October 22, 2003
West Virginia 28, #3 Virginia Tech 7
My advice to you... is to start drinking heavily.
--Bluto, Animal House
Perspective is a little bit hard to come by. Note that I'm starting to write this with five minutes left in the third quarter, because I am absolutely certain that we will not be coming back. There is no chance whatsoever. Even Coach Beamer has a look of surrender on his face, and I haven't seen that in the nine years I've been a Hokie fan.
Why did we lose? Well, I've got several reasons, so go grab a beer before you start reading. It's gonna be a long one. And for visiting WVU fans, please note that I give your team full credit for coming to play and playing well. You guys kicked our butts. I'm going to analyze VT's side of things because that's what I know best.
To the game. On offense:
- Bryan Randall had his Grant Noel-Miami '01 game. If you'll recall, in that game VT narrowly missed defeating Miami despite a 4-for-20 performance by Noel.
- VT's offensive line did NOTHING against the WVU defense. It appears that WVU's unorthodox 3-3-5 scheme I referenced in my pregame article confused the heck out of the Hokies.
- The WVU fans came ready for war, and the Hokies let them get into their heads. I didn't want to think that not having played a serious road game affected Tech, but now I'm pretty confident it did.
- Ernest Wilford had an uncharacteristically poor game. He didn't give Randall any help at all, on a day he needed it badly.
Now the defense.
- The WVU offensive line owned the Hokie front four.
- Particularly in the first half, VT bit on nearly every misdirection WVU showed. Overpursuit is a danger for a fast defense, and it sure killed Tech.
- VT fell for the Statue-of-Liberty play three times in the first half. This indicates to me that overall situational awareness was just not there -- if you're not paying attention to what your teammates are doing, how can you play effective football? The answer is, of course, that you can't.
- Mismatch Theater returned on the third-quarter 93-yd catch-and-run, with Michael Crawford again getting burned like toast by an opposing receiver.
- Dumb, dumb, dumb penalties. VT incurred twice its average negative yardage in penalties tonight.
This Tech team has the talent to beat Miami next week. The question is whether it has the heart. The collapses of the past two seasons do not inspire confidence in me.
But I'm still a Hokie, and I'll be there next Saturday night, cheering my head off. It's what we do.
Techmen, we're Techmen, with spirit true and faithful
Backing up our team with hopes undying...
Win or lose, we'll greet you with a glad returning
You're the pride of V-P-I...
Comments:
posted on October 23, 2003 1:07 PM — 64.3.228.130 — link — abuse?John Ludwig said:
The entire VT squad seemed to lose its composure in the 3rd quarter. Beamer whacking a player; the multiple late hit penalties which really hurt VT. I'd love to see VT come back and hang one on Miami, just to create BCS controversy re all the 1-loss teams, but they need to deal with adversity better, I am sure there will be some tough moments in the Miami game.
As Kevin said, great analysis of the game.
posted on October 23, 2003 1:32 PM — 12.26.69.6 — link — abuse?
I appreciate the compliments, guys.
Like I said, I've never seen Beamer look like that in a game. Usually he just looks determined, or flat-out angry if we're not playing well. Last night in the third quarter, he looked like he had no idea what hit him.
As for the Wilford incident, Beamer apologized in the Roanoke Times and the Washington Post this morning. We'll see what comes out of it.
Derek said:
posted on October 23, 2003 5:05 PM — 63.72.70.149 — link — abuse?
Agreed on all points, and lemme add two other things: the first time I remember seeing Tech stack the box against the run was with 4:30 left in the second quarter. That surprised me; they acted just like Miami did against the Mountaineers and didn't really try to make many adjustments. The second point is that Randall often had all day to throw, but stayed in the pocket. Why they didn't roll him out more in order to create more confusion for the WVU secondary is beyond me.
Rod H said:
posted on October 24, 2003 12:38 PM — 24.167.124.106 — link — abuse?
A recent quote from a member of the vast East Coast sports press conspiracy:
"The second half of Virginia Tech's season promises to be much more difficult than the first. After facing West Virginia and Miami, the Hokies play at Pittsburgh -- ranked in the Top 25 for much of this season -- before finishing with games against Temple, Boston College and Virginia. “
The second half would be more difficult if VT scheduled women’s volleyball teams. Good grief, their first game, which was representative of their first several games, was against Central Florida. Early in the 4th quarter against the towering Central Florida Knights, the score was 28-21. Next they played that perennial powerhouse, James Madison. Shortly thereafter came Texas A&M, Connecticut, Rutgers, and Syracuse.
If the true National powers (e.g., teams like Nebraska, OU, USC) scheduled similarly, we would have 30 teams in the “top 10,” most of which would be undefeated. Essentially, play a bunch of patsies, roll the dice on one tough game against Miami, and see if you get lucky.
