Andrew Brown to Virginia

Submitted by jscbus on June 30th, 2013 at 3:01 AM

Per virtually all media outlets. Apparently he pledged to the Cavaliers during an online ESPN chat yesterday afternoon. SIAP, didn't see it anywhere, but relevant news nonetheless.

Comments

Magnus

June 30th, 2013 at 8:26 AM ^

In London/UVA's case, they should. Those guys are going there because of him. If he were to get fired, they would probably go elsewhere. He's done a great job of recruiting over the last two or three years, but they need to give him some time for those guys to develop.

Brown Bear

June 30th, 2013 at 8:35 AM ^

I'll be honest I'm not real familiar with UVA's coach and how long he has been there so maybe he does have a few years to work with. My point was that a couple recruits won't save a job if he is failing at the rest of his job.
I recall Virginia having a bunch of good classes under Al Groh I believe but they always seemed to underperform on the field. Talent never seems to be the problem there.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

June 30th, 2013 at 10:35 AM ^

London's seat is hotter from an external perspective than an internal one right now.  That may not be true at the same time next year, but that's the way it is right now.  London will spend this whole season dealing with more questions from reporters who think he's in trouble than from his bosses.

And yes, this recruiting class, which London has been working on for three years now, probably does have something to do with it.  There are three elite players in the 757 area, in this class, that London's been on like white on rice from his first day on the job.  Two are now committed and the third will be eventually.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

June 30th, 2013 at 10:48 AM ^

Kamara.  London's been on Nnadi for a while too but Kamara is a name the various sites have been talking about since late in his freshman year of HS.  Plus I don't think even Nnadi knows what he wants to do yet.  I could see him at VT or PSU or FSU just as easily as UVA and if another school comes in with an offer, like Ohio, it'll muddy the works even more.

Cope

June 30th, 2013 at 7:59 AM ^

It would be much better if Maryland got those recruits. For all his antics, Meyer was right*. The big ten needs to recruit much better than it has. It would be a good thing if the overall recruit level in the big ten reached or even surpassed SEC levels. Every time we win one instead of them I'll celebrate. With the caveat I hope they don't go to Ohio or MSU. It's not exactly a good thing when it's big two, little twelve. Except if we're that much better, rather than them being that much worse.

*granted Maryland wasn't in the big ten at the time.

EGD

June 30th, 2013 at 8:58 AM ^

I don't really agree with this whole idea that the rest of the B1G needs to recruit better so that Michigan can compete in a tougher league and that will somehow help us.  Miami never had trouble getting respect in the polls when they played in a miserable Big East. USC won national titles playing in a Pac-10 conference that was probably a good bit weaker than today's B1G.  The Big 8 and Big XII have usually been top-heavy, and if the champion went undefeated the weakness of the league was never really held against them.

Moreover, I guess I would rather win 11+ games every year and worry about whether our weak conference might keep us out of the playoff, as opposed to going 8-4 because the B1G is as tough as the SEC. 

GoBlueInNYC

June 30th, 2013 at 11:15 AM ^

I'm not sure if people realize how bad the Big10's reputation is around the country. Deserved or not, the Big10 is becoming the new Big East in the eyes of most of the country.

An influx of talent, winning some bowl games, and (most importantly) contending for titles will do wonders, but that hasn't really been the Big10's MO as of late.

MidnightBlue

June 30th, 2013 at 4:07 PM ^

Its that its exagerrated because the Big Ten was the premier conference in industrial America up until the mid 80s when it went to the SEC. But you will find that us and OSU will be considered the two northern teams that are superior to the SEC. Let Saban retire and Miles leave for Dallas .... Thats when we and OSU will pull ahead

vablue

June 30th, 2013 at 11:52 AM ^

The USC point is the best example. They clearly had some of the best teams of the 200s, but more often then not were left on the outside looking in with one loss because of their conference. Ideally you would like a conference that is at least good enough that one loss does not get you booted from the playoffs. The Big Ten is at a point where that may not be the case.

