http://www.collegefootballuniverseblog.c...p-126.html

#72 Rice
#74 UTSA
#78 MTSU
#82 South Alabama
#91 Louisiana
#93 Florida Atlantic
#96 WKU
#97 ULM
#98 Texas State
#107 North Texas
#109 UAB
#110 Old Dominion
#111 Georgia State
#112 New Mexico State
#114 Arkansas State
#122 Idaho
#124 Troy
#125 La tech
#126 FIU

(05-14-2013 09:39 AM)panama Wrote:  http://www.collegefootballuniverseblog.c...p-126.html

#72 Rice
#74 UTSA
#78 MTSU
#82 South Alabama
#91 Louisiana
#93 Florida Atlantic
#96 WKU
#97 ULM
#98 Texas State
#107 North Texas
#109 UAB
#110 Old Dominion
#111 Georgia State
#112 New Mexico State
#114 Arkansas State
#122 Idaho
#124 Troy
#125 La tech
#126 FIU

I thought ODU was FCS Transitional this year? Why are they ranked?

(05-14-2013 09:39 AM)panama Wrote:  http://www.collegefootballuniverseblog.c...p-126.html

#72 Rice
#74 UTSA
#78 MTSU
#82 South Alabama
#91 Louisiana
#93 Florida Atlantic
#96 WKU
#97 ULM
#98 Texas State
#107 North Texas
#109 UAB
#110 Old Dominion
#111 Georgia State
#112 New Mexico State
#114 Arkansas State
#122 Idaho
#124 Troy
#125 La tech
#126 FIU

I can't open it but wtf is it that has ASU, La. Tech and Troy behind Georgia State, ODU, UNT and UAB? That is just stupid.

Looks like they were confused and messed up showing ODU.

In what universe is the #1 offense in the country (debatable but point remains) sitting at 125?

EDIT: I'm gonna read the article. This can't be a preseason ranking in the traditional sense.

The guy who wrote it explains that it's not perfect. It's only 1/3 based on the on-field performance, so it's bound to be a bit off outside of the top 10-15.

Wait....wait.... Ga State is #110 and Troy is #124??? I know, I know....just wanted to have some fun...

It must be May

(05-14-2013 09:39 AM)panama Wrote:  http://www.collegefootballuniverseblog.c...p-126.html

#72 Rice
#74 UTSA
#78 MTSU
#82 South Alabama
#91 Louisiana
#93 Florida Atlantic
#96 WKU
#97 ULM
#98 Texas State
#107 North Texas
#109 UAB
#110 Old Dominion
#111 Georgia State
#112 New Mexico State
#114 Arkansas State
#122 Idaho
#124 Troy
#125 La tech
#126 FIU

Actually its not a composite ranking. A composite ranking would suggest he used a collective group of preseason rankings and he didn't.

He used three factors:
1) end of last year ranking
2) number of returning starters
3) quality of recruiting class.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting ranking method. The quality of this years recruiting class has very little bearing on this years teams. Most will be redshirted and those that aren't likely won't start; even if they do, not likely an impact player. And using last years rankings- unless he weighs equally players lost w/ players returning, then that component is equally useless.

I think the ranking are at best incorrect, but the process for calculating them are laughable.

(05-14-2013 10:49 AM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 09:39 AM)panama Wrote:  http://www.collegefootballuniverseblog.c...p-126.html

#72 Rice
#74 UTSA
#78 MTSU
#82 South Alabama
#91 Louisiana
#93 Florida Atlantic
#96 WKU
#97 ULM
#98 Texas State
#107 North Texas
#109 UAB
#110 Old Dominion
#111 Georgia State
#112 New Mexico State
#114 Arkansas State
#122 Idaho
#124 Troy
#125 La tech
#126 FIU

Actually its not a composite ranking. A composite ranking would suggest he used a collective group of preseason rankings and he didn't.

He used three factors:
1) end of last year ranking
2) number of returning starters
3) quality of recruiting class.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That doesn't add up either to me. I know stAte was ranked higher than probably anyone on that list last year and we return a lot of starters. Our recruiting class was not ranked as high this year (of course it doesn't count the three guys we picked up since February) but that alone couldn't account for such a ridiculously low ranking.

