AP Rankings since 2002, top four teams (end of regular season, before bowl games):
2002: Miami (11-0), Ohio State (13-0), Iowa (11-1), Georgia (11-1)
2003: Oklahoma (12-0), USC (10-1), LSU (11-1), Michigan (10-2)
2004: USC (12-0), Oklahoma (12-0), Auburn (12-0), California (10-1)
2005: Texas (13-0), USC (12-1), Penn State (11-1), Ohio State (10-2)
2006: Ohio State (12-0), Florida (12-1), Michigan (11-1), LSU (10-2)
2007: Ohio State (11-1), LSU (11-2), Virginia Tech (11-2...fuck you Matt Ryan), Oklahoma (11-2)
2008: Oklahoma (12-1), Florida (12-1), Texas (11-1), Alabama (12-1)
2009: Alabama (13-0), Texas (13-0), Cincinnati (12-0), TCU (12-0)
2010: Auburn (13-0), TCU (12-0??? WTF), Oregon (12-0), Stanford (11-1)
2011: Alabama (11-1), LSU (13-0), Oklahoma State (11-1), Oregon (11-2)
2012: Notre Dame (12-0), Alabma (12-1), Florida (11-1), Oregon (11-1)
2013: Florida State (13-0), Auburn (12-1), Alabama (11-1), Michigan State (12-1)
So there are a few teams that had two losses that were in the top four before bowl games started, which means we're still in the mix for the national championship! Don't try to discredit this post with facts, we have a chance!
Comments
I was about to say to calm yourself, since all of those 2-loss teams only lost to good teams and had multiple quality wins. But then I looked a bit more closely and realized 2 things: one, that if ECU, OSU, and FSU keep doing good things and GT loses only 2 conference games we will meet that same criteria, and two, that wasn't always the case with those 2-loss teams listed above.
Still wouldn't get my hopes up, but this past weekend did remind me of the 2007 season, meaning that anything could still happen. Of course, none of it matters unless we take care of business each and every week from here on out.
About that...
Pretty much every 'revisionist history' column out there that says who would be in a playoff in past years leaves that VT squad out because of the LSU mauling.
And no, we don't have a chance. At this point you really need to be ranked to have a chance. If we run the table, we aren't beating anyone with a ranking to get there, except for maybe FSU in the title game, but even then, it wouldn't bring us up far enough to jump high enough to be in. Our ceiling this year is a New Year's Day bowl win.
Imagine, if you will, this scenario:
Georgia Tech drops 2 in conference, but gets a quality win over UGA, who wins the SEC. This essentially guarantees that GT is top 10-15, and that everyone in the SEC has 2 losses, as I don't see anyone in the West coming out unscathed.
We win out (obvious for this scenario).
FSU gets to 12-0 before dropping to us in the ACCCG.
Ohio State wins out to also finish 12-1. Noone else in the B1G finishes with fewer than 2 losses.
ECU wins out to complete the trifecta of "teams VT has played finishing at 12-1".
The rest of the Power-5 conferences decide to follow the ACC Coastal's Patented "Circle of Suck" model, leaving only 3 teams in all of 1-A college football with 1 loss and no unbeatens.
Given this scenario, and considering that we would likely have beaten the #1 AND #2 teams in the nation, and having our two losses come only to a top-5 candidate and a top-10 candidate, I don't see how we wouldn't at least be in the conversation. And honestly, this isn't too far from the way that 2007 played out.
All I'm saying is, don't deal in absolutes unless everything is certain. At this point there is still a chance, however slight it may be.
GT beats UGA but drops 2 in the ACC- no chance GT will be ranked due to the ACC being an absolute mess. I mean we went from beating a # 8 ranked team to us being#17 I believe and then losing to ECU and whammm unranked... I know we played bad but still we should have stayed top 25..
The media/poll voters will say UGA had a bad game/ looking ahead to their bowl game. It doesn't help that this GT UGA game is the last game of the year and IMO the 4 will have already been picked by then.
