Here is the link to the fall sports streaming schedule.

https://appstatesports.com/news/2023/8/ ... edule.aspx

Way too early top 25

User avatar
NavyApp
Posts: 1359
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2015 12:00 pm
School: Appalachian State
Location: ENC
Has thanked: 2710 times
Been thanked: 1156 times

Re: Way too early top 25

Unread post by NavyApp » Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:19 pm

AppStFan1 wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:07 pm
NavyApp wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 1:26 pm
AppStFan1 wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 1:19 pm
NavyApp wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 1:11 pm
McMurphy from The Stadium has one G5 in his way too early top 25, UCF at 19. But he does have VT, UNC, OK St, Ole Miss in his top 25. It's pretty standard, the media outlets push for the P5 "names" in their early rankings with no real regard to talent or recent production. This especially true for teams ranked 11-25, it's the world we live in.
It is much safer to go with those schools. Ole Miss is interesting because of that QB. UCF is losing some players early to the NFL but I bet many voters will have UCF. They have a name and they should have a pretty good squad.
Let's be honest the only reason McMurphy put Ole Miss there is because of KIFFIN. You use the word safe but I think it's more laziness and apathy to the G5. If you do your due diligence on who is coming back you'd have to like the squad Boise has, Us, and UCF. Memphis is a bit of a question breaking in a new QB but they have some legit big time playmakers that make them very dangerous.
Kiffin makes Ole Miss interesting but I would say it is the combo of Kiffin and that QB they have. I don't think he is lazy on the G5 because he constantly had G5 teams in his ballot. I just rather put a P5 team coming off a 7-5 season with a bowl win in the top 25 over the 2nd MWC or 4th AAC team who had 4 losses. Memphis has the question marks but I'm sure many voters will have them. The AP had 17 teams in the preseason top 25 who finished in the final top 25. They do a great job with the top 10 teams but from 15-25 range it is about 50/50 at best whether they will be close or not.

Boise has a pretty good team but they are losing their best players early to the NFL Draft. They have a DE Curtis Weaver who will be a 1st or 2nd round pick and he declared early along with their OT Cleveland who is a baller. I believe they should receive votes but I have a hard time giving them benefit of the doubt this year when you lose your best WR, top 2 players overall, and are coming off a lopsided loss to Washington in the bowl game.
That's all well and good, and at the end of the day it's your opinion. But he wasn't putting a 7-5 team ahead of the 2nd place team in the MWC or the 4th place AAC team. He literally is putting a team coming off a 4-8 season ahead of a 13-1 team returning the majority of the offense and defense. Ahead of the MWC champ who has a straight baller at QB(better than Plumlee) and AAC champ and G5 representative in the NY6 who is also returning a great core of talent. I believe your perspective is more inline with the national thinking but I don't believe UNC, VT, OkSt, Ole Miss have done anything to warrant their rankings outside of having talent in a P5 Conference. Again I understand this is the world we live in and I accept that, but like many others have stated I don't think the rankings should start until at least 4-5 weeks into a season.
FREQS AND GEEKS!

AppStFan1
Posts: 5491
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2018 10:37 am
School: Appalachian State
Has thanked: 531 times
Been thanked: 1333 times

Re: Way too early top 25

Unread post by AppStFan1 » Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:54 pm

NavyApp wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:19 pm
AppStFan1 wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:07 pm
NavyApp wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 1:26 pm
AppStFan1 wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 1:19 pm
NavyApp wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 1:11 pm
McMurphy from The Stadium has one G5 in his way too early top 25, UCF at 19. But he does have VT, UNC, OK St, Ole Miss in his top 25. It's pretty standard, the media outlets push for the P5 "names" in their early rankings with no real regard to talent or recent production. This especially true for teams ranked 11-25, it's the world we live in.
It is much safer to go with those schools. Ole Miss is interesting because of that QB. UCF is losing some players early to the NFL but I bet many voters will have UCF. They have a name and they should have a pretty good squad.
Let's be honest the only reason McMurphy put Ole Miss there is because of KIFFIN. You use the word safe but I think it's more laziness and apathy to the G5. If you do your due diligence on who is coming back you'd have to like the squad Boise has, Us, and UCF. Memphis is a bit of a question breaking in a new QB but they have some legit big time playmakers that make them very dangerous.
Kiffin makes Ole Miss interesting but I would say it is the combo of Kiffin and that QB they have. I don't think he is lazy on the G5 because he constantly had G5 teams in his ballot. I just rather put a P5 team coming off a 7-5 season with a bowl win in the top 25 over the 2nd MWC or 4th AAC team who had 4 losses. Memphis has the question marks but I'm sure many voters will have them. The AP had 17 teams in the preseason top 25 who finished in the final top 25. They do a great job with the top 10 teams but from 15-25 range it is about 50/50 at best whether they will be close or not.

