Four VT rankings: 20, 21, 24, and 39.
| Rk | Avg | Conf | Poll: | Coaches | CFN | 247 | Athletic | Athlon | CBS | ESPN | FoxRJY | FoxJK | ON3 | PS | SI | SN | Steele |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.4 | SEC | Georgia | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | 1.6 | B10 | Ohio State | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 3 | 3.4 | SEC | Texas | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 5 |
| 4 | 3.7 | B10 | Oregon | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 |
| 5 | 6.6 | SEC | Alabama | 7 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 10 | 7 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 6 |
| 6 | 6.9 | SEC | Mississippi | 11 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 14 | 5 | 5 | 9 |
| 7 | 8.1 | Ind | Notre Dame | 5 | 11 | 10 | 5 | 10 | 8 | 5 | 15 | 11 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 8 |
| 8 | 9.3 | B10 | Michigan | 14 | 7 | 7 | 9 | 7 | 12 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 9 | 12 | 8 | 12 |
| 9 | 9.4 | B10 | Penn State | 10 | 8 | 9 | 11 | 8 | 9 | 12 | 12 | 9 | 12 | 5 | 9 | 12 | 5 |
| 10 | 11.0 | ACC | Florida State | 8 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 12 | 20 | 11 | 5 | 12 | 9 | 13 | 10 | 7 | 14 |
| 11 | 11.9 | SEC | Missouri | 21 | 17 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 7 | 8 | 11 | 10 | 10 | 18 | 7 | 11 | 22 |
| 12 | 12.8 | SEC | LSU | 6 | 9 | 13 | 14 | 11 | 10 | 14 | 7 | 14 | 16 | 19 | 16 | 10 | 20 |
| 13 | 12.9 | B12 | Utah | 15 | 14 | 18 | 25 | 15 | 11 | 9 | 9 | 6 | 11 | 8 | 14 | 15 | 11 |
| 14 | 14.5 | SEC | Tennessee | 13 | 12 | 12 | 15 | 13 | 16 | 15 | 13 | 16 | 14 | 24 | 13 | 13 | |
| 15 | 14.7 | ACC | Clemson | 9 | 15 | 16 | 18 | 14 | 14 | 16 | 24 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 15 | 14 | 13 |
| 16 | 15.0 | SEC | Oklahoma | 12 | 13 | 15 | 13 | 16 | 13 | 18 | 14 | 17 | 17 | 20 | 17 | 18 | 7 |
| 17 | 17.5 | ACC | Miami | 24 | 24 | 14 | 10 | 19 | 17 | 24 | 25 | 18 | 15 | 10 | 10 | ||
| 18 | 18.8 | B12 | Kansas State | 19 | 22 | 17 | 16 | 19 | 17 | 17 | 20 | 19 | 23 | 21 | 16 | ||
| 19 | 19.7 | B10 | lowa | 18 | 20 | 20 | 23 | 18 | 24 | 25 | 11 | 18 | |||||
| 20 | 20.4 | B12 | Oklahoma State | 28 | 21 | 23 | 24 | 18 | 25 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 20 | 15 | 19 | 19 | 17 |
| 21 | 20.5 | B10 | Southern California | 17 | 16 | 21 | 23 | 25 | 16 | 15 | 25 | 23 | 21 | 24 | |||
| 22 | 21.3 | B12 | Arizona | 40 | 19 | 19 | 20 | 15 | 20 | 23 | 21 | 21 | 30 | 11 | 17 | ||
| 23 | 22.0 | ACC | North Carolina State | 22 | 23 | 20 | 21 | 24 | 24 | 13 | 18 | 31 | 24 | ||||
| 24 | 22.6 | SEC | Texas A&M | 26 | 26 | 19 | 17 | 22 | 23 | 22 | 25 | 23 | 28 | 25 | 15 | ||
| 25 | 22.8 | ACC | Virginia Tech | 20 | 39 | 24 | 21 | 17 | 16 | ||||||||
| 26 | 23.2 | B12 | Kansas | 23 | 25 | 23 | 21 | 21 | 22 | 20 | 23 | 22 | 37 | 18 | 23 | ||
| 27 | 23.8 | ACC | Louisville | 16 | 29 | 25 | 22 | 25 | 32 | 22 | 20 | 23 | |||||
| 28 | 24.0 | B10 | Washington | 37 | 18 | 18 | 25 | 22 | |||||||||
| 29 | 27.8 | B10 | Nebraska | 25 | 35 | 22 | 24 | 33 | |||||||||
| 30 | 28.7 | B10 | Wisconsin | 31 | 30 | 25 | |||||||||||
| 31 | 29.3 | SEC | Florida | 33 | 36 | 19 | |||||||||||
| 32 | 30.4 | B12 | West Virginia | 42 | 32 | 22 | 21 | 35 | |||||||||
