What should our Realistic expectations be? Should we truly believe VT can win a national title?
Seems hard to believe a school wedged in between the blue ridge mountains in southwest va can contend with schools on south beach and LA. Should we simply be happy with 7-6 records mixed in with a few ACC titles? some say yes, I say no. Are we going to recruit like Alabama and FSU absolutely not. But last time I looked our recruiting class is ahead of Oregon who is playing Monday night for the title.
In 1999 we made it to the top of the mountain. We were that close. Could we do it again? I say yes. It may not be next year but we cannot lose the expectation of winning a title. If that expectation isn't there then why play the games? ACC titles are great don't get me wrong but that isn't the be all end all. It seems like things are starting to click in Blacksburg again, so I say why not us?
Comments
Every team has a shot at the title or should. But for most teams outside of the big name few, the stars must be specially aligned to provide the right players, coaches, and schedules needed to get there all at the same time.
By the end of this year, if things break right, we should be contending for the Coastal.
In 2016 we should be Coastal favorites and legitimate contenders for the ACC crown. Also ranked throughout the season.
In 2017, with a talented senior heavy team with an OL that has been playing and practicing together with good coaching for 3 -4 years, we should be playoff contenders.
I'm like 80% certain that a lot of the guys we've recruited recently are 3 year players. Kendall is gone, I. Ford is probably gone, Cam Phillips maybe stays? I'm not sure about the running backs. 2016 I agree with you, 2017 not so much based on the reasoning you gave
I don't see anyone going early offensively outside of maybe Bucky. I would love for us to be playing at a level where these guys get the national exposure and put up the kinds of numbers that would justify them going pro early. You're talking Round 1 or 2 talent and I just don't see that out of any of our guys are currently on a career path right now that would get them there within 2 seasons.
Considering Bucky is a huge (pun intended) part of our offense him leaving does kind of concern me. I think I. Ford will have some motivation to leave early. He's only a freshman and he was making a lot of noise. And really until I see consistent play from the offensive line i think expectations will be pretty tame. Not saying we won't win the coastal in those years, just thinking we won't be picked first. At first glance look I'm probably going with GT in 2016. I see Justin Thomas staying there for his senior year and he's almost perfect for their offense
I think starting this year, we should start to see significant improvement with the OLine as they gain game experience, and by the end of 2016 they should be playing at a high level. Even more important than the coaching they're getting, they're also bringing in some legitimately very good OL guys through recruiting who should provide us with a reliable wall for the QB and open up some good holes for the RBs. That alone has me excited for the 2016 and 2017 seasons, because I think this offense has the potential to be very good if the QB gets time to throw.
Should our expectations be there? I can agree there, I just dont see outside expectations being there
The most realistic expectation I can think of for 2017 is that VT will have different coaches than they do right now.
I like your perspective on this (you have posted on this topic before).
It is more confident than mine, but it is well considered and thought provoking. Thanks.
Program expectations come down to where you see VT in the college football landscape. As a general question, I'd like to ask TKP where they think VT ranks in program power. I feel like some people here think we are a top 15 power but I'd say top 20 is even a stretch
I'd also like to ask who you think we compare to nationally. I'd put us at Wisconsin and Kstate
For a while we were top 25, I would say top 40 now with the potential to climb back into the top 25 in 2 years. We shall see...
The national perception is that we are a Top 25 program, which is why it makes noise when we struggle like we have been. If people didn't think highly of us, they wouldn't care that we aren't ranked and struggle to get to .500. You know, the attitude people have toward UVa.
There is an expectation of Virginia Tech to be ranked and contending for the ACC title. We haven't met that expectation in recent years, but we saw how hyped the media wants to get about us when we beat Ohio State. They loved us until that ECU game. They don't do that for teams without expectations.
That might have more to do with the presence of Frank Beamer. He is a future hall-of-fame coach. He is the active wins-leader in the country. He revolutionized the way games are played (Beamerball). As long as he is on the sidelines in Blacksburg, the media is going to expect us to be competitive at the very least
That expectation will also carry over to the next guy, and the guy after that, and so on. Beamer raised our base line to a level we didn't think possible when he was hired, and showed that we can sustain it over the long haul. The expectation is now there to at least get to that level going forward, and that is because Beamer has built a program that can sustain itself after he is gone. We're one of the legitimate big boys in football in the ACC, and arguably top dog in the mid-Atlantic region. Whoever replaces Beamer will have expectations of contending for ACC titles annually, and maintaining national rankings because that is the level now expected out of Virginia Tech.
So do you think VT is a top 25 program? BTW Penn ST is absolutely the top dog
I consider the mid-atlantic to be Maryland to NC... SCar to florida is the Southeast and PA to Maine is the Northeast.
In the region I split, I 100% think VT is the top dog in football.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Atlantic_states
PA is definitely mid atlantic. But to the actual point, where do you think VT truly ranks? Being a regional power means nothing if the region itself isn't powerful
I think we're towards the bottom end of a 2nd tier...
The first tier has schools like Bama, FSU, ND, Michigan, Texas, Ohio St, Penn St, USC where there is an expectation for these programs to always be excellent and contending for National Championships.
The next tier I would say schools like Florida, Tennessee, Georgia, Clemson, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Miami, S. Carolina, LSU, Auburn, Virginia Tech, Oregon, Michigan St, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Kansas St etc where the national expectation is to seriously contend for your conference title every year, and every once in a while enter the National Title conversation.
Of this tier, I think schools like LSU, Florida, Oregon, and Oklahoma are at the top and ready to break into the top tier, and schools like Michigan St, Kansas St, and Virginia Tech are closest to falling out into the 3rd tier.
The 3rd tier I would include all the middling programs where you expect most years for them to finish middle of the pack in their divisions, and every once in a while contend for division and/or conference titles. Schools like Louisville, North Carolina, Georgia Tech, Ole Miss, Miss St, Stanford, Mizzou, UCLA, Washington, Iowa, Colorado, NC State, Oregon St, Virginia etc
And then there is the bottom tier, where these are the schools you expect absolutely nothing out of, and its worth celebrating a bowl berth. Schools like Duke, Wake, Boston College, Vanderbilt, Kansas, Washington St, Iowa St, Northwestern, Indiana, etc.
I think you put Penn State and ND in 2nd tier and Oregon and LSU in the first and I would agree with you. This is a what have you done for me lately sport, people under 30 were not alive or don't remember the ND and PSU glory days.
Absolutely not. Notre Dame and Penn St are still very much top tier programs, even if their successes recently haven't shown it. They still bring in over 100k per game, they have massive revenue streams, and have the ability to be a national powerhouse with the flip of a switch.
Oregon is getting there, but they're not there, yet. Nationally, they still have that 'flash in the pan' status where people are kinda waiting for them to fall back now that they lost Chip Kelly, like Boise did after Peterson left. If they can sustain this kind of level of play for a few more years, they absolutely will rise up into the top tier, but they're not there, yet. LSU, on the other hand, I would have put them there a few years ago, but I just don't see it anymore. There's a very clear difference between them and Bama, and I'm not sure there's much more that LSU can do on top of what they're already doing to keep pace. They're neck and neck with Oregon for top dogs of Tier 2, but I just can't put them in the top tier.
If you think ND is a second tier power then I don't think you have the concept of program power
I would put Florida, LSU, and Oregon in the top tier and maybe Virginia in the fourth tier (although their program did pretty well in the early 90s and recently they have recruited well, overall it should be at the bottom).
For what it's worth, Stewart Mandel did this kind of categorization in 2007 and in 2012. Here's his 2012 article regarding the Kings, Barons, Knights, and Peasants of major college football:
http://www.si.com/more-sports/2012/07/11/kings-barons-knights-peasants-m...
I don't see Penn State as any sort of Top Dog. They have great history but they have struggled for a decade. When was their last "BCS" bowl? 2006 against WF? They are far behind Michigan and Ohio State in their own conference and the memories of Jerry Sandusky haven't faded away yet. Their glorious history has a big stain on it. I think we are on the same powerhouse footing as Penn State at the moment. James Franklin will improve their stock, but I don't see us as second fiddle to them now.
They have "struggled" for a decade and yet they still have as many BCS wins as us. I don't see how our 2009 win is any more significant than their 2006 win. As far as power goes, they are easily ranked in the top 15 most valuable programs by Forbes and other publications, while we fall outside of the top 25. They have one of the largest alumni bases in the country, with a billionaire booster on top. They also have a hold on their instate recruiting (8 of the top 10), while we are lucky to get one. Comparing them to Michigan and OSU is pointless because they are both top 5ish powers.
2006 against the Florida State squad that beat us in the ACC title game
They are at the very level Florida State was at when they brought in Jimbo Fisher. Franklin will have them turned around fast, and they will be in the playoffs before too long. The Big 10 is about to get pretty strong with Meyer, Harbaugh, and Franklin doing their work up there.
Program power is a little less fluid than that. Even though Baylor has been tearing it up, they still won't crack the top 25. Notre Dame has been shit for a decade but they are still a top 5 power.
To me, I think the baseline expectation is for VT to win the Coastal. No, there's no way we'll actually win it every year, but I've said elsewhere that in years we don't win it, I think we've failed in or primary goal. It's reasonable with our recruiting coupled with our coaching to expect to own our division.
