Recent Comments

So you accuse our coach of cronyism, then when you get called out on it, you accuse me of twisting your words because you're claiming it's a widespread practice in college football.

I have some big issues with stuff like this and so should the NCAA. It tilts the balances even more so to schools with deep pockets. It is purely a recruiting tool and a selling point that some schools could afford to do and others can't which gives them an unfair advantage. How do they manage the coaches talking and visiting with recruits while they are there and do they count as in-home visits? Very big can of worms this is going to open up.

I'm not sure about these valuations and it's certainly eye opening to see some of the programs listed where they are. (Kansas State? Washington?)

That said, I looked at this and thought of it in the current context of VT football as:
This is what Frank Beamer built.

Without him, we aren't even on this list. He took over a fledgling company and built it into a $270M empire. His Board of Directors helped him a lot and the successor was effectively identified. But much of the value of this program is from Frank himself.

Seriously? Is that the direction we're steering this now? Accusing our new head coach of creating cushy vacuous job titles for his friends?

that was my first thought when I heard the news: how big of a sample size do you need to determine whether a staff, or a technique or group of techniques, is better or worse than another? I suspect it would be more than one team over three years. You would probably have to have several schools where all the staffs follow one regimen, and a sufficient control group to tell if there really is a correlation.

IOW, even if we don't have a single knee injury for the next three years, that will not be sufficient data to say Hilgartafterya is better than Gentrification. Does that sound right?

Pages