http://www.oddsshark.com/ncaaf/odds
Looks like the early line is Clemson -9 (give or take a half-point).
Thoughts? You guys think that's a fair/reasonable point spread?
EDIT: Line has moved to Clemson -10.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
wellm we definitely have a good bit of film on how to limit them (pitt, troy, etc) and the coaches may very well have spent part of last week preparing a gameplan for them. Of course, they have even more film of our struggles (3 losses plus pitt, duke, ND). Honestly, I expected a 13.5 pt spread.
Too low, should have been 11-13 for Clemson.
Yeah, I honestly take that as a compliment.
Fully expect this to balloon up to 15 before kickoff
Though, 9 might be more reasonable on what it will be in the field
No line moves 6-7 points unless there is a major, unexpected injury announcement after the initial line was set
Can't Vegas move it naturally based upon the bets?
They can move it however they want but they don't miss by 7 points. Lines are established to get equal betting on both sides.
They don't often miss by 7, but it's happened that the line has move 7+, without some major injury or suspension.
Who is "they"? For the most part, there is no "they". The opening lines in Vegas mostly follow the computers with some minor tweaking. Then after that, the lines move to balance the bets.
Points spreads reflect the collective market wisdom, not some Wizard behind a curtain.
VT-UNC had about a 6 point swing from opening line to kickoff...if I remember it right
Not the best example considering the weather and I think they closed betting due to the weather.
The line moved before anybody knew where the hurricane was heading. We got about 2 more points once the track was set. My point is that they do move quite often. However, back to the original discussion, I don't think this one will change much before Saturday.
Ok.
I think that's a fair assessment, they are clearly the more talented team but have had some scares against mediocre competition, NC State should have beaten them by all accounts, Troy could have easily won that game as well. I think these teams are more even than their record/ranking suggests. IMHO, Clemson isn't in the same ballpark as Alabama, theOSU, Michigan and most of the Top 10. I think this will be an excellent game, great one to watch regardless of whether you're a fan of either school!
Definitely agree that their record doesn't reflect the quality of their season. If I were OSU or Washington, I'd be hoping to draw Clemson as the easiest road to the championship.
You mean the OSU team that lost to Penn State - which lost to the Pitt team that beat Clemson? Or do you mean the OSU that beat 4-8 Michigan St because MSU puzzlingly went for 2? Or the OSU team that has had 5 of its last 7 games decided by 4 pts or less - or go to OT?
Do you mean the Washington team that recently got dominated by USC - the only team on their schedule with talent remotely comparable to Clemson?
I think Clemson is flawed, but if I was Washington or OSU (who I don't think is going to make the playoff if favorites win out), I would rather be playing OSU or Washington than Clemson.
Clemson has been an inconsistent jumble, but they do have a high ceiling. I think their SOR is greatly overrated and has me doubting the legitimacy of that new ESPN metric, and they have played a lot of close games they shouldn't have. Every week their wins look less impressive and it's hard to forget they should have two home losses with that NC State chip shot miss.
I don't blame Dantonio for going for 2. He knew anOSU was the better team and wanted to try and steal the win rather than play in overtime. He has a record of going for the win like that. Remember the fake field goal against ND that got him the win instead of the tie?
The problem is there were almost 5 min left in the game. MSU still had to hold OSU whether they make 1 or 2. He wasn't going to "steal" anything.
The odds of making the 1 pt conversion, holding OSU in regulation, and winning in OT are better than making the 2 pt conversion and holding OSU in regulation.
This. MSU coach screwed up, especially because his team was in fact doing a pretty good job of stopping OSU, and a tie or 1 point lead was in effect the exact same given how much time was left.
He might have to answer a bit for how awful they were this year. I understand they lost a good number of players, but they dropped off the face of the earth after making the CFP last year,
Didn't see the game, I just assumed that the clock was close to expiring. Yeah, 5 minutes to go, kick the damn ball.
Like I said...puzzling.
I think he means the OSU that doesn't want to face Alabama in the first round.
Just like any other team out there.
If this season is just 127 sacrificial lambs for Alabama, at least be the one to catch them in the final game and get some extra payout.
So stating the obvious was his point?
Who do you think Bama would rather face first? I'll bet it's not Clemson.