I used to think the same about winning the ACC but then Clemson and Florida State became resurgent. Now I don't think it's a failure or underachievement by our program not to win the ACC. It's not unreasonable to expect some ACC championships though.
As far as playoffs and a national title, I think VT is a program that will need a couple of fortunate bounces to get there. I think we have the coaching staff to win it all, but I don't think we recruit at that level. But I could definitely see in a good year that we could make a dark horse run for the giant golden vagina.
Next season I think it's entirely reasonable to expect to win the Coastal. GT loses a TON of senior talent, Duke Johnson is going pro, Duke and Pitt both come to Lane, and LOLUVA retained London. At BC and NC State at home will be tough, but we've got a ton of returning skill position talent, two seasons with the same OL coach, a defense that should reasonable be better, and Lefty should have his scheme in place now without question. If we don't see significant improvement in 2015, it will be time to hold some people accountable.
Agreed with everything except I don't see gt getting worse. As long as Justin Thomas is there they will be very dangerous
100% agree with you, Justin Thomas is the Quarterback that PJ has been looking for. He will most likely have them playing at a very high level for as long as he's there. If their defense continues to improve and impress, they will be the best bet to win the coastal for the next 2 years
Let me clarify my position a little bit. I really loathe when people say we "should have won" a game, because no, you lost that game. Suck it up. But we should have won that game. We WOULD have won that have if Brewer didn't throw those three picks. Brewer had a good day throwing the ball outside of the INTs, completing over 70% of his passes for a gnat's eyelash short of three bills. On top of that, he averaged over 7 yards a carry running the ball. Shai and Juice, while not having great games, contributed, while our defense did what our defense does against the flexbone. Right game plan, right play calling, right defense. Brewer cost us that game with three mistakes on what was otherwise one of his best efforts of the season. Take those three mistakes away, we beat GT with Justin Thomas under center.
Now I know Thomas will be better next season and we will have our work cut out for us defending him, but they lose so much talent I think they as a team won't be significantly better than they were this year. So I think next year by all indications will be a typical Techmo Bowl: a punch you in the mouth, everyone protect your ankles affair with us coming out on top.
I agree, next year there is no reason we consider. at this point, we cannot win each of our regular season games.
The toughest will obviously be our first.
Techmo among these, we should win.
Now, we need to evaluate this after our spring and summer for attrition, etc.
I agree. could have or would have make much better arguments than should have.
Agreed, GT is a legitimate top 15 team next year from the get go.
I honestly think they should be the preseason favorite to win the conference. FSU loses a ton and Clemson basically loses their whole defense.
The same team that won 29 in a row also had A LOT of losses
Florida State has set a new FSU record for players drafted in a two-year span as 18 players were drafted in 2013 and 2014 NFL Drafts
FSU currently has the #2 247 class in 2015 recruiting and Clemson has the #6 class right now. The 2 schools have 6 Five star commits and 20 Four star commits between them
They lose their Heisman winning QB and one of their best receivers in school history plus more. I think it is fair to say Georgia Tech could be the preseason favorites to win the ACC as they don't lose a ton and nearly knocked off FSU this year.
GT loses a ridiculous number of their a and b backs and their best O lineman. Their offense will look completely different minus their QB, who is admittedly the best they've had under CPJ.
Their senior B back Zach Laskey was really good. He had a streak of something like 240 straight carries with positive yardage going into this year. 3 guesses which team broke it :)
A QB is only as good as his supporting cast (see: Thomas, Logan). Depending on what GT is losing and where they are losing them, they very well could struggle a lot next year.
Running a triple option is entirely different. Its about the system, not the players, with the exception of QB
But it is also very much about assignments and gaps. New players have to learn a unique system or the whole thing falls apart.
Georgia Tech is losing practically all the two deep at A back and B back, and iirc their best O lineman. A lot of GT fans have been writing that off since they're high off their success right now, but that's a lot of pieces to replace.
I think it's realistic. We've been there before, why can't we get back? Oh, yeah, we've got an old, washed up (has been for 10 years) coach that preaches to his players to win 10 games, & compete for the ACCCG. As long as we stay content with being mediocre, and "competing" for conference champs (in the mediocre ACC) we'll never reach the level that we all want as fans. It all starts with coach Beamer. I love him, but I'm just being realistic.
You really feel that if you are not 1 of the top 4 teams in the country your season is a bust and reaching for mediocrity? anything less than that is a failure?
I understand reaching for excellence but, we can't reach for winning the B1G or SEC West of PAC10. If winning the ACCCG isn't sufficient and winning 10 games is mediocre then getting accepted to the playoffs is the next available goal.
I feel for you, I really do. If being top 4 is the lowest achievable non-mediocre goal, you must be disappointed every year except once or twice every 20 years.
This sort of mindset is why I'm glad we didn't join the SEC. Lack of perspective, which leads to a loss of camaraderie with your program. SEC fans berate and criticize their programs more than celebrate it. They hold impossible expectations and flip over tables or bawl for hours in the fetal position when those expectations aren't met, all posted on YouTube.
The path to the playoffs, just like the path to the BCS championship game before it, begins with winning your conference. That's the primary focus. There are other things that factor into it (like treating non-conference games as if they were conference games from a coaching standpoint) but out of the gate the goal is win the conference.
Also, considering the ACC has won the last BCS championship, the last three Orange Bowls (three different teams) and played in the inaugural college football playoffs, I think in general the stock of the conference is rising.
Personally, I think there needs to be a healthy dose of both.
Do I think a season is a failure if we don't win the National Title? Of course not. A conference title, and 10 wins, and a bowl victory are all accomplishments that should be celebrated and you should take joy in.
That being said, to throw back to earlier this season, I also don't think its "Mission Accomplished" if we don't win the National Title. I think we should always be striving to get better, and to constantly improve upon what we had. I think the biggest problem we saw out of the program is that around 2008 we started to get complacent with what we had, and we almost went on cruise control for a few years, only realizing our mistake when the bottom fell out in recruiting during the 2010 and 2011 seasons.
But that's what he said. 10 wins and an ACCCG is reaching for mediocrity.
I want to win a NCG as much as the next guy but we start behind the 8-ball in terms of every single measurement for resources for those teams that are perennial top 10 teams. number of alumni, revenues, everything. We are going to see incremental increases here as the alumni attrition that were required to participate in COCadets and the student body broadens but, we're real behind the ball there in relative terms.
Do I think we can do it? yes. Do I think it reaching for mediocrity if I don't think we can reach the playoff in 2 years? Nope. I don't.
Let me also point out that the "Mission Accomplished" did not originate with Beamer, whom the poster was berating as old and washed up 10 years ago.
I refuse to be berated for enjoying a 10 win season for a decade and hold that up as an accomplishment.
Hold on, I don't expect us to go undefeated, win the ACC every year, and be in the playoff. However, I think in order to be in consideration from year to year we have to go a different direction as far as coaching. This program needs a breath of fresh air. And before all of you guys jump all over me, I've been saying this since '07ish range. Since the LSU debacle and the Kansas bowl game. I haven't just all of a sudden gotten pissed of the last couple of years.
Ok, so it was sarcasm.
that's why I posted the gif.
The washed up old man comments were unusually harsh and so I actually thought you serious.
I don't care when you started saying it. That doesn't change the fact that your wording is unnecessarily harsh and disrespectful toward a hall of fame coach.
Sorry. It's my opinion. Frank is a perfect example of a (I'LL SAY IT AGAIN) "washed up" old man that needs to retire. Not only does he need to retire for the sake of Virginia Tech, but also for himself, his legacy, and his family. I love Frank, and I want the best for him, and I think retiring would be best for him. I've said it before on this site, Frank is NOT more important than Virginia Tech. I realize he took Tech from where it was in 1987 (terrible) to a well-known, respectable program (with a lot of help). But he kinda lost his "swagger" around the 06-07 range (my opinion). He's not the same guy, and to me he just doesn't have that fire about him that I think can take us to the next level (ACCCG's even). Like I said, Frank 'was' great, and bought Tech up from the bottom, but it's time for him to give it up. Whats wrong with thinking this??
Also, I realize my wording may have been disrespectful, and I'm sorry for that, but before you go any further, what also is disrespectful is for somebody to stick around forever and ever, never retiring, and leaving their program, company, or whatever in a hole when they are finally forced to retire. That's kinda what is going on with Frank right now, don't you think? Virginia Tech football is falling behind, and has been for several years. I don't think Frank is necessarily "hurting" us but he sure as heck isn't helping us. We'll just continue to be "that school in the boondocks of western VA", and use that as an excuse, which is fine......I guess. Heck, I'll still go to games and yell my ass off, I'll still buy tickets, I'll still be a Hokie through and through. But I won't be satisfied. I'll still be pissed off for greatness, because if you're not pissed off for greatness, then that means you're okay with being mediocre. (Ray Lewis quote haha)
Sorry for offending you all.
A coach is only as good as the staff he has around him. I would argue that this coaching staff is as good now as it has EVER been. We have young solid recruiters like Moorehead, Gray, and Beamer Jr. Say what you want about Stiney and Lefty, but they are recruiting their tails off. I'd say when performance on the field is down but recruiting classes coming in are up, the program is trending in a positive direction.