They were undefeated in 1999, and even with Michael Vick got beat soundly by Florida State in the National Championship Game 46-29. You might ask, whom exactly did Virginia Tech play in 1999? The Hokies' five highest-ranked opponents were #26 (7-4) Virginia, #31 (8-4) Miami, #34 (6-5) Clemson, #40 Boston College (which went 8-3 but played the 91st-toughest schedule out of 114) and #57 (5-6) UAB. Much was made of Tech's nationally televised 62-0 spanking of Syracuse, but Syracuse turned out to be the #59 team in the country, sandwiched between #58 Hawaii and #60 Memphis.
It is a technique, and apparently one that has worked well for VT over the past few years. Even their beating in the National Championship Game didn't raise a red flag as they ended up ranked #3 in the country.
Number 3 in the BCS this year?? There is something very, very wrong with the BCS.
Is Virginia Tech any good this year? Who could possibly tell considering the teams they play every year?
posted on October 24, 2003 2:06 PM — 12.26.69.6 — link — abuse?
I'll note that Rod H's complaint about our "beating in the National Championship Game" in '99 only makes sense if you didn't watch the game. There's a reason the AP, which historically underrated the heck out of the Hokies in the '90s (average 3-4 place difference between them and the coaches), kept VT at #2 after that game even though the coaches dropped us to #3. Tech can't be blamed that the teams they beat all went into tailspins after their losses -- SU, Virginia, and Miami were all top 20 teams when that '99 Tech team laid the hammer down on them (62-0, 31-7, 43-10). Beatings like that tend to drop a team a few spots and shake its confidence (yes, just like #3 losing 28-7 to an unranked 2-4 arch-rival).
VT scheduled LSU and A&M last year, and its future schedules show OOC deals with LSU, Wisconsin, Illinois and Ohio State, in addition to retaining Miami every year and adding FSU roughly half the time once ACC divisional play comes around.
Are the collapses of the past two years disturbing? Yes. Are they due to scheduling? Unknown. Does that make the entire VT program a sham, like "Rod H" seems to think? Absolutely not.
Kevin said:
posted on October 24, 2003 2:56 PM — 155.72.100.4 — link — abuse?
VA Tech is not a sham but they do schedule a couple of cupcakes a year. The same could be said of 95%+ of college teams - even the bad ones schedule bad teams. You would think that eventually we would run out of cupcakes. ((scratches head))
There are a few teams that don't schedule cupcakes. I think Florida State is on that list, although I wonder what changes will be needed since Miami will no longer be OOC. Other than FSU, I'm hard pressed to find a team in the BCS that year-in & year-out doesn't schedule at least one softie.
VA Tech is a legit top team. I'm not sure they're top five, but that's why they play the games.
Pete said:
posted on October 24, 2003 10:11 PM — 68.38.45.201 — link — abuse?
I guess that depends on what you mean by a softie, Kev -- even the best conferences (of which the ACC is not yet one, IMHO) has teams that should qualify as "cupcakes." Sure, not all Cupcakes are created equal, but to say that there aren't any cupcakes in the Big 10 (Northwestern, anyone), Big XII (Baylor?), SEC (Vandy?), ACC (Duke?), etc... would just be glossing over some teams that really deserve credit for what they are.
Kevin said:
posted on October 25, 2003 9:14 AM — 12.239.232.140 — link — abuse?
I was strictly referring to out of conference games, Pete. Every conference has at least one softie. At least. Some have several, no doubt about it. But when you sign up Univ. Lous. Laf. (ULL) or Troy State, etc, etc for your out of conference opponents, that's weak.
posted on October 26, 2003 12:14 AM — 68.57.79.76 — link — abuse?
Care to support that with some actual analysis, Stuart? If so, lay it on us. Recruiting trends, comparative difficulty of the ACC contenders' conference schedules, schemes in the ACC that will give the Hokies problems like WVU's 3-3-5 defense did. Any of that stuff is welcome here.
Otherwise, take your smack somewhere else.
Pete said:
posted on October 26, 2003 2:16 AM — 68.38.45.201 — link — abuse?
I guess my point was, though, all conferences aren't created equal, and scheduling a strong out of conference in the ACC (this year) still doesn't always guarantee a stronger schedule than an SEC or Big XII team that schedules weak OOC games.
Honestly, until SOS plays a lot more into the BCS rankings, I think you can continue to expect teams to schedule cupcakes, because a few notches lower on their SOS won't hurt nearly as much as a loss. If we want to see ULL's and Troy State's stop getting scheduled, we need to count SOS for a lot more.
Rod H said:
posted on October 26, 2003 8:32 AM — 24.167.124.106 — link — abuse?
Pete hits the nail dead center on the head: strength of schedule (SOS) demands more emphasis in the BCS standings, lest we end up, God forbid, with a Northern Illinois U in the BCS.
In addition, the SOS calculation needs to take into consideration historical strength of the opponents, lest scheduling Notre Dame 4 or 5 years ago, finds them out of the top 25 the year you have them on your schedule. By the way, check out Notre Dame’s schedule this year, as usual one of the toughest in the country and they are paying for it this year. If Notre Dame went the route of some other schools, they too could undefeated and in the BCS standings.