We have been very inconsistent this year - big wins over Oklahoma and Neb, then losing to PSU on a blocked field goal. If we play like we did against Oklahoma or Nebraska, I like our chances. JT can't afford to be slow making decisions or make poor ones, especially against Alabama. Our OL gets manhandled to often as well which makes things even tougher for JT. Our D has really stepped up which keeps us in games.
Alabama looks tough but they have also looked beatable at times.
I'd love to see you guys beat Clemson.
The final selection should be interesting for the CFP. Will hear lots of whining afterward.
If we don't beat them, I would very much enjoy if you guys did, I don't want them to make the NCG again.
Yep, get our $6 million as a conference (for the semifinals). Clemson going to the NCG or winning the whole thing does nothing good for VT other than boost the national perception of the ACC. Instead, it'll hurt us in recruiting and talking trash to Clemson fans.
Agreed.
That would be the case any year you've got 5 power conference champions and only 4 spots. Throw in the #2 and #3 teams from last week not even playing for in a CCG and it has me all like
This is why conference championships are totally shit criteria to be valued so highly when the arbitrary divisions consistently keep the two best teams from playing for the championship. That's why I hate their emphasis on winning the conference when the divisions set up to determine it have consistently failed to put the best two teams into CG games. Almost every year we run into this issue with two top teams from the same division in one or more conferences.
Or in this year's case, you have, arguably, the third best team in a division getting their ticket punched to the championship game. I'm looking at you PSU.
There is no arguably, they are the third best team in that division, and anybody who doesn't agree is a PSU fan or hates Ohio State.
Playing devil's advocate, if they were really the third best team in their division they wouldn't be playing for the championship. People might not like PSU because of past actions, but they won the games they needed to. As Beamer said, the games they lost were just exhibition games. They earned the right to play in their championship and get pounded by Wisconsin.
PHRASING!!
Yep. The eye test tells me they aren't as good as OSU or Michigan, but PSU has won their division. If you can do that by being the "third best team" in the mix, more power to you.
"to be the best, you have to beat the best". They beat OSU, end of story
They beat OSU who beat Michigan who beat PSU who beat OSU who beat...
PSU won, and won at the right time. This EXACT same thing is required to win the natty. If you make it to the playoff, you have to win THOSE 2 games. There's no evaluating later "well, they didn't win that game, but they did win THIS game.
I have no idea how PSU has smoke and mirror'd this shit so far. They look like a 7-5 team. I'm just waiting on someone to completely roll them.
See: Michigan vs. PSU, September 24, 2016
This is pretty much how I feel about it, "smoke and mirror'd". They really didn't look all that good in anything they did and their players are a B Team compared to everyone elses'.
EDIT: But because they had so many injuries this year and last, as well as a ton of former walk ons that only had a chance to play because everyone bailed from PSU for a while and they couldn't recruit, there is one nice little benefit they've seen: While they have few top end players (Saquon maybe the only one), everyone else at every position is just about as good as everyone else in their position group. They have crazy depth, even though none of it is top-talent. There's just no drop off from first string to second to third
Sounds like you're describing LOLUVa, but all that "parity" doesn't seem to have done them much good.
Sure if you think that PSU who lost a game by 39 this season and has more losses is the best in their division go right ahead. I prefer to think rationally instead of weird black and white W-L comparisons. Is Pitt an objectively better team than Clemson, is Syracuse an objectively better team than us? No.
Fair enough, PSU was on LBs 5 through 7 the Michigan week due to injuries, so it wasn't entirely unexpected. Michigan appeared to be rolling at that point. Perhaps Michigan peaked early in the year. They were steamrolling just about everyone early but then they hit the meat of their schedule with MichSt, Iowa, Indiana, and OSU and all of those were competitive. They may have just peaked too early and pulled the wool over our eyes with a thrashing of Rutgers.
But your criteria is irrelevant.
By the rules set out by the conference before the season started, Penn St. did what was required to win their division. If you are required to be "the best" in your division in order to be named its winner, maybe you should go be a UNC fan because they keep talking about how Wins and Losses shouldnt' matter based on circumstance.
I'm not a PSU fan by any stretch, but its undeniable. 2 teams finished that division with 1 conference loss. One of them beat the other. It literally can not be more fair than that at this point to represent in the CCG.
If it makes you feel any better, Penn St. isn't going to the playoff unless they win their CCG, Clemson and Washington both lose.
