It has been publicly stated many times that the goal at Virginia Tech is a National Championship in Football. With such lofty expectations and major league goals, I thought I would look into one of the methods with which the Hokies hope to achieve such a dream. Started years ago by Dave Braine and Frank Beamer, and perpetuated today by Coach Beamer and Jim Weaver, this particular method is referred to as "Scheduling for Success". So given the requirements of competing for the MNC today, are we really scheduling for success?

As an independent, Tech, during the 80’s and 90’s, played some big name teams: Alabama, Florida State, Miami (during the days they are now trying to get BACK to), Oklahoma, Clemson (during the glory years), and Florida. Of course, our schedule wasn’t filled with only these heavyweights. Tech also played the likes of East Tennessee St., William and Mary, Richmond, VMI, Wake Forest, and Rhode Island. In fact, VT played all of those featherweights in the same year - 1980 - that Tech went 8-4 played in the Peach Bowl. By the way, Tech lost to FSU, Clemson, and (ackkkkkk) Richmond during the regular season before losing to Miami in the bowl game.

Let’s fast forward two decades. Tech is no longer an independent and the Peach Bowl is nice, but let’s face it, the Peach Bowl would be a disappointment this year (when I was a student, I never thought I would say that). I don’t want to sound selfish or spoiled, but Tech football is in a different place now. So is college football. Now Roy Kramer and the BCS decide the National Championship. In determining the two most qualified combatants for the MNC, the BCS will use four factors (from the BCS website):

1. Polls - AP and Coaches - add the rankings and divide by two
2. Computer ratings - Average of: Jeff Sagarin, The New York Times, The Seattle Times, Richard Billingsley, Dunkel Index, Kenneth Massey, David Rothman and Matthews-Scripps Howard (Only the seven highest rankings for a team will be used, while the lowest of the eight will be thrown out.)
3. Strength of Schedule - calculated by determining the won/loss records of the team's opponents and the cumulative won/loss records of the teams' opponents' opponents. The formula is weighted 2/3 (66 2/3%) for the opponent's record and 1/3 (33 1/3%) for the opponents' opponents record. The team's SOS is calculated to determine in which quartile it will rank: 1-25, 26-50; 51-75; 76-100 and shall be further quantified by its ranking within each quartile (divided by 25). For example, if a team's schedule strength rating is 28th in the nation, that team would receive 1.12 points (28/25 = 1.12). Should a team play a Division I-AA opponent, only the losses of the Division I-AA team shall be used in determining the opponent's record or the opponent’s opponents' record.
4. Losses - Each loss will add a point to the team’s BCS point total

Looking at the requirements, is our schedule conducive to achieving our goal? Let’s look at the requirements one by one.

This one is pretty straightforward. The easier your games are, the more games you win. The more games you win, the higher you go in the polls. You all know the statistics about how many weeks Tech has been ranked in the last six years. Look no further than our current ranking at #5 in both polls. Scheduling for success seems to be working as far as the polls are concerned.

So many different factors go into these ratings that determining the impact of our schedule could be a little difficult. Obviously, our won/loss record is important, but many of these ratings formulas also factor in strength of schedule to varying degrees, just as the BCS does in its calculation. Look no further than Tulane and Marshall last year. They had great records, but there poor SOS left them nowhere near the top in the ratings. Scheduling for success hurts us here.

Hmmmm. Obviously, we’re affected here, but let’s look at it a little more closely. Our opponents’ won/loss record and their opponents’ won/loss record are factored in here. So not only do we have to worry about how well our opposition plays, but we have to consider the teams they play and how well those teams play. Some of this is obviously beyond VT’s control. However, you can look at teams like Akron and Kent, two perennial losers in weak conferences, and pretty much decide that they aren’t going to help you out in this area of the BCS formula. Another area VT can’t control is Big East conference strength. We know we are locked into Temple and with the current state of affairs in the BE, we can count on two other weak teams to pull down our SOS. This year WVU is joining Rutgers in that role. The best way to counter the drag of the BE is to upgrade that OOC. Texas A&M, Marshall, Wisconsin, and Auburn are all on the docket, but down the line and spread out pretty thin. Will they be enough? Let’s do the math (using Sagarin to determine opponent quality):

1999 - after playing JMU (93), UAB (62), Clemson (25), and UVA (19), VT is currently ranked #2 with a SOS rating of 35. Our four OOC opponents have an average Sagarin rating of just under 50 and we are in surprisingly good shape.

