It barely needs to be said, but we have a young team this year. The entire roster has 6 scholarship seniors. The starting 22 features 13 freshmen/sophomores and 15 first-time starters, and that's with some unfortunate injuries replacing some of the sophomores with freshmen. So there's no question we're a young team that has disappointed to a degree this season. I think it is valuable to add some context to those results, however, so it might be helpful to consider how other programs of similar or higher stature, often with third-year head coaches, performed while undergoing a massive youth movement:
In 2013:
West Virginia lost most of their two deep and went 4-8 in Holgerson's 3rd year
In 2015:
Boston College was second to last in the country in returning production and went 3-9 in Addazio's third year (included because of recent events)
In 2016:
Notre Dame had a super young team and went 4-8.
TCU was near the bottom of the league in returning production and went 6-7
Michigan State had an awful off season of attrition, looked terrible all year, and went 3-9.
In 2017:
Michigan returned literally no one on defense and went a disappointing 8-5 in Harbaugh's third year
Alabama was unusually young and almost didn't win the national championship
These were just recent examples off the top of my head, I'm sure we could fill in dozens more. I'll let you come to your own conclusions about this data, but I wanted to point out that what's going on this year certainly isn't unprecedented.
I also realize that many of us know we are young, but see fundamental problems in decision making, play calling, and effort that go beyond youth as an excuse. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I can guarantee every single one of these fan bases were saying the same things while they were losing as well.
Comments
They're just on a different level than everybody else.
That's some good research for something conducted off the top of your head. Nice work.
hah, Bama was added as more of a joke, they were mortal last year though, which counts for something.
And thanks, I guess to be completely honest Michigan, Michigan State, and Notre Dame were off the top of my head, then filled in the rest with some spot-checking
When Alabama was in danger of losing the national title game, because of their "youth", they turned to their true freshman QB to get the win.
So you're saying we're gonna lose to Pitt, Miami, UVA, and Marshall to finish 4-8, gotcha.
Seriously though, this does help put everything in perspective, and the next few years should be better. Though I'm not sure TCU belongs on this list right now, considering that they're hot garbage again this year.
He didn't say that.
He just said we're going through a transition, with younger, inexperienced players on the field, so we should temper our expectations a bit for this year.
Or, said another way, start up the hype train for next year!
Ugh, I was making a joke since most of the examples given finished 4-8 or 3-9. And then followed it up with "Seriously though"...
Seriously though, the internet is an imprecise method of communication that doesn't capture sarcasm perfectly.
Oh well.
Oh well.
Doesn't your computer have "ironic sarcasm" font?
Was going for humor - no offense intended.
All I can think of reading this back and forth
More like:
It may well be that we haven't worked out all the angst just yet.
No offense taken.
Everybody can use this:
https://www.sarcmark.com/
MOG, thanks for providing some perspective. I think all of the rants over the last two weeks, just shows how good of a program we've had over the last 2 decades. I think a lot of our fan base points to the bowl consistency, as well as the 10 win seasons, the coaching stability that Beamer provided, and because of it all, a sense of entitlement rears it's head. I've been victim it myself during this rough stretch. The reality of it is, that we had some serious attrition, and IF we can coach these kids up in fundamentals and scheme, we'll be in such a better position in the years to come. I could be making this statement with my O&M glasses on, but I get excited about the prospect of a team full of freshmen learning the nuances of the collegiate game together, and providing a "Fuente foundation," for our program. Let's be honest Fuente stepped into a great position with a cupboard full of NFL talent. I think I've resorted to the approach that this 3rd year is his 1st year of opposition and hardship, and I can only hope that we go nowhere but up from here. Recruits will see that young kids can get playing time if they perform in practice, and the cupboard honestly seems to be in a position to become a pantry if we continue to recruit depth, skill, and athleticism. I'm thankful TKP is coming to their senses over the last few days (it surely took me a couple of weeks to do so). Hopefully a potential Pitt loss doesn't throw us all back in the bandwagon of calling this coaching staff failures, and calling for heads to roll. If 2-3 years from now we are still stuck in the muck and mire, I'm right there with all the rest of my peers calling for firings to happen, but right now, I'm just walking the dry valley along with every other Hokie fan/alum. Let's point our rage towards the Panthers and Narduzzi, how about that?
Beat Pitt!!
Lol, that was an interesting rollercoaster of edits.
Tried to embed the Sweet Caroline goal line stand video from youtube. Ended up embedding this entire tread in my comment. Couldn't erase my comment so I went with
Happens every time I try to embed a video from my Phone.
