(08-21-2014 12:41 PM)zeebart21 Wrote:  

(08-20-2014 06:13 PM)RamblinRedWolf44 Wrote:  http://cfn.scout.com/2/1436237.html

121. Appalachian State
Prediction: 4-8
3 Best Players: 1) RB Marcus Cox, Soph., 2) OT Kendall Lamm, Sr., 3) LB John Law, Soph.
Relative Strengths: 1) Quarterback, 2) O Line, 3) Running Back
Spotlight Units: 1) D Line, 2) Receiver, 3) Defensive Back
The season will be a success if … the Mountaineers flirt with a winning record. 1981 and 1982. That was the last time the program suffered back-to-back losing seasons. Before that? 1956 and 1957. It would be an easy excuse to point to the better competition as a reason for a second straight dud year, but for a program that’s known nothing but tremendous success for so long, two losing seasons in two years under Scott Satterfield would be a problem. ASU can’t go to a bowl, but it can win the Sun Belt title. Just getting to seven wins would be good enough.

Before I even read the first post, Im telling you this thread is headed for the smack bin.. Shouldn't be that way, cause if you suck, you suck... Sorry.

Z

The problem with the article and your post is that a school that "suck", such as Appalachian State, "can win the Sun Belt title" with "seven wins". Therefore, the author of this asinine article and you are implying that ever school in the SBC "suck."

(08-21-2014 12:36 PM)Underdog Wrote:  The following tells you how absurd this article is (focus on bold font):

121. Appalachian State
Prediction: 4-8
3 Best Players: 1) RB Marcus Cox, Soph., 2) OT Kendall Lamm, Sr., 3) LB John Law, Soph.
Relative Strengths: 1) Quarterback, 2) O Line, 3) Running Back
Spotlight Units: 1) D Line, 2) Receiver, 3) Defensive Back
The season will be a success if … the Mountaineers flirt with a winning record. 1981 and 1982. That was the last time the program suffered back-to-back losing seasons. Before that? 1956 and 1957. It would be an easy excuse to point to the better competition as a reason for a second straight dud year, but for a program that’s known nothing but tremendous success for so long, two losing seasons in two years under Scott Satterfield would be a problem. ASU can’t go to a bowl, but it can win the Sun Belt title. Just getting to seven wins would be good enough.

Consequently, if the #121 worst FBS program "can't go to a bowl, but can win the Sun Belt title", there is something seriously wrong with the author's logic that produces an idiotic statement such as the aforementioned one about Appalachian State....

I believe what the author is trying to convey is that App State is ineligible for a bowl game, while it is eligible to win the Sun Belt title. I agree with you that this is poorly written, but I believe it is just lazy writing. I don't think the author is trying to say that we are capable of winning the Sun Belt while still missing a bowl. I believe him saying that seven wins would be good enough is his continuation of the line "the season will be a success if..." saying seven wins would be a good result for App State and a successful season.

However, this brings me to a pet peeve of mine and a common misconception about transitional teams. The author references it in his blurb about Old Dominion. Teams in their first year of FBS are ineligible for a bowl unless there are not enough bowl eligible teams. First year FBS programs (with the requisite win total) are then chosen before teams at <.500. With the new bowls this year, it is not inconceivable to think that App or Georgia Southern (with enough wins) could sneak into a bowl.

The other misconception is that Old Dominion is a year ahead of App and Georgia Southern in their transition to FBS. We are actually on the same timeline. Old Dominion however, played a mostly FBS schedule last year in their last year of FCS, so many members of the media erroneously put them in FBS last year (even ESPN's standings page had them as an FBS Independent). The author says that ODU can go to a bowl if there are not enough eligible teams, which is correct, but it is also true of App and Georgia Southern.

