The SZD guys (Alex and Richard) touched on VT's situation in their Hurry Up recap show on Sunday and elaborated a bit on it in an Overtime segment released for subscribers earlier this morning. The main takeaways will not surprise anyone: Virginia Tech is viewed as being old fashioned, antiquated and not positioned to seriously compete in the ACC and they also discuss the reporting on the BOV presentation from Doug Bowman and Matt Brown. This is an existential question for VT. They also mention VT's place in the run of "good jobs" schools and argue, correctly I feel, that VT is no longer a better destination than something like a bottom quartile BIG job just due to the uncertainty coming to the ACC in the next five years and since VT is stuck solidly in the middle in that Top 50 floor, Top 30 ceiling way.
https://www.splitzoneduo.com/p/overtime-bleak-situations-at-florida?lli=1
Comments
if we think things are bad now....just wait another 10 years - VT is headed down a very dark path - things are going to get much worse, and stay that way for a long time, before they ever get better. (And, they may never get better....)
To be honest that's what I think as well. Setting aside our love for VT we are just not going to be resourced in a way that is competitive with the P2, maybe ever. There's at least a 2x gap that is growing in year over year budgets and in the long run, like over a decade, that's not going to be favorable for what is a medium sized regional brand like VT. We were punching far above our weight class for so long when the difference in height between the floor and ceiling in CFB was pretty small. Now the differences are astronomical and we have been behind for a long time. And the ACC leadership, idiots that they are, agreed to a massive unequal revenue split that will guarantee that the rich get richer before they up and leave outright. The fools.
I had always bristled when Babcock would say stuff like "the goal is to compete for an ACC championship." Dude, that used to be a given. The goal should have been to position ourselves to remain nationally relevant especially as we moved into the playoff era. But the reality is that we aren't going to be able to compete with the $70M teams with a $30M budget.
I just can't get that upset over it anymore. I've used the racing analogy many times - I can't be mad about losing a stop light race when I'm driving a family sedan and I'm competing with people spending Formula-1 money. "But they're both cars..." yeah sure. We aren't playing the same sport anymore.
Once we reach Super League I hope that we can reform regional conferences and actually play college football again. I don't know what the hell we are doing right now.
right there with you, pal.
I do think there is going to be a bubble burst in the sport. I just don't think what is currently going on is sustainable. When that happens, it'll force a restructure and at that point we might be able to get into a situation where our football team can be on a level with peers where the competition is enjoyable and the reward for success is appropriate. That may not be at the level a lot of fans expect or want to be at, but it'll be better than where we are now.
Yep, the spin cycle will eventually result in a division of the sport that has maybe 20-ish teams in it that are willing and able to sustainably fund top tier football teams that are on resource parity with each other. That league will be like the NFL where there's a lot of 7-5 and 5-7 teams and someone who wins 8 games is a standout leader with the inside track for their championship. Is that what people want to watch? Maybe?
But as an alum of a school that's not in that Top 20-ish why would I care? That's the big question for me and the thing that will, at some point, burst that bubble. Contrary to all the MBA-think out there the line cannot always go up. There is a limit, and I'm not going to waste a minute of my day watching anOSU play Texas over and over again because it doesn't affect me and the division that my team competes in.
This is why it's difficult for me to engage with the coaching candidates thread. Without the resources to truly compete, replacing Pry would just feel like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic to me.
I mean, I guess we'll see how the rest of the season goes but not being able to compete with the P2, the given that it is, is not the same as not being able to compete with everybody else. Right now, my confidence that this program can compete even with their peers is near enough to 0. Re-arranging deck chairs, maybe, but I'd rather have a coach who can keep us competitive with other ACC schools even if we can't hold the SEC/B1G's jockstraps. VT is a complete pushover of a football team right now. That is largely Whit/Pry's doing. Get rid of those guys and reboot. There's always a chance that things will get worse, sure, but you're certainly not getting better with them so you have to take that chance. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.
There's multiple questions to be answered for sure. Will we ever be in a position to compete for a national championship? Probably not. But can we do better with the resources that we do have? Absolutely. Surely there is another QB with a $1M asking price that can hit 5-10 yard passes and read blitz pressure.
Could VT do better if it had $20M/yr more in funding? Yes, in the macro sense.
Could this staff actually make effective use of $20M/yr more in NIL? At this point, I don't think so.
This is spot on. Yes we need more funding and can continue to push for that, but week-to-week better results with what we do have would help keep interest up across the board - from fans, from donors, from recruits, etc. We have a TODAY issue that starts with coaching and not using their current resources to maximize potential.
FOR EXAMPLE - Pry is 1-12 in one-score games? What if that record (which it should be) was ATLEAST 6-7? How much more respect would we have as a program, how much more momentum? It wouldn't solve every issue we currently face... but things would be better.
So you're saying we went from WWE to midget wrestling?
Worse. At least midget wrestling can be entertaining to watch.
