VoxVlog

BLACKSBURG, Va. — It’s a Virginia Tech mailbag so big we had to split it into two parts.  If you missed Part I, go read it here. Now for more of your Hokies questions:

As Virginia Tech fans, what should our expectations realistically be once our “rebuild” is complete? Should we be content with being an annual contender in the ACC? Is it unrealistic for us to think that we could periodically make a serious run at the national championship? — Christian B.

The goal should be to compete for and win an ACC title, plain and simple.

Advertisement

That’s well within Virginia Tech’s reach, both historically (four championships in seven years from 2004-10) and hierarchically (shoot, Pitt won the league two years ago). The Hokies’ resources aren’t the best, but they’re better than half the ACC. Same goes for their facilities. There’s enough talent in Virginia, if Tech can keep it at home, to be highly competitive using a local approach. I wouldn’t say Virginia Tech is at the top of the NIL market, but it’s not poor on that front either.

In short, it’s a good enough program, with the right leadership, to be playing for an ACC championship, just like North Carolina, Pitt and Wake Forest have in recent years. And if you can win the ACC, you’re almost guaranteed to be in the 12-team playoff that’s coming.

But there is a difference between making that 12-team playoff and making a serious run at a national championship. And that’s not an insult to Virginia Tech. There are really only a handful of teams (Georgia, Alabama, Ohio State, Clemson until recently) that can win a national title every year, and they all recruit at a level most schools can’t approach.

TCU was a great story, but I don’t even put the Horned Frogs in that category of being able to make a serious run, despite just playing in the title game. Once they played an elite team, they got run off the field. I don’t think an expanded playoff changes that dynamic — if anything it makes it tougher for teams in that second tier to win a title because it adds another round — but it’ll still be fun getting to what I think will be the same outcome.

Tech got to the cusp of a national championship before with the perfect storm that included a Hall of Fame coach, uniquely loyal innovative defensive coordinator and generational quarterback. That’s tough to recreate, and even future versions of that formula in the aughts couldn’t match up to those ’99 and 2000 teams.

Advertisement

A more sensible program goal, to me, is to be a consistent ACC challenger, with some conference titles along the way. Anything beyond that is gravy.

Andy, let’s pretend Justin Fuente lands the Baylor job and VT quickly moves to bring in a coach who had varied experience at winning programs around the country, albeit one without head coach/coordinator experience. Let’s say it’s someone like Shane Beamer (as some wanted for the reasons above). Is Tech in better hands with a younger HC who understands both how big programs work, the geographical footprint and the reality of coaching in today’s NIL landscape? Or is Tech’s antiquated approach an albatross that would’ve limited any hire’s ability to quickly make the program competitive? — Vic S.

That depends. Does this new coach know how to get the most out of Hendon Hooker in 2020?

So much of Fuente’s decline was his inability to sort out the quarterback situation, be it maximizing the ones he had or bringing in the right transfers out of the portal. I maintain that the front end of the roster wasn’t terrible, even up through Fuente’s dismissal in 2021. It lacked depth overall and a stud (or at least one who performed like it) at the most important position on the field, which is the difference between a team that barely gets to 6-6 and one that’s the mix in the division and by extension the ACC.

There was a roster reckoning coming, though. The 2020 recruiting flop and hordes of attrition were probably going to catch up to whoever was the head coach. As it turned out, Brent Pry felt the sting after a rush of veterans to the pros/portal after 2021, with depleted ranks and no headliners left behind.

Could a coach hired ahead of the 2020 season have stemmed that tide a bit? Perhaps. But the pandemic would have made that tough for any first-year coach, and 2021 still might have been a rough one given Bud Foster’s retirement (he was done regardless of the head coach) and the major transition that was going to involve.

I think Tech’s in a better spot right now if someone new had come in for 2021 just because it would have fast-forwarded the transition to a new coach. By keeping Fuente that year, it turned out to be clinging to an approach and staff that wasn’t working, though I still think it’s defensible the Hokies waited a year to see that for sure given the oddity of the pandemic season.

Advertisement

Regardless of the coach, though, there were still structural things within the program that would have needed upgrading, from staffing to the assistant salary pool to facilities (which were being completed that year) and other factors.

The Hokies are likely further into their rebuild had they been forced into a new direction back in 2020, but NIL would have been a transition for any Virginia Tech coach, and the program was probably going to pay the piper roster-wise at some point for the track it’d been on under previous leadership.

I heard it suggested the other day a $2 million spending cap per school in NIL money. Sounds like a good idea in theory, but I’m not sure. Thoughts? Guard rails are certainly a must going forward. — Brian W.

I think a labor lawyer would love for that plan to be introduced, because he or she would have a field day with the litigation it would bring.

The NCAA’s already in enough hot water with its entire business model. Colluding to put a cap on NIL spending — which is technically not supposed to be part of the school’s purview anyway — on players who aren’t supposed to be employees and without collective bargaining is really asking for someone to intervene legally.

Until the schools come around and admit players are employees and negotiate in good faith with them about split of all the TV money coming into the sport, they’re not going to be able to limit anything. They’ve clung to this outdated amateurism model and resisted change. Well, the change happened largely without their input. And it’s too late to go back now.