(08-21-2014 01:28 PM)asucrutch23 Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 12:36 PM)Underdog Wrote:  The following tells you how absurd this article is (focus on bold font):

121. Appalachian State
Prediction: 4-8
3 Best Players: 1) RB Marcus Cox, Soph., 2) OT Kendall Lamm, Sr., 3) LB John Law, Soph.
Relative Strengths: 1) Quarterback, 2) O Line, 3) Running Back
Spotlight Units: 1) D Line, 2) Receiver, 3) Defensive Back
The season will be a success if … the Mountaineers flirt with a winning record. 1981 and 1982. That was the last time the program suffered back-to-back losing seasons. Before that? 1956 and 1957. It would be an easy excuse to point to the better competition as a reason for a second straight dud year, but for a program that’s known nothing but tremendous success for so long, two losing seasons in two years under Scott Satterfield would be a problem. ASU can’t go to a bowl, but it can win the Sun Belt title. Just getting to seven wins would be good enough.

Consequently, if the #121 worst FBS program "can't go to a bowl, but can win the Sun Belt title", there is something seriously wrong with the author's logic that produces an idiotic statement such as the aforementioned one about Appalachian State....

I believe what the author is trying to convey is that App State is ineligible for a bowl game, while it is eligible to win the Sun Belt title. I agree with you that this is poorly written, but I believe it is just lazy writing. I don't think the author is trying to say that we are capable of winning the Sun Belt while still missing a bowl. I believe him saying that seven wins would be good enough is his continuation of the line "the season will be a success if..." saying seven wins would be a good result for App State and a successful season.

However, this brings me to a pet peeve of mine and a common misconception about transitional teams. The author references it in his blurb about Old Dominion. Teams in their first year of FBS are ineligible for a bowl unless there are not enough bowl eligible teams. First year FBS programs (with the requisite win total) are then chosen before teams at <.500. With the new bowls this year, it is not inconceivable to think that App or Georgia Southern (with enough wins) could sneak into a bowl.

The other misconception is that Old Dominion is a year ahead of App and Georgia Southern in their transition to FBS. We are actually on the same timeline. Old Dominion however, played a mostly FBS schedule last year in their last year of FCS, so many members of the media erroneously put them in FBS last year (even ESPN's standings page had them as an FBS Independent). The author says that ODU can go to a bowl if there are not enough eligible teams, which is correct, but it is also true of App and Georgia Southern.

I guess I should have emphasized that my main point was that Appalachian State is ranked #121, but can win the SBC... with only seven wins..... Therefore, what is the author of this asinine article implying about the rest of the SBC (read post 21)?

(08-21-2014 01:40 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 01:28 PM)asucrutch23 Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 12:36 PM)Underdog Wrote:  The following tells you how absurd this article is (focus on bold font):

121. Appalachian State
Prediction: 4-8
3 Best Players: 1) RB Marcus Cox, Soph., 2) OT Kendall Lamm, Sr., 3) LB John Law, Soph.
Relative Strengths: 1) Quarterback, 2) O Line, 3) Running Back
Spotlight Units: 1) D Line, 2) Receiver, 3) Defensive Back
The season will be a success if … the Mountaineers flirt with a winning record. 1981 and 1982. That was the last time the program suffered back-to-back losing seasons. Before that? 1956 and 1957. It would be an easy excuse to point to the better competition as a reason for a second straight dud year, but for a program that’s known nothing but tremendous success for so long, two losing seasons in two years under Scott Satterfield would be a problem. ASU can’t go to a bowl, but it can win the Sun Belt title. Just getting to seven wins would be good enough.

Consequently, if the #121 worst FBS program "can't go to a bowl, but can win the Sun Belt title", there is something seriously wrong with the author's logic that produces an idiotic statement such as the aforementioned one about Appalachian State....

I believe what the author is trying to convey is that App State is ineligible for a bowl game, while it is eligible to win the Sun Belt title. I agree with you that this is poorly written, but I believe it is just lazy writing. I don't think the author is trying to say that we are capable of winning the Sun Belt while still missing a bowl. I believe him saying that seven wins would be good enough is his continuation of the line "the season will be a success if..." saying seven wins would be a good result for App State and a successful season.

However, this brings me to a pet peeve of mine and a common misconception about transitional teams. The author references it in his blurb about Old Dominion. Teams in their first year of FBS are ineligible for a bowl unless there are not enough bowl eligible teams. First year FBS programs (with the requisite win total) are then chosen before teams at <.500. With the new bowls this year, it is not inconceivable to think that App or Georgia Southern (with enough wins) could sneak into a bowl.

