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

Andrew · May 20, 2014

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

Almost cracked the top 100....

Mean Green 93-98 · May 20, 2014

Yes, they have:

And they're dumb. I'm not saying we should start the season in the top 50, but does Kansas really belong 20 spots ahead of us? Old Dominion 26 spots ahead of us?

Andrew · May 20, 2014

Ah thanks I looked at the title but didn't see the espn post in it. Thanks.

elig57 · May 20, 2014

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.

Ben Gooding · May 21, 2014

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.

elig57 · May 21, 2014

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.

untlynchka1 · May 21, 2014

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.

jdennis82 · May 21, 2014

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

MeanGreenTexan · May 21, 2014

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!

GrandGreen · May 21, 2014

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.

UNT90 · May 21, 2014

It's like the Sun Belt all over again?

wardly · May 22, 2014

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.

pastorgrant · May 22, 2014

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.