Boise has a pretty good team but they are losing their best players early to the NFL Draft. They have a DE Curtis Weaver who will be a 1st or 2nd round pick and he declared early along with their OT Cleveland who is a baller. I believe they should receive votes but I have a hard time giving them benefit of the doubt this year when you lose your best WR, top 2 players overall, and are coming off a lopsided loss to Washington in the bowl game.
That's all well and good, and at the end of the day it's your opinion. But he wasn't putting a 7-5 team ahead of the 2nd place team in the MWC or the 4th place AAC team. He literally is putting a team coming off a 4-8 season ahead of a 13-1 team returning the majority of the offense and defense. Ahead of the MWC champ who has a straight baller at QB(better than Plumlee) and AAC champ and G5 representative in the NY6 who is also returning a great core of talent. I believe your perspective is more inline with the national thinking but I don't believe UNC, VT, OkSt, Ole Miss have done anything to warrant their rankings outside of having talent in a P5 Conference. Again I understand this is the world we live in and I accept that, but like many others have stated I don't think the rankings should start until at least 4-5 weeks into a season.
I pretty much agree with you. Here is what I maybe did not relay accurately before but my point that Boise and UCF were comfortable picks is because they have been name programs for several years. They are in some preseason top 25 polls because they have built a brand and are known names. Voters are use to them.

With all we have back we should be ranked in the preseason if we finished this year ranked but we don't have that brand as a FBS team yet.

I am not mad at UCF and I hope Citrus did not take it like I'm taking a shot at them but UCF and Boise State do not return more than we do so I just don't think they should be ranked.

If it were me I would leave Memphis out because of the coaching changes and only rank Cincy from the AAC. I would put App 23-25 and that would be it from G5. I think UCF, Memphis, Boise, and maybe FAU should receive votes but the rest should play out.

Ole Miss has a real good QB and is a name who could have a big turnaround. Every year someone has that turnaround and it would not shock me if Nebraska is just a year later than people thought. It is still too early to do a top 25 because the deadline to declare has not happened yet. I mean we could lose key players to the transfer portal or pick up some players that could swing things just like any of the others could. I would have thought Wake Forest would be close to the top 25 in the preseason but now I would not put them anywhere close until we know how good QB will be.

citroknight
Posts: 224
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:23 am
School: UCF
Has thanked: 292 times
Been thanked: 168 times

Re: Way too early top 25

Unread post by citroknight » Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:25 pm

AppStFan1 wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:54 pm
NavyApp wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:19 pm
AppStFan1 wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:07 pm
NavyApp wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 1:26 pm
AppStFan1 wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 1:19 pm


It is much safer to go with those schools. Ole Miss is interesting because of that QB. UCF is losing some players early to the NFL but I bet many voters will have UCF. They have a name and they should have a pretty good squad.
Let's be honest the only reason McMurphy put Ole Miss there is because of KIFFIN. You use the word safe but I think it's more laziness and apathy to the G5. If you do your due diligence on who is coming back you'd have to like the squad Boise has, Us, and UCF. Memphis is a bit of a question breaking in a new QB but they have some legit big time playmakers that make them very dangerous.
Kiffin makes Ole Miss interesting but I would say it is the combo of Kiffin and that QB they have. I don't think he is lazy on the G5 because he constantly had G5 teams in his ballot. I just rather put a P5 team coming off a 7-5 season with a bowl win in the top 25 over the 2nd MWC or 4th AAC team who had 4 losses. Memphis has the question marks but I'm sure many voters will have them. The AP had 17 teams in the preseason top 25 who finished in the final top 25. They do a great job with the top 10 teams but from 15-25 range it is about 50/50 at best whether they will be close or not.

