How far has our FB program declined in the past 15 years (%?)
And what needs to happen to make us relevant on the national stage? Rank in order of importance
More $ meaning the elimination of non-revenue sports?
Better leadership at he top,
AD?
Head coach?
None of the above or all of the above?
85 Replies
1y
(In response to this post by VTGungHO)
2
2hhoop3
1y
but, it is largely useless without the will and resources to enforce it. Otherwise, things go right back under the table and the more that things change the more they stay the same. Just my opinion, they must overhaul the entire model, operations, enforcement, etc. and their piecemeal approach so far equates to trying to stop a bloodgushing wound with a bandaid and the bandaid has no adhesive without real enforcement and real penalties.
(In response to this post by VTGungHO)
1y
with the the other 100 schools that want to play legit sports.
(In response to this post by Spider73)
1y
And hopefully would retain the passion of the CFB game I loved for 40 years. This $$$ crap with the top 30 teams or so is obnoxious and soulless.
(In response to this post by 40ozDistrict)
1y
Is the future of Virginia Tech football to be a 1st-tier doormat/punching bag, or a 2nd-tier contender? It's ultimately is going to depend on the size of the 1st-tier league. But there's no point in spending aggressively if they're going to end up as a tier 1 bottom feeder.
(In response to this post by 40ozDistrict)
V
VPI 1924
1y
First step is to refuse to pay athletes.
(In response to this post by 40ozDistrict)
1y
(In response to this post by Windows NT)
1y
relevant would really piss me off. VT is more than just the football program. I’d rather see average football and offer sports to other student athletes, than kill everything else off just as an attempt to keep up with the big boys.
The problem is our problems started 20 years ago. We were happy with status quo while the rest of the college football world was changing. We are winning 10+ games a year! Shut up! You don’t know what you are talking about. And now…now we are in the situation of irrelevance…something many were concerned about two decades ago.
Frankly after 1999 and 2000 we never were really relevant on the national stage. Bad losses against top teams and bad losses against average teams in general. Never even sniffed a MNC game at the end of a season. We lived on the MV1 and NC game hype for years and years until we really started to decline in 2012.
(In response to this post by Spider73)
1y
(In response to this post by GSOHokie01)
1y
…business.
Outside of VT, Michigan, and the City of New Orleans…no one cared.
(In response to this post by Techsupport)
1y
There was a time when VT would NEVER be considered for those kind of games, getting to a Sugar Bowl could only happen with an automatic bid, but guess what, during those years, we got great TV ratings, and we were regulars in the season college football conversation. We were VERY relevant. We went 10-2 that year. By your standard, playing for the national championship is the only measure of success.
(In response to this post by GSOHokie01)
1y
Wasn’t the MNC the ultimate goal? We never got there again.
Did we have good teams? Yes we did. Did we have MNC caliber teams? No, after the MV1 run. We earned our spots against Auburn, Kansas, Cincinnati, and Sanford but we were gifted the spot against Michigan due to our fan base traveling. And out of those 5 teams we beat Cincinnati…Cincinnati. Not exactly a strong feather in the cap for a team that wants to be relevant.
After the 1999 and 2000 seasons the best I felt was the 2004 season as it appeared we were back on track and ready to take the next step, even with bookend losses to USC and Auburn. We showed up in those games and played well against two of the top teams in the country, especially after the lackluster 2003 season, post-Miami.
We will simply have to agree to disagree on this one.
(In response to this post by Techsupport)
1y
(In response to this post by GSOHokie01)
18 years ago?
College football has changed a lot and VT football fell behind so much that it has no chance to catch up.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
2
2hhoop3
1y
"it's deja vu all over again." VT hired Dooley and failed to provide proper oversight. They hire Babcock and once again fail to provide proper oversight. Two failings, two trainwrecks, and headscratching as to how there is no institutional memory that prevents reoccurrence.
