Pressure Mounts as Mike Young Retools Roster in New Era of College Athletics

After missing out on March Madness for the second consecutive year, Mike Young must navigate the changing landscape of college sports to revive Virginia Tech basketball.

Virginia Tech’s men’s basketball season ended with a second-round loss in the NIT. (Photo courtesy of Virginia Tech Athletics)

(Editor’s Note: Within hours of the publication of this column, Virginia Tech added Temple transfer Hysier Miller to the program.)

In the old era of collegiate athletics, a coach would get at least a couple of years to rebuild a roster. Recruiting and developing players takes time.

But this is 2024, where college programs and NIL collectives bend the rules and operate on the periphery to engage in pay-for-play on a regular basis. Excited about that freshman coming back? Better pay up. Can’t wait for your senior-laden team to take the next step? Sign the checks.

Knowing what I know about Mike Young, that’s not how he would prefer to operate. Throughout his career, Young has been a recruit, coach and develop kind of guy. Young built a highly successful mid-major program using this approach.

He modified the approach when arriving at Virginia Tech, mixing the development of Sean Pedulla and Hunter Cattoor with the transfer additions of Keve Aluma and Justyn Mutts, the former being a player Young had previously developed.

However, Young has since sailed into uncharted waters. His roster has been gutted by the transfer portal over the last few seasons. Five players this spring alone have left the program for other opportunities. It would have been six, had Mylyjael Poteat not decided to return to Blacksburg.

Those defections left Virginia Tech with just six scholarship players — Poteat, Brandon Rechsteiner, Jaydon Young, Patrick Wessler and incoming freshmen Ryan Jones and Tyler Johnson.

Hey, at least Tech had enough for a starting lineup.

Since the portal opened, Mike Young has added three transfers to the roster…

• G/F Rodney Brown Jr. (from California) — Though a rising sophomore, Young has some valuable experience. He played in 32 games for the Bears last season, averaging 14.2 minutes per game. At 6-foot-6, Brown offers some decent upside as a wing player. He shot 39.7 percent from behind the arc in his limited sample size.

• F Ben Burnham (from Charleston) — With more than 100 games played, Burnham gives the Hokies some valuable experience. Burnham eclipsed a double-digit scoring average for the first time this season, averaging 11.9 points per game on 46 percent shooting.

• G Jordan Ivy-Curry (from UTSA) — Replacing Sean Pedulla is no easy task, but Mike Young is hoping that 17.1 points per game will help. Ivy-Curry was a bit of a volume shooter last season and will need to improve on his 40 percent clip.

All three of those guys seem like respectable players. Will they be enough to lift the Hokies out of ACC mediocrity? I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

What looks to be clear is this — for whatever reason, Virginia Tech is not retaining and attracting high-level players on a consistent basis. Those failures are why a program that won the ACC Tournament a couple years ago hasn’t returned to the Dance since.

Mike Young is having to adapt to this new landscape. He isn’t alone in that regard, as coaches across college sports are facing similar challenges. But judging from his past, Young is far outside his comfort zone.

The silver lining is that remaining inside your comfort zone inhibits growth. Unless you expose yourself to new things, you cannot improve. You remain in the same lane you’ve always been in, and while those around you get better, you remain the same.

The next one-to-two seasons are sink-or-swim time for Mike Young. Much of the goodwill earned from that conference championship has dwindled. The success of the last decade in both men’s and women’s basketball has raised the standard for Virginia Tech.

Mike Young is running out of time. It’s a new era, and it’s now or never.