ESPN+ article details Nebraska, Miami, Florida State, Tennessee. Colorado, and Virginia Tech on how the programs got off track and what it would take to get back.
Points from the article:
- FBS coach quoted saying the situation is worse than people realized roster-wise
- Advantages include a passionate fanbase and facilities upgrades
- Fuente era showed clear need for a homegrown approach
ESPN+ : Miami's hope, Nebraska's reset and more lessons for six former CFB powers
[Mod edit: removed excerpt and link to paywalled content per CGs]
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
I read that yesterday. I wasn't surprised to see us on the list, but still disheartening to see it.
at the same time, we were once considered a CFB Power. So there's that. Which is nice.
IKR, someone called us a CFB Power?
Shouldn't be a big surprise (the talent/depth/roster issue) when the pre-season over/under on wins was 5.5. And I'm betting that included a win over ODU week 1...
They thought of us enough to include us as a former power and agreed with the steps the administration and coach are taking to get us back out of the doldrums. I will take it.
Go Hokies.
Just need to recruit more 3* running backs from the midwest, I'm sure we'll get there.
No I'm not bitter at all.
"You can NEVER have too many running backs!...."
Fuente: "Hold my beer......"
Darren Evans was pretty good.
As was Khalil Herbert
Yes he was. But you can't build a team just off of running backs.
Well, Fuente certainly proved that.
The Miami solution is simple. Large scale, brazen, all costs cheating. When they have been good the past 35 years, they have cheated in a large way. If they get back to doing that again, they can become the "U" again. The team that got blown out by UVA in the last orange bowl game wasn't taking roids openly, paying their players for scores, not ever attending a class, and driving cars from Luther Campbell. They get back to that, the ACC is in trouble
You forgot the yachts with strippers....
Boats and Hoes
That's right, Th[]_[]g 'em Canes!
PRESTIGE WORLDWIDE
This is what I see from that image.
I think they are called Hoe Boats
That's Uncle Luke to you.
Maybe NIL will be able to fix that.
Sadly, I think this is a true statement. Two of Beamer's biggest "market inefficiencies" that he conquered were close relationships with HS coaches to find great-but-overlooked players, and the use of the best athletes on special teams. Neither of these market inefficiencies exist anymore, with the proliferation of camps and the increased focus on special teams across the nation. I don't think doing things in the Beamer model will get us back to where we were; some innovation will be needed. Hopefully Pry has some things in his hip pocket (other than a bottle of Wild Turkey) that will help, once he's gotten the recruiting pipelines repaired.
I think that the - Don't beat yourself, great kicking game, great defense that creates turnovers, mobile QB, and even keel approach with quality position coaches can absolutely work/scale today.
It will definitely work in this era of college football. Whether it will be enough to contend for the playoff/championship is a whole 'nother matter. Beamer was able to get to that level with his approach. I don't see that happening today without some sort of innovative method to recruit at the highest levels. The blue-chip ratio is real.
Your approach tops out at about 10 wins, I think. Which is a great place to be in, but not necessarily championship level.
I would much rather have 10 wins than what we have had for the last 5 years.
Agree- to actually win a natty, you need "dudes" a bunch of them
See Wisconsin
https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/wisconsin/index.html
10 wins is championship level in the ACC.
Maybe not NATIONAL Championships, but definitely an improvement over our recent results.
Need to get players good enough to create turnovers on defense, a mobile QB dynamic enough to be a threat. That's the major inefficiency Beamer was able to capitalize on - he wasn't competing with OSU to get Mike Vick. He was competing with Syracuse. The 'market' for good players is more competitive now.
The real problem with the elimination of the inefficiencies is that it further exposes that there is really no longer a coaching/scheme solution like you're referring to.
It's all about the money. Forget the late Beamer/Fuente complaints (whether justified or not). That just helps people rationalize it to avoid looking in the mirror. In the past ten years, it was the VT fanbase which didn't sufficiently step up to the plate to keep VT competitive . Now with the SEC and B1G dominance, it unfortunately probably makes fan $$ somewhat moot.
Unfortunately I don't see Pry staying at VT for very long. If he's not good, he gets fired. If he exceeds expectations, he'll want to go somewhere with money and a chance - even potentially to a school which might previously be seen as a step back. If he is a 7-5 coach, there will be lots of 40 and 50-somethings who think VT is still a top program, so he'll either get pushed out or some school will recognize he was prob at VT's ceiling.
Short of something happening with the CFB/Conference landscape I don't see coming, I'm afraid VT needs a lifeline from the SEC or B1G to have any chance of being a top 25 program again. The good news is VT is a viable candidate. The bad news is the SEC/B1G knows VT needs a lifeline.
Anybody else read this as ESPN plus minus?
Yeah, more or less...
Hi all, i summarized the excerpt in the OP to reflect CGs
I know you're just enforcing the CGs, but why does that CG exist? That was a decent article, and related to Tech, so it should be fair game for discussion (with a link).
I know there are several times I've wanted to link something from The Athletic (and summarize, not quote), but the CGs forbid it. Why? Is that something that can be changed?
This specific rule is important because the articles are paid content from another site. I'm pretty sure TKP could be sued if commenters were pasting the entirety of ESPN+ and The Athletic articles. So including this rule hopefully reduces some liability for Joe.
It's also respectful of the business. They've made it only accessible to paying customers. Some TKP members aren't paying for ESPN+ or The Athletic. It'd be like if a TKP Club member was copying and pasting French's film reviews to another site. That's potential revenue for Joe that's now lost.
I get not pasting content. That should absolutely be a no-no. But summarizing and providing a link? There shouldn't be any issues with that.
I also get that it's a Joe question. Maybe he'll chime in.
Feel free to summarize/paraphrase and point people in the direction with the platform/article title or whatever. There have been lots of comments around with "Bitter said in the recent mailbag on The Athletic that...." and that kind of discussion in bounds.
As far as whether or not it can be changed -- that's a Joe question.
Colorado?
They were a huge rival to Nebraska in the late 80s early 90s. There was a 10 year period in which either Nebraska or Colorado won the conference which included five 2nd place finishes by the other team. Those two teams combined for 4 national titles in that time frame.
Big asterisk for Colorado's 1990 shared Natty- the "5th down" game
Link https://www.espn.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/117195/five-things-you-sho...
Yup, but they are recognized as champs as much as anyone else. The AP could have taken that into account, but didnt.
Lots of teams deserve asterisks over the years. That Colorado team was good (certainly better than the GT team).
I was actually at the #1 vs #2 game vs ND at the old Orange Bowl. Perfect seats...and a glorious moment when Ismail returned the punt and I was pointing out the flag to the rapturous ND fans.
That 'natty' was a) shared with fake tech, and b) heavily dependent on the aforementioned 5th down in Columbia.
The 5th down is of at least the same magnitude as the hypothetical asterisks FSU would complain about if Peter Warrick had been suspended for the Sugar Bowl.
And let's not forget that GT tied UNC that year. That should be disqualifying.
As far as Warrick being suspended for the game, I'd take the result (a Hokie win), though. Any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Growing up in Colorado in the late 80s and early 90s, CU was absolutely a national power. However, it was very short lived (even shorter than ours) and they have REALLY fallen off from that high point. The Denver-Boulder metroplex is a melting pot. Huge percentage of people that came here from somewhere else and don't have ties to CU. Also a lot of people that come to Boulder to go to CU then go back to where they're from and don't stay in Colorado.
There are way too many things going on on the Colorado front range for CU to get the dedication necessary for a serious national football program, and they don't have the following, commitment from the community or financial resources.
Folsom Field is a joke and is on par with lower G5 stadiums. It is in a beautiful setting, but so are Colorado State's, Wyoming's, and Air Force's. All of which have similar 'atmospheres' (when they're good, it's decent, when they're not, it's like a mediocre high school stadium).
Colorado's not coming back. Nebraska's got issues, but they also have dat BIG scratch and a dedicated fan base who apparently can pony up $7.5 mil to fire their coach 3 weeks early.
Tennessee can get back with that SEC skrilla. Miami and Florida State could get back. Tech is in WAY better shape then CU, but I think has probably seen it's high point in the '99 Sugar Bowl.
My point! Yes, Colorado has had great teams, but in spurts. Not sure they belong in this group.
And as much as I hate to say it, I'm not sure we belong there either. The others all have National Championships. Thankfully, others think we do.