Ha! Told You!

UNC voted 23 after losing their ENTIRE defensive line and 15 players to either academic casualty or transfer.

Slap in the face to UCF. They really should be in the top 20.

(07-31-2014 11:20 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Slap in the face to UCF. They really should be in the top 20.

How can you replace your starting QB and RB and be a top 20 team?

(07-31-2014 11:20 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  UNC voted 23 after losing their ENTIRE defensive line and 15 players to either academic casualty or transfer.

Look on the bright side, ECU can rack up a "Top 25 win" on September 20th. Even if the ranking is totally undeserved.

(07-30-2014 07:58 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 07:43 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 07:40 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  No doubt CTT is doing a little "coachmanship" here but he knows Cincinnati is favored in the AAC and there is a target on the team's back. We also have a talented but unproven QB in Gunner Kiel who is the lead to become the starter this year. He is being genuine about ECU as they have a good team this year and have had a strong football program for many years. Just ask UNC or NC State although they won't admit it.....

NC State wouldn't have any choice but to admit it. They haven't beaten us this decade. We cuckolded their stadium from them this fall.

You would know better than me but glancing at the series record since 1983 shows ECU has won 9 of 15. I'd say ECU has had the upper hand for some time. In fairness to NC State, they dominated in years prior to '83 but it is a "what have you done for me lately world" that we live in.

To say that NCSU dominated the series prior to 1983 does not factor in that all the games in the series had been played at NCSU through 1987 (18 games). In real terms NCSU leads the all time series 16-12. Only 3 of the 28 games have been played at ECU; 20 of the 28 games have been played at NCSU. The other 5 games in the series have been at neutral sites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Caroli...te_rivalry

(07-31-2014 11:24 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 11:20 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Slap in the face to UCF. They really should be in the top 20.

How can you replace your starting QB and RB and be a top 20 team?

By having one of the best WR corps in the country, returning 9 defensive starters, and returning one of the standout freshman RBs of the country?

So here is a question: how long before the P5 decided to make their OWN poll that only includes P5 coaches and only vote on P5 teams and NotreDame?

Why not?

Since they seem to be taking the same approach to everything else in college football.

Sam thing every pre-season. No matter how bad they might be or how many losses they suffered the previous year or how many players they lose from the previous year, the blue-bloods will always be on top in the pre-season.
Then the media boys are baffled when their teams start accumulating losses and teh AAC and MWC teams rise up through the ranks.
Every freakin' year.

(07-31-2014 11:25 AM)The Knight Time Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 11:24 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 11:20 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Slap in the face to UCF. They really should be in the top 20.

How can you replace your starting QB and RB and be a top 20 team?

By having one of the best WR corps in the country, returning 9 defensive starters, and returning one of the standout freshman RBs of the country?

yep,

UCF wins in week one they are in.

Here are the list of AAC voters (plus future AAC member).

Bill Blankenship, Tulsa; Bob Diaco, Connecticut; Justin Fuente, Memphis; (Ken Niumatalolo, Navy); George O'Leary, Central Florida; Matt Rhule, Temple; Tommy Tuberville, Cincinnati.

6/11 or 7/12 is a good percentage. 62 coaches of the 128 or whatever number of teams there are now have votes or less than 50%, and we are over 50%. This should result in a decent number of AAC votes.

Very surprised ECU didn't get one single vote.

(07-31-2014 11:25 AM)CyberBull Wrote:  So here is a question: how long before the P5 decided to make their OWN poll that only includes P5 coaches and only vote on P5 teams and NotreDame?

Why not?

Since they seem to be taking the same approach to everything else in college football.

The so called "p5 and non p5" have an equal number of votes in the coaches poll. All conferences have reps. Blame the "non p5" coaches also for not voting for their members.

UNC is a shocker. ECU & Duke entering the preseason should be higher than UNC. Again, the real question for the CFP poll will be how closely it mirrors the coaches poll when it comes out. That will show if the rail is wagging the dog.

The vaunted ACC P5 conference has 3 teams in, and it's very likely that Clemson will lose the first game vs UGA and UNC should go down to ECU on Sept 20th.

FSU is the clear outlier.

(07-31-2014 11:29 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  UCF wins in week one they are in.

Here are the list of AAC voters (plus future AAC member).

Bill Blankenship, Tulsa; Bob Diaco, Connecticut; Justin Fuente, Memphis; (Ken Niumatalolo, Navy); George O'Leary, Central Florida; Matt Rhule, Temple; Tommy Tuberville, Cincinnati.

6/11 or 7/12 is a good percentage. 62 coaches of the 128 or whatever number of teams there are now have votes or less than 50%, and we are over 50%. This should result in a decent number of AAC votes.

Very surprised ECU didn't get one single vote.

Not me. ECU has always earned it on the field.

(07-31-2014 11:31 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 11:25 AM)CyberBull Wrote:  So here is a question: how long before the P5 decided to make their OWN poll that only includes P5 coaches and only vote on P5 teams and NotreDame?

Why not?

Since they seem to be taking the same approach to everything else in college football.

