2nd cup of coffee thoughts, not the Super Bowl.
In stead this is about the program development of a mid little p2 school in this era of pay and the portal. And yes, some start with the idea that VT IS much more than a mid level p2 school but none of Jim D, MV1, Bryan R or Tyrod are with us any more.
So how does a school that under the former rules was good to very good in developing the "tweeners" and under the radar guys do it now? Before it was more likely that a coach or program could form a nucleus of 3rd to 5th year players that then helped attract some blue chippers.,But now? Not so much. I would say deck is so stacked against the ACC/B12 right now. Those tweeners and under the radar guys would rather go G5 or even FCS and play right away than spend years in development at the little p2, which if you have not figured that out is currently the ACC and B12. Then the guys who really produce and the P2 sees them as players who can help, get offers we can't match.
Not just a VT problem but with offers of early playing time at the lower levels and offers of going to the upper level, VT and schools like us appear to be really pinched.
So how can it be done today? Especially when many more of the under the radar guys will go to JMU and Liberty to play right out of the gate and those that show one season of P2 promise are gone?
It is like the B12 and ACC minus 3 are all having to go to a "one and done." Type mindset. Should we de emphasize high school recruiting and replace it with a lot more portal guys? Is it even a thing to recruit players who may be good in their 4th and 5th year and work with the for 3 to 3 years then have them portal out?
A school like SMU has the money to "buy" a winning ACC/B12 level team every year. But how many can do that?
20 Replies
1y
If one team, or two, buy a championship every year, does anyone in charge care? That's the model they are moving to anyway. Only the teams with the top 20 resources have a realistic chance to win the MNC. So why does it matter than only SMU buys a championship, regardless of what VT or anyone else does aside from find more $$$.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
1y
1. Establish strong strategic leadership of the athletic department.
2. Build a competent, accountable coaching staff.
3. Spend your money wisely - use moneyball principles
VT does not have any of these things. When WB is shown the door and we bring in a new AD with P2 experience, we will have a fighting chance. Until then, we will keep rolling around in the mud.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
1y
reason a successful AD from a P2 school would have any interest in coming to a school with less financial resources to compete?
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
1y
star from a P2 school.
(In response to this post by Jwunderdog)
1y
What is strong strategic leadership? Do we even know what that looks like in this current environment? Maybe the "play'em close to the vest" is strong strategic leadership in todays environment at a school like VT.
I would hold, CBP and staff have shown they are competent. But they have to be held "accountable" to something other than a pie in the sky standard. IMHO way to many think everything is at VT to get back to CFB levels and all we need is the "right" coaches and personnel in the athletic dept, like someone equal to CFB. But Frank Beamer was what a 1 in a 1,000 or 500 or even 1 in a hundred coach?
To come into the burned out situation with VT football and put the stability under it while getting back to pretty much the recent historic average of wins is actually better than a "competent" job.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
1y
3. Spend your money wisely - use moneyball principles
Pry mentioned in his signing day presser last week that he had a player that he wanted to keep, but that player wanted a certain amount of money. Pry let that player go and then replaced him with three guys from the portal for the same (total) amount of money. That's moneyball, so yes VT is doing that.
Note that I'm not debating you on 1 and 2.
** Edited by Will Stewart at 2/10/2025, 11:08:56 PM
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
1y
Cool that he got 3 guys for the price of one, but what are the other 2 dudes doing? Riding the bench?
(In response to this post by Will Stewart)
1y
In a vacuum it is always best to assume the worst.
(In response to this post by Will Stewart)
1y
FSU and Clemson can compete as well. The ACC should be much better year to year than it has historically been.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
1y
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
1y
Yes they can compete if they choose so.
(In response to this post by marcbvtgm)
1y
Because every endowment lays out what the funds can be used for. Most are capped at an annual spend rate too. So they usually can only spend 4-5% of their total endowment in any year and they have restricted funds (specific uses named by donors) and often restricted uses overall. And you just can’t go in and modify acceptable uses each year. Usually it requires donor approval. Many of them are dead.
This continues to confuse many folks who somehow thing endowments have anything to do with football. So we can continue to post about how schools with big endowments are going to have great programs and win natties, but it’s just not true. Most schools endowment language can be assessed online. Check em out to see if they can fund football.
Or just remove this one thing:
NIL is not the same as endowment.
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
1y
I work in finance with an emphasis on higher-ed. You detailed concisely both the reality and the problem of public perception in regards to endowments. They do matter but not football. What they do reflect is usually a committed donor base over the course of time which can reflect a subset of the donor base focused on football i.e. more dollars for athletics but not a linear equation. Just see the Ivies and their mega endowments. Doesn't translate to sports.
SEC has had a different type of endowments for decades. It's called lots of cash in a McDonald's to go bag.
(In response to this post by GreenvilleVT)
1y
For starters, much of that endowment has strings attached to it.
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
1y
A school like SMU has the money to "buy" a winning ACC/B12 level team every year. But how many can do that?
Stanford has the most money in all of D-1. If they can't buy a tean no one can.
(In response to this post by marcbvtgm)
S
seacain
1y
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
1y
separate. They do have plenty of money, but their best days are behind them.
Those schools have money, but they are still going to be lower in the pecking order. Plenty of big schools have more money to spend.
** Edited by reestuart at 2/10/2025, 1:14:28 PM
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)