FBS Mission Statement:

We at FBS believe that offensive coordinator Bryan Stinespring bears the largest share of the blame for years of sub-par output from some of the most talented players ever to set foot on Worsham Field. We believe the main objective of the VT football program - a national championship - will escape us as long as Stinespring is making the calls. We therefore advocate the improvement of our football program through the replacement of our offensive coordinator.

Monday, December 20, 2010

It's official: Orange domes for the Orange Bowl

Let the smear campaign/lovefest begin.

Personally when I heard the rumor of orange helmets I shuddered a bit, but to be honest... I don't hate these. Though I'm sure there are plenty of people who do.

Apparently Virginia Tech football now has more fashion critics than Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. As for my personal preference, we could be wearing gold lamay as long as we're kicking the shit out of our opponents.

Saturday, December 18, 2010

Friedgen Fired, Huge Opportunity for Hokies

ESPN is reporting that Maryland is forcing head coach Ralph Friedgen to take a buyout of his contract. The buyout is going to give Friedgen $2 million for next season, the last year on his contract.

Say what you will about Ralph, but he knows offense. He won a national championship with Georgia Tech as OC in 1990. If there's a time to replace Stiney, it's now.

Wishful thinking.

EDIT #2: I feel a little dumb for not realizing this before, but Miami isn't keeping Mark Whipple around as OC in the Al Golden era. Another awesome possible Stiney replacement.

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Head coach in waiting (for something better to come along).

Since it's too early to preview the Orange Bowl and there isn't much else going on to talk about I thought I'd get this off my chest.

A lot of people have been howling for Jim Weaver to officially announce Bud Foster as Head Coach in Waiting. I personally have never been in favor of a HCIW deal for Bud. Not because I don't want him as our next head coach. I do. Desperately and with naked abandon. Weaver could announce Bill Cower was the next head coach of the Hokies and I'd be pissed it wasn't Bud. Seriously.

I don't support a HCIW deal for Bud Foster because I think HCIW deals are worthless in general. The assassination of Bobby Bowden in Tallahassee showed that having a Head Coach in Waiting can be a cancer to a program, but forget that for a second. Proof that the whole concept of the HCIW is based on flawed logic has played out (and continues to play out) as we approach this bowl season.

Will Muschamp, the poster child of the HCIW deal, has bailed on Mack Brown and Texas to return to his SEC roots at Florida. With Jimbo holding the reigns at FSU and Muschamp bolting for Gainesville that leaves Maryland's James Franklin as the highest profile Head Coach in Waiting in division 1A. And he'll be named as Vanderbilt's head coach by the end of this week.

HCIW deals offer the false promise of retaining a talented assistant coach. But in the current business environment of major college football a hotshot coordinator will almost always take an offer for a head job at another program NOW as opposed to the head job at his current program EVENTUALLY. And we're currently seeing those dominoes fall.

There is a simple truth that the setup of the HCIW system wants to gloss over: if an assistant coach doesn't feel a sense of loyalty to his program or his head coach then he's not going to stick around if something better comes along. 

If you do want to entice a popular and talented assistant coach to remain on staff, an annuity deal like the one Jim Weaver structured for Bud Foster is a much smarter way to do it. You can argue that the $800,000 Foster is due in addition to his salary in 2014 is too low a figure or too long a delay on the payout. But with each passing season it makes less financial sense for Bud to accept a position elsewhere as he approaches his payout. And with each passing season any position that might lure Bud away from VT would have to come after him with an increasingly larger paycheck. But let's not kid ourselves. Eight hundred grand in four years isn't going to keep Bud in Blacksburg if a BCS program he feels he can win at makes him an offer. Turnover is the reality of any compensated position in competitive sports. 

I want Bud Foster to be the next head coach at Virginia Tech as badly as anyone. But naming him head coach in waiting would have no bearing at all on whether or not he actually is.

Friday, December 10, 2010

VT vs. Stanford, Just (more) Numbers

Man. If you guys only knew the working conditions around here. Illinois Hokie cracks the whip like nobody’s business. And the pay? Pssshhhhhh. He pays in mere shillings.

Please disregard the fact I love this shit and nerd-bombing college football stats and overanalyzing what most people consider irrelevant number banter - is my bag, baby.

So “VT vs. Stanford, Just Numbers” below started to break down our Orange Bowl match-up. Started simple, using ours and Stanford’s offensive outputs against their respective schedule and the opposing team’s defensive ranks.

I made the point that JMU was removed from our schedule, in that calculation – and Sacramento State removed from Stanford’s calculations – because I couldn’t get a comparative defensive *ranking* for those schools. As they are both 1-AA opponents.

