Pry and conference realignment
When Pry was hired almost four years ago, I said there is more at stake here than just winning games (but even winning games proved to be too much). What was at stake was Virginia Tech's future in conference realignment and big-time college sports. We knew what was coming--with the P2 raiding the ACC and BigXII for a few select teams. And the rest were going to be left to fend for themselves among shrinking resources and national attention.
Well, here we are. And IMO, we are in a far worse position to be picked up by what is moving forward than we were when Pry was hired. We are less relevant than we've been since the early 1990s. It's just a crying shame. Got to find a way to rebound...and fast.
Football is our calling card, and we need to get it going again.
71 Replies
V
Vippie1
10mo
The Fuente buyout and Pry hiring was the worse AD decision in VT Athletic history. If only for the consequences.
And the saddest part is it appeared that way on day 1, but we all had to suspend our common sense, rally around the flag, and hope against all hope that we were wrong and Babcock was right.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
10mo
But it was clear within the first several games that we were getting Rich Kotite.
(In response to this post by Vippie1)
10mo
than it is about whatever individual become our next head coach IMO.
It appears that at least one factor behind Pry's selection was that he was what we decided we could afford. Another "clearance rack" hire is a pretty clear signal that we know we can't compete at the P2 level. The ability to throw some money at a higher profile/higher cost candidate means that we're willing to give it a shot.
No guarantee of improved results on the field either way. The best candidate will be able to navigate the new realities of NIL -- both in terms of increasing available revenue and spending it much more wisely than we have been.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
10mo
next level, and Les Miles and Charlie Wise were two hires that didn't quite work out.
our current coach Lance Leipold was coaching Wisconsin - Whitewater in 2014, then coached Buffalo in the MAC for five years. He won everywhere he coached.
When he was hired, it was very public that he took the job because KU made a promise to invest into the football program, in particular the stadium and facilities. KU followed up on those promises, and while KU may not be a top 10 program, they are competitive, and a very hard out these days. Blue collar, truck stop football.
IMO, VT is going to have to roll the dice.
(In response to this post by Hokie Fiji)
10mo
Although less hyped than his predecessors in Lawrence, there was at least some buzz around Leipold. I honestly didn't consider Pry to be a serious candidate for Tech until the day he was announced as our next HC. And I strongly suspect that he was a safe/affordable choice that we picked after at least a few other targets turned us down cold.
I agree that Tech has to roll the dice. But if we wind up with anything less than a proven winner with head coaching experience and/or someone who strongly motivates donors, then that's a gut punch to anyone who sees us trying to compete at an elite level. Fact is that we're more than $50 million in the hole. We were just schooled by an in-state member of the Sun Belt that was intended to be a cupcake on our schedule.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
10mo
I realize that in hindsight everything is more clear, but in my opinion, VT would have been better off hiring a high school coach at 1/10th the salary. The results would probably not have been significantly worse, and a TON of money would have been saved. I like Brent Pry as a human being, but it seems apparent now that he is just not cut out to be a head coach. He should feel no shame about that...I believe he truly wanted to win, and he clearly knows football or he would not have had success as a defensive coordinator. I just think he was out of his element as the leader of the program, and he never figured out how to put the correct pieces in place around him to help him succeed. Regardless, the bottom line is that VT really missed the mark in offering Pry the head coaching job, and even moreso with his salary/buyout.
In light of all of that, I am of the mindset that it is foolish (if not downright unethical) for VT to continue throwing tens of millions of dollars into the black hole that is modern college football with the fanciful dream of achieving some sort of national relevance ever again. I don't think the majority of the fanbase (myself included) truly wants to do the "icky" things required to make that a reality, and as a result, I do not feel it is possible for VT to compete financially with the elite programs. And due to that financial handcuffing, I don't think VT can compete with the elite programs on the gridiron, either. I'm probably starting to sound like a broken record by now, but I think the administration should really take time to consider whether it makes sense for Virginia Tech to continue competing at the highest level of "college" athletics.
(In response to this post by Hokie Fiji)
10mo
We very clearly cannot keep up with the big spenders and you are right that it would be throwing away money to try.
