Hokies checking in at #19 in AP poll


Looks about right to me given who lost. Still think it's a joke that there are 4 0-0 teams ranked.

Real chance for the good guys to hold serve over the next several weeks and find themselves in a really interesting spot before they play Miami

DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.



Go Hokies


5 0-0 teams*

EDIT: I missed Minnesota, how do they get ranked when previously unranked.

Shoot it's actually 6. 5 of them are ranked above the Hokies.

I've no issue with them being put into the rankings after they actually play a game. But it is really ridiculous to me that the rest of the poll will have 5-6 games played before the Big Ten even kicks off, and yet they have 5 ranked teams

I get ranking Ohio State - even as high as they are, they always seem to have close to undefeated season albeit with one WTF loss. But the people that put PSU in the top 5??? WTF is that?

It's because Ohio St and Penn St play each other in the 2nd week of their schedule. Have em both ranked high. One of them has to lose, but you already have the built in "well one really good team beat the other really good team" no matter who actually wins.

Minnesota ain't played nobody, Pawl!

Well...they are all undefeated.

Overheard as Duke assistant coaches took elevator down from press box: β€œGuys, they stopped the run with a three-man front.” - David Teel Tweet 2018

A&M is way too high! They jumped 4 spots by beating a team that can't beat a rush 3 defense.

Also, don't look now but NC State is 4-1. Would love to see them bring the Heels down next week, for multiple reasons

Leary is out for 4-8 weeks. They will probably win two more games at the most unfortunately.

Marshall University graduate.
Virginia Tech fanatic.
Formerly known as JWillHokieAlum.

Yeah if they are going to have to go back to Hockman, they are going to lose some games.

Incredibly unfortunate as we likely need UNC to lose 2 more to get back in the ACC race and they don't play Clemson

Joffrey, Cersei, Ilyn Payne, the Hound, Jeff Jagodzinski, Paul Johnson, Pat Narduzzi.

ESPN has their Miami and ND games as more than 50% chance of loss, and roughly 30% chance of losing each of lolVa, NCSU, or Duke. If that's any indicator, there are other potential opportunities for UNC to contribute to another season of ACC circle of suck.

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Jet Sweep

Sure there's a chance (though 30% seems very generous against Duke, UVA, and NC State without Leary) but regardless I believe UNC has a more favorable remaining schedule.
Common Opponents: Wake, Virginia, Miami
UNC: ND, NC State, Duke
VT: Clemson, Pitt, Louisville

ND looks far more vulnerable than Clemson and NC State won't have Leary against UNC this week. Looking deeper, UVA might not have Armstrong back against UNC in 2 weeks while it seems likely that Kenny Pickett will be back for Pitt and Armstrong will be back for UVA prior to our matchups. There's a lot of season to go and certainly VT has to take care of business rather than worry about UNC... but I still think the schedule sets up more favorably for the Heels.

Joffrey, Cersei, Ilyn Payne, the Hound, Jeff Jagodzinski, Paul Johnson, Pat Narduzzi.

I'm not sure if having Kenny Pickett back for Pitt is a plus or a minus.

I'm squarely in the "Kenny Pickett never developed as many expected after his freshman year" camp but he has been average and is still better than Joey Yellen based on what we've seen this year.

Joffrey, Cersei, Ilyn Payne, the Hound, Jeff Jagodzinski, Paul Johnson, Pat Narduzzi.

who in the hell is still giving loluva votes?!

"Take care of the little things and the big things will come."

Someone named "Monco Brendenhall"

Someone rated us 19th and forgot to add 'Tech' after Virginia. Gotta love the quality control on this!

Apparently a fellow named Rob Long, who has an affiliation with UMD. Apparently does the Baltimore sports radio morning show. Ranked the hoos at #17.

Honestly, the explanation of forgetting "Tech" makes sense. Or he's just a complete idiot.

Especially since he didn't rank VT at all.

We put the K in Kwality

Or both, never rule out that possibility. Or maybe even Coach Richt helps him with his picks. Two people didn't rank us, him and "Parrish Alford" (already sounds suspicious to me but then his affiliation is ole Miss) and he ranked the NcSt Wolfpack at 25th, which given their QB change is a really suspect pick. Now I'll have to come back next week and check Rob Long's vote for lol and VT to see if he has changed.