Then the boss pointed out that I could use the average scores our opposing defenses give up versus how many points we (VT & Stanford) scored against those defenses – and determine which team scored higher above their opponent’s average points allowed. This would yield another predictable score model, and allow for the inclusion of JMU and Sacramento State into the equation.

Ask, and ye shall receive:

Boise – Average yield 13.6 points – VT scored 30 – VT scored 220.6% of BSU yield.
JMU – Average yield 14.7 points – VT scored 16 – VT scored 108.6% of JMU yield.
ECU – Average yield 43.4 points – VT scored 49 – VT scored 112.9% of ECU yield.
BC – Average yield 19.5 points – VT scored 19 – VT scored 97.4% of BC yield.
NCST – Average yield 22.5 points – VT scored 41 – VT scored 182.2% of NCST yield.
CMU – Average yield 26.0 points – VT scored 45 – VT scored 173.1% of CMU yield.
Wake – Average yield 35.8 points – VT scored 52 – VT scored 145.3% of Wake yield.
Duke – Average yield 35.4 points – VT scored 44 – VT scored 124.3% of Duke yield.
GT – Average yield 26.2 points – VT scored 28 – VT scored 106.9% of GT yield.
UNC – Average yield 22.9 points – VT scored 26 – VT scored 113.5% of UNC yield.
Miami – Average yield 19.7 points – VT scored 31 – VT scored 157.4% of Miami yield.
UVA – Average yield 28.3 points – VT scored 37 – VT scored 130.7% of UVA yield.
FSU – Average yield 19.8 points – VT scored 44 – VT scored 222.2% of FSU yield.

VT averages scoring 145.8% of our opponent’s average yield.

Given a Stanford average yield of 17.8 points, looks like we’re going to score 26.


SacST – Average yield 24.7 points – Stanford scored 52 – Stanford scored 210.3% of SacST yield.
UCLA – Average yield 30.3 points – Stanford scored 35 – Stanford scored 115.5% of UCLA yield.
Wake – Average yield 35.8 points – Stanford scored 68 – Stanford scored 189.9% of Wake yield.
Notre D – Average yield 20.5 points – Stanford scored 37 – Stanford scored 180.5% of Notre D yield.
Oregon – Average yield 18.4 points – Stanford scored 31 – Stanford scored 168.5% of Oregon yield.
USC – Average yield 26.7 points – Stanford scored 37 – Stanford scored 138.6% of USC yield.
WashST – Average yield 35.8 points – Stanford scored 38 – Stanford scored 106.1% of WashST yield.
Wash – Average yield 31.2 points – Stanford scored 41 – Stanford scored 131.4% of Wash yield.
Zona – Average yield 21.6 points – Stanford scored 42 – Stanford scored 194.4% of Zona yield.
ZonaST – Average yield 25.0 points – Stanford scored 17 – Stanford scored 68.0% of ZonaST yield.
Cal – Average yield 22.6 points – Stanford scored 48 – Stanford scored 212.4% of Cal yield.
OregonST – Average yield 26.8 points – Stanford scored 38 – Stanford scored 141.8% of OregonST yield.

Stanford averages scoring 154.8% of their opponent’s yield.

Given a VT average yield of 19.1 points, looks like they’re going to score 30.

These results don’t surprise me. In the numbers post below, Stanford was averaging scoring ~2 points/game more than us against slightly inferior (by defensive ranking) defenses.

My super whamadyne high-level math yielded Stanford 34, VT 31 in that post. Using Illinois Hokie’s suggested re-work forecast, came up with Stanford 30, VT 26 here today.

Of course, both of those exclude the Beamerball factor. And of course the fact that a certain Tyrod Taylor doesn’t mind strapping 21 other guys on his back sometimes and running shit.

[[as per usual, again credit to cfbstats.com]]

Thursday, December 9, 2010

VT vs. Stanford, Just Numbers

There's been a couple requests (both on here and to me in person by people who know I'm a numbers guy) for predictions and a high-level view of our O vs. Stanford's D and their O vs. our D. Illinois Hokie will be providing a more in-depth, full game write up for the Orange Bowl in the coming weeks.


I couldn't resist doing some digging into the numbers already. Enjoy.

