With a little over a month until the Spring Game, I suppose there is still time for a TV broadcast announcement to pop up; however, I feel as though that is far from likely. With the hiring of Justin Fuente back in 2015, it is become clear that Whit Babcock afforded the coach meaningful autonomy with the program (a good thing), including discretion as to whether the Spring Game would be televised (a bad thing).
So in 2016, the decision was made not to televise, and again in 2017 and 2018. 2019 looks to be the same. I'd happily eat my shoe if this decision came from Whit, but I can't fathom someone so focused on fundraising would make that choice.
The good news is the ACC Network is coming, and soon will end this stupidity. The network will force the hand of Fuente. Hell, I think the network agreement might even stipulate it. If it didn't, it should have. The network needs every ounce of content it can put out.
Assuming this will be coming to an end next year, I am still left with questions. Was the Spring Game broadcast cancelled because Fuente deemed it unnecessary, perhaps wanted to "reward" fans that actually attend in person? Alternatively, was it cancelled because he thought it was a competitive advantage to not giving a look at the players and talent? I have never been able to come up with a third alternative.
I'm left wondering if anyone here thinks cancelling was or is an actual advantage for the football program? Materiality threshold applies, this is one game, not touching on open practices.
If it was the "reward attending fans" rationale, that is just too asinine to fathom from our HC. Get your product out to as many fans and alumni as possible so long as it doesn't hurt the team, period.
Interested in your thoughts.
EDIT - Adding a link to our favorite Paul Johnson talking about why they weren't going to stream their Spring Game. In particular, I think his comment about the difference between streaming and ESPN is interesting.
Comments
My guess is that Fuente believes it would be a competitive disadvantage to freely give away information. It's not just the spring game, but any information that he feels would help an opponent. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just different than we're used to after 3 decades of Frank Beamer.
I've linked an article describing how deeply Brian Hoyer of the Patriots dug into the Rams prior to the Super Bowl.
Hoyer poured over info
Edit - Remember the layers of subterfuge around Chase Mummau, going as far as changing his number and listing him as punter on hokiesports.com before the bowl game in order to set up the fake punt. Fuente seems to want to completely control what opponents see and don't see. Again, I'm not saying right or wrong, just different.
Hmmm. I hadn't realized that he was listed at a position other than QB.
Any team worth a shit is going to send a scout
I'm an upper level donor (sorry not being a snob...but painting a picture). I feel like, the secrecy surrounding the program is I'll conceived. Its a different game these days...coaches like Dabo, that are personable, approachable and frankly "fun" are going to win. I give money, and wan to see what I'm getting for the investment. Additionally, I think opening the program will invite more donors (and more money) as you feel like you part of the program.
The Spring Game is a great example, it should be a showcase (and a night game...but I digress).
If the reasons for the secrecy is because you worry about other coaches stealing our stuff...I call BS! You aren't going to lose games because of what you "show" in a practice (coach better). It's not like anyone can take a phone in and record the whole thing and post it on the internet.
I hope I'm just missing the /s on this. If so, touche'. If not, I'd say we should all be thankful for upper level donors. They are the ones that fund all the spiffy stuff to attract those fancy new recruits.
You are, I thought it was obvious enough without posting the /s, especially since he followed it up by apologizing and clarifying that he was not being a snob
Not that I'm particularly worried about it, but anyone could absolutely do that. What would stop someone from doing that?
Edit: the way you worded it given what you'd written beforehand AWW FUCK IT I'M JUST GONNA TAKE THIS L
I SUCK
About half the players that partake in Spring Ball will never play in an actual game. They are usually some real poor players that end up playing simply because they need the bodies to field to teams with some depth.
During one practice in Spring, we had these 2 kids that were like 5'9 playing WR, and were super unathletic and slow. I was helping with the scout team, and Coach Cav came up to me after he yelled at these two kids about the routes they needed to run, and said watch these shitbirds.
Those guys got playing time during the Spring team just because they needed them, but that was the last of them being on the team.
So, put me in the Spring Game doesn't really need to be a secret crowd. After the first two years, it's silly simply because there is plenty of tape out there on your team AND the plays you are running in spring are super vanilla against not the best competition at all times.
By this logic it is a detriment to the program to air the spring game. Why show a subpar product being played by less than stellar members of the roster? Maybe Fuente is waiting until the product he can put on the field is better in order to show something worth showcasing
...then we shouldn't have been televised for half of our games last season /s
It's really just a numbers game. They have to pick up students to fill the holes left from players graduating and leaving early for the draft. The majority of the incoming recruiting classes, just aren't available just yet to partake in practices.
There are quality players on both squads. They usually would split 1s and 2s between both squads, and then the split the others between the squad.
The product is never going to be perfect in this case because every NCAA program has the same problem.