The LewDew, Professional Golf Bum

The only time he had either team ranked was us at #24 in week 4, which would have been after our first game.

And I'm not surprised with anyone's NC State ranking, because a fair number of voters are probably just looking at scores and records, and not realizing key players get knocked out.

By that thought process - scores and records - I'd think you'd still have to pick us over NC State. We're second in scoring in the ACC and the only reason we're not first is because Clemson dropped 73 on GT. Several of State's wins have been close (3 points against Wake and 1 against Pitt). Other than our 1 loss by 11, our closest margin of victory was 7 against Duke, then 21 points (against State) and 26 points. I don't see any way you pick State over us.

Sounds like Rob Long should stick to doing the Oriole games for MASN. Not sure what credentials he has related to football knowledge, but with picks like that, he needs to have his voting rights removed, pronto!

"That man was violating a city ordinance, and I was just doing my duty to enforce it." - Mike Curtis

He ranked UAB #12 🧐

It's Time to go to Work

Probably confused them with Alabama

Ah, University of Alabama B team. I see the confusion.

It's Time to go to Work

I think 19 is pretty accurate to where we are as a team right now. Our offense is pretty good with a suspect but opportunistic defense. Hopefully our defense will get better over the next few weeks. We have some manageable games coming up so it is possible.

Speaking of rankings, SP+ has us at 21 overall, with the 16th best offense, 36th best defense, and 27th best special teams. Seems about right to me.

EDIT: For reference, if we were to finish at the current ranking, that would be our highest offensive and overall ranking since 2010 (14th overall/12th best offense/31st best defense). 2009 we were (statistically) amazing - 4th overall with the 12th best offense and 10th best defense.

Twitter me

36th best defense seems very generous. How much of that is still based on preseason stuff like returning production?

1) that's out of like 76 not 130
2) We haven't had 73 hung on us, there are LOTS of bad defenses this year.

that's out of like 76 not 130

Not true, it's out of 127. B10 and P12 teams just have preseason rankings.

Twitter me

SP+ relies on a 'phasing out' process. So week 1 might be 80% preseason/20% results. Week 2 is 60% preseason/40% results, until around week 6ish when preseason is completely phased out. Since implementing this system a few years, the algorithm has performed better against the spread.

Bill did note that due to the craziness of 2020, he was putting more stock in preseason rankings than normal, but that all changed this week:

A quick procedural note: Because of all the oddities of 2020 -- the diminished offseason practice time, the fact that we're whistling along with teams frequently missing one-quarter or one-fifth of their scholarship players for a given game, etc. -- I designed SP+ to be a bit more cautious out of the gates. I set it up so that preseason projections were phased out more slowly than normal while we figured out the predictive effects of all these oddities.

After some study and tinkering over the weekend, I'm confident in making things a little less conservative in that regard. That phasing-out process is now closer in line to how I've done things in previous years, which means that for teams that have played a handful of games now, their ratings are more reflective of how they've played to date.

That should have a positive effect on predictions, but it does bring one oddity to the table: it means teams moved up or down this week based not on Saturday's results but on previous weeks'. Florida State, which had played nowhere near its projections to date, fell quite a bit despite beating North Carolina. West Virginia, meanwhile, seemed to get quite a healthy reward for simply beating up on Kansas. If a team made a decent jump during an off week (hello, Oklahoma State) or made a movement that wasn't in line with results to date, that's probably why.

Speaking of preseason projects, you should read the few paragraphs on Arkansas. Pretty interesting how much they are out performing their preseason projects - so much so that their preseason projects are holding them back pretty.

Twitter me

Do the phase outs all happen at the same time this year. If so, seems like it will be really wonky with the Big 10 since they're not playing until so far in to the season. Like either their preaseason rankings will really bolster them if they phase out later or whatever happens in their first couple games will be pretty defining for them. And if the latter is the case, fortunately PSU plays anOSU the second game into their season.

I believe he said he's doing them by what game that particular team in on, not what week of the year it is. So PSU would be on week 3 of the phase-out while VT would be on week 7.

aashokie is correct - It will be based on number of games played, not week of the season:

So in week 7 VT might be 10% preseason and 90% actual results, while OSU could be the opposite.