But…creative and very purposeful spending can improve our football value. If we can’t be great, we can at least be entertaining.
The media companies have very clearly laid out the roadmap to financial success. Be interesting on tv for viewers and the money and opportunities will follow.
(In response to this post by MP4VT2004)
10mo
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
10mo
We could really stand out if we gave it a robot body to roam the sideline.
(In response to this post by MP4VT2004)
10mo
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
10mo
(In response to this post by MP4VT2004)
10mo
We decided that we couldn't (or shouldn't) try to shop at Yves Saint Laurent so we opted for the back row of Old Navy instead. What we purchased felt okay for a bit, but ultimately it shrunk and wore thin. Now we're facing a harsh winter and we're badly exposed.
You make very valid points with your second paragraph and I agree with a lot of what you have to say. I joked elsewhere that we might consider the example of the University of Chicago. They were a founding member of the Big 10 and produced the first Heisman winner. But they ultimately made a decision to abandon a commitment to big-time athletics in 1946. Now they are highly regarded from an academic perspective and seem perfectly happy competing in sports at the Division III level. Not saying we go to quite that level, but it's possible that somebody could figure out a way to be something similar in the 21st century.
Whatever happens, I'm all in for the long haul. I have been -- and will continue to be -- a Hokie for all of my life.
(In response to this post by MP4VT2004)
10mo
a history of winning with 3 star talent, a good HS recruiter, and a developer of men. Sounds like a unicorn, but I would remind some that Pry had a better record than Frank Beamer did in Beamers first 5 years. In Beamers fifth season, he only won 2 games.
Do you think Beamer would have been fired in todays environment?
(In response to this post by Hokie Fiji)
10mo
And Virginia Tech has adapted very poorly to that. Unfortunately for us, we had one coach (Fuente) who was completely overwhelmed by the new NIL-driven reality followed by another (Pry) who simply was not prepared to be a head coach.
Personally, on an objective basis I do think Frank Beamer would struggle to stay afloat in the current environment. I am very well acquainted with his early years in Blacksburg. He was very much a "system" guy who was able to do more with less until he reached a point at which he could recruit top talent. He was also granted an enormous amount of grace that probably wouldn't be extended in this day and age. The staff changes he made after the 2-8-1 season in 1992 (which was my senior year BTW) are well documented. But people forget that he'd been forced to fire two of his cronies (Larry Creekmore and Duke Strager) the year before when Tech went 5-6 with what was considered to be one of its most talented teams up to that time.
But it's hard to speculate directly because Beamer is the one who raised the level of expectations associated with our program, and the personality cult associated with him is a dynamic all its own.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
10mo
was not following Teck back then, and had never really heard of them until Vick came on board. It was a different game back then, and today, it seems that without real money, the next coach may have as much trouble as Pry and Fuente.
(In response to this post by Hokie Fiji)
10mo
Took my family on a cross country trip back in 2016 and an overnight stop there was part of our itinerary. We walked around downtown and ate dinner at a college bar then drove around the university campus a bit the next day before we hit the road again. When my oldest son (Virginia Tech Class of 2022) was considering graduate programs, Kansas was one that I strongly encouraged him to check out.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
10mo
And I honestly think that there's some current debate about that at the highest levels of our leadership structure. Before this past weekend I wouldn't have been shocked if our Board of Visitors came out with a statement on September 30th indicating that we're too far behind, it's too expensive to try to catch up, and/or we don't think we can realistically compete at the highest level. (I still wouldn't be shocked to learn that this is an official policy directive -- but now I do think we'll get an Oral Roberts-type exhortation to raise money before that comes to pass.)
Part of me thinks that has already happened at least once. Although there isn't any documentation to support it, I am personally convinced that we had an opportunity to join the SEC back in 2012 but we passed. The rationale at the time was that it was a politically untenable position for us to burn bridges with the ACC (and particularly UVa) after all we went through back in 2003. But there was also a narrative I heard that said we would have a hard time competing and that we weren't interested in having the same existential experience there as South Carolina.
At a particularly low point in our history, Nikki Giovanni included a poignant observation in her memorial ceremony speech:
"We are better than we think, and not quite what we want to be."