• Rutgers (112)
• Syracuse (11)
• Pitt (51)
• WVU (61)
• Miami (17)
• Temple (129)
• Boston College (60)

Our seven conference opponents have an average rating of 63, lower than our OOC opponents. Pretty sad considering we have played JMU and UAB. What might hurt the worst is that if we are undefeated in late November and in serious BCS contention, playing Temple and BC at the end could knock us out of the MNC picture. Look for our SOS to fall big time after the 20^th of November when we play Temple. Finishing with BC won’t help us very much either, especially with some very big games (i.e. UF/FSU) going on in that timeframe. I’m very afraid some big moves are going to be made in the last two weeks of the season and we won’t like which way we go.

Overall in 1999, our opponents have an average Sagarin rating of 58. Will this improve with the big names we have coming? Using the future schedules page and the Sagarin ratings as of 10/02:

• 2000 (Akron, ECU, CFU) - Sagarin Average: 63
• 2001 (W. Michigan, Central Florida, UConn) - 67
• 2002 (Marshall, Kent, Texas A&M, W. Michigan) - 59
• 2008 (Bowling Green, Wisconsin, ECU, and assuming UConn in BE) - 60

Granted, this is a quick analysis and things will certainly change, but it looks like for every big name we add, we also sign an even weaker team to offset any gains in SOS. Scheduling for success could be a problem for us over the next few years.

Losses

The easier your opponents are to beat, the less losses you will have. Scheduling for success does its job here.

In terms of Ranking and Losses, scheduling for success serves its purpose. Playing the cupcakes, you don’t lose (hopefully) and you should move up in the rankings. However, within the structure of the BCS, playing weak opponents will plague you in the Computer Ratings and Strength of Schedule categories.

So far this season, Tech has been lucky. Our OOC opponents are playing better than expected and some people ahead of us in the polls have lost in upsets. Going forward, do we want to be in a situation where we have to depend on our opponents winning their games and hope that the teams ranked higher than us lose in order for Tech to get into the MNC picture? With the BE in the football shape it’s in now, that’s exactly what we have to do.

Or would we rather play a schedule that can get us where we want to be on its own merits?

If our goal really is to win the National Championship here at Tech, we need to play by the rules set forth by the BCS to get there. Obviously, the Big East is a limiting factor. We have to overcome this with one more tough out of conference game each season. Texas A&M will help do this. Kent will not.

I realize we aren’t going to go out and schedule FSU, UF, and UT in the same year, but we don’t need to. If Jim and Frank still want to schedule some OOC cupcakes, then schedule the bottom feeders in the tough conferences. This way, you’ll still get the win and the benefit of their tougher SOS, a big help in the BCS standings. Playing a weak sister in a weak sister conference does us no good. Vanderbilt, the perennial SEC doormat, has a Sagarin ranking of 71 while Western Michigan, the current leader of the MAC conference, has a ranking of 84. If Vandy won’t play us, we could try Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma State, Northwestern, etc. These types of games would at least get VT some credit for playing against tougher conferences and it would help us mightily in the BCS race. Who knows, they might even put one of these games on TV. I doubt VT vs. Bowling Green will ever be on TV.

We should also stop playing JMU, whatever the financial benefit. Only JMU losses count in the BCS SOS formula. They haven’t hurt us this year because they haven’t lost to anyone but us. When they do lose, it will hurt. Drop ‘em.

One final reason for upgrading that OOC schedule: Wouldn’t it be nice not to need UVA to win their games?

Scheduling for success is not a straightforward deal. With the BCS as convoluted as it is, VT needs to pay attention and play by the rules put forth by Pope Roy. Piling up the wins is nice, but the fact that it could end up costing us later needs to be considered. VT is in good shape right now, however the fans will see to what extent the effect these weak teams will have on our SOS and BCS standing after this week’s game with Rutgers. Expect a pretty sizable drop.

Don’t get me wrong here. I have no doubts about Jim Weaver’s mental ability. I know Jim knows what he’s doing, but I do wonder if he is happy relying on others for Tech to get to the mountaintop. I know I’m not.

-- Worldwide Hokie