Beamer isn't leaving this program in a hole. He is already focused on his transition out and will leave this program in good condition for the next person in line. Making the assumption that just because Frank is older and this team is in a slump, he must be "washed up" is short sighted. He has the same fire he has always had and the supporting cast is better. Reasons for the slump have been documented over and over, mostly due to a talent dropoff, most notably along the offensive line. What could a new coach do to fix that deficiency any better than this staff is doing right now? You can argue that the slip happened under Frank's watch, and I will agree; he's working to fix that mistake.
There is nothing wrong with thinking this. Frank is in the twilight of his career. But if you think he is so damn old, I would advise you look up the age of Nick Saban. I also only request that you be a little more respectful when talking about the man instead of using terms like "washed up".
Having the goal be National Championship and expecting it to happen regularly are two entirely different things. Nobody is saying VT should strive to be mediocre. But expectations need to be realistic. This team should be competing for ACC championships on a regular basis. Not giving a team a few years to restock and rebuild during a slump is not realistic. The trajectory of this team is up right now. There is no need to scream about Beamer being too old, because the staff he has and is building is getting ready to reach its stride. That staff, you know the one that could probably make a lot more money somewhere else, sticks around in the "boondocks of western VA" because of Frank Beamer.
No. Not at all.
Same here.
No way think he's done or should be done.
Well I do.
You think it's disrespectful for Beamer to not resign? Dude, stop.
You can say he's not the best man for the job, or he's lost some of the magic, or he isn't a good recruiter...
But don't say he's being disrespectful. It's a silly thing to say. In what universe is it disrespectful for a grown man to do their job?
When it's time to retire, it's time to retire. It's time for Frank, in my opinion. He's not helping Tech by hanging on and sticking around this long, and what seems to be through 2016. It's disrespectful to his staff, fans/alumni, VIRGINIA TECH most of all, AND HIMSELF, his legacy, and his own family. So cool out. I'm entitled to my opinion just as much as you are.
So how is he damaging the program?
He has the public endorsement of his boss (Whit), and the love and respect of his players and fellow coaches. Did you see Bud's interview after the bowl game, or the behind-the-scenes video from hokiesports.com?
Who said you weren't?
Just like you are allowed to have the opinion that Frank Beamer is disrespecting "his staff, fans/alumni, VIRGINIA TECH most of all, AND HIMSELF, his legacy, and his own family", I'm allowed to believe that opinion is silly.
You told me to "stop it" lol....
It's just an expression. I wasn't telling you to literally step away from the keyboard or anything.
Ohhhhh ok, aight then.....
Even though this is a fine representation of my thoughts on your opinion....
I think as a fanbase we may need to temper expectations, but I would be disappointed if the National Championship is not the end goal of the players and coaches.
That being said, my expectation is that we can return to where we once were. At worst, we should be playing in the ACC Championship. We win that maybe half the time, and maybe half of those ACC Championships end up putting us in the playoffs.
The minimum to me is 10 wins and a Coastal Division title and, if we don't win the conference, we should at least be competitive in the championship game. That should be enough to put us in the discussion for the bids to the New Year's Six games, which is where we should be.
The fact that there are 4 playoff spots works to our favor, although we could probably only be 12-1 at worst. If our teams can play to the level of their talent and coaching, there should be no reason we can't make the playoffs every four years or so.
Yea this is just...just horrible. I'm as appalled as you are that someone would allow this to happen. We really need someone at the helm that is preaching 7 win seasons and ranking at the bottom of the ACC. THAT would be a much better message. I can't imagine anyone would want to play for someone trying to win 10 games and their conference.
Mike London, is that you?
Washed up for 10 years? Wow, that would include ALL of our 10-win seasons in the 7-year stretch. Washed up Beamer, winning 75+ games in 7 years. Makes sense.
Bud Foster & Tyrod Taylor*.......sorry, Frank was not the main reason for the success from 04-11.
But you make it sound like the success we had from 04-11 was in spite of Frank, which is simply not true.
I'm sorry, you don't get to give credit for wins to the defensive coordinator and not the head coach. That's not how it works.
Beamer created the professional environment for Foster to be successful. You couldn't just leave Foster in place, add in some random head coach, and expect the same on the field results. Foster owes just as much to Beamer as Beamer does to Foster.
In that case what the hell was Frank responsible for prior to those years? Any what makes 04-11 different? By the way those 7 years were the most successful our program has EVER had with the exception of '95 and '99.
He hired Bud Foster, and got this guy named Michael Vick. Sorry, but if it weren't for Bud Foster and Michael Vick.....ehhhhh
Also, my point was that Tech CANT make it to the next level with Frank as their head coach. I think 10 win seasons and ACCCGs are his peak. So, therefor, he peaked like 10 years ago. In my opinion, in order for the program to get to the next level and compete for NC's and Playoff spots Whit and Co. need to realize this....
You mean playing a National Championship was his peak.
We already did make it to the next level.
So, who would you hire the will get us back to the NCG? Just firing tired old Frank won't do it.
I realize firing Frank won't solve any problems, but if he'd just step down, like soon, it would sure as hell be a step in the right direction. Shoot, we'll probably go through 2-3 coaches in ten years after Frank leaves. But atleast we'll be trying something instead of sitting around pounding sand with Frank saying "Win those ten games", "get to a bowl game" (just to get thrashed by some team), "Compete for ACCCGs". I'm sorry, I'm just tired of being that team that wins ten games IN THE ACC COASTAL, goes to the ACCCG, and then to some bowl and finish 10-4 or 11-3 at best after getting whooped in the bowl. Those records look good, to us (not me, but Tech fans in general), but the rest of the nation & media looks at us as a joke that can't win the big games, which is pretty much true. Yeah we beat Ohio State (followed be the ecu game smh), Texas in 1995, etc., but look at all of the the turds we've laid over the years. Way too many!!! and most of them are because of coaching, and us getting "BeamerballED"....
What you've described for VT is basically more success than 90% of FBS teams over the last 10-15 years. VT has moved from scrappy underdog, to consistent conference contender, with a few years of national importance peppered in. That's more than nearly every other team can say. Sure, Bama has won a bunch of titles in recent years, but they sucked hard while VT was still riding high. Success is cyclical.
It sounds like some people will never be happy. You're entitled to your own desires and expectations, but 10-11 wins for any team at the FBS level is a damn good year. I've said it before several times and I'll say it again, you only get in the national conversation if you win your conference. Everything else is irrelevant until then. Win the conference and you've done all you can do to get a bid in the playoff (or previously, BCS game). I would argue that, at least in the last 10 years or so, we have only gotten "thrashed" twice - UCLA and Stanford. The matchup with UCLA sucked, and Stanford was legitimately one of the best teams that year. We were pretty damn good, but it was one time that Bud's guys just couldn't respond to what the offense was doing. Every other bowl game in that the last decade or so has either been a win or a loss by less than 7 points (many of them a FG). Would we all like to win more often? Sure, but I've just described every single fan base in the country. "We like winning!"
Frank has us in a good place, in terms of culture, facilities, and people. We will be in a good place with him and a good place when he retires. Could a new coach come in and do better? Sure. But is it necessarily true that Beamer is an impediment to the program? At this point, in the context of all I've seen, the answer is no.
i know you're only referring to bowl games...but that 48-7 loss to LSU in (2007?) would fall under the category of 'Thrashing' IMO and though it wasn't a bowl game it was a prime-time game on a huge stage with a large audience...
Right, I'm only arguing bowls because that's what was presented. We've laid our share of eggs, I will not dispute that. But the LSU loss came a week after App State took down #5 Michigan in the Big House (which still had everyone talking), and LSU did go on to win the National Title that year. Again, like my comment about records vs. top-10, it's all about context. We were a damn good team that year, but LSU whereas we were good, LSU was a powerhouse.
yeah no doubt
I think we actually finished 3rd that year...and you could argue that we improved over the course of the year (sound familiar?) and might have been more competitive with them in a rematch had we been paired up with them again in a playoff bracket (this is not to say that I think we would have beaten them..but I'd like to think we could get more than 7 points)
I meant regular season games too. And not just the "thrashings" haha, close games where we just beat ourselves. Example, Michigan 2011. Yeah i know Danny caught the ball, but why the hell were we even in that position? We should have had them beat in the 3rd quarter, but a couple of "Beamerball" special teams mistakes, and David Wilson running for like -30 yds inside the 5 yd line kept us from beating them. We were better than Michigan, but we got "BeamerballED" and lost. Hey, just go through all of the results for the last 10-12 years and look at our losses. We had no business losing most of them, but we did. BUT OF COURSE THEY ARENT FRANKS FAULT, NOTHING IS.
Much of this comes down to perception. I've already stated my case for bowl games over the last 10 years, so I'll do the same for regular season games, too. Now, you can define "big game" however you like, but I'll consider any game against a ranked opponent (using hokiesports.com method of using AP rank), regardless of VT rank, as these typically draw ESPN or other major TV coverage.
From 2004-2014:
VT record: 23-19
Avg. point differential: +1.5
Biggest win: 51-7 (#4 VT vs. #15 GT in 2005)
Biggest loss: 48-7 (#2 LSU vs. #9 VT in 2007)
One can cherry-pick results to tell any story, or argue anything about perception, but perception varies between people. Did I enjoy getting rocked by Miami in 2005 (#3 vs. #5 matchup)? Nope. Did I love smacking #10 Clemson in 2007 when VT was unranked? Yep. It goes both ways, but VT has been on the winning side of matchups against ranked teams in the last 10 years more often than not. Shellings are few and far between.