Calling our scout team guys unathletic and slow really isn't a good look. No, they aren't starting quality guys, but a lot are solid players that passed up opportunities at smaller schools to come to tech and bust ass knowing they might only ever get on special teams at best. We weren't picking up randos shooting pool at squires. Most of the guys who tried out were kickers or snappers. As far as those guys in the spring game, Beams had a rule where everyone had to play like 5 snaps in the spring game. So, most of those guys got them on special teams.
The major benefit of the spring game is getting to see the young guys with no college experience get some reps in a game like environment and seeing who can handle it. Playing in the spring game was a whole different animal than a practice scrimmage and you could tell who was ready to take that next step.
Sidenote: Coach Cav once told me I could ruin a wet dream.... dude was one of a kind
How were you connected to Coach Cav?
via GIPHY
I meant no disrespect to the true scout team guys that were on the team all year. I love those, guys and spent a ton of time around them.
I was referring to the guys that were there primarily just for Spring Ball. Every year there was a handful of them that were there for Spring practices, and that was about it.
Coach Cav was hilarious. My first team activity was setting up his drills for spring ball morning sessions.
He had a way of sweet talking the recruits, but when it came to coaching he was super old school.
During the Dooley era, one of my roommates at VT was a guy the team would reach out to for fill in bodies during spring. He was legit crazy and would not have reacted well to being called a shitbird when he was there at their request.
I found it particularly funny because one of my High School Coaches in NJ used to use the same phrase.
It's a competitive advantage in the early games of the season. Fuente's done pretty well in those dreaded high profile openers. He's 2/3 against Tennessee, WVU and FSU. I know FSU was a bad team but looking at how things shook out for the rest of the season we could have dropped this one.
That advantage wanes as the season goes on because there is more film available of the starters. The advantage is especially true when there is a QB battle of QBs who present different threats. If you're BC's DC how do you prepare your defense for the first game vs VT? Do you prepare 80% for Willis and 10% for HH and QP respectively? Are you expecting McLease in the backfield or more of a burner like King or Beck? What about the H-Back as a receiver? How do you prepare your defense to handle Keene shedding a block and heading to the flat? Clearly, after a couple of games, these questions are more or less answered (for the most part). Fuente knows every game matters so he's going to take every advantage he can no matter how minuscule. Sure that's different than Beamer who referred to an early season loss to an OOC opponent as an "exhibition" game. Fuente doesn't operate that way for better or for worse.
That's why I explicitly stated materiality in my post, if it were that advantageous then a team like Bama, Clemson, or OSU would never air their spring game. They are making judgment calls at the highest level of the sport that the fan support outweighs some level of advantage. So it leads to a deeper question that I am yet to answer, is it only advantageous if you have a talent disadvantage, so sub top 20 teams need that benefit?
If everyone had their way you would lock the program up from visibility until the first game, but that onstracizes the fanbase from engagement, and engagement drives donations. If you feel disconnected from the team, you are less inclined to donate. That I feel very confident in stating, I have a number of high level donor interactions to back that claim. To your point, winning is extremely important in donations. In this particular case, I don't think the risk of one spring game puts the program winning at that much risk, but that's just my opinion.
Against a competent opponent when you are starting relatively green players having video of their tendencies could be the difference between a win or a loss and recent VT teams do not have much leeway here.
It's advantageous regardless but to what extent is the question. For recent Bama and Clemson teams, the secrecy advantage may be moot. The risk of losing fan engagement vs. the risk of losing a game may be low. Any one loss after all these years of success can be ignored though no one gets more leeway with ignoring losses than Bama.
Ultimately if Fuente has to choose between all of us complaining about not seeing the spring game and potentially losing a season opener I think he'll brave the complaints. So would I.
Okay, so how did that turn out for him in 2018? Fans and commitment to the program matter more than coaches, that is fact because they are perpetual. Coaches leave, quite often in fact.
He couldn't have known how 2018 was going to turn out as of the Spring game. The spring game occurred on 4/14/2018.
Here's some of what happened after that:
Hindsight is 20/20. Maybe if he could have foreseen these events he would have "opened up" the Spring Game to generate good will.
His decision was made in 2016.
But I'm sure he has the latitude to change his mind at any time.
Certainly, and hasn't.
When was the first time the VT spring game was aired anyway? I feel like it wasn't until 2006-ish so it's odd to me that so many people are upset about it now.
The whole thing reminds me of a post someone made during the Duke GIFtory as TKPC-content discussion that people get really mad when they perceive functionality/content is being taken away regardless of how useful or popular it was. Let's be honest- the best part of the spring game is tailgating and even most diehard fans are bored after halftime. For the record, I don't buy that not airing it gives VT a competitive advantage either.
