per Lindy's... Well this ain't the best source of info, since its one magazines opinion. But something worth talking about since its the offseason.

TCU #7
Houston #23

UCF #64
USM #66
Temple # 72
ECU #90
Memphis #101

Magazines are all over. A couple of them have us in the low 40's while others say in the 60's.

When did pre-season rankings mean anything? They are based on last years team and the number of players lost to graduation. So many times these rankings have been proven to be untrue.

These are good for the fans and gives them something to talk about during the slow times of FB season. Meaningless.

Lindy's has ECU at 90 and Rivals has ECU at 64.

Rivals countdown list so far for CUSA teams, BE teams & expansion teams mentioned.

118 Tulane
115 Buffalo
114 UAB
110 Memphis
106 Rice
91 Louisville
85 Syracuse
80 UTEP
79 Marshall

Again, it all depends on what pre-season ranking site you want to consider gospel.

Lindys usually spends about 10 minutes of googling CUSA before making their predictions. Nice to see they actually showed Houston a little love. Tough to have much of an expectation for ECU with a new coach and system to put into place. I think our offense will be better then last year. Defense will not be as good with the loss of 4 DL to the NFL but other then our DL the overall Defense should be better. Get the DLine up to speed and we will be fine.

(06-25-2010 06:50 AM)SmokinPirate Wrote:  When did pre-season rankings mean anything? They are based on last years team and the number of players lost to graduation. So many times these rankings have been proven to be untrue.

These are good for the fans and gives them something to talk about during the slow times of FB season. Meaningless.

Lindy's has ECU at 90 and Rivals has ECU at 64.

Rivals countdown list so far for CUSA teams, BE teams & expansion teams mentioned.

118 Tulane
115 Buffalo
114 UAB
110 Memphis
106 Rice
91 Louisville
85 Syracuse
80 UTEP
79 Marshall

Again, it all depends on what pre-season ranking site you want to consider gospel.

The magazine didn't mean squat to me. It was the one I had in my face at the time. In face I kinda/sorta said that in my first sentence.

Well, while on the subject of pre-season rankings, I feel like this one was pretty fair to ECU...

http://www.presnapread.com/no-91-east-carolina/

A ranking in the 90's is nothing to be proud of, but what else do you expect with a new coach, new schemes, and a new QB?

Quote:In a nutshell Few teams will face such a perfect storm in 2010: a new coach, new systems on both sides of the ball and the departure of many of last year’s contributors. I don’t think the first year of the Ruffin McNeill era will be a smooth one. In McNeill’s defense, I don’t think that even a Skip Holtz-led team would do more than merely compete for bowl eligibility in 2010; those aforementioned losses would not be as disturbing if Holtz’s system had remained in place, however. Yet he’s not, of course, and this year looks like a rebuilding season for a program recently accustomed to reigning atop Conference USA. I don’t mean to insinuate that East Carolina will be a 10-loss team: the offense has the receivers to succeed and a strong offensive line, and the defense remains strong in the secondary. This alone should allow E.C.U. to avoid an embarrassing debut season for its new coach, and perhaps — if the team really takes to the new schemes — battle for bowl eligibility. I don’t think that’s going to happen in 2010. The real question, the answer to which won’t be readily available until well into next season, is whether McNeill can duplicate his predecessor’s success.

Dream season Doubters – me – are proven wrong in East Carolina’s 9-3 finish, which includes another East division title.

Nightmare season The staff changes and the losses to graduation contribute to a 3-9 finish, the program’s first losing season since 2005.

Honestly I agree with Chappy.

Go by http://www.presnapread.com rankings.

IMHO he at LEAST knows whats going on with each team, even us unwashed in the non-AQ leagues.

In the past few years hes done this I think hes only missed really bad by on 1 or 2 teams.

P.S. This is the guy who did the ranking for the NY Times "The Quad" last year. He now has it done on his own site.

(06-25-2010 09:03 AM)animus Wrote:  The magazine didn't mean squat to me. It was the one I had in my face at the time. In face I kinda/sorta said that in my first sentence.