My criteria is irrelevant because the CFP committee's is what matters and it's worse than the BCS. The four best teams should make the playoff I don't care how you have to get to it, and that would result from my criteria. 11-1 tOSU is easily one of the four best teams, 10-2 Penn State is not, plain and simple.
Michigan and Ohio State are the two best teams in the division. But PSU is playing for a conference title because the won the right games.
I hope PSU wins this week and forces the committee to set a precedent on what they value higher, conference championships or body of work.
Personally, I think PSU should get a playoff spot over OSU. Why play the games if the results don't mean anything in the end?
Alabama is the best team in the country but if they lose in the playoff nobody is giving them the big trophy at the end of the day. But they'd still be the best team in the country.
I kind of agree. PSU is 10-2 with a chance to be 11-2. They would have the same number of wins as anOSU with a head to head win. It would be the height of disrespect to put anOSU in over them if they manage to beat Wisconsin.
The committee has said they value conference championships, this might be the year they have to prove it.
A lot of people think PSU isn't as good as their record shows. Maybe they're right. PSU plays a Wisconsin team this week that I think most people agree is worthy of their top 10 ranking. If PSU pulls that off it's a big feather in their cap and brings their body of work a good bit closer to OSU.
If Wisconsin wins, I'm fine with OSU getting in because of head-to-head.
1.) If divisions are arbitrary, so are conferences.
2.) Again, all of the teams that you consider the "best" among that group did actually play each other.
3.) If you want to see the "two best teams" play, go look at the Big 12. If they had started their new 10-team divisionless championship game this year, we'd be seeing Oklahoma and Oklahoma State playing two weeks in a row.
Not a one to one comparison. Both are arbitrary, but only one is preventing the two best teams from playing because of an added level of arbitrary separation. Conferences alone with no divisions wouldn't have this problem unless you want to keep expanding this counterexample and we will be here all day.
Yes and PSU got beaten by 39 by Michigan. PSU beat Ohio State off a blocked fg returned for a TD. Ohio State beat Michigan by 3. Best teams in a division don't lose by 39.
Sure, this one time it would have led to a back to back rematch.
besides, if two teams go to double overtime then I'm going to go ahead and say it's a coin toss as to which is the better team. Same deal, to a lesser extent, with a close win in regulation. 39 points? That's like saying UNC was better than VT this year.
I know, I know, we play the games and respect the outcome, but looking at PSU, OSU, and Michigan, one of these things is not like the others and in an 8 team playoff, we'd see one or both of UM and OSU get at large bids.
How is this substantially different than the NFL? Or most sports leagues with playoffs?
I hope we beat Clemson bad. Revenge is a dish best served cold.
If the football gods are kind, let's hope some Clemsoning happens. I'm down to see Dabo do a Harbaugh impersonation.
I'd settle for a Bo Pelini with a side of '14 Urban Meyer
I regret that I have but one leg to give.
Hell, I'll take half a Narduzzi! If Dabo's starts going Narduzzi, our prospects for a win couldn't be better.
This please
I am surprised at the 9. Would have thought 13.5. Would feel more comfortable if it was in Charlotte. I expect them to travel better to Orlando than we will on such short notice. Potential for a really recruiting impact type win here.
I dunno Clemson fans are littered all over Charlotte. They outnumbered us in 2011. Hopefully they save their trip for their hopeful playoff and we can pull the upset and spoil it.
They also were able to make plans almost a month in advance and we clinched on the last week of the season.
That, which means they were able to book much cheaper flights or get time off, and 7 hours is a much easier drive than 13 to 15 hours for those who do make last minute plans. They are also not looking at a bowl game in Orlando, and are favored to win. If a fan believes they might win it all, but does not have time or money for the play-offs, they are likely to go.
We had to pick between a last minute (which means over-priced) flight with no time to enjoy being somewhere this weekend or going to a bowl game. It was an easy choice for me, so I am concerned it may be for other Hokies not in a position to do both.
There are some Clemson fans in my neighborhood in NoVA and this is exactly what they are doing. Not traveling to ACCCG because they are planning on going to CFP or NC game.
