When you’re a program that hovers around .500, it feels like every game is the most important game of the season. Heck, college football feels like that anyway with its 12-game schedule. But in the case of this trip to Syracuse, this game truly was a turning point.
“Of course it’s a turning point. We lost.” No, I would have said the same thing, win or lose, about this game. To me, the BC and GT games were turning points only if Virginia Tech lost, but this game was the real turning point, regardless of outcome. There’s a big difference between 6-3 (4-1) and 5-4 (3-2). One is making progress; the other is continued mediocrity.
When Virginia Tech took its 21-3 lead midway through the third quarter, I calculated that dating back to last season’s 38-10 blowout in Lane Stadium, the Hokies had outscored Syracuse 59-13 over six-plus quarters. I started thinking about what I would write if the Hokies held on. I was going to write about how Virginia Tech was 12-6 in its last 18 games, an encouraging turnaround after Brent Pry started out 4-12 in his first 16 games.
Then the Orange outscored Virginia Tech 35-10 over the next 1.5 quarters and OT, and all of that went out the window. Now the Hokies are one game away from being .500 for the season… again.
In 2023, Virginia Tech was 4-4, then 5-5, then 6-6. This season, it has been 1-1, 2-2 and 3-3. Tech finally broke out of that dynamic by getting to 5-3 and was *this close* to 6-3. But now it’s one loss to Clemson away from being 5-5.
A .500 program… again.
If the Hokies had won this game to go 6-3, they could have absorbed a loss to Clemson, then beaten Duke and UVa to go 8-4. What’s the significance of 8-4? It was my personal floor for the 2024 record back in the preseason. (For the record, my ceiling was 10-2.)
That’s where I am right now. I’m anticipating a loss to Clemson, and if/when that happens, my floor will have been breached. The season will officially be a disappointment for me. Not a disaster, mind you. The situation at Florida State (1-8, 1-7 ACC) is a disaster. But a disappointment, yes.
We’ll return to larger issues in a moment, but for now…
Coaching Decisions
Andy and Chris covered clock management and overall coaching issues pretty well in their Saturday and Sunday columns. I’m not going to insert my opinions on these things because they align with what those guys have written, especially Andy’s “scared money” column. With 29 seconds left and three timeouts, Pry should have tried to get his team downfield and give John Love a chance to make a game-winner.One thing that hasn’t gotten much discussion is Brent Pry’s decision to not call timeouts as Syracuse was down inside the red zone and preparing to score the tying touchdown with less than a minute left.
With 1:21 to go, Kyle McCord was tackled on a running play at the Hokies’ 12-yard line, forcing second down and eight. Both Syracuse and Pry let the clock run, and Syracuse didn’t snap it again until there were 44 seconds left.
If Pry calls timeout there and everything else goes the same, then Virginia Tech would have gotten the ball back with two timeouts and over a minute to play instead of three timeouts and 29 seconds. Hmm.
There are differing schools of thought on whether you should use defensive timeouts in that situation. Timeouts help the offense because you’re preserving clock for them and giving them more opportunities to run plays. The flip side is that you get a breather for a defense that was a sieve at that point while allowing them to regroup. If the opponent does score — which isn’t a foregone conclusion, but a strong possibility — then you’ve got more time on offense, where there are other ways to stop the clock beside calling timeouts.
Applying situational awareness, Syracuse was on a roll and having its way with Virginia Tech’s defense, which needed a break. Never mind the math. A timeout might have been something to reverse momentum, but if not, at least you’ve got more time on the clock for your offense.
That said, I think Pry’s worst decision was to stand pat with 29 seconds left and three timeouts in his pocket. Play for the win. If I was a coach, fans would criticize me a lot because I’d be aggressive all the time and I’d screw some things up by being overly aggressive. But I’ve always believed that a head coach should send a message to his team that he’s going to give them a chance to win, not try to avoid mistakes by playing it safe.
I didn’t have the guts to say it at the time, but I was fine with the fake field goal attempt against Miami. I like the killer, go-for-the-throat mentality. I didn’t explicitly say that in my post-Miami Monday Thoughts (where I called the decision “questionable”) because the mob was screaming TAKE THE POINTS in full throat, but I kind of liked Pry going for the kill shot.
There are limits to that, sure, but you get my point.
Brent Pry has a knack for making the wrong decision almost every time when it comes to managing the clock and the game. I’ve said it before and I’m sure I’ll say it again: I don’t think he’s going to get much better at this sort of stuff. You’ve either got it or ya don’t. The guy’s 54 years old, for Pete’s sake. Do you think the light’s suddenly going to come on and he’s going to be a game-management savant? I don’t.
I see people suggesting some sort of advisor or game-management staffer to help him with this stuff. I have a hard time picturing my head coach turning to a guy next to him and constantly asking, “What should I do? What do you think? Huh?”
That’s a nice segue into the question, “Well, then, what should Pry and the program do?” At this point, it’s clear that this is an ongoing issue and isn’t going to suddenly get better on its own. So what’s the answer?
Is there an answer?
Uh-oh, I’m about to do it. I’m about to invoke the 1993 turnaround and how Frank did it.
