Noise is growing and the poltical will to retire Beamers and hire a dynamic leader to lead our program is gaining traction. This is real,though the fat lady has not yet sung. Timing is iffy, but general discontent with our program leadership and position coaching is gaining altitude. It will not be soon enough. This simply cannot continue.
Retiring Beamers is gaining momentum
- Thread starter VT pcb
- Start date
Actually Jack the little guy not going to games will trump the big donor. What is more dramatic? Losing a $2.5M big donor or losing 5,000 little donors of $500 each and having 5000 empty seats.
You KNOW , you might want to think a little bit here...Season Ticket sales , Hokie Club Donations , Has been down and falling again. Your Math numbers are Way Low My Friend !! The Average Season Ticket holder Buys more than 2 Tickets and The Hokie Club Average is Way Above the $500 you used. Lane Stadium fills up with these " little" donors , they fill the Hotels, Restaurants and Shops in the NRV.....List goes ON. IT will trump the one or two big donors ...You might want to call ole Whit and see IF the big boys want to buy all the ticket sales and Money LOST each week...it's in the Millions...5,000 is a small number for lost seats last year ...Change will come when someone says I quit sending my big fat check in and/or these
other things I mention continue on....
We got into the mess we are in now because a bunch of donors wanted changes because ACC titles, 10 and 11 win seasons, and Orange and Sugar Bowls were not good enough. I hope they are happy now because they are getting exactly what they deserve.
This post was edited on 12/12 4:34 PM by pckank1
This post was edited on 12/12 4:34 PM by pckank1
Unfortunetly I do not believe that we will see any changes this year. Maybe Franks health could be a factor but if not I see it playing out just like it is now for at least another year.
COMMENT REMOVED.
Banned 7 days.
2.) No bigoted comments or hate speech.[/B] Bigoted comments or slurs of any type toward any group will not be tolerated and will result in an immediate week-long ban.
This post was edited on 12/14 2:30 AM by SunnyBeachWave
Further name-calling, bigoted comments or any other violation will result in a permanent ban.
This post was edited on 12/14 2:32 AM by SunnyBeachWave
Banned 7 days.
2.) No bigoted comments or hate speech.[/B] Bigoted comments or slurs of any type toward any group will not be tolerated and will result in an immediate week-long ban.
This post was edited on 12/14 2:30 AM by SunnyBeachWave
Further name-calling, bigoted comments or any other violation will result in a permanent ban.
This post was edited on 12/14 2:32 AM by SunnyBeachWave
If the O looks good in the bowl game nothing will happen. The UVA game and the bowl game may have this situation passed over due to Beamer's complete loyalty to his coaches. The youth and injuries this year on the team is Beamer's free pass.
Sure. Let's go back to 2007. We won 11 games, an ACC title, and went to the Orange Bowl with a true freshman QB, and a 2 star RB in Ore. But, after finishing top ten in the country, all we heard was how bad our offense was, and we should consider changes.
2008: We win 10 games again, another ACC title, and this time win our first BCS bowl in the Orange Bowl, all with a young QB still growing up, a young RB, and a bunch of young, inexperienced WRs. In other words, our "young' excuse this year is weak. But, once again, this is just not good enough for a lot of people because our stats were not flashy.
2009: We start the season against Alabama, and are leading them 17-16 in the 4th quarter. THIS is where we were as a program then. Leading a Bama team that would go 14-0 that year in the 4th quarter on national television. Also, that season, we beat a top ten Miami team 31-7, came back in thrilling fashion to beat a ranked Nebraska team, and closed the year by beating Md. 36-9, NC St. 38-10, UVA 42-13, and Lane Kiffin and Tenn. 37-14 in the Chick-Fil-A Bowl. Pretty good year if you ask me.