Boise, 4th in scoring D, 4th in total D. We scored 30.
JMU, division 1-AA. Vomit.
ECU, 118th in scoring D, 120th in total D. We scored 49.
BC, 19th in scoring D, 14th in total D. We scored 19.
NCST, 39th in scoring D, 35th in total D. We scored 41.
CMU, 59th in scoring D, 64th in total D. We scored 45.
Wake, 110th in scoring D, 101st in total D. We scored 52.
Duke, 109th in scoring D, 110th in total D. We scored 44.
GT, 60th in scoring D, 66th in total D. We scored 28.
UNC, 46th in scoring D, 32nd in total D. We scored 26.
Miami, 21st in scoring D, 16th in total D. We scored 31.
UVA, 72nd in scoring D, 77th in total D. We scored 37.
FSU, 22nd in scoring D, 41st in total D. We scored 44.

So, taking out the vomitious JMU game since I can't get rankings on them to see how bad only scoring 16 points *really* was…….

We averaged 37.17 points per game. We played against average defenses of 57th in scoring, and 57th in total yards. (please note that I realize that the 37.17 points/game I list here is different than the previous post where I list us scoring 35.5 points/game. This is because here, since I’m looking at our scoring versus certain ranked defenses, I removed the JMU game and the 16 points we scored that day from our calculations since JMU doesn’t have a D1A defensive ranking to help me calculate. Or for those in *certain* mountain regions West of campus, help me do some 'ciphering.)

Sacramento State, division 1-AA.
UCLA, 85th in scoring D, 95th in total D. They scored 35.
Wake, 110th in scoring D, 101st in total D. They scored 68.
Notre Dame, 29th in scoring D, 47th in total D. They scored 37.
Oregon, 14th in scoring D, 25th in total D. They scored 31.
USC, 63rd in scoring D, 82nd in total D. They scored 37.
WashST, 110th in scoring D, 118th in total D. They scored 38.
Wash, 93rd in scoring D, 84th in total D. They scored 41.
Arizona, 33rd in scoring D, 37th in total D. They scored 42.
ArizonaST, 57th in scoring D, 59th in total D. They scored 17.
Cal, 40th in scoring D, 19th in total D. They scored 48.
OregonST, 64th in scoring D, 87th in total D. They scored 38.

Similar to our ignoring JMU, for Stanford I’ll be ignoring their game against Sacramento State (I won’t mention that they scored 52, not 16, against their 1AA opponent and won their game, cough). Since I can’t get defensive ranking for Sac State….

So, Stanford scored an average of 39.27 points/game. They did this against average defenses of 63rd in scoring, and 69th in total yards.

They scored ~2 more points/game than us against slightly inferior defenses, on average.

We’re matching up our 19th ranked scoring offense/38th ranked total offense against their 9th ranked scoring defense/24th ranked total defense.

They’re bringing their 8th ranked scoring offense/14th ranked total offense against our 16th ranked scoring defense/40th ranked total defense.

If I give triple weight to their 68 points scored on Wake Forest’s 110th scoring defense/101st total defense, and our 52 points scored on the same Wake defense (only common opponent), and I give double weight to our scoring against Boise State and Miami (highest ranking defenses we faced), and I give double weight to their scoring against Oregon and Arizona (highest ranking defenses they faced), and I extrapolate using a kriging method, favoring a predominance for multiple regression. I then factored out weather concerns and assuming a purely neutral location, interpolating and inputting a 50/50 fan base ratio as a linear analog, and utilizing a geostatistical version of Pohl’s paradox for future forecast prediction. I came up with a simple sum of the least squares algorithm, like a stochastic model derived from a variogram, using scoring and total defense as covariants.

All other variables remain sustainable, ordinary and non-unity integers, I predict the final score to be:

Stanford 34, VT 31.

Of course, I didn’t account for any Beamerball in my equations.

VT 34, Stanford 26. As you can see, dog shit > me doing math.

[[as always with posts this heavy on stats/rankings, mad props out to cfbstats.com.]]

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

I Think It's Time We Addressed Something...

Well, since the name of this site is dedicated to the eradication of one man's employment - and since subject man just had the best year of his career in said employment - I think it's time we here at FBS addressed something.

For us, it's very simple really.

And that's unfortunate for him.

You see, with the talent we've had on offense, we expected outputs like this year, EVERY year. Not 5 years in. Not 6, not 7, not 8..... It's not like Bryan was brought in from a career in real estate or chimney sweeping and asked to take on the task of coordinating an offense in major college football. He has been at VT longer than that, and (gasp), worked on the offensive side of the ball before being given the reigns to the offense. So his learning curve should have been.....at least fast enough to know to run the ball on 3rd down with less than 2 minutes left against Boise State when they're out of timeouts and we're up by 4 points......