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
To me...the barrier to a high level of success at a sustained level now
is much, much higher and very much correlated to money, money and Conference affiliation.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
that money and conference affiliation in college athletics are the equivalent of the real estate saying location, location, location. However, they must learn from mistakes so as not to repeat them. They also must be effective and efficient to maximize the resources they do have.
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
S
saret
1y
AthDept oversight of their contractors.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
is that I think both could have grown into and been considered good hires with proper oversight, guardrails and accountability. Dooley might have bristled at being micromanaged, however, Babcock had no business being turned loose without training wheels.
(In response to this post by saret)
1y
LSU also lost 2 games that season but they were both triple overtime losses. It wasn’t until the final week that we reached 3rd. A day late and a dollar short. I believe we were 6th going into the conference championship weekend.
A bad loss to LSU in Death Valley and then the heartbreak game against BC sealed the deal. Beat BC at home or LSU loses the SEC championship game and we aren’t having this conversation.
But then we go play and lose to damn Kansas in the Orange Bowl.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
1y
After that fiasco, Beamer confessed he just viewed bowl games rewards for a good season. He never considered them as business trips with a win being the 1st priority.
(In response to this post by GSOHokie01)
1y
I just don't think all that equates to national irrelevance
(In response to this post by GSOHokie01)
1y
We were a good team but not a NC caliber team. Our final record of 11-3 and the loss to Kansas proved that once the season was over.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
1y
(In response to this post by GSOHokie01)
1y
(In response to this post by GSOHokie01)
1y
I don't think Boston College or South Florida realistically expect to be a contender just because they were #2 at one point in that season. That Kansas team that beat Tech was either #2 or #4 in their season-ending game against Missouri.
And, more importantly, even if it was relevant, it was over 20 years ago. When people post those lists of the highest revenue/highest spending athletic departments, that $50,000,000 gap between Virginia Tech and the top programs happens every single year, the effect of it builds cumulatively over time. Remember a few years ago, that big $400,000,000 cash infusion? Only eats away at part of the gap, not the whole thing, and doesn't fix it for the future.
Additionally, how much appetite is there going to be to greatly increase the budget for sports when billions in research are being cancelled? I'll bet you that's gonna have more of the BOV's financial attention than whether the football team wins 6 games or 10 games.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
1y
#3 is nationally relevant and as close to the MNC game as you can get...and well after 99-00 🤷🏼
** Edited by Pylons at 7/13/2025, 3:22:17 PM
(In response to this post by Synaesthesia)
VT cannot do it as a member of the ACC. We have to have a certain number
of sports per the ACC and it is even more critical because those sports feed content to the ACC network.
(In response to this post by GSOHokie01)
2
2hhoop3
1y
of sniffed. They were in the conversation a few more times but, never in the game.
(In response to this post by GSOHokie01)
1y
Beamer never tried to get better. He was content with an O that sucked, as long as we won 10 games.
(In response to this post by GSOHokie01)
1y
about 10 win seasons
(In response to this post by Atlee Hokie)
1y
(In response to this post by flymanhokie)
2
2hhoop3
1y
had the O been better or the D held the lead in some instances some of those wins might not have been left on the table. However, if a team is winning 10 per season there are only so many games being left on the table in the worst case scenario.
(In response to this post by NokieHokie)
D
dnfoster
1y
Boise State is the poster child for that. The Auburn, Georgia, Michigan and USC games were all very winnable but they ended up being setbacks at a time when VT was trying to make the case that they were a player.
VT won a lot of games but they needed to win some against high notoriety opponents during that time frame, but more often than not they came up short. I know the LSU and OSU wins were great. But not enough.
Anyway…
** Edited by dnfoster at 7/14/2025, 9:00:19 AM
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
or erroneous perspective. It may not even be a minority perspective. People rightfully choose their own perspectives and some choose a glass half empty approach while others choose a glass half full approach. The games you mention were all painful but, the reasons ranged from VT's fault to official error to the fact that on that day the opponent made more plays to win. Like the bumper sticker says "It Happens."