| 33 | 30.7 | ACC | North Carolina | 30 | 28 | 34 | |||||||||||
| 34 | 31.0 | B12 | lowa State | 27 | 37 | 29 | |||||||||||
| 35 | 32.3 | MWC | Boise State | 32 | 57 | 16 | 24 | ||||||||||
| 36 | 35.0 | SEC | Kentucky | 39 | 27 | 39 | |||||||||||
| 37 | 36.6 | ACC | SMU | 46 | 72 | 22 | 22 | 21 | |||||||||
| 38 | 39.0 | SEC | Auburn | 44 | 34 | ||||||||||||
| 39 | 39.5 | B12 | TCU | 36 | 43 | ||||||||||||
| 40 | 40.0 | AAC | Memphis | 35 | 59 | 26 | |||||||||||
| 41 | 41.5 | B12 | Texas Tech | 45 | 38 | ||||||||||||
| 42 | 44.0 | USA | Liberty | 29 | 76 | 27 | |||||||||||
| 43 | 44.0 | B12 | Central Florida | 41 | 47 | ||||||||||||
| 44 | 46.5 | B10 | Maryland | 60 | 33 | ||||||||||||
| 45 | 46.5 | ACC | Georgia Tech | 52 | 41 | ||||||||||||
| 46 | 48.0 | B10 | UCLA | 65 | 31 | ||||||||||||
| 47 | 48.5 | B10 | Minnesota | 55 | 42 | ||||||||||||
| 48 | 48.5 | B10 | Rutgers | 47 | 50 | ||||||||||||
| 49 | 51.0 | ACC | Duke | 53 | 49 | ||||||||||||
| 50 | 51.3 | AAC | Texas-San Antonio | 49 | 84 | 21 | |||||||||||
| 51 | 52.7 | Appalachian State | 43 | 77 | 38 | ||||||||||||
| 52 | 57.5 | SEC | South Carolina | 75 | 40 | ||||||||||||
| 53 | 58.5 | SEC | Arkansas | 73 | 44 | ||||||||||||
| 54 | 59.0 | Toledo | 38 | 80 | |||||||||||||
| 55 | 59.5 | James Madison | 34 | 85 | |||||||||||||
| 56 | 60.0 | MWC | Fresno State | 51 | 69 | ||||||||||||
| 57 | 62.0 | ACC | Wake Forest | 59 | 65 | ||||||||||||
| 58 | 62.0 | B10 | Northwestern | 63 | 61 | ||||||||||||
| 59 | 62.5 | ACC | Pittsburgh | 69 | 56 | ||||||||||||
| 60 | 63.5 | B10 | Illinois | 82 | 45 | ||||||||||||
| 61 | 63.5 | Colorado | 76 | 51 | |||||||||||||
| 62 | 64.0 | ACC | California | 80 | 48 | ||||||||||||
| 63 | 64.0 | Brigham Young | 66 | 62 | |||||||||||||
| 64 | 65.5 | MWC | UNLV | 50 | 81 | ||||||||||||
| 65 | 65.5 | AAC | South Florida | 64 | 67 | ||||||||||||
| 66 | 66.0 | AAC | Tulane | 57 | 75 | ||||||||||||
| 67 | 66.5 | SEC | Mississippi State | 81 | 52 | ||||||||||||
| 68 | 67.0 | Troy | 48 | 86 | |||||||||||||
| 69 | 68.0 | MWC | Air Force | 62 | 74 | ||||||||||||
| 70 | 68.3 | Texas State | 72 | 97 | 36 | ||||||||||||
| 71 | 68.5 | Baylor | 84 | 53 | |||||||||||||
| 72 | 68.5 | ACC | Syracuse | 74 | 63 | ||||||||||||
| 73 | 69.0 | Wyoming | 56 | 82 | |||||||||||||
| 74 | 70.0 | Miami (Ohio) | 61 | 79 | |||||||||||||
| 75 | 70.0 | Oregon State | 71 | 69 | |||||||||||||
| 76 | 72.0 | Houston | 78 | 66 | |||||||||||||
| 77 | 72.5 | Coastal Carolina | 54 | 91 | |||||||||||||
| 78 | 74.0 | B10 | Michigan State | 102 | 46 | ||||||||||||
| 79 | 75.0 | ACC | Boston College | 92 | 58 | ||||||||||||
| 80 | 75.0 | Ohio | 58 | 92 | |||||||||||||
| 81 | 79.0 | Arizona State | 103 | 55 | |||||||||||||
| 82 | 79.5 | B10 | Purdue | 95 | 64 | ||||||||||||
| 83 | 79.5 | Western Kentucky | 70 | 89 | |||||||||||||
| 84 | 80.0 | B10 | Indiana | 100 | 60 | ||||||||||||
| 85 | 81.5 | ACC | Virginia | 109 | 54 | ||||||||||||
| 86 | 82.3 | Louisiana-Lafayette | 104 | 103 | 40 | ||||||||||||
| 87 | 83.0 | Jacksonville State | 67 | 99 | |||||||||||||
| 88 | 83.0 | AAC | Florida Atlantic | 83 | 83 | ||||||||||||
| 89 | 84.5 | AAC | Army. | 68 | 101 | ||||||||||||
| 90 | 84.5 | Washington State | 96 | 73 | |||||||||||||
