Last year at this time, Tech fans were anxiously counting down the days to the BCA Classic against USC. But at the same time, they were very uncertain about what the season would bring. Many didn’t expect much, believing that the Hokies would finish 7-5 or 8-4 and get a decent, but not great bowl invitation. Many were wondering about the future of the program as well, and if the best days were in the past. What a difference a year makes.

I’ll admit I was having similar thoughts. I didn’t think that VT was falling to the bottom of the college football world or anything, but I wasn’t expecting anymore BCS bids, or even Gator Bowl bids, for quite awhile. I questioned Frank Beamer and Company’s ability to adapt, and I didn’t think Bryan Randall was a very good quarterback. I was also concerned about the front seven, as they lost a lot of players and were replacing them with unproven backups and freshmen.

That’s all changed this August, and I must admit the main question that creeps into my head is what team stands a greater than 40% chance of beating the Hokies? If you were forced to bet on each individual game this season, would you honestly pick anyone to beat Tech? VT will probably drop a game, maybe two, this season, but looking at the matchups individually, VT should be favored at this point in every one.

Following the 2003 season, when the program was at its low point, everyone was quick to pick on VT. Likewise, going into 2005 we must give credit where credit is due. Frank Beamer has turned it around when many thought he would not. While the 2005 Hokies will be heaped with praise during the preseason, and rightfully so, we must temper our enthusiasm and remember the things that could happen rather than what should happen.

And that brings us to the State of the Program. From December 2003-April 2004, Will Stewart wrote a series of articles called The State of the Program (part 7 is linked, and it contains links to parts 1-6) that went over everything about the VT football program, from offense and defense, to attitude, to recruiting. And for the time it was written, it was pretty much dead on accurate. But some things changed during the 2004 season that make me believe that the State of the Program is a lot different in August of 2005 than it was back then. So we’ll take a look at part of “The State of the Program” and see what has changed and what has remained the same.

The State of the Program, Part 2: The Offense - 12/11/03

The gist of this article was that VT didn’t use all their weapons, quarterback play was bad in big games, Bryan Stinespring needed help in the booth, and that the Hokies needed to start recruiting true wide receivers.

We saw three of those four questions answered in 2004. Virginia Tech definitely started using all their weapons. Jeff King caught 25 passes, while Jared Mazzetta had 14. Add Duane Brown’s three receptions and that’s 42 catches in one year for Tech’s tight ends, an unheard of number in Blacksburg.

For the most part, Bryan Randall came up huge in big games. He missed some open receivers against USC, but at the same time he helped keep the Hokies in the game with his legs. He struggled against West Virginia, but he made huge plays down the stretch to help the Hokies beat Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, UNC, Virginia and Miami. If Brandon Pace’s field goal attempt is a couple of yards to the left, then add NC State to that list as well. Randall was huge for the Hokies in 2004.

Meanwhile, Frank Beamer found himself some true wide receivers. Eddie Royal, Josh Morgan, Justin Harper, Josh Hyman and David Clowney were all recruited as wideouts. In the past, VT found wide receivers by converting players from other positions, such as running back (Justin Hamilton) and even defensive end (Ernest Wilford). He’s got another one, Todd Nolen, coming in 2006. Tech looks to be stacked at this position.

Will also suggested that Kevin Rogers join Bryan Stinespring in the booth. That didn’t happen, but Stinespring did show a lot of improvement in 2004. The offense performed poorly against NC State, but they were able to make big plays when the game was on the line to win more times than not. I still see Stinespring as no more than a C+/B- offensive coordinator at this point, but he has improved steadily in the last couple of seasons, as he grows into the position.

The State of the Program, Part 3: The Defense - 12/18/03

In the defensive article, Will pointed out that the Hokies lacked a great pass rusher, freelanced in the secondary, lacked the attack mode that previous defenses possessed, and did not have good linebacker play. In just one season, those problems have been mostly solved.

I wouldn’t call Darryl Tapp a great pass rusher, but he is very good. He posted 8.5 sacks in 2004 to go along with 23 quarterback hurries. The point about the freelancing secondary is right on in my opinion. This year the Tech defensive backs were almost always in the correct position for the team defense, rather than trying to set themselves up to get interceptions.

The defense definitely got back to attacking the opposing offense as well. There weren’t that many solo tackles in 2004; it was mostly a group effort in taking the opposing ball carrier down. And group efforts on defense are good things.

I believe the most important factor in Tech’s defense playing better was the fact that the Hokies found themselves a great run stuffing linebacker in Vince Hall. Xavier Adibi played very well as well, but remember, he missed five games and Tech was still great against the run without him. When Mikal Baaqee moved from mike to backer, a slightly less physical position, and Vince Hall took over at mike, the Tech defense became very good against the run.

Of course, it also helped that the Hokies developed some defensive linemen who could get off blocks and maintain their gap assignments. Bud Foster made some tweaks to the defensive scheme, Jimmy Williams and Vinnie Fuller switched positions, but I think the main reason for Tech’s defensive turnaround was that Bud Foster had a better corps of players in 2004, and the players that returned got a lot better (Jonathan Lewis, for example). Sounds simple, but I think that’s pretty much the truth.