2010: We had 2 TEAM losses early (33-30 to Boise and 21-16 to JMU), then win 11 in a row, scoring 30 or more points 9 times that year, and 40 or more 6 times, including a 44-33 win over FSU for the ACC title. So, we go to the Orange Bowl, trail a very good Stanford team 13-12 at halftime, struggle offensively (0 points) AND defensively (4 straight long TD drives given up) in the 2nd half, and the result is another TEAM loss, an 11-3 record, an ACC title, an Orange Bowl and .........changes???
So, despite one of our best offensive seasons ever, the frustration continued, and the donors demanded change. Money talks, so, we get rid of Billy Hite, I guess because of recruiting, and change play callers. As if replacing Hite would help us get top ten recruiting classes? How is that working out?
2011: We have a new QB, but are 11-1 and #3 in the country when we play for the ACC title. This is just 3 years ago that we were in this spot, but we keep hearing how our troubles have been going on for a decade??? So, we lose the title game, get to the Sugar Bowl, and finish 11-3. Yet, once again, not good enough, and the screaming for offensive change kept going.
2012: We have our first non 10 win season since 2003, which included a 48-34 loss to UNC, and losses to Cincy and FSU, when the offense scored late to give us a lead, but the defense gave up a late score at the end.
So, one down season in 2012 gave the donors exactly the change they wanted, and here we are 2 years later at 6-6, talking about how "young" we are. So, I will say it again. I hope they are happy with a 6-6 record and a Military Bowl bid because obviously they were not happy with 10 and 11 win seasons, and Orange and Sugar Bowl bids.
The bottom line is we won less than 10 games twice in 11 seasons with the previous OC, and once in 7 seasons with the previous OC, WR coach, QB coach, and OL coach combo, and have already won less than 10 games twice in 2 years with the new staff. So, you tell me what has changed since 2012? We still have Bud, we still have the same type of recruits, and our schedule has gotten easier, not harder, because we have not even played FSU or Clemson the past 2 seasons.
We went from being relevant, one of the top programs and one of the most repected programs in the country, to being talked about negatively for our Wake game, and whenever Ohio St. was mentioned, we always heard they lost to a "bad VT team", and what a terrible loss it was for them to lose to us. So, congrats, donors, that is where we are now. Happy?
This post was edited on 12/13 1:38 PM by pckank1
Kank, I understand what happened on the field, but you didn't explain the "bunch of donors wanted changes" part. Where do you get that?
I may be wrong, but I always attributed our "fall" to not being able to recruit QB's in VA after Sean Glennon. Now that's just my opinion, no conspiracy, just opinion.
I may be wrong, but I always attributed our "fall" to not being able to recruit QB's in VA after Sean Glennon. Now that's just my opinion, no conspiracy, just opinion.
It was pretty obvious that Beamer had pressure to make changes. I am not alone in saying that.
2 of our QBs after Glennon are in the NFL right now. We used to have an identity, which helped us get guys like Tyrod, Williams, Logan, and Wilson. Now, we have lost our identity, we are going with pro style QBs, and we are one of the few teams out there who do not consistently have a QB run for a key 1st down. How is that working out?
I found these stats pretty interesting, courtesy of hokiesports.com
2004: 42 offensive touchdowns (24 passing)
2005: 48 offensive touchdowns (18 passing)
2006: 35 offensive touchdowns (13 passing)
2007: 37 offensive touchdowns (17 passing)
2008: 29 offensive touchdowns (6 passing)
2009: 46 offensive touchdowns (14 passing)
2010: 54 offensive touchdowns (24 passing)
2011: 47 offensive touchdowns (21 passing)
2012: 36 offensive touchdowns (18 passing)
2013: 33 offensive touchdowns (16 passing)
2014*: 29 offensive touchdowns (18 passing) no bowl game yet
2004: 42 offensive touchdowns (24 passing)
2005: 48 offensive touchdowns (18 passing)
2006: 35 offensive touchdowns (13 passing)
2007: 37 offensive touchdowns (17 passing)
2008: 29 offensive touchdowns (6 passing)
2009: 46 offensive touchdowns (14 passing)
2010: 54 offensive touchdowns (24 passing)
2011: 47 offensive touchdowns (21 passing)
2012: 36 offensive touchdowns (18 passing)
2013: 33 offensive touchdowns (16 passing)
2014*: 29 offensive touchdowns (18 passing) no bowl game yet
After Tyrod committed, 2008 to 2012, we offered 25 QBs. Leal and Ricardo Young were the only two we got. I'm talking about QBs offered as QBs. Some of that got to be shouldered by Frank. Just an observation.