Bit surprised. I don't see how we block them upfront to be quite honest. Their d-line might be the 2nd best in the country. Dexter Lawrence is a GAM
Yeah watching their defensive front against South Carolina was disheartening. They are mean as hell and reallyyy fast off the ball...like a couple Woody Barons in the middle and Worilds on the ends.
I am not sure if the LOLUVA defensive line was atrocious or did our O line finally have a really good game? The pocket protection was amazing and we were doing a decent job opening running holes.
I don't think I've seen hokie nation as a collective whole this pleased about being a multiple score underdog lol.
...but yes, 9 points is a compliment
Can't rain on the parade of someone who is just happy to be there!
Surprised. The main computers generally have it +10 to +12. And, contrary to popular belief, Vegas is not some mysterious wizard behind a curtain. The main oddsmakers usually follows the computers pretty closely for the opening line unless there is some major injury.
Pays off to be a contrarian, if you think a line is wrong, trust in vegas. Usually, you'll make money....I've learned the hard way.
I don't trust "Vegas"...there's no such thing. But I do trust the collective wisdom of the market with skin in the game.
The opening lines are set in such a way as to draw approximately 55% of the betting public in a certain way (to ensure the sportsbooks maximize their profits-aside from the 10% they collect on all losing bets for the service they provide), then the lines move based on the "market" valuation of said lines. It's often smart to observe how a line moves and invest appropriately, usually (but not always), this is the best approach to get value for your investment dollars.
Another good approach is bet on the underdog, as most bettors will blindly bet on the favorite.
What I'm trying to say is: bet on the Hokies.
In my opinion, while Clemson certainly could pull off a multi-score win, this also has the makings of a close game. If the ball rolls our way we could win a close one. Or Clemson gets us by a few scores. I think the line properly reflects that range of possibilities.
Let's make it 17 and show klempson just how lucky that number has been this year!
Clemson has the talent + a good game from Deshaun for this to get ugly if we hit a streak like Syracuse or GT, but Clemson has played 6-7 one score games half of which came against less than stellar competition and they haven't swept the floor with any good teams. We have a good chance to win this but we will need a big game from our d line getting Deshaun under duress. He will scramble for first downs a few times probably, but he also makes mistake and he hasn't been able to hit the deep ball all season without a clean pocket. They will also be very disruptive as their DL is big, fast, and deep, so our many quick hitter routes will work to our advantage hopefully.
Then they sure as shit better develop fast (like they're supposed to). That's the only way the offense is going to be successful in a game like this. Bright side, at least we don't have Stinespring/Newsome/O'Cain calling that stupid and ineffective field position "game plan" like back in '11-'12 and we have an actual factual offensive coordinator.
what you didnt love the "everyone run around until someone gets open and hope tyrod can scramble and make a play" play design?
Did you (be honest)?
Do you mean the field position game plan that put VT in 23 straight bowls with modest talent?
Our defense is going to have to be stellar to keep us in this game, and with our mad scientist of defense concocting a scheme to thwart the effectiveness of Watson, I think our guys will be up to the task. We'll also need big games from Rogers and Hodges, and especially Evans on offense, to have a chance to win this game. But this game will be our Super Bowl, whereas Clemson could be looking past us, towards the College Football Playoff - let's hope so!
This is definitely a game where we need a complementary offensive and defensive performance. Even a great defensive showing could give up a few touchdowns with the playmaking ability Clemson has, will the offense to step up as well, in a big way.
That's what I was also going to point as another potential positive: no Chad Morris. Not sure how Foster and Co will stack up against Venable(?), but hopefully much better than against Morris.
Tony Elliot and Jeff Scott are the Co-OC's they use a much less tricky and less nuanced passing game. The architect is gone, but they are still using Chad Morris' offense. They rely on their now superior talent everywhere (except receiver) and are better at running the ball, though not as good as last year.
Venables doesn't seem to make a lot of adjustments and multiple OC's have won the chess match with him, it's actually happened against most of the nuanced offenses they have played, or at least one's with an identity and some talent. Very reliant on the DL.
edit: Clemson's offense is mostly IZR, wr screens, RPO's and seam routes from the TE, crossing routes, slants, and a trips play very similar to the one we got beat on twice by Miami. They go deep similar to us, some back shoulder stuff to Mike Williams and he along with Deon Cain is a very dangerous deep threat, although Watson has been very inconsistent with the deep ball this year, but threw it great against USCjr so he might have corrected that issue, we will see.
