FalcFans Forums

I think they should abolish preseason rankings. They add too much bias for the final results.

The Final results are usually reflective of a SEC Asswhooping......

Yeah, it's no secret that the winner of the SEC is going to win the BCS 9 out of 10 times. The one thing this article glosses over is that the past 2 years with SEC-Big 12 matchups, the games have been closer than some of the previous championship matchups. Texas and Oklahoma can recruit good enough defensive playmakers to be a serious challenge to SEC supremacy, so I think at some point in the next 5 or so years, we'll see a school such as them win one (maybe USC as well if Kiffin gets them back on track).

I just think the preseason rankings overly bias the process. Some team gets rated highly going into the season (like say #6) but by the end they are only a #21 ranking. But if some team beats them early in the season, more weight is added to that win than it another team beat the #18 team early in the season.

I just think they should wait at least 4 weeks before rankings of any kind come out. And give teams that don't play cupcakes a stronger bias. For example, if Miami started the season 4-0, they should get the nod over Alabama, if they start 4-0 because they have a tougher schedule. It may not be reflective of what is going to be the end result, but it emphasizes which teams are playing the best today rather than who do we think is going to have the best record come December like it is now.

The rankings are still very fluid. You still see teams move up and down the rankings. Remember the last time LSU won, we were ranked out of the money, and people thought we were done. Other teams start way back and make a nice run. The bottom line is it isn't a perfect system, and people love rankings. So they aren't going anywhere. That is why I follow the Sarigan Rankings (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt09.htm). They are more realistic IMHO.

My beef is BB that let's say you have your preseason rankings, and at the end of the year you have 4 undefeated teams. The preseason #1 team, #3, #5, and #8 teams all go undefeated for the year. At year's end, it's likely that the #1 and #3 teams will be listed 1-2 and it'd be harder for the #5 and #8 teams to leapfrog those two teams because of the pre-conceived notion that they weren't as good as the others from the very start.

I'm not saying get rid of the rankings, just saying that people should be allowed to start on a relatively more even keel at the start of the season.

I just think it's odd that the #1 team preseason remains #1 until they lose regardless of whether they've beaten anybody worth a damn. I think it should be that the team that has shown the most, played a tougher non-conference schedule and won should be rewarded for that.

IMO that's one of the few positives of the BCS is that they wait 8 weeks before their rankings are released. The flaw is that they rely too heavily on the biased media rankings, which are too intent on predicting the final results than measuring which are the best teams today.

I also think by doing that you would likely have teams scheduling less patsies at the beginning of the season, which would only help college football.

A team thats been on the cusp for a long time now like VT, has their best shot at a MNC since Vick the next two years. Reading between the lines, Beamer is making a push this year, which isn't his usual demeanor to push most or all the chips in. BSU is in the crosshairs, b/c after that we're gonna roll until the last month or so of the season.

But you're right, pretty much between UT, OU, OSU, USC and potentially a VT, to sneak in and grab one from the SEC. Obviously Miami and FSU blowing recently has tarnished what the ACC could have otherwise done.

YOu're 1000% right about favoring the higher teams, and bumping out the others in a 2+ team undefeated season. Just look at Auburn for ex. Beamer has said for eons now that the first pole shouldn't come out until October. But its never going away, b/c its easier ot hype a game like VT/BSU when its two top five teams, as opposed to not packaging it that way.

Sorry widetrak, and I'm sure you'll disagree. But Virginia Tech doesn't recruit the horses to be a serious contender. I don't say that saying there isn't a possibility they put together a really good team one year, go undefeated and be competitive in a national championship game against a down SEC opponent. But VT doesn't have the beef to compete with the SEC or Big 12 schools on a consistent basis. They have their share of good athletes on defense and on the O-line, but not enough. And part of it maybe be Bud Foster's defensive style, but they aren't recruiting players like Rolando McClain, Curtis Lofton, Derrick Harvey, or Lamarr Houston.

And I think the success of the SEC lies mainly in the size they recruit in their front 7s and along the O-line. Those schools I mentioned (USC, OKlahoma, Texas) are the only other schools that really come close in terms of the athletes and size they have on their front 7s, and only really Oklahoma has had comparable size/talent on their O-line as SEC schools like LSU, Alabama, and Florida have produced in recent years.

