did VT "physically dominate" BSU?

this is an issue that I think spills over to all non-BCS schools: I live in ACC country and all the local talk radio today has been about how VT lost despite physically dominating BSU, and that VT was clearly the superior team, yada yada. Here's a quote from Duke's coach Cutcliffe:



"You can't make mistakes in the kicking game, nobody emphasizes it more than Frank [Beamer]. But they [Virginia Tech] were clearly the best team guys, anybody that watched the game could tell that Virginia Tech was the dominant team physically"



This is the same stuff I heard here after BYU beat OU, and especially after Utah beat Alabama. Is this a matter of personal bias more than reality? ie do these good ol boys just expect to see the traditional powers dominate the upstarts so that's what they see? Does anyone agree that BSU got physically dominated?

I think you can put stock in that comment, Who knows better about getting physically dominating than Duke football. hahahaha..Sorry i dont think the ACC a good football conf. In hoops yes all day long, but not football. FSU will destroy that whole conf.

nc-puma wrote:
this is an issue that I think spills over to all non-BCS schools: I live in ACC country and all the local talk radio today has been about how VT lost despite physically dominating BSU, and that VT was clearly the superior team, yada yada. Here's a quote from Duke's coach Cutcliffe:



"You can't make mistakes in the kicking game, nobody emphasizes it more than Frank [Beamer]. But they [Virginia Tech] were clearly the best team guys, anybody that watched the game could tell that Virginia Tech was the dominant team physically"



This is the same stuff I heard here after BYU beat OU, and especially after Utah beat Alabama. Is this a matter of personal bias more than reality? ie do these good ol boys just expect to see the traditional powers dominate the upstarts so that's what they see? Does anyone agree that BSU got physically dominated?

I can see saying it in a close game, sometimes the stats even back it up (all except the most important stat of all, the score). But anyone who said that Alabama was a better team than Utah after the absolute spanking they gave them was absolutely talking out of their rear, it wasn't even close.

Not sure you can say VT dominated when they couldn;t run the football. Controlling the line for rushing yards is ALWAYS the best indicator of physical dominance, and sorry, VT failed and did not win that battle. Sorry, but 128 rushing yards on 44 carries is AWFUL. Anyone who says VT out physicalled them needs their eyes checked. I have zero love for BSU, but they earned that win and shut down the vaunted run game of VT. They also did not let VT get within several yards of Kellen Moore when it mattered most. ACC folks are in denial.

I didn't see VT dominate BSU in the game I watched on Monday. Physically it looked fairly even, though the edge would have to go to BSU.

I think it was a toss up. Both D's were able to get penetration and pressure. But I also think BSU did not look crisp. I have seen several of their games in the past and I have to say that they did not look good offensively. I think the QB was even below average in his play. I am surprised they were able to escape with the W because of their special teams and the breakdown on VT's special teams. I thought it absolutely halarious on the one punt when the guy had two (he could have had three) flags thrown on him on one play. And I think that was VT's downfall. They did not look diciplined.



BTW - does anyone else in CF use pickle juice? It seems to me that they may be staring a gifthorse in the mouth. Go ahead guys, stick with Gatorade and we will use the pickle juice.

VT had their moments but so did BSU. Herbie and Nosebooger both were commenting all game long how BSU was so physical and athletic.



These theories are all the BCS has to hang on to in their attempts to hold down the little guys.



Ultimately, what does it matter who's more physical. Score is the only thing that matters. Finnnnnessssssssssssse! That and discipline which VT rides the short bus when it comes to that.

1st one and a half quarters = BSU dominated

Last half of second quarter to halfway through the 4th = VT dominated

Last half of the fourth = BSU dominated.



It was an evenly matched game physically, but BSU dominated at the crucial moments of the game, and that was the difference.

nc-puma wrote:
this is an issue that I think spills over to all non-BCS schools: I live in ACC country and all the local talk radio today has been about how VT lost despite physically dominating BSU, and that VT was clearly the superior team, yada yada. Here's a quote from Duke's coach Cutcliffe:



"You can't make mistakes in the kicking game, nobody emphasizes it more than Frank [Beamer]. But they [Virginia Tech] were clearly the best team guys, anybody that watched the game could tell that Virginia Tech was the dominant team physically"



This is the same stuff I heard here after BYU beat OU, and especially after Utah beat Alabama. Is this a matter of personal bias more than reality? ie do these good ol boys just expect to see the traditional powers dominate the upstarts so that's what they see? Does anyone agree that BSU got physically dominated?

The game went back and forth so much that to me it's clear that neither team clearly dominated the other. If you break it down by quarter that changes.



Q1: BSU dominated VT physically, technically, Special Teams, you name it.

Q2: VT drew level on the physicality and by the end had imposed their will on BSU

Q3: All VT

Q4: Slight Edge to BSU, but neither team was really in a position to "out-physical" the other anyway.



So I'd put it at a draw with a possible edge to VT just because I also saw so many BSU players going down with cramps. In ACC country (i.e. homerland) that's good enough to count as complete and utter domination, never mind that BSU dominated just about every statistical category (total yards, passing yards, rushing yards, turnover margin, 3rd efficiency, oh, and points).

That's why these teams consistently lose, they think they're bigger and stronger and just have to show up. Watching Pitt's painfully unimaginative play calling is a case in point. That all think they just need to hike the ball and run forward and the pathetic non-AQ schools won't be able to stop it. (for further arrogance see also, team speed, 5-star recruits, Heisman talk, and conference affiliation.)

I am not a BSU fan, but I do have eyes. Take out VT' QB's one 20+ run and VT got 100 yards on 43 carries. And VT didn't sack Moore once right? The one fumble was caused by BSU's lineman. BSU more than held there own and did what they needed to win



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

That's a typical ACC/SEC response. Anytime a west coast or spread team scores in under 2 minutes and then the southern teams grind it out think their brand of 3 yards and a cloud of dust they think it is superior. Then they will bring out their rushing yards or time of possession or how their defense limited your time of possession and rushing, and then tout how they were really the superior/more physical team. Pure nonsense!!! The Scoreboard is all that matters.



Go Cougs!



L Hatton

Louisville KY

BoiseBYU wrote:
I am not a BSU fan, but I do have eyes. Take out VT' QB's one 20+ run and VT got 100 yards on 43 carries. And VT didn't sack Moore once right? The one fumble was caused by BSU's lineman. BSU more than held there own and did what they needed to win



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

V-Tech did sack Moore once last night.

ProV1 wrote:
...conference affiliation.)

The pundits even talk about the basketball teams in BCS conferences. BCS is football only you morons!!!

The big talk after BSU beat Oklahoma was that all they brought to the game was trick plays. Well, BSU completely dominated OU for the first half. The only reason OU even got back into the game, let alone take the lead, was not the team's physical ability (or lack thereof) to play with OU. It was the coaching. They made, what I consider the worst mistake coaches can make. They came out in the second half playing conservative (not to lose). They let OU off the proverbial ropes, and didn't change that philosophy until they had given OU their first lead and a lot of confidence. They never even used a trick play until OU had taken the lead with little time remaining. Whether the east coast or the MWC want to admit it or not, BSU is a VERY good team.

Typical East Coast drivel. "We have SO much speed and physicality, no one can hang..." unless they're from the Big Ten, SEC, Big XII, MWC...

What does the ACC want? Maybe they could devise a formula that would add points to the scoreboard for team strength & speed. :roll: :roll:



Good coaches can win without "physicall dominating"



I thought BSU was fairly physical anyway.