Animus don't be so thinned skinned. It wasn't meant as a slap in your face. I was merely asking "when did pre-season rankings mean anything?"

It's all about which magazine you want to read and take as gospel and their are a ton of fans out there that do just that.

(06-25-2010 09:59 AM)SmokinPirate Wrote:  

(06-25-2010 09:03 AM)animus Wrote:  The magazine didn't mean squat to me. It was the one I had in my face at the time. In face I kinda/sorta said that in my first sentence.

Animus don't be so thinned skinned. It wasn't meant as a slap in your face. I was merely asking "when did pre-season rankings mean anything?"

It's all about which magazine you want to read and take as gospel and their are a ton of fans out there that do just that.

Fair enough... My bad bro... Just a little exausted... Felt like having a fun discussion about nothing ya know.

Houston will have to go undefeated in CUSA to stay in the Top 25. It is what it is.

Probably the most analytical way to get somewhere near an accurate rating would be to take all the ratings from every mag out there and take an average rating for all teams. Somebody who's motivated could easily do that with Excel, or any other spreadsheet. But at this point, why worry about it? Let's examine it again in November, and then we'll see the truth of the matter...

So Temple finishes 45th in the BCS standings, returns a better team than last year, and we get ranked 72nd? Lindys can shove it.

(06-25-2010 06:50 AM)SmokinPirate Wrote:  When did pre-season rankings mean anything? They are based on last years team and the number of players lost to graduation. So many times these rankings have been proven to be untrue.

These are good for the fans and gives them something to talk about during the slow times of FB season. Meaningless.

I don't post on these absurd message boards anymore because I reached a point where I actually felt that reading this idiocy could potentially make me less intelligent myself. Because the nature of the industry I work in demands a keen intellect (ECU alumni: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/keen, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intellect), I decided that I could no longer afford to be wasting my time debating alumni from North Carolina's finest community college.

However, I decided to take a peek today and, upon seeing the typical ECU jack*sses whine and cry like little babies, I could not remain silent.

It must really sting to see your beloved A$$-Pirates ranked 18 SPOTS BELOW a school that you morons have done nothing but criticize and poke fun at for our supposed ineptitude on the gridiron. According to most of you idiots, ECU's greatest advantage in terms of its viability as a BCS expansion candidate is centered around its alleged prowess at football. These same intellectual midgets claim that this is Temple's greatest disadvantage as an expansion candidate. This poll would appear to indicate that ECU's greatest advantage -- per its own alumni -- has fallen behind Temple's greatest weakness...!

BUT WAIT! [Enter whining ECU alumni.] These polls are completely illegitimate! Big East, please don't stop looking at us! These polls are meaningless! We'll be better next year! I promise!!!

ECU supporters, you are truly pathetic. The sooner your unemployment benefits run out, the better off these boards will be.

where are Rutgers, Syracuse, and UConn?

are they any better than the expansion candidates?

(06-25-2010 10:20 AM)Claw Wrote:  Houston will have to go undefeated in CUSA to stay in the Top 25. It is what it is.

Why do you say that?

They were still ranked #21 when we beat them last year, and we were the 3rd CUSA school to do so.

(06-25-2010 03:22 PM)dwr0109 Wrote:  

(06-25-2010 10:20 AM)Claw Wrote:  Houston will have to go undefeated in CUSA to stay in the Top 25. It is what it is.

Why do you say that?

They were still ranked #21 when we beat them last year, and we were the 3rd CUSA school to do so.

Exactly, they were ranked because they cleaned up in their out of conference games with wins over #5 Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and Mississippi State. They lost their ranking because they lost conference games, not because they played them. They were STILL ranked #21 at the end of the season in the Conference Championship game after having loss to UCF and UTEP.

The top half of CUSA continues to improve every year. If Houston wasn't a good example of the depth in CUSA (as compared to other non-AQ conferences), I don't know what is... UTEP might of been a fluke, but UCF and ECU were not...

BTW, an interesting side fact, since 2005 only two teams, Houston(2) and Tulsa(3), have represented the west in the conference championship. During that same period three teams have represented the east: UCF(2), ECU(2), and USM(1).