I wish this was true, but we're currently nowhere near the top 50. Top 80 maybe.
As a program, not this year's team.
As a program we just got swept in home-and-homes with Purdue, Rutgers, and Vanderbilt. We routinely lose to programs like Marshall, ODU, Liberty, and ECU.
We have a top 2 fanbase in the country, but outside of that we're mediocre at best.
There's 135 FBS programs. We're easily in the top half of pay, fan base, and prestige.
136 programs in 2025
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/45813903/ranking-136-fb...
Tier 9 is going to prove incorrect in this article unfortunately
There are 66 P4 +ND teams.
VT is bottom 10 in pay, which does put us above the G5 teams, but thats not saying much, but does put us easily in the top half.
That's not what they said... they asked "is VT a better job than UMD" and said (paraphrasing) "probably, but not definitely"
They also said that VT is definitely not a top 30 job anymore, but also easily inside the top 50/60.
This (likely) upcoming coaching search is going to be eye opening
Again, all reasons for Whit to be absolutely shitcanned today. He oversaw the football program going from what was arguably the top job on the market when Frank retired to being something that might barely eek out being a top half FBS job. Just a shameful performance
Yeah, that fall off has been some combination of negligent and tragic.
Yes, paraphrasing a bit, but the comparison was to bottom crust BIG Ten jobs like Maryland (since Alex is a UMD alum). I expanded that to the bottom 4 of the BIG. So to be specific, VT probably better than Maryland as a job, but the argument still stands about the other 3 bottom run jobs in the BIG, which would be what, Purdue, Northwestern, and Rutgers?
At this point all of them are better jobs. Northwestern is about to open a brand new stadium, Rutgers at least attempts to try every once in a while, and Purdue has a basketball program that makes a frustrating football season worth it.
VT has an administration that penny pinches, absolutely no alignment on the importance of revenue sports and facilities that are rapidly growing more and more outdated by the year.
That might be a con for a major football coach. Means you have to share House dollars with basketball players.
And even with that said, I'd still take that job over VT because a smaller portion of the budget at Purdue is larger than whatever the hell you'd get here
If you want play for full stadiums and win in the ACC, go to VT. If you want to make a shit ton of money to lose and play in empty stadiums (no judgement, truly) go to a bottom 4 B10.
VT is no closer to winning games in the ACC than any of those bottom tier Big Ten schools. Indiana won double digit games with a sun belt roster, it could be done at any of those other schools.
I dont think this situation is unique to VT. We're just feeling the inevitable crushing blow of what college football is turning into. I dont think there are very many schools that are going to be immune to this. They wont have teh long run decline we've had but I think a lot of schools will get hit with a massive quick decline that gets them stuck in this doom loop.
I think if Fuente had the resources that were given to Pry, he wouldve had a much better career here. Fuente got the resources that Frank was using which was already 10 years behind everybody else. Pry got good resources but VT is again about 10 years behind in fundraising and if we had a bigger budget, we wouldnt have had to scrape the bottom of the barrel for staff initially and a bigger NIL budget wouldve helped us keep or bring in more talent.
I dont mind Whit because i think he's elevated a lot of things here. He's whiffed on football which definitely outweighs all his gains but he's been trying to drag the school forward and it's happening but way too slowly for us to keep pace. I think that the basketball team might make some noise this year too which could recharge the fanbase.
I think we'll know what we are going to be with the next hire. I'm sure we're hitting up our big donors to cover us for a big hire with a full and competent staff. Whether we can actually raise that money is up in the air. I would love to get someone with real head coaching experience in either the Big10 or SEC. Somebody young enough to understand and keep up with how this new game is being played and will bring a staff with real experience as coordinators. In any case, we'll need the money to get us from now to 2028 or 2030 when FSU/Miami/Clemson all start realistically entertaining leaving the confererence. Today we seem toast, but how good we are up on the run up to those years is really what matters.
They need scrounge up all the money they can and hire the BEST staff they can. With he best chance to win quick. If they win us the ACC in year 3 and Bolt to the SEC oh well. Time to reload and hire the best staff you can to WIN then. "Will they be a VT guy for 10 years if they're successful" shouldn't even be a question the AD considers. Hire the staff to win and win now. And then do it again. We will always be a stepping stone for anybody that has any national relevance and thats OK.
Also. Fire anybody in Merryman that was employed by VT during the Beamer tenure. Dont care if it was the year he retired or the year he was hired. Time to clean slate. Even Bud shouldn't have an office there anymore. He deserves a statue beside Frank but its time to move on and this will give him more time to fish and smoke cigars. Also retire the 25 jersey its way past played out at this point.
Whenever the new staff comes in it should be a blank canvas. Give them the keys and two rules. Win games and nothing illegal. Thats it. If they cant reasonably be expected to do that they aren't the one.
You're not wrong about needing to get the Beamer-era team out of operational meddling for good, but you have to figure out how to keep megadonors who felt like they were personal friends with Frank, Bud, and probably John Ballein happy while you do the clearout.
