One bad year and the VT "fanbase" is jumping off the wagon...And y'all say UVA has terrible fans! What a joke.
This post was edited on 11/24 11:09 AM by Patriot-Eagle
This post was edited on 11/24 11:09 AM by Patriot-Eagle
One Bad Year
- Thread starter Patriot-Eagle
- Start date
For the most part, UVA has been bad for past 40 years. Now they did have 2 or 3 good seasons, but that's about it. VT has been much better than VA over the past 20 years, thus the 2 schools cannot be compared to each other.
He's not comparing teams, he's comparing fan bases......I've always said it easy to support a winner, the true test is when a team starts losing do fans continue to show up. Sounds and looks like the Hokie fans are doing what most do when a team starts losing......stop going to games. It's not bad yet in Blacksburg, but it could get ugly with support if the team continues a downward slide. Let's not forget how bad the attendance was at VT before Beamer. I'm not knocking anyone for not paying good money to watch a product you are not happy with, I gave up my season tickets to UVA after watching Groh and now London stink it up. My father-in-law and his buddy's gave up great seats in Blacksburg after last season, didn't feel like the team was going in the right direction. This is the first year I haven't been to a game in either town in 20 years.....glad I have a nice TV.
Since the loss to JMU a few years ago, I have gone to very few games. I go to at least one a year to keep my streak in-tact. When I go to a game, I want to see VT win easily, with game basically decided by halftime. I don't want to still be around in 4th quarter hoping we kick a field goal to beat some inferior team.
It hasn't been one bad year. We're 11-12 in ACC play over the past 3 seasons, and for the second time in three years we've lost 6 games. We hadn't even had a 6 loss season in the conference membership era until 2012 and this year marks out second in as many years. This isn't just "one bad year" this is over a decade's neglect by the coaching staff coming to a head, and the fan base's frustration reaching fever pitch.
People who assiduously "support" their team when the coaches aren't doing a job worthy of the money it pays are just as bad as the so-called "bandwagon" fans. We want a better product on the field. No point in wasting time and money on something we don't feel has any value in it.
People who assiduously "support" their team when the coaches aren't doing a job worthy of the money it pays are just as bad as the so-called "bandwagon" fans. We want a better product on the field. No point in wasting time and money on something we don't feel has any value in it.
Hoos we have been trending down for about ten years. Many ardent fans have been stating their opinions regarding this for at least that long. It's just that you can only go down for so long until you hit nadir city. We are very very close to being there. What hurt is so many people knew and their pleas were ignored. Then when somthing was finally done to corerect the problem more bad deciisons were made imo.
From where you sit, it probably doesn't even look like a bad year. For us, it is a dismal year, after 2 others.
Yes. UVA has a terrible fan base.
Interesting discussion.
I think some of the Hokies are overreacting a bit. Yeah, I get it, the last 3 years haven't been what VT usually produces. But when you had that 10 year run of "dominance", I never thought y'all were as good as you might have appeared to be. If you recall, your dominance started in the Big East (or the Big Least) and it was when Miami was on their way down. WVU wasn't what they once were and no one else was worth a sh*t. Then you came over to the ACC which was at it's weakest point since having FSU join the conference. FSU was completely down, Clemson was a nobody and Miami was still down. So VT was very fortunate in that regard. That's not to say that VT wasn't a really good program, but ESPN kind of latched onto y'all in the late 90s and y'all became a favorite of theirs for many reasons - came out of nowhere, Mike Vick, rabid fanbase, the Thursday night games - especially the lightning strike game, etc. And ESPN greatly helped VT's image and reputation in that time. Again, much of it was deserved, but VT has never been a top 10 program although for a while many people attempted to steer people into that thinking. I think y'all's record in big time games against P6 conference teams shows that y'all were always a bit overrated.
So now, when things start to fall off a little, it looks worse than it really is. Miami is starting to build back a little, obviously FSU has returned to national prominence, Clemson is back on the scene and a few other schools have made improvements since conference realignment. So VT isn't the shiny new toy for ESPN and other media outlets anymore.
Look, I'm not degrading VT or what they've accomplished (hell, I'd love for the Heels to have sniffed some of what y'all have gotten). But I think what's going on right now is just the consequences of overhyping a B+ program that caught a lot of breaks. The fan base bought into all of it and that makes a .500 year look worse. I think what VT can expect moving forward is compete for the Coastal division and win 7-10 games year in and year out. That's pretty good.
I think some of the Hokies are overreacting a bit. Yeah, I get it, the last 3 years haven't been what VT usually produces. But when you had that 10 year run of "dominance", I never thought y'all were as good as you might have appeared to be. If you recall, your dominance started in the Big East (or the Big Least) and it was when Miami was on their way down. WVU wasn't what they once were and no one else was worth a sh*t. Then you came over to the ACC which was at it's weakest point since having FSU join the conference. FSU was completely down, Clemson was a nobody and Miami was still down. So VT was very fortunate in that regard. That's not to say that VT wasn't a really good program, but ESPN kind of latched onto y'all in the late 90s and y'all became a favorite of theirs for many reasons - came out of nowhere, Mike Vick, rabid fanbase, the Thursday night games - especially the lightning strike game, etc. And ESPN greatly helped VT's image and reputation in that time. Again, much of it was deserved, but VT has never been a top 10 program although for a while many people attempted to steer people into that thinking. I think y'all's record in big time games against P6 conference teams shows that y'all were always a bit overrated.
