Syracuse is 55th in ESPN's preseason Football Power Index

[Alsacs]

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10935532/2014-preseason-football-power-index-ratings

ACC rankings.
1. Florida State
15. Clemson
19. North Carolina
26. Miami
35. Virginia Tech
41. Pittsburgh
42. Duke
47. Georgia Tech
50. Louisville
55. Syracuse
61. Virginia
70. NC State
80. Boston College
97. Wake Forest

OOC opponents
29. Notre Dame
39. Maryland
92. Central Michigan
Unranked: Villanova

 

[NashvilleOrange]

Maryland is higher than expected..Also why is Mississippi State so high?

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

Maryland is higher than expected..Also why is Mississippi State so high?

Maryland has athletes. Athletes who can't stay out of trouble or healthy and are poorly coached, but they have athletes.

I don't understand the continual love for Pitt.

 

[Alsacs]

Maryland has recruited some athletes which IMO inflate their ranking. I still think we are a solid TD favorite in our game with Maryland barring any injuries. Shafer seems like he will be able to develop a gameplan defensively for Maryland and at home I like Hunt to be able to score against the Terps.

These rankings just show me the talent gap between Louisville and Syracuse isn't as high as people think. We should be able to be real competitive against them and possibly beat them.

 

[Alsacs]

Maryland has athletes. Athletes who can't stay out of trouble or healthy and are poorly coached, but they have athletes.

I don't understand the continual love for Pitt.

You beat me with the athletes I was typing as you responded. Diggs and other players with talent inflate Maryland's ranking in the mind of the computers.

 

[SteveC]

So much better than 112th. Wasn't 112th last a few years ago?

 

[ImperialOrange]

 

[OrangeAggieArmy]

I also don't get the continual love for Pitt.

 

[Orijinal]

Are you serious with this garbage? Aren't these preseason ratings based on past performance? They usually are if it's not the case here. And if so, how do you rate a Syracuse team 55th after winning 3 bowl games in the past 4 years (and against good competition), coming 3rd in the Atlantic division in the ACC behind Clemson (BCS bowl winner) and national champion? Serious?

If you are talking about players, we have a returning QB, named MVP in the last bowl, and probably about 3 or 4 returnees along the offensive line.

If you want to put Syracuse at 42, fine. But don't tell me this team is 55th

 

[ImperialOrange]

Starting to creep back towards national respectability. Now we need a marquee win to hang our hat on and we'll really start moving up.

 

[Chip]

I think Maryland will be a tougher game than Louisville. We didn't have to face Maryland's 2 best WRs last year. 39 seems a bit high, but in the 40s doesn't seem like a stretch.

Pitt gets credit for their RB whether right or wrong. All of our games with them are so close, we should be right next to them.

In reality, we should be able to play with any of the schools in the 30s or 40s, so really it's on us. The ND game should be competitive as well. We may not have the horses, but nothing embarrassing on the field.

 

[GoSU96]

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10935532/2014-preseason-football-power-index-ratings

ACC rankings.
1. Florida State
15. Clemson
19. North Carolina
26. Miami
35. Virginia Tech
41. Pittsburgh
42. Duke
47. Georgia Tech
50. Louisville
55. Syracuse
61. Virginia
70. NC State
80. Boston College
97. Wake Forest

OOC opponents
29. Notre Dame
39. Maryland
92. Central Michigan
Unranked: Villanova

VT doesn't have an offense, and they are 35th. Duke was a product in part of it's schedule last year. Pitt, 41, that's nuts. I'm not sure what Miami has done to warrant 26. Louisville 50th? Top 40 at a minimum.

SU is about right. Hell of a lot better than 115th, which is where they were under Grob.

 

[SU2NASA]

What's the lowest anyone has gone in a preseason ranking to national champion? Are we going to set the record this year?

 

[Chip]

VT doesn't have an offense, and they are 35th. Duke was a product in part of it's schedule last year. Pitt, 41, that's nuts. I'm not sure what Miami has done to warrant 26. Louisville 50th? Top 40 at a minimum.

SU is about right. Hell of a lot better than 115th, which is where they were under Grob.

Not that we spend much time in this rarefied air, but I think they have Clemson a little high as well. That's a lot of losses to overcome, and a tough way to start the year.