The so called "p5 and non p5" have an equal number of votes in the coaches poll. All conferences have reps. Blame the "non p5" coaches also for not voting for their members.

I know that, but my point is what if the P5 decided to create a P5-only poll? There is nothing from stopping from doing that, especially after the autonomy decision comes down the next two weeks. While the poll may at first be "symbolic" at first and not have any initial bearing on the current computer polls, eventually I can see the P5 friendly media (see Brett McDouch) gravitating to this poll and eventually legitimizing a P5 only poll. I don't think that this idea is that far-fetched based on actions and comments to date.

(07-31-2014 11:36 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 11:29 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  UCF wins in week one they are in.

Here are the list of AAC voters (plus future AAC member).

Bill Blankenship, Tulsa; Bob Diaco, Connecticut; Justin Fuente, Memphis; (Ken Niumatalolo, Navy); George O'Leary, Central Florida; Matt Rhule, Temple; Tommy Tuberville, Cincinnati.

6/11 or 7/12 is a good percentage. 62 coaches of the 128 or whatever number of teams there are now have votes or less than 50%, and we are over 50%. This should result in a decent number of AAC votes.

Very surprised ECU didn't get one single vote.

Not me. ECU has always earned it on the field.

The fact that ECU did not receive a single 1st place vote in the conference media poll and zero votes in the coaches poll will be a motivating factor for the players and coaches. It's always been this way though. ECU may be the most under-appreciated team in CFB history.

After finishing No. 26 in the polls a couple years in a row in the 90s despite clearly deserving to be in, coach Logan made the players wear t-shirts to practice that read: "We're No. 26" as a motivational ploy. ECU has always had a chip on their shoulder and this year is no different.

(07-31-2014 11:39 AM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 11:31 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 11:25 AM)CyberBull Wrote:  So here is a question: how long before the P5 decided to make their OWN poll that only includes P5 coaches and only vote on P5 teams and NotreDame?

Why not?

Since they seem to be taking the same approach to everything else in college football.

The so called "p5 and non p5" have an equal number of votes in the coaches poll. All conferences have reps. Blame the "non p5" coaches also for not voting for their members.

I know that, but my point is what if the P5 decided to create a P5-only poll? There is nothing from stopping from doing that, especially after the autonomy decision comes down the next two weeks. While the poll may at first be "symbolic" at first and not have any initial bearing on the current computer polls, eventually I can see the P5 friendly media (see Brett McDouch) gravitating to this poll and eventually legitimizing a P5 only poll. I don't think that this idea is that far-fetched based on actions and comments to date.

Don't see how they could do this unless they created their own subdivision. The coaches poll HAS to take coaches from all the conferences. It has no choice. Even the AP is an FBS poll. So by virtue of what it is, they have to be allowed to vote for all FBS programs. The only way to get away with what you are suggesting would be a separate subdivision.

(07-31-2014 11:39 AM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 11:31 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  The so called "p5 and non p5" have an equal number of votes in the coaches poll. All conferences have reps. Blame the "non p5" coaches also for not voting for their members.

I know that, but my point is what if the P5 decided to create a P5-only poll? There is nothing from stopping from doing that, especially after the autonomy decision comes down the next two weeks. While the poll may at first be "symbolic" at first and not have any initial bearing on the current computer polls, eventually I can see the P5 friendly media (see Brett McDouch) gravitating to this poll and eventually legitimizing a P5 only poll. I don't think that this idea is that far-fetched based on actions and comments to date.

But the results here show little reason to even consider it

(07-31-2014 11:53 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 11:39 AM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 11:31 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 11:25 AM)CyberBull Wrote:  So here is a question: how long before the P5 decided to make their OWN poll that only includes P5 coaches and only vote on P5 teams and NotreDame?

Why not?

Since they seem to be taking the same approach to everything else in college football.

The so called "p5 and non p5" have an equal number of votes in the coaches poll. All conferences have reps. Blame the "non p5" coaches also for not voting for their members.

I know that, but my point is what if the P5 decided to create a P5-only poll? There is nothing from stopping from doing that, especially after the autonomy decision comes down the next two weeks. While the poll may at first be "symbolic" at first and not have any initial bearing on the current computer polls, eventually I can see the P5 friendly media (see Brett McDouch) gravitating to this poll and eventually legitimizing a P5 only poll. I don't think that this idea is that far-fetched based on actions and comments to date.

Don't see how they could do this unless they created their own subdivision. The coaches poll HAS to take coaches from all the conferences. It has no choice. Even the AP is an FBS poll. So by virtue of what it is, they have to be allowed to vote for all FBS programs. The only way to get away with what you are suggesting would be a separate subdivision.

Perhaps, but the pretext that all FBS conferences should be treated equally may easily get lost with all the autonomy discussions.

They are already saying that it's not fair to "either side" to operate under the same rules, so it's not really a stretch for them to want their 'own' poll so they can be measured against schools with "the same resources and interests". It's the same argument we have heard over the last three years....leading up to the upcoming August vote on autonomy.