOL. Not sure.
My biggest thing with this staff is I don't feel this team/coaching staff has the "it" factor. At some point a good coach doesn't turn to excuses of youth and inexperience and starts to do more with less. So far I'm not seeing that from the staff and it worries the hell out of me
I agree with this sentiment, but I also didn't expect to approach 10 wins these past two seasons.
I still think this staff is building something; it's just a weird time to be seeing a drop off from the turnover.
They're not making stuff up when they talk about youth and inexperience. I think it's reasonable to expect a new coach to struggle while the new system is installed.
Here we are.
Before the season, Fuente did try to temper expectations for this season but did not shy away from high expectations from the future.
I think Fuente is trying to be honest but needs to figure out a way to be honest with the fans, media, players families, players, etc without seeming to throw players under the bus.
All Hokies appreciated Bud sticking up for Exum; "I thought the kid right there you're talking to right there played his nuts off. You can quote me on that shit too."
If we pulled off the biggest coup in college football history and brought in Saban, that would help in a number of ways immediately:
- There would be a huge jump in excitement around the program, likely resulting in a large bump in contributions, similar to the jump in 2016 but to a much larger degree, which would help some with the "money" concerns everyone keeps throwing around
- We would have the attention of the national media, which could help bring in more fans (and therefore more contributions over time) as well as higher general perception of the program among casual football fans and potential recruits alike
- Saban would bring instant credibility to the program on the recruiting trail, to a level never seen before in Blacksburg
Just from a recruiting perspective, I feel like we would move from #25-level classes to top-10 classes overnight, with top-5 classes following quickly afterwards. It might take a couple years to really get rolling, just like his first few years at Bama, but once you get momentum within the program everything else would take care of itself. We probably wouldn't be winning championships at a 50% rate like he has at Bama over the last decade, but not expecting at least 2 over the next decade would be selling this program short.
Disclaimer: I'm a lifelong Bama fan who saw this on my adroid news feed.
Saban has spent his entire career building what he has at Bama, so he could win anywhere. The Process isn't the law, it's an outline. Saban is the law. Anyone can take the Process somewhere else and they have, but Saban's assistants are still 0-14 against him. The difference between Saban and any other coach I've seen is he knows how to adapt. He adapts recruiting to the kind of team he needs to build 2 years from now. He's always adapting and always rebuilding. People don't see him that way, because of his persona, but the key to the Process is if you can't execute perfectly, then you change whatever needs to change. The Process is a personnel tool, not a game tool.
If Saban went to VT instead of Bama, would VT have 5 NCs? Maybe. Maybe more or less. Would he leave VT to go to Bama? Probably not. Saban isn't just a coach, he's a CEO. Anywhere that lets him be the CEO, he'll stay and he'll win.
The talk about picking assistants and seeing their potential...Saban isn't psychic. He uses metrics for everything. He analyzes everything. He pays other people to analyze everything. He draws a box and if someone fits in or around that box, he is comfortable hiring them. The same goes for the players he recruits, if they fit they get an offer. He's not psychic, he just knows the Process will make them better or he'll replace them.
Nick Saban isn't perfect and he'll be the first to tell you that, but he is always looking for a way to be better and he calls that the Process.
Maybe you've noticed, a lot of new coaches will do really well their first year or two. That's because they build around the talent they have. The problem with that is they aren't building a system, they are just coaching. They'll build a scheme and it works, until those players are gone. Then it goes down hill and the schemes stop working. Saban has built a system and it requires individual dedication at all levels. The schemes change every week and every game is mapped out before it's played. It's like war, you don't show up to the battlefield without a plan and win. You won or lost before you ever got there. You don't take a break because you're the best, you keep going to stay the best.
Nick Saban may be mean and difficult, but he knows how to take a high school kid and make that kid hate to lose at anything. He's a coach at practice and games, but the rest of the time he's a CEO or a General even.
Much respect for you guys and what yall are building up there. It just takes time.
Thanks for the input! Welcome to TKP.
Yes he would win one
Yep. Saban would close on Stephon Anthony, Brynn Renner, Deshawn Hand, Clellin Ferrell, Derrick Nnandi and many others. We would have 5 star DL blowing up the triple option instead of Jerrod Hewitt. Night and Day. In the ACC he could coast to the playoff assuming he recruited like he does at Bama.
Good to know we'd get the more typical Saban QB so fans would still have something to complain about.
Lol, totally underrated comment.
Yes. Saban has been able to start a cycle at most schools he's coached at - win games, increase fan interest, get donations, spend them wisely, win more games, increase fan interest, get more donations, reinvest in the program, win more games, over and over and over again.
Unless you think that Saban is unable to increase fan interest/donations at VT, I'm not sure how you could say that he wouldn't win here.
Saban now or when he took over Bama? What would be his budget for assistant coaches but analysts, support staff etc?