Online Now 326

Online now 275
Record: 3559 (6/2/2013)

Reply

What is going on with our coaches.

  • Cavs FB said... (original post)

    Pretty sure a part of their compensation is taxpayer money...that is why they get tenure if they hang on long enough....see Mike Price

    Define 'taxpayer money'? A college head coach isn't paid by the state of Virginia through tax money. He is paid from money made by the athletic department and already in its budget through other avenues like private donation. So if you mean that his salary is being paid by people who taxes, then you are correct. My salary is paid by people who pay taxes too but that's not what you're implying. Mike London's salary, nor Frank Beamer's are paid by the state of Virginia.

    signature image

    joakes@247Sports.com http://twitter.com/JamieOakes247 http://twitter.com/Wahoos247 http://facebook.com/Wahoos247

  • And Mike Price isn't tenured. He hasn't been coaching at UTEP long enough, although some would say he's served his debt to society following his "It's rolling baby" incident as Alabama's brief head coach. sarcasm

    signature image

    joakes@247Sports.com http://twitter.com/JamieOakes247 http://twitter.com/Wahoos247 http://facebook.com/Wahoos247

  • Pretty sure he is paid $300,000 from school funds or taxpayer dollars - see link

    http://datacenter.timesdispatch.com/salaries-virginia-state-employees.html

    Notice Beamer and Goonburg are not on the list because Tech handles it the way you are thinking about.

    This post was edited by Cavs FB 3 years ago

  • sobocav said... (original post)

    Refer to Biver post above yours for the list (though I have no problem with the 4th and 1 call, we had a 14 point cushion, we had the bigger line, prove to me you can be men) for the list the last 2 games and I'll add one more in putting the ball in the air with 30 seconds left in the half, no timeouts and deep in your own territory against Southern Miss. These aren't judgement calls where you can argue the pros and cons of the decisions. This is "Head Coaching Game Management 101" and right now, London is butchering it. If there are problems with these most basic of duties for a head coach, how can you BLINDLY trust his judgement with the bigger, more nuanced decisions in the building of a BCS program without being naive. This is my first public criticism of London's regime since he took over as I was content to accept every aspect of his program without question, and after the last 2 games, continuing to do so would just be sticking my head in the sand.

    Right now London is Fletch, looking for the engine in the luggage compartment so forgive me if I start keeping a close eye on him over his shoulder as I watch him work his magic with these ball bearings.

    No one is blindly trusting London. Obviously London has some areas that he needs to improve on, and should as he gains more coaching experience. I hated that we didn't kick the FG at the end of the first half, but does London lose the benefit of the doubt? No way. Right now I am happy with motivating the team and getting them to play hard, which is something we have gotten week in and week out. So far, London has met my expectations of a rebuilding program. If we are still making the same mistakes in 2 or 3 years with more talent, then I might worry, but right now, Mike London is the man and he is allowed to make coaching mistakes. Not sure why people feel the need to be tough on him right now given the 'circumstances' he inherited from Al Groh.

  • blacksburghoo said... (original post)

    Well said, let the downvotes rain, I like the truth and you hit it imo fwiw.

    Just because it is YOUR truth, doesn't make it so. The downvotes don't come because of disagreeing with what London does or the fact that he makes mistakes, it is the fashion in which it is done. To be outraged at anything this team does right now, is a bit silly in my opinion. I think fans need to gain a little bit of perspective. I thought it was a terrible decision to not kick a FG at the end of the half, but as soon as I walked out of that game, that was pretty much the end of it. London may make mistakes, but he gets a lot of things right, on and off the field, and he has made our program respectable again in my eyes. It doesn't put him above constructive criticism or questioning, but it puts him above some of the stuff I have seen said about him in the manner it is said.

  • Cavs FB said... (original post)

    Pretty sure he is paid $300,000 from school funds or taxpayer dollars - see link

    http://datacenter.timesdispatch.com/salaries-virginia-state-employees.html

    That is London's base salary, not the state dollars.

    signature image

    joakes@247Sports.com http://twitter.com/JamieOakes247 http://twitter.com/Wahoos247 http://facebook.com/Wahoos247

  • Grimlock said... (original post)

    No one is blindly trusting London. Obviously London has some areas that he needs to improve on, and should as he gains more coaching experience. I hated that we didn't kick the FG at the end of the first half, but does London lose the benefit of the doubt? No way. Right now I am happy with motivating the team and getting them to play hard, which is something we have gotten week in and week out. So far, London has met my expectations of a rebuilding program. If we are still making the same mistakes in 2 or 3 years with more talent, then I might worry, but right now, Mike London is the man and he is allowed to make coaching mistakes. Not sure why people feel the need to be tough on him right now given the 'circumstances' he inherited from Al Groh.