But I'm not sure that we've really taken that part to heart just yet.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
10mo
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
S
Stech
10mo
leave the ACC, why wouldn't ESPN want to help the ACC go get teams that will help them survive? They already have the sunk cost into the channel. The B12 that has no channel and has their TV deals spread out with Fox, streaming etc, and about 1/2 or less with ESPN. Please help convince me why the B12 survives over the ACC with so many recent G5 additions in smaller markets than most of the ACC. I can be convinced if you come up with the right argument by the way, I own businesses, and one key to my success is being convinced when other people have closed their minds to an idea. Some of my biggest successes is going against conventional wisdom when someone came up with a good reason why to do something.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
10mo
when the best football brands leave the ACC? There is no American Conference linear cable network. There is no Mountain West linear cable network. There is no Sun Belt linear cable network. There is no PAC-12 linear cable network. Why do you think a G5-look ACC will continue to have a linear cable network?
Also, ya'll are so caught up on this linear cable network thing. Yes, it's a great revenue stream now, but linear cable networks will not be a thing in 5-10 years. They're barely a thing now. In 5-10 years, the ACC Network is just going to be another box you can click on ESPN's standalone streaming app. The same thing goes for the SEC Network. This business model of sneaking $0.82 out of the pocket of every linear cable subscriber in a defined geographic area is right in the middle of its dead cat's bounce as I'm typing this. This ongoing fixation with conferences having linear cable networks is little more than a misdirection in understanding conference realignment and media value. It's like trying to explain to someone listening to Apple Music on their iPhone through AirPods why your giant 1980's double tape deck boom box is really, really awesome.
** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 9/17/2025, 10:14:57 AM
(In response to this post by Stech)
10mo
Invest more into their new ESPN app platform with the ESPN+ media (where the Big12 exists). Although that's just a guess...I haven't dug into Disneys books to see if the ACCN is profitable from ESPNs POV. It is the lowest rated conference and ACCN games don't do great numbers. ESPN is overpaying the ACC.
(In response to this post by Stech)
H
HouClone
10mo
launching the ACCN. So ESPN pulling the plug on the ACCN seems unlikely on the surface. However, there is history on this, albeit on a smaller scale - The Longhorn Network (LHN). Texas put the infrastructure in place and ESPN helped strongarm the distributors to accept the LHN. Years later, ESPN pulled the plug on it and helped facilitate a Texas (and Oklahoma) move to their other entity, the SEC.
(In response to this post by thebluelot)
10mo
they had something there, and rejected ESPN's overtures to make it part of their lineup. If you back in the PAC's history before USC announced, the projections the PACN had never materialized. The projections were off the charts, but in line with other conference networks at the time.
They too spent a ton of money setting up each school to have production ability, and most of that infrastructure is still in place, with a centralized broadcast facility.
Today, that facility is used to broadcast for CW, and now CBS, as well as streaming. It keeps the production costs down for their media partners past, present, and future.
(In response to this post by HouClone)
S
Stech
10mo
they go with B12 for a channel, they have sunk cost all over again.
(In response to this post by thebluelot)
10mo
There is a Big12 network, however, it's a part of ESPN+
(In response to this post by Stech)
10mo
ratings is the BIG. I'd be willing to bet that the SECN lags in ratings as well. Unfortunately, the business model is going to streaming, like it or not. We, the fans that watch the games, will be paying directly for that content moving forward.
(In response to this post by thebluelot)
S
Stech
10mo
survive. I think they end up merging with the Big East, and will have enough football teams to be okay, However, I think basketball will expand and the Sweet in basketball will be paid like the eventual Sweet 16 in football, mainly to the schools/conferences that make it. Thus I think that the ACC and B12 will be fine, because they both will end up with great basketball schools and have a 1-2 make the football playoff too. Not as many as the P2, but good enough to still have plenty of money coming in from football.
(In response to this post by thebluelot)
10mo
an ACC that has lost FSU and Clemson, not to mention Miami or whichever other big football program that might leave, and that has merged with the Big East. What, so they can play games against UConn? There are no other Big East schools that even have FBS football programs. This just further demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of conference realignment and media value. If FSU and Clemson announce they're leaving the ACC in the morning, VT will be on the phone with the Big 12 and drawing up ACC exit papers before supper time.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
10mo
have a respectful conversation, even if we don’t agree.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
10mo
I will refrain from using such a hurtful and egregious term going forward.