The other misconception is that Old Dominion is a year ahead of App and Georgia Southern in their transition to FBS. We are actually on the same timeline. Old Dominion however, played a mostly FBS schedule last year in their last year of FCS, so many members of the media erroneously put them in FBS last year (even ESPN's standings page had them as an FBS Independent). The author says that ODU can go to a bowl if there are not enough eligible teams, which is correct, but it is also true of App and Georgia Southern.

I guess I should have emphasized that my main point was that Appalachian State is ranked #121, but can win the SBC... with only seven wins..... Therefore, what is the author of this asinine article implying about the rest of the SBC (read post 21)?

And I interpreted it as him saying that we are eligible to win the Sun Belt as opposed to capable. I don't think his blurb on App State is meant as an indictment on the SBC (I didn't interpret it as him saying seven wins would be enough to win the SBC). I think the seven wins part was in reference to what it would take for us to call it a successful season. Of course, I could be wrong.

(08-21-2014 02:24 PM)asucrutch23 Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 01:40 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 01:28 PM)asucrutch23 Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 12:36 PM)Underdog Wrote:  The following tells you how absurd this article is (focus on bold font):

121. Appalachian State
Prediction: 4-8
3 Best Players: 1) RB Marcus Cox, Soph., 2) OT Kendall Lamm, Sr., 3) LB John Law, Soph.
Relative Strengths: 1) Quarterback, 2) O Line, 3) Running Back
Spotlight Units: 1) D Line, 2) Receiver, 3) Defensive Back
The season will be a success if … the Mountaineers flirt with a winning record. 1981 and 1982. That was the last time the program suffered back-to-back losing seasons. Before that? 1956 and 1957. It would be an easy excuse to point to the better competition as a reason for a second straight dud year, but for a program that’s known nothing but tremendous success for so long, two losing seasons in two years under Scott Satterfield would be a problem. ASU can’t go to a bowl, but it can win the Sun Belt title. Just getting to seven wins would be good enough.

Consequently, if the #121 worst FBS program "can't go to a bowl, but can win the Sun Belt title", there is something seriously wrong with the author's logic that produces an idiotic statement such as the aforementioned one about Appalachian State....

I believe what the author is trying to convey is that App State is ineligible for a bowl game, while it is eligible to win the Sun Belt title. I agree with you that this is poorly written, but I believe it is just lazy writing. I don't think the author is trying to say that we are capable of winning the Sun Belt while still missing a bowl. I believe him saying that seven wins would be good enough is his continuation of the line "the season will be a success if..." saying seven wins would be a good result for App State and a successful season.

However, this brings me to a pet peeve of mine and a common misconception about transitional teams. The author references it in his blurb about Old Dominion. Teams in their first year of FBS are ineligible for a bowl unless there are not enough bowl eligible teams. First year FBS programs (with the requisite win total) are then chosen before teams at <.500. With the new bowls this year, it is not inconceivable to think that App or Georgia Southern (with enough wins) could sneak into a bowl.

The other misconception is that Old Dominion is a year ahead of App and Georgia Southern in their transition to FBS. We are actually on the same timeline. Old Dominion however, played a mostly FBS schedule last year in their last year of FCS, so many members of the media erroneously put them in FBS last year (even ESPN's standings page had them as an FBS Independent). The author says that ODU can go to a bowl if there are not enough eligible teams, which is correct, but it is also true of App and Georgia Southern.

I guess I should have emphasized that my main point was that Appalachian State is ranked #121, but can win the SBC... with only seven wins..... Therefore, what is the author of this asinine article implying about the rest of the SBC (read post 21)?

And I interpreted it as him saying that we are eligible to win the Sun Belt as opposed to capable. I don't think his blurb on App State is meant as an indictment on the SBC (I didn't interpret it as him saying seven wins would be enough to win the SBC). I think the seven wins part was in reference to what it would take for us to call it a successful season. Of course, I could be wrong.

I understand your interpetation on the point that the author was making in regards to Appalachian State's season. Nevertheless, it's idiotic to rank a school #121 and then suggest that it has a realistic chance to win a conference in my opinion….

