What's the future? ...the HokieHaven.com mailbag

Members on our premium message board, The Gobbler, have questions. HokieHaven.com Editor Tim Sullivan has answers. Read them here.

If you're not a subscriber, join today to access perks like reading and participating in our premium message board.

Not a HokieHaven.com subscriber? Join today for access to all our premium content and message board community.

VPIco2008: Should I start to worry that the Fuente thing isn't going to work out?

I think that's probably too strong a way to phrase it, but certainly I wouldn't contend that everything is perfect.

On-field, there have been some things that went very wrong that were outside the purview of the current staff (walking in with only a true freshman quarterback on the roster and eligible), some things that were downstream from that but they didn't handle well (recruiting only one quarterback, without a more coherent enough plan to handle it longer-term, particularly when he tried for the NFL after a single year), and other things that were simple bad luck overall (injuries at that position and having to play a walk-on - albeit one that they recruited - significantly in the aftermath). Not all those problems are quarterback-related - arguably the similar problems on the offensive line and at linebacker were even more significant, and with similar effects - but all are significant.

On the recruiting trail, the staff has done a very good job evaluating and offering players early, and intermittently landing the guys that they consider top overall on the board. Beyond that, I think it's fair to have significant questions about the organization and execution of a coherent, cohesive recruiting plan.

In the big picture, I think it's important to figure out the context against which to compare the success overall. It may be painful to consider, but comparing to teams from over a decade ago, rather than the more recent VT teams under the Frank Beamer squad actually make the Fuente era look better than the fair context for comparison, not worse.

The issue is that this staff has maintained the program's level, not elevated it back to the level from which it had unquestionably fallen. The 2020 season was supposed to be the year of the payoff, and given the context of this college football year, it'll be hard to evaluate positively or negatively at its end.

But unless this Hokie team looks like one that has made strides (regardless of the opt-outs, players missing games because of quarantine, etc.), it'll be fair to worry. I wouldn't lose sleep over it just yet, but next offseason should give plenty of clarity if this year doesn't give any sort of finality in its answer.

rawest00: Tim, would you explain where things currently stand with the scholarship situation for next season. It appears this could further create economic issues for the universities. Also remind us of the eligibility rules for those who do play this year and whether playing 4 games or less has any impact on their standing. I think everyone is confused by these issues and you may be equally uncertain.

I wish I could explain it very easily, but I think the "everyone" you mention as being confused, at this point, includes the NCAA.

What has been firmly established is a two-prong difference from a typical season: First, the 2020-21 season will not count against the eligibility (five calendar years to play four on-field/court years) of current student-athletes - the four-game limit is irrelevant this year, as nobody will exhaust any of their eligibility. Secondly, in order to accommodate that, the scholarship limit of 85 will be temporarily suspended for the 2021 football season (there haven't been formal announcements - and perhaps not decisions at all - in other sports).

So what does that mean? For starters, players on-scholarship in what should be a senior year of eligibility this Fall can come back next year - but that's if both player and school want. There are plenty of non-contributors who may not have the additional year extended by their schools, and there may be others who make a personal decision to move on from the sport. Add in that many players will head to the professional ranks (from a Hokie perspective, one such example is defensive back Caleb Farley, who will head to the Draft with two years of eligibility remaining), and there will be some attrition.

Still, the reason for that suspension of the 85-man roster limit persists: schools are expected to need that one-year exception. How it plays out in 2022 and beyond isn't determined - which you could consider a lack of foresight by the NCAA if you so desire, or perhaps a problem that they hope to figure out over time.

In terms of the financial impact on schools, it will certainly be a greater issue for those living hand-to-mouth (or close to it) than it is for those that have large budget surpluses. It's not going to be easy, and it may indeed be crippling for some. That said, from a personal perspective I'm always going to care more about the welfare of student athletes and recruits than athletic departments. The power dynamic is such that shedding tears over organizations that have spent the past three decades (since the TV contract regulations were eased) figuring out ways to waste money so they didn't seem rich... is just not something I'm going to be interested in.

fcraig: Does anybody know why theACC TV show can't do closed captions on it's talk shows. 20 to 30% of their listeners have hearing problems. Hard to enjoy not understanding what is being said

That, I don't have an easy answer to. ESPN (which is the managing owner of the Network) contracts with companies for its other television outlets, and to the best of my knowledge, those same contracts should apply to the ACC Network.