| 91 | 87.5 | Utah State | 87 | 88 | |||||||||||||
| 92 | 88.0 | ACC | Stanford | 108 | 68 | ||||||||||||
| 93 | 88.0 | Colorado State | 89 | 87 | |||||||||||||
| 94 | 90.5 | Georgia Southern | 91 | 90 | |||||||||||||
| 95 | 91.0 | Cincinnati | 111 | 71 | |||||||||||||
| 96 | 91.0 | Georgia State | 86 | 96 | |||||||||||||
| 97 | 93.0 | AAC | Rice | 88 | 98 | ||||||||||||
| 98 | 94.5 | AAC | Navy | 85 | 104 | ||||||||||||
| 99 | 96.5 | AAC | East Carolina | 79 | 114 | ||||||||||||
| 100 | 96.5 | Marshall | 98 | 95 | |||||||||||||
| 101 | 98.0 | SEC | Vanderbilt | 118 | 78 | ||||||||||||
| 102 | 98.5 | San Diego State | 105 | 92 | |||||||||||||
| 103 | 99.0 | Arkansas State | 93 | 105 | |||||||||||||
| 104 | 99.5 | Old Dominion | 97 | 102 | |||||||||||||
| 105 | 99.5 | South Alabama | 99 | 100 | |||||||||||||
| 106 | 100.0 | Bowling Green | 106 | 94 | |||||||||||||
| 107 | 100.0 | Northern Illinois | 94 | 106 | |||||||||||||
| 108 | 100.5 | Eastern Michigan | 90 | 111 | |||||||||||||
| 109 | 101.5 | New Mexico State | 77 | 126 | |||||||||||||
| 110 | 105.0 | San Jose State | 101 | 109 | |||||||||||||
| 111 | 108.5 | Central Michigan | 110 | 107 | |||||||||||||
| 112 | 111.0 | AAC | North Texas | 107 | 115 | ||||||||||||
| 113 | 111.0 | Hawaii | 112 | 110 | |||||||||||||
| 114 | 114.0 | AAC | Alabama-Birmingham | 116 | 112 | ||||||||||||
| 115 | 114.5 | Western Michigan | 113 | 116 | |||||||||||||
| 116 | 115.5 | Ball State | 123 | 108 | |||||||||||||
| 117 | 117.5 | Southern Mississippi | 122 | 113 | |||||||||||||
| 118 | 117.5 | AAC | Tulsa | 117 | 118 | ||||||||||||
| 119 | 118.5 | AAC | Charlotte | 115 | 122 | ||||||||||||
| 120 | 120.5 | Middle Tennessee State | 121 | 120 | |||||||||||||
| 121 | 122.0 | AAC | Temple | 120 | 124 | ||||||||||||
| 122 | 122.5 | Louisiana Tech | 124 | 121 | |||||||||||||
| 123 | 123.0 | Massachusetts | 114 | 132 | |||||||||||||
| 124 | 123.5 | New Mexico | 130 | 117 | |||||||||||||
| 125 | 123.5 | Nevada | 128 | 119 | |||||||||||||
| 126 | 125.0 | Texas-El Paso | 119 | 131 | |||||||||||||
| 127 | 125.0 | Florida International | 125 | 125 | |||||||||||||
| 128 | 126.0 | Connecticut | 129 | 123 | |||||||||||||
| 129 | 127.0 | Buffalo | 126 | 128 | |||||||||||||
| 130 | 127.0 | Sam Houston State | 127 | 127 | |||||||||||||
| 131 | 130.5 | Akron | 131 | 130 | |||||||||||||
| 132 | 131.5 | Kent State | 134 | 129 | |||||||||||||
| 133 | 133.0 | Kennesaw State* | 132 | 134 | |||||||||||||
| 134 | 133.0 | Louisiana-Monroe | 133 | 133 |
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
Notre Dame is in the ACC this year?
Yeah! How'd you miss THAT???
They also volunteered their bottomless pocketbook to make up the difference in broadcast revenue for the ACC to that of the SEC, intending to level the playing field in the interest of fairness and the restoration of college football /s
20,21 & 24 i can get on board with; but 39? They can go sit on an unlubed cactus
My guess is the lower ones factor in our entire season last year. First 4 games we were straight garbage.
LOLUVA at 84 is far too optimistic.
Uva is just happy that Stanford is in the conference now, so they have a chance to not finish last.
Did I ever tell you my CFN story? I'll boil it down for you. Fuck CFN. All they do is ignore VT.