People like spending money on football — often irrationally. There’s no changing that. And now some of that can go to the players directly. It’s different but not sordid. If you’re good at something, you should get paid for it if there’s a market for it. The NCAA PR machine has just conditioned us for so long to think that’s wrong.

What I find interesting is you only now hear about the need for guard rails when it’s players who are cashing in rather than coaches (and administrators) who have been doing it for decades. Funny how that works.

Advertisement

Ever since Kyron Drones was signed, the prevailing consensus is that Drones will be competing with Grant Wells to win the starting job. But what about Tahj Bullock? Bullock was recruited as more of an RPO/read-option QB, and his skill set seems like it more closely matches that of Drones than Wells. Given what we assume are the coming changes to the offense, do you get any sort of feeling from the coaches that Bullock has a better chance of competing to start than anyone else has mentioned to date? Or is it a foregone conclusion that Bullock enters the portal once he’s told he’s (at best) QB No. 3? — James B.

It is interesting how there’s such a different perception about Bullock, a 2021 signee who has been in the program two years and the current system one, and Drones, a 2021 signee originally who just joined the program as a transfer after mostly not playing at Baylor.

There’s certainly a difference in pedigree. Drones was the No. 263 recruit in the 247Sports Composite coming out of high school and Bullock was 922nd, so the ceiling between the two feels different.

But also Drones was recruited specifically by this staff to play in whatever their vision of the offense is going to be. Bullock was brought in by the previous staff and was a backup option after Dematrius Davis flipped to Auburn. Given that, it shouldn’t be so surprising that they’re viewed so differently heading into the spring.

I’m not sure what to think of Bullock’s future. Last year was a grind for him. Coaches spoke several times about how freshman Devin Farrell was picking things up in the offense a little quicker than Bullock, despite being a year younger. And Wells and Jason Brown were miles ahead of them. Plus, if the coaches thought he was ready to push Wells for the starting job, they likely wouldn’t have pursued Drones in the portal with such gusto.

Something’s gotta give one way or another at quarterback. Tech has six right now, which is too many, particularly on a roster with a numbers crunch. There’s a pretty low chance that’ll hold. And if Drones becomes the guy as a redshirt sophomore, just how much of an opportunity going forward is there for a redshirt sophomore like Bullock?

Maybe we see something out Bullock this spring that we haven’t yet. It happens all the time, especially for players going into their third year in the program. But the days of players sticking in a program for three or four years waiting to get their shot at quarterback are in the past.

Where does “Stone” rank on the all-time list of best names for a middle linebacker? (Tech got a transfer commitment from VMI linebacker Stone Snyder this week.) Who will have better Hokie stone puns, you or McFarling? — Bryan H.

You have to be stone stupid (or possibly just stoned) to think there’s a better linebacker name out there than Stone Snyder, particularly for a program like Virginia Tech, which has Hokie stone plastered all over every building on campus. It’s a pairing meant to be. Unless there’s someone named Larry Leveled or Omar Obliterated or Sam Stuffed, it’s tough to do better for a linebacker.

Advertisement

As for puns, A-Mac always wins, mostly because he has no shame.

#Hokies Basile looks pretty good, I'll Grant you that

— Aaron McFarling (@aaronmcfarling) December 8, 2022

Pick two great VT teams from the 2010s (i.e. 2010 Hokies and 2016 Hokies). If the teams played each other, what would the game be like and who wins? — Kevin D.

Let’s go with the two teams you mentioned because picking “great” Virginia Tech teams from the 2010s is a pretty limited pool. (That 2011 group was better than 2016 but too similar to 2010 to make this fun.)

I think the 2010 group wins comfortably. You’ve got Tyrod Taylor at the peak of his powers and a three-headed running back group of Ryan Williams, Darren Evans and David Wilson to contend with, not to mention a solid O-line and steady-all-day receivers in Jarrett Boykin and Danny Coale. That’s a tough offense to stop.

The 2016 team had Jerod Evans at the helm, a decent offensive line headlined by Wyatt Teller and that dynamic wide receiver trio of Isaiah Ford, Cam Phillips and Bucky Hodges. But, despite the force of nature that Sam Rogers was, the tailbacks were a rotating crew, and that offense laid some eggs periodically out of nowhere (Syracuse, Georgia Tech, first half against Arkansas).

The weird part, given the Hokies’ history, is both teams were a bit more offensively inclined. Those defenses were fine but not the best Tech had that decade (2011,’13 and ’17 probably vie for that designation). Statistically, the 2016 group’s D was better — with studs like Tremaine Edmunds, Woody Baron, Chuck Clark and others — whereas the 2010 team was playing a lot of young guys (though some, like Jayron Hosley, who had nine picks, were outstanding).

I just wouldn’t bet against Tyrod. Once that 2010 team got past the Boise State disappointment and JMU hangover, it got on a roll with him leading the way and was a pretty tough out, playing its best football by the end of the season. I’d pick that group by a touchdown over the 2016 crew.

(Top photo of Tyrod Taylor: Streeter Lecka / Getty Images)

ncG1vNJzZmismJqutbTLnquim16YvK57k2pubWpmZnxzfJFsZmlqX2Z9cMLIq56ippmWerWxwqFkn6efqa%2BiuMtmmJybXZi1ornPoqanq5ievbR5z6WYsqeWm3w%3D