I'm sure there was talk about this in the Bowl Season Other Games Thread, however, I think it warrants its own discussion.
There are a few things we associate with success in today's game. Some of these things are measurable and others aren't. The table below assumes that a spread offensive system is superior to the triple option and the numbers back that up. I specifically chose the weights of linemen on either side of the ball as it seems that big and talented lineman are hard to come by at all but the highest levels of football. Schools like Alabama get the biggest, most physical and likely most mentally ready to play guys (or at least they get their pick). After that it's slim pickings as there are so few high school players that have college ready size (college ready meaning they may be a redshirt year from the field) and skill.
Having said that, here are a few numbers that I chose to compare Houston to Army, and put the totally disproportionate bowl game into perspective.
| Houston | Army | Advantage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive System | Spread | Triple Option | Houston |
| Recruiting (24/7 Average Rank 2014-2018) | 69 | 119 | Houston |
| S&P+ Offense | 11 | 52 | Houston |
| S&P+ Defense | 100 | 77 | Army |
| Average Weight of Offensive Line | 303 | 286 | Houston |
| Average Weight of Defensive Line | 265 | 266 | Army |
Of the stats I chose, Houston has an advantage in four of the six. For the sake of argument I think we can all agree that in most stats Houston would come out on top.
Another area that isn't as easily measured is coaching staffs, but I would assume that Houston has a superior coaching staff by resume and reputation.
On paper this should have been a pretty even match-up. I would assume most observers would have expected a Houston win or a close game. If anyone was expecting a blow-out, my guess is that they would have picked Houston to be on the winning end.
So, what can account for this result?
In my opinion this win was about what can't be measured. There's no numerical measure for perseverance or teamwork. You can't measure determination or discipline. With respect to physicality it's very hard to measure stamina with football players. Lastly, but certainly not least, you can't measure culture or identity. The word Army on those uniforms mean something bigger than football to those players. It defines them and they have bought into the culture.
A service academy requires the following non-football measurable for success:
- Perseverance. You have to be physically and mentally tough to make it through training and stay in school. This includes running. A lot of running. Which could contribute to the lighter offensive lineman.
- Teamwork. In preparing for a military career teamwork means far more than numbers on a scoreboard. It could literally mean the difference between life and death. A lack of teamwork is not tolerated a the academies
- Discipline. Again something that is not optional at West Point. Without discipline you will be shown the door.
- Esprit de Corps. This falls into the category or culture and identity. You will not be at the academy if you are not "Black and Gold"
All these things sound great and could be subject of any motivational speech. But how do they help you win football games?
When you are overmatched there is one thing that is still true about football. It's a team sport. There are eleven guys on each side of the ball. Anyone that works on a team knows it's hard enough to get three people giving 100% in the same direction. Try that with 11. Army did that with 11 on each side of the ball.
Nothing demonstrated this more than how hard Army pushed on the line and how committed they were in skill player blocking.
If you're still reading, you're probably thinking, "Okay... What does this have to do with Virginia Tech football?"
Great question!
In watching some of the attrition and listening to the coaching staff I think it's clear that Virginia Tech is trying to transform our culture from something that vaguely resembled Florida State's under Bobby Bowden (I say vaguely because we weren't nearly as tolerant of bad behavior but we let some of it go in the hopes of winning games) to something more like Army's.
We already know Travon McMillian did not play as much due to blocking under the new staff.
Mook and Hill were dismissed for behavioral issues (not here to argue if that was wrong or right).
Goode parted ways with the staff over physical conditioning.
These things may spell doom to some fans, but overall I am willing to see if this works.
If Army can beat Houston 70-14 while completely overmatched, what can VT do with players that are far superior to Houston's? If this works I would expect Virginia Tech to be completive against Clemson even if we can't match their recruiting rankings.
As a side note, it seems Willie Taggart took Houston's OC and OL coach. Let's see how that works out for him.
Comments
Is Bobby Bowden's discipline philosophy really comparable to Fuente's? Obviously I'm not as familiar with his tenure at Florida State as some who are older than me, but I can really only think of one player he ever had that was dismissed, and that was Randy Moss. If it was up to Bowden, Moss would have stayed at FSU too. I remember Sebastian Janikowski was out past curfew before the 2000 Sugar Bowl, and Bowden laughed it off when he was asked why Janikowki wasn't suspended saying "he's from a different time zone." Also, didn't Peter Warrick do something leading up to that game that would have been a suspension at a lot of other places?
I probably wasn't specific enough. Fuente isn't trying to transform his own culture. I think Beamer was closer to Bowden than to Fuente in terms of tolerance. I say closer because I still think we were far stricter than FWU.
Oh okay. I just wasn't reading careful enough.
You're completely right. I like what Fuente is doing with regard to discipline. We shouldn't have to heavily rely on players who are constantly getting in trouble. I honestly think that if Marcus Vick hadn't gotten kicked out of school, we could have won the national Championship in the 2006-2007 season. The Royal-Morgan-Clowney-Harper-Hyman corps would have all been upperclassmen, Ore had an awesome year, and the defense was nasty.