    He didn't inherit bad behavior from anyone. I had thought only Fester blamed his players for what were really coaching mistakes. What's ML's problem with Mike Rocco? Refer me to one complimentary thing he's said about Rocco all season. After IU he only said of Rocco that we only converted 3 of 10 3rd downs but "he'll" (Rocco) learn to do better. Not a word about leading the drive that tied the game. 300 yds against UNC. Don't recall any attaboy's from the coach for Mike. Maybe it's my memory. Help me out. This game he's blaming Rocco for not throwing the ball away quickly enough on the "botched (Jay Jenkins characterization) play of the last half. After calling for more offense at the beginning of games, Rocco's only led 4 td drives in the first quarter of each of the past two game and then been benched! How anyone can defend that is beyond me.

    Downvote my last star away. Don't care. It wasn't me the crowd was booing after the last play of the first half. I just hope it wasn't Rocco. He doesn't deserve it.

  • Grimlock said... (original post)

    No one is blindly trusting London. Obviously London has some areas that he needs to improve on, and should as he gains more coaching experience. I hated that we didn't kick the FG at the end of the first half, but does London lose the benefit of the doubt? No way. Right now I am happy with motivating the team and getting them to play hard, which is something we have gotten week in and week out. So far, London has met my expectations of a rebuilding program. If we are still making the same mistakes in 2 or 3 years with more talent, then I might worry, but right now, Mike London is the man and he is allowed to make coaching mistakes. Not sure why people feel the need to be tough on him right now given the 'circumstances' he inherited from Al Groh.

    You say in one sentence that "no one is blindly trusting London" and then in the very next sentence, say he still has "the benefit of the doubt". Forgive my grasp of the English language, of lack thereof, but in my book, those are synonymous terms. Differing in level of intensity perhaps, but conveying the same sentiment, none the less. Anyway, I've made my post on what we've seen these last 2 weeks and have little interest in going back and forth on it, making the same points over and over. Feel free to agree to disagree.

  • poddar said... (original post)

    He didn't inherit bad behavior from anyone. I had thought only Fester blamed his players for what were really coaching mistakes. What's ML's problem with Mike Rocco? Refer me to one complimentary thing he's said about Rocco all season. After IU he only said of Rocco that we only converted 3 of 10 3rd downs but "he'll" (Rocco) learn to do better. Not a word about leading the drive that tied the game. 300 yds against UNC. Don't recall any attaboy's from the coach for Mike. Maybe it's my memory. Help me out. This game he's blaming Rocco for not throwing the ball away quickly enough on the "botched (Jay Jenkins characterization) play of the last half. After calling for more offense at the beginning of games, Rocco's only led 4 td drives in the first quarter of each of the past two game and then been benched! How anyone can defend that is beyond me.

    Downvote my last star away. Don't care. It wasn't me the crowd was booing after the last play of the first half. I just hope it wasn't Rocco. He doesn't deserve it.

    Are you related to Mike Rocco? For the record, I think he should still be our starting QB. London was asked a question and he answered it truthfully. The play was to try to get in the end zone and throw it away if it wasn't there. Do I agree with it? No. If London had a problem with Rocco he would have made him the starting QB.

  • Benefit of the doubt doesn't mean blind trust. Blind trust is saying Mike London is a perfect coach and has no flaws. Blind trust is learning you coach is a dirty recruiter and looking the other way. Benefit of the doubt means it's OK for a coach to make mistakes, and not calling for him to have his gameday duties taking away from him.

  • nyhoo said... (original post)

    London has made as many confounding game day decisions in five games this year as Groh did in 10 years. Groh had his shortcomings, but gameday decisions was not one of them. London has his strengths, but unfortunately, right now gameday decisions does not seem to be one of them.

    I agree with this statement.

    I still think London has great potential, but he has either had a couple bad games or is playing like a 1st year and needs more game day experience. I am hoping he is humble enough to grade himself.

  • Galileo24 said... (original post)

    I always love these big fan proclamations!!

    No proclamation, just fact, if the same rideciluos crap is in place year 3 then I'm sure I'm not the only one that'll be falling behind the London bandwagon.

  • Grimlock said... (original post)

    Just because it is YOUR truth, doesn't make it so. The downvotes don't come because of disagreeing with what London does or the fact that he makes mistakes, it is the fashion in which it is done. To be outraged at anything this team does right now, is a bit silly in my opinion. I think fans need to gain a little bit of perspective. I thought it was a terrible decision to not kick a FG at the end of the half, but as soon as I walked out of that game, that was pretty much the end of it. London may make mistakes, but he gets a lot of things right, on and off the field, and he has made our program respectable again in my eyes. It doesn't put him above constructive criticism or questioning, but it puts him above some of the stuff I have seen said about him in the manner it is said.