So, 9 years later the man has a career year and we're all supposed to just forget about the last near-decade of futility? Just the same that Bryan-hater-haters tell us that we can't write up hatemail and call for a firing after one horrible game, or one horrible season (after another) - we get to throw that right back at you now. One good game and one good season doesn't mean we still don't think he should be replaced.

[insert actual VT fandom thought here: since we all know with Frank's dedication to his step-son, and Frank's love affair with certain phrases: "coached 'em up good", "coaching consistency", and "10 wins per season" come to mind.....we all know Bryan will be our OC next year. Unless dear God, he got a HC gig somewhere. Louisiana Lafeyette, cough. Pray. Sorry, I digress. Since we all know that Bryan will be back and be our OC next year. Let me state it now that we here at FBS are truly VT fans and alumni, and we hope to close this blog for good solid football reasons one day, and since we all admit he'll be back next year.....let's hope and pray that the (END of the) 2010 season is a sign of things to come and maybe someone who took 9 years to turn the corner. 6 years longer than he would have had at any other university, but hey. We're kinda slow in the Fancy Gap Mountain region, y'all.]

[insert obligatory VT fandom thought, part deux: we love Frank here. Frank is awesome. We think 9 years is too long. But hey, no one saw 11-2 this year after our start. Dammit man, Frank earned another pass for his nephew/son/took-a-rib-out-and-made-a-Bryan.]

So, our standard mantra remains: Bryan shouldn't be removed from the VT staff entirely. I feel like I caveat my writings here ad nauseum, but he is apparently a helluva guy, a helluva hugger, a helluva practice coach, a helluva recruiter, etc. - he just can't (or couldn't?) put a gameplan together and run an offense during a game. Or even simpler, as proven by his son's Madden expertise rising to the top this season, he couldn't put good playcalls in to take advantage of our offensive weapons DURING a game. Soooooo, keep him on staff, move him back to OL and TE coach, make him lead recruiter. Make him head of hugging. Whatever, keep him around because he clearly offers something to the team. Even if sometimes some of us feel what he offers is his silence and non-release of disturbingly embarrassing photos of Frank in a compromising position. Hire Kevin Rogers back to be our OC. He's probably gone from the Vikings anyways with Childress out and Favre retiring (maybe? again?).

Let's give credit where credit is due. Earlier I said, "career year", for him. Seriously:

19th in scoring offense in the nation. 35.5 points per game.
38th in total offense in the nation. 411.1 yards per game.

1st in the nation in turnover margin. Only 12 turnovers lost all year. That's 4th in the nation by itself.

28th in the nation in 3rd down efficiency. 45.18% 3rd down conversions.
10th in the nation in red zone efficiency. Scoring 90% of the time.
(35th in the nation in red zone touchdown efficiency. Scoring TD's 65% of the time.)

And 19th in the nation in time of possession. At almost 32 minutes per game TOP.

These all are great, for him, for us, for VT. Great. We expect this. We want to be a top tier team, year in, year out. We want to be this good, EVERY year.

BUT.....I also said earlier that it's "simple" and it's "unfortunate for him".

You see, this season, we fielded probably our best offense of all time, player wise. We are loaded on offense, LOADED. And, rightly so, T-Mobile is starting to get recognized as the amazing player and quarterback that he is. He broke just about every available VT offensive record, and started getting deservedly compared to the original great one, MV7. Our stable of RB's goes without saying. Perhaps even having 3 guys who will eventually play on Sundays. Our WR's are great, with a future NFL'er in JB81 - and with the right agent and combine scores, perhaps a Welker type who could catch on somewhere in DC19. And because of his size and blocking ability, and now finally getting to show off his hands, also possibly a Sunday player in AS88. I won't even mention the hogs up front. They know their job, and they do it every day without proper recognition. But we know how good they are, and how tough they are, regardless if any of them are missing pieces of fingers.

Simple......we EXPECTED these rankings and outputs with this offense. So he didn't overperform. He........performed. Had we been top 10 in those categories, we'd have a different conversation.

More simple......we'll use comparison's sake. Bryan had the greatest VT offense ever assembled to work with, and came up with those stats and rankings. The almighty Bud Foster (moment of silent prayer that includes the words "please not Vanderbilt") had to put together a defense that included 7 new starters and was considered the youngest, by class, defense we've had in the last decade, and dealt with injuries to a couple starters. The almighty Bud Foster, for comparison's sake, took this not-greatest-defense-ever-assembled and popped everyone in the eye with a 16th national ranking in scoring defense and a 40th national ranking in total defense. (should also mention that for Bryan to get credit for being first in the nation in turnover margin, the lunchpail group had to play a part and bring in 30 of their own, also 4th in the nation by itself to bring in 30.)

