that we played in, post National Championship, where would we be today as a program?
Would we have been pivoted out of the ACC Championship games, like we have recently, or would we have pulled away from the entire ACC at that point, much like Clemson has now?
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
If all else remained the same....I'd say we'd be right where we are now.
Agreed, we had a once in a generation talent at qb, tenacious defense and manageable schedule to get to the MNC.
I'd relive that year all over again.
An interesting question. So this assumes we beat undefeated Auburn in 2004 season, now 11-2. We beat Kansas in 2007, now 12-2. Stanford in 2010, now 12-2. Michigan in 2011, now 12-2.
Those records certainly look better, as does our trophy case, but it's interesting to wonder how much of a difference it would have made on our recruiting.
I think this is a particularly difficult hypothetical to assess, because I think in a vacuum, bowl games don't mean much about the next season, and are so late in the recruiting cycle that they probably have very little effect on your overall recruiting class because after the bowl game, most of the current cycle class will be finalized, and by the the next cycle you'll have played a whole season since that bowl game.
I think the falling behind the curve with the offensive game, recruiting, and keeping the program "fresh" did more damage to our program than those BCS losses, so it's difficult for me to strongly believe that winning those games would have largely changed the post-2011 slide.
I think the biggest difference with those games would just be the stat that ESPN inevitably brings up during bowl season with our BCS bowl record. Having more than 1 win would change that narrative. Heck, I would just take the Kansas and Michigan wins.
Ultimately, I think we're still in the same spot we are now, although the perception of the program might be a little better.
Lets see what Clemson's bowl record looks like prior to them becoming the powerhouse that they are:
dabo takes over in 2008, his first full season in 2009:
2009: Gaylord Hotel Music City Bowl vs. Kentucky - W 21-13 (9-5)
2010: Meineke Car Care Bowl- L vs USF 31-26 (6-7)
2011: Discover Orange Bowl - L vs WVU 70-33 (10-4)
2012: Chik-Fil-A Bowl - W vs #8 LSU 25-24 (11-2)
2013: Discover Orange Bowl - W vs OSU 40-35 (11-2)
2014: Russell Athletic Bowl - W vs Oklahoma 40-6 (10-3)
2015 is when the playoff system began, and we know Clemson was very dominate at that point, losing in the Championship game to 'Bama, since then alternating with Bama who wins that Championship.
4-2 bowl record, 1-1 in BCS bowls.
In that same time our bowls were:
2009: Chik-Fil-A Bowl - W vs Tenn 37-14 (10-3)
2010: Discover Orange Bowl - L vs Stanford 40-12 (11-3)
2011: Allstate Sugar Bowl - L vs Mich 23-20 (11-3)
2012: Russell Athletic Bowl: W vs Rutgers 13-10 (7-6)
2013: Hyundai Sun Bowl: L vs #17 UCLA 42-12 (8-5)
2014: Military Bowl: W vs Cincinatti 33-17 (7-6)
3-3 Bowl Record, 0-2 in BCS bowls.
Now, had the ref made the obvious right call in OT against Michigan, we would have identical bowl records. I don't buy that that would change the future of Tech football
Yes, however wins against LSU, OSU, and Oklahoma hold much more water in a recruits eyes then beating a middle rung Tennessee team, Rutgers and Cincy.
A win over Michigan would have been huge, and Stanford would have been so/so. Beating Auburn and Kansas before this window of time would have helped us I think.
Yep, but we're talking about BCS bowls, not the other ones (minus OSU for Clemson)
Agreed, I think any impact on our future would have been negligible. Clemson and VT were two programs heading in opposite directions for a variety of cumulative reasons that wouldn't have been undone by another bowl win or two.
I do wonder though if winning all those BCS games or maybe even getting a crack at another National Championship game would have allowed Beamer to feel more comfortable stepping away from the program earlier while it was in better shape. I feel like so much of the final four years was trying to get VT back in those BCS games because of all the ones that got away. Maybe he feels like he can walk away after the 2012 Sugar Bowl with the program still nationally recognized and our rebuild is shorter and further along with a new staff.
Of course, if Beamer retires then while he's on top and the program in great shape, at that point in time I think it's a virtual lock that Bud gets the HC job. Most of our staff stays intact, and I imagine Shane even stays. Bud hires an up and coming spread offense OC to match what Clemson is doing, and it's hard to say how 2012-present would have played out.
I think this is definitely the line of thinking, which requires a lot of additional speculation, you have to go down for these BCS bowl games to drastically change the post 2011 era.
We played Michigan in a BCS bowl game?
We beat them, as I recall.
I think our recruiting would be better off, in that we'd have taken fewer of those disappointing recruiting losses that have become so predictable. W's aren't the entire recruiting portfolio, but they never hurt when the coaches are trying to differentiate VT's football program from all the others vying for the same recruits.
Have always said that the difference between VT and the blue chip programs is the sheer talent depth on the bench. VT has always been great coaching up good talent into greater (and sometimes elite) performance. But that takes time to develop so there is simply a greater performance drop off when the injury bug hits the first string. The second and third string are simply further back development-wise than a team with...say 3 Heisman QB prospects on the roster (aka 2014 OSU).
Who knows how well we could've done having not missed some of those recruits when the injury bug inevitably hit?
"We've won sugar bowls, we've won orange bowls. those are great, but what we're really after are national championships and I think you have what it takes to help us win those"
Yes, a much stronger pitch, however, we can say we have won both.
Current Pitch
"We have won a Sugar Bowl against Texas (excitement), and a Orange Bowl against Cincy (Boner killer) those are great, but what we're really after are national championships and I think you have what it takes to help us win those"
Pitch We Could be Using if we had Won those Games
"We have won Sugar Bowls against Texas, Auburn, & Michigan (Those are some awesome teams to have wins against on a big stage), and Orange Bowls against Kansas, Cincy, & Stanford (Damn those are allot of great games I could be playing in and winning) those are great, but what we're really after are national championships and I think you have what it takes to help us win those"
Bowls Plural, cousin of Cartoons.
If we won all the BCS bowls, I believe we would have incoming freshmen student housing issues every year.
🤗
The only game that would have changed the trajectory of our program is the 2000 National Championship. The rest of these BCS games would have probably had a minimal effect.
We would probably have earned an extra "Prestige Star" so when we used that recruiting pitch it would have probably be an "A" or "A+"
Everything would be exactly the same as it is now except we wouldn't have to endure the complaining about the Danny Coale catch.
So much much better.
And we wouldn't have had to endure being robbed by a Pac-12 official in plain sight. That was our win.
So much better.
Was Weaver still the AD?
We would be the football equivalent of Syracuse basketball. We would have won only one national championship because of a legendary head coach that defined the institution (Beamer, Boeheim), a generational talent (Vick, Melo) and a unique defensive identity.
Beards
I think the biggest thing would be whether or not it causes Beamer to retire earlier or lets Bud get his HC job at a P5 school. If Bud leaves after another couple seasons of great defense and we can't get a good replacement than the offense loses its cushion and things could get bad.
Only difference would be that it would be a little harder to pronounce "Chokie".