The spring game should be an exhibition for the fans. The offense and defense should be vanilla. So there is no danger of giving away secrets. But it should be a support building event. The coaches can do the new stuff at another practice.
Are there literally any major programs that decline airing the game?
UVa? Oh wait, you said major. Sorry!
I did a deep dive on this before posting, but didn't want to provide bad information. Times for the games are still TBA, so right now a team like Clemson is listed as no broadcast info, but they aired it last year and suspect do again this year. It looks like all of Big 10 and SEC do because they have networks.
I reached out to ESPN after it put out the release in 2016 listing the ACC spring games for that year. I asked whether or not it was an ESPN or Virginia Tech decision not to broadcast the Hokies spring game. The ESPN spokesperson provided me a vague (non-)explanation — 'a variety of factors go in to which games are broadcast' — and referred me back to Virginia Tech (Pete Morris) for any additional follow-up questions. Reading between the lines, it didn't seem like an ESPN decision, at least to me.
The spring game is about showing off the program. If you are showing off something that will give opponent a competitive advantage then your spring game is wrong. I would love for it to be televised and done yo show off the program. Bama, LSU, Clemson all have spring games on ESPN. If you want to be a big time program then that's where you have to get too.
I think if they aren't going to show the spring game, then the coaching staff should compete in a televised Feats of Strength. Good enough for Festivus, good enough for the rest of us.
This, or the old MXC competitions.
We already have Mark Berman to play the role of Guy LeDouche.
This isn't a reply to the original post as much as it is my thoughts on a similar subject. The walls around the program run perpendicular to the efforts or fan engagement and therefore fundraising. Honestly, it's asinine at this point. The athletic department wants fans to donate, buy season tickets, and show up. On the other hand, it's limited its high-touch engagements to home football games and the spring game. It does not make sense.
Last season, had the spring game been broadcast, practices been open to public, or players and coaches been available for interviews would the bottom had fallen out. Would Tech had lost seven football games. Would there had been an unthinkable disaster such as a loss to Old Dominion. Oh... Right.
Hyperbole aside, Frank Beamer got it. He understood the communal aspect of Virginia Tech football. He understood the fanbase wasn't only a marketing list to tap when you need money or season tickets sold. He trusted the fans to be part of the program too. And it paid off big.
Fuente, unfortunately, has not.
100% agree, there are places where Frank was open and probably didnt need to be, but was anyways, and there are places that you 100% want to open up and show off your program to everyone. Half the job of a HC is selling the program.
One thing is that Frank made through a 2-8-1 season, in a season like that you want as many friends as possible. You dont need to be in any ones good graces if you win 13 games every year, but at 5 wins it helps if people like you.
@Joe,
In this evaluation, where does Saban fall?
I understand the contrast between the old guard and the new - which is why I'm curious to know whether a guy like Saban, coming from an already-established legacy of program success, could be evaluated along the same metrics.
Alabama has a machine in the background. We do not. We relied on the cult of personality. So did Penn State. Is Fuente actively moving away from this or is he demonstrating a level of incompetence?
Saban is an outlier. Alabama is an outlier. Honestly, I believe each situation/program, its strengths and weaknesses are different. It's not apples to apples.
For instance, a very common meme last season was that Dabo went 6-7 during his third season at Clemson, then went on a remarkable run, and somehow that's evidence to indicate Fuente will do the same at Tech.
Dabo is one-of-a-kind and the two coaches are nothing alike, and more importantly are in different situations and circumstances.
The comparison should really be an internal one, almost an efficiency metric. Is this the best version of Virginia Tech?
No it's not. And to scope it back to my original post, one of Virginia Tech's greatest assets, a thing that distinguishes it, is Hokie Nation. Beamer leveraged that, and made the fanbase part of the journey. Under Fuente/Babcock, fans are cut out of the program as much as possible, yet are asked to contribute to its success more and more.
I have to say I don't agree with this assessment of Coach Beamer's strengths as a head coach.
If Beamer excelled at engaging Hokie Nation, how did the Hokie Club ever fall so far behind the rest of the ACC? Why were third-party VT sports sites not granted media credentials for so long? Why was so much information on the program restricted to Coach Beamer's own pay website, Beamerball.com? Why did he nix the old format of Tech Talk Live and stop taking live questions because of a question from Jason from Arlington? Why were so many fans upset about Coach Beamer rarely providing any insights beyond regurgitated "coachspeak"?
Coach Beamer is a Virginia Tech alumnus and an all-time great coach at VT. Nobody can dispute that he bleeds orange and maroon, and I understand that's going to resonate with a large portion of the fan base. I think he received the benefit of the doubt in these situations primarily because the team was winning (and secondarily because he played for VT).