    I can respect that, but for me its like alot of others site, if you can't handle the basics (calls / fundamentals) how can you truly build? hype and recruiting will wain. Thats why I said after next year if these issues persist I will have to start feeling like it isn't going to work.

  • This post is for members of Wahoos247 only. Join now! 30-Day Free Trial
  • poddar said... (original post)

    He didn't inherit bad behavior from anyone. I had thought only Fester blamed his players for what were really coaching mistakes. What's ML's problem with Mike Rocco? Refer me to one complimentary thing he's said about Rocco all season. After IU he only said of Rocco that we only converted 3 of 10 3rd downs but "he'll" (Rocco) learn to do better. Not a word about leading the drive that tied the game. 300 yds against UNC. Don't recall any attaboy's from the coach for Mike. Maybe it's my memory. Help me out. This game he's blaming Rocco for not throwing the ball away quickly enough on the "botched (Jay Jenkins characterization) play of the last half. After calling for more offense at the beginning of games, Rocco's only led 4 td drives in the first quarter of each of the past two game and then been benched! How anyone can defend that is beyond me.

    Downvote my last star away. Don't care. It wasn't me the crowd was booing after the last play of the first half. I just hope it wasn't Rocco. He doesn't deserve it.

    You haven't been paying attention. London has supported Rocco all season including saying after last week that "if Rocco is available he's the starter."

    Rocco didn't execute the final play of the half. If he had and we had run out of time then it would be on the coaches. Instead, he did the worst possible thing, try and run it in from 22 yards out.

    Rocco has done some good things this season including lead the team on two first quarter TD drives that were things of beauty. He's pretty solid when he has a good pocket. When he gets under pressure, he has struggled in some of his decision making. In his defense, he is a sophomore with 5 games under his belt so it shouldn't be surprising that he has a lot to learn.

    All this talk about London having something against Rocco is so ridiculous that I really have to wonder about the motivation of those suggesting it.

    signature image signature image signature image
  • G24 - you get huge upvote for the "VT wanted the next Cam Newton and what they got last night was fig newton" comment! Not sure if it was this thread or one of the other ones but that was pure gold!lol

  • Louisahoo said... (original post)

    G24 - you get huge upvote for the "VT wanted the next Cam Newton and what they got last night was fig newton" comment! Not sure if it was this thread or one of the other ones but that was pure gold!lol

    Thanks! The expectations they've put on that kid are ridiculous. VT has done him a disservice with all the talking up of him they did.

    signature image signature image signature image
  • I find it not only fun (or funny) but also good perspective to have my membership on HH. I never post, but it helps me to keep perspective at times. All fanbases root on their teams, but the teams are at different stages of development in the cycle of a program. Regardless, I can look at those "rants" over there and say "look, its not the end of the world - you can and probably should still win the Coastal". That would be a dream for us - they are bored with it. Its MNC or bust.

    They can call for Beamer's head all they want, but they better realize the grass isn't always greener. There are a lot of unhappy ACC fanbases right now. The only happy ones are Clemson, GT, Wake and Duke!!! As Mikeysurf pointed out recently, UMD fans are ticked, Miami fans have deserted in droves, VT is obvious, FSU is very upset their MNC dreams are dashed, BC has now lost to BOTH Duke and WF, NCSU fans are watching Wilson and are ready to kill O'Brien, and UNC fans are talking basketball already. and then you have UVA and all of us!

    He was absolutely right, as usual, and I think it is a good thing for all of us to bear in mind. Plus, if some of those teams tank, it could open up some opportunities for UVA to "steal one we shouldn't" this year. Looking at you MD, Miami, and VT!

  • This post is for members of Wahoos247 only. Join now! 30-Day Free Trial
  • This post is for members of Wahoos247 only. Join now! 30-Day Free Trial
  • This post is for members of Wahoos247 only. Join now! 30-Day Free Trial
  • This post is for members of Wahoos247 only. Join now! 30-Day Free Trial
    signature image
  • I too think that Lazor and London are not on the same page about the quarterback situation. I think Lazor wants to play one QB (Rocco) and London wants to keep platooning. The News and Advance had a quote from Lazor that talked about the platooning. Lazor stated that he has never done much of it before and stated that he wanted to ensure that if a QB was going to play throughout the game that he doesn't sit on the sidelines for 25 minutes anf then get thrown into the fire. Guessing, but I think he was referring to Rocco being on the sidelines for so long in the second half and then when Idaho tied the game, London threw him back in the game and expected him to be a savior.

  • This post is for members of Wahoos247 only. Join now! 30-Day Free Trial
  • This post is for members of Wahoos247 only. Join now! 30-Day Free Trial