I saw the video just fine in your first version.
In any case, here:
From the goalline stand:
Stroman - gone
Moto - gone
Hill - gone
Newsome - gone
Tremaine - gone
Big Tim - gone
Alexander - gone
Walker - here
Floyd - here
Ladler - here
Gaines - here
via GIPHY
It's taken several views of this to determine which finger he's pointing with, and I still don't have irrefutable evidence that my conclusion is correct.
Thanks for putting that attrition list together. It puts some perspective on the task we're asking our defense to accomplish this weekend. Also Pitt has looked really good in the 4 games leading up to this year's game.
Some spots of hope are that Pitt's D allowed 37 points against Cuse and allowed 45 against Duke. Duke had 619 yards against Pitt and most of those came through the air. And that was from a Duke team that has only averaged scoring 19 points per game against ACC opponents that are not Pitt. So if our defense can get some stops then our offense might put some points on the board.
Pitt is probably the only ACC team that is more all over the place than we are. They can play up or down to anyone in any game.
I think we need to be very honest with ourselves and realize that our recruiting isn't to the level that it needs to be if we expect to be contending anytime soon.
Our recruiting class during the Beamer/Fuente transition was ranked about 46th in the nation. That year is now hurting us. But even then, anyone who still has expectations of joining the national fun where we're winning big games and getting play on the national scene needs to realize our recruiting still only rebounded to 26th in 2017 and 24th this past class.
We don't recruit well enough to have the expectations we do. No, we shouldn't be this bad, but we also aren't bringing in the talent to get us back to where we were 10 years ago. Not when Clemson is doing their thing like they are. Unless we seriously turn things around on the recruiting trail, all we're good for in the near and possibly long term, is a team that gets itself annually in the annual cement mixer to who plays second fiddle to the clear top tier teams in the conference (Clemson for now, possibly Miami and/or FSU if they ever consistently play like they recruit). Anything more and you're just setting yourself up for disappointment.
I agree with you, but I'm also gonna restate this in a bit more positive light. With the level we're currently recruiting at, in a year or two we can routinely win the Coastal. I also think we will be able to knock off Clemson/FSU/whoever rules the Atlantic, if we get a few lucky bounces. We nearly did in 2016, and Fuente proved against Mississippi he can take down a better team if he has the right recruits for his system.
If we can do that, we can parlay on field success into recruiting success. Unlike Frank, who thought he could live and die in the 757, Fuente will go wherever he has to to find the right recruits for his system.
Uh huh. And just how often do we get those? Also, if your game plan for victory is dependent on a fairly called game from the stripes, as well as the opposition screwing up, you basically don't deserve to win (not to be sad Sally or anything).
About as often as they go the other way. If you don't think random chance plays a significant factor in the outcome of football games, then you don't understand football.
Wasn't implying that random chance never plays a part, just that it rarely plays a part in our favor.
Agree that we aren't now, and may never be, recruiting on a level that competes with the Bama's of the world, but given the playoff system and our conference affiliation, we are in a much better position to be in the national scene than ever before.
We can recruit well enough to win the Coastal most years along with winning 3-4 of our OOC games. That should be good for at least 9-11 wins and a trip to the ACCCG. At that point, we are in the national discussion. Win that game and we are likely to be in the playoff or a NY6 game.
So, if our goal is to be nationally relevant, I think we can recruit well enough to consistently be in the conversation. If we want to win championships, then we are likely to be disappointed.
However, being in the Coastal division at least puts us in a position to get to the playoffs - then you never know what can happen on a given day. An isolated championship run is possible, but we aren't likely to be annual contenders with our current recruiting ceiling.
Winning consistently will help raise that ceiling some, but only $$$ can get us the machine to recruit at the level of Alabama or Clemson.
EDIT: Damn Illinois - you got me by less than 2 minutes.....taking my drink......
Replying to both you and Illinois with this, since both comments were pretty much the same.
On one hand, I get what you two are saying, and I mostly agree that we're set up to compete in the Coastal as it is now. All things being equal, if we get back to where we think we should be, it should be enough to stay in the Coastal hunt, and then possibly have a shot at Clemson or whoever comes out of the Atlantic at the end of the year with a potential Playoff bid on the line.
But
This comes with a giant assumption that someone in the Coastal is never able to put it all together. The second that Miami makes that good coaching hire, and they eventually will, I don't know if we'll have the program that can keep pace. Suddenly the way we're talking about maybe being able to have a chance at knocking off Clemson will apply inside the Coastal.