Also I haven't seen anyone say VT is going to win a national championship because Dabo went 6-7 in his 3rd year and Fuente did the same thing. Nobody was happy with the 6-7 season. However, a single poor season shortly after a coaching transition doesn't mean VT is suddenly guaranteed to become a bottom feeder of the ACC either.
The points following this statement are all very good.
But let's consider other factors as well. Had we hired a real OC after Bustle left we may have had a real shot at a Natty with Tyrod. In 2009 VT lost to Alabama by 10 points, Georgia Tech by 5 and UNC by 3. There was enough talent on that team that with even competent, not even great, playcalling VT could have made it back to the Natty. Maybe even WITH a loss to Alabama. VT was #4 going into the GT game. In 2010 VT lost to Boise State and JMU in the regular season. With competent playcalling, there is NO WAY we lose to Boise St and probably no way we lose to JMU. We would have been undefeated and faced either Auburn or Oregon. I know Oregon stuck it to Stanford but football is about matchups and I would have preferred either of those teams to Stanford. Those two seasons alone are enough to shake donor confidence. Donor's stuck by the team and even ESPN gave us lots of love but the wheels fell off in 2012. So let's assume that Beamer was great with engagement (even though you showed that may not have been the case), I don't think the results on the field were enough to convince donors they were investing in something valuable.
I think we're still in that boat. Fuente got off to a great start in 2016, though there were signs that something was amiss offensively. In 2018 we had major 2nd half issues on offense, in 2016 there were games the offense seemed non-existent in the first half. 2017 was an okay year but not convincing enough. We all know how 2018 went.
Getting donations to go up is going to take both fan engagement and a product on the field fans believe in. I think it goes without saying 2018 featured neither. 2019 is critical. I doubt we'll have a televised Spring Game but maybe Fuente is going to be a little more open otherwise and I hope for all of us this team plays better.
It's undoubtedly a much more complex situation than purely laying the blame on Beamer for most of those shortcomings. I'm confident that a lot of people would place the blame with Jim Weaver first on several of those items. Regardless I'd contend that Beamer had enough pull to heavily influence the athletic department and fundraising.
As to most of your post, I don't have the Hokie Club stats handy but I recall seeing that VT has been falling behind in donations compared to other ACC schools even during the time we dominated the conference. I don't think issues with the Hokie Club had nearly as much to do with strictly winning games as it did with complacency around fundraising.
I have seen this claim as well but have not seen any numbers. I have posted numbers from USA Today but those aren't "correct". Apparently, those numbers are about how much was used that year not necessarily received (even though that's not how I understand the term revenues) and/or doesn't include x,y or z. For whatever reason those numbers are rejected but here they are nonetheless:
I would say that it is true we don't contribute comparably.
What was Jason from Arlington's TTL question?
I believe it had something to do with the offense...This is where Coach Beamer's famous quote "I think you're out of whack" came from..
I didn't hear that TTL show myself, but if I remember correctly what I read about it afterwards, he basically asked if Beamer was planning to fire Stinespring, and Beamer said something to the effect that if anyone thinks they know more about offense than Stinespring they are welcome to show up at his office the next Monday.
I also seem to recall that Beamer had to later clarify that he did not in fact want anyone showing up at his office.
Beamer's spirited radio exchange
There are several other stories written about the comments as well.
Va. Tech coach Beamer snaps back at offense's critics
Great job finding those links!
The gist of my comment above was right, but I had some of the specific details wrong.
There's a lot to unpack here.
I'd honestly love to see the data to back up this claim. Was that actually the case back in the day? Virginia Tech lags behind the ACC now, but has that always been true, or have other programs recently thrust into overdrive.
Either way, Beamer, nor Fuente, is in charge of how the Hokie Club, operationally.
Although, the media and fan policies of the former were far more transparent.
I'll continue there to address the remainder of your questions. You seem to be making the argument that the Beamer era was restrictive as well. By comparison, Beamer's openness blows Fuente's out of the water.
Yes, more "non-traditional" outlets are credentialed now than before. That's a credit to Babcock, not either coach. (And on the other hand, I wouldn't discount Jim Weaver's role in the previously restrictive media policies.) However, there's much less access.
With Beamer, there were multiple open practices and scrimmages in the spring, summer, and if I remember correctly, glimpses of practice open in the fall. (Remember when French and Mason used to attend these scrimmages and break down what they saw. That was great. Now there are 2-minute highlight videos of practice prescreened for release, or so I've heard, that feature a ton of stretching and a couple of plays that make Tech look like Alabama.)
The spring game is the only scrimmage Fuente has opened to the general public, and it's not televised. For the overwhelming majority of Hokie Nation, the only semblance of football they see is limited to 3-4 months in the fall.
