VT CFP Championship Game and Playoff Analysis
A coronation for the best VT team of the last 20 years and an analysis on how it all went down.
Note: All predicted scores and game stats come directly from the model. Scenarios and narratives from simulated games are fictional, but are an approximation based on my reading of the model-generated data combined with how the teams performed in real life, including their strengths, weaknesses, and tendencies. For example, if we see that a team lost by two touchdowns and threw a lot more passes than it averaged during the season, we can assume that it got down early, failed to establish the run, and started airing it out in an effort to get back into the game.
It’s championship Friday - time to crown the best Virginia Tech football team of the last 20 years. There has been a lot of real (not simulated) football since the semi-finals a week ago, so let’s quickly review how we got here.
Both the 2004 and the 2009 team had a first round bye. The 2004 team knocked out the #5 and #1 seeds by an average margin of 17 points. In those games, the team averaged 31.5 ppg while allowing just 14.5. The two teams VT 2004 defeated (VT 2007 and VT 2005) were probably the closest Virginia Tech has come to fielding a National Championship team on the field since 2000.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the bracket, the 2009 team won a couple of nail-biters over two of the most high-powered Virginia Tech teams in recent memory: the Jerod Evans-led 2016 team and 2010 Tyrod Taylor-Ryan Williams-Darren Evans-David Wilson team.
The Pregame Chatter
Looking first at the pregame matchup of full season stats, one would have to give a slight advantage to the 2009 team from an offensive perspective:
However, the VT CFP stats (two games for each team) tell a more intriguing story:
The 2004 team had a tougher road to the championship, with an average opponent seed of 3 and ELO of 1999. Given the 67-point average ELO difference, it should not be a surprise VT 2004 is 2-0 in the playoff, but the 17-point margin of victory is eye opening. However, considered alongside a 2:1 run/pass ratio, 87.5 average total yards per game margin, and a 9.2 to 5.2 edge in yards per pass attempt, it is not particularly surprising.
The 2009 team, despite playing a lower average seed (5 vs. 3), only averaged an ELO advantage of 10 points. This team squeaked by two opponents that were its overall equal. The main difference was Ryan Williams and Tyrod Taylor in the run game (47.5 carries per game as a team for 174 ypg). In most other areas, the 2009 team was on par with, or slightly behind, its opponents. If I were 2009 Bud Foster, I would be losing sleep over the defense, particularly the 417 yards given up per game and 6.3 yards per play. VT 2004 completely shut down both of its opponents. Points will likely be at a premium in the championship game for the 2009 team, but at the same time, the 2004 offense is not nearly at the level of the 2016 or 2010 units. Still, seeding aside, the 2004 team enters the championship game with a 172-point ELO advantage. That’s the sort of difference that shows up on film. Entering this game, both team know the 2004 team is favored.
3 Parts Coronation, 1 Part Competition
Too often, championship games end up being blowouts. While that was not necessarily the case in this game, one could not really call it close either. The 2004 team led 7-0 after one quarter and 13-0 at the half. While the deficit was only two scores, it felt like more, as the 2009 offense could not sustain a drive on offense.
Bryan Randall struggled in the passing game, completing less than 50% of his pass attempts on the day, with one interception. The 2004 Hokies also lost two fumbles, marking their third straight playoff game with three turnovers. And just like in the previous two games, it did not matter one iota against the 2009 team, which did not convert any of those turnovers into points.
Trailing 13-0 midway through the third quarter, the 2009 offense finally put together a good drive, going 70 yards in 12 plays, capped off by a Ryan Williams three-yard TD plunge. The momentum, however, was short-lived, as the 2004 offense responded with a touchdown drive of their own to extend the lead to 20-7.
At this point, with 11:28 to go in the fourth quarter and down by two touchdowns, the 2009 team tried to open up the offense some. Taylor attempted a pass on first down, but Williams got flagged for holding on a blitz pickup. On first and 20, Foster again dialed up a blitz, and this one got home. On second and forever, the 2009 team tried to set up a screen play, but it was snuffed out for a minimal gain. On third and 26, Taylor looked long, but seeing no open receivers, he attempted to run for the first down. He gained 15 yards, but was forced out of bounds well short of the first down marker.
With victory less than 10 minutes away, the 2004 team set about eating up as much clock as possible. They ran the ball eight times and gained 43 yards before being forced to punt. The drive took nearly five minutes off the clock, and the ensuing Vinnie Burns punt pinned the 2009 team inside its own ten-yard line. Nearing desperation mode, Tyrod Taylor attempted to hit Danny Coale on a first down slant pattern. The ball was tipped at the line of scrimmage and intercepted by LB Xavier Adibi, who returned it 17 yards for the game-clinching touchdown.