I mean lets be honest for a second. The only reason the statements you all have made can be somewhat true is because we play in arguably the worst division in college football, and certainly the worst in the Power 5. If we were in the Atlantic, we'd be singing a much, much different tune about the long-term prospects of this program as it currently looks.
There's some truth to what you're saying, but I do think you're overstating it. For one, Miami is the only team in the Coastal with a higher ceiling. Even if they do somehow put it all together and become elite, we'd still be in a position where we only need to win that one game to make or break or season, and while that may seem like a tall order the past two years with young teams, I think 2016 proved we can hang with teams of that caliber at our current recruiting level, even if we can't beat them consistently.
And as a counterpoint, look at how Michigan State has been able to stick around even as Penn State and Michigan finally get their act together. Even Mississippi State in the hardest division in football has sustained some success recruiting at that level, granted not as much success as we'd like, but we'll never play in the SEC West either. So even if we take your worst case scenarios (Miami ascends, maybe realignment puts us in a tougher spot), there's no reason to think we can't still reach that higher level and sustain a good amount of success that can be built upon for years to come.
We're in an arms race, I'm not denying that. We need to get our shit together before Miami does. The point I was trying to make is that we have a coach who has proven he can beat teams with better players (not reliably, just that it can be done), and, more importantly, unlike his predecessor, Fuente will parlay those on-field successes into improved recruiting.
The reason why we're in the position we're in with recruiting, where our ceiling seems to be classes ranked in the low 20s, is because Beamer didn't grow our recruiting approach the way he grew the rest of the program. After the success of 95-99, instead of branching out and pushing to increase our recruiting budget, Beamer doubled down on trying to lock down the 757. That was a losing strategy, and we're paying for it now.
My point is, Fuente will not repeat that mistake. He understands the necessity of expanding our recruiting footprint. That's what #NC2VT is all about, and that's just the first small step of a much larger strategy.
just finish the season
With a win over the zima sippers
And a bowl game
Great post. Thanks for taking the time and effort.
One thing that just dawned on me reading above responses. I truly believe we can already recruit well enough that this coaching staff (yes I still have faith) can win enough to get us to the point where that level of winning can improve our recruiting. I don't believe for a second that Tech has some glass ceiling over our heads. I think with this staff, 20-30 ranked recruiting classes, and experienced upper classmen on both sides of the ball, we can win enough to get us back in the discussion. From there, consistent success at that level can get the recruiting into the 10-20 range. I don't see any reason to believe that isn't possible.
I'm choosing to be cup half full on my Hokies' future. Your opinions may differ.
I choose to drink with this guy.
This ignores what coaching changes were made for each of those teams after those years, and what recruiting classes they brought in that year and the next.
Sure ND went 4-8, but they also fired their coordinators and brought a top 15 and top 10 recruiting class after that. We're doing neither of those.
I think you have to look at the reason why they went 4-8.
Was it because they were playing a lot of freshmen? Then they might not have needed to fire all of their coordinators. I do like the recruiting idea, though. Let's do that part.
This is Fuente's call.
Well you're welcome to do your own research. As for Notre Dame though, they always brings in classes of that caliber, so that doesn't really matter (and schools like WVU, BC, and Michigan State would love to have our class quality), and ND fired a coordinator that literally everyone knew was absolutely awful and had been terrible for yeras (Brian VanGorder) and was able to replace him with probably the unanimous best DC hire of the year (Mike Elko, now paid obscene amounts of money at TA&M).
I did ID that ND made coaching moves and recruited a much higher level than we are right now, and therefore it seems unlikely we'll yield the same type of results.
The premise of your post is 'these guys were bad when they were young, but are good now,' which by ignoring other variables - such as coaching changes, staff improvements, or overall recruiting level - assumes that just waiting another year is going to cure all ails. It would be nice to get a more full picture.
That really wasn't meant to be passive aggressive, I'm genuinely curious. If you or someone else wants to dig in, please share.
I also gave mitigating circumstances for ND's staff changes (every person knew he needed to go the moment he was hired), and I strongly disagree on the recruiting aspect as (1) half the teams listed recruit similar to or worse than us anyways, and (2) what would actually matter is an uptick in recruiting from previous levels, which I expect didn't happen to any of these teams as permanent increases in recruiting are rare, but that would be another interesting bit of research to do.
edited the OP post
I wonder how many made changes in the coaching staff afterwards.
If we go 4-8 I guarantee you we'll be making changes to the coaching staff
Thats all i need to hear.