EDIT in response to your edit: Sure, the Michigan game is always a sore spot. DW4's run was nuts as was the fake punt. But remember that the officials robbed Hosley of 2 picks on phantom PI calls. Those would have changed the game, too.
That Clemson game was during the 2006 season. Great points though.
Ah, yes. I always screw that up. Graduated in '07, so the Clemson game was fall of my senior year, so that season always becomes '07 in my brain.
So you got to see the best defense we ever fielded in person. I wasn't able to make it down to a game that year and I regret it. Would have loved to see that wrecking crew of a D in person.
Ah, but that 2007 Clemson game at Death Valley was a thing of beauty. We saw a punt return for a TD, a kickoff return for a TD, an INT return for a TD, 3 brutal hits on three different Clemson wide receivers, and Tyrod running crazy all over Clemson's defense. Still one of my favorite games ever as a Hokie fan.
And all on short rest, IIRC. A Thursday night game after having played the previous Saturday.
That was the 2006 season. All the more impressive, though, considering Clemson was ranked 10th and Tech beat them 24-7. Brandon Ore rushed for over 200 yards for the second straight game that night.
Ah yes, I stand corrected. I bow to your Buddha nature.
So it's obvious:
Thrashings: Beamer's fault
Close losses: Beamer's fault
Close wins: Beamer's fault (they should have obviously been blowout victories)
Big wins: Foster's praise
/s
nailed it
Not what I said.....
Well actually...
Yeah, actually as a matter of fact I never said that 10-11 win seasons were bad, either, like GuitarMan said. And I never said that our bad losses were ALL because of Frank, but he sure as hell had a lot to do with them, in my opinion. All I stated was that in order for Virginia Tech to compete for national titles & ACCCGs again they need to go in a different direction as far as coaching. I DO NOT THINK THAT TECH CAN ACCOMPLISH THOSE WITH FRANK BEAMER ANYMORE. Sorry. 1999 was almost 16 years ago. The program needs a new vision, a breath of fresh air, something different! Its my opinion. No, GuitarMan, I dont need your wonderful statistics (forreal i respect your ability to provide those) or anything to change my mind. It's made. Also, to the gentleman who bought up age regarding Nick Saban, when I say "old and washed up" I don't mean their 'actual age', I'm referring to their coaching abilities. Yeah, Nick Saban is an older man (63), but he's not lost his fire, Frank peaked when he was in his late fifties.
Your opinion is respected except in this one case.
Calling him a washed up old man will do nothing if not draw ire from this audience in the manner presented.
If instead, you'd stated in words something similar to this:
" In my opinion, Frank is past his prime. through careful observation he appears to be less energetic and no longer generates the cutting edge ideas and or implementation he once did 10 years ago. In my opinion, it's his time to retire in grace."
"His players love him, once they've been here but, we need a little more than that to return to the NCG.
I'm also concerned for his health."
Stating it this way, you'll generate more thoughtful response.
Saying he's a "washed up old man" twice, really comes across as trolling and agism.
My apologies. Using that term was disrespectful, and not appropriate.
Give Beamer Saban's athletes and the coaching would be nearly indistinguishable.
recruiting is part of coaching in CFB, a big part so I don't think it's accurate to say that the coaching would be indistinguishable.
That's fair to a degree, but Saban is not the major reason Alabama is successful at recruiting. Anyway, I was referring to style on the field.
idk, argument could be made that Saban was the biggest (or one of) reason Alabama was successful at recruiting, otherwise Shula never would have gotten the axe.
Weren't they coming off probation though? I don't want to dismiss Saban as a factor. A championship coach helps a ton I recruiting. But I would expect Bama to recruit very well regardless of coach.
Saban definitely is. They've had 5 straight number one recruiting classes. That's unprecedented
Bingo.
I'm assuming his classes weren't nearly that good at Michigan State.
Won 9 games one time in the big 10 and only had 10 or more 2 times at lsu in five years was crap in the nfl. Goes to bama and somehow I dont know how everyone says he's a coaching genius and everyone should go play for him and damn it all these kids do.
Perhaps I misquoted slightly, but you said that you were "tired" of those seasons and that after bowl losses we were a national "joke." I guess I misinterpreted what you were saying, but there's a hell of a lot of pride to be had with 10-11 wins. I guess we agree on that.
FWIW, I'm not necessarily trying to change anyone's mind, but I like the debate. I was curious to know why you feel the way you do, and I suppose I still don't, but that's fine, too. I form my opinions based on objective, empirical data. That's just how I'm wired. Maybe others like to go on feel or how happy they are with whatever is happening. I try to take the 10,000-foot view and remove my own diehard Hokie-ism from the equation to see whether or not we're having success.
David Wilson's production, or lack thereof, in the Sugar Bowl was the law of averages returning the favor. I knew all year after he had those crazy runs that should have been losses that it was going to come back to bite us in the ass. Well, it happened in the bowl game.
2-3 coaches in 10 years could ruin the Program. I'd call that 10 steps in the wrong direction.
Without Mike Vick, there is no playing for a National Championship... Yes beamer recruited him in to VT, but he was and is a once in a lifetime kind of athlete.
Speaking of, doesn't MV1 have a kid that is coming up on playing age?
didn't even knew he had a kid tbh
I think he has a daughter and son, with the daughter being the oldest? Regarless neither of them are in high school yet.
And 6 ACCCG (if you include Miami in '04), 5 BCS bowls, 4 conference titles, and a BCS bowl win. Criticism is fine and fair, but talk about having a bizarrely negative viewpoint. All the success was in spite of Beamer and all the failures because of him? He gets no credit at all?
Unhappy since 2007? That's not better, it's worse... What would it have taken to make you happy about Virginia Tech football?
The only thing I was unhappy about starting around 2008 was the stagnation of our offense. Yes, we were winning games on the back of the defense, and we were winning conference titles and won the Orange Bowl the next year, but the writing was on the wall towards the kind of falloff we would eventually see a few years later. The offense was putrid at best, and there was seemingly little to no accountability being held toward the staff who was allowing it to happen. The changes that were made in 2012 should have been made years earlier, and we wouldn't have seen the kind of multi-year slump that we're still trying to climb out of.
Yes 75 wins but look at Tech Vs the Top 10
2004 Season - 2014 Season
5 - 11
This argument gets trotted out a lot, but I'm not sure it has any teeth. Saying we've got a 5-11 record against teams ranked in the top ten is only meaningful for the sake of comparison. So unless you can tell me the record against top 10 teams of the programs you want us to emulate, that number is useless to me.
This. Teams ranked as top-10 are ranked that way because they usually win. One could break down stats further (but I can't find them) about top-10 vs. top-10, 11-thru-25 vs. top-10, etc. but the blind metric is a horrible one for all teams, ever. Want proof?
https://sites.google.com/site/collegefootballhistory/record-vs-top-10-te...
If VT is 5-11, that's good for a 0.3125 winning percentage, which would rank sixth-best on this list. We're in good company.
A bit more digging. Under Beamer, our record against top-10 teams (ranking based on when we play them, not the final poll as above) is 8-32, which would rank 16th on the above list. Source: http://www.cfbtrivia.com/cfbt_records.php?teamname=Virginia%20Tech&fry=1...
The 5-11 record from 2004-2014 is vs. top-10 ranked teams at game time. For games against teams who finished top-10 during the same seasons, we are 3-13, which is still good for 18th on the above list. http://www.cfbtrivia.com/cfbt_records.php?teamname=Virginia%20Tech&fry=2...
So glad you explained this. I think that a lot of people see our losing record against top 10 competition and get a knee jerk reaction that we are lousy against them. What they fail to consider (as you pointed out) is that most teams have a losing record against top 10 teams also, and worse than ours.
Numbers without context are dangerous.
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
A losing record in a category where everyone has a losing record is no cause for concern, so the number must be isolated from context to be effective.
Truth is, there are very, very few teams that have the resume VT has thus far in the 21st century. Even if we accept for a moment that Beamer has peaked, that peak is higher than just about any other FBS program. The programs that have been better than us put is in absolutely elite company.
We were not in elite company. 5 bcs losses and no titles put us in the consistantly above average company
One of fifteen teams to play in a BCS championship game. Absolutely elite company.
Actually less than that.
Some played twice.
The only one to play with our low level of budget.
No, actually fifteen. I double checked myself before I posted. If had been two different teams each year it'd be 32 teams (16 years, 2 teams a year).
Alabama
Florida
Auburn
Tennessee
LSU
Miami (FL)
Southern California
Texas
Florida State
Ohio State
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Oregon
Virginia Tech
Notre Dame
Thanks for checking.
this is a fine example of when I say, "I'm not always right."
Damn You Guitar, using facts and logic. Who do you think you are? You know what (insert garble here) (here)(here)(here)(here)(here)(here)(here)(here)(here)(here) and (here).
LOL some people, I guess, are the-sky-is-falling kind of folks. It takes a deep breath and some substantial proving before they will relax a bit. Good post
Hey, don't cloud my unsubstantiated opinions with things like facts!.....