The State of the Program, Part 5: Discipline, Attitude, and Leadership - 1/29/04

I would make the argument that improvements in these three categories were the main reasons that Tech went from Insight Bowl runner-ups to ACC Champions in just one season. The Hokies quit talking, played disciplined football, found some incredible leaders, and had the attitude of a champion.

Go back to last summer, about this time. Marcus Vick is suspended for the entire season. Mike Imoh and Brendan Hill are suspended for the first three games. At this point last year, it certainly didn’t seem like VT had conquered their discipline problems. But in all honestly, Vick’s suspension probably helped the Hokies more than it hurt them.

If Marcus Vick had played in 2004, a quarterback controversy could have been part of the problem for the second year in a row. Instead, Bryan Randall became the full-time quarterback by default, developed into a great senior leader, and led the Hokies to the Sugar Bowl. The 2004 team was probably better without Vick, and that’s not a knock on Marcus, his character, or his ability. Would the team have played as well for Vick down the stretch? Would Vick himself have played as well as Randall down the stretch? I don’t know, but I’m not willing to go back and find out.

Also, on-the-field discipline improved as well. As mentioned before, Tech’s defensive backs were not freelancing all over the secondary trying to pad their stats. The team didn’t commit six personal fouls against WVU like they did in 2003. They maintained their composure and held their emotions in check in key situations, unlike the 2003 team.

It’s obvious that the 2004 defense had the old blue collar attitude that previous defenses possessed. Darryl Tapp exemplified this with his hard work off the field and how hard he played on the field. The 2004 defense was skilled, but they also had that “You’re not getting in our end zone” attitude that was on full display during the goal line stand against UVA and during Miami’s last drive in the Orange Bowl. (Although I should probably call it a possession instead of a drive. The Canes didn’t exactly drive the ball anywhere.)

Of course, none of the above would have been possible without some great senior leadership. The Hokies had an abundance of that quality in 2004. Most notably, senior quarterback Bryan Randall. Randall was a play that everyone respected. He hadn’t always gotten the job done on the field, but he was competitive, a hard worker, a great guy, and a fighter.

Randall had some help from some other seniors. Guys like Jim Davis and Eric Green really stepped up their play and set good examples for younger players to follow. Almost every time the Hokies were faced with adversity, they came through it with a win. The most important point of the season followed the NC State loss, with a top ten WVU team coming to town. After losing twice in a row to WVU, and being humiliated the season before, the Hokies dominated the line of scrimmage against the Mountaineers and used the victory as a springboard to run the table for the rest of the regular season. It took great senior leadership to get past that tough NC State loss, and VT had it.

Right now, the State of the Program appears to be very strong. The 2005 recruiting class was part of the best three year recruiting period that the Hokies have ever had. And if early indications prove to be correct, the 2006 class that signs with Tech could be even better. The Hokies already have commitments from some very good players and are still in the hunt for some other big time athletes.

Hokie Club donations are at an all-time high. More money is flowing through the program than ever before. There is more interest from the fan base than in previous seasons. The stadium is being expanded. And of course, Virginia Tech is in the ACC. I could keep going on, but you understand my meaning.

The Hokies have a great chance to keep the ball rolling in 2005. Winning the Big East in 1995 and 1996 was great. The Hokies had a great defense, but Miami was a bit down from their normal top five ranking. Winning the Big East in 1999 was great, but more people remember Michael Vick and attribute that championship to his accomplishments than to the great defense and power running game. However, winning the ACC in 2004 with a quarterback who didn’t get drafted and a bunch of freshmen receivers says a lot about the program. Miami wasn’t quite top five in 2004 either, but they were top ten, and the ACC was a heck of a lot deeper than the Big East ever was.

If Tech can manage to capture the conference crown again, which it will have to do by beating Miami and (likely) Florida State, that will say a lot to the college football world, and it will say a lot to recruits. People will look back and think that 2002 and 2003 were just speed bumps, and that in reality VT is a perennial top ten team dating back to 1999. People will begin to believe that with ACC affiliation, VT will be near the top for a long time.

On the other hand, if the Hokies finish the season in 2003 fashion, those same people will start looking at 2004 as a rare great year for a program that isn’t really sinking, but is just stuck. A program that is trying to climb the mountain, but it’s just too steep, and they get stuck on the side.

That’s why I believe that 2005 is an extremely crucial season for the future of the Virginia Tech football program. It’s about national perception, and it’s about appearance to recruits. If the Hokies win the ACC again, then they take one giant leap towards becoming a true national powerhouse. Their out-of-state recruiting will get better, and the Hokies will start getting more four and five star players. If things fall right for the Hokies and they win the National Championship, then forget about the giant leap…the program is a national powerhouse by default.

However, if Tech folds in the second half of the season, or just drops a game or two that they have no excuse dropping, as they generally do when expectations are high, then the program will continue to be bogged down in the mud. Not falling off the face of the earth, but still at that “close but not there” point.