There's something to be said for disciplined kids who are coachable. Namely, they execute (our favorite word on this site) better. If Fuente can continue to recruit well and establish a culture where guys can be counted on to not get suspended and/or dismissed, I believe we can have great success. I'm still not sold on Cornelsen, and Fuente's game management is still suspect at times to me, but I see where you're going.
I'm not sold on Cornelsen either and sometimes I wonder how much that affects Fuente's game management.
I dont know if we were far stricter. FSU was covered by the media more than VT becuase they were a bigger program. I'm sure things were easier to slip through the cracks and a middle tier program than at a school that was top 5 for 15 years straight. People forget about the Blacksburg Brawl, which I'm not sure any football player missed a game because of. When did Frank kick a player off the team? Most we athletic department decisions.
To defend Frank and Bobby, what good does it when some young stupid person (I repeat myself) does something stupid and you kick them to the curb, it doesnt help anyone. Everyone makes mistakes, some bigger than others, some that should remove players from the team, but for lots of thing removing some one from your life doesnt hel that person make better decisions in the future.
Laveranues Coles did get kicked out in the incident with Peter Warrick FWIW.
What did they do?
Shoplifting, IIRC.
Damn. And then Warrick torched us for like 3 touchdowns.
Warrick was the difference in the game.
From a Belk store if I remenber correctly. Some type of department store.
Jeremy Sprinkle shoplifted from Belk before the Belk Bowl in 2016.
Maybe it's Belk's fault. /s
Warrick and some team mates had a "friendly" clerk at the check out who charged them pennies on the dollar for a bunch of merchandise, as I recall. And as for Janikowski, he was caught with roofies, but I don't recall what, if any, punishment followed.
The morning after the game as we were checking out of the motel, a couple of still drunk out all night Fla. Staters came into the Hokie hotel yukkin' it up loudly and belligerently asking "Who's gonna catch Peter Warrick?" Everyone ignored them the first three or four times they yelled it, but finally, I couldn't take it any more and I replied loudly "I don't know, maybe the police?" I damn near got my ass kicked, these were big guys and ready to roll, but there were so many Hokies between them and me, I was able to fade before they could get to me and someone opened the door and invited them to leave. The FSU fans sitting behind us at the game said that they'd all have done the same thing Warrick did if given the chance, and my calm, cool and collected wife took offense, stood up and told them off. Needless to say, as far as I'm concerned FSU and their fans can go to hell.
You leave out intelligence as a key differentiator. While Univ of Houston is a fine school, there are programs of study that an athlete who is "less talented" from an academics perspective could survive (not necessarily intelligence but a willingness to study and learn good study habits). There are no such programs of study at the 4 US military academies (Army, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard Academies). As such, every student athlete must be a true "student" athlete.
Houston was further into their depth chart on D-line than VT has been all year. Army was the worst possible match up for them.
All the rest is just projecting an extra narrative and de-valuing the student athletes and team culture across most other teams.
Houston still only scored 14 points. With a depleted defense I would expect more of a shoot-out.
I apologize in advance if I misuderstand the point of your post, but it seems like you're suggesting that an underdog can upset a favorite with the correct intangibles? Assuming this is your goal, it's worth noting that Army was a 6.5 point favorite, so I'm not sure this example serves your point.
Ignoring Vegas's line, I think you're significantly over estimating the difference between 66th best recruiting and 119th. According to 247, in 2018, the 66th best class has 175.35 points, while the 119th class has 115.57 points. There is less distance between the 66th and the 119th best classes than there is between the best class of 2018 (UGA, 323.31 points) and the 12th best class (Auburn, 262.77 points).
Finally, if you're suggesting that intangibles can help 'less talented' teams win, well, they can help the less talented team win one game, but not a season's worth of wins. We've seen over-matched teams play above their weight class time and time again. The closest we've ever seen to a team winning a national title without two top 10 classes in four years, or without a 50% bluechip ratio was Oregon losing the natty in 2010.
TL:DR - Intangibles are important, but without top level talent, you can't win a natty.
I think you need top level talent to compete for a national championship year in and year out. I believe you can still compete for one if all the pieces fall in place for one season though. That is, you have experienced players at nearly every position, a competent coach, and a couple playmakers on both sides of the ball. See our 1999 team.
In the BCS/CFP era, there have been a small handful of these teams that have competed (VT in '99, Oregon in 2010, maybe one or two others I'm missing), but no one who has won. Also, the likelihood of 'all the pieces falling into place' is extremely low. You not only need experienced players, but you need those experienced players to be good enough to compete with a top 5 team, but not good enough to leave school early and enter the draft. You also need at least 22 of those guys, and you need them to stay healthy all season. The odds are astronomical.