Boise has a pretty good team but they are losing their best players early to the NFL Draft. They have a DE Curtis Weaver who will be a 1st or 2nd round pick and he declared early along with their OT Cleveland who is a baller. I believe they should receive votes but I have a hard time giving them benefit of the doubt this year when you lose your best WR, top 2 players overall, and are coming off a lopsided loss to Washington in the bowl game.
That's all well and good, and at the end of the day it's your opinion. But he wasn't putting a 7-5 team ahead of the 2nd place team in the MWC or the 4th place AAC team. He literally is putting a team coming off a 4-8 season ahead of a 13-1 team returning the majority of the offense and defense. Ahead of the MWC champ who has a straight baller at QB(better than Plumlee) and AAC champ and G5 representative in the NY6 who is also returning a great core of talent. I believe your perspective is more inline with the national thinking but I don't believe UNC, VT, OkSt, Ole Miss have done anything to warrant their rankings outside of having talent in a P5 Conference. Again I understand this is the world we live in and I accept that, but like many others have stated I don't think the rankings should start until at least 4-5 weeks into a season.
I pretty much agree with you. Here is what I maybe did not relay accurately before but my point that Boise and UCF were comfortable picks is because they have been name programs for several years. They are in some preseason top 25 polls because they have built a brand and are known names. Voters are use to them.

With all we have back we should be ranked in the preseason if we finished this year ranked but we don't have that brand as a FBS team yet.

I am not mad at UCF and I hope Citrus did not take it like I'm taking a shot at them but UCF and Boise State do not return more than we do so I just don't think they should be ranked.

If it were me I would leave Memphis out because of the coaching changes and only rank Cincy from the AAC. I would put App 23-25 and that would be it from G5. I think UCF, Memphis, Boise, and maybe FAU should receive votes but the rest should play out.

Ole Miss has a real good QB and is a name who could have a big turnaround. Every year someone has that turnaround and it would not shock me if Nebraska is just a year later than people thought. It is still too early to do a top 25 because the deadline to declare has not happened yet. I mean we could lose key players to the transfer portal or pick up some players that could swing things just like any of the others could. I would have thought Wake Forest would be close to the top 25 in the preseason but now I would not put them anywhere close until we know how good QB will be.
No offense taken at all! I think you make some pretty valid points.

Name brand is 100% a thing and I feel partially helped us finished ranked over FAU. I mentioned this once before but it's the same reason why the preseason rankings for 2019 UCF were higher than 2018 UCF despite 2019 UCF having a glaring question mark at QB. But it had been an additional year of the name brand building and the voters being comfortable with us being up there. Brett McMurphy, a known hater, surprised our fan base by having us in his way too early rankings when he refused to do so after our past two (better) seasons.

AppStFan1
Posts: 5491
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2018 10:37 am
School: Appalachian State
Has thanked: 531 times
Been thanked: 1333 times

Re: Way too early top 25

Unread post by AppStFan1 » Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:41 pm

citroknight wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:25 pm
AppStFan1 wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:54 pm
NavyApp wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:19 pm
AppStFan1 wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:07 pm
NavyApp wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 1:26 pm


Let's be honest the only reason McMurphy put Ole Miss there is because of KIFFIN. You use the word safe but I think it's more laziness and apathy to the G5. If you do your due diligence on who is coming back you'd have to like the squad Boise has, Us, and UCF. Memphis is a bit of a question breaking in a new QB but they have some legit big time playmakers that make them very dangerous.
Kiffin makes Ole Miss interesting but I would say it is the combo of Kiffin and that QB they have. I don't think he is lazy on the G5 because he constantly had G5 teams in his ballot. I just rather put a P5 team coming off a 7-5 season with a bowl win in the top 25 over the 2nd MWC or 4th AAC team who had 4 losses. Memphis has the question marks but I'm sure many voters will have them. The AP had 17 teams in the preseason top 25 who finished in the final top 25. They do a great job with the top 10 teams but from 15-25 range it is about 50/50 at best whether they will be close or not.