So, before we all go fellating each other over Bryan's career year:
-Best VT offense ever assembled, Bryan's career year: 19th/38th nationally scoring/total offense.
-Run of the mill, Bud-Foster-does-what-Bud-Foster-does year: 16th/40th nationally scoring/total defense. In what was considered a "down" year for Saint Bud....

Comparisons are fun. I like Bud Foster. I like beer. And I like breasts.

See, simple.

And finally, the most simple, and most unfortunate part of this year for one Bryan Stinespring.

On Saturday, September 11th, we stood in a rainstorm to watch his alma mater score 21. And watch our alma mater score 16.

And for that, he'll never be forgiven. Ever. In fact, I still want to punch him in the neck.

Monday, December 6, 2010

I'm just gonna put this out there.

Cam Newton
165 completions on 246 attempts (67%)
2,589 passing yards (15.7 yards per completion, 10.5 yards per attempt)
28 passing touchdowns, 6 interceptions
242 rushes for 1,409 yards (5.8 yards per carry)
20 rushing touchdowns (1 TD per 12 carries)

Tyrod Taylor
172 completions on 284 attempts (61%)
2,521 passing yards (14.7 yards per completion, 8.9 yards per attempt)
23 passing TDs, 4 interceptions
130 rushes for 637 yards (4.9 yards per carry)
5 rushing touchdowns (1 TD per 26 carries)

If Cam Newton is the runaway Heisman favorite, Tyrod deserves an invitation to New York.

Sunday, December 5, 2010

Stinespring Figures Out Crossing Routes, Danny Coale Benefits

Stiney tried calling a crossing route to Danny Coale earlier this season and if I remember correctly, it resulted in a wide open touchdown. Surprisingly, Stiney may have actually learned from that play. Coale had two receptions last night on crossing routes, both wide open. The first reception was 28 yards and the second catch went for a 45 yard TD in the 3rd quarter. On the first reception, Tyrod started to scramble to his right which drew a defender away from Danny Coale on the left side of the field before Tyrod found him. A blown coverage left DC open for the second reception. It feels weird to see Stiney calling plays with some misdirection or plays that actually work, but let's hope it's a trend that continues.

EDIT: As I'm watching the replay of the game, it looks like there was a third crossing route play called for Danny Coale, resulting in a 46 yard completion on 3rd down in the 4th quarter. It was executed perfectly so that Boykin was able to come across and block the defender covering DC, leaving him wide open yet again. It's great to see plays work perfectly.

Saturday, December 4, 2010

ACC Championship Game - Open Thread

Friday, December 3, 2010

Game to Watch - Week 14

Virginia Tech vs Florida State
7:45 PM, ESPN


Nothing will erase the clusterfuck that was the JMU loss. It will be forever enshrined as the lowest point of the Beamer Era. Let's be clear about that.

Let's also be clear that tomorrow VT has the opportunity to follow up that debacle with its longest winning streak since 1999. Will a fourth ACC championship in seven years cleanse the palate of the excrement enchilada served up on a cold, wet Saturday in early September? I don't know. But I'd love to find out.

In our way is our ultimate boogey man, the albatross constantly around our necks. Florida State has pretty much had its way with us since Frank Beamer took over the program. Frank has faced the Seminoles eight times. He's lost seven of them. Usually in bizarre fashion. Like in the 2005 ACC championship game, when a blocked punt gave the Seminoles the momentum to upset the Hokies. Or the 2008 game in Tallahassee when both our first and second string quarterbacks got knocked out of the game. Or the Sugar Bowl for the BCS Championship, when we came roaring back to take the lead in the 3rd quarter, only to watch it all fall apart with one perfect pass from Chris Weinke to Peter Warrick. 

There is, in fact, only one Virginia Tech quarterback who has ever managed to notch a win against Florida State under Frank Beamer: 

Tyrod Motherfucking Taylor.

Tyrod has played his last game at Lane Stadium. He's got two games left to go as a Hokie. And he's going to do everything in his power to make sure the last game of his collegiate career in in the Orange Bowl. Forget Bryan Stinespring's playcalling. Tyrod Taylor ain't going out like a bitch.

PREDICTION: Virginia Tech 38, Florida State 28


Unique Visitors Since 4/20/09
Legal Mumbo-Jumbo
firebryanstinespring.blogspot.com (FBS) is an independent website, unaffiliated with Virginia Tech and/or its athletics department. Opinions expressed on this website are solely those of the administrators or contributors that express them.