Moreover, now each media "session" is run press conference style, each interviewee fields questions from the media one at a time. It's about 30-40 minutes max speaking per week during the season.
Previously Beamer made himself, all the assistants, and 6-8 players available (by request!) during the week. Only Frank spoke and answered questions from the podium. That's important. Everyone else was let loose to the media for one-on-one or small group interviews. That facilitated more candid questions and conversations and yielded more unique one-on-one stories. That's really a thing of the past now. And it's unfortunate, because these kids all have unique stories and backgrounds. Now each outlet cranks out similar stories (including HokieSports.com) because they're all working from the same source material.
Your point on the Hokie Club is spot on, Joe and the same I was going to make. The head coach (of any sport) is really not much more than a fundraising celebrity pawn for the Hokie Club. If we want to analyze and criticize the gap that developed in the last decade with the Hokie Club funding--before recently turning a corner--it's largely because it was a grossly mismanaged fundraising operation. There are some basic best practices when it comes to nonprofit/foundation fundraising that the Hokie Club ignored for far too long and then lost a lot of ground (and compound interest) on their donor pipeline. That was exposed when the on-field performance waned and the big donors and season ticket holders they relied on started to reevaluate their giving and commitments. Serving on a university advancement board and having talked a good bit with the Hokie Club leadership and staff, they are self-aware and working to implement positive changes to try and make up a large swath of donors lost in previous years. It's not perfect, but its improving. The key for me is whether or not there's demonstrable progress in the next two years; 2020 will be five years into the new staff.
Well having said all that..wouldn't opening up the practices and scrimmages for media access help with bringing more donors?
No doubt that more information is needed to make definitive statements about stagnation of the Hokie Club. That said, I find it extremely difficult to believe that those issues only surfaced in 2012-2015. While I understand that the head football coach isn't in charge of the Hokie Club, Beamer was undoubtedly the most influential person in the VT athletic department. If he wanted to make a push for more donors and to grow the Hokie Club, I fully believe that he could have done so.
Beamer valued loyalty and continuity above all else. This sentiment wasn't limited to his offensive staff- it permeated throughout every aspect of Virginia Tech athletics (look no further than the reasoning Jim Weaver gave for Seth Greenberg's firing and the numerous down-the-hall promotions in lieu of coaching searches). For me, it's not hard to imagine that the Hokie Club operated under the example of the most influential person (Beamer) and the AD, valuing loyalty and continuity over performance.
Additionally, my recollection is that Beamer didn't feel it was necessary to increase the recruiting budget, which was related to his belief that VT could win a national championship with mostly VA recruits. I believe this might have been detrimental to the football program in several regards, as there wasn't an urgency to increase fundraising or to increase the support staff for recruiting.
As far as comparing the restrictiveness of the Beamer vs. Fuente, I'd be very interested to know how Fuente handled these things during his time in Memphis. Was Fuente as restrictive with access for media and did his policies evolve during his time there? We've heard various rumors of discontent in the locker room over last season and clearly some of it reached a boiling point this season- is it possible that Fuente was aware of some internal issues and restricted access in an attempt to keep it in-house? I'd also point out that TKP was founded in 2010, which was 23 years into Beamer's tenure and well after he had reached legendary status in Blacksburg. Beamer had earned a ton of good will, was comfortable with the program and fans, and recruited all of the players. Obviously the internet has changed things pretty significantly, but can anyone speak to the openness of the program under Beamer during his earlier years as head coach? Do we know when the VT Spring Game was first made available on TV or streaming? I'm curious how/if Beamer's policies evolved over time.
Based on this story complaining about UVA's 2011 spring game being broadcast, and this ACC press release regarding spring games the following year, I'm going to say that VT's first "televised" spring game was in 2012. I use the quotes, because I believe any VT spring games broadcast were streaming only.
In general, I don't think televising spring games became a thing until the 2010s, when all sorts of extra air time became available with ESPNU, the conference channels, and of course ESPN360/ESPN3/WatchESPN.
Thanks for the info. I found this link as well. Per the article:
I think it's interesting the article specifically mentions Frank Beamer allowing ESPN cameras to film the game for the first time.
To piggy back on the open practices comment, one of the coolest moments I have had watching this program was going to an open scrimmage during Kendall Fuller and Brandon Facyson's freshman fall camp. Facyson jumped a comeback route and I jumped out of my seat. I knew at that moment that VT had something which, to anyone who had not seen the team practice, would be an unknown. That generates HOPE, and without hope, the money dries up. Facyson ended up having a great freshman season, and even though injuries prevented him from having an elite career, I considered myself privileged to see that moment.