If we beat every team we are composite ranked ahead of and lose to the ones we are behind, I'll certainly be very happy with the regular season. Heck, beat Vanderbilt and Rutgers (and don't choke on the other non-conference games) and we'll have some real momentum. Let's go!
10-2 if we win or lose based strictly on these composite rankings.
Exactly. My best guess for next year is 8-4 with 9-3 what I would consider next most likely. So 10-2 will be fantastic and a big upside surprise. Heck, do that and pull out a bowl win and we're top 15. Maybe even top 10.
What will be roughly the 10th best SEC team is ranked 12th in the country. It's like baseball. An ODU is 103...if we don't pull our starters in the 3Q something is wrong with this team.
The Athletic (link for those with subscriptions) has ranked Virginia Tech 25th in their post-spring rankings.
I'll admit, I don't like this. I'd rather we started out unranked and jump up and surprise everybody. I think we play better as the underdog.
If Pry is going to bring us back to being a big dog (at least in our conference) he is going to have to build a culture of playing with a target on our chest. Might as well start sooner rather than later.
Agree- across 40 years, a hall of fame coach, other coaches- VT football always seems to be good for at least 1 head scratcher - or worse- a season. Our 95 team- arguably one of our best lost to Cincinnatti in Lane stadium. We lost to one of the worst teams of all time- Temple at home. We lost to JMU at home, a horrid ODU team torched Bud for 600 yards, we lost to ECU at home after we beat OSU in the Shoe. Our 2016 team played for the ACC title, but lost to last place Syracuse. We were dominated for 60 minutes by a mid GT team that did not complete a pass against us- at home. Pry blew the ODU game in his debut- had it won, and totally melted down. We can sit here and make excuses etc- and claim that ECU is chippy, ODU has tall receivers, Babers is a good motivator, but bottom line, if we can't play well as a favorite, we can't take that next step. The cliche is playing down to your competition... we have been a totally mid program for years- in my mind there is no such thing.
I agree with that for the most part. I just don't think we're ready yet. I'd have liked to see us start out *this* season unranked.
To get buzz about the program you need to be ranked in the top 25. Getting this publicity helps with image and recruiting. Plus the higher ranked you are the higher you can climb (example two teams have nearly identical seasons, but one was ranked higher than the other to begin the season...then they'll likely still be ranked higher to finish the season).
It will never happen, but that's exactly why there should be no rankings at all until like week 3.
I guess technically the play off rankings don't start until later in the season, but its not like those just don't closely align to the AP/Coaches polls anyway.
Too much money to be made with the preseason magazines and online clickbait articles to do away with preseason rankings.
Exactly. So many empty, talking heads would be unemployed!
To quote our head coach, all of this hype "doesn't mean shit if we don't get ourselves ready to play."
Quite frankly I think this team needs this kind of hype and expectation, because the coaches are using it to give them an extra chip on their shoulders to prove they are worth it.
How physically competitive we are with BC, Clemson, Rutgers, Cuse, Marshall will tell me a lot about where we are- regardless of the scores. We were not at all physically competitive with FSU and Louisville last year. Rutgers ran right up the gut at us, as did Marshall. If we give up 300 rushing yards inside to BC, we aren't there yet as a program. That is what I am keeping my eye on. You can't get pushed around and win in this league.
....or any league, for that matter. Actually, the ACC is probably the only league that you can win even if you get pushed around a bit by a couple teams. This league is so full of non-football teams that you can have one or two great games against the best teams, get pushed around a bit by the middle of the conference, beat the worst teams easily, and find yourself in Charlotte with a shot to win the league. It's kind of a joke. Has been for a long time.
Post-spring SP+ rankings also dropped a couple weeks ago. VT projected at 32nd with the 42nd best offense, the 33rd best defense, and the 14th best special teams.
As far as teams we're playing, only Clemson (14) and Miami (19) ranked above us. Rutgers is our next highest ranked opponent at 49. GT/Syracuse at 63/64 respectively, Everyone else outside the top 75.
Yikes. Not great for the ACC. And not great for building a resume for an at-large bid for a playoff. It almost seems inevitable that only one ACC team will make it in, and the reasoning will be SoS. Maybe two if both Clemson and FSU go 1-1 against each other and win out the rest.
ACC and others of note:
10. ND
12. FSU
23. SMU
28. UL
29. NCSU
The ACC is so diluted that the top teams hardly play each other.
Spoiler Alert... playoff is 12 teams... Let's break that down... With Alabama and Ohio State getting in so long as they don't have 4 losses... its really a 10 team playoff. Add ND under the same scenario- now it's a 9 team playoff. The SEC winner if not Bama- 8 team playoff. So 8 teams- Locks- 1. The SEC runner up, Michigan, The SEC 3rd place team (not Bama- they are in), the B1G title loser (wisky Iowa, PSU), the Big 12 winner, The ACC winner, The charity- Boise, Tulane, whomever... so there is one spot left... 9/10 years it goes to a 4 loss texas, ole miss, lsu, kentucky, missouri.. VT aint ever getting in without a ticket.