Serious question: do we include 2017 UCF in that list? It's a close call in my book, but they probably belong in the list of "best of the rest".
I do not, because they did not earn their national championship through a BCS title game or CFP berth.
Well yes, but isn't the point here to discuss teams that didn't win national championships?
Ah I see. I think I agree. I would consider UCF a school that has 'come close.' I do not believe that their title proves that you can win a CFP/BCS Championship game without top recruiting.
Nowadays i cant think of many teams that got there because it just fell into place. 1999 was a long time ago. CFB is different.
And they won by 56. So they beat the spread by 48.5 points.
The difference in recruiting being "negligible" again does not suggest this kind of performance disparity. Additionally, Army took Oklahoma to OT. I'm assuming we're not going to suggest that there is a negligible talent difference between Army and Oklahoma are we?
Some of the things I mentioned about army aren't totally intangible but are derived from intangibles. Skilled player blocking is one.
I'm suggesting that with good talent and the intangibles you are going to be competitive. Talent alone isn't enough. Look at FSU over the last few years.
Again, I don't think there's any value in analyzing a single game in a vacuum. Anything can happen in a single game. Repeating positive results 14+ times in a single season is remarkably hard. If you're goal is just to 'be competitive,' then sure, Fuente proved in 2016 that he could field a team that could be competitive with a national champion. But (in my opinion), the goal is not to be competitive or cover the spread - the goal is to win 11 or 12 regular season games and 3 post season games against Top 5 teams. You don't beat top 5 teams two-three times in a row without top talent.
Talent alone isn't enough, but nor are the intangibles mentioned in OP. Look at the teams that win titles - Bama, Clemson, FSU 2013, Auburn 2010, etc. All these teams had both great coaching, great teamwork, and great talent. You can't win a title without ALL three of these things.
I said,
I didn't say anything about winning a title.
I would expect that if the system begins working and we are more competitive we will get better recruits.
Much as there is plenty of analysis that can be done on how Army won this game, it's still only a single datum in a world where Fuente's offense never beat GT under the triple option. Great write-up, though!
Houston was playing what looked like quarters defense at least the entire first half. Alabama wouldn't stop Army on every drive playing quarters D. So some of it was schematic related.
So Army is good because of their culture.
What was wrong the previous 60 years?
No world wars to attract the best talent to military academies?
You still needed a coaching staff to figure out how to use what they had. But you can't just dismiss their culture as part of their success or lack thereof.
Army running a pass heavy offense with a 2* QB and incredibly light offensive linemen wouldn't work. That doesn't mean they wouldn't try like hell. But recognizing what you have and using it is important.
It's pretty well known that Army's defensive coordinator uses analytics at a really high rate. I would think it would bleed over to other parts of their team. That paired with their triple option is pretty deadly combo.
The Army DC, Jay Bateman, is going to be Co-DC for UNC so you can see if his analytics helps them out in the future.
without having seen the game, and really no idea who either team played this year...I would guess Army has seen several offenses similar to Houston's, but Houston probably saw no offenses similar to Army's. that could've been a factor as well.
Seeing the game was a big help. You could clearly see the size difference between the Houston players and the Army players. You could also see how fiercely the Army players executed. There was no hesitation and they were 100% all the time.
Well, Army is #2 in rush offense and Houston is #98 in rush defense, so there's that.
We learned that any good fundamental offensive system, when called properly and executed by players who believe in the play called and their teammates, will work.
So in terms of our performance where would rate:
Our offensive system?
Our play calling?
Our execution?
Our player buy in?
Our player's confidence in each other?
I think we saw something similar on a Thursday night! Sad face!!
It's the same Houston team that watched a shouting match between their star player and the head coach a month or so ago. Who knows what's going in behind the scenes, but they certainly aren't the same Houston team that they were under Tom Herman
Also, this is an Army team that took Oklahoma to OT
I think this is reading way to much into a blowout. Houston was down 0-7 near the end of the first quarter and Army was at their own 27 yard line. Then in the next 18 seconds 0-7 turned into 0-21. Then by halftime it was 7-42.
Momentum is a huge factor in sports, the most disciplined and mentally tough teams are more resistant to negative momentum swings, but no team is immuned to momentum swings.
I don't think I'm overstepping any boundaries by suggesting that a triple option, executed with discipline by a team experienced in running it, is a very different monster than the rest of the offenses a defense normally faces. If you can't figure out how to stop it before the game starts, you probably won't stop it during the game - and the score can get really lopsided in a hurry.
Remember a few years back when Texas just could not stop Taysom Hill and BYU? Same thing. The defense just wasn't prepared for that offense.
I don't think there is a similar formula or statistic that can account for how one team can outplay another. Except time of possession, which Army won by a wide, wide margin.
Wonder if not having your starting QB and playmaker ( D'Eriq King) and not having your NFL calibre DT ( Ed Oliver) for the game might be factors?
Wonder if DT depth and QB back up is something we can relate to for being blown out?