Good maybe but look at those that are doing great
from 2004-2014 is vs. top-10 ranked teams at game time (from cfbtrivia)
Tier 2 Teams
Clemson 8 - 6
GT 6 - 10
Oregon 11 - 10
Auburn 17 - 17
Boise St 3 - 1
LSU 15 - 17
Mich St 8 - 8
Of Note
Penn St 0 - 13
Nebraska 2 - 16
One step at a time buddy. Contend for the division, contend for the ACCCG, then contend for the playoffs. It won't be an overnight change from right now.
But we did that already, "buddy", when FSU was down, when Clemson was down under little Bowden, when UNC was ehhhhh, when Duke was Dook, and when Miami was all over the place under Randy Shannon (they still kinda are under Golden). Now you gotta throw Louisville into the mix. They're pretty stout if you ask me. Now FSU is a powerhouse and they're not going anywhere anytime soon under Jimbo. Clemson is stout and they're recruiting is stellar. UNC is gonna be damn good next year. Duke is always gonna be solid under Cutcliff. And Miami is bring in solid recruits as well. So are we! I'm not saying that we aren't, but if we couldn't make bigger and better moves to the NCG in our early ACC years, then we sure aren't now. I'm not saying Beamer is THE ONLY reason why we can't, but to me he's got a lot to do with it.
You are implying that they never had a down cycle and has to go through the same thing we are now.
I bet they also had to adjust targets when they were in down years of Ok, first we win division then we win ACC then we go for BCS title.
I bet they say that same thing next year, on up cycle.
Silly for VT to say NCG or bust at this stage.
Do I think we can do it? yup, we can. do I belittle the seasons we didn't make it to NCG? Nope. Is the NCG a good target, yep, it is,but you have to take the first step first.
Maybe I think like a project manager where each step adds up to eventual success but making your goal NCG and belittling each step before that, absolute wrong way to go.
You will never complete your goal that way.
.
I'm not discounting or belittling any of those seasons and the players and coaches that were on those teams. ACCCGs are great accomplishments. Even getting to one is. I'm simply saying that under Beamer, ACCCGs are our limit. That's our peak. Yeah I know, 1999 this 1999 that. But TODAY, 2015 and further, with the way college football is evolving as far as recruiting and whatnot I don't think we are in a position to make it to the levels of F$U, Clemson even, Oregon, etc., etc., or middle tier/top tier SEC teams.
But, if we are capable of an ACCCG under Beamer and it's a great achievement then how can CFB be embarrassing himself and VT by not retiring right now?
Your Beamer hating is getting stale. You praise other teams' accomplishments and discount Beamer's. '99 doesn't count now? Just because you are too young to remember it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Oh, but it was all because of Vick and Beamer had nothing to do with it right? Well, here's a little secret, it takes phenominal talent to do phenominal things. Recruiting is on an upswing, so there are going to be more good times to come.
How have I hated on Beamer? Yeah, I called him washed up, but I admitted that it was out of line and I apologized. All I've stated is that we're going to continue as an average or slightly above average ACC team, and that's where we are going to be as long as Frank is at HC. That's all I've said, sir. A lot has changed in college football since 1999. I love Frank just as much as you do. But I love Virginia Tech football a ton more. Frank is NOT Virginia Tech football. He's important and has been for a long time, but he's not the answer to our problems, and not the guy to take us back to the "contender" level. That's what I believe, and I know a whole lot of people that agree with me. AGAIN, Frank is NOT more important than the Virginia Tech (the school), the football program, and the football programs future.
If you can't see how, I can't help you.
Answer the question. How is my opinion, which is fine if you disagree with, considered 'hating' on Beamer?
You can apologize for saying it but when you repeat it, like 4 times IIRC in this thread, the apology is too thin.
Of course this in the context that you have stated Frank needs to retire last year or maybe before that.
You don't like Frank as our head coach and he's embarrassing himself and VT by not retiring, every year he doesn't retire in another embarrassment.
That's you opinion and we're going to call you on it.
Then you and those that agree with you know very little about Virginia Tech the school, the football program or it's symbiotic relationship. So little that you could make comments like this out of context and not know how wrong you are.
You should take more time looking at the school's development and it's correlation to the success of it's football program and less time looking out for the best interest of Beamer, his legacy and his family. If you understood anything about that correlation then you would know exactly how much Frank IS Virginia Tech, and how much our school's success has been born from the success on Worsham Field that Frank Beamer created.
I am not saying that Frank has a blank check to do as he likes for as long as he likes, but you need a better argument than the "i love him, and I'm looking out for his best interest" shtick. You are a fan. You have zero connection or understanding of what is in his best interest. That isn't an opinion. It's a baseless statement.
HAHAHAHAHAHAH are you serious? Frank Beamer IS Virginia Tech football? I realize I don't know Frank, but out of respect for the man, I want him to retire instead of sticking around forever, becoming a "figure head" football coach, and tarnishing his legacy. I think, at best, we return to an ACCCG under Frank. Thats a stretch though, to me.
For the millionth time on this thread:
Look back at my earlier posts, I never called for Frank to be 'fired'. I don't want that. I want him to leave gracefully while he's on top while "realizing that he can't do it anymore". For him, I think he's made it to the top. He's reached his ceiling. He's "peaked", like I said. I don't think he can take Tech any further than the top of the ACC and ten wins (ten wins don't get you in the playoffs), and for Tech to make it to the next level they need to go in a different direction, and Frank himself needs to realize it. He's proven himself. ACCCGs, Big East Champs, and an appearance in the NCG are fine, and I enjoyed them, but whats next, Frank? I'm speaking on the original topic of this thread....."Can we realistically make it to the playoffs, and return to the glory days of Tech football?". Nah, I don't think we can under Frank.
Fine. I'll bite (even though this section of the the thread has gone way OT). Whom would you choose if CFB were to hang it up?
To be fair, that's a bit of a straw man question. It would be up to Whit to decide on a successor. Arguing it's time for Frank to hang it up doesn't necessitate naming the next coach. We can argue the merits of whether or not Frank has becomea hindrance on this program (I vote no) without having the discussion of who the next coach is.
No, one cannot state that Frank has become an embarrassment and should retire to spare the rest of us the continued embarrassment without naming a successor because we are not in a vacuum.
One cannot also escape by saying the job of picking the successor is above my pay grade because of the insistence that the job should be vacated immediate.y
These things are part and parcel of themselves. Not naming a successor implies that we are better off with no head coach. He's avoided answering this same question before.
No, I disagree. While I agree with you that CLThokie's tone has been disrespectful to an unquestioned first ballot HOF coach and he really, really needs to work on his presentation, his argument boils down to: Frank Beamer should retire because he's peaked and the game has passed him by.
We can have that conversation without the people who support CLThokie's position having to play athletic director and name a bunch of hypothetical successors.
It boils down to one question: are the potential gains of a head coach change worth facing the uncertainty of the process? We don't have to play the role of athletic director to answer that question, but we do have to factor in whether or not we trust our AD in the hiring process.
We can have the discussion of "we would be better off with Coach X than we are with Beamer," but that's not what CLThokie is arguing.
This, this, this, very much so this.
Debating whether or not Frank Beamer's best days are behind him and whether or not he should be our head coach anymore is a completely different conversation than who should replace him, and yet I have seen Egbert try and merge the two time and time again as his own personal trump card to silence any critics, and the argument just doesn't hold water.
We all knew that Coach James Johnson wasn't a good fit for us in basketball. It didn't take naming a potential successor to determine this. Just as it has been obvious for years that Rex Ryan wasn't good for the Jets, or that Andy Reid's time with the Eagles was done, or that Steve Spurrier was not good with the Redskins, or that Wade Phillips sucked for the Cowboys. It doesn't take providing a researched list of candidates who would be better off being coach to begin having that conversation. Tired of this strawman argument. Its only purpose is to derail the conversation and change the subject.
Of course it silences critics, because we are not in a vacuum here.
It silences them if they have not considered the consequences of firing the head coach.
It's like saying it's time to sell the car, you want a better one, without deciding what the rest of that transaction is. Do you buy a new one? Where will that money come from?
Take the bus? How far is the walk to the bus stop and does a bus go to your work?
It may be a good choice but, without the discussion of the next step, the decision to sell the car, is a worthless one.
BTW: Strawman: A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument.[1] To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument. Wiki on Strawman aruments. It's not what you think it means.
Part and parcel of the argument is that another coach must be better than Beamer. So much so that Beamer is an embarrassment.
Unless the argument is that we're better off with ANYONE except Beamer.
I can accept his answer above that Foster would be a good replacement because, it is an answer.
No, again, I disagree.
The question in play is a cost/benefit analysis. It's an assertion that Beamer had peaked and is holding the program back from actualizing its potential. That argument merely supposes that there is some coach out there that would elevate the program's level of success, and further supposes that our athletic director could find him and entice him to take the job in Blacksburg. We don't actually have to name him.
A discussion of hypothetical replacements also has merit as a topic of conversation, but the argument CLThokie is making doesn't necessitate that discussion be had right now. Without getting into who replaces Frank, we can discuss:
We don't need a list of candidates to discuss those three points.
ok
Whit has already endorsed Beamer and the rest of the staff. So, the discussion points 1 and 2 above can be combined into a single reality: Whit's job is to look out for the best interest of VT football, and he thinks Frank can right the ship and get this program back to championship football.
Ehh... I'm not going to think too much into that public endorsement.
I've seen it far, far too often in sports where a public endorsement by a GM (pro sports) or AD (collegiate) in how much they trust the job that the head coach is doing, only to see that coach fired a month or so later.