So basically:
completely accurate. Its why the entire playoff was flawed from the very beginning. It should never have been about "the best four teams" and should have always been about placing the champion from each league in the playoff. How do you put 4 champions in from 5 leagues, you ask? Make the leagues play at set number of OOC games against each of the other four leagues and take the champions of the 4 leagues with the best interleague OOC records. Incentivizes teams to schedule tougher OOC games so it's not just about W-L records, but about body of work. Creates a little parity. Provides coaches/players with opportunities to get to the playoffs and get extra money/exposure/etc. so that if any of the leagues is ostensibly easier to win (the ACC, for example) then players and coaches who want a shot will migrate to those leagues. It'll force a natural rebalance of power so that no single league will consolidate all of the best players and coaches. But we can't have nice things...sooo this is the poop we get.
I still wish we could have gotten an 8 team playoff with each P5 champ, 2 of the next highest ranked teams, and the highest ranked G5 team. Obviously, that ship has sailed.
I hope the G5 finds a way to innovate a fun post-season, because the CFP is pretty bland in it's current form.
Yup we skipped past the best solution to go the one that might make the most money.
it's a playoff in name only. It's not actually a playoff and never has been.
You're right, the ship has sailed. There's no going back now, sadly. And I think the sport is worse off for it as a result. The P2 happened almost as a direct result of the playoff being, NOT ACTUALLY A PLAYOFF. As soon as the playoff revealed itself as more of a beauty pageant rather than an actual merit-based competition there was a huge rush to get a stranglehold on it and the SEC and B1G are the winners. Everyone else loses.
If the G-5 wants to stick it to the P2, they'll absorb the "middle 2" (which I'm defining as the ACC and BigXII plus the PAC scraps) to become the G-7 with an 8 team playoff where each of the 7 conference champions get an autobid and then the last spot can go to the highest ranked team of the remainder. That would be a great system and each league would have a seat at the table with no single league gaining a huge advantage over the others. The parity would keep the sport balanced across all the leagues and the level of competition would be more interesting. You'd get some teams that repeat frequently but there would be more opportunities for other teams to have a magical season and make it to the playoff. Winning a championship would become at least a somewhat realistic goal for most teams again. Right now, it's basically a foregone conclusion for a handful of teams and everyone else has no shot. Maybe that's how it has always been but the illusion is completely gone now. A merit-based playoff that gives every league an equal opportunity would keep the illusion somewhat intact and would provide for more entertaining football across the whole sport.
It is nothing less than hysterical to suggest a 1 or 2 loss VT team (that doesn't win the ACC) is missing out on a playoff bid to, and this is directly copy and pasted from your comment:
None of those teams are getting in with FOUR losses over a 1-2 loss at-large VT. And while Texas and LSU are certainly teams who are going to be beneficiaries in these at-large spot discussions moving forward with other big brands, to suggest a four loss Ole Miss, Kentucky, or Missouri is going to get that kind of treatment is particularly ridiculous.
Do I need to go back through and point out the lowest ranked 1 loss Power conference team in the country each year in the playoff era in the last CFP rankings? It's never been lower than seventh, and it was Ohio State... The only exception to this is the 2020 season where some B1G and PAC teams were dinged for playing nowhere near full schedules.
you thought it was unfathomable that an undefeated FSU would be left out. And then it happened. The "committee" will find ways to get the teams they want in. And it could very well be at the expense of the ACC. It already has been.
I didn't think it was unfathomable given the circumstances. It's also not relevant in the 12 team format.
I 100% agree that SEC and B1G teams will receive favorable treatment for at-large bids.
A one loss VT non-conference champion is never passed over for a playoff spot to FOUR loss Kentucky, Mizzou, or Ole Miss. Texas and LSU either, but those first three... I don't think DC even believes that.
in the year of our lord 2024, perhaps not. But by 2030, I could easily see a four loss Kentucky getting the nod over a one-loss ACC champion if those four losses came at the hands of four of the other playoff teams. Lets say Kentucky plays Bama, Georgia, Michigan and Texas and loses all of those games. But all four of those teams are in the playoff. VT loses to Clemson but beats FSU in the ACCCG. Clemson and FSU both have 2 or 3 losses each. The committee is going to have a hard time choosing between VT and Kentucky and it wouldn't be all that surprising if they picked Kentucky. Especially "given the circumstances."
I'm not losing sleep, or getting upset at all, about an unlikely, and theoretical playoff exclusion six years from now. That's not worth my, or anyone else's, time or mental health.
I'm not particularly confident it will even look the same in terms of conference realignment, or playoff size by 2030. I doubt this situation will ever come to fruition for us to even find out, but I don't think lower-end 4 loss SEC teams will be invading the playoff with any frequency, if ever. With three losses for sure they will be getting favorable treatment, the B1G teams as well.