Now, as for access potentially providing an opponent a competitive advantage, I completely reject that notion. Open scrimmages like the spring game and in fall camp are simplified and set up specifically to evaluate players. For example, VT ran the same variant of an isolation play on the goal line 3 times in a row in last year's spring game. The offense wasn't game planned to beat the defense. The coaching staff wanted film to evaluate which players could win those physical battles. At the most, a scrimmage will provide some insight into the physical limitations and upside of players where there isn't much film (and most of that will get compensated for in the game planning once the season starts.) I just don't think it makes much of a difference.
However, what does make a difference, especially when you are coming off a 6-7 campaign, is good will. If access and good fan experiences create enthusiasm for next season, then that is needed. Frankly, I don't get a big sense of enthusiasm. I also don't see the circulation of fundraising information, cool events (besides the coaching clinics in different areas), and other stuff from the HokieClub like I was seeing at the end of the Beamer era and EVERYONE was complaining about how bad it was then. It feels worse now.
Granted, I am myopic as hell and I have been in my bubble even more than normal lately. But, if Fuente and Babcock want my money, they aren't exactly showing me a little teet to get it.
I would much rather have a little more media exposure and more open practices if I had a choice.
I believe that attendance at the spring game could take a big hit if it was aired on TV. Especially if the weather is less than optimum. Local economy could take a hit as well. So, if I am airing grievances, I would fight for more access in general versus specifically televising the spring game.
An afterthought: a delayed airing might alleviate my concerns. Also, I dont buy the competitive advantage BS.
Disagree. First of all, I don't drive 7 hours each way the weekend of the spring game to watch football - I do it because it's a reason to tailgate and spend time with friends; it's one of the few weekends each year that we all have blocked out on our calendar. While I enjoy watching it, a scrimmage that includes less than 50% of our starters running about 10 different plays isn't exactly 'must see tv'.
Secondly, I don't recall any drop off in attendance in the years when the spring game was televised. am I mistaken?
Good question about past years. And bless you for the dedication. I am 2.5 hrs and I am only going if the weather is gorgeous. There has to be some percentage of fans that would forego the drive to kick back on the couch...how many I can't say.
I would probably do the same if I lived that close, but I can't exactly make a day trip out of a 7 hour drive. If the weather is less than ideal, I'll skip the game, but I'll still go to TOTS and get a couple rails with old friends.
"A couple rails" #subtlebrag
I think the times that it has been aired...the attendance didn't suffer because of it...i think there are enough people in the area are willing to get out on a Saturday to enjoy football..Even moreso this year..i think people will want to see QP..
I agree that fan engagement needs to be ramped up but I also can accept that a coach would like to have a full scrimmage out of the public eye to work on game plan. I never understood why there can't just be two days for this. I'm going assume its arbitrary ncaa bullshit.
one day for fans which should be a full on festival event, which honestly I wouldn't care if it wasn't an actual scrimmage. And one day for the team to work on their things in full scrimmage.
I have read that there I'll be practices after the spring game this year. If correct , more reason to televise the spring game scrimmage
How many ACC teams air their spring game?
So far have found them for:
Boston College
Clemson
Duke
Florida State
NC State
Syracuse
Miami doesn't; Louisville isn't having one; GT and UNC recently cancelled airing them (they were on ESPN in 2017); UVA doesn't.
I wonder if the ACC Network, which will be looking for content, drives more TV access.
I'm with the group on wanting the spring game to be televised, even though I almost always attend I think it would be a nice touch.
But my BIGGER issue is that the spring game isn't really a football game anymore. I miss having 2 true teams going against each other in a traditional sense to try to win, not just one team that is fully the offense vs just the defense on the other team. But maroon team with some first/second/third stringers on both sides of the ball and same for the other team. It always just seemed to add more, especially for the position battles. Like this year you could have Willis and QP on opposite sides.
I still go every year, but to be honest I barely pay attention to the actual game anymore.
We should be allowed to schedule other teams during the spring imo.
I'm the other way I'd like to see the spring game be fun. Bring out some former players to catch a few balls kick etc. like when Spurrier either three or caught a pass at UF recently. Now don't go all spring festival like LOLUVA but have some fun with it.
I think you may be onto something... maybe at the end, have a drive where all 22 are coaches and staff? Or a mix of staff and players or something.
That's kind of what I want out of the spring game. I want to tailgate, role in late, watch the new kids make a few exciting plays, not see anyone get injured, and go back to drinking and eating with my friends.
I felt that way too until that year that we got our first look at Michael Vick. I paid a hell of a lot of attention to the spring game that day.
