2008.09.02
Tech's unlikely loss: What The Beamer File says
Virginia Tech's loss to East Carolina Saturday in Charlotte wasn't a surprise just because Tech was a perennial power ranked #17 going up against a smaller, unranked program from a mid-size conference.
Search through Tech's record under Coach Frank Beamer (The Datasphere's Beamer File), and you find the loss is exceptional in a number of ways.
-- Tech has played seven games in the month of August under Beamer, and lost only one, in 2004, to USC -- ironically the same team that bludgeoned UVa in its opener Saturday. (The 2000 season opener against Georgia Tech was cancelled mid-game due to lightning.)
-- Tech is 15-5 in season openers under Beamer. It's last loss was that same USC game in 2004. For the next opening game loss, you have to go all the way back to 1995.
-- Tech is 9-4 against ECU. For the last loss to ECU, go all the way back to a game in 1992.
UVa's 52-7 shellacking Saturday was less surprising, and not only because they were taking on a visiting USC team that came with a #3 ranking. Here's what The Groh Profile shows:
-- UVa is 1-4 in August since 2001, when Al Groh took over the head coaching job.
-- The Cavs are just 3-5 in season openers under Groh.
-- It was the Cavaliers first game against USC or any PAC 10 opponent, but their third game against a top 5 opponent during Groh's tenure. The were 1-1 before Saturday, including a 2005 upset of #4 Florida State.
Yawn.
Comment by Jimmy Hancock — September 2, 2008 @ 1:21 pm
Are you serious, Colonial Athletic Association? ECU hasn't been in the CAA in over 10 years for football. This is a complete joke, ECU may be in Conference USA but the CAA do some research, get some correct facts...and not waste our time.
Comment by Keith — September 2, 2008 @ 8:00 pm
You make no sense. VT is a power house in a weak conference. Now that FSU and Miami are weak the whole conf. stinks. Haven't won a BCS in 6 or 8 years. BOOOOO! Talk to us when you have a real story
Comment by Joey — September 3, 2008 @ 3:40 am
Keith, your curious level of righteousness and ferocity notwithstanding, I want to thank you for catching my error. You're quite correct about ECU's conference change. I was concerned there was an error in the database itself -- there wasn't. It was all me not noticing the change in conferences. The post has been corrected.
Comment by Matt — September 3, 2008 @ 10:12 am
This is a meaningless post on a few accounts:
1. "perennial power ranked #17"
Perennial 2nd tier Power since Mike Vick. That's not perennial and never winning a BCS bowl game tells you a lot.
2.Tech has played seven games in the month of August under Beamer, and lost only one, in 2004, to USC --
Who has tech played in those openers? Furman, ECU? Please
3. Tech is 15-5 in season openers under Beamer. It's last loss was that same USC game in 2004. For the next opening game loss, you have to go all the way back to 1995.
See above - check the schedule
Tech does a great job against mediocre competition and will continue in that vein till they begin recruiting character players and stay out of the Hampton area. These student athletes don't even attend class ( Marcus Vick did not show up for classes, just the tests)
Comment by Jack — September 4, 2008 @ 9:35 am
Matt:
First I am impressed that you posted my post. Thank you. Next, I researched the last 10 season opener opponents and here is what I got:
ECU
NorthEastern
WVU
So Cal
UCF
Arkansas State
Ucon
Ga Tech
JMU
ECU
Over these 10 years, Tech lost against the good team and beat the dogs. Duh. Any doubt that you or I would be 15 and 5 in openers? Matt, you need to probe deeper into your own files.
Comment by Jack — September 4, 2008 @ 1:11 pm
Hey Jack, why wouldn't I post it? In this business -- by which I mean journalism, not blogging -- you put yourself out there, and you take what comes, defend yourself when you think it's necessary, and move on. (Though I will say you sports fans are rather more vociferous in your remarks than most.) I guess I also think of this blog as something different than what you're accustomed to. I'm not trying to offer the be-all, end-all analysis here. I'm just trying, first of all,to tell people these databases I offer exist so they'll go and use them, and second of all, start a conversation about the data. Thank you, Jack,
for bothering to engage in both. You made a comment and contributed to the conversation, and more importantly, you went and discovered the data for yourself and did some good analysis. You brought something new to the conversation. That's all I'm trying to get done. I approve almost all comments unless they're too personal, way off topic or inappropriate, otherwise I'm stifling the conversation I'm trying to start. I'm not -- you probably already guessed -- not in the sports department. I'm a news data guy, and I'm pretty indiscriminate about the data that interests me or interests readers. Could be sports, could be crime, could be real estate sales, could be liquor sales. I'm not an expert on any of it. My job is to get it out there, let you know its there, and get you to use it. Anyway, thanks again for your comments and analysis.
Comment by Matt — September 4, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
Your data blogs are excellent. I reviewed the commitments site as well. This is good stuff. Thanks for explaining the site and your purpose - I get it and thanks again.
One last observation from the Beamer Data:
He is 6-27 against top 10 opponents
Comment by Jack — September 4, 2008 @ 2:00 pm