Who should be accountable for the current dismal state of UVA football? There are many candidates who clearly have some or a lot of responsibility for UVA FB and therefore should be at least in part accountable for the current depressing level of UVA football. Sullivan certainly if only for position of authority and lack of interest, the Board of Governors for their distant hands off policy, the AD LIttlepage with overall responsibility for UVA athletics to include football, the Asst. AD Oliver who was given the reigns for FB as CL had other things to do or he just realized he didn't know jack about football, London obviously for the crappy job he has done with the FB program, and add to the list various assistants, etc. However, at the end of the day I submit the primary person responsible, deserving of the most criticism and blame, and therefore the one most accountable is our Athletic Director Craig Littlepage. Now before everyone gets lathered up and start blasting me for being way off base and unfairly targeting CL, allow me to point a few things out. And I am very much aware of the excellent results in other UVA athletic programs which no doubt Mr. Littlepage has had a very positive impact. However, I am talking specifically about football. IMHO Littlepage has some serious explaining to do regarding numerous actions and events contributing to the current mess with the FB program:
1. The hiring process - he should explain why there essentially was no meaningful "search" process conducted when he hired London. CL targeted ML from the get go, and it was pretty much a done deal. ML had coached at UVA, he did a good job as a coordinator, he was well liked, had success at Richmond primarily with the previous coaches players, was regarded as a great recruiter with particular strength in the Tidewater area, and that evidently was enough. If there was any real vetting undertaken it was minimal.
2. The initial hiring contract - there was nothing in London's resume or credentials that justified the initial hiring amount. Regardless of the salary levels of other head coaches in the ACC, London would be coming into the job unproven as D-1 Power 5 head coach. His compensation package should have been structured with a reasonable base commensurate with an unproven first year head coach, and layered with various incentives tied to win-loss record, graduation rate, etc. CL should explain why ML was hired at such a high base salary.
3. The ridiculous raise after the 2011 season including the buy out agreement - almost anyone objectively looking at the 2011 season would have concluded that the 8 wins was a very fortunate outcome resulting in considerable part to numerous breaks and was probably not realistically sustainable. Moreover, performance improvement should have been amongst the evaluation criteria, and looking at the final two blow out losses, one of which was a total embarrassment at home to our in state rivals, the conclusion should have been that the season was probably a fluke and improvements had not realistically been achieved.
4. Records after 2011, namely 4-8 in 2012 and 2-10 in 2013 - the explanation frequently give by Littlepage for retaining London is that the program was making progress. How can Littlepage possibly say that with credibility after the 2012 & 2013 seasons? CL should explain why he has retained London following those seasons.
5. London's sideline demeanor and game management - London's sideline antics are generally regarded, when people are being truthful, as silly and high school like. His game management consistently falls well short of what anyone would reasonable expect of a head coach, decisions on time outs, take or refuse penalties, forth down decisions, are all knee jerk random and not well considered.
6. Development of talent on the team, especially quarterbacks - one of the measures of good coaching is the discipline of players on the field and the performance improvements exhibited by the players during their time with the program. By all accounts, on average UVA players do not seem to reach their projected or anticipated performance level while in the FB program. The well chronicled bungling of the QB position has no doubt resulted in team dysfunction and poor on field results.
7. Turning the football program over to Oliver - ML needs to do some serious explaining about why that was done, and where has been the oversight considering the numerous questionable decisions regarding OOC scheduling and mandated hires.
For these and many, many other reasons, IMHO Craig Littlepage has some 'splaining to do!
1. The hiring process - he should explain why there essentially was no meaningful "search" process conducted when he hired London. CL targeted ML from the get go, and it was pretty much a done deal. ML had coached at UVA, he did a good job as a coordinator, he was well liked, had success at Richmond primarily with the previous coaches players, was regarded as a great recruiter with particular strength in the Tidewater area, and that evidently was enough. If there was any real vetting undertaken it was minimal.
2. The initial hiring contract - there was nothing in London's resume or credentials that justified the initial hiring amount. Regardless of the salary levels of other head coaches in the ACC, London would be coming into the job unproven as D-1 Power 5 head coach. His compensation package should have been structured with a reasonable base commensurate with an unproven first year head coach, and layered with various incentives tied to win-loss record, graduation rate, etc. CL should explain why ML was hired at such a high base salary.
3. The ridiculous raise after the 2011 season including the buy out agreement - almost anyone objectively looking at the 2011 season would have concluded that the 8 wins was a very fortunate outcome resulting in considerable part to numerous breaks and was probably not realistically sustainable. Moreover, performance improvement should have been amongst the evaluation criteria, and looking at the final two blow out losses, one of which was a total embarrassment at home to our in state rivals, the conclusion should have been that the season was probably a fluke and improvements had not realistically been achieved.
4. Records after 2011, namely 4-8 in 2012 and 2-10 in 2013 - the explanation frequently give by Littlepage for retaining London is that the program was making progress. How can Littlepage possibly say that with credibility after the 2012 & 2013 seasons? CL should explain why he has retained London following those seasons.
5. London's sideline demeanor and game management - London's sideline antics are generally regarded, when people are being truthful, as silly and high school like. His game management consistently falls well short of what anyone would reasonable expect of a head coach, decisions on time outs, take or refuse penalties, forth down decisions, are all knee jerk random and not well considered.
6. Development of talent on the team, especially quarterbacks - one of the measures of good coaching is the discipline of players on the field and the performance improvements exhibited by the players during their time with the program. By all accounts, on average UVA players do not seem to reach their projected or anticipated performance level while in the FB program. The well chronicled bungling of the QB position has no doubt resulted in team dysfunction and poor on field results.
7. Turning the football program over to Oliver - ML needs to do some serious explaining about why that was done, and where has been the oversight considering the numerous questionable decisions regarding OOC scheduling and mandated hires.
For these and many, many other reasons, IMHO Craig Littlepage has some 'splaining to do!
Last edited:
