All Signs Point to Richmond's London As Next UVA Coach
Various reports say Mike London will be UVA's next coach. The Daily Progress reported last week that the favorite for the job was Boise State's Chris Peterson, but has since revoked that statement. Two days ago the paper reported that many of the players favor London as Al Groh's replacement.
“He is a great coach. He was my first coach when I got here,” former defensive end Nate Collins said. “I feel like he did a lot for me. You always feel like when a coach is on you that you might not like things like that, but at the same time I give a lot of my success here to [London]."
London was an assistant under Groh at UVA until leaving to become Richmond's head coach. Last year he led the Spiders to an 11-1 record, an FCS national title, and is currently defending that title in the playoffs.
London has always made the most sense for the job. He is young, familiar with the players at UVA, familar with recruiting in the state of Virginia, and more likely to relate to players and their families than someone like Peterson coming from across the country.
Yesterday Daily Progress Sports Editor Jerry Ratcliffe reported London to the be the "favorite" for the job.
Jim Donnan of Atlanta Radio 680AM reported this afternoon that London will be the next coach at Virginia.
Based on all the information coming out of Charlottesville, expect UVA to announce London as their next head football coach within days of the Richmond Spiders' final game. Richmond plays Appalachian State in the FCS quarterfinals this Saturday, and their season could continue until Dec. 18th if the Spiders make it to the championship game again.
So the Wahoo faithful may have to wait a few more weeks to get their new coach. Until then don't be surprised if speculation surrounding other potential coaches, like Tommy Tubberville, Jim Grobe, and others, surface, but if UVA picks anyone other than London this Bleacher Reporter will be shocked.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?