Reasonable expectations in college football

Whoever takes over at Florida and Miami is going to be expected to compete for national championships or at least go to BCS bowls. If Beamer retired next year would the Virginia Tech be expected to stay at the same level or would eight-win seasons be good enough? Would it be reasonable to expect somebody else to have that kind of success in Blacksburg?

 

Virginia Tech is interesting in terms of its placement on the national scene. It's definitely been a top 10 program in the past decade-plus, but it probably wouldn't make the cut in a "Top 10 College Coaching Football Jobs" list.

And I agree with Jake...When Beamer retires, what are the expectations of that program? What's a disappointing season right now in Blacksburg? Losing to JMU? Winning 8 games? 9 games? I ask because I don't know.

I just think it's interesting that Va.Tech is a national name, but probably not quite as hot a job (post-Beamer) as its current status might suggest.

Someone brought up UCLA earlier...what's a better job Va.Tech or UCLA? Off the top of my head, I'd say UCLA. I could probably be swayed, though.

 

And Boise State and TCU fans should never have the same expectation level as the group posted earlier in the "top tier." If you can go undefeated and not make the national title game, you're expectations cannot be the same as a BCS team that goes undefeated and makes the title game.

Also, in "Group 2," I don't think South Carolina and Georgia have the same expectation level.

 

I spent about 30 seconds thinking of those "tiers" and I meant it more to get the conversation flowing rather than people thinking it was some kind of gospel list that actually meant something. Hell, I did it so quickly I even forgot to list the old alma mater.

There were several schools I forgot: BYU, Missouri, West Virginia, maybe Texas Tech.

Frylock, no offense, but I'm sure you enjoyed your time in Corvallis, but if you think Oregon State is even a tier 2 program, you're high. It was one of the worst programs in the country up until a decade ago. Mike Riley has done a great job there, but if he goes 8-5 most of the alums are pretty happy. I would argue that the Beavers have had one "great" season in the last 25 years.

Good program, but there isn't the pressure to win there that there is at other schools that have not had recent success like Colorado or UCLA.

 

Mizzou - I wasn't trying to really pick the groupings apart. Georgia is probably either last of Group 1 or first in Group 2. I was really just trying to spur more conversation.

 

I don't hold lack of titles against them (championships being so fickle).

I do hold their 7-29 record vs. top 10 teams and 0-6 record against Top 5 teams --- in the Beamer era --- against them.

Until they can win one of these "show me something" games, VT is second tier. High second tier, but second tier nonetheless.

 

Virginia Tech and Georgia should be Tier 1 for different reasons.

VT consistently wins its conference and goes to BCS bowls.

Georgia consistently believes it should be winning its division and going to BCS bowls, even though it rarely happens.

 

That's why this Orange Bowl is so big for the program. Beating Cincinnati in the OB? Meh. A chance to beat a Top 5 Stanford? Huge.

 

Just think how sucky the ACC would be in football if they took Syracuse instead of Virginia Tech, as was the original plan.

 

VT wouldn't be where they are, either, though. They'd be in the Pitt-WVU-Cincy stratosphere instead of legitimate national-title contenders.

 

I'm not so sure about that. Their national title game appearance was during the Big East years. They'd probably win the Big East most years and be ranked about where they are now, maybe a couple of spots lower. Meanwhile, the ACC would have at least one, maybe more, Wake Forest-type champions.

 

There's no question the ACC would be in shambles. But - full disclosure, bitter UVa fan here - when UVa got Tech into the ACC, it surrendered the only true recruiting advantage it had in the rivalry. Yeah, there's academics, but that's a negative as often as it is a positive, particularly when you handle such matters in typical ham-handed Wahoo fashion. (I'm referring to the now-standard practice of denying NCAA-eligible recruits admission after they've signed.)

At any rate, with the success that VT has had, any recruiting advantage UVa had, pre-2004, in chasing the average prospect could be summed up in three letters - ACC. John Casteen (with an assist from Mark Warner) went out of his way to give that up.