I cant speak for everyone but if the spring game was aired I would still attend the spring game. Then I would DVR it and watch it again when I got home. Both TV and live give you 2 completely different unique experiences especially if you are really trying to focus on certain guys, how they developed, performance, etc that's just something you cant do live because most times you "ball watch". I really enjoy getting up to Blacksburg after a 3-4 month layoff knowing I have another 3-4 months most likely until I will be back again. Spring game is perfect for seeing some friends you haven't seen in a while, breaking out the tailgating gear, and kinda bringing some closure to the previous season as you talk about it like it was ages ago and getting excited about the next season. It being televised wouldn't change any of those things. So everyone come out if you can. pack the stands and lets get ready for 2019 hokie football. Where id like more access is practices. even though I cant make it up for 3 open spring practices I appreciate the breakdowns French used to be able to provide and the write ups bitter used to be able to deliver after these practices that we no longer have available to us.
Friendly reminder that Alabama had an all-access show on their entire August practice playing every damn time I turned on ESPN in the lead up to the season and it didn't cause them anything even remotely resembling a competitive disadvantage.
"bUt AlAbAmA's So TaLeNtEd ThEy CaN gEt AwAy WiTh ThAt !!!"
I'm glad you chimed in annoying person, what about the many, many other teams who had their spring game broadcast that did not suffer a disadvantage?
To further my point, have you ever seen a spring game where the teams really opened up the offense and really showed anything other than practicing the bread and butter plays that everyone knows are part of your offense?
The real issue though, as stated by others before me, is the overall secrecy around the program that has stifled fan involvement and interaction. Engaging the fanbase is incredibly key in building your program in the current culture of college football. Clemson has absolutely nailed this, and Georgia has been pumping this up too. I am particularly exposed to this on a regular basis because these fanbases are plentiful around me. Perhaps you saw that "leaked video" from the "closed scrimmage" of Kirby Smart pumping up his team and cussing a bunch, that wasn't an accident, and the Georgia fans around me ate that shit up. I feel like every other day I check my instagram and see random ass people, some of which didn't even go to Clemson, touring their football facility and going down the slide. There is just no value in being so closed-door and secretive.
You can tour Merryman they let people in to see the trophy cases etc. Tech doesn't have an area like Clemson does and never will because of space limitations.
The point of that post wasn't that we need a giant football-only facility with a barber shop and stupid slide, but that we need to be engaging the fanbase more. It doesn't take $50MM to engage the fanbase.
I agree Fuente and Whit have to open up more. Practices, spring game, etc. but I don't want Fuente to become Dabo with his fake over the top southern neighbor routine.
There is nothing in college football that irritates me quite as much as Dabo still playing the "little old Clemson" card after all this time AND how much the Clemson fanbase still eats it up. They probably have more support staff than the rest of the Atlantic division combined, minus Florida State, and still have the gall to pretend to be the little guy. The stupid shit about the "Roy Bus," and playing up the disrespect narrative in a season where literally nobody is disrespecting them. All year long the ESPN people were talking about how dominant they were and how they were taking care of business, but the Clemson propaganda machine makes up disrespect when there isn't any.
In short, believe me that I have no interest in any VT coach emulating that, but I would like for Fuente to find some kind of thing to help build his brand, inspire and endear himself to the fanbase.
I think the Buzz-type model is a perfect balance to try to replicate. Don't have to try to be him / BB program, or like Dabo, but take your own style to it.
There was some pushback on Buzz Twitter posts for a while early on because some thought it was a little over the top, and maybe it was, but I think it has worked because it is ingrained in everything the program touches. Consistency is key, and I can't articulate it well, but I feel like know what VT basketball is right now. I see something or hear a player talk or watch videos of events, and I'm like "yeah, that's VT basketball."
I don't know that I have that same feeling about FB, and quite honestly it has become more difficult to get excited for Spring football every year that things are so closed off.
I've always said that if we could give Fuente Buzz's personality we would have something really special.
Interesting Twitter side-note: Fuente's twitter account hasn't had a post since September 29th.
Good man. Twitter evil.
But but but recruits want hip coaches that use social media
Yet, since September, the world has kept spinning 'round. Go figure.
I used to think the same thing, but having observed Dabo and some of the things he's done and said, he doesn't come as fake to me. If he is fake, he's doing a great job of masking it. I listened to a little bit of there call in show one night and he kinda reminded me of Beamer in how he handled questions from this older gentlemen called in with this rambling question("I used to play ball with your pappy in 1965").
I've personally met most of his family, and I have a few friends who are legitimately close with his family and can confidently say it's definitely not fake (at least mostly not fake), it just irks the shit out of me.
Everyone thought Hugh Freeze was a great standup role model southern Christian until he wasn't either. I'm not saying Dabo has that kind of baggage but believe me a lot of it is an act that he knows plays well in the South.
I don't think anyone thought that highly of Hugh Freeze, and I've never heard anyone call him a role model. There wasn't a single reporter who was shocked by the scandal (most were shocked by his stupidity, and the nature by which the evidence came to light).