VT's strength has always been the athletes/speed it can recruit on the outside at QB, RB, WR, and in the secondary, not its beef in the middle of the field. That just isn't going to cut it against an elite SEC program most years.

Exactly Pudge if you have 3-4 undefeated teams at end of year and there are teams based on preseason rankings that are higher up in order how can the other undefeated teams pass them if they don't play each other? The lower ranked teams beat everyone on their schedule what more can you ask? A PLAYOFF SYSTEM is needed I'd say 4 teams but that's negotiable.

You missed the point of my post scout. My complaint about the system isn't that with 4 undefeated teams, it means you need a playoff. My complaint is that the system tends to skew too favorably towards preseason rankings in the event of such a tie. Preseason rankings have too much carry over from the previous season since previous year's results and how many key players/starters you're returning from a previous year's team are factored in, rather than judging a team solely based off the current year's body of work.

Perfect example of this is last year's rankings. Florida remained #1 until the final week of the season because they were the defending champs, and had a bunch of key players, not because they were having particularly the strongest 2009 season.

Human voters have a tendency to give certain teams the benefit of the doubt that I think should be eliminated if not curtailed severely. I think wiping out preseason rankings would go a long way towards doing that.

I would agree on all this above, let me deep dive on the points. Generally speaking one of my football “principles” is that you have to have a good offensive line to be competitive, period. Doesn’t matter what skill you have on the outside, if you’re getting whipped in the trenches. Same way on the flip side for a big nasty defensive line that sets the tone for your d against the other teams o. So more to the point, I totally agree that a big part of the success of the SEC teams is this ability. They’ve got the hogmollies, across the board, and usually more younguns in the pipeline to back ‘em up. So when you get to the fourth quarter, are you still pounding it down peoples throats or holding up in pass protection? This to me was no more evident the year Hawaii was supposed to be all world, played Georgia in the bowl game, and Georgia’s trenches on both sides Killed them. It was a complete joke, not b/c Hawaii didn’t have some receivers or O, but b/c they averaged probably 35+ pounds lighter that UGA. This has been somewhat of an Achilles heel to the Hokies up until the last two years, but still not where it ideally could be. We got behind in recruiting, but now are way caught up and almost have a legit 9-10 deep. You’ve seen that from our running success the last two years. But even still, when we’ve gone to play the LSU’s, Alabama’s and the old FSU/Miami’s (sec D before it was vogue), we hang for 3 quarters and play out a bit in the fourth. We were leading FSU in the National Championship game at the end of the fourth. But our D got tired b/c they were monsters in the trenches and we hit the wall (not withstanding Vick putting his stamp down). LSU blew our head off, but that was just a great team (NC’s). Alabama, same as FSU. VT has never had a problem running the rock, so that’s a non-issue, esp w/ the EvanWillims combo now. But our pass blocking has been horrendous at times (main reason Glennon struggled and TT had to take over to improvise at first), but again, I think has gotten to a neutral pont, and will strengthen as this unit and new depth gels. We recruit big enough olineman that I don’t honestly worry about this part for VT, at this point. W/ TT’s improvement I feel like the pass blocking is rounding a more permanent corner too.

However, the part where is gets away from VT is the point you made about Bud Foster’s scheme, player type to recruit and whatnot. Like we discussed before, we wants the lightening fast guys, we’ll get the muscle on ‘em once they get there. So instead of recruiting the SEC hawses like McClain and Cody, we recruit more tweeners on purpose. This is where I am literally torn in half, b/c of these two sides. I would appreciate your opinion, b/c I haven’t thought about this from this angle in a while. Trust me though, its an undercurrent issue in our quest to get one.

One side is its crazy to argue w/ the success Foster has had w/ his scheme. No other college D can claim to have had the high level of consistent success they’ve had the last 7+ years. A top ten D each, maybe last year was 11 or something, but that’s ridiculous. So its really hard to nitpick, when I feel lucky nobodies tries to make him a head coach yet. BUT, that scheme hasn’t traditionally gotten us over the top in the games I mentioned above. It kills the ACC, is hyper aggressive and fun to watch, but is also hard to tackle an Ingram by the fourth quarter. Our trench guys on the d line wear out by the fourth b/c they’re undersized compared to the SEC’esque olines. Our secondary prowess usually helps neutralize most passing games, but again, most SEC teams have someone to pound the rock. I hope our potentially highest scoring O ever will pick up the slack this year, from what I think has been too conservative a play calling to push for more points otherwise traditionally. Beamerball has been play great D and special teams.