Georgia Tech would almost certainly be ranked at that point still, as a 2-loss Power-5 team. I mean, Clemson is ranked right now with 2 losses.
We went from nowhere on the radar to #17 by beating a #8 OSU. Now imagine Georgia Tech beating a top-10 Georgia team, with only 2 losses so late in the season. How does that not vault them up higher in the rankings?
ok i wasn't clear at all GT wouldn't be ranked high enough that a L to them would help enough, we would be the 1st or 2nd loser for the top 4. IMO the only chance we have is to get to the ACCCG and beat FSU..
But first Georgia has to get to the GT game without another loss ... They play Arkansas and Auburn -> those could be two L's as well and the GT UGA games means absolutely 0 when its the last game of the year.
As much as Alum07 and I differ on noon games, he's got this on the money. There is no chance for the Hokies in the playoff. Winning out would be a springboard for sure, but we would be using that springboard to jump to the top of Mt Everest.
Best the Hokies can do is cause chaos at the end of the year by beating an unbeaten FSU in Charlotte.
The selection committee will come up with a way to involve 3 sec teams. why you ask?? More $ for them and because the SEC is the best conference in the NCAA /SARCASTICA
I have been saying that since I saw the top 25 come out week 1. With the SEC West beating itself up it mathematically creates the mindset that ohh the SEC is so great because the underdog wins some big games. SO a 2 loss SEC team is better than a 1 loss any other conference team..
However there is no mention of being over-rated or just flat out not a good team IE LSU, South Carolina and the whole Eastern side of the SEC. Not to mention that 2 big teams in the SEC came from the Big 12 and are having 0 problems competing week in week out.
yup i was about to say the same thing. all those above were before the big bad SEC had 10 of the top 15 teams in the rankings thank you ESPN for that one. one day they will go to rankings that start in week 6 and not preseason and then we maybe we would have had a chance. until then the SEC will dominate the playoffs. makes me sad specially since i live in SEC country......
Though I completely agree re: pre-season rankings, and that we shouldn't have rankings before mid-Oct......it will never change. I am SO bothered by the impact pre-season rankings have on all subsequent rankings. But I've come to accept it will never change. It gives the media something to yap about pre-season. It drives me nuts!
I wholeheartedly agree. I know this has been talked about a billion times, but the idea that you can rank teams BEFORE any games are played, purely on speculation and how they fared last season is ridiculous. If the top handful of preseason ranked teams never lose, but aren't really dominant, or just squeak by in a few games, they will never be overtaken by a team that starts ranked say, # 8, or #10, who destroys everybody they play because it all just clicked for them that year. That team will ultimately creep up to #5 or #6 maybe...but still faces the possibility of being left out purely because of where they were slotted before a single down was played. This has been an inherent flaw since even before the 2 team BCS championship, right back to when the champion was decided by the AP poll. Although the 4 team playoff in and of itself is an improvement on the back end of the whole deal, it is compromised by the constraints of the front end of the season already stacking the deck based on the opinions of what team X or Y 'should' be.....
Can you imagine in your wildest dreams the NFL, NHL, NBA, MLB, MLS with this kind of bias based on media rankings (preseason or otherwise)......? They'd never get away with it....
You're missing the fact that their recruiting obviously improved leaps and bounds the moment they moved to the SEC. And also they must have been the best 2 teams in the Big 12 to have even been considered as SEC inductees.
I agree 100% here.. VT had a shot and sadly we didn't take it. Looking back I bet we would have jumped for joy to go into the SEC. Football makes $, SEC makes double the $ and then we can help support the other athletic groups that are having a hard time.
