Kinda funny/sad that the Sugar Bowl was the second highest game grade of the season
Once you do read his analysis, he spends most of the time recapping irrelevant historical information instead of giving his thoughts on the upcoming season. Take the section on running backs, for example. I count a 22 line paragraph that is supposed to be about the 2012 VT running back situation. But the first 19 lines are devoted to Evans, Williams, Wilson, and Oglesby before he makes the first mention of a back that is actually on the 2012 roster.
For everything he wrote, there was only one sentence that actually has anything to do with 2012. It was the final sentence that said "This year they lose Oglesby and Wilson and even with the addition of 3 VHTís, I donít see another RB of Wilsonís caliber waiting in the wings so Iíll call them down a few notches."
For someone regarded as one of the best in the business, that strikes me as an incredibly shallow analysis. Instead of spending the time recapping the Evans, Williams, Wilson situation over the last four years, maybe some of that could have been spent providing the names of the freshmen running backs and projecting how their skills will (or won't) fit in with the VT offense.
He expects Redmen as starter at TE? That would be nice if he stepped up.
I think for the most part we played great in the Sugar Bowl. We dominated Michigan on defense, and our offense was pretty good. We just struggled in the red zone. Obviously that's what really matters at the end of the day, but I'm very encouraged by our performance in the Sugar Bowl. Michigan was a good team, and we were better - we just sucked in one of the many phases of the game(albeit an important one).
Keep in mind that at its core, PS's mag is for bettors.