Boise has a pretty good team but they are losing their best players early to the NFL Draft. They have a DE Curtis Weaver who will be a 1st or 2nd round pick and he declared early along with their OT Cleveland who is a baller. I believe they should receive votes but I have a hard time giving them benefit of the doubt this year when you lose your best WR, top 2 players overall, and are coming off a lopsided loss to Washington in the bowl game.
That's all well and good, and at the end of the day it's your opinion. But he wasn't putting a 7-5 team ahead of the 2nd place team in the MWC or the 4th place AAC team. He literally is putting a team coming off a 4-8 season ahead of a 13-1 team returning the majority of the offense and defense. Ahead of the MWC champ who has a straight baller at QB(better than Plumlee) and AAC champ and G5 representative in the NY6 who is also returning a great core of talent. I believe your perspective is more inline with the national thinking but I don't believe UNC, VT, OkSt, Ole Miss have done anything to warrant their rankings outside of having talent in a P5 Conference. Again I understand this is the world we live in and I accept that, but like many others have stated I don't think the rankings should start until at least 4-5 weeks into a season.
I pretty much agree with you. Here is what I maybe did not relay accurately before but my point that Boise and UCF were comfortable picks is because they have been name programs for several years. They are in some preseason top 25 polls because they have built a brand and are known names. Voters are use to them.

With all we have back we should be ranked in the preseason if we finished this year ranked but we don't have that brand as a FBS team yet.

I am not mad at UCF and I hope Citrus did not take it like I'm taking a shot at them but UCF and Boise State do not return more than we do so I just don't think they should be ranked.

If it were me I would leave Memphis out because of the coaching changes and only rank Cincy from the AAC. I would put App 23-25 and that would be it from G5. I think UCF, Memphis, Boise, and maybe FAU should receive votes but the rest should play out.

Ole Miss has a real good QB and is a name who could have a big turnaround. Every year someone has that turnaround and it would not shock me if Nebraska is just a year later than people thought. It is still too early to do a top 25 because the deadline to declare has not happened yet. I mean we could lose key players to the transfer portal or pick up some players that could swing things just like any of the others could. I would have thought Wake Forest would be close to the top 25 in the preseason but now I would not put them anywhere close until we know how good QB will be.
No offense taken at all! I think you make some pretty valid points.

Name brand is 100% a thing and I feel partially helped us finished ranked over FAU. I mentioned this once before but it's the same reason why the preseason rankings for 2019 UCF were higher than 2018 UCF despite 2019 UCF having a glaring question mark at QB. But it had been an additional year of the name brand building and the voters being comfortable with us being up there. Brett McMurphy, a known hater, surprised our fan base by having us in his way too early rankings when he refused to do so after our past two (better) seasons.
For example, I think we could be better next year and if we are equal or better I would think the voters rank us in the preseason in 2021 but based on what we know now I would not rank us. I would say we should not have any votes because we won't know on QB for sure. If the new QB turns out to be very good and we are as good everywhere else then we should quickly move up but it would not shock me if we have a name then and we begin the year ranked.

FAU definitely played better than you guys later in the year and I thought they should finish 25 or 26 but name branding hurt them. If we keep it up for another year or two then we will become like you guys and be a team that voters will be comfortable with for sure.

citroknight
Posts: 224
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:23 am
School: UCF
Has thanked: 292 times
Been thanked: 168 times

Re: Way too early top 25

Unread post by citroknight » Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:16 am

AppStFan1 wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:41 pm
citroknight wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:25 pm
AppStFan1 wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:54 pm
NavyApp wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:19 pm
AppStFan1 wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:07 pm


Kiffin makes Ole Miss interesting but I would say it is the combo of Kiffin and that QB they have. I don't think he is lazy on the G5 because he constantly had G5 teams in his ballot. I just rather put a P5 team coming off a 7-5 season with a bowl win in the top 25 over the 2nd MWC or 4th AAC team who had 4 losses. Memphis has the question marks but I'm sure many voters will have them. The AP had 17 teams in the preseason top 25 who finished in the final top 25. They do a great job with the top 10 teams but from 15-25 range it is about 50/50 at best whether they will be close or not.