The final score was 27-7, and the 2004 team left no doubt as to which was the best Virginia Tech football team in the post-Michael Vick era.
VT CFP Analysis
So, if you’re like me, you’re probably thinking - why did the 2004 team win the playoff? And how?
The simple answer is good enough offense and elite defense, as measured by advanced statistics. The more complex answer is as follows:
The 2004 team had nearly double the Net EPA (0.1714) of any other team in the playoff (second place was the 2017 team at 0.0996). This is an unadjusted number (ELO is used to control for strength of record in the model), but taken on its face, it demonstrates just how good the 2004 team was. Tech finished 5th nationally in Net EPA in 2004, two spots ahead of National Champion USC.
Defense wins championships, and the 2004 defense was National Championship-level good, finishing second among major conference teams that year to NC State in Defensive EPA (note: the 2004 VT defense scored five touchdowns). Remember, the Wolfpack beat Tech that year 17-16 in Lane Stadium, when VT’s Brandon Pace missed a 43-yard field goal at the buzzer. I was in the stadium that day and remember how the ball was spotted incorrectly at the 26-yard line, two yards back of where Tech should have scrimmaged. Since the kick missed by inches, it is possible this snafu by the officials cost Tech the game. Anyway, NC State sacked Tech QB Bryan Randall 10 times that day. Football has changed a lot over the last 20 years, thanks to the proliferation of air raid and spread offenses, but as a point of comparison, VT 2004’s Def EPA of -0.1760 was almost twice as good as 2009 Alabama’s -0.0990 (lower is better), which led the nation that year. And that Alabama defense held Tech’s 2009 team to 155 yards of total offense. Tyrod Taylor was 9-20 for 91 yards passing, and the Hokies ran the ball 31 times for 64 yards. Is it any wonder that the 2009 Hokies lost by 20 to VT 2004 after losing by 10 to 2009 Alabama (in real life)?
In a playoff comprised of middling to atrocious offenses, the 2004 offense was good enough. Out of 19 Hokies teams (remember, there was not sufficient data from 2003), here is how the 2004 team ranked on five key offensive advanced stats:
Explosiveness - 11th (0.9912)
Power Success - 1st (0.7907)
O-Line Yards - 4th (3.0315)
Open Field Yards - 12th (0.9061)
Points per Opportunity - 13th (-0.1239)
Tech defenses after 2017 were not even remotely in the same ballpark as the earlier teams, but the same can be said for the offenses. Although Covid made 2020 a weird year, there is no denying that Tech was stacked on offense. Compare the 2004 team’s numbers above to the 2020 team’s:
Explosiveness - 2nd (1.2439)
Power Success - 11th (06792)
O-Line Yards - 1st (3.2385)
Open Field Yards - 1st (2.0626)
Points per Opportunity - 2nd (3.6835)
It’s a shame that Covid had such a severe impact on the defense (player absences, conditioning issues, etc.), and the transition from Foster’s to Hamilton’s defense could not have come at a more unfortunate time. That team could have very easily won nine games, in which case Justin Fuente might still be coaching in Blacksburg.
Up Next
So, that’s it. As demonstrated quantitatively over the last four weeks, the 2004 team is the best Virginia Tech team of the last 20 years, and by not a small margin. Yes, I know, the 2003 team got the last second playoff boot, but they were not a realistic threat to win the whole thing. Same with the 2019 team that did not qualify.
While it is fun to play with models and simulate hypotheticals, there is a broader reason for embarking on this journey. If the logical first question is, What was the best team of the last N years? then a natural follow-up would be, What does that mean for the program in 2023? Coming up, I will connect the results of the VT CFP to the program as it stands in 2023 via two analyses:
What would be the expected outcome if each year’s Virginia Tech team played against the National Champion from that year (e.g., 2019 VT vs. 2019 LSU)? In 5 out of the last 19 years, the Hokies have played the eventual champion (Tech went 1-4 in those games), but only the 2016 game against Clemson was played in the postseason on a neutral field.
What would be the expected outcome if Virginia Tech’s best team (the 2004 team) played against the National Champion from each year in the postseason at a neutral site?
The first analysis is designed to quantify how close VT has gotten to fielding a National Championship contender since 2004, and the second analysis is designed to demonstrate how much better (or worse) National Champions have gotten over the last 19 years (here, the 2004 team will serve as a control). Overall, the goal is to discover how close the program got to the pinnacle of college football post-1999, and how far it must travel to get back to the top.
Once we have that context set, I expect to dive into recruiting and the roster from an analytics perspective. I am particularly interested in geospatial trends and dynamics that will help shed light on both strategy and outcomes for the Hokies and their primary competitors out on the recruiting trail.