You could probably take 26 to 59, mix them up in a bowl and draw the order as a lottery. End of season, you'd probably end up ranking them just as close as this list, depending on how you want to score it.

 

[Cusester]

Pitt is going to be in for a shock when they play their first game without Donald. He had a "Dwight Freeney" effect on our last two games against them.

 

[sufandu]

Are you serious with this garbage? Aren't these preseason ratings based on past performance? They usually are if it's not the case here. And if so, how do you rate a Syracuse team 55th after winning 3 bowl games in the past 4 years (and against good competition), coming 3rd in the Atlantic division in the ACC behind Clemson (BCS bowl winner) and national champion? Serious?

If you are talking about players, we have a returning QB, named MVP in the last bowl, and probably about 3 or 4 returnees along the offensive line.

If you want to put Syracuse at 42, fine. But don't tell me this team is 55th

I think you're taking this a bit hard. I assume the rating is based on past performance and returning players. We were an offensively challenged team that lost what most people perceived as our two best defensive players. We also lost our most productive running back which, to outside eyes, is equal to our best running back, even if we know that's probably not true. Do I think we're probably better than 55th? Yeah. Do I think we're so much better that it's a travesty for national media to rate us there? No.

 

[lincolncuse]

What's the lowest anyone has gone in a preseason ranking to national champion? Are we going to set the record this year?

Wonder what Auburn was at the beginning of last year? They didn't win it but easily could have.

 

[Antiprodigy]

Personally, I'd rate SU at 44!

 

[Orijinal]

I think you're taking this a bit hard. I assume the rating is based on past performance and returning players. We were an offensively challenged team that lost what most people perceived as our two best defensive players. We also lost our most productive running back which, to outside eyes, is equal to our best running back, even if we know that's probably not true. Do I think we're probably better than 55th? Yeah. Do I think we're so much better that it's a travesty for national media to rate us there? No.

I wouldn't say it's a travesty. But I'd definitely say it's a slight. I think it's quite obvious that Syracuse is better than 55th, and should be obvious to national media. Should Syracuse have a preseason rating in the top 40? No. But should they be higher than 55th? Yes. Without a doubt. Absolutely.

 

[sufandu]

I wouldn't say it's a travesty. But I'd definitely say it's a slight. I think it's quite obvious that Syracuse is better than 55th, and should be obvious to national media. Should Syracuse have a preseason rating in the top 40? No. But should they be higher than 55th? Yes. Without a doubt. Absolutely.

I don't think that perception is going to change until we win at least a mid level bowl game or beat someone of note during the regular season on the way to winning more than 7 games prior to a bowl.

 

[OburgOrange]

I wouldn't say it's a travesty. But I'd definitely say it's a slight. I think it's quite obvious that Syracuse is better than 55th, and should be obvious to national media. Should Syracuse have a preseason rating in the top 40? No. But should they be higher than 55th? Yes. Without a doubt. Absolutely.

Let's just prove them wrong

 

[Orijinal]

Let's just prove them wrong

Agreed.

 

[orangeinjersey]

Let's just prove them wrong

 

[djorange1989]

Better than the USA Today preseason rag. They have us at 81st not making a bowl at 5-7. BC who loses most of their team is 15 spots ahead of us. USA Today can kiss my butt, ESPN is semi reasonable at least

 

[HtownOrange]

Are you serious with this garbage? Aren't these preseason ratings based on past performance? They usually are if it's not the case here. And if so, how do you rate a Syracuse team 55th after winning 3 bowl games in the past 4 years (and against good competition), coming 3rd in the Atlantic division in the ACC behind Clemson (BCS bowl winner) and national champion? Serious?

If you are talking about players, we have a returning QB, named MVP in the last bowl, and probably about 3 or 4 returnees along the offensive line.

If you want to put Syracuse at 42, fine. But don't tell me this team is 55th

The ranking is due to sports writers not actually doing their job and knowing of that which they right write. Most people rank Louisville over Syracuse and ignore the obvious fact that we BEAT Louisville two years ago WITH TB and Strong! But that would require they read, learn, actually follow some teams other than their handful of favorites, much easier to parrot what another screwball writes than do research. Now we have better athletes and Louisville has a new QB and new recycled coach without significantly upgrading their athletes (they already had a pretty good crew!).

I believe we are a solid 3rd place in the Atlantic division behind FSU and Clemson. Louisville has the burden of proof...on the field!