as a VT guy, it's been a weird week (not soon enough), and rough 10+ years. haven't decided if i'm hopeful for the future yet. imo the problems are beyond the coaching staff. curious why you think VT is better job than UCLA? i mean i obviously think it is, but have also come to realize that how us Hokies view ourselves does not match the reality of how we're viewed by the rest of the CFB world.
as a Taylor drafter, love these nuggets! will be adding Fame this week.
I think both jobs are not that dissimilar in that they've both had extended periods of success, are both located in good areas for talent, but have lost their ways in the last decade or so.
With VT specifically, they have a great area for recruits, and the primary competitor for the best players there has actually become South Carolina of all places. You look at the Gamecocks roster, and their best players are DMV guys: Dylan Stewart, Ny Harbour etc. the local competition includes Maryland, UVA, RU, and some other B1G schools like PSU UM and OSU when there's an elite guy in the area. VT, in my opinion, is a better football brand than UVA and even maybe Maryland/RU, it's just been awhile since they were successful.
UCLA on the other hand is always going to be third or fourth choice behind USC, Oregon, Washington for California recruits, and that state is dying slowly from a football talent perspective.
To be clear, I think both places can be good with the right circumstances. In the NIL era, I mean anything can happen really. We might say that guys like Stewart and Harbour, or even players from nearby in the Carolinas like LaNorris Sellers, would never go to VT, but if the investment is there I think it could happen.
Texas Tech shouldn't compete with Texas for recruits but now they do... I don't know that the investment even needs to be that substantial to keep more kids home when you're competing with the likes of South Carolina, Rutgers etc.
UCLA, to me, sort of has the same problem as like a Cal or Stanford, obviously the network of alumni is rich and powerful but they don't care about football that much it seems, so compare that to VT, who apparently are lacking on the NIL front, the Hokie network I'm sure is nowhere near what UCLA's is, but if the enthusiasm is much greater at VT than a larger percentage of the available funds earmarked for football could make up the difference.
as a VT guy, it's been a weird week (not soon enough), and rough 10+ years. haven't decided if i'm hopeful for the future yet. imo the problems are beyond the coaching staff. curious why you think VT is better job than UCLA? i mean i obviously think it is, but have also come to realize that how us Hokies view ourselves does not match the reality of how we're viewed by the rest of the CFB world.
as a Taylor drafter, love these nuggets! will be adding Fame this week.
I think both jobs are not that dissimilar in that they've both had extended periods of success, are both located in good areas for talent, but have lost their ways in the last decade or so.
With VT specifically, they have a great area for recruits, and the primary competitor for the best players there has actually become South Carolina of all places. You look at the Gamecocks roster, and their best players are DMV guys: Dylan Stewart, Ny Harbour etc. the local competition includes Maryland, UVA, RU, and some other B1G schools like PSU UM and OSU when there's an elite guy in the area. VT, in my opinion, is a better football brand than UVA and even maybe Maryland/RU, it's just been awhile since they were successful.
UCLA on the other hand is always going to be third or fourth choice behind USC, Oregon, Washington for California recruits, and that state is dying slowly from a football talent perspective.
To be clear, I think both places can be good with the right circumstances. In the NIL era, I mean anything can happen really. We might say that guys like Stewart and Harbour, or even players from nearby in the Carolinas like LaNorris Sellers, would never go to VT, but if the investment is there I think it could happen.
Texas Tech shouldn't compete with Texas for recruits but now they do... I don't know that the investment even needs to be that substantial to keep more kids home when you're competing with the likes of South Carolina, Rutgers etc.
UCLA, to me, sort of has the same problem as like a Cal or Stanford, obviously the network of alumni is rich and powerful but they don't care about football that much it seems, so compare that to VT, who apparently are lacking on the NIL front, the Hokie network I'm sure is nowhere near what UCLA's is, but if the enthusiasm is much greater at VT than a larger percentage of the available funds earmarked for football could make up the difference.