Yeah, this is what I was looking for. Thanks.
If the offense plays decently well I think our defense has the tools to limit Clemson. They can score at least 20 and I'd still count that as an accomplishment.
What scares me is their d-line. Evans has not done well handling a compromised pocket (usually breaks down to scramble drills and their front-7 is too athletic for that to work multiple times) and our o-line hasn't done well pass protecting against anything above average. If the power run game gets moving and we execute quick hitters, we may be able to pull this off, but if the run game continues to stall and they pin their ears back, this could get ugly.
deep drops in the pocket worry me, but we do a lot of quick stuff that will mitigate their pass rush like Pitt did. Pitt, Florida State, Louisville, all exposed the weaknesses of the Clemson defense, their defense is largely propped up by their excellent DL. Their back seven can be exposed in coverage, hopefully the refs are ready to throw some flags on the Clemson DB's because Tankersley and Fields are extremely handsy corners and they do a lot of jersey grabbing, arm barring, and PI.
Don't hold your breath on that last part.
I've watched enough Clemson games to be damn near certain they won't call many.
The thing about saying Pitt, FSU, and Louisville exposed their defense is that they did that to everybody (offenses #5, #6, and #4 respectively by S/P+). Not saying your wrong but I think its going to be extremely tough for us to attack them deep. Going to need our offensive line to play out of their minds
FSU struggled offensively many games this season, I'm not sure how they're ranked that high. But a fair point. I've watched most Clemson games for many years, I stand by what I said about their defense being exploitable, but the key is to mitigate their DL.
I think the line is a bit generous (in VT's favor). I'll be honest here, a couple of weeks ago, I didn't want us to be in the ACCCG because I am still sick from losing to Clemson back in 2011-2012 and don't really care to see it happen again (It goes without saying of course that I am hopeful for an upset).
However, given that Clemson used their success from that time period to build themselves into the team that they are today, I am glad that we are in the ACCCG. No matter what happens, it's time to make a statement that this team is on the rise and hopefully more in state recruits and nearby recruits take notice and will consider coming here.
There you go with that played out "make a statement" crap again. Just win the game. Or don't. What kind of a statement do you honestly think losing (regardless of score) makes to potential recruits? We're entering a new era of Hokie football. Just score. Just win the damn thing. No more "statement games".
Individual wins and losses have little effect on recruits.
Exactly. The fact that we're going to the ACCCG is a big deal because if one considers the collective body of work that this team has assembled this year, despite tempered expectations, means that anyone can clearly see this team is going places. A few more key people in the right spots, and we've got ourselves a team that can really make some noise on the national level.
Yeah I hear they're more concerned about time of possession.
I think yes and no. I think it really depends on the game. I think losing big games or (especially) games you're expected and supposed to win (ie: Cuse and Ga Tech) affect recruiting negatively. Whereas winning games you're not supposed to win (ie: UNC or ACCCG), then it will affect positively. I don't believe it is the most powerful factor, though.
I think winning championship games has a bigger impact on recruits than winning games that do not have that label.
I don't think either in the near term has that big of an impact on recruiting. There are plenty of examples of schools with consistent winning programs - that don't recruit as well as their records would suggest - and vice versa.
Make a list of the top recruiting schools and their attributes. The biggest factor in recruiting is financial resources, followed by location and fan base depth & breadth. These three combined with a winning tradition create a program perception by the media and general public. 80-90% of recruiting is the insignia on your gear.
I agree the biggest factor is brand name (or good will in business terms). Financial resources, fan base and winning tradition all intertwine with the brand. But, I don't think it's 80-90%. There are other factors that can kill your brand name, and may never recover.
USC, ND, Alabama, OSU, Michigan and FSU continue to out recruit their closest competitors because they have a brand that every recruit admires. Although, PSU, Miami and Nebraska still have brands associated with them, their recruiting has dropped off for other reasons. PSU --> old coaching regime and major scandals; Miami --> no strong alumni/fanbase; Nebraska --> a most difficult location to recruit and build a fanbase.
Can PSU/Miami/Nebraska rebuild their goodwill with recruits? I'm not sure, but both PSU and Nebraska are making strides this year. I don't think it will be enough for Nebraska, but maybe PSU can rise again.