So now, when things start to fall off a little, it looks worse than it really is. Miami is starting to build back a little, obviously FSU has returned to national prominence, Clemson is back on the scene and a few other schools have made improvements since conference realignment. So VT isn't the shiny new toy for ESPN and other media outlets anymore.
Look, I'm not degrading VT or what they've accomplished (hell, I'd love for the Heels to have sniffed some of what y'all have gotten). But I think what's going on right now is just the consequences of overhyping a B+ program that caught a lot of breaks. The fan base bought into all of it and that makes a .500 year look worse. I think what VT can expect moving forward is compete for the Coastal division and win 7-10 games year in and year out. That's pretty good.
Miami wasn't down during many of those years. They won a NC in 2001, played for two more ('95 and '02), and had one of the longest winning streaks of all time between 2000 and 2003, and even as late as 2005, Miami was ranked #2 in the country heading into the final week of the regular season.
VT was cranking out 10 win seasons during that entire time, and then continued to for the next half decade after Miami went in the crapper.
When you play a team only one time per season, then that team has very little influence on a full 12, 13 or even 14 game schedule.
VT was cranking out 10 win seasons during that entire time, and then continued to for the next half decade after Miami went in the crapper.
When you play a team only one time per season, then that team has very little influence on a full 12, 13 or even 14 game schedule.
Until our sins caught up with us for the last three seasons (so that all could see it) we did look good on paper. Our team ranked #14 overall for the 10 year period befor that. You are correct that we were not a top ten team overall (although we ended up there a few times). Also your comments about the ACC being down when we joined are pretty accurate and this did make VT winning somewhat easier. What you don't comprehend is that we actually started our downward trend years before. There have been loyal Hokies pleading for corrections to our problem all during this time. It showed up first in our O line but it continued to spread into our WR's ,QB's and to our D line & LB recruits. Finally the truth is out but it was always there. We masked many of our ills with players like Tyrod Taylor. We burned his red shirt because a true pocket passer with a 4* rating was being crushed at LSU. Taylor could scramble with the best of them. Wilson was another lucky recruit because the man ran in spite of a very bad O line . Just wouldn't go down. We are very frustrated that the corrections to our problems were not addressed for years and when they were addressed the peronnel decisions were totally inadequate. We are loyal Hokies and we still root for our team but to say we are over reacting a bit is not accurate.
I wonder why you think so strongly that we had issues before 2012. You say our "sins" caught up to us the past 3 seasons? Let's look at our 2 previous seasons before that, 2010 and 2011:
In 2010, we finished with the 41st ranked offense, we scored 30 or more points 9 times, and 40 or more 6 times. Here are some of our scores that year:
49-27 over ECU
41-30 over an NC St. team that won 9 games and finished ranked 25.
45-21 over CMU
52-21 over Wake
44-7 over Duke
31-17 over Miami
37-7 over UVA
44-33 over a 10 win FSU team.
I loved Tyrod as much as anyone, and thought he was outstanding, but let's keep it real: You don't put up points like this because a QB is "masking our ills". I think many of our OL guys, WRs, and RBs would beg to differ when you think 2010 was all Tyrod. And, if we had a bunch of "ills" this year, I would think a whole lot of teams out there wished they had "ills" as well.
In 2011, we finished with the 35th ranked offense, scored 30 or more points 6 times, and in December, we were 11-1 and #3 in the country. Wow, some "downward trend", right? You said Wilson ran well in spite of a bad line. So, you think a RB can get 1700+ yards on his own? Many of you only remember the times when a RB lost yards or a QB took a sack and quickly forget the numerous times our OL played well. When questioning the past, go back and watch the 4th quarter of the 38-35 Miami game, focus on the atmosphere, and compare that to where we are now. Then, tell me again why you think we should have made changes.
I also noticed your making an excuse for our past success because of the ACC being down. You would think true VT fans would be proud of our past success, but for whatever reason, we hear excuses for it. As if the ACC is any better now? FSU is, but we have not played them the past 2 years, and have still gone 6-9 in the ACC. From 2010-2011, we went 15-1 in the regular season and 16-2 overall in the ACC, so if it were so easy to do this, why didn't the other ACC teams do it?
I noticed you went back to 2007 to talk about the LSU game. How typical that you talk about how Glennon was being crushed
at LSU, without mentioning that LSU scored 48 points and had nearly 600
yards that game. So typical of you to focus on our losses, blame the offense, and
ignore the fact that every team, even the big time offensive ones, has
had multiple games where things did not go well offensively, and even the better defensive teams had their rough moments as well. Of course, we won the ACC in 2007 and 2008, and won a BCS game in 2008, and finished top ten in 07 and 09, but let me guess: that was because the "ACC was bad" right? I ask again: why didn't Clemson, FSU, Miami, UNC, GT, NC St., BC, or any other school win the ACC those years if it were so easy to do so? Yet, we had all of these "ills", and still won it, and still finished top ten in 07 and 09? Geez, you would think you might actually credit the coaching if we had so much success with so many "ills".