So what do you do? I will say since I follow VT recruiting very closely, tech has gotten the best classes they’ve ever gotten the last 4 or so years. The talent it just now starting to bubble to the surface, and you’d be surprised how young a team VT is. We have recruited some bigger DE’s fwiw recently, guys already coming in around 240, but that still have the speed. Our starting MLB this year is 250 SEC sized and nasty. The DT spot is slowly improving too, but I’m not sure if that’s on purpose or what. Either way, we’ve not expanded our footprint, I just think our success and honesty helps. But our footprint is the main problem. We mainly recruit VA (and try to OWN it), NC, DC, MD, PA, SC, GA and cherry pick FL. Where are most SEC guys… FL, GA, SC, MI, AL, LA, TX, OK, deep south.

I don’t blame VT for not veering from whats been successful, but is it national championship successful? That’s the question. If its not, then should we expand? It’s not like our brand, coaches or success shouldn’t be able to expand, but I suppose we figure most of the kids in those states are gonna stay in those states or nearby. Why waste your resources if its frivolous? But you also can’t hit a homerun you never swing at it.

9 out of ten years, you’re probably right. College football has developed little to no parity in some ways. W/o a playoff system, it probably won’t improve either. The preseason rankings make it worse, as they usually bias traditional powerhouses b/c you don’t look as bad if you’re wrong. I do believe VT can do it, esp w/ the improved talent and recruiting. The thing is can the stars align like they need to, no injuries, good schedule, pulling a game or two out that maybe you shouldn’t, going undefeated, being battle tested…so so many variables. But that applies to all teams.

I would like to think before Beamer retires, he can put on in the case. We’ve gotta be one of the best teams not to have won one, like say Wisconsine and WVU. We’ve knocked on the door a decade ago, time to put the bar up there as see if you can get it. Swing the bat. I can tell you by the way we are not red shirting some kids, and playing our Adonis future qb Thomas at TE to max the talent, even if it risks him getting hurt as the number two qb. That’s not conservative Beamer, that’s I wanna fill the case and I think the next two three years are prime, esp this year w/ a senior QB. VT has never had a preseason top ten rank and a senior qb. That obviously means something for a conservative man like him to be this aggressive. What will be the X factor this season is that this should be the best and highest scoring offense, possibly in VT history.

At the end of the day, nine years everyone else is playing for third. That tenth year is still gonna be a good team like an USC, OSU, OU, etc., why not VT? The seriior qb, badass backfield and wr’s, deep good oline, and a bud D that will gel quickly, we’ll be in the talk heavily this year if we can beat those damn blue turf smurfs from BSU.

I guess that was my point. You're basically counting on that once in a decade thing where the Football Gods and Fate conspire together, and that's why I can't consider Virginia Tech to be an elite program on par with the SEC powerhouses.

Again, I think it's possible, but I think you're counting on everything coming together for Virginia Tech and then them not having to face a team like '07 LSU, '08 Florida, or '09 Alabama. And it just looks like in the forseeable future, the SEC is going to produce a team like that on an annual basis. Although of course I could be wrong. Who knows if Les Miles will get LSU back up there. Florida might dip back down if Urban Meyer leaves in the near future. And Saban is entering his 4th year at Alabama, and he's never been a head coach anywhere longer than 5 years, so he might be gone soon too. So a few years down the road, the SEC could take a step back, but it just seems unlikely due to their recent success, they'll find some way to sustain it.

Just saying I would put VT closer to Ohio State in terms of prestige or whatever. They will be a team that will also be at the top and always in the hunt, and every few years the fanbase will be abuzz with notions of "This is our year!" but probably the best you can hope for more often than not is going to be a Texas-like showing in the National Championship game: make it interesting, but we all know who's going to win in the end.

It's just that with the disparity in talent that is in the deep south and California, unless a school's recruiting base lies in those states, it's hard for me to see them ascending to a level where they can compete with these schools that do have recruiting bases there.

My math could be a little off, but I think it's 1 in every 50,000 people in the entire state of Louisiana go on to play professional football. That may not seem like much, but when you consider the overall population of the U.S., it's something like 1 in every 1.7 million. So Monroe, LA (8th largest city in the state) is producing as much NFL talent as Philadelphia is.