Sadly we will stay in the ACC and continued to surrender to the almighty SEC
A&M has been good but Missouri had be horrible until a few years ago so its not like Texas and OU were the teams that moved
A&M makes 1000% sense.. Missouri was a head scratcher as they seem to be way out there in terms of traveling.. I wonder if it was between us and Missouri and we backed out
There's not much question in my mind that Mizzou took our spot. VT and aTm would have expanded the SEC east and west into Texas and the Mid-Atlantic and would be natural cross division rivals with the military traditions and the fact we would've been the new kids on the block. Mizzou makes less than no sense being in SEC East. We obviously would make perfect sense.
Don't get me wrong as someone who grew up in North Carolina, I'm happy in the ACC but one does have to wonder about the possibilities that may now never be realized.
I don't know about backed out.. more like declined.
Actually, the truth is - never had virtually any interest. As a University, we've always desired to be in the ACC. As an Athletic Dept., we've always desired to be in the ACC. That's by an overwhelming margin. Internet fantasy conference pairings aside, nobody with any influence at VT in either athletics or academics preferred the SEC over the ACC, and it wasn't even close. The same holds true today, only even more so.
All I took from this was fuck you Matt Ryan. I will never forgive that douche, I actively root against every Falcons player because of him. I also root against Mike Glennon, but that's for different reasons.
I don't see how we can hate on Mike Glennon for choosing a different school than the one that spent 3 years heckling his older brother.
I don't hate Mike Glennon for picking another school, I hate Mike Glennon because of Sean Glennon. The same reason I hate the entire Falcons roster because of Matt Ryan. Hatred by association.
And for those who are going to take the "stop hating Sean Glennon" approach and get angry. Calm yoself, it was a joke.
Going through the top-4 teams at the end of the regular season, I went a step further and awarded points for the teams and totaled by the conference.
1st Place: 4 Points
2nd Place: 3 Points
3rd Place: 2 Points
4th Place: 1 Point
The following are the rankings by conference by the point system above.
SEC: 41 Points
Big 12: 27 Points
Big 10: 20 Points
Pac12: 16 Points
ACC: 6 Points
Big East: 6 Points
Independent: 4 Points
If anyone is going to make the playoff with 2 losses, the SEC would be the conference that would get the nod. The SEC had just one year listed (2005) that they did not have a team in the top 4. The ACC has only had a team finish in the top 4 twice in the last 12 years.
Even if we don't win, I consider this season a success if we can make it to the ACC Championship and land in a big/respectable bowl game. Next year and 2016 are the years we should be gunning for.
But those polls should Have no bearing on the playoff.
Voting Protocol
1-Each committee member will create a list of the 25 teams he or she believes to be the best in the country, in no particular order. Teams listed by three or more members will remain under consideration.
2-Each member will list the best six teams, in no particular order. The six teams receiving the most votes will comprise the pool for the first seeding ballot.
3-In the first seeding ballot, each member will rank those six teams, one through six, with one being the best. The three teams receiving the fewest points will become the top three seeds. The three teams that were not seeded will be held over for the next seeding ballot.
4-Each member will list the six best remaining teams, in no particular order. The three teams receiving the most votes will be added to the three teams held over to comprise the next seeding ballot.
5-Steps No. 3 and 4 will be repeated until 25 teams have been seeded.
Unpopular opinion alert:
As good as the SEC West division is this year, a 3 or maybe even 4 loss team from the division (depending on how things play out) could and should potentially leapfrog a team like Tech. Those guys are going head to head against against another top 10 opponent almost every week. This would be one of those instances where you can throw the record out the window and ask yourself who the best four football teams are, not necessarily the best 4 records.
There is some really good football being played in the SECw right now, and I like the fact that it's not the same old schools that are doing it.
The last time I can remember a single division being so dominant was the 2008 Big 12 South. Hopefully the SECW gives us something fun like that OU-Texas-TTU trio.
I know this is even more improbable than my "scenario" listed above, but I'm rooting for a 7-way tie at 9-3, 5-3 in the conference.