Boise has a pretty good team but they are losing their best players early to the NFL Draft. They have a DE Curtis Weaver who will be a 1st or 2nd round pick and he declared early along with their OT Cleveland who is a baller. I believe they should receive votes but I have a hard time giving them benefit of the doubt this year when you lose your best WR, top 2 players overall, and are coming off a lopsided loss to Washington in the bowl game.
That's all well and good, and at the end of the day it's your opinion. But he wasn't putting a 7-5 team ahead of the 2nd place team in the MWC or the 4th place AAC team. He literally is putting a team coming off a 4-8 season ahead of a 13-1 team returning the majority of the offense and defense. Ahead of the MWC champ who has a straight baller at QB(better than Plumlee) and AAC champ and G5 representative in the NY6 who is also returning a great core of talent. I believe your perspective is more inline with the national thinking but I don't believe UNC, VT, OkSt, Ole Miss have done anything to warrant their rankings outside of having talent in a P5 Conference. Again I understand this is the world we live in and I accept that, but like many others have stated I don't think the rankings should start until at least 4-5 weeks into a season.
I pretty much agree with you. Here is what I maybe did not relay accurately before but my point that Boise and UCF were comfortable picks is because they have been name programs for several years. They are in some preseason top 25 polls because they have built a brand and are known names. Voters are use to them.

With all we have back we should be ranked in the preseason if we finished this year ranked but we don't have that brand as a FBS team yet.

I am not mad at UCF and I hope Citrus did not take it like I'm taking a shot at them but UCF and Boise State do not return more than we do so I just don't think they should be ranked.

If it were me I would leave Memphis out because of the coaching changes and only rank Cincy from the AAC. I would put App 23-25 and that would be it from G5. I think UCF, Memphis, Boise, and maybe FAU should receive votes but the rest should play out.

Ole Miss has a real good QB and is a name who could have a big turnaround. Every year someone has that turnaround and it would not shock me if Nebraska is just a year later than people thought. It is still too early to do a top 25 because the deadline to declare has not happened yet. I mean we could lose key players to the transfer portal or pick up some players that could swing things just like any of the others could. I would have thought Wake Forest would be close to the top 25 in the preseason but now I would not put them anywhere close until we know how good QB will be.
No offense taken at all! I think you make some pretty valid points.

Name brand is 100% a thing and I feel partially helped us finished ranked over FAU. I mentioned this once before but it's the same reason why the preseason rankings for 2019 UCF were higher than 2018 UCF despite 2019 UCF having a glaring question mark at QB. But it had been an additional year of the name brand building and the voters being comfortable with us being up there. Brett McMurphy, a known hater, surprised our fan base by having us in his way too early rankings when he refused to do so after our past two (better) seasons.
For example, I think we could be better next year and if we are equal or better I would think the voters rank us in the preseason in 2021 but based on what we know now I would not rank us. I would say we should not have any votes because we won't know on QB for sure. If the new QB turns out to be very good and we are as good everywhere else then we should quickly move up but it would not shock me if we have a name then and we begin the year ranked.

FAU definitely played better than you guys later in the year and I thought they should finish 25 or 26 but name branding hurt them. If we keep it up for another year or two then we will become like you guys and be a team that voters will be comfortable with for sure.
FAU got into a rhythm as the season went on. Part of it for sure was improvements, experience, and getting some injured played back. But we also can't ignore that their schedule got way softer after playing us.

Per the Massey composite ratings, here are how the teams that FAU beat and lost to measure up.

Losses: 3 Ohio State, 24 UCF, 75 Marshall

Wins: 35 SMU, 66 WKU, 89 Southern Miss, 91 UAB, 98 Ball State, 107 Charlotte, 111 FIU, 114 MTSU, 122 UTSA, 127 ODU, FCS Wagner

The SMU win was great but they lost to the 2 best two teams they played.