(In response to this post by Stech)
10mo
But it will result in Louisville/VT/GT/plus whoever leaving for greener grass. The ACC will survive. It'll be Stanford/Cal/SMU/WF/NCSU/BC/CUSE/RICE/USF/UCONN/+whatever
(In response to this post by Stech)
10mo
just going to disappear. It will survive. I assume that ESPN will still be a partner. But it's going to be a G5 conference with its primary focus on basketball. That's the bed the ACC administration and the presidents and ADs of all these tiny little basketball-first schools have made for themselves.
(In response to this post by thebluelot)
10mo
with your top football brands, including ND. How can that be?
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
10mo
Had to joke about UNC. Do you have some evidence/numbers to back up that opinion?
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
10mo
VT was the only game on in the entire country, same for UNC. Are you seeing a trend here yet?
(In response to this post by Stech)
10mo
With one less team. I believe Medium ran a story on it but it was just a reporting of Nielsen ratings. It'll be interesting to watch this year because Nielsen is more accurately representing both rural and streaming numbers and some believe it'll benefit the SEC/Big12 more than the Big10/ACC, however, will benefit all cfb.
Much like political polling, rural America was under-represented in TV ratings. The latter part of my ramblings there is not factual but predictive. We'll see?
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
10mo
or at least 3 years, but even 3 is not the best business practice.
(In response to this post by thebluelot)
10mo
Going backwards is apples and oranges.
(In response to this post by Stech)
10mo
But I'm not getting paid to run numbers.
It's not a VT problem. VT has shown brand resilience. The issue is nobody watches the bottom 12 teams in the ACC. If the bottom of the ACC were stronger a Big12/ACC merger would've happened in the last couple years. More people watch KU/Baylor/TCU than Duke/WF/NCSt. Houston and Cincy are the bottom Big12 brands currently and they obliterate the bottom ACC programs. This is factual from an attendance and ratings numbers perspective. You have to remove brand dysmorphia/bias to see it. ACC stadiums have been half empty for a long time.
The ACC isn't top-heavy, it's bottom-heavy.
(In response to this post by Stech)
10mo
showed the ratings, but no longer have the link. It was plain as day. It is what it is.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
10mo
gave me nothing. I can be swayed, but not that way.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
10mo
don't feel like looking it up again.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
10mo
can easily be a flash in the pan.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
10mo
I built a massive database of over 7,500 games over those ten years. And I did it so that we could have informed discussions here and other places (and not have to be guessing).
If y’all want numbers, just ask me.
But I won’t be able to post them unless I’m working from home.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
H
HOO86
10mo
He would have to be enticed away from the Cocks, but I would think Tech will try. He's done pretty well there. And he is a Hokie.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
D
daveinop
10mo
VT is radically restructuring and greatly increasing spending (at least 40% and perhaps a good way above that) on athletics. Sub .500 in the SEC isn't going to get it no matter what your name is.
Word is football would be split from the rest of the department and placed under it's own GM. The AD would be over the remaining sports. I think they'll hire a football GM first who will then select a coach. I'll be very surprised if they don't pick a currently successful P4 HC (or VERY successful G5) that has no significant ties to VT, if for no other reason than there aren't any. VT can't really afford to miss right now even if they have overpay to get there.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
H
HOO86
10mo
All of the responses suggest not happening.
(In response to this post by daveinop)
S
Stech
10mo
of him. Living in that shadow would quite "frankly" be a horrible life. I got my kids to shadow 4-8 people in the profession that they tested for doing, and felt in their heart they wanted to do it. I said, don't just ask them about their profession, ask them about their life in that profession. Then ask yourself if you would be happy in that life. They both are successful beyond anything I could have dreamed for them, and that is not only in their profession, but more so in their life, Shane would be miserable in Blacksburg and they love him in Columbia. Hopefully he makes it, but if not, it won't hurt as bad as if he didn't make it in Blacksburg. Maybe that's just me, but that's how I feel.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
10mo
At least here he is one of us. Will the USC faithful think the same if he is 6-6 or worse this year? They have crazy expectations. Coming here may bring him new life. Let's see how the season plays out.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
10mo
doesn’t have that in Columbia, you are right though, SEC patience is short so you never know. However, I think we need a proven winner even if for a short while to get things turned around like Buzz did. I also think it would be hard for Shane to bring SC players with him. We need a coach who can get players now.