I agree, the SEC West is the best division in the country this year. The Alabama and Mississippi schools are all good. LSU isn't as good as normal. A&M gets an incomplete from me so far. So does Mississippi State, actually.
A 3 loss team from this division would leap VT, but four losses is a bit of a stretch, I think.
But are they really going against a Top 10 team each week?
I keep hearing how Miss St. beat two top ten teams in a row (LSU, A&M). But there is no chance in hell LSU was deserving of being a top ten team. They are a young team just like us, with a "big" win against a Wisconsin team that may have 2-3 more losses left in them in a bad Big 10. Now don't get me wrong, the Bulldogs are a very good team, but still. EDIT #2 - And for that matter, who has Texas AM defeated. I think people went crazy when they blew up South carolina to open the season. But since then, they have beaten literally no one, and it turns out South Carolina sucks. Should they have been top 10 as well? I dunno, but they were because it says SEC West next to their name.
Thats the weakness of the preseason polls and SEC bias. The voters (and potentially the selection committee), can be biased to say "Well when a "top" SEC team loses to another ranked SEC team, they can just swap rankings, so it seems like they are always playing top ten teams that maybe arn't. (I.e. Bama only dropping 4 spots when they have NO wins over ranked teams and havn't even come close to playing a ranked team outside of the Ole Miss team that beat them), meanwhile FSU gets lit up every week if they don't beat their opponent by 50. At least they have defeated a Top 25 opponent. EDIT: Correction, they have defeated two top 25 opponents, Clemson and Okie State
As a division, yes they are the best as a whole. But if a 3rd or 4th place team from any division in college football makes it to the playoff, the selection committee will lose all credibility immediately in my eyes short of all of the other conference just completely shitting the bed.
Let's alter the scenario a little bit to illustrate what we're talking about regarding early season rankings.
Let's pretend that preseason rankings (which are really nothing more than wish lists) have most of the the ACC mixing it up as the top 15 with a few other teams sprinkled in and ECU ranked at the beginning of the season, which it probably should have been.
Then our losses to GT and ECU would look like quality losses to quality teams and losses by other conferences would appear as losses to lessor ranked or unranked teams.
GT and ECU would be in the top 5 and 10, our only losses coming to top ranked teams and by small margins would have us top 15 right now.
To justify, you could point to VT's incredibly dominant defense and rather good special teams play in terms of turnovers right now. Heck, the lowly UVA is looking good against other conference teams.
We beat a quality team on the road at night.
Preseason rankings where everyone genuflects at one conference is self supporting to that conference and the preseason rankings. They'd be talking about the ACC chewing each other up at this point instead of the SEC west.
I mean really, dropping FL state to #4 because they won by a small score against a ranked opponent without their Heisman QB?
My sentiments exactly! I'm flummoxed why people believe Alabama with a new starting QB (in a somewhat bungled situation), winning the job in the 3rd week, and boasting a defense that hasn't been very impressive over the past season, is a top 10 team.
I read an argument above regarding Texas A&M and Missouri being competitive in the SECw as a result of benefiting from SEC recruiting. I'd like to see more information as to how much recruiting improved for both schools leading up to their inaugural SEC season. I'm not saying its a false theory, but considering how quickly both teams became competitive and how long it typically takes athletes to become major contributors, i'll express doubt.
The best SEC team in my opinion, Auburn, struggled against a much lower ranked Kansas St. on the road, and is the only SEC team to this point with a true road test. How good is the SECw? I'm not sure, but at this point I'm leaning towards (highly) overrated.
Another reason that the Hokies will not make the playoff is because it is done by a selection committee, and they're still pissed at Seth Greenberg for calling them "certifiably insane".
Yes, you cannot speak the truth unless you are tenured.
Maybe our resident bag man should start dispersing coupons to the selection committee members
I am skipping all of these comments, they are long and appear to be logical, AND GOING STRAIGHT TO GETTING MY HOPES UP! PLAYOFFS HERE WE COME!