Average rating for the 10 FBS teams they beat: 96
Average rating for the 9 FBS teams UCF beat: 77

With our win totals only off by 1, us thumping FAU when we played, and also thumping the only CUSA team they lost to, I can see why we were ranked ahead of them. The name brand is part of the equation but other ways of looking at it also point to UCF > FAU for 2019.

bigdaddyg
Posts: 5832
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 1:08 pm
School: Appalachian State
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 2474 times

Re: Way too early top 25

Unread post by bigdaddyg » Wed Jan 15, 2020 8:48 am

Theoretically you could add another power conference made up of :

App
UCF
Memphis
Cincinnati
Boise
LaLa (maybe)
SMU
Navy

Someone add 2 more

Or theoretically you make football only power conferences with some existing P5’s being relegated to G5 status. We all know that a good chunk of the P5’s exist only by affiliation.

AppStFan1
Posts: 5491
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2018 10:37 am
School: Appalachian State
Has thanked: 531 times
Been thanked: 1333 times

Re: Way too early top 25

Unread post by AppStFan1 » Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:59 am

citroknight wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:16 am
AppStFan1 wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:41 pm
citroknight wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:25 pm
AppStFan1 wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:54 pm
NavyApp wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:19 pm


That's all well and good, and at the end of the day it's your opinion. But he wasn't putting a 7-5 team ahead of the 2nd place team in the MWC or the 4th place AAC team. He literally is putting a team coming off a 4-8 season ahead of a 13-1 team returning the majority of the offense and defense. Ahead of the MWC champ who has a straight baller at QB(better than Plumlee) and AAC champ and G5 representative in the NY6 who is also returning a great core of talent. I believe your perspective is more inline with the national thinking but I don't believe UNC, VT, OkSt, Ole Miss have done anything to warrant their rankings outside of having talent in a P5 Conference. Again I understand this is the world we live in and I accept that, but like many others have stated I don't think the rankings should start until at least 4-5 weeks into a season.
I pretty much agree with you. Here is what I maybe did not relay accurately before but my point that Boise and UCF were comfortable picks is because they have been name programs for several years. They are in some preseason top 25 polls because they have built a brand and are known names. Voters are use to them.

With all we have back we should be ranked in the preseason if we finished this year ranked but we don't have that brand as a FBS team yet.

I am not mad at UCF and I hope Citrus did not take it like I'm taking a shot at them but UCF and Boise State do not return more than we do so I just don't think they should be ranked.

If it were me I would leave Memphis out because of the coaching changes and only rank Cincy from the AAC. I would put App 23-25 and that would be it from G5. I think UCF, Memphis, Boise, and maybe FAU should receive votes but the rest should play out.

Ole Miss has a real good QB and is a name who could have a big turnaround. Every year someone has that turnaround and it would not shock me if Nebraska is just a year later than people thought. It is still too early to do a top 25 because the deadline to declare has not happened yet. I mean we could lose key players to the transfer portal or pick up some players that could swing things just like any of the others could. I would have thought Wake Forest would be close to the top 25 in the preseason but now I would not put them anywhere close until we know how good QB will be.
No offense taken at all! I think you make some pretty valid points.

Name brand is 100% a thing and I feel partially helped us finished ranked over FAU. I mentioned this once before but it's the same reason why the preseason rankings for 2019 UCF were higher than 2018 UCF despite 2019 UCF having a glaring question mark at QB. But it had been an additional year of the name brand building and the voters being comfortable with us being up there. Brett McMurphy, a known hater, surprised our fan base by having us in his way too early rankings when he refused to do so after our past two (better) seasons.
For example, I think we could be better next year and if we are equal or better I would think the voters rank us in the preseason in 2021 but based on what we know now I would not rank us. I would say we should not have any votes because we won't know on QB for sure. If the new QB turns out to be very good and we are as good everywhere else then we should quickly move up but it would not shock me if we have a name then and we begin the year ranked.

FAU definitely played better than you guys later in the year and I thought they should finish 25 or 26 but name branding hurt them. If we keep it up for another year or two then we will become like you guys and be a team that voters will be comfortable with for sure.
FAU got into a rhythm as the season went on. Part of it for sure was improvements, experience, and getting some injured played back. But we also can't ignore that their schedule got way softer after playing us.

Per the Massey composite ratings, here are how the teams that FAU beat and lost to measure up.

Losses: 3 Ohio State, 24 UCF, 75 Marshall

Wins: 35 SMU, 66 WKU, 89 Southern Miss, 91 UAB, 98 Ball State, 107 Charlotte, 111 FIU, 114 MTSU, 122 UTSA, 127 ODU, FCS Wagner

The SMU win was great but they lost to the 2 best two teams they played.