By all accounts, Dabo is nearly 100% authentic. He doesn't swear ever (EVER - I'm not sure there's another coach who does this), his staff loves working for him (they have staff + family dinners every Sunday evening I believe), and he knows all of his players by name (Frank Beamer was pretty beloved by his players and by all accounts Frank might have know 1/3 of his players' by name).
I agree with Chris - Dabo is pretty much who the media portrays him as, but that's definitely not a personality I could deal with regularly.
https://mschristianliving.com/2013/columns/coach-hugh-freeze-what-matter...
I can assure you evangelicals ate up Freeze's act. He was standard for them to hold up.
As of a couple of years ago, Pitt was VERY open with local media having access to practices. Their beat guys would write daily reviews of fall camp, talk about which new guys were making waves, etc. It was refreshing to see.
Our current program isn't good enough nor elite enough to really justify walling everything off. Oooh, we're going to keep things secret so we can continue working on wrinkles... We are a program that barely scraped .500 in a BAD Coastal Division this past year. Somehow I just don't think Dabo and Venables are staying up at night worrying about how to beat us because our Spring Game isn't televised.
On another aside.... Speaking of airing of grievances.... I'm still surprised we haven't burned this mess to ashes....
I think we did that in the 'How do you like Pres. Sands' thread.
Don't let this thread distract you from the fact that VT paid a design firm $600k to add a connecting curve to the inside of our existing athletic logo.
VrT
Don't forget the part where they changed the font to something my four year old niece would love.... If you include the TM, that's $37,500 a letter..... what a..... deal....?
Clemson also produces a Clemson Football Vlog series on youtube that is a really awesome behind-the-scenes look at their football program. They regularly vlog directly after (and sometimes during) games. Dabo, players, staff, are all featured, players add commentary to game footage, and there are human interest stories as well.
It's actually pretty hilarious to see Dabo and the work he puts into just something like this - which I think helps better connect fans to the program, but also younger kids and potentially recruits - and then compare it to locked lips Fuente and the complete veil of secrecy he seems to love to keep around the program. Night and day difference.
I suggest taking a look if you've never watched.
When I was there, at least Beams had Beamerball.com. I think you had to pay for it and it definitely was not as high quality as Clemson's social media presence today, but at least it gave some of the inside the locker room access and constant inside information everyone wants. Was sad to see it go away, but it would be nice for Fuente to have something similar.
Do we know if the ACC Network is actually going to force our hand to televise spring game? Makes sense, but I haven't heard anything official about it.
Each school will have an hour requirement of content to provide if the spring game isn't in there that's ALOT of time for them to try and fill.
I don't think Fuente is going to have any say in the matter next year. Whit is going to be "We have to do this for the ACC Network money and you like money don't you?"
Please, they'll just air an hour retrospective of
shawtyMark Berman asking questions at press conferences over the course of the previous 12 months.Don't lie, you'd watch
I think by "hour requirement" he meant "multiple hours requirement". Because if all it took was one hour of bullshit programming, that's roughly half the length of the spring game and an order of magnitude fewer viewers, which would make no sense.
If you wanted the interview
erto be full length, you should have gotten Andy Bitter, and not Mark BermanGlad to know this whole deal is likely coming to an end then.
Put me down as a donor who doesn't really care if they air the Spring game or not. As much as I like VT football, I don't think I miss much by not seeing that game on cable. If it gives one whit of advantage not to televise it, I'm supportive of Fuente's decision not to.
I do enjoy reading the writeups, and if I were in the area I'd go, but I just don't think it's going to be riveting football, having watched previous spring games.
we don't often agree but 100% this.
If it was televised I would watch it though.
I do like the idea of a fan day that is not a scrimmage. Meeting players, interactions, games, food, carnival stuff, turkey cookoff, etc. to give fans that can support in person a chance to get more intimate with the team they support. I also like the idea of produced content throughout Spring in behind-the-scenes videos, etc that is more than just snippets of practice.
But whether or not the Spring Game is actually open for viewing or televised means little to me.
They do have the meet and greet fan event in the Beamer Barn but it's just meet autographs and move on.
Yeah I never understood that. It seems like a wildly missed opportunity to engage fans in a day long event. It could be so much more. Inviting the community in along with students would send a great message, as well as give an opportunity to not have an open Spring Game.
It is far from riveting, you are 100% correct. For me and some others, it is a way to stay connected with the program and start getting excited for the season ahead. If it does hurt our chances for success, then I am fully supportive of not airing it, but I struggle finding that to be the case, even in the PJ comments I added into the original post. So if the answer truly is, "who cares, it's barely a scrimmage at all." I think that rationale is not great. If the answer is we think airing it would put our team at a meaningful disadvantage, then I can come onboard as a donor as well.