(08-21-2014 02:27 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 02:24 PM)asucrutch23 Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 01:40 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 01:28 PM)asucrutch23 Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 12:36 PM)Underdog Wrote:  The following tells you how absurd this article is (focus on bold font):

121. Appalachian State
Prediction: 4-8
3 Best Players: 1) RB Marcus Cox, Soph., 2) OT Kendall Lamm, Sr., 3) LB John Law, Soph.
Relative Strengths: 1) Quarterback, 2) O Line, 3) Running Back
Spotlight Units: 1) D Line, 2) Receiver, 3) Defensive Back
The season will be a success if … the Mountaineers flirt with a winning record. 1981 and 1982. That was the last time the program suffered back-to-back losing seasons. Before that? 1956 and 1957. It would be an easy excuse to point to the better competition as a reason for a second straight dud year, but for a program that’s known nothing but tremendous success for so long, two losing seasons in two years under Scott Satterfield would be a problem. ASU can’t go to a bowl, but it can win the Sun Belt title. Just getting to seven wins would be good enough.

Consequently, if the #121 worst FBS program "can't go to a bowl, but can win the Sun Belt title", there is something seriously wrong with the author's logic that produces an idiotic statement such as the aforementioned one about Appalachian State....

I believe what the author is trying to convey is that App State is ineligible for a bowl game, while it is eligible to win the Sun Belt title. I agree with you that this is poorly written, but I believe it is just lazy writing. I don't think the author is trying to say that we are capable of winning the Sun Belt while still missing a bowl. I believe him saying that seven wins would be good enough is his continuation of the line "the season will be a success if..." saying seven wins would be a good result for App State and a successful season.

However, this brings me to a pet peeve of mine and a common misconception about transitional teams. The author references it in his blurb about Old Dominion. Teams in their first year of FBS are ineligible for a bowl unless there are not enough bowl eligible teams. First year FBS programs (with the requisite win total) are then chosen before teams at <.500. With the new bowls this year, it is not inconceivable to think that App or Georgia Southern (with enough wins) could sneak into a bowl.

The other misconception is that Old Dominion is a year ahead of App and Georgia Southern in their transition to FBS. We are actually on the same timeline. Old Dominion however, played a mostly FBS schedule last year in their last year of FCS, so many members of the media erroneously put them in FBS last year (even ESPN's standings page had them as an FBS Independent). The author says that ODU can go to a bowl if there are not enough eligible teams, which is correct, but it is also true of App and Georgia Southern.

I guess I should have emphasized that my main point was that Appalachian State is ranked #121, but can win the SBC... with only seven wins..... Therefore, what is the author of this asinine article implying about the rest of the SBC (read post 21)?

And I interpreted it as him saying that we are eligible to win the Sun Belt as opposed to capable. I don't think his blurb on App State is meant as an indictment on the SBC (I didn't interpret it as him saying seven wins would be enough to win the SBC). I think the seven wins part was in reference to what it would take for us to call it a successful season. Of course, I could be wrong.

I understand your interpetation on the point that the author was making in regards to Appalachian State's season. Nevertheless, it's idiotic to rank a school #121 and then suggest that it has a realistic chance to win a conference in my opinion….

Like I said, I don't believe that is what he was trying to say, but I suppose everything is open to interpretation. To me "it can win the Sun Belt" meant "it is eligible to win the Sun Belt despite being ineligible for a bowl," not "it has a realistic chance of winning the Sun Belt." I think we can at least agree that it is poorly written, but I was just trying to defend the author on that point while also pointing out the fallacy that App/GS cannot go to a bowl and the fallacy that ODU is a year ahead of App/GS in transition.

Its SBNation. Everything is poorly written.

(08-21-2014 02:39 PM)asucrutch23 Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 02:27 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 02:24 PM)asucrutch23 Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 01:40 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 01:28 PM)asucrutch23 Wrote:  I believe what the author is trying to convey is that App State is ineligible for a bowl game, while it is eligible to win the Sun Belt title. I agree with you that this is poorly written, but I believe it is just lazy writing. I don't think the author is trying to say that we are capable of winning the Sun Belt while still missing a bowl. I believe him saying that seven wins would be good enough is his continuation of the line "the season will be a success if..." saying seven wins would be a good result for App State and a successful season.