On a serious note, does anyone have a clue about what Frank is dealing with? Surgery for a minor throat issue, but very shrouded as far as details. Reports are he should be on the sideline for the bowl game. Just a curious statement. The very minor nature of the procedure, as presented, made it sound like if the bowl game were 2 days later he would be good to go.
PcKank,
I think you are a bit confused dude. The reason we went to being irrelevant is because we sat on our fat laurels doing nothing because we were complacent with the ACC wins. The ACC was way - way down. Now that the top of the ACC is doing better we can't compete. It is not because of the changes the donors want but because the right changes weren't made soon enough.
I think you are a bit confused dude. The reason we went to being irrelevant is because we sat on our fat laurels doing nothing because we were complacent with the ACC wins. The ACC was way - way down. Now that the top of the ACC is doing better we can't compete. It is not because of the changes the donors want but because the right changes weren't made soon enough.
I am not confused at all. You said "now that the top of the ACC is better we can't compete", but the top of the ACC is better because of FSU and Clemson being better, and, as I said earlier, we have not played them the last 2 years, so what do they have to do with us not competing? And, for every FSU, Clemson, and Duke that might be better than they were a few years ago, there are a lot of teams like NC St., UVA, Miami, and BC who are worse.
From 2004-2012, we went 60-17 in the ACC, including 17-10 in games against ranked ACC teams (average of 3 ranked ACC opponents a year), and 3-3 against top ten ACC teams. Not counting the games against us, our ACC opponents had an overall winning % of .560.
From 2013-2014, we went 8-8 in the ACC, including 2-0 against ranked teams (average of only 1 ranked ACC team a year), and none against the top ten. Not counting games against us, and our ACC opponents had an overall winning % of .541.
See, I am not confused at all, but just maybe you are, especially since you blame our struggles on the top of the ACC being better when we haven't even played the best of the ACC the past 2 years.
Sunny said:
"It really doesn't make sense to think he was forced or pressured in to
any changes at OC, and then would follow that with such a crazy
unproven, roll-of-the-dice hire in Loeffler. That suggests changes were
of Beamer's own accord. (imo)"
But, we all know Loeffler wasn't his first choice. He went after Pep, Bobo, and a few others before hiring Loeffler. The problem was what good OC would come here after we had 2 Sugar Bowl spots, 3 Orange Bowl spots, four 11 win seasons, five 10 win seasons, and 4 top ten finishes in 11 years, but still relieved the previous OC of his duties?
I think it is obvious this was not Beamer's call, especially when you consider how Beamer was fine with our offense from 06-08, when we had 3 of our lowest ranked offenses. Then, we had 3 straight top 50 offenses from 09-11, and looked dominant on offense at times, and we are supposed to believe one of the most patient, "don't panic, stick with the plan" coaches out there, a coach who always talked about the importance of continuity in a coaching staff, wanted to make dramatic changes after our first non 10 win season since 2003?
"It really doesn't make sense to think he was forced or pressured in to
any changes at OC, and then would follow that with such a crazy
unproven, roll-of-the-dice hire in Loeffler. That suggests changes were
of Beamer's own accord. (imo)"
But, we all know Loeffler wasn't his first choice. He went after Pep, Bobo, and a few others before hiring Loeffler. The problem was what good OC would come here after we had 2 Sugar Bowl spots, 3 Orange Bowl spots, four 11 win seasons, five 10 win seasons, and 4 top ten finishes in 11 years, but still relieved the previous OC of his duties?