The four losses though, that's wild. I realize this isn't the perfect future indicator (because these rankings will be more important), but I am going to post the highest ranked 4 loss team in the final CFP poll below, for every season it has existed.
2023: Oregon State 19th
2022: LSU 17th
2021: Arkansas 21st
2020: None ranked
2019: Southern Cal 22nd (ranked worse than 3 loss Cincinnati, a G5 team at the time)
2018: Texas 15th
2017: Stanford 13th (ranked AHEAD of 3 loss LSU and Notre Dame)
2016: Auburn 14th
2015: Tennessee 23rd
2014: Auburn 19th.
While, again, this does not reflect a reality where things will be moved around potentially for those last couple spots, but a 4 loss team has never finished in the top 12 in the CFP era, and the closest a team ever got was STANFORD, which is quite funny to me in terms of conference bias.
I think we may eventually see a 4 loss SEC or B1G team in a playoff, but it will be in one of these weird years where there are simply fewer teams with 1-2 losses. That is the main reason you see discrepancies between the highest ranked 4 loss team being anywhere from 13th (Stanford) all the way to after 20, which happened 3 times, not counting the irregular 2020 season.
By 2030 the entire system is going to have crashed and burned due to unregulated pay for play (NIL) and the crash and burn of ESPN as more and more cord cutters cut cable and ESPN can't pay the bloated contracts they agreed to.
All this talk of ESPN/TV collapsing, etc is just that. The NBA- a league that has hemorrhaged TV viewers and ratings in recent years, just inked a deal for triple what they were getting. This TV bubble is not bursting any time soon- no matter how many ESPN is failing articles you read. US viewers simply can not live without live sports. It's as american as apple pie, etc. ESPN will simply pass the cost to air Ole Miss and Minnesota football at a premium on to you, and you will pay it. These hulu/you tube TV/sling packages will triple in cost and folks won't bat an eye if it means they pay it to keep live sports.
"None of those teams are getting in with FOUR losses over a 1-2 loss at-large VT." I disagree 100%... you don't think they would take Texas over VT that lost to Duke and ODU? for example? Or BC and GT? I disagree
I would have to agree with DC here. The only way we get an at large spot is if we lost to an undefeated FSU or Clemson in the ACCCG as our only loss, and even then we would be on the bubble if there was a 2 loss Texas or LSU out there for the taking.
A team getting in over a 1-2 loss VT is likely. A team with 4 losses getting in is not. Even with the expanded conferences beating up on each other more, they also don't all play each other. A 3 three loss BIG that misses OSU, Michigan and USC in the regular season will still get in before the 4 loss SEC team and the 2 loss VT team, even though their actual schedule was not any harder.
Bowl qualifying is first. Then a winning record regardless, then win the conferences, conference championship game, playoff round 1, etc.
Getting some dark horse CFP recognition on ESPN today. I'm really confused why Tech to make the CFP is +900 and winning the ACC is +1450. I don't see a scenario where Tech makes the CFP without winning the ACC.
Though there is a possibility, I would think the lines would be much closer than a +500 spread.
No bigger hokie fan than me. Yes, we technically finished 4th in the league last year. Tied with GT. Anyone going to argue we were better than Clemson last year? Or definitively better than Duke? We lost to Rutgers and Marshall.
I think the point is that we were clearly a different and improved team towards the end of the season after figuring out some things with the QB change. Are we likely to win the ACC or make the playoff? Definitely not! But, if you're picking a true dark horse outside of the top 25 and top conference contenders, I don't it's ridiculous to pick the Hokies.
Dark Horse, sure why not. Start will be the key again. Those penciling auto road wins at Vandy and ODU may want to take pause. Just saying. We aren't at a point with auto wins yet, IMO. It was good to see us beat dogshit Syracuse and Wake last year. That was a step in the right directions- beat the dregs of the ACC. been a while.
While I agree with you, the team at the end of the season last year showed some things that I had not seen in a while. I am beyond cautious in any optimism having been a VT fan all my life, but we look to be in about as good of a position to do some things as we have in a long while. We have legitimate talent on both sides of the ball, we have momentum, and we have some of our best weapons in the most important places. I think we have good leadership and buy in, and we're hitting on all cylinders at the right time. We could come out and shit the bed, but we should be better than we were at the end of last year with some key upgrades and returning players that were injured. We have some weak spots, but if we can stay healthy and play to our ability, we have a lot of potential. Just playing the law of averages, we're due to overachieve. I think Pry is building a culture, and I think we have the team to start making some progress. Time to put up or shut up. If we shit the bed this year, I don't have faith in any turnarounds in the foreseeable future. Here's to optimism.