I'd like the megadonors to stick around, but not badly enough to keep doing what we're doing now.
I agree with the 'old school staff gotta go' sentiment, and I expect they will, too.
It's a really tough problem: we don't have enough megadonors to be able to piss any of the ones we have off.
If they're a megadonor, they can be influential with new leadership.
I can't believe they are enjoying the current experience.
100% - Kansas State, Utah, Colorado, the Arizonas, NC State, etc all are in the same boat.
I tend to agree with this. I don't think Whit is some genius, but I do think that he does better (given the circumstances) than people give him credit for
Agreed
Oof I think you're going to be underwhelmed. I think the best case is a saavy G5/FCS HC who brings in one elite/proven coordinator to run the side of the ball that they don't specialize in.
Oh you have higher standards than me. I think our next coach will be someone that comes out of nowhere, like a position coach in the NFL, only to surround himself with coordinators that you can't find on Wiki.
I mean, Fran Brown was a lowly position coach at UGA prior to Syracuse, and currently employs two first time playcallers as is OC and DC (both former co-DC who didn't call plays). Seems to be working there... so far at least 🤷
Um the same cuse that got taken to OT by Uconn?
And had the team running sprints after the game, too
Yeah a good coach can come from any path or professional background and be successful; there are examples of G5 HCs, P5 coordinators, and even position coaches who are able to do it.
You just can't hire an idiot. And as part of the interviewing process, the school/AD needs to try their damndest to weed out idiots.
It is also worth noting that you can hire someone who checks all the boxes, has had previous success, etc and they still don't have huge success in a particular program.
Obviously you need to hit the minimum requirements in a candidate, but it's still a crap shoot. And being successful/unsuccessful at one place doesn't guarantee the same at the next spot.
Edit: there are normally 20-25 or more new head coaches every season. ~20% turnover every year. (Numbers come from Gemini, trust them at your own risk)
It's not unique to VT for sure. There's the 20-ish Tiffany brands and then there's everyone else. We are in the latter category. What we are seeing is the middle getting broader and smashed down lower. And we have lost so much in service of the forces that are doing this (TV). We've lost regional rivalries, we have giant conferences where teams don't see each other. This is the first time that Louisville is coming to play in Blacksburg coming up later this season. It's a mess, and all because a now out-dated market pricing model for cable package subscribers dictated that the BIG Ten needed to be in the NY and DC TV markets, lol.
Basically look at what has happened to the MAC, that's one version of the dark future that's coming for all of us. And I was a die hard fan. I was there when 1995-2000 happened. I was planning on making real-estate decisions driven by proximity to game days in Blacksburg and now it's fallen off so much that doing that kind of thing is just not a priority anymore. I need a new bathroom and kitchen. I can't be alone and I am in a critical giving demo. The economy of the sport changed at a really inopportune time.
I think we were right outside that Tiffany brand tier at one point, but I think even the most optimistic Hokie knew deep down that breaking into the top 20 wasn't going to happen.
Then again, Clemson did it so who knows?
Now I've given up, I honestly think if you were able to put together an All-Star team of AD + Hokie Club leadership etc. it may just be too late.
Clemson didn't break in. Clemson was there before and just made a mess of themselves for a couple decades running until the Dabo hire hit. IPTAY will be celebrating its 100th anniversary in 9 years. Clemson has generational financial support in a state that does nothing but college football and ran a conference for basically 30 years until FSU showed up.
The model you're looking for here of a no-name that broke in is Oregon, and the difference there is Phil Knight's infinite money.
The notion that Clemson has always been this fundraising juggernaut is just not true. VT out-raised Clemson every year we have data for until FY 2013 (July 2012-June 2013). Clemson didn't separate themselves until 2015.
Source for data is the Knight Commission.
If Clemson can make a mess of themselves for a couple decades (I'd argue 3-4) then we shouldn't be worried about VT.
So, it appears winning = $$$$$. Maybe we should try winning.
The fundraising increase also corresponds with the hire for Dan Radocovick at AD.
But yes, winning + great new AD = $$$
Yep, and when they started their string of national championship appearances they had the infrastructure in place to harvest those extra donations. VT, for whatever reason, made it to the peak of the sport and then put it in cruise control.
Oregon is absolutely the comp - I don't think enough people realize just how rare it is for a have-not to have a chance to appear in, much less win, a national championship game. Oregon and Virginia Tech are the only two teams to have gotten close. And Oregon has Knight Bucks. Oregon has spent $40M on their roster to make a run this year and they just vaporized another P4 OOC opponent with that Death Star roster. And even then it is still going to be really hard for them to cash in a natty.
That's the context that makes me take a pause and look at what it would take to for VT to do the same and shake my head. It's just not worth it to spend non-discretionary money on that kind of vanity project.
But hell... we can't even be competent in or second (soon to be third) tier conference. And we are resourced sufficiently to at least do that IMHO.