(05-14-2013 11:05 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 10:49 AM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 09:39 AM)panama Wrote:  http://www.collegefootballuniverseblog.c...p-126.html

#72 Rice
#74 UTSA
#78 MTSU
#82 South Alabama
#91 Louisiana
#93 Florida Atlantic
#96 WKU
#97 ULM
#98 Texas State
#107 North Texas
#109 UAB
#110 Old Dominion
#111 Georgia State
#112 New Mexico State
#114 Arkansas State
#122 Idaho
#124 Troy
#125 La tech
#126 FIU

Actually its not a composite ranking. A composite ranking would suggest he used a collective group of preseason rankings and he didn't.

He used three factors:
1) end of last year ranking
2) number of returning starters
3) quality of recruiting class.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That doesn't add up either to me. I know stAte was ranked higher than probably anyone on that list last year and we return a lot of starters. Our recruiting class was not ranked as high this year (of course it doesn't count the three guys we picked up since February) but that alone couldn't account for such a ridiculously low ranking.

He's got USA above 7 other Belt teams. Must be some good stuff he's smoking.

(05-14-2013 12:59 PM)GEAGLESJAG Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 11:05 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 10:49 AM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 09:39 AM)panama Wrote:  http://www.collegefootballuniverseblog.c...p-126.html

#72 Rice
#74 UTSA
#78 MTSU
#82 South Alabama
#91 Louisiana
#93 Florida Atlantic
#96 WKU
#97 ULM
#98 Texas State
#107 North Texas
#109 UAB
#110 Old Dominion
#111 Georgia State
#112 New Mexico State
#114 Arkansas State
#122 Idaho
#124 Troy
#125 La tech
#126 FIU

Actually its not a composite ranking. A composite ranking would suggest he used a collective group of preseason rankings and he didn't.

He used three factors:
1) end of last year ranking
2) number of returning starters
3) quality of recruiting class.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That doesn't add up either to me. I know stAte was ranked higher than probably anyone on that list last year and we return a lot of starters. Our recruiting class was not ranked as high this year (of course it doesn't count the three guys we picked up since February) but that alone couldn't account for such a ridiculously low ranking.

He's got USA above 7 other Belt teams. Must be some good stuff he's smoking.

wow what a ranking.......

Even Loser Tech deserves to move up.....a spot or two.

Idiocy.

(05-14-2013 02:37 PM)Fanof49ASU Wrote:  Even Loser Tech deserves to move up.....a spot or two.

I don't get the hate. Well I guess I do, but I don't get why people think they're aweful. They had at one point the #1 offense in the country. Even with a lousy defense, having the nation's #1 offense makes up for a lot. Last season, Arkansas State was the only team in the SBC that would have been able to step to them, and even they might not have come out victorious.

(05-14-2013 03:47 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 02:37 PM)Fanof49ASU Wrote:  Even Loser Tech deserves to move up.....a spot or two.

I don't get the hate. Well I guess I do, but I don't get why people think they're aweful. They had at one point the #1 offense in the country. Even with a lousy defense, having the nation's #1 offense makes up for a lot. Last season, Arkansas State was the only team in the SBC that would have been able to step to them, and even they might not have come out victorious.

He was defending them but we have a longstanding dislike of LT. Tech was much improved last year and would have given stAte a game for sure but if Texas State can score 50+ on them I don't think we would have beat them more times than not. We would have matched them well offensively and we had a much better defense.

(05-14-2013 03:47 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 02:37 PM)Fanof49ASU Wrote:  Even Loser Tech deserves to move up.....a spot or two.

I don't get the hate. Well I guess I do, but I don't get why people think they're aweful. They had at one point the #1 offense in the country. Even with a lousy defense, having the nation's #1 offense makes up for a lot. Last season, Arkansas State was the only team in the SBC that would have been able to step to them, and even they might not have come out victorious.

Tech won 9 games last year. All 9 were teams with losing records. They were outstanding offensively, but their defense was horrendous, and that is being very kind.

(05-14-2013 03:47 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  I don't get the hate. Well I guess I do, but I don't get why people think they're aweful. They had at one point the #1 offense in the country. Even with a lousy defense, having the nation's #1 offense makes up for a lot. Last season, Arkansas State was the only team in the SBC that would have been able to step to them, and even they might not have come out victorious.

It's habit.
ASU and Loser Tech had one heck of a rivalry in the 70's - 80's. Very heated and lots of fights.
They beat us most of the time, but it was always a game you didn't miss.