By no means do I think that is the case here, but I've seen that sort of thing happen so often that most of the time, when I hear about a public endorsement, I don't generally view it as a good thing. The fact that Babcock even had to say something is worth noting, though.
Most false endorsements come as an answer to a direct question, not part of a voluntary release including major raises and a vision for the program. I definitely hear what you are saying though, especially on professional levels. But, I believe Whit was sincere.
And so do I. But the fact that Whit supports Frank (or the fact that I do) doesn't preclude us from having hypothetical conversations on whether or not this is the right time for Beamer to retire, or if the program would benefit from a head coaching change, or on if the risk of a coaching change is worth the potential gains one might bring, or any other hypothetical. We're dealing in pure conjecture here. The actual state of affairs has little bearing on the conversation, so long as we admit we're dealing in hypothetical and conjecture.
.
Leg for this. That's a worthy quote for a profile signature.
You're right, it has. But anyway, I want Bud to get his shot. He deserves it. With that, I'd promote Coach Gray to defensive coordinator. I think that is very realistic. Then, I'd want Loeffler and Stinespring to get booted, make Moorehead the O-coordinator, he's coached under offensive guru's in Jim Harbaugh, Pep Hamilton, and David Shaw, and played with Peyton Manning. It's his time to make that transition, so why not let it rip, before he goes somewhere else....
Moorehead, the WR coach is ready for D1 Coordinator position?
I suppose since you think youth and energy is more important than experience. That's a common mistake.
It's not time for him to transition to coordinator. He's a great guy and a great coach but, he needs experience with other positions first. Maybe coordinator and a D2 or D3 first or some years in D1 at other positons.
Yeah, I think so. I provided an explanation as to why I think this. He's gotten plenty of valuable experience under Harbaugh, Hamilton, and Shaw. I think those coaching positions under them at Stanford, as well as New Mexico as a GA under Mike Locksley who is an offensive mind, would be just as effective as being the O-coordinator at, for example, D-3 Gardner Webb University in my hometown.
Remember, Moorehead was a GA at Stanford too. So he only has 2 years of coaching under his belt and now you are saying that he's capable of being a D1 OC for a Power 5 team?
Yeah, thats what I said. I mean, why isn't he? The guy knows offensive football, you can't deny that. Also, he's proven himself to be a good motivator, recruiter. I think he's ready.
A good motivator and a good recruiter doesn't make a good OC. He has worked with only WRs so we don't actually know if he knows offensive football outside the position. Get him some experience with all aspects of an offense at a lower level and we can have this conversation. For right now, he's a position coach for the next 2-5 years.
See also: Stinespring, Bryan.
I want my OC to be a bit of a football nerd in addition to a good coach. That's why I still have faith in Lefty.
He very well could be like Stinespring, but we don't know until we try. I just like Moorehead and I think he'd be a very solid hire as OC.
Oh yeah, totally, you know zero real fact about Beamer and the program so you can make "opinions" that everyone should take seriously. Wow man, you are so right. WTF is Beamer thinking not retiring? CTLhokie says he should now because he is only making things worse from here on out. Why the hell isn't he listening to CTLhokie?! He has no real information on the subject but dear god Beamer should do as he says!
Yeah, I'm sure Frank is very really cozy at night because you're looking out for his best interests. oh here's where i insert lots of HA's to deflect from people seeing I don't have any idea what I'm talking about:
I never said you were calling for him to be fired. I was just pointing out the absurd irony of your "opinion" that you want what's best for him so he should step down. That you respect him so much that you know what's best for the school, him, the football program, his legacy and his family. are you serious? And this is where the real laughter happens.
Ugh whatever lol, this whole thing has gotten out of hand. I'm done.
Well, you come in, new guy, from the Triangle with disrespectful words describing our coach and we'll hold your feet to that fire.
Charlotte is not the Triangle
Both of you need to take a break from the keyboard for a little while.
Ok, Piedmont, NC which partially consists of the Triangle area but, more important and germane to the discussion, is near to some of our more ardent rivals.
quibble quibble quibble
BTW, I'm in no way heated, just having a discussion here. He has a strong opinion and so do I.
Let me offer a bit of advice and perspective. It may seem like people are ganging up on you or belittling your opinion, but in reality they're not. A central component of this site is educated discussion. One can't just throw out an opinion and not expect people to want to discuss it, especially when that opinion is unpopular. There's nothing wrong with having your opinion, I disagree with you but I respect what you think. But what most people are craving is a justification as to why you feel the way you do, which you haven't given. Without that, it basically just looks like you're trying to stir the pot and get people upset, when those people are offering counterarguments.
It's the offseason for us, we're bored. We want to discuss Hokie football. This is a reasonable topic to discuss. But if you have an opinion, please at least justify it. Understand when people disagree with you and engage in a discussion. If you simply say, "this is my opinion and you're not allowed to rebut it because it's my opinion so there" it just comes across as not wanting to be a productive member of the community.
All respectful (and you realize that "washed up old man" isn't respectful, so we won't go through that again), educated discussion is welcome, but at this point there's nothing productive here any more.
Realistic expectations?
Every year: Contend for Coastal
A little less frequently (3 times in a 5 year stretch): Contend for ACC
Even a little less frequently (Once in a 5-year stretch): Contend for playoffs
Even less frequently (Once in a ten year stretch): Contend for MNC
Clarify for me, my equine amigo.
Beyond the first step of your expectations ladder, when you say "contend for," do you mean play for?
I'm assuming that means "in the conversation for"
when I hear "contend for" I equate that to "with two games left in the season, there is still a very real possibility we'll win/participate in it"
Much like the other responders said, I'd say 'contend for' would be a little different for each level:
Contend for Coastal would probably mean finishing in the top two whether we win the division or not, being tied for the division lead with any number of other teams, or winning it.
Contend for ACC would mean we've won the Coastal and have the opportunity to play in the ACCCG.
Contend for playoff means we won the division, may or may not have won the conference, and are being considered on the short list for playoff participants.
Contend for the MNC would mean we were selected for the playoffs. Top four ain't bad.
So what is your expectations of the VT program? Is it to win the Coastal ~50% of the time, or to routinely be playing for the ACC title?
I mean, I guess we're splitting hairs here, and we might be on the same wavelength, but at the end of the day, I think its a fairly reasonable expectation to want to see VT playing in Charlotte in early December more years than not, and when we're there, I would hope we at least go .500 in those games. Does that mean that we're contending for ACC titles or Coastal Division titles, I guess just depends on where you set those expectations.
I think we're on the same wavelength. I noted that we should contend for the ACC about 3/5 of the time, and later elaborated that this would mean we win the division. Given our division, I think it is reasonable to expect to be in the ACCCG about half the time, and I'd hope to see about a .500 record in there, as you do. So I'd expect to win in Charlotte twice every six years with maybe a third time.
My expectations were pretty well calibrated for 2004-2010, but I'm probably behind the times in adjusting them.
I don't think those expectations need to be adjusted, because I actually think those within the program share them with us. Its the reason we cleaned house in 2012. Its the reason we're still hearing the coaches talk about getting the program back to where it needs to be. We haven't met our own expectations for a few years now, and we're doing what it takes to get back to that level. It could happen as early as next season. It should happen beyond then.
I guess you could say the program expectations are that every 4 year player that comes through the program, he'll play in Charlotte twice, and of those 2 times, we win the game once. I think this is a very fair set of goals.
That being said, once those goals are attained, and we are back to playing at that level, I don't think we should be satisfied. Once we are averaging these set of expectations, the expectations should again be raised. This is where I think we let ourselves down around 2007, because we got complacent and were satisfied with meeting our expectations, and never really pushed to go bigger and higher. But this is a discussion for another day.
Thanks.
You and I are almost identical in expectations. I believe its entirely reasonable to believe that we should never do worse than losing the Coastal on tiebreakers. We have the coaching, recruiting and resources to be at that level every year.
I think to contend for the playoffs we absolutely have to win the ACC, without exception. We could very reasonably win the ACC and not make the playoffs depending on our out of conference performance, but I see no reasonable way we make the playoffs as the loser of the ACCCG.
I also think it's reasonable to believe we should make the playoffs every five to seven years or so, just based on the number of times we've finished in the top four of the BCS rankings.
This pretty much sums up my expectations perfectly.
Agreed. My definition of "contend" is to be no more than one win away from the Coastal crown every year. I would be thrilled if we could make the playoffs once in about every 5 years, to me that is contending for the National title. If you can make the playoffs that you have as much chance the other three to win the thing. I also think the expectations were met for 2000-2011 seasons, but the three year skid we are in is getting brutal.
This. Can't expect to win every year but always being in contention to earn a division crown is step one in achieving any of the rest of the goals.
I'm actually fine with this.
I can agree with Horse's above realistic expectations.
I will probably get blasted for this but that's ok i can take it. I think its a real possibility that (1) season out of a decade that we will have a bad season (maybe even 2 but hopefully not). Even your Alabama's of the world have bad seasons ( 3-8 in 2000, 4-9 in 2003). I also think though with that streak of 10 win seasons we had that our definition of a "bad season" is kinda skewed a little. Do i want or expect us to lose? No, but realistically its gonna happen at some point
Having lived the dream in 99, you must remember that many things have to fall into place to make it to the National Title game.
agreed, it's not a goal for me because I don't think VT can achieve that goal without a lot of help from others. What is in our control is to win the division and conference.