However, this brings me to a pet peeve of mine and a common misconception about transitional teams. The author references it in his blurb about Old Dominion. Teams in their first year of FBS are ineligible for a bowl unless there are not enough bowl eligible teams. First year FBS programs (with the requisite win total) are then chosen before teams at <.500. With the new bowls this year, it is not inconceivable to think that App or Georgia Southern (with enough wins) could sneak into a bowl.

The other misconception is that Old Dominion is a year ahead of App and Georgia Southern in their transition to FBS. We are actually on the same timeline. Old Dominion however, played a mostly FBS schedule last year in their last year of FCS, so many members of the media erroneously put them in FBS last year (even ESPN's standings page had them as an FBS Independent). The author says that ODU can go to a bowl if there are not enough eligible teams, which is correct, but it is also true of App and Georgia Southern.

I guess I should have emphasized that my main point was that Appalachian State is ranked #121, but can win the SBC... with only seven wins..... Therefore, what is the author of this asinine article implying about the rest of the SBC (read post 21)?

And I interpreted it as him saying that we are eligible to win the Sun Belt as opposed to capable. I don't think his blurb on App State is meant as an indictment on the SBC (I didn't interpret it as him saying seven wins would be enough to win the SBC). I think the seven wins part was in reference to what it would take for us to call it a successful season. Of course, I could be wrong.

I understand your interpetation on the point that the author was making in regards to Appalachian State's season. Nevertheless, it's idiotic to rank a school #121 and then suggest that it has a realistic chance to win a conference in my opinion….

Like I said, I don't believe that is what he was trying to say, but I suppose everything is open to interpretation. To me "it can win the Sun Belt" meant "it is eligible to win the Sun Belt despite being ineligible for a bowl," not "it has a realistic chance of winning the Sun Belt." I think we can at least agree that it is poorly written, but I was just trying to defend the author on that point while also pointing out the fallacy that App/GS cannot go to a bowl and the fallacy that ODU is a year ahead of App/GS in transition.

I'm not trying to split hairs here, but he specifically states “it can win the Sun Belt title.” This needs no interpretation; he is suggesting that his #121 ranked school (Appalachian State) can win the SBC….

(08-21-2014 03:04 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 02:39 PM)asucrutch23 Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 02:27 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 02:24 PM)asucrutch23 Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 01:40 PM)Underdog Wrote:  I guess I should have emphasized that my main point was that Appalachian State is ranked #121, but can win the SBC... with only seven wins..... Therefore, what is the author of this asinine article implying about the rest of the SBC (read post 21)?

And I interpreted it as him saying that we are eligible to win the Sun Belt as opposed to capable. I don't think his blurb on App State is meant as an indictment on the SBC (I didn't interpret it as him saying seven wins would be enough to win the SBC). I think the seven wins part was in reference to what it would take for us to call it a successful season. Of course, I could be wrong.

I understand your interpetation on the point that the author was making in regards to Appalachian State's season. Nevertheless, it's idiotic to rank a school #121 and then suggest that it has a realistic chance to win a conference in my opinion….

Like I said, I don't believe that is what he was trying to say, but I suppose everything is open to interpretation. To me "it can win the Sun Belt" meant "it is eligible to win the Sun Belt despite being ineligible for a bowl," not "it has a realistic chance of winning the Sun Belt." I think we can at least agree that it is poorly written, but I was just trying to defend the author on that point while also pointing out the fallacy that App/GS cannot go to a bowl and the fallacy that ODU is a year ahead of App/GS in transition.

I'm not trying to split hairs here, but he specifically states “it can win the Sun Belt title.” This needs no interpretation; he is suggesting that his #121 ranked school (Appalachian State) can win the SBC….

Yes, just as Georgia State can win the SBC, Northwestern can win the B1G, and Hawaii can win the MWC. They are all eligible, just not likely to do so. You know what, nevermind...

Just as I pointed out on another thread a few minutes ago, there is a lot of confusion, especially that ODU is not
bowl eligible this year, unless there are not enough bowl eligible teams, as is App State and Georgia Southern.
There is even an article under ODU in Wiki about their bowl eligibility that is completely wrong. No wonder people
are confused.

Here is an ODU article from when they were voted by CUSA to be able to win the CUSA championship:

"If the Monarchs were to win the conference championship in 2014, it's unlikely they would be eligible to accept the accompanying bid to the Liberty Bowl.