I'm splitting hairs on your otherwise great comment, but the problem with recruiting to Nebraska isn't their fans. The problem is getting anyone talented to willingly spend 4 years forever away from their hometown in Nebraska.
4 years in Nebraska sounds like a prison sentence.
Leavenworth is one state over, but your assessment is probably still accurate.
Sorry for my punctuation, but we're in agreement:
I feel like Tech fits more into the difficult location section.
It does. But it also doesn't have nearly the financial resources or the depth & breadth of fan/regional business/regional media support of many other power 5 programs - particulary those with which it aspires to compete with or surpass.
Location can't really be changed. But the other two are changeable.
IMO, the best way long-term to improve them is to significantly increase the size of enrollment. More students means more alumni, more alumni means a broader fanbase, more athletic donations, more influence with regional business and media, and greater political power.
It's not an accident that most of the largest athletic budgets belong to the largest schools with the most influence.
But I'll the first to acknowledge that increasing enrollment by, say, 1/3 or more isn't without its drawbacks.
You say you don't think it's 80-90% brand, but then reference a bunch of programs that dominate the top 15 in recruiting year in and year out, showing it is predominantly brand (forgetting a few like Texas, Tenn, Georgia, Florida) - and then a few outliers.
Penn State: First, PSU was never really a powerhouse recruiter. Occasionally top 15, but not regularly. They are down, but not as much as one might think - especially given their unique circumstances.
Again, Nebraska hasn't been a recruiting powerhouse for a long time - certainly not since the rankings systems came about 15 yrs ago. They are rarely in the top 15. And Nebraska's location problem was exacerbated by the move to the Big10. It always recruited Florida, but it used to also be able to heavily recruit Texas when it was in the SWC/Big12. Now Texas kids couldn't care less about Nebraska. But if Texas were to join the Big10...
Miami still recruits very well - but not consistently in the top 15. With financial resources becoming the driving force in recruiting, it's also finding that its primo location can only carry it so far. Plus it had its own scholarships problem. And its "tradition" while impressive was also meteoric and is fading from memory. That's probably not a condition it can overcome.
Outliers? 3 in a group of 12 named teams? Sure, the list could go on, but it isn't getting much bigger than 20. By most, if not all, statistical measures, it would be hard to exclude 3 teams in such a small sample size as an outlier. But, I digress as statistical determinations are not my point.
My point is simple, if brand was 80-90%, then teams like PSU, Nebraska, and Miami would easily overcome the other factors in recruiting that only matter 10-20%. These schools may not be the norm, but they clearly show that other factors can overcome brand. Thus, brand cannot be that strong.
But, we're arguing semantically about what percentage to account for brand in recruiting. I agree it's the most determinative factor. I just think it's brand+ 2 or more other factors that yield consistent results, not just brand alone.
I agree that winning or losing a single game in the regular season doesn't change much, but championships and hardware do have effects on recruits.
...unless the recruits are at the game in which case it can have a significant impact because of their experience (oftentimes on the sidelines near the team) at the actual game
Hmm, I'm curious, because it will help me understand how you think, do you believe that what he wants for the team affects how Fuente and crew prepare for the game?
Simple. Just win the damn game. "Statement games" carry about as much weight and meaning as "controlling one's own destiny".
"Controlling one's own destiny" is synonymous with "just win the damn game(s)." Color me confused.
Forget it, he's rolling.
Trolling
FTFY
We were all thinking it
Wasn't attacking anyone. Just disagreeing with an outdated (IMOP) philosophy. Your reference (for this section) is unfounded.
I don't look at it that way.
How so? That's literally what it means.
...I reject your reality and substitute my own...
I think that there are multiple ways of looking at it. I just happen not to look at it that particular way. If others choose to, fine. I just don't agree with the original perception of the original comment or the the philosophy of "statement games". I feel like it's played out and overdone. I don't think I'm the only fan in Hokie Nation that feels this way.
"Controlling your own destiny" means "win your games and you don't have to worry about the other teams." In the same way that "score more points than the other team" means "win."
What other meaning is there?
The main hole in that statement is the very definition of "destiny" itself.
Definition of destiny
plural destinies
1
: something to which a person or thing is destined : fortune
2
: a predetermined course of events often held to be an irresistible power or agency
Yeah, I get that it's semantics, but the whole thing just feels played out to me (and, I'm sure, others).