I do think we have an easier path to the championship game with the playoff structure than we did in the BCS. I think getting to #4 is more attainable for us than #2.
If I was Frank Beamer, for VT next year, our starting goal should be to win every regular season game we play. We absolutely have the talent. We will be dogs against OSU and in no other regularly scheduled game should we be expected to lose. If we do lose, guess what...our goal is to win the rest of the games we play.
Say VT makes the ACC championship game. Our goal is to win the ACC championship game.
Say VT wins the championship and goes to the Orange. Our goal - win the Orange bowl
Say VT wins the championship and makes the playoff - our goal is to win the first playoff game.
Say VT wins the semi-final. Our goal- is to win our last game of the year.
My point is, when you start a season off with "we need 10 wins" or "we want to go to the conference title" the path to meeting that objective becomes abstract -it could detract from achievements that your team may have otherwise accomplished by putting a finite objective in place. I'd make each step it's own critical objective.
What's
Important
Now
To make change; To influence; To use this moment to be better than the last; To achieve greatness in all aspects of your life; Win at home. Win at school. Win at business. Win at life.
We will most definitely be the dogs against GT. They are going to be ranked top10. I know that no one here is too worried since we play them close every year, and for the record I feel this way too.
I think we will contend for the Coastl but not sure if we will win it. IMO it all comes down to Brewer (or whoever is QB) and the progression and improvement of the OL.... I think 2016 is the year to look out for though.
I actually believe it will come down more to the OL and the running game. If the running game can average over 4 ypc, then I expect Brewer to have a significantly improved season. If the running game continues to struggle, I expect Brewer to look very similar to how he looked down the stretch of 2014.
Yea I mean they all lean on each other. Pass game's best friend is the run game, and vice versa
I don't understand this stupid excuse that since we are in the mountains we can never be a dominant program?
Here's a list of the next 10 schools after the top four:
5. Baylor
6. TCU
7. Mississippi State
8. Michigan State
9. Ole Miss
10. Arizona
11. Kansas State
12. Georgia Tech
13. Georgia
14. UCLA
Now I really only see one school that is in an awesome location - UCLA. None of these others schools are in locations much worse than Blacksburg. So no, I think the "we're a school from the mountains" is a lousy excuse for lack of football dominance. Yes we can get back to being a big time football school and once we actually start believing that instead of strumming our sad violin, we just might.
I agree with your overall sentiment but if you think about what the opposite of Blacksburg is, assuming that's where kids want to play football, there are a few locations on that list. Ann Arbor, Tucson, Atlanta, and Athens pop out at me.
The location excuse is, to a certain extent, BS. Recruits will come to a proven, winning program.
Dunno, AZ is pretty sweet. Baylor and TCU are Texas schools. Both Mississippis, UGA, and GT are all in the southeastern footprint, which loves their college football as much as Texas loves their high school football. Lots of talent in those areas.
The only ones that aren't in great locations for football, in my eyes, are Michigan State (cold, little brother) and Kansas State (not a lot of immediate talent around, also it's in Kansas)
What exactly makes being a Texas school great? Waco is not at all a great place simply because it is in Texas. It's Waco, so it's nothing special. And if you're going to tell me that Oxford, Mississippi is a great town that would get people excited to spend 4 years there, you will never convince me Blacksburg is any worse.
I wouldn't say it's great by any stretch of the imagination but there are a lot of people who are born and raised there that take football very seriously, and it's one of the most populous state. A lot of those kids are recruits who have been born and raised in Texas, and I'd bet many love it and would like to stay.
Ain't never been to Oxford, but they tell me it's nice. And it doesn't snow much. There's a river nearby
What Buzz Williams is doing with basketball recruiting for a program that legitimately was one of the worst in all of basketball before he got here shows how bunk this excuse truly is.
Basketball is apples and oranges to football.
First of all, the small number of players on a team gives a coach a much closer relationship with the players. Meaning coaching is the top factor when recruiting.
Second, a very large part of the discusion about location comes down to weather, which does not affect playing basketball.
The two schools with bad weather above coincidentally happen to currently have the best coaches their program has ever had.
Interesting... I don't hear weather being a big deterrent when schools like Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame, etc sign big high ranking classes while playing in some of the coldest climates around during the latter half of their seasons. And I know you tried to qualify that with the whole "they have the best coaches they have ever had" thing, but they were also routinely pulling in great classes long before those coaches came around.
Yes and 3 of those schools have had a winning tradition since football was invented, with more accolades than almost anyone. Those traditions were established before recruiting became what it is today. There is a blatant difference
Technically our stadium is already at the top of the mountain as it is the highest elevation stadium in the eastern side of the Mississippi River.
A little off topic/point but as a facts/trivia guy I had to look this up. I think Appalachian State in the mountains of Boone, NC actually holds that title.
I agree, I hate seeing fans treat Tech as if it's a small school out in a backwards region of the state (maybe that's a little hyperbolic on my part but you get the gist). Tech has over 30,000 students, is the largest research university in the state, has nationally-acclaimed programs in engineering, architecture, agriculture, and the sciences, and is located in a very beautiful region if I may say. It's also close in proximity to Roanoke and Bristol. I know Tech is located in a small, quaint college town and is in the mountains but it's not a nationally obscure school that was just recently discovered by the national media.
Sorry, but I'm not sure where you're going with the "close in proximity to Roanoke and Bristol."
Do you mean that as a draw, or not? I would argue closer to the 'not' part.
I loved my time at Tech, back in the (Hokie?) Stone Age. And I even gave a passing thought to looking at employment Roanoke after graduation. And it's a beautiful part of the world.
Having said all of that, I cannot believe that those two places are a factor in drawing D-1 football recruits. Maybe I should have spent more time there, but I just don't see it.
Just for context:
Baylor in Waco: pop. 129,030
TCU in Fort Worth: pop. 792,727
Miss St in Starkville: pop. 24,775
Mich St in East Lansing: pop. 48,544
Ole Miss in Oxford: pop. 20,865
Arizona in Tucson: pop. 526,116
KState in Manhattan: pop. 56,143
GT in Atlanta: pop. 447,841
UGA in Athens: pop. 119,980
UCLA in LA: pop. 3.844 million
Blacksburg has an official pop of 43,609 which is less than all but 2 of these schools.
Some notes on additional context:
That leaves the 2 Mississippi schools and KState.
Ole Miss is 1 hour from Memphis, where there are a lot of fans. And anyone that has experienced game day in Mississippi has experienced the "flood" where everyone in the counties come out and flood onto campus. They come from EVERYWHERE.
So really KSTATE is the only one that I see is comparable to Blacksburg, with a 50 - 60 min driving time to Topeka which has a pop of 127,679.
With Christiansburg you have another 21,533 for total of 65,142 and a driving time of about 45 - 50 minutes. Roanoke has a pop of 98,465 (Salem another 25k) which pales in comparison to Memphis or other "remote" universities that are about an hour away from larger cities.
So really you actually could argue Blacksburg as being worse off than almost ALL of these universities.
Do fans not do this in Virginia? I'm pretty sure a lot of NOVA and Richmond travel down for the game. It seems like we really can not get this notion that Virginia Tech is this itty bitty no name school in the mountains out of our mind. It's like whatever we can do to rationalize not being a dominant force we'll do, that way we are never disappointed.
And to reply to the population argument, you're saying that the number of people in an area is the causation for making a school a powerhouse. I will disagree with that till the day I die. The culture of the surrounding area and it's viewpoint on the local college football team is what is really important. And last time I checked, Blacksburg has a pretty decent college football culture.
I think that you are still missing a lot of context in your argument. No one is saying Blacksburg and SW Virginia isn't hardcore Hokies, I believe what most people are talking about is building a program and recruiting in this location. But when you compare locations and why they matter, places that have more resources are attractive to recruits especially if they are coming from big cities. If for example you love the symphony, you're more likely going to find a symphony orchestra and orchestra hall in a big city than rural Virginia. And if you think this is all BS then why is it that everyone looks at USC in Los Angeles as having a competitive advantage with it's glitz and glamour?
I am not necessarily saying that Blacksburg as a location is a game changer but population is a bigger indicator than you are giving it credit for. Like it or not a lot of people like to be in the big city, and I think bigger recruits like to play on the biggest stage possible. Usually bigger stages have bigger amounts of people, hence going to school in a place with population matters.
In regards to the quotation you use, yes that is true but Athens is also starting with a population of over 100k already AND they get people flocking to them. But I would say if you take the two states, Virginia is a state with 2 competitive schools in terms of popularity compared to UGA and GT where it's a big brother, little brother scenario.
Being located in a bigger city and around larger population center is a big recruiting tool. It also lends to larger booster pools to draw from and frankly more wealthy ones being located in proximity to you. Sorry, but it matters.
The problem is getting 17 year old kids excited about living in Blacksburg. I'd imagine that if you ask any of them once they are 21, they would say it wouldn't matter anyway because they spend every waking minute either training, practicing, eating or studying. But, as a 17 year old, there is nothing flashy to get their attention. This isn't bashing Blacksburg in any way whatsoever. I'm just saying that the perception is what matters when recruiting, and the first glance perception of Blacksburg is a little different than what most of these recruits are used to.
