6 MAC schools on the list (and one former). Many on this board will be very upset to know Kent and Akron aren't one of them.....
<a href='http://www.cfbnews.com/2005/Rankings/Pre_preseason_Bottom19.htm' target='_blank'>Bottom 19</a>
I'm not sure that Ball State, Ohio, and Central Michigan belong on that list......maybe not even EMU either.
WMU's 1-11 days are over. This team has too much raw talent/speed to be this crappy.
BrewtownBronco Wrote:WMU's 1-11 days are over. This team has too much raw talent/speed to be this crappy.
And the 1-10 days too.
4-4 in the MAC would be a good first-step goal to have. I think our offense and kicking will be fine, but the defense and kick return coverage will certainly need improvement asap.
The image of the MAC will never improve with half of their teams in the bottom 20. I realize this is a meaningless preseason raning but it does indicate the MACs national overall perception.
While the top teams have done well and have proven they can play with BCS teams, the bottom teams have had little sustained improvement.
Quote:The Chippewas won three D-I games last year by a total of seven points.
We also lost to Toledo by five and EMU by three in 4OT. That's ten points from 6-5. I see CFN is taking a glass half-empty view again. :rolleyes:
Quote:The defense takes a huge hit losing most of the starters while the offense needs help on the line.
What research did they do to reach these conclusions? CMU returns 3/4 starters on the DL and 3/4 from the secondary on defense, based on starters at the end of the season. We also return our leading tackler, a LB. 4/11 is
most? Must be a WMU math major... :thumbdown:
As for the OL, we return three starters. Losing Kieft hurts, but this is one area where CMU has traditionally been able to reload. The writer's opinion might be based on the Buffalo game, where we started two backup guards due to injuries (one was in the 1st quarter) and the Bulls responded by blitzing often.
BobL Wrote:The image of the MAC will never improve with half of their teams in the bottom 20. I realize this is a meaningless preseason raning but it does indicate the MACs national overall perception.
While the top teams have done well and have proven they can play with BCS teams, the bottom teams have had little sustained improvement.
A bottom 20 is getting ridiculous.
Some team has to be near the bottom. What's the point? 20th from the bottom is even more meaningless.
If you're consistently bad, I can understand getting some grief. But this isn't the NFL, and universities have broader concerns than football. Stories like these start to become self-fulfilling prophecies, as it's just that much harder to recruit.
Frankly, I'd like to see magazines stop publishing such rubbish. It belongs next to the Weekly World News or the NYT.
BobL Wrote:The image of the MAC will never improve with half of their teams in the bottom 20. I realize this is a meaningless preseason raning but it does indicate the MACs national overall perception.
While the top teams have done well and have proven they can play with BCS teams, the bottom teams have had little sustained improvement.
We were all very patient when you guys were struggling, so how about you be a little patient with the Centrals, Westerns, Kents, and Ball States of the world who are trying to turn things around. And that's certainly not to say everyone isn't trying.
