Recent Comments

Best of Luck.

No linebackers out of the 757 are listed in 247's top recruits in VA for 2017.

OMG ^^^This^^^ Legs!

The first half vs UVA shows it is possible (Mihota played very well-more in my film review that comes out next week).

Really looking forward to this. I had a hard time forming an opinion on how Mihota played, he's certainly not a speed rusher, but he seemed stout in the run game and never seemed out of place. Thought it was really strange that we were flipping sides for the DEs though, were we protecting Mihota?

Let's also remember back to last year when Brewer came in and took the starting job without the benefit of the offseason to learn the playbook. We ran a very limited playbook because of that, as well.

Just throwing things out there. Maybe it is simply a side discussion, showing alternatives. Which there always are. There are complaints of schools losing money because they made a bowl game. There are complaints that the kids won't be home during the Holidays. There are complaints that a bowl game in Idaho, or the Bronx, or playing a 6-6 team aren't a reward. Which it used to be, for a GOOD season.

A compelling reason why, to change the status quo...this is THE question isn't it. Well, the current system is changing all the time. The BCS is dead; we now have the 4 team playoff as selected by a committee. There are new bowl games added every year; with 3 new ones next season bringing the total to 43. 86 teams will make bowl games next year. The conferences have changed and now many have a conference championship game now. What is the status quo, exactly? I say it's a moving target, and fluid. This change, and are currently doing so every year. There is no status quo. Thus, I offer up an alternative...that adds to the always changing atmosphere of college football.

This season there are 11 teams that are 6-6 and 3 that are 5-7. There are 40 bowls, for 80 teams. 77 were conditionally eligible this season (thus the 3 sub .500 teams.) And next year that grows. Why? More teams that aren't conditionally eligible will make a bowl game. For more football?

In FCS this season, there are 125 teams. Just about the same amount that is in the FBS. 24 of those teams get to play in the post season. Because they earned it. They all get a shot at playing for a national championship. What are the majority of teams in FBS playing for? Money for the conference? Extra practice? TV exposure? There are remedies to those reasons.

A. Allow all teams to practice. I heard it said that the coaches like their team making a bowl because they get the extra practice time and reps with the kids. Well, allow everyone to practice, so there isn't a difference across the board. With 86 of 128 teams making a bowl game next season, this only affects 42 teams. Reduce the number of bowls and let everyone practice. No advantage, no loss to any team. Those that do make a bowl will get some more practice, but that will be getting ready for the team they are going to face in the bowl.

B. Make the sponsorship bigger and broader. Instead of $5million for one sponsor, take a sponsor from one of the bowls that isn't happening and make it $9million between the 2. Or $12-$15million between 3 sponsors. The total haul for the conference will remain the same. And fewer teams will be traveling, so the revenue to each team may actually go up. What about the bowls that are shut down? Make a tier system (similar to now) and flip flop years for bowl. One year, it's in Nashville, next year it's in Birmingham. Spread it around. Sound familiar, kinda like the playoff and championship game model between the bowls and championship city.

C. Bowls used to actually be a reward, for the players and the fans. You had to win to be invited. You had to earn it. And it was a destination. How is playing in Idaho in December a "reward" for a good season? Will fans travel halfway across the county during the holidays on 3 weeks notice to Idaho? Maybe. Maybe not. Reduce the number of bowl games, make it an 8 win minimum to qualify. (With 12 games, you can be .667 and make it!) Make it a reward once again. As for the teams that don't make it; win more games. Make it a goal to make a bowl game, not an afterthought. As a fan, I'm more likely to follow a 9-3 team to Florida for New Years than a 6-6 team to the Bronx.

Those will say that the past few seasons the loluva game meant more because it was to make us bowl eligible. Well, it should mean a lot EVERY year. As should the other 11. I'm not sure the game was ramped up wit the bowl streak on the line or not, but you should be amped for your rival every year. And for the other games in order to get eligible. If there was an 8 win requirement for a bowl berth, do you think we would have approach the loluva game either year any different? I'm going to guess no. And hope that it's no. We should want to win every game that we suit up for. Period.

We've been spoiled with our 23 straight. Almost expecting it as fact every year. There are posters on this forum that weren't even born when the streak started. It's not an easy thing, even with all of the teams that get bowl invitations. (As stated above, there are what 5 teams? with a streak over 10 years.) In 1985 there were 18 bowl games. Only a few didn't have a ranked team (the rankings only went to #20 then also.) There are ways to reduce the number, keep the money flow up, make intriguing match-ups, make it a reward to be there, and allow those that don't make it to be home for the Holidays.

Actually, the running game did well at the beginning of the year. I think there was a point where JCC and Trey were both averaging over 4.0 ypc, with Travon far outpacing them but on fewer carries. I know for the first few games, the YPC by running backs was over 5.0. It wasn't until we get into the middle of our schedule that JCC and Trey sort of hit the wall, and whoever was in charge of our rotation was slow to adjust to it.

It wasn't so much that the rotation sucked out of the gate as it was that we tried to give it too long to recover after it hit a slump.

their second leading rusher has 87 carries then 3rd was at 77 carries... key thing is all of those backs showed production with the carries given. If Fuente can come in and find a way to use McMillian, McClease, Shai, Juice and Trey while getting good production out of them I would be thrilled.

Last 3 games.. minus SMU because everyone got a carry in that game 63-0 BRO

via GIPHY

UVA fans whine a lot more around here

let's be honest here, they have a lot more to whine about so it's not surprising you hear that more from them...just sayin'

Dabo is clearly a good coach but they are still running Chad Morris' offense and have a QB who is good enough to make any OC look good (ala Tyrod's later years making Stiney look good). They also still have a really good DC in Venables. Clemson is successful functioning on the system that Dabo is an excellent motivator, good recruiter, and figurehead, but they are willing to spend big bucks on coordinators to handle the x's and o's. Nothing really changed when Chad left because people who were on staff with Morris knew enough to keep running it.

you and I are in agreement then. It didn't make any sense to me to have a different tailback in the game every other play and our running game struggled early in the year (if memory serves) so it is easy for fans to draw that correlation regardless of whether it's accurate or not. I've spent a ton of time and posted numerous comments bemoaning the way our RBs were used early on and I'm going to have to eat a whole lot of crow if Fuente employs a similar RB rotation; especially if it turns out to be successful. It will be interesting to watch.