I think it is obvious this was not Beamer's call, especially when you consider how Beamer was fine with our offense from 06-08, when we had 3 of our lowest ranked offenses. Then, we had 3 straight top 50 offenses from 09-11, and looked dominant on offense at times, and we are supposed to believe one of the most patient, "don't panic, stick with the plan" coaches out there, a coach who always talked about the importance of continuity in a coaching staff, wanted to make dramatic changes after our first non 10 win season since 2003?
Shoot, I'd bet there are bright high school and small college OCs that we could get for peanuts just to get to VT.
And. "After Tyrod committed, 2008 to 2012, we offered 25 QBs.
Leal and Ricardo Young were the only two we got. I'm talking about QBs
offered as QBs. Some of that got to be shouldered by Frank."
Dang!?
And. "After Tyrod committed, 2008 to 2012, we offered 25 QBs.
Leal and Ricardo Young were the only two we got. I'm talking about QBs
offered as QBs. Some of that got to be shouldered by Frank."
Dang!?
Whit is smart enough to know how to play this. If you get the right guy, you get a couple of big donors to buy in and he's paid for before he coaches a down. Buzz was a big expenditure without a solid revenue stream from the sport or from donors. Football is a different beast.
So we will have to agree to disagree. I never said Florida State or Clemson but in general the ACC has improved (we can argue about NC State vs Wake Forest vs Duke) all you want but overall level of ACC has improved. We might look to the ACC vs OOC (especially SEC OOC) play this year for a clue of this. What I am saying is that yes we are down - but the downward slide started before Stinespring was replaced. I don't want to go through that whole thing because then it is just a blame on the previous OC. What I am really saying here is that when we were winning the ACC championships and the 10-win seasons we didn't capitalize on this the way we should have. Instead of working harder and getting to the next level we seemed to have thumped our collective chests and got lazy. We didn't work harder on the recruiting trail and now we are paying for our collective laziness. I am not pinning this on just the OC but everyone associated with VT football. If these championships were so good then we should have taken advantage of this and recruited and played better building on this to be an elite team. That didn't happen and that is why there is so much disenchantment within the ranks.
Quite a few people will argue that the ACC championships did not mean much because the ACC was down. That kind of showed because of the poor showing in the Orange Bowl games - losing most of them. I think that the prevelant thought here is that if the rest of the ACC improved - why didn't we improve with them and then we would still be winning ACC championships. With the staff that was inplace at the time I think it was obvious to Frank that we could not compete with an imroving Florida State and Clemson. Problem is the downward spiral that others had predicted made us uncompetitive with the rest of the ACC. It is amazing to say the least to see how we manhandled Ohio State and yet downgraded our gameplay the rest of the year. I am not sure Frank was forced into making a change as you suggest. Maybe he still wants to win and realized he couldn't do that with the staff he had. Now maybe he was satisfied with his new hires - maybe not. Perhaps Loeffler was gotten just so we could get Grimes. Who knows. We all know the offensive line play is subpar and a big reason for our offensive woes. No holes to run through and insufficient pass protection for a prostyle offense. We have to have a dual-threat QB for any chance of success. I do bleive though that in spite of a so-called thin athletic budget, the money will be there for the right hire should it come to that.
Quite a few people will argue that the ACC championships did not mean much because the ACC was down. That kind of showed because of the poor showing in the Orange Bowl games - losing most of them. I think that the prevelant thought here is that if the rest of the ACC improved - why didn't we improve with them and then we would still be winning ACC championships. With the staff that was inplace at the time I think it was obvious to Frank that we could not compete with an imroving Florida State and Clemson. Problem is the downward spiral that others had predicted made us uncompetitive with the rest of the ACC. It is amazing to say the least to see how we manhandled Ohio State and yet downgraded our gameplay the rest of the year. I am not sure Frank was forced into making a change as you suggest. Maybe he still wants to win and realized he couldn't do that with the staff he had. Now maybe he was satisfied with his new hires - maybe not. Perhaps Loeffler was gotten just so we could get Grimes. Who knows. We all know the offensive line play is subpar and a big reason for our offensive woes. No holes to run through and insufficient pass protection for a prostyle offense. We have to have a dual-threat QB for any chance of success. I do bleive though that in spite of a so-called thin athletic budget, the money will be there for the right hire should it come to that.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on why he made changes.