(In response to this post by dnfoster)
D
dnfoster
1y
Board (no longer posting there). I feel my position is a realistic one. They won some good games, tOSU and LSU being the best examples in my mind. Miami would be good but really, they are a head case now and then. Nebraska was past its time.
I believe if Jesse Allen had caught that ball, if Danny Cole’s catch hadn’t been ruled not a catch, if Justin Hamilton hadn’t been robbed and for goodness sakes, if the HC could have just seen that second half onside kick coming imagine where VT would be right now.
And I don’t know what to say about Boise State.
** Edited by dnfoster at 7/14/2025, 6:23:54 PM
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
a pessimist on VT football nor say your position was unrealistic or uncommon. Just said people view things from different perspectives. Each situation you describe falls into one of the categories I described.
** Edited by 2hhoop3 at 7/14/2025, 8:03:25 PM
(In response to this post by dnfoster)
1y
... championship game again.
(In response to this post by flymanhokie)
1y
10 wins
Division championship
ACC championship
Big enchilada
(In response to this post by Atlee Hokie)
...MV3 (needs to happen)❣
It is not just on Olympic savvy baseball1 butt-fumbling the griders @A.D., it is not just the regression of Pry & Co. in '24; it is not just the Talent drain since Frank's last (lacking fast-twitch itself) 1o-win season...
...it is: a wanton lack of: 'pop', zest, or carbonation from a flat Jamerson.
This Program needs an VHT ***** kan't miss electrifier-- someone who can put the whole shebang on their back.
💯,
b.street
(In response to this post by Spider73)
1y
Hurbert and Tutin both had pop. So did Evans. We were good in 1990 and 2000 not just because MV1 had pop, but because we had all of the pieces. We had the complete package on defense. We had riches at running back. We had a great O-line. We had decent receivers. We had exceptional special teams. We also had Ricky Bustle and Bud Foster, two of the best coordinators we ever had. MV-1 had amazing talent, but without the other pieces, the pop would have been fizzle. We have some of the pieces, but not nearly as many as we had in 1999-2000, if we did, I think Drones would be your MV-3.
(In response to this post by bourbonstreet)
1y
I'll take TT2 in a heartbeat. Still not Drones.
** Edited by TomTurkey at 7/13/2025, 10:49:29 AM
(In response to this post by 83hokieee)
1y
But he would play a lot better with a better O-line.
(In response to this post by TomTurkey)
1y
At QB. Drones may have that as his ceiling at times but his floor isn’t high enough
(In response to this post by bourbonstreet)
that's really well said... will be borrowing (flooring) that----->
(In response to this post by hokiepro)
Those types of athletes will command huge contracts at P2 schools
(In response to this post by hokiepro)
1y
as he parlays that performance into a "completely unrealistic for most teams" payday.
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
He would probably skip a bowl game to not risk injury...
So that he doesn't risk the bigger SEC/B10 paycheck...
** Edited by AirborneHokie96 at 7/14/2025, 9:01:25 PM
(In response to this post by GusDaMan)
R
RiverVT
1y
President -Sands and BOV
Babcock is getting orders from some one .
Wasn't it Tim Sands saying when he attended his first football game saying VT football will be totally different in 10 years?
We blame Babcock but he getting his orders from some one .
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
I sent him a letter and he never replied but had someone reply. I copied Babcock and he did reply. He totally ignored the fact I had supported Tech for more than 35 years with a high Hokie Club standing. I wasn't impressed that he totally ignored my letter and years of support.
(In response to this post by RiverVT)
R
RiverVT
1y
Come on Trump take it to Mr Sandman
(In response to this post by VT Rockie)
S
Stech
1y
** Edited by Stech at 7/12/2025, 6:48:33 PM
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
1y
15 years ago. There was no NIL, there was not cost of attending, there was recruiting. Finding the diamond in the rough. Today there is sooo much film and scouting on players you won't find an Antonio Freeman that isn't getting mega bucks. There was finding good recruits that you could coach up. There were Primadona's that wanted to play NOW, but most worked hard and waited it out. Frank back in '88 needed better coaches and with the money for them they went from 3-8 to 6-4-1.