Bowl eligibility is determined by the NCAA, not conferences, and under current rules, ODU can go to a bowl only if there aren't enough eligible teams to fill all the bowl slots.

ODU becomes bowl eligible in 2015."

http://hamptonroads.com/2013/01/count-od...2014-title

(08-21-2014 12:56 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 12:41 PM)zeebart21 Wrote:  

(08-20-2014 06:13 PM)RamblinRedWolf44 Wrote:  http://cfn.scout.com/2/1436237.html

121. Appalachian State
Prediction: 4-8
3 Best Players: 1) RB Marcus Cox, Soph., 2) OT Kendall Lamm, Sr., 3) LB John Law, Soph.
Relative Strengths: 1) Quarterback, 2) O Line, 3) Running Back
Spotlight Units: 1) D Line, 2) Receiver, 3) Defensive Back
The season will be a success if … the Mountaineers flirt with a winning record. 1981 and 1982. That was the last time the program suffered back-to-back losing seasons. Before that? 1956 and 1957. It would be an easy excuse to point to the better competition as a reason for a second straight dud year, but for a program that’s known nothing but tremendous success for so long, two losing seasons in two years under Scott Satterfield would be a problem. ASU can’t go to a bowl, but it can win the Sun Belt title. Just getting to seven wins would be good enough.

Before I even read the first post, Im telling you this thread is headed for the smack bin.. Shouldn't be that way, cause if you suck, you suck... Sorry.

Z

The problem with the article and your post is that a school that "suck", such as Appalachian State, "can win the Sun Belt title" with "seven wins". Therefore, the author of this asinine article and you are implying that ever school in the SBC "suck."

Huh? Heres what I am implying. My school would more Than likely beat the pants off of your AAC team.

(08-21-2014 03:04 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 02:39 PM)asucrutch23 Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 02:27 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 02:24 PM)asucrutch23 Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 01:40 PM)Underdog Wrote:  I guess I should have emphasized that my main point was that Appalachian State is ranked #121, but can win the SBC... with only seven wins..... Therefore, what is the author of this asinine article implying about the rest of the SBC (read post 21)?

And I interpreted it as him saying that we are eligible to win the Sun Belt as opposed to capable. I don't think his blurb on App State is meant as an indictment on the SBC (I didn't interpret it as him saying seven wins would be enough to win the SBC). I think the seven wins part was in reference to what it would take for us to call it a successful season. Of course, I could be wrong.

I understand your interpetation on the point that the author was making in regards to Appalachian State's season. Nevertheless, it's idiotic to rank a school #121 and then suggest that it has a realistic chance to win a conference in my opinion….

Like I said, I don't believe that is what he was trying to say, but I suppose everything is open to interpretation. To me "it can win the Sun Belt" meant "it is eligible to win the Sun Belt despite being ineligible for a bowl," not "it has a realistic chance of winning the Sun Belt." I think we can at least agree that it is poorly written, but I was just trying to defend the author on that point while also pointing out the fallacy that App/GS cannot go to a bowl and the fallacy that ODU is a year ahead of App/GS in transition.

I'm not trying to split hairs here, but he specifically states “it can win the Sun Belt title.” This needs no interpretation; he is suggesting that his #121 ranked school (Appalachian State) can win the SBC….

It does need interpretation because it is poor writing.

All preseason rankings are nothing more than wild guesses. Every year, new star players emerge from seemingly out of nowhere to boost teams to unexpected heights. No one can ever pick even the top 5 correctly, let alone get the bottom 18 right. This list is garbage.

(08-22-2014 06:21 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  All preseason rankings are nothing more than wild guesses. Every year, new star players emerge from seemingly out of nowhere to boost teams to unexpected heights. No one can ever pick even the top 5 correctly, let alone get the bottom 18 right. This list is garbage.

It really is and CFN knows it.

(08-22-2014 06:21 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  All preseason rankings are nothing more than wild guesses. Every year, new star players emerge from seemingly out of nowhere to boost teams to unexpected heights. No one can ever pick even the top 5 correctly, let alone get the bottom 18 right. This list is garbage.

Youre right. Im pretty sure Latex should be on the list.