TEEMING WITH INTEL
|
10 years 7 months
# | Fuente Kicks Off Recruiting Effort with Outreach to 2016/2017 Commits and Recruits 
Recent Comments
My point simply being that the way the ACC does their bowl selections doesn't reward merit or better records, and in this year's example doesn't even reward the bowls financially. The Belk bowl is probably not terribly thrilled with having to take NC State or Pitt as their only choices.
If you can't see that the actual players for Pitt got screwed, then I don't know what to tell you. They had a pretty good season and their reward is probably to get run over by Navy at their home stadium.
Checking the Sabre to see their reactions to the presser and came across this gem
"The entire VT recruiting class is now wishes they were Hoos **"
|
10 years 7 months
# | Fuente Kicks Off Recruiting Effort with Outreach to 2016/2017 Commits and Recruits Yes, but VT's miss rate on elite recruits and the positions at which it has missed is largely unchanged.
The root cause of the slide is not missing on 1 or 2 "game-changers" - a misnomer because other than perhaps QB, there really is no such thing as one individual player being a "game-changer". Everyone seems to only notice the guys VT doesn't get and conveniently forget that Kendall Fuller was an elite recruit - a "game changer" if you will. Yet when he played in every game last year...7-6. When not healthy and missing almost the entire season this year...likely 7-6.
The root cause is that the number of players (in '11 & '12 in particular) who were expected to be solid or better performers that simply did not pan out at all was quite high. If those classes each get 3 or 4 more contributors, VT is likely still the program to beat in the Coastal division.
Except that they don't.
Pitt got screwed way more than we did (and we really didn't get screwed, just feels that way). Granted part of that is their poor poor fan support. But there reward for 8-4 is playing against a really good Navy @ Navy.
I'm so, so tired of hearing about teams getting screwed. No one got screwed. A team would have been screwed if there had been a change or a waiver to the selection process. That didn't happen. As it stands, Pitt was in a selection pool with all 9 win and 7 win programs. They were the last team selected from that pool. That's not getting screwed, that's being the fat kid who got picked last at dodgeball.
Always the fundamentals
There needs to be a limit placed on the number of bowls so that the number of spots equals half the number of FBS programs. You could still theoretically wind up with 5-7 teams in that scenario, but it would be much more unlikely. We're well beyond a saturation point now, and it's ridiculous. No one gives a shit about half the bowl games as it is.
Let's just say I sported a Detroit Tigers hat, and I was not a fan of the team. I'd like to think it was a poor choice for an idol, but truth be told, it may have been my first man crush.
Granted, any practice is better than none. It will help the defense for sure, but just how much will it help the offense to practice a system they won't be using come spring.
1. Playing Brewer, but bringing in Motley to run a very, very, predictable play.
"oh hey, they're bringing in Motley... makes sense because Brewer is hot, but hey...lemme guess, they're gonna have Motley run it for no gain. yup."
2. RB rotation in the earlier part of the season.
3. Clock management against Duke. ...seriously, just...what??
I feel like, as an above average fan whose football IQ isn't all that great, if I can see these things...why can't/haven't the coaches? Or if they have, I guess I just need a breakdown of why they did these things or continued to do things. I need an insider's perspective I suppose.
The FG attempt just demonstrated a lack rational thought.
No, it demonstrated more trust in the leg strength of our kicker than the arm strength of our often battered QB who has little to no deep ball skills. If he wanted a deep throw that would make it to the endzone, we'd have been better using Motley, but the kick was not a bad choice.
That's what I was trying to say. The rule prohibits an 8 win team being jumped by a 6 win team. Could you imagine if VT got passed over by a better bowl to select a team with a significantly worse record? We'd be passing out pitchforks. But when the same rule prevents us from the bowl we wanted, it's suddenly incompetence on behalf of the ACC.
Yea, the moment for me was nobody on entire team and sideline realizing the clock was running. Call that timeout and that game could have ended a lot differently.
Which I don't know if that's nice or not
I never like when we're big favorites.
But, it's been awhile since we've been in this position so we got that going for us.
Could be worse...
Colorado State (7-5) and Nevada (6-6) get to play in an inaugural bowl that isn't even televised.
The kicker-> both teams are in the same conference. Mountain West
The nut shot-> they got passed over by 5-7 Nebraska who gets to play in the Foster Farms Bowl.. vs 8-4 UCLA
I don't disagree with the staff for not starting Brewer. Just because someone can play doesn't mean they're 100%, and as important Brewer had proven to be, it really wasn't worth it to start him if there was the potential for us to be okay without him. The baffling part was how late they decided "Motley can't fix this. Let's use Brewer." By that time in the game Brewer's hands were tied to going for miraculous attempts, which really aren't his forte. I wish they would have drawn their line in the sand as being at half time or after the 2nd turnover. Not "If things aren't going well around the 4th quarter send Brewer in"
|
10 years 7 months
# | Per Memphis Beat Writer, New Hokie OL Coach Vance Vice to join VT immediately Sequencing and competency! Coming our way!
{If we can get decent QB play in 2016}
They do reward better records. There's just an allowance of a one win difference during the selection process. Pitt is perhaps the least desirable ACC program in terms of bowl selection, so the bowls exhausted their ability to pick teams with one fewer win than Pitt before someone was forced to select Pitt.
It's a balance. Bowls (and programs) want some flexibility in the selection process. But the ACC doesn't want a 9-win smaller program to be passed over for a 6-win larger program. So the one fewer win guideline is a compromise.
I loved the playcall. The receiver was open.....and just needed to throw it a little further (or earlier). Going for the win was the right decision.
In the 38th out of 40 bowls when one source ranked them by attraction to viewers...
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/2540426...
SET THE TONE!
|
10 years 7 months
# | Per Memphis Beat Writer, New Hokie OL Coach Vance Vice to join VT immediately Buckley Rogers!
I call it the BC Rule, because it was implemented shortly after they joined the conference. All those years in the late 2000s they had decent teams but would get passed over in the bowls because they didn't have a strong fanbase.
I still like those timeouts. We've seen it in the past, get them to punt, get a decent return, complete a pass or two, steal a FG.
In this situation, remember they had a false start to begin the drive. 58 seconds left. TO after a run of 2 yards. 2nd and 13. TO after a run of 4 yards, 3rd and 9....unsportsmanlike penalty on Miami makes it 3rd and 20 from their 11 yard line! Those aren't bad TO's at all. It's a tie game. 41 seconds left, if we get an incomplete pass on 3rd down, we get the ball near mid field with 30+ seconds left.
I think I share the sentiment with many others that the wins and an offense that is putting up bigger numbers/getting lots of skill players involved is going to sell itself for our offensive recruiting, and the winning will help sell those defensive players we have been whiffing on too. Kids like to win, its an undeniable attraction.