Jump to content

ESPN Pres season power rankings (may have already been posted)


Andrew

Recommended Posts

It looks like a lot of this is just putting teams at numbers that make no sense. They had rice at #88 or #89 and they had Louisiana-Lafayette at somewhere around #70. I don't see how we're #103 even though we're losing the seniors. And they had Florida and TCU a lot higher than I'd have thought they'd be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is terrible. Absolutely terrible. ODU? KU? UNLV? Cent Mich? Tulsa? etc. "an automated set preseason ratings"...Soooo....what does that mean? Ratings that were opinionated and probably bias opinions at that. 0 credibility. If you dig a little they deduct or add significant amount of points for the amount of returning starters. Not having a QB returning deducts more points than anything. They also deduct or subtract points in conjunction to recruiting rank. That is the BS part. The other part of this that is iffy at best is the deduction of points for not having a starting QB returning. Yes, big position, but a better measurement for this would be what baseball uses which is the points above replacement. To convert this into football they could simply insert the QB national average statistics and see if you would succeed the starter or if there would be a drop off. Simply saying the starter is gone, there will be a significant drop off, doesn't matter who is taking over is BS. Ranking teams solely based on one year of recruiting rankings is BS too. On a side note, this doesn't apply to us but they also deduct significant points for having a new coach taking over, but yet UT is 25, USC is 13th, Wash is 27th. This list is pretty bias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What it looks like to me is that they're starting with the same teams at the top 25 or 30, changing them up a tiny bit based on who played for national champion, and then leaving everybody else the same as the year before. It just doesn't work. And I bet there is a lot of P5 conference bias in those rankings too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like they are just using the stats of returning players. If that's the case, it's not to far off point. We lose almost all of our top producers.

Unfortunately, in a system like this o-linemen don't provide stats.

Also, it says it uses recruiting rankings, which we know we don't really excel in.

This is just a system built from numbers. Does it suck for us and outside perception, yes, but another winning season, and you'll really start to see the worm turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding from the article is that a list like this is essentially created to begin the process of publications establishing their huge pre-season rankings. I assume they simply have to start somewhere and then will take this list and move teams around based on additional data and/or knowledge of the programs and teams.

That being the case, I don't think it's designed more as a broad view of the CFB landscape based on recent history.

The number of starters we're replacing along with the fact that our recruits will largely be rated incorrectly by the big boys who don't dig fully into 3 star athletes will inevitably result in a poor ranking here.

Also, I doubt we would've had too much complaining last year when we ended the year at #49

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like they are just using the stats of returning players. If that's the case, it's not to far off point. We lose almost all of our top producers.

Unfortunately, in a system like this o-linemen don't provide stats.

Also, it says it uses recruiting rankings, which we know we don't really excel in.

This is just a system built from numbers. Does it suck for us and outside perception, yes, but another winning season, and you'll really start to see the worm turn.

If that were the case, I would expect a monumental drop-off in the Special Teams rankings since Brelan is gone. But no! We're #27!! Yay!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think NT is significantly better, however I wonder about some of your comments. If you don't base the rating on who returns and who is joining the team, what do you prefer they base them on? NT lost more starters than all but a couple of teams in the whole nation and the recruiting judged by all the ratings was again mediocre at best.

Just because a lot of us think that NT has turned the corner and that NT will have another great year doesn't mean that objective analysis by outsiders yields the same optimism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only difference between the "new CUSA" and the "new Sun Belt" is T.V. exposure, which is considerable. Not much, if any, separation on the field.Just an old man's opinion.

That plus more natural geographical rivals and more bowl game tie-ins. It's a big boost for us, even if the football comp isn't much better at the moment.

I'd also say that the potential in CUSA is better with USM and LA Tech having a good history of success. They won't stay down forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Please review our full Privacy Policy before using our site.