Last year Tech was 6-6 (not counting bowl game as hardly any starters played). I think there is an improvement in coaching from last year, but I'm not sure we have improvement in players (at this time). I'm thinking a 7-5 might show better coaching with C+ to B- players. If freshman class stays, works and doesn't transfer after being on campus for 2 days, then I think they can coach up next year to 8-4 or 9-3. BUT without major $$$$ NIL I don't see ever getting to 5 years of 11-win like 15 years ago.
GO HOKIES!!! MAKE ME A LIAR AND GO FOR BROKE!!!
** Edited by hokie_world at 7/12/2025, 4:52:40 PM
** Edited by hokie_world at 7/12/2025, 4:56:33 PM
(In response to this post by Spider73)
1y
And equal if less experienced talent at WR. Drop off at RB and interior DL
(In response to this post by hokie_world)
and last year, we were an ACC Championship team in July too....
(In response to this post by hokiepro)
1y
(In response to this post by Spider73)
...and can't kill every non-Rev because of ACC commitment
(In response to this post by Synaesthesia)
V
VTCALS72
1y
So you are comparing where we should be to a peak that was unstainable for the level and method of $$ VT has ever put into football.
If that is correct, then changing presidents, ADs or Coaches is nothing more than re arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Simply put, none of the admin or coaches is the most limiting factor.
Second remember that under the old student athlete system, several schools reached a peak and got some mention but for the most part only the old bluebloods sustained being nationally relevant. In fact during that whole era only 2 schools that were not bluebloods in the 50s and 60s have gottent through the glass ceiling. One of those, Oregon bought their way in and one, FSU, earned their way in. Otherwise the same teams that were on TV when games in color were 1st broadcast are the same teams at the top today.
IMHO we should be more focused on the attainable next step up rather than looking at the top of a long stairway with a landing that you only get past if you are now P2 or P2 wanted.
Let's improve what we can first which MHO can be a program that can be in the ACC championship chase right up to the end more times than not. And yes, that means an ACC without FSU, Miami and Clemson.
(In response to this post by Spider73)
2
2hhoop3
1y
catching lightning in a bottle for a single year does not imply sustainability but, decade(s) of performance actually demonstrates sustainability. Calling the Beamer era a bubble is both disrespectful to the actual accomplishments and ignorant of the effort involved in building that string. You of all people should realize that Amptech given your years of defending Stinespring. Whether that occurs or not is up to the actions/decisions of the institution and its fans. The longer and farther you allow something to fall the more difficult it becomes to regain the former level.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
1y
that popped earlier than most accept.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
Correct. Those days are long gone in today's college football environment
(In response to this post by 40ozDistrict)
2
2hhoop3
1y
but, as the original post stated, I think calling something a bubble that lasts a decade or more is incorrect and that perspective comes from watching VT and college football since the 1960s. We will just have to disagree.
(In response to this post by 40ozDistrict)
V
VPI 1924
1y
No salary of any kind for athletes
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
1y
athletes, so their NIL deals are probably not as lucrative. Also, I don't think the DIII schools have approved changing their bylaws yet to allow the schools to directly enter into NIL deals with their athletes.
I have found a couple different websites that talk about how DIII athletes can enter into NIL deals. One point they all seem to highlight is that DIII NIL is often more tailored to allow the athlete to build networks for life after college sports.
"While D3 athletes may not typically receive the “highest NIL value” deals seen at the D1 level, the deals they do secure are often highly significant relative to their sporting careers. These agreements might not always be with national giants but with smaller, local businesses or startups that value community engagement and local sports representation.
This local focus can provide steady, supportive income and the chance to become a prominent local sports figure for college athletes."
I would assume the NAIA's NIL deals are probably very to what we see at DIII and maybe even DII. It would appear to me how DIII has decided to structure its NIL policy may be how most people (and the schools) intended to use NIL in college sports.
Link:
Click Here
(In response to this post by BROman Hokie)