EGD

June 30th, 2013 at 1:17 PM ^

In 2008, a 1-loss Florida Gators team was selected to the BCS title game ahead of a 1-loss USC team, probably on the basis of conference strength. Florida's loss was at home, 31-30 to an Ole Miss team that would go 9-4 and finish with a top-15 ranking.  USC's loss was on the same weekend as Florida's loss, and to an Oregon State team that was comparable to the 2008 Ole Miss team (Oregon State also finished 9-4 and ranked in the top 20).  USC's loss, however, was on the road.  Both teams played difficult non-conference schedules (USC played @ Virginia and home vs. Ohio State; Florida played Miami and FSU).  So, the overall strength of Florida's SEC schedule is probably what gave UF the nod to the BCS championship.

However, that conference strength may have been the basis to deny a 1-loss USC an oppotunity to play for the championship in 2008 (and just because that appears to be the only logical point of distinction after the fact is does not necessarily mean that was the actual basis on which voters selected Florida in the first place) is hardly any guarantee that conference strength will continue to be the decisive factor--or even a major factor--in determining the fate of 1-loss teams in the future.  There have been countless seasons in which multiple 1-loss teams have been vying for a title game spot, and the rationale by which a team is chosen has never been consistent.  One year it's conference strength.  Another year, it's "well, team X lost by more points than team Y, so team Y is in."  Another year, it's "well, team X lost at home, so we'll vote for team Y, who lost on the road."  Another year, "well, team Y is just playing better football right now than team X."  Another year, it's "well, team X lost early in the season, so we won't hold that against them as much as team Y's late-season loss."  Or it's "well, team X won a bunch of close games, whereas team Y has been blowing people out."  Or, "we don't like rematches and team X already played team Z whereas team Y hasn't."  If you can think of an argument, it has probably been used to justify putting one team in the title game over some other team. 

So while I concede that playing in a strong conference can potentially improve a team's chances of getting into a title game or playoff, I also think that advantage is pretty small and unreliable.  

 

GoBlueInNYC

June 30th, 2013 at 2:18 PM ^

Beyond the direct effects conference strength has on Michigan's chances on getting into future playoffs (personally, I think the effects of a weak conference are mitigated by Michigan's prestige - other Big10 teams will be hurt more than Michigan and OSU in that regards), I just like the Big10, in general, and want it to stop being such a pile of shit.

gustave ferbert

June 30th, 2013 at 10:04 AM ^

they are still 27th even with 2 five stars in the fold.  Talk about being in the weeds!  Nonetheless good for them.  Does anyone else get the impression that these Mid atlantic kids are placing a higher premium on the value of education?  It really seems that way.

alum96

June 30th, 2013 at 2:23 PM ^

Let's talk about subjects like that when say the SEE EEE CEEE hasn't won say 5 of the past 10 national championships.  At minimum that is going to be 5 years away. 

You picked a random kid here to base your comment  (and it is a local kid)- I still see a bunch of SEC teams in the top 15 rankings year in and year out.  

gwkrlghl

June 30th, 2013 at 10:23 AM ^

Will be interesting to see if London can continue to keep a lot of those top guys in state. Virginia and Virginia Tech have been awful about keeping in-state players in-state. London just locked up #2 and #3, so if UVA can resist the urge to be impatient and fire him, I think he could build something that will finally pass Virginia Tech. Lord knows UVA needs it, they've lost to Virginia Tech in 13 of the last 14 years

m1jjb00

June 30th, 2013 at 11:41 AM ^

VT hasn't gotten any of the studs in Virginia with only Hand, Kamara and Nnadi left, and VT is not the favorite for any.  There are 14 guys who made a top 300/250/247 list on one of the four major recruiting lists (Rivals, Scout, 247 and ESPN), VT has only 2 commits (McMillian and Williams), both of whom made only one of the four.