Recent Comments
Public safety jobs and the US Presidency and Senate are the only ones I know of.
🏝NO BAD DAYS🏖🤙
|
10 years 1 month
# | Virginia Tech Football Recruiting: Lecitus Smith Commits to the Hokies *sigh* It's pronounced "Kevin"
One-and-done rule -- Completely logical. Exists to encourage elite players to better themselves by spending three or four months showing up a half-hour late for Geography classes. Is absolutely not related to NBA owners' desire to delay their employees' max contracts. Is absolutely not related to NBA GMs unwillingness to devote money and time scouting young players under uncertain conditions. Has been a fantastic success. Dozens of players who never would have gotten the chance have been exposed to the sublime beauty and unparalleled joys that can only be found on college campuses. Instead of making millions when they were too young and too naive to handle it, they've each spent a solid five months safe from those worldly temptations, fully devoted to the life of the mind.
On point. The messed up part is that the players association also wants the age limit to have older players keep their jobs. Is there any workforce that has an age restriction like this? How is this legal?
Leg for your use of brotien shake
Great well written piece, maybe quote a section of it and give us your thought on it and why we should click on the link.
So if I understand everything correctly, which I'm sure I do, because I didn't count the bowl game in my prediction last year, the win over Tulsa transfers to this year's prediction!
With a bowl game though, you could be playing a Tulsa or you could be playing Navy or Mississippi State. It's still unpredictable because of the tier structure of the ACC. Your opponents could be a P5 or a G5 opponent. There's a decent difference between the two. Sure, you don't know how your opponent will fare in the regular season, but you at least know who the opponent is and can project a "without external factors such as injuries, weather, or other" result better than you can against an unknown.
Well, going into those games at 6-6, I don't think we have much room to grumble about our destination. But, I think the Military Bowl against Cincinnati was good for where we were as a program in 2014. It was physically close to a large chunk of our fanbase, and it gave us a matchup that allowed us to be favored.
In 2015, the issue wasn't that the bowls preferred NC State, Louisville, or Duke over us, but they preferred all of them over Pitt. Pitt is a team that can rightfully complain about their bowl last year.
As for your argument about the ACC's bowl selection process....
letting them count that win over Richmond or Georgia Southern more than a close loss to ECU or Ohio State.
The two FBS teams that Richmond played the last two years were UVA in 2014 (final score 45-13) and Maryland in 2015 (50-21). Neither of those teams went bowling. Meanwhile, our FCS opponents were W&M (34-9) and Furman (42-3).
As for Georgia Southern, the only ACC games they played over the last two seasons were in 2014, against NC State (7-5, 3-5 regular season) and GT (10-2, 6-2 regular season). Obviously, scheduling is not a factor for GT that year.
VT's record that year was 6-6, 3-5 -- same conference record as NC State. So yes, NC State's 1 point win over Georgia Southern counted more than our 7 point loss to ECU. But NC State went to the St. Petersburg Bowl, which was a guaranteed ACC bowl in 2014, but was listed after the Tier 2 bowls (which starts with the Military Bowl). Meaning that we got a better bowl than NC State.
I'd almost be afraid not to play for him.
Amen. Beat the teams you're supposed to beat. Keep it close and maybe win some games you aren't expected to win.
I was referring to how we seemingly didn't get up for games we were favored in. The team was hyped up for Ohio State obviously but I want to see improvement against teams like Pitt. We just didn't bring the same intensity week to week.
This week is the Bastard Bowl - I'm guessing the Lannister/Tyrell/Sparrow showdown will be next week
Think we'll either loose a lot of sparrows or Lannisters this week, I'm just not sure which. The slavers are definitely going to take bad soon, just not sure whether it will entail dragons or the blond queen's calvary. Think they'll delay any action involving all the Starks until the season finale. Who knows, Ayra might have a happy family reunion with Sansa and Bran and Jon before then ? Any White Walkers action will probably be held off until next season.
at least we'll always have Chris Clarke...
His seat will not be hot after the first year unless there are off the field issues.
i don't know why anyone thinks this kid is a good fit for the team. Smith is a terribly generic name. ;)
For VT, this is comparatively a deep team loaded with huge talent. I can't think of one obviously deeper with this level of talent since I started watching when we were in the CAA. Are we in the top 5 of the ACC? Probably not. Are we still in the bottom 5?
As to winning more recently, the ACC's new bowl selection system rewards midlevel teams for weak OOC scheduling, letting them count that win over Richmond or Georgia Southern more than a close loss to ECU or Ohio State. The teams that played the weaker schedule get the better bowl tier, and we get to play Tulsa or Cincinnati and win. They really need to only count conference schedule in the bowl tier schedule.
Are we gonna become one of those school that has no patience? Lets say he has a rough first season and we win 5 games. His seat is not got unless we are taking like 1 to2 wins.
K'Vaughan ?
I came to Tech during the reign of the Untouchables, but those first couple of years, I was just glad to see anyone in a VT uniform heading towards our endzone. So, I really don't remember much about Suggs and Jones other than hearing their names a lot. So, I knew my six would be the last six on the list. Ore was an easy pick for #6.
David Wilson has a natural talent, but with all of his crazy running, I always knew that he was going to get caught sometime, which he did in the bowl game. Meanwhile, I remember RMFW running over all sorts of guys. Darren Evans had some good games, like that Thursday night against Maryland, but I knew that he wouldn't be able to do that every game. Then, Williams comes out of nowhere and was all over the place.
For me, it was almost a case of 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, and 1e.
When I listed the Villanova players I was just going off their roster, not who played significant minutes, so I did the same thing for VT's roster for comparison. If Blackshear plays 25 mpg, there are 15 minutes that need to be filled. Hamilton can play in spurts filling at least 5 mpg, or basically Henry's minutes from last season. That's only 10 minutes without a huge guy at center, that 10 minutes can also be played in spurts with LeDay at the 5. Clarke and Outlaw are 6-6 and Clarke can play similarly to LeDay, both creating a run and gun style. I haven't looked at Buzz's Marquette rosters, but I would think they were very similarly constructed and I know that Jae Crowder at 6-6 played a similar role to LeDay.
True, but his athleticism also translated to the most 100 yd games in a season, the best single season yards record, and the highest YPC as a running back playing the position. So it's not JUST his athleticism being discussed, it translated onto the football field, at the running back position. He was also a threat receiving out of the backfield and in the return game. Additionally, every major statistical metric for backs other than TD's, he was better.
This is kind of the point I want to make here. People might view a back as better because they play they way they like, "downhill, never ran backwards, short yardage bruiser" but other people like "flashy, fast, home run threat" But the fact of the matter to me was that David Wilson was pretty good at both and broke an alarming number of tackles, despite the perception that he wasn't a tough runner. I have a feeling some of the older guys have never really gotten past his backward run against Michigan. To me, it was a mistake in an attempt to make a game breaking play (which he has proven he can do see: first Clemson game from that year), that hurt our team. But to another it might be an unforgivable sin that permanently tarnished their view of him.
Anyway, just my thoughts, but I honestly believe David Wilson was a better all around back and a more gifted and special runner with the ball in his hands, and there is a lot of hard evidence to support this beyond the eye test.
edit: Agree that talent doesn't always = better player. But David Wilson's talent translated to many broken records, ACC POY, and a first round draft selection.
via GIPHY