It appears Beamer went out of his way to hire a guy who had just proven he's at best average at oc, and not very good in the decision making department (per 100000 auburn fans).
Jolly inferred Weaver may have chosen Loeffler based on his cheapskate tendencies. Well, if so, Beamer happily jumped on board and could have vetoed Weaver easily. Beamer is a legend (although that might be a bit tarnished now) and held a lot of power at that time.
Wrong. Lack of continuity is the last thing scaring offensive coordinators off. I'm not sure why you continue to regurgitate this fallacy, because it is entirely untrue. Once more, of all the successful, long-tenured coaches in college football, whose staff has more continuity than any other? Why would 3 firings in a roughly 20-year span scare off potential candidates? The only coaches Beamer has formally "fired" are O'Cain, Newsome and I believe either J.B. Grimes or Pearman in the early 2000s. This is just simply atrocious logic -- even for you. The real reason no OC wants to come is because Beamer is in the twilight of his career and there is no long-term security for such a job as a result. It has nothing to do with the firings of O'Cain and Newsome who were worthless anyway.
Also, you continue to bring up the numbers indicating success due to our former coaches, but have failed miserably to attribute causality to them. Correlation and cause are not the same thing, and it's extremely illogical to take a single variable out of a situation involving an overwhelming amount of them and decide that one variable and only one is important. Like Beamer, you suffer from a short-sightedness and a pathology that lends to your tunnel vision, making it impossible to intelligently evaluate what's going on.
It's folly to arbitrarily attribute our success to these coaches, especially when you consider the 2012 season and especially when you consider it showed the snowball effect we've all been warning you about for years was indeed real. You can deny it and pretend it's the defense's fault all you want for their late-game swoons, but we have a handful of those on average per year anyway, even in our up years, so that doesn't make sense. And even if it is just the defense as you claim, that reflects a program-wide problem. No highly successful program should be in that precarious a position, where a defense who finishes "only" in the top 20 is blamed for a historic 6-loss season when its putrid offensive counterpart was 80th overall. Smart coaches and good programs plan in advance to safeguard against these kinds of catastrophes. Beamer and his staff didn't for years, and you are seeing the end-result of that now.
One last thing: this was completely and totally Beamer's decision. Boosters hadn't started withdrawing until after the 2012 season, and even now, after an atrocious 2014 campaign, there is still plenty of big and old money supporting Beamer. Beamer's decision may have been knee-jerk but it had nothing to do with boosters or internal pressure; the man basically runs the athletic department and has carte blanche to do whatever he wants. The decision actually goes back to the 2011 Sugar Bowl in which our offense had SEVEN drives in Michigan territory and only ONE touchdown. Beamer nearly made the decision then and there but didn't, and his frustration at prolonging that manifested at the end of 2012. But no, this isn't about boosters but you are typically wrong about what is going on internally with the VT program so this is no surprise.
You are utterly alone in suggesting this, actually, and it's convenient for you because it requires no corroboration. You made up this lie to further your ridiculous, pathological narrative about O'Cain/Stinespring/Newsome and nothing more.
There is absolutely no evidence that Beamer has been forced into making changes or that the athletic department has that kind of clout. In fact, the opposite seems more obvious. This is our third bad year and Beamer still has the athletic department handcuffed, still has enough "big" money to not feel overly concerned.
If he retains Loeffler, which I suspect he will do, you will change the narrative to something else, I'm sure.
Also, please explain to me how we've "lost" our identity, exactly due to Loeffler. Our offensive identity changed markedly when O'Cain started calling plays, and our identity with Glennon was obviously different because he wasn't mobile. We have an offensive identity this year: we're a pass-heavy offense with a QB who can't scramble, and an OL who can't run-block. Like any other year, we have shifted our identity to play to our "strengths" as best as possible. Not sure what you think is different about identity or why it's so surprising that two nationally rated top 100 recruits made it to the NFL.
