|
|
|
|
|
please tell me this isnt going to have ULM ranked higher than us
Given that we are installing a completely new offensive scheme, trying to find a QB that fits that scheme, a new coach and staff, and the loss of a lot of key players, I don't think that this ranking is completely off-base. Granted, I think we should be ranked higher than ulm, but there are a lot of unknowns that factor into this.
Pre-season rankings are just that - before the season.
We have no reason to expect to be ranked any higher. We lost two major players on offense and some big players on defense. The players replacing them are 'unproven.' We also have an unproven coach and a new (and completely different) offensive scheme.
We, the diehard fans, may know that we'll be substantially better than 101, but you can't expect to be ranked any higher at this point.
Exactly!Originally Posted by SixWings
Their credibility went out the window early in that article. Tech has SEVERAL good players who have transferred in from SEC programs (Molton, Paige, Creer) and others who will be back from injury this year. Additionally, we had more personnel depth this spring than we've had in years, since we've been well below the 85-man scholarship limit in the past. Our schedule is also much easier in 2010 with basically SEVEN HOME GAMES if you count the Grambling game. A little more research than just "what was their record last year" would have pointed these things out.
They did mention Paige and Molton.
You just have to expect this kind of report when they're looking at 120 teams. I did think it was interesting that they think the turnover at RB is going to hurt us (and I have to say it isn't a good thing to lose your school's all-time leading rusher) when I just saw this today:
http://mgoblog.com/diaries/how-valua...-most-valuable
You're just not going to get a ton of nuance in a quick-glance survey capsule of 120 different teams. They mentioned the new offense and last year's injury bug, but whiffed on the schedule and the depth.
I can't wait for the season to start so we can earn the respect we deserve.
:icon_wink:
Agree with the rank. I noticed was no mention of Doak.
Useless ranking.......... I don't pay any attention to any ranking until the season starts.
You think we are the 101st best team in FBS this season?
I agree that going into this season it could be a down year and will not be surprised if we struggle some, for reasons mentioned:
new coach, QB, starters lost, coming off a 4 win year, etc. etc. etc. Espeically coming from someone whose heart is not attached to the program, we shouldn't be surprised if someone ranks us as such.
Despite being a 4-win team, the Sagarin Predictor computer rankings had LA Tech as the #72 best FBS team. That takes SOS, home/away, and score differential into account. It is proven as the best predictor of college football outcomes. Contrary to what our records say, the 4-8 2009 Tech team was better than the 8-5 2008 Tech team. So don't let records fool you.
Does anyone know if this is all "Dooley-recruits" now? No "Bicknell players" left? Not that it matters that much, I just find that kind of stuff interesting.
That 4 win season was a lot different than just wins and losses. You gotta look at stats and how close we played teams. We were just a few points from being a great team last year. lsu might have something to say about how we played them. We went into their house to WIN and played them well. Would have won if we had been healthy. We lost some that we should NOT have lost, but we were far from a poor team last year.
I think we have more players than can play this new system than we think. I am ready to watch Dykes show everyone that we are going to make some noise this year. We will start by crushing Grambling and upsetting A&M. Let's see where they place us then.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