Will be interesting to see how well this works. My guess is that since all games are in conference, it will perform pretty well during the regular season. I think when/if we get to bowl season, the projections will not perform nearly as well.

Twitter me

With no requirements for eligibility, the bowls (if they happen) might select based on locality. The people that have to travel less might be more willing to come.

Good point about everything being in-conference. Bowls will probably be weird as well. I wonder where we'll be with fan attendance by then.

Edit: Beat me to it; I'll drink.

Some of it? Keep in mind a good bit of NC State's success came in garbage time and we only gave up 14 to BC with probably 3 of those turnovers considered forced rather than luck. Also, from what I've watched this year there are probably only 10 legitimately good defenses in CFB and the others stink to varying degrees. Interestingly, 9 of the SP+ top 15 on defense haven't played yet this year- some have moved up just by virtue of not playing yet.

Eh, I think it would have been a joke back when their seasons were up in the air, but with both the B1G and PAC 12 imminently going to play I think it's fair to rank them when teams like OSU very clearly belong in there. Just delaying the inevitable if you hold it off.

I mean, no. They don't belong. This isnt a preseason poll anymore. You can't compare actual results to predicted results within the same evaluation frame. Let them play a game at least and then put them where you think they belong. But until then, it is silly to include them.

So what, we just pretend Ohio State isn't a Top 10 team? Until they win how many games, 1? 2? Everybody and their mother knows they are.

I somewhat get the viewpoint of eliminating preseason rankings but I think that matters more for the teams "ranked" from 15-25 than 1-15. It's pretty obvious certain teams belong there whether they've played a game or not so pretending like they shouldn't be there just because they haven't played yet feels useless to me.

In a normal season I'd be more in favor of just having no rankings until like midway through the season, but this isn't a normal season and Pandora's Box has already been opened in that sense.

A month ago, "everybody and their mother" knew Oklahoma and LSU were Top 10 teams. It is definitely not obvious that any team belongs in the Top 10 after not even playing a game yet.

We haven't seen Ohio State on the field. We have no idea how good they are going to be.

I don't care if people "know" that a team is worthy of a top10 ranking. That is fine in the preseason when all teams are being evaluated by the same criteria. Or 4 games into the season when all teams are being evaluated equally. That isn't the case this season. Teams that haven't played a snap yet are being evaluated differently than everyone else. They don't belong right now. This is the least objective method in an already very subjective process.

Do I think that OSU is a top10 team most likely? Yeah. But you have to prove it. Otherwise every single year would make up the exact same top10 teams regardless of record.

^^^ This

Want to rank teams from a preseason perspective. Fine. Still flawed as we have seen for the last decade or so now, but pretty much unavoidable when it comes to generating interest, scheduling of marquee kickoff times, etc.

But it isn't the preseason anymore. It hasn't been for a month and a half. You want to put Ohio St. in the top 5 AFTER they finally play and win their game. Ok. But doing so BEFORE? That is what we would have been looking at if this season had started like a normal one. But it didn't. Hokies are 3-1 and ranked behind FIVE teams that havn't take a single snap. I'm not saying that we are better than any of those particular teams (and we might be, its hard to say. Look how overrated Texas, OU, and LSU were this year. And maybe even throw Auburn and Tenn on that list. But I've seen at least 4 games to know that our offense is capable. The rest of these teams are only going to play 6-7 total.

And until proven otherwise, I will always believe that Virginia Tech is better than a Harbaugh led Michigan team that has accomplished nothing in a long time.

It also doesn't really matter lol

I have no idea why my username is VT_Warthog.

Arkansas blew a 24-0 lead in the Belk Bowl.

I beg to differ. The thing is this is a season where rankings might actually be really important. You are going to sit there and tell me that in a year where BYU and COASTAL CAROLINA are actually starting to get mentioned in the NY6 and playoff conversation that having a few extra spots in the rankings doesn't matter?

A lot of the teams that were supposed to be in that mix are gone already (Texas, Oklahoma, LSU, Auburn, Tenn, etc)

If VT was entering a 3 game stretch where they have a reasonable chance to win each game ranked #14 instead of #19 you think that is meaningless? Possibly being a Top 10 team before the Miami matchup? Getting Herbert some much needed attention for how much of a beast he is? I am afraid I simply can not agree with you there.

