Finally, a reasonable preseason ranking for the Orangemen

[SaltineWar]

College Football News has us ranked at 51 in the country and ahead of the likes of WVU, UVA, Pitt, MD, and BC.

I don't agree with everything in their analysis, but at least the number is more reasonable than the other preseason rankings I've seen. Considering our success last year, coupled with the off-season changes I think 51 is a fair place to start.

http://cfn.At their request, this network is being blocked from this site./2/1315010.html

 

[RF2044]

College Football News has us ranked at 51 in the country and ahead of the likes of WVU, UVA, Pitt, MD, and BC.

I don't agree with everything in their analysis, but at least the number is more reasonable than the other preseason rankings I've seen. Considering our success last year, coupled with the off-season changes I think 51 is a fair place to start.

http://cfn. /2/1315010.html

I think its one of those things where we're going to have to continue to demonstrate on the field that we're capable sustaining the resurgence from last season before people give us credit. Too easy to write us off even after last year, losing Nassib, both wide receivers, Pugh, etc.

But if Allen / Hunt are capable of stepping in and not having a dropoff, if the WR corps comes through, etc. then there is no doubt in my mind that this team is capable of being one of the top 50 or so teams this year, and getting back to a bowl.

 

[SU2NASA]

What's the lowest preseason ranking to win a national title?

 

[Rocco]

There should be no such thing as preseason rankings. Drives me nuts.

I'm all about the rankings after week 6, gives teams at least 5 completed games and then you can realistically rank their performance thus far.

 

[JoeSU]

There should be no such thing as preseason rankings. Drives me nuts.

I'm all about the rankings after week 6, gives teams at least 5 completed games and then you can realistically rank their performance thus far.

Especially with college sports, where there is so much turnover (players and coaches) from year to year. A 12 year old could recognize the loaded teams that belong in the top 10 (Alabama, OSU Oregon, Georgia, Clemson etc. this season) but beyond that it's a crap shoot.

The writer (Patrick Stevens) doing the series of articles in the P-S on "Pre-season Rankings: #96-101" (or whatever) is a complete farce. While he does provide a few insights on otherwise obscure teams, a team he has ranked #100 is just a likely to send up #50 or #150.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I think its one of those things where we're going to have to continue to demonstrate on the field that we're capable sustaining the resurgence from last season before people give us credit. Too easy to write us off even after last year, losing Nassib, both wide receivers, Pugh, etc.

But if Allen / Hunt are capable of stepping in and not having a dropoff, if the WR corps comes through, etc. then there is no doubt in my mind that this team is capable of being one of the top 50 or so teams this year, and getting back to a bowl.

Pretty much.

 

[SaltineWar]

What's the lowest preseason ranking to win a national title?

 

[jekelish]

Honestly, I don't have too much of a problem with where we've been ranked. We have far too many unproven commodities from the coach on down. Sure, we're steadily improving, but we're starting over at a lot of key spots. Wouldn't be a shock at ALL if we only win 4 or 5 games this year based on what we're trying to replace.

But I do like seeing us being placed ahead of some of those other schools. Our defense and RBs alone should hopefully get us bowl eligible.

 

[All4SU]

Especially with college sports, where there is so much turnover (players and coaches) from year to year. A 12 year old could recognize the loaded teams that belong in the top 10 (Alabama, OSU Oregon, Georgia, Clemson etc. this season) but beyond that it's a crap shoot.

The writer (Patrick Stevens) doing the series of articles in the P-S on "Pre-season Rankings: #96-101" (or whatever) is a complete farce. While he does provide a few insights on otherwise obscure teams, a team he has ranked #100 is just a likely to send up #50 or #150.

Yup. Might be better served to just make three categories: The Top third, The middle third, and the Bottom Third. Of course fans want more to go on that that. Let's face it, we drive the desire for rankings. And I agree with you, they are meaningless until midseason. But the worst part is, they do have an effect on perception, recruiting, bowl selection, etc. The game would be better off if they could hold off on the official polls until mid October.

 

[kirbivore]

There should be no such thing as preseason rankings. Drives me nuts.

I'm all about the rankings after week 6, gives teams at least 5 completed games and then you can realistically rank their performance thus far.

This is the last season they'll matter.