(In response to this post by HokiesACC2004)
10mo
Chisel it on the Hokie Stone at Lane. Let's please stop this discussion point. It's almost as ridiculous as the "UVA to the SEC" posts.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
10mo
This isn't the House of Windsor.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
10mo
Shane has done ok as a coach. But he is not great and not at all what is needed by VT at this time. VT has a lot at stake with this next hire so I think there is a close to zero percent chance of Shane. The old VT might do it, but that’s what got us to this rock bottom. So VT needs better than a middle of the pack SEC coach.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
10mo
Name several coaches above this level that would come to VT. Because I can't think of any.
Also, I disagree with your assessment of Shane. First, I think Shane has done quite well at USC-e. He's doing much better than I thought he would for someone who wasn't even a coordinator at another school. Second, Shane didn't get to where he is by just being a part of the old guard thinking that you think is bringing down VT.
All this being said, I think it is a moot point anyway. I seriously doubt if Shane would seriously entertain coming here. The next wave of conference realignment is hanging over this program, and almost every other ACC and Big XII school like a storm cloud. I can't see any P2 coach leaving his position to come to VT, including Shane Beamer or Curt Cignetti.
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 9/16/2025, 1:12:25 AM
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
S
Stech
10mo
South Carolina over being constantly being compared to his Hall of Fame Dad.
We need big hire at AD and HC, we need to get people contributing again, Whit really was out of touch, and that’s being nice about it.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
10mo
The only positive aspect of our program right now is home attendance and somewhat ok tv ratings (which have been dropping for years).
Decisions will be made within the next 2-4 years and then we are out of time. I’m hopeful that I think VT has woken up to the fact of what is at risk and how far in the hole we are. But I don’t know if we can realistically make it out of the hole. VT needs a complete top to bottom overhaul of athletics and that is not a quick or easy or simple change. We need to be creative, willing to take risks, open to spending, and hire externally. All things that VT has not done well in the past.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
10mo
The timing of this dumpster fire could not be worse. GT and Duke are probably more in the conversation than anyone outside F$U, Clemson, UNCheat and, yes, the hoovers.
If the BOV and subsequent athletic department prop-up don't create some miraculous turnaround within 12 months VT will be lucky to be extended a consolation offer to the Big12, probably relegated to a watered down ACC.
This current situation is a monster clusterf--k of the highest order and I pray there is some kind of divine intervention that turns things around.
** Edited by Maroon Unit at 9/15/2025, 3:48:03 PM
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
10mo
The one thing in our favor is that we have already set some things in motion. The alarm has been raised (very publicly). The AD and athletic dept look like they are about to see wholesale changes. Funding for athletics might improve. And we just hit the emergency reset button on football that enables us to literally replace the whole team and staff if needed.
Even with all of that, we still need to do three things.
1. Win football games
2. Schedule better for more tv exposure and viewership
3. Improve gameday experiences for fans (including facilities upgrades)
It’s a lot, but it’s not impossible
(In response to this post by Maroon Unit)
10mo
Do we renovate or go new? I feel like both Lane and Cassell could be renovated, but that would limit both.
I remember hearing that there are geologic limitations to Lane’s location that prevent more permanent construction. Particularly in the north end zone. Not even to mention the cramping of space with other buildings over there.
For Cassell, any renovations would cast a ton for only marginal gains with respect to luxury boxes, etc.
Brand spanking new might be the way to go for the long term.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
10mo
VT is not near enough to large population centers to warrant new stadiums that could be multi use. It’s a nice talking point on BOV slides, but realistically things like the Metallica concert are very rare.
So I’d vote to improve Lane and Cassell with some more modern luxury features and better food options at a minimum.
(In response to this post by hokieball)