Instead we will get to hear about how great it will be to see 0-0 Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, and Minnesota (who wanted even ranked last week) get started halfway through the year.

But by that point everyone will have played games, so what difference do the rankings make right now?

It's the same argument where everyone gets worked up over where there team is ranked regardless of how many 0-0 teams there are. The rankings are pointless right now. Just win and everything will fall into place. There is no point in griping about rankings this early in any season. Honestly, no rankings should come out till the playoff rankings come out anyway.

And the AP rankings are actually useless. The playoff ranking is what everything is based on anyway.

I have no idea why my username is VT_Warthog.

Arkansas blew a 24-0 lead in the Belk Bowl.

The difference is that no matter what those 0-0 teams do, barring some more crazy Covid related calncellations, they will still be playing 4-5 fewer games than everyone else at minimum. I tend to care more about results than objective rankings.

You seem to be taking the "yeah but its always like this" approach, which I get because thats how college football has worked for better or worse. The difference is that this season is like nothing else. I don't think the Big Ten in particular should get a pass on playing fewer games, but they are and they will. You'll notice I am leaving the Pac 12 out of this for the most part because I don't think they have a shot in hell of getting a team into the playoff due to playing such a truncated schedule. But that is really just another glaring example of how having five top 20 Big Ten teams without playing a snap is ridiculous on it's face.

That was always going to be the case. How does that change whether or not a 0-0 team is ranked now? You're moving the goal posts.

The bottom line is the 0-0 teams we're going to be ranked at some point anyway. Who cares when it is?

I have no idea why my username is VT_Warthog.

Arkansas blew a 24-0 lead in the Belk Bowl.

Well a 0-0 OSU team in the playoff might piss someone off

EDIT: /s

Lol that clearly won't be the case. There will be some headaches come playoff time, of course. But ranking 0-0 teams right now isn't going to change anything.

I have no idea why my username is VT_Warthog.

Arkansas blew a 24-0 lead in the Belk Bowl.

Yes they certainly would be ranked "at some point".

But that doesn't mean they should be ranked ahead of various other teams now. I will use VT vs. Wisconsin as an example. In 5 weeks time, which team do you think would be ranked higher?

Wisconsin: 4-1
W: Illinois
W: Nebraska
W: Purdue
L: Michigan
W: Northwestern


Virginia Tech: 8-1
W: NC State
W: Duke
W: Wake Forest
W: Louisville
W: Liberty
W: Miami
W: Pitt

Which team do you think would be ranked higher if VT was at #14 right now and Wisconsin was at #19 instead of the other way around? Because right now the Badgers are at 14 and we are at 19, and if those hypothetical results occured I would bet big money on who would be ranked higher, and it isn't VT.

It sounds like your primary issue is ranking teams based on their total number of games played, which has nothing to do with rankings now.

As for that specific scenario, I would say VT would be ranked higher because they'd have a better body of work. Which is my main point, if we keep winning it will all work out anyway.

I have no idea why my username is VT_Warthog.

Arkansas blew a 24-0 lead in the Belk Bowl.

Fair points, but use the same logic to flip the script. It actually will not work itself out this year. This is a once in a blue moon type season that things are going to be based on # of games played. And less is actually more.


Which team do you think would be ranked higher if VT was at #14 right now and Wisconsin was at #19 instead of the other way around?

Is this a trick question?

Clearly not a trick question. You missed literally all of the other context I included in the post leading up to the question you quoted and didn't answer.

0-0 Wisconsin is currently ranked 14
3-1 VT is currently ranked 19

Whom is ranked higher if over the next 5 weeks the records end up being:

Wisconsin 4-1
VT 8-1

Do you think that answer would be different if the rankings were swapped and the results were the same:?

VT 3-1 ranked 14
Wisconsin 0-0 ranked 19.

I don't think I'm being ambiguous about the question. It's directly related to this idea that rankings don't matter right now, which is not true

Yeah, I realized what you were saying/asking after I posted.

None of this shit matters. We are discussing a football game. If your criteria for discussion is that it has to "matter" then sports aren't really for you.