I believe it was definitely Beamer's decision. Since 2012 was the first year the win-loss record took the dive, a knee jerk booster reaction so quickly doesn't make sense. Also, the way Beamer handled it in the public eye just seemed to have his stamp, in the sense that he made the announcement before he knew who would take the job if offered (kind of like announcing bringing in a national championship trophy case before winning the NC). He had already run out of the good candidates who's names we were hearing when he hired someone with the OC resume of Loeffler. That hire makes me wonder if Beamer may have wished he had done a little more investigation of who would take the job before he announced Stiney was being demoted from OC. That way if he didn't get Hamilton or Bobo or some other proven candidate to come, he would have still had an option not to proceed with such a drop off in the candidate's resume and just not make the change that year.
We all know we are not talking about a knee jerk booster reaction. They were wanting Beamer to make changes for years, and eventually money talks. It seems like the point you made supports my point, which is it was not
Beamer's decision. If it were Beamer's decision, of course he would have
waited and had a better idea of who we could get before making the
announcement of demoting his OC. Why wouldn't he? What did he, as a coach, gain by doing things the way he did?
This year shows how badly Beamer wishes we wouldn't have had to make changes. First, we have to get our 3rd OL coach in 3 years, and then we have a season full of confusion and chaos on the sidelines. From substitution issues to no identity, and everything in between, we just looked clueless on offense, and Beamer never looked so frustrated. And, of course, to make things worse, we give games away, lose to teams like ECU, BC, Wake, and GT who we so rarely lost to, and go 6-6 with a weak schedule when just an average VT team would have won the Coastal again. Thanks again, donors.
Manley with a devastating blow to pckank......he's wobbly; does he have anything left in the tank?
My point was meant about where the pressure to make the changes was coming from. Other than the big money boosters, the administration, or Beamer himself, I don't know where else pressure would come from. My opinion is it was coming from Beamer himself, not from the admin or what anyone else wanted him to do. We've never seen him yield to that except in '92 when Braine told him to make personnel changes (before he had become bigger than the program itself).
I disagree about him waiting to make the announcement if it was his decision. I think that's exactly what he didn't do, and a big mistake on his part. Just like bringing in that national championship case. JMO though.
This post was edited on 12/16 1:43 PM by mrjolly01
I can agree with you about the empty trophy case. That was a disaster from the beginning, and once he did that, it made the 10 and 11 win seasons a little disappointing to many because the expectations were now to put the national title trophy in the trophy case. With 120+ teams, including about 65 major teams trying for the same thing, 10-15 of which are major powers, it is okay to have that as a goal, but not smart to have an empty trophy case waiting for it to happen.
This year is a good example of why no one, and I mean no one, should ever be disappointed with 10 or 11 win seasons and Orange and Sugar Bowls. Win or lose, I LOVED going to ACC title games in Charlotte, and LOVED going to Miami and New Orleans for big time bowl games. Obviously, doing what we did is not as easy as many thought, and I feel sorry for the fans who were so miserable several years ago that they did not enjoy our great success.
This year is a good example of why no one, and I mean no one, should ever be disappointed with 10 or 11 win seasons and Orange and Sugar Bowls. Win or lose, I LOVED going to ACC title games in Charlotte, and LOVED going to Miami and New Orleans for big time bowl games. Obviously, doing what we did is not as easy as many thought, and I feel sorry for the fans who were so miserable several years ago that they did not enjoy our great success.
2013...the offense still stinks, and Stiney is still sitting in the booth.
2014...the offense still stinks, and Stiney is still sitting in the booth.
I finished filling out the timeline for that certain unnamed person, since there was so much relevant information that was left out in an attempt to deceive.
This post was edited on 12/17 6:09 PM by hokiemtc
Similar threads