The 1993 Turnaround and How Frank Did It
We’ve all heard the story. Here it is in one run-on sentence: After Virginia Tech went 2-8-1 in 1992, Frank Beamer and AD Dave Braine worked together on hiring new assistants and Frank drew up a list of changes he needed to make to the program to improve discipline and focus, which were then carried out by Beamer and Braine, and the rest is history.Much like Frank Beamer in 1992, Brent Pry in 2024 isn’t a disastrous train wreck that needs to be blown up immediately. Pry does some things well. He’s good with team culture, as far as we can tell from the outside, and is pretty good at roster building. He does all of the PR stuff well, too. Don’t scoff at the PR stuff. That sells tickets and keeps money coming into the program.
Pry wins half of his games. He just can’t win the close ones. His coaching decisions keep cutting his players off at the knees when they’ve played well enough to win.
Guess who else couldn’t win the close ones? Frank Beamer in 1992. He went 0-5-1 in one-score games. If message boards and social media had existed back in 1992, we could have microanalyzed every Frank Beamer decision that caused Virginia Tech to lose all of those games (and tie one of them) instead of winning them.
Some of the parallels between 1992 and 2024, with regards to losing games late, are eerie. In the 1992 season, if you analyze box scores, you find out that Virginia Tech lost four games (ECU, Louisville, Rutgers and Southern Miss) and had one tied (NC State) in which the Hokies led at one point in the final three minutes. The Hokies were close to going 7-4 but went 2-8-1 instead.
And now, this stat from message board poster, dllawson, via Andy:
https://twitter.com/AndyBitterVT/status/1853184642075001283
When you’re that close, as 1992 Frank and 2024 Brent are, and when you’ve built a tough, talented, competitive team, there should be just a few tweaks that will get you over the hump.
Looking in the Mirror
But before you can make those tweaks, you have to do a couple things. You have to look in the mirror, admit your mistakes and see your faults; and you have to have the support structure to carry out the necessary changes.
It’s unknown if Brent Pry has either one of those — the ability and willingness to self-analyze or an AD and support structure who can help him make the changes needed.
My guess is that Pry does have the ability to self-analyze. Most of us do. It requires some humility, and he strikes me as a humble guy. One of the great things about sports is that we keep score, we compile win-loss records and we have standings and rankings. There’s no hiding how well or how poorly you’re doing; you are what your record says you are. Make your record better or you don’t get to win championships (and you’ll most likely get fired).
It’s the support structure, especially the AD position, where Pry doesn’t have the help that Frank Beamer had back in 1992. That’s not a jab at Whit Babcock, whom I get along with and who has always been good to Tech Sideline. In part, it’s a comment on what Whit Babcock knows versus what Dave Braine, who was Beamer’s AD, knew.
Braine was a football guy. He played college football (at UNC, but we’ll forgive him for that, because his dream school, Georgia Tech, didn’t recruit him) and coached football for 12 years at five different places.
Dave Braine knew football. He told me when I interviewed him back in 2012 that he regularly sat in on Frank’s Sunday coaches meetings, would watch game film with Frank and his staff and then meet with Frank afterwards. Every Sunday. Braine knew from spending so much time with Frank that Frank was a good coach, and Braine knew where the flaws in the program were. Braine primarily felt that Frank needed to revamp his coaching staff.
Whit Babcock was a college athlete, but he wasn’t a football player (he played baseball at JMU) and hasn’t coached any sport at any level. I see fans suggesting that Whit should call Brent Pry into his office, detail the issues he sees in the program, ask Pry how he’s going to correct them and then help him fix those things.
Can Whit do that with Pry as well as Braine, a “football guy” who had attended coaches meetings, did with Frank? The odds say no. Braine and Beamer had an unusual relationship.
VT’s Position in the Marketplace
There’s another issue. If Pry and/or his AD decide that one or more new assistant football coaches are needed, Whit’s ability to go out into the marketplace and hire football coaches is compromised. The article written by ESPN’s Andrea Adelson in August of 2023 didn’t do Whit Babcock any favors in the industry vis-à-vis hiring coaches.Message board poster VTScoop, a mysterious figure who knows many former and current Virginia Tech athletic administrators, summed up this issue nicely in a post over the weekend, saying:
I will only say, there is a difference in what VT could do and get, and what Whit can do and get. Hope that makes sense. The article that was published last year on ESPN is still fresh (within the industry). There are several former VT staff that work in prominent athletic departments across the country (and other areas of athletics), and it is a small enough industry that word gets out as to the efficiency of our overall department (in many areas). And that is the sort of thing that keeps ADs from hiring a third football coach. The ceiling might be there because of how things are run, and not because of university potential, or even university financial capability. Take that for what it’s worth.
Two key lines:
- “… there is a difference in what VT could do and get, and what Whit can do and get.”
- “The ceiling might be there because of how things are run, and not because of university potential…”
Combine that with Pry’s status as a coach — he’s in his “contract year,” thus not on stable ground — and it’s not a good recipe for hiring assistants. Braine and Beamer pulled it off in 1992, hiring Phil Elmassian (and others), but it’s going to be hard for Whit Babcock and Brent Pry, if they decide that’s part of what’s needed.
I’ve covered the idea of Pry’s “contract year” before, but I can tell from reading the boards and article comments that a lot of people either didn’t read what I wrote or don’t recall it. Here’s a cut-and-paste from my post-Rutgers Monday Thoughts:
The third year of a coaching staff’s tenure is pivotal. Pry is in the third year of a six-year contract. His coordinators are in the first year of three-year extensions, and his other assistants are in the first year of two-year extensions, as detailed here.