38 Replies
3mo
(In response to this post by GreenvilleVT)
H
Hokie`79
3mo
(In response to this post by PhotoHokieNC)
3mo
and won't just leave without milking us out of a few more millions. Must be a nice grift to be in athletics - even for the poor schools.
(In response to this post by Hokie`79)
3mo
If you dont, simply you dont get any qualifed professionals. Welcome to POWER 4 athletics
VT signed a contract and he;'s not being fired for criminal actions? so either pay off his contract or let him ride into the sunset.
(In response to this post by WildTurkE)
3mo
Geez. Just thinking about it. Is that parachute crash on Saturday symbolic as Whit's last act as AD? Kind of unfair, but not far off.
(In response to this post by PhotoHokieNC)
3mo
Mother nature.
(In response to this post by Roanokie)
G
gman86
3mo
a P4 AD job. Whatever that is. I hope the message boards don't fret over whatever that is.
Do people on this board expect Whit to go through some Game of Thrones style "walk of atonement"?
"Shame! Shame! Shame!" (bell rings)
C'mon people (not directed at the OP, but the critical people on the board in general)...
(In response to this post by PhotoHokieNC)
3mo
UK's former AD was just forced to give up his own lucrative "retirement" gig after a firestorm of public criticism, including from that state's governor. Personally, I don't understand why VT would want to continue paying Babcock after hiring his replacement.
(In response to this post by PhotoHokieNC)
3mo
VT does not have to let him manage the Athletic Department. VT does have to pay him for the remainder of his term.
That's how contracts work. Suck it up.
(In response to this post by Gobbler Guru)
R
RJHokie
3mo
Sands never should have given Babcock an 8 year contract extension in 2021.
(In response to this post by Beerman)
3mo
And how appropriate that the final act in that play is for Babcock himself to continue collecting paychecks after multiple years of subpar performance. He certainly enriched some undeserving coaches that way during his tenure.
How anyone could have looked at the state of VT athletics in 2021 and decided to guarantee 8 more years of Babcock's salary is almost incomprehensible. Longer term contracts *might* make sense on the academic side of the university, where stability is arguably more important. In a dynamic industry like college athletics, anything more than a 4 year deal represents a gigantic and unnecessary gamble that performance will maintain an upward trend over a long timeframe. I hope that the next VT president and next VT AD will exercise better judgment when hiring coaches and administrators for jobs where outcomes are known to change dramatically (both for the positive and negative) over as little as 1-2 years.
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
3mo
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
3mo
Worth a big ass package.
(In response to this post by Gobbler Guru)
3mo
(In response to this post by Gobbler Guru)
R
RiverVT
3mo
Probably will be remembered, as he was at Cincinnati , as the most ineffective AD at VT .
(In response to this post by GreenvilleVT)
3mo
Now UVA stole Whitt from us taking Saban & Coach K with him.
(In response to this post by GreenvilleVT)
3mo
(In response to this post by PhotoHokieNC)
B
BoozVT
3mo
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
3mo
(In response to this post by BoozVT)
R
RJHokie
3mo
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
3mo
On a more serious note, I'm a little torn on what a reasonable time frame for an AD's contract should be at VT. Is 3-5 years at a time reasonable, too short, or too long? If it should only be 1-2 years at a time, then does that create too much instability at the position? Even if the AD's role has shifted to more a CEO/President type role because the school has multiple JR ADs in place to run the day-to-day operations for each sport.
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
3mo
kind of my point and even the "option period" after that one. Do you keep with the 5 year cycle or switch it up to a different length of time? Particularly if the AD is viewed as a "success" by everyone. Is there room to offer extensions before the current option period is up? It may be a question worth asking if ADs are in the same boat as HCs where they don't want to be perceived as going into their final year of their contract because of the potential impact it could have on the future. So the extension is done with 2-3 years to go on the current terms of the contract.
(In response to this post by Atlee Hokie)
3mo
... current contract.
And for heaven's sake, we don't need the kind of extension Whit got early in his contract.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
3mo
position is a major concern for HCs and HC candidates. Hence why I made the comparison to giving extensions to HCs with time to spare because of the potential impact it could have on recruiting. I suspect the reason Babcock was given the extension he was because during conversations he may have indicated he would likely retire around that time. Sands chose to lock the AD in place until he was ready to retire, so that would be 1 less decision on his plate.
If VT hung unto Babcock for too long, then a similar argument could be made about JW. I realize there were other issues factoring in the JW decision. But this could be the second AD where "bad timing" has influenced VT to act slowly on making a change at the position. Assuming that is even a position a school wants to be quick about when deciding its time for new blood to step into the position.
(In response to this post by Atlee Hokie)
3mo
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
3mo
If both men saying during conversations that they are looking to retire around the same time, then Sands may not want to be burden with the responsibility of hiring a new AD so close to when he is planning to retire. Particularly if it is common knowledge that the new President will likely want to hire his/her person for the job. From a stability standpoint, I am not sure it would have been any better if Sands had replaced Babcock so close to his retirement only to see the new President want to replace the AD again soon after taking the job. The way things played out will at least offer the new regime a clean slate to work with because the AD won't be a carryover from the Sand's regime.
(In response to this post by Atlee Hokie)
R
RJHokie
3mo
Hiring an AD/CEO these days is complicated for sure.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
3mo
can make it more difficult for fans to determine the Athletic Department's org chart in terms of who is or isn't a direct line report to the AD. For example, Director of Football Operations may or may not be the same position (in terms of functions ) as the JR AD for football. It could be more like a GM role which may be the same level as the AD in terms of responsibility because the position is a direct report to the President instead of the AD. I would assume there are pros and cons with both org structures. I guess the school has to decide whether it wants to funnel everything through the AD or potentially have the perception that each sport has its own "AD."
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
3mo
(In response to this post by Hate2SeeItEnd Hokie)
3mo
(In response to this post by Brewing_Hokie)