Agreed- since we aren't USC, LSU, Bama, GA, OSU, etc. We have to work the process. Step 1- Lose to ODU, win 3 games, improve VA relationships, build the culture, find guys that want to play for Pry and buy into the culture. Step 2- struggle at the start, gain experience, make the right decision to move to Drones and improve the offense/play complimentary ball, win a bowl game, beat shit teams like Syracuse in lane. Step 3- Get off to a good start, beat ODU in Norfolk, win the games you are supposed to. Be physically competitive with Clemson and others at the top of the league. Win a game or 2 you shouldn't. I could totally see that in 24.
Step 4 - Natty!
Gonna be brutally honest, our linebackers suck. By all accounts Brumfield is not going to be the answer. We have two starters on OL that shouldn't be playing at this level. The theory of us having a good season relies on 1) We're playing a bunch of tomato cans we're supposed to beat. And 2) We'll have enough big plays and score enough that if the strengths of the defense mask the weaknesses we can beat some okay teams.
There should be no illusions that this is a complete team who can challenge other teams at the top level. Us winning big games is totally dependent on leaning on our strengths and masking some huge weaknesses. (Yeah every team does this to a certain extent, but our weaknesses are big enough that we should not be expected to beat the majority of top 30-40 teams)
Spot on
I think your assessment of this roster is very good. Tech must learn how to win tough games, and our coaches need to be a large part of this. Teams must be able to exploit their advantages, and expose any weaknesses.
I like our team, but lbs are unproven other than Jenkins. Safety depth is suspect also. Coaches will need to prove that they can coach. Offensive line coach will need to get maximum effort out of his group. 9 wins will be a good year. I look forward to seeing this team grow
I don't get why Pry and Marve can't get the LBs figured out, it's incredibly confusing and frustrating
One reason is that there were exactly zero good/physical ones in the program when they got here. Zero.
Pat McAfee: "It would be stupendous"
#17 in Phil Steele's rankings 🤯🤯🤯
Now we just have to keep winning so we can get back to the days when being #17 felt "too low," and we'd say to ourselves "Good. We play better as the underdogs."
I think our off season hype has gone a bit too far. We have an easy schedule and we might be able to sniff the top 25....gonna be a lot of disappointed people that buy into this darkhorse cfp team, top 15, 11 win team hype. Even our elite level teams have always had headscratcher losses. I don't think our team is near that level yet and its too early in the Pry era to tell if we're done beating ourselves in 'easy' games
There is always an unreasonable segment of the fan base, and the media, that will crap on us if we don't meet ridiculously lofty expectations.
Less than 7 regular season wins is cause for disappointment. 7 will be slightly disappointing. 8 and up is progress in the right direction.
My biggest disappointment fear is that next year could be rocky. We need to strike while the iron is hot. But, as long as we are in the progress column, I don't think people should be upset. But, people are gonna people.
My issue is the wealth of dogshit teams and programs in the ACC, that we have been losing to the last 5 years. That's my thing. Don't lose to dogshit programs, and everything else takes care of itself. Beating frauds Cuse and Wake last year is what I'm talking about. Those programs are shit. Beat them. Beat BC, beat shit teams- the rest takes care of itself. The only shit program we have beaten regularly the past 10 years is UVA.
Wow absolutely no respect for Cuse and Bc to compare them to UVA, I mean they arent good but grouping then with UVA?
Edit, autocorrect fix
Fake it til ya make it just like UNC!
UNC never made it tho..
Fake it till you can forge it?
Pry is still a newb. He's never entered a season with preseason expectations this high. Also, we have no real idea if Drones can take that next step. We have no idea how much of a liability the O-line or the middle of the defense will be. And we have no idea if Pry can actually beat top 40 team.
So, yes. It's definitely a lot of hype with some data to back it up, but the data is very incomplete.
(Do people prefer "data is" or "data are." I always use singular, but I know some people get particular when using Greek or Latin pluralities. This also applies to terms like "bacteria." I also want to know if people say "My Nissan Maxima needs repairs" or "My Nissan Maxima need repairs." And if people have issue with the use of the word "alums" instead of "alumni." - Random thoughts on Greek and Latin words.)
If we beat every not top top 40 team on our schedule them were winning a fair amount of games and I'd be happy with the 9-10 win season.
Well, there are only 2, so it would be 10 wins.
And that's why I have very mixed feelings about 8-win regular season, because while it's a 2-game improvement, it also means two losses to decently bad teams.
Datum is, Data are.
I knew there had to be at least one...
Data is
No but for real, Patrick Stewart basically changed the pronunciation of the word from the first episode. Before TNG it was mainly dahta in the American pronunciation and since it has been dayta.
Then there was the episode when Dr. Pulaski shows up and calls him Dahta and he ignores her at first and then corrects her that his name is Dayta.
via GIPHY
7 SEC teams in the top 14 to start the year. Including what will be 6 loss Missouri. They aren't even hiding it anymore. What horsehit. Why play the SEC schedule?
Preseason rankings should be illegal
But then e$pn and the other talking heads wouldn't have any propaganda to talk up baseless claims of ohio state, alabama, notre dame and georgia in order to brainwash the fans into thinking they're the greatest before a game has even been played...