My understanding is that it should work in the same way - and if it doesn't, there's no malicious intent, to say the least.

cmmcclu: Over under on how many games Hokies play this season. How many games to you think we win?

I think fans should look to about seven or so games as being a satisfying answer. That's obviously not because of how many we want them to play (everybody on the planet would have preferred no pandemic and a full season from the jump) but keeping realistic expectations in the wake of an extremely deadly global pandemic.

Two Hokie games have already been rescheduled - and the dates to move others already used up - while contests around the country are still being pushed back for similar reasons. The margin for error is gone. In a year that's always going to carry an asterisk, trying to reconfigure further might not be worth the public health risks if there's another breakout.

Obviously the hope is that another breakout (whether in Blacksburg, Raleigh, or elsewhere) doesn't come about.

In a scenario where the Hokies play all 10 currently-scheduled games, the expectation has to be that every game outside of Clemson is winnable. With the natural unknowns of college football coming into play as well, you can count on a second loss, too. The expectation is 8-2. Hitting it will feel right. Anything better than that feels good. Anything worse will leave a very sour taste. If games are further pushed back, the percentage of contests won will change, but a loss to Clemson and one other team (whether that's a 4-2 record or an 8-1 record with the Clemson game never played) is fair.

es79hokie: How do you expect the basketball season to play out? Do we limit games to in-conference only?

There's still too much up in the air, but the expectation from my end is bubble-type events (three or four games over a five-plus day stretch, for example) to make up a non-conference schedule, while the sanctity of the ACC schedule is prospected as much as possible, with all 18 games fit in. A couple bubble-style events per school and you have a reasonable six to 10-game schedule before conference play.

Numbers with the novel coronavirus can get better quickly (though any reasonable observer would doubt that), and it could ultimately look basically the same as any typical year, albeit pushed back a couple weeks. They could get worse, and non-conference play could be out the window entirely, with conference play also threatened.

What we've seen is that the NCAA and its conference will work to have seasons look as close to a typical year as possible (for better or for worse from a competitive and public health standpoint), but there's a long way to go before we have enough information to know the external criteria they'll make the final decisions based upon.

cmmcclu: What do you think of the 2 QB system?

I'm really curious to see how much time Braxton Burmeister gets. I suspect that the program's hype of the Oregon transfer is more about preventing opponents from preparing as comprehensively as they'd like (with a hope that VT has enough garbage time to keep up the ruse without needing to throw him into competitive moments), rather than anything Hendon Hooker lacks - or more specifically, anything Burmeister can do that Hooker can't.

I know it's a truism that two-quarterback situations are bad, but it's not one I subscribe to. If they provide different things, or one is being groomed for the future while the other is the here-and-now guy, there's not only not a problem, but indeed there's plenty of value to them.

My hesitancy is having seen Burmeister struggle at Oregon, I do question how much he'll be able to provide that Hooker can't. Following that, I worry that not giving him the vote of confidence as capital-t capital-g The Guy undermines him a bit. This is oft-cited as one of the problems with a two-QB system, but I refer to it specifically as it relates to Hooker - and particularly after seeing his year last year.

That's in part because - strong track record of development though this staff has - the evaluations at Virginia Tech have been potentially problematic. Ryan Willis was clearly an inferior quarterback to Josh Jackson, but the staff ran off the latter to please the former. Willis was clearly an inferior quarterbacking talent to Hooker last year, but Willis started over him for the first third of the season (including an opener in which he single-handedly lost the game).

If the staff's decision-making around Burmeister playing time is grounded in a pure talent evaluation - 'can't keep this guy off the field' - so be it. But if it's related to the same sort of blind spot that saw Willis (competitor though he was, and a great kid, to boot) get the benefit of the doubt to force the others to step their games up, when they were clearly better players, it can - and will - be questioned in the end. For now, I don't have a problem with it, but I'm not in practices or the coaches' meeting rooms. From an external perspective, I'd give Hooker the wheel and let him do his thing.

FROM THE HOKIES FAN SHOP: Click HERE to check out all of our inventory, plus summer DEALS on officially-licensed HOKIES apparel!