You say loyal Hokies have begged for corrections for years. Congrats on getting them. Happy? Serious question. Are you happy now? ACC titles and BCS bowls were not enough , so you got what you wanted, and I guess you don't have to worry about losing in a major bowl anymore. Congrats. Good for you to be unhappy with ACC titles in 07,08, and 10, and a
16-2 ACC record in 2010-2011, when the Coastal is as bad as it has ever
been this year, and we are 2-5 and in the cellar. Yep, keep thinking we should have made
those changes. Since you got what you wanted, why are you are still complaining and blaming things on the past? I find it very funny that the few of us who said we would suffer if we made changes are still ridiculed about it, while the ones that begged for changes cannot even think for a second that maybe they were wrong. One thing I have noticed about this board is there are a whole lot of opinions, but no one ever wants to admit when they were wrong.
Yes, you're right. It wasn't just Tyrod masking woes: it was athleticism at other skill positions like RB that produced two first-day draft picks and record-breaking RBs. Tyrod forced defenses to plan their entire attack around him rather than around the offense they were facing. Boykin and Coale also helped, but Clemson exposed us as being weak in 2011 for our reliance on nothing more than athleticism from big plays when we could not out-scheme them to compensate for their speed. They did nothing complex or difficult; their corners played simple press on our WRs, their front four rarely blitzed but still dominated our OL, and that dominance allowed their LBs to play more flexibly. The next year in 2012 when we had no dominant play-makers like Wilson or Taylor to mask our weak offensive design, we got the worst season in 20 years. Not a coincidence, and not because of coaching changes.
I'm not sure why you are conflating 2010-2011 with 2012. Total red herring. No-one has said anything about '10 or '11 being bad years offensively. But again, two years do not account for the whole body of work. I think what others are talking about is the trend, not the anomaly. The trend being our average ranking through 2002-2012 excluding those two years you mention: 73rd. That's a different story altogether, of course, which is why you omitted the other years. Also, it is interesting to reflect on how many negative yardage plays David Wilson had in 2011, which also is a reflection of poor offensive design, IMO.
The Miami game in 2011 is one game -- not 10-15 years worth of games. Remember the atmosphere of the 2005 Miami game? Or the 2012 FSU game? The 2007 BC game? How about the end-result of the 2010 JMU game? It goes both ways. Weak argument. Moreover, we did not finish with a single win over a ranked team in 2011, and the average record of our opponents ended up being 6-6. Also, it's funny that you say we were ranked high on December 3rd because the season ended in January and we weren't even in the top 20 in the AP by then, and were 17th in the Coaches Poll.
Because the other teams were absolutely god-awful. Call it what you want, but VT's downward trend has increased apace of coaching additions/changes in the conference. All a champ needs to derail their dominance is one contender, and we have two of them now. It's not about top to bottom quality at all. We went 8-0 in the ACC the year we lost to JMU if that tells you anything about the conference's strength some of those years. Other years, we got in by dint of other teams screwing up as much as winning (2008 and 2005 especially come to mind).
No-one absolved the 2007 defense in that loss. They were awful. But our showing was absolutely pathetic against LSU offensively. Kentucky put 52 on them, for crying out loud.
Also, no-one has said it was "easy," just that it was easier and that's absolutely true. VT has gotten worse, for sure, but other teams have gotten better. Do you think it wasn't easier for us back then? We managed to win the ACC in 2008 with 5 conference wins and a 100th ranked offense, for example.
Secondly, only a tool sees change in such a categorical manner. Change often happens in increments and what Tech wanted more than anything else was the effort to improve. Do you consider acts of self-improvement failures if you do not get the desired result the first time? No. So why do you see football the same way?
Beamer went out and made changes, and did not get the guy he wanted. But do I have regrets? Nope. Change was needed. The fan base was restless because we had reached a plateau and the status quo was not satisfying them anymore. Why would it now? Like basketball, which you were very, very, very wrong about, this is not an either-or proposition either and you create a false dilemma by pitting Stinespring against Loeffler as if Loeffler is our only option. There are tons of positional coaches out there and tons of options to be considered and just because Loeffler was a failure doesn't mean it was the wrong choice to pursue change. Just like firing Greenberg wasn't the wrong idea because we ended up with James Johnson. He was just part of the process of change and it's not always pretty. But you can rest assured, we're not pining for days of O'Cain and Stinespring. We still want more and better, and to suggest we can't have that because Loeffler failed is the height of idiocy -- especially when you yourself have called him one of the worst OCs in college football.
This post was edited on 11/26 7:54 PM by HeaksManley
Mr. Heaks, that might be the single greatest rebuttal to the pckank administration to date. You sir, deserve a commendation for that analysis.
Similar threads