Then it's really futile arguing over rankings! Just win baby.

I have no idea why my username is VT_Warthog.

Arkansas blew a 24-0 lead in the Belk Bowl.

Nothing we say affects anything that occurs in football. Should we stop discussing it in general lol? I don't get your comment or why you decided to jump in with it.

So everybody else gets the benefit of a preseason ranking to build on or ruin but the B1G and PAC 12 have to work their way in from the outside? I don't particularly like either conference but that's just a dumb approach.

It's all gonna work out in the end. Whether it's Ohio State or somebody else there will be at least 1 B1G team near the top of the rankings if not more. Same goes for the PAC 12. But pretending like they shouldn't be there and then just randomly adding them back in after several games, when you didn't do that for the SEC/ACC/Big 12, is ridiculous.

Believe me, I get it as an overall approach to a normal season where everyone starts the same way, but just switching it mid-season to selectively choose who has to work for what reputation is beyond stupid.


Create multiple top 25s:
1) Teams that have played the most games
2) Teams that have played some games
3) Teams that have played no games

Then! Try to merge the lists for all those teams that haven't played each other, won't play each other, and manage the difference between the preseason expectations, historical significance, and actual performance, weighted by quality of opponent!

Fuck! I just recreated the BCS

But base the rankings solely on Time of Possession.

They don't clearly belong, though. The point of the poll is for the voters to watch how teams look on the field and rank them accordingly. How do you rank teams that have played 4-5 games of football against teams that haven't played a single snap? The voters are being asked to compare some teams with half a season's worth of games played with other teams that what, have a bunch of four and five stars on their roster?

A month ago, Oklahoma and LSU "clearly belonged" too, and were ranked #3 and #6, respectively. Point is, the only way the polls hold any value is if we're actually comparing teams that we've seen on the field winning or losing games.

Just my two cents.

Exactly. Otherwise you're just giving teams top 25 wins or losses that aren't going to be of the same quality later one. It makes sense to go ahead and rank them. Anyone who thinks otherwise just wants a false reality.

I have no idea why my username is VT_Warthog.

Arkansas blew a 24-0 lead in the Belk Bowl.

I don't have a problem with the Big Ten teams being in there now as they start next week. But they shouldn't have been in any of the polls prior to this one. And the Pac-12 shouldn't be in any polls before Halloween.

I mean, it was horseshit that we were ranked, won big, and then dropped out of the rankings because that was the exact week that the Big Ten pulled their head from their ass and decided to set a start date.

Can imagine recency bias is going to be a huge headache when some conferences are finishing up and others just starting

Of course I can, Bias is the basis for college football

Yep, going to be really interesting to see what happens to Cincy and Coastal Carolina once the B10 and P12 start playing

Twitter me

Rob long either confused IVA for us or he sees a lot of potential in a 1-4 team

Recruit Prosim

It has been corrected. He voted for VT.

Doesn't matter if it's cake or pie as long as it's chocolate.

It was an error:

Updated Ranking

TKPhi Damn Proud
BSME 2009

Welcome to College Football where the rankings are made up and the records don't matter...

2 time Longwood grad married to a Hokie.

Who's Rank Is It Anyway?

Never Forget #1 Overall Seed UVA 54, #64 UMBC 74

A million ranking points to VT!

2 time Longwood grad married to a Hokie.

Ryan's shoes!

Outside it's night time, but inside it's LeDay

Rankings will sort themselves out as more games get played.

*If* we get to 8-1, with Hooker and Herbert continuing to be a men amongst boys, we'll get plenty of recognition.

Until then, one game at a time.

VT Marketing Class of 2009
Current Roanoke-Hokie
Go Hokies!


Life is good.

In contrast to what others are saying, I think the top 25 should be filled out almost entirely with Big 10 and Pac 12 teams. It's impressive how many of those teams are undefeated in spite of it being 6 weeks into the season.

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Jet Sweep

Warning: this post occasionally contains strong language (which may be unsuitable for children), unusual humor (which may be unsuitable for adults), and advanced mathematics (which may be unsuitable for liberal-arts majors)..

They ain't played nobody PAAUUUL.

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Jet Sweep

More importantly, zero losses to the other P5 conferences. Clearly better