Huh, prepare to have your mind blown, as it seems you are ignorant to what I'm about to say.
The phrase "controlling ones destiny" is contradictory to the idea of destiny. The juxatoposition of the two conflicting words implies there is no predetermined outcome, but instead the players control the outcome.
Not really. All that does (again, from my perspective) is completely null and void the term and purpose itself of "destiny", which, in turn, renders the whole "controlling ones destiny" nonexistent.
It sounds like you just don't get the concept of irony.
I get it, I just don't agree with the interpretation of it in this instance.
I think we're going to be playing against the refs too. Let's face it, the ACC NEEDS Clemson to win that game if they're going to get a slice of the CFP money. There are thousands of precedents of game-rigging by refs. You might recall the Pitt/WVU game back in 2007. WVU had risen to #2 under RichRod in a pathetically fledgling Big East and were a lock for the national championship if they beat Pitt. The BE refs tried every trick to hand that game to WVU. Pitt won despite the game being obviously rigged, but just barely.
I don't recall it being quite that egregious.
Probably, Clemson led the nation in penalties called against it's opponents before the Pitt game. They've since dropped to #5. We're pretty high on that list too though.
I wonder which referee crew we will get on Saturday? It most likely won't be Ron Cherry's crew. That hit he took was NASTY!
ESPN has the ACCCG slated for 8:00 on ABC. When is the last time we were in the prime time ABC spot?
Battle at Bristol I believe
Though I believe the last time before that was the win over OSU at the 'Shoe. So hey, there's that!
Nope, that was ESPN, because the Richmond race was on ABC.
I think that prior to Bristol, the last ABC Saturday Night Football game we were on was the first Alabama Chick-fil-a Kickoff Game in 2009.
I was at that 2009 Bama game, with my pregnant wife and her Bama-fan family. It was an intense setting and good showing by the Hokies. I walked out with my head held high. Bama went on to win the NC.
That's some pretty decent respect for our defense, I think. Especially considering what Clemson just did you USCe this week.
Congrats on your win over Virginia and I hope you beat Clemson.
What are the thoughts up there on the Big Ten title game? Are you hoping Wisconsin wins since y'all beat them so that would help your playoff hopes? Or do y'all feel you are in no matter what the outcome?
I really don't think the B!G championship matters that much to us. Wisky winning would give them a shot if Washington loses or you all beat Clemson; although TTUN may get in if that happens given they are #5 right now. If Wisky wins big they may jump TTUN but not us and you'd probably see them vs Bama.I think we are in either way, the question is will the B1G get in two teams. If Wisky wins big, Washington loses and you beat Clemson then chaos will ensue. At that point, do you put in 3 B1G teams or drop one for a lower ranked team? I'd love to see 3 BIG teams that if only to hear the crying from the SEC, since I live in SEC land and am tired of hearing how tough the conference is; when, IMHO, the SEC is Alabama and everyone else. I really doubt that happens but if it did a 8 team playoff would get a real boost. Anyway, that is what make college football fun.
Congrats on beating Michigan. I hope you knocked them down to the Orange Bowl, and we do beat Clemson, so we can get revenge for their cheating on the replay overturn in the Sugar Bowl.
I see the outcome being similar to the 2015 OSU game... close game in the first half, maybe with VT even taking the lead and looking like the better team. But Clemson pulls ahead a little in the third, and blows the hinges off in the fourth. Going to take a big effort from everyone on this team to pull of the win.
Did you just describe the FSU NCG?
No. I don't think we start down 28-7 against Clemson. I think it starts closer than that.
I thought that this little conversation was so entertaining, especially since it spurred from someone asking Hale if he had considered VT winning game scenario. Sometimes the internet makes my head hurt.
Hopefully someone doesn't post this stuff all around the Clemson team, because everyone knows a sports analyst discussing the effect of the possible outcome of a game can be such great motivation!
Not even willing to entertain the idea that they could lose? That always goes well.
Yea it's not like they have a name for something like losing to an overlooked opponent...
Something like Clemsoning
Everything is a slight against their program, I deal with this shit every day.
Kinda OT, but I just had to say that I saw the ACCCG promo on ESPN a few times last night during MNF, and I must say that all feels right in the world to have VT trending back towards the top of the conference.