Speaking of strength of schedule, if you go to http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/ncaa/polls/2003/bcs/
you can view the BCS calculations for this past week. You had better look quickly, however, before this week’s poll is published, in which, I assume, Virginia Tech will not appear.In the BCS calculations, they have a couple of SOS calculations and I will list those for the top 11 teams, 11 because it was an absolute abomination to include NIU this past week):
Strength of Schedule Compared to other Division 1 Teams (SS) (the lower the number, the better)
OU 11
Miami 30
Virginia Tech 60
Georgia 33
FSU 18
Ohio State 5
Southern Cal 29
Purdue 50
Washington State 76
Northern Illinois 100
Nebraska 32SCHD RANK: Rank of schedule strength compared to other D-I teams of actual games played divided by 25. This component is calculated by determining the cumulative won/loss records of the team's opponents' opponents (33.3 percent).
OU 0.44
Miami 1.22
Virginia Tech 2.40
Georgia 1.32
FSU 0.72
Ohio State 0.20
Southern Cal 1.16
Purdue 2.0
Washington State 3.04
Northern Illinois 4.0
Nebraska 1.28The fact of the matter is that Virginia Tech is glaringly out of place.
Does every team schedule a patsy, perhaps two, each year? Yes, but the top teams do not excel at it quite as well as Virginia Tech and they typically consider teams of moderate ability (i.e., not James Madison) and 1 or 2 teams sufficient.
posted on October 26, 2003 4:44 PM — 24.125.39.120 — link — abuse?
Good post, Rod H. I disagree, obviously, but good post.
From a football standpoint, I can't defend the scheduling of JMU, but from a political standpoint, I can. Giving an in-state I-AA opponent a big payday every 4 years is good politics, and this summer's events showed why it was vitally important for VT's athletic department to keep Virginia politicians happy.
I'm curious -- just how much more do you think strength of schedule can be weighted? With the removal of margin of victory from all the computer rankings, strength of schedule now far outweighs on-field results in influence on those rankings. Or should Oklahoma get the same credit for nuking Texas as they would have had they played a terrible game and won on a last-second FG? Because that's what happened. The nature of their victory mattered not one bit. Weight SOS any more and the fact that they won won't count for much either.
I've also got an issue with the "historical SOS" suggestion. First off, if you think that's an important consideration, how come VT gets no credit for scheduling Texas A&M? Surely they get a "historical SOS" bonus -- or maybe a more correct term for it would be "name points."
That's what all suggestions for historical credit come down to, in the end -- points for a name, as opposed to what the current players are doing on the field. That kind of thing becomes a self-perpetuating cycle, so you eventually wind up with the same 5-7 teams competing amongst themselves for the national championship every year, with some interloper coming in once every 10 years to spoil the party. And as for me, I'd rather not turn college football into major league baseball.
Rod H said:
posted on October 26, 2003 8:15 PM — 24.167.124.106 — link — abuse?
Josh is probably right about my proposal to include a historic component in the SOS. It is likely an unworkable bad idea.
But it is not a bad idea because it would lead to, as Josh points out, the same 5-7 teams playing for the championship each year. I believe we already have the same teams playing, although a few more than 5 -7. On the other hand, the interloper once every 10 years or so, is about right.
Over the past 30 years, 14 teams have one the National Championship 2 or more times and 4 teams have won once (6 ties and one 3-way tie explain the bad math). The teams with 2 or more have great name recognition. These teams include Miami (7), Oklahoma (4), Florida State (3), Tennessee (2), Nebraska (8), Michigan (2), Florida (2), Alabama (5), Washington (2), Georgia Tech (2), Colorado (2), Notre Dame (3), Penn State (2), and USC (3). The four one-timers include Pitt, Georgia, Clemson, and BYU.
What we really need is a playoff.
And yes, you should get credit for Texas A&M.
Rod
Pete said:
posted on October 26, 2003 8:52 PM — 68.38.45.201 — link — abuse?
Margin of Victory could be added back in in a way that doesn't encourage teams to run up the score, consider this point system for MOV:
3+ overtimes: 1 point
1 or 2 overtimes: 2 points
MOV <= 7: 3 points
7 < MOV <= 21: 4 points
21 < MOV: 5 pointsYou could do that, then maybe divide the SOS by 15 instead of 25 to increase its weight... that would make things a little better, I think.
Please note that all comments are subject to the Fanblogs Comment Policy.
Kevin said:
posted on October 23, 2003 12:12 PM — 155.72.100.4 — link — abuse?For the impartial viewer - this was an incredible game to watch. Great analysis - you hit the nail on the head.
Can Tech come back and get ready for Miami or are they roadkill? I suspect Tech will be back and ready to rumble with Miami, because they are right back in the thing if they hang a loss on UM.
What was with Beamer slapping his star on the head?! Very un-Beamer. Very unacceptable, also. Hope to see an apology from Beamer and a sternly worded release from Tech.