As far as being in or near a large city, it does help with ticket sales. You are right that Nova, Richmond, and Tidewater flock to Blacksburg on gameday. Just think how many more people would go if it were within an hour from their house. It's been part of my argument of why our fanbase travels so well to bowl games, they already know how to do it.
Tech is lucky to be in the same state as the 757. So much talent coming out of there. I hope Tech can control that area code again. I remember looking down the 2003 roster and nearly a third of the team, if not more, was from there.
The 2003 team was probably one of the most talented teams to come through Blacksburg, but a lack of discipline, the 4-4 base formation defense, and a tendency to roll over when the going got tough was their downfall.
Realistic expectations.
Next year, 8-4
2016 depends on the QB situation as we may have a new started depending on how 2015 goes but I think we are pushing 10 wins and possibly more
I'm not going to guess more than 2 seasons out and trying to predict 2016 is already pushing it. We lose so much on defense in 2016. I do think we can get to the playoffs in the next 5 years but we will need some luck jumping the blue bloods if we are a 1 loss team
I think we have more than a two game improvement next season. I'll admit I'll be a little disappointed at 8-4 next year.
This whole discussion reeks of a bunch of fans that aren't realizing how little time has passed since we were top 25 and ACC contenders. Realistic expectations are to be conference champs. If we catch lightning in the bottle, then NC contenders.
I think this is basically where the majority of TKPers are. Seems like most of us agree, the focus should be the conference.
I'm expecting a season similar to 2004. The Hokies were not expected to do much (predicted to finish 6th in the ACC out of 11 teams), but they had a great season. They played USC very tough (2015 Ohio State), lost a tough game at home to NC State, won the next 8 and the ACC championship outright, and then lost a close one in the Sugar Bowl to undefeated Auburn, who probably should have been in the national championship instead of Oklahoma. Do I think the Hokies will win the ACC? Probably not. FSU's a really good team, even without Winston. Do I think they can play tOSU very tough, though? Yes. Do I think they can go on a major winning streak? Yes. Do I think they can play in the ACC championship? Certainly.
I'm very excited, though.
I try to set my expectations based on the current recruiting classes that we have on our roster compared to the rest of the ACC and nationally. I feel that should give me a reasonable idea of how we should perform in any given year. For instance, this season consisted of the 2010-2014 recruiting classes. Using Rivals team rankings, our average class ranking is 25.2 and in no year did we crack the top 20. Right off the bat I can eliminate any realistic expectation for a National Championship. It usually takes a recruiting class average of at least 12 or better to win the NC. Next, I compare our average to other teams in the ACC and see FSU with 6.4 and Clemson with 13.6, so I can basically figure that a conference title is only a slim possibility. There is just too big of a gap in talent between us and them to get my expectations up. Finally, I compare us to only the other Coastal teams. Miami has an 18.6 average and GT is always an anomaly due to the triple option O that they use, so I figure that we should be able to contend for the division.
In summary, I expected us to contend for the Coastal, have a very slim shot at the conference ship, and absolutely no chance for the playoffs. We fell short of my expectations, however, since they weren't very high to begin with, I wasn't very disappointed.
The way that recruiting classes are shaping up this year, I'm pretty sure that I will have about the same expectations for next season. Here's to hoping they are exceeded.
ACC titles don't move me as much as they used to. Winning ACC titles are nice and are great accomplishments but I will still be upset for not contending/making the playoffs. I go into every VT season wanting to win a National title, my life would be complete, like I'm sure a lot of you can relate. I'd rather have 1 National Championship in the next 20-30 years than have multiple ACC titles and bowl wins. Just me, but thats all I really care for.
This is a statement spoken in truth, but it is an untrue statement. (talking about giving up acc contention for 30 years for 1 NC)
I should of said that I would give up just ACC titles for those years (assuming we go to a non-playoff bowl) just to have 1 national championship run
I'm saying that if a genie popped out of a lamp and gave you those two choices, I believe you when you say you would take the one title. But I think you would regret it after the 30 year run. I've seen how miserable this fan base has been during 3 short years of mediocrity.
Yea I hear what you are saying but I know I would take the NC. My teams are as follows.... Hokies, Redskins, Capitals, Braves and Wizards. Outside of the Braves '95 world series title (I was 5, so I couldn't really experience/enjoy it) I have had some very bad luck in sports teams when it comes to championships. Of all my teams, Hokies are the one by far that I want to see win a championship. The others would be awesome as hell but Hokies are the one I invest the most time, money, and spirit in. Again, thats just how I am.
Well being a fellow skins fan, I can at least say you know what 30 years of misery is like. I will therefore stop arguing with you and I hope that both the hokies and skins get that goal for both of our sakes.
Its been brutal. I couldnt tell you the last redskins merchandise I have bought but I refuse to put my hard earned money into Snyders pocket. Unlike the redskins, I will keep wasting my money on Hokies anything.
Wow, so what I get out of this is.... you're the kiss of death for sports teams! Sure you don't want to become a Cowboys and UVa fan?
Just to clarify, I'm kidding.
Just saw the edit. So I guess you're saying in the hypothetical that we are still contending just not winning the acc in those 30 years. That's more understandable I guess. I was just saying I doubt fans would take 30 years of misery for much of anything.
I'll try to do the most extreme to make sense..... for me: 1 national title > 30 Costal/ACC Championships, or just contending to get there
Now within those 30 years, sure making the playoffs is plausible, if the right pieces fall into place, but Im not just talking about making the playoffs, I'm talking about winning the NCG
If we win our conference, we'll be in the mix for making the playoff, unless the ACC regresses to the point where we only have 8-9 wins after the ACCCG. I don't see that happening. Win the ACC and we will have 10+ regular season wins and will merit discussion by the playoff committee.
well yea, most years that goes without saying. But like I said, even if we just win an ACC title, it doesn't do much for me anymore. I'm hungry for a national title. yea all other teams goals is to win their conference but the bigger picture/goal is a NC
Hisoint is that on order for us to go for NCG. We would need to first sin the ACCCG.
Setting TH goal, at the beginning of the season, at NCG is ineffective.
First goal, win each game, then coastal, then ACCCG then first payoff game then NCG.
Playing for the NCG in the first game of the season is guaranteed to lead to lack of motivation by the mid season.
you are looking into way too much for where I am coming from. Yes, you have to do all of those you listed to get to the NCG but all I was saying was that I would rather have a Hokies NC at least once than to win a bunch of ACC titles and never winning the whole thing
My expectations are simple -- beat Clemson, or be is a position to beat Clemson, every year. In 2017 and 2024, we go head-to-head with them during the regular season, but for the remaining seasons, we must win the Coastal in order to have a shot at them. Assuming they do their part and win the Atlantic, we beat them in the ACCCG. Every. Single. Year. Why? Because it's just so darn much fun. That is all.
Nothing is better than beating Clemson (sorry UVA).
This is kind of riffing on Horse's post above. Realistic expectations for any given year, based on schedule. I think 10 wins is very doable, especially since the ACCCG and bowl games are included.
Within the division, I see GT and Miami as toss ups every year. There's just so many variables on both sides. So let's say 1-1 on average there.
Duke and UNC, I see us beating them each at least 3-4 times out of 5. (Before Cutcliff, I would put Duke at every time or at least 99 out of 100.) I'll put this at 2-0. (If there's a year that one of them beats us, we'll probably average it out in the final win total.)
That leaves Pitt and UVA. I know we have 11 in a row against UVA, but there have been several years, including this year, where they should have put up a fight. And then Pitt...I'm just going on historical data here, but I don't trust that game. Since I started at Tech in 2002, we are 1-4 against Pitt...and that one came at home. So let's say 1-1 here.
So, on average, we should be at least 4-2 in the division.
Then there's BC. We should go at least 3-4 out of 5 against them. Looking at the rest of the Atlantic, FSU and Clemson can give us problems. NC State, Wake Forest, and Syracuse are the teams that we should be every time, but occasionally they can surprise us. Louisville is a toss up. So, I see at least a 50% chance of winning the rotation crossover game in any given year.
With the right match up and scheduling, we should go 2-0 against the Atlantic.
Out of conference, we usually have 1 Power 5, 1 Group of 5, and 1 FCS team. The 4th OOC game alternates between Power 5 and Group of 5. In any given year, we should go at least 3-1 OOC.
Overall, that puts us at 9-3.
I guess what I'm saying is that I expect Tech to not have to win its final game to be bowl eligible. We should get that by early November, and have at least a two game cushion.
Well since our record at the end of '13 was 8 Ws (1 more than '12), I was expecting '14 to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 9-10 Ws. I believe had MOST of our players been healthy, this team would have achieved at least 9 Ws. But due to injuries and whathaveyou this team underperformed, taking a step back and only getting 7 Ws. Therefore, should most of the team remain healthy for '15, I believe 9-11 Ws is a reasonable expectation.
My markers for a successful season in order of importance
1. Beat UVA
2. Play in a bowl game
3. Win Coastal
4. Win ACC
5. Win bowl game
6. Win 10 games
7. Play in New Years bowl
8. Make playoff
9. Make NCG
10. Win National Championship
How realistic are these? 1-3 are pretty mandatory for me, we accomplished 1,2, and 5 this year which was a disappointing year. I think all of these are realistic. If we take care of 1-6 then the rest takes care of itself.