I'm actually pretty high on Mizzou this year lol
Why do you think Mizzou will be a 6 loss team, exactly?
They won't be looking at their schedule now. I was going on the last 60 years. My fault. But they have a joke of a schedule this season, yes. Fucking Murray State, UMASS, Buffalo, and dogshit BC that only plays well against Virginia Tech. Add Vandy- that is 5 wins. Add 200% overrated Elko, that's 6 wins.
Ya damn well know VT is on the come-up when you start seeing Lane get the respect it deserves
Respect it deserves would be a couple spots higher.
Glad to be back on these lists. I remember in the mid 2000's we were ranked 2nd on one of these lists on ESPN behind LSU.
One thing I've been noticing a lot lately is how often we are being talked about as a program that college football would be better off with if it was good, or how the experience in Lane Stadium is just different and how great the VT fanbase is. I'm routinely seeing us talked about as a borderline blue blood program that pundits and networks are hopeful and excited to see potentially on the way back.
And I say that because they talk about us in ways that the networks reserve for the big names and the ones that draw on TV. The programs that networks go out of their way to air because they draw. Which is very, very interesting to see playing out right now as the ACC seems to be teetering on the edge of collapse. If you're paying attention, you're seeing the seeds planted right now for an eventual move to bring VT entry into the SEC as one of the premier programs of the ACC, even if it had recently fallen on hard times. They're talking about us in ways they really only reserve for the likes of FSU and Clemson in the ACC.
Moving forward we are only going to win with money. Watch how quickly SMU wins big in the ACC. Money. So we'd better hope we get more of it if we switch conferences. It's all that matters and historically we don't have enough big donors with F you money to throw at the program.
If this lasts long term (and I have my doubts that the ACC lasts another 24 months) then I see SMU plateauing as the Baylor of the ACC. Their money will absolutely buy success, but they're going to struggle to get over the hump to take that step into being a legitimate premier program. They'll produce some elite talent, sure, and may win some major awards and get into a playoff, and you'll see rapid expansion of their facilities and stadiums, but they're still going to struggle overall because they will continue to get their lunch eaten in their own region in recruiting by big boy programs which can legally now outspend them.
Can I also look forward to the "voice of the Hokies" saying that SMU is a better program than VT in every aspect? That will be awesome.
Yeah 100% right and it won't be quick, that roster needs way more flipping than people think. 10-2 in an absolutely terrible AAC is not impressive, and BC exposed them in the Fenway bowl. With an ACC schedule last year that team is 4-8.
Their roster moves were not enough to significantly affect that. I think they're 6-6/7-5 this year, 8-4 at absolute best. They won't win more than 4 ACC games.
Their lines suck compared to P5. They will need to build them. But that's a 3-4 year deal, maybe 2-3 if they get lucky.
They have enough money to pull a Pitt/Wake/NC State hoops and just buy a new roster and be good though
I can see it now. SMU plays BC/Wake/Syra/Duke and after the game the offensive/defensive line coaches are very visibly talking near the other teams players. "You know, I made sure my players each got at least $100,000 in NIL money this year." To which the other replies "I am sure I can get them to increase that to $150,000 each for every player on the line roster NEXT year."
I think they will target Texas, aTm, Oklahoma transfers with their cash. Guys that the ACC can't sign out of high school.
But will they be having accidental contact with those players? Don't want to be accused of tampering now do they...
Tampering is like eligibility standards and you know my thoughts on that.
Just mention in a press conference that you have raised $10M in NIL funds earmarked for rebuilding in the trenches and let them come to you.
There is just so few Line transfers that it will be tougher, they have the QB and WRs and DBs, but they will get beat up in the trenches way more this year.
I mean, this list + Autzen and Clemson could be true any year
Kelley Ford is dropping his projections:
Projects VT to be the 39th best team, 94% chance of bowl eligibility, 61% chance of winning 8 games (Vegas o/u opened at 7.5), and 14% chance of winning 10 games.
He likes UVA too much, that is way to low a percentage
So, he has us losing to Clemson and Miami and losing 2 other winnables, essentially Duke and Rutgers or Georgia Tech.
Looking quickly at the schedule. I think we go confidently into Rutgers and stumble some in a close game. Then have a brutal travel schdule Miami on Friday and Stanford the following Saturday. That puts Stanford into the might win category for me.
Ten days off and we spank Boston College at home on Thursday night ESPN. Handle GT at home. Barring injuries we are in the groove an beat out the schedule unless Clemson lives up to their hype.
I wouldn't think of it that way... he's just adding up the percentage chance beating each team. 0.81 (% chance of beating vandy) + 0.87 (% chance of beating Marshall) + 0.88 (% chance of beating ODU)... etc = 7.88 total wins.
He gives us a 1 in 3 chance of winning each of the Miami and Clemson games.
CFB most underrated team