Average rating for the 10 FBS teams they beat: 96
Average rating for the 9 FBS teams UCF beat: 77

With our win totals only off by 1, us thumping FAU when we played, and also thumping the only CUSA team they lost to, I can see why we were ranked ahead of them. The name brand is part of the equation but other ways of looking at it also point to UCF > FAU for 2019.
No question I agree you should be but with how many votes they got after the CUSA title game and beating SMU I thought perhaps they would sneak in at 25 and they got close at 27. UCF's loss to Pitt and Tulsa to me should put you guys in the 29-37 type range at bottom of receiving votes but name definitely helped. You guys look a lot better late in the year as well, which helps.

What do you think you guys would do if you swapped schedules with them? I would say FAU goes 7-5 and UCF would go 12-1 plus win their bowl game. I just don't get how any CUSA team can get votes with 2-3 losses because of how weak their schedule is. Had we lost to UNC or SC I would say we would not even deserve to be in a ballot.

I always go back to how would a legit top 20 team do against a team and none of these P5 teams with 7-8 wins would lose games to these G5 teams with losing records. They would beat them by 20+. Shoot, Washington was 7-5 and they beat Boise 38-7.

citroknight
Posts: 224
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:23 am
School: UCF
Has thanked: 292 times
Been thanked: 168 times

Re: Way too early top 25

Unread post by citroknight » Wed Jan 15, 2020 3:15 pm

AppStFan1 wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:59 am
citroknight wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:16 am
AppStFan1 wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:41 pm
citroknight wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:25 pm
AppStFan1 wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:54 pm


I pretty much agree with you. Here is what I maybe did not relay accurately before but my point that Boise and UCF were comfortable picks is because they have been name programs for several years. They are in some preseason top 25 polls because they have built a brand and are known names. Voters are use to them.

With all we have back we should be ranked in the preseason if we finished this year ranked but we don't have that brand as a FBS team yet.

I am not mad at UCF and I hope Citrus did not take it like I'm taking a shot at them but UCF and Boise State do not return more than we do so I just don't think they should be ranked.

If it were me I would leave Memphis out because of the coaching changes and only rank Cincy from the AAC. I would put App 23-25 and that would be it from G5. I think UCF, Memphis, Boise, and maybe FAU should receive votes but the rest should play out.

Ole Miss has a real good QB and is a name who could have a big turnaround. Every year someone has that turnaround and it would not shock me if Nebraska is just a year later than people thought. It is still too early to do a top 25 because the deadline to declare has not happened yet. I mean we could lose key players to the transfer portal or pick up some players that could swing things just like any of the others could. I would have thought Wake Forest would be close to the top 25 in the preseason but now I would not put them anywhere close until we know how good QB will be.
No offense taken at all! I think you make some pretty valid points.

Name brand is 100% a thing and I feel partially helped us finished ranked over FAU. I mentioned this once before but it's the same reason why the preseason rankings for 2019 UCF were higher than 2018 UCF despite 2019 UCF having a glaring question mark at QB. But it had been an additional year of the name brand building and the voters being comfortable with us being up there. Brett McMurphy, a known hater, surprised our fan base by having us in his way too early rankings when he refused to do so after our past two (better) seasons.
For example, I think we could be better next year and if we are equal or better I would think the voters rank us in the preseason in 2021 but based on what we know now I would not rank us. I would say we should not have any votes because we won't know on QB for sure. If the new QB turns out to be very good and we are as good everywhere else then we should quickly move up but it would not shock me if we have a name then and we begin the year ranked.

FAU definitely played better than you guys later in the year and I thought they should finish 25 or 26 but name branding hurt them. If we keep it up for another year or two then we will become like you guys and be a team that voters will be comfortable with for sure.
FAU got into a rhythm as the season went on. Part of it for sure was improvements, experience, and getting some injured played back. But we also can't ignore that their schedule got way softer after playing us.

Per the Massey composite ratings, here are how the teams that FAU beat and lost to measure up.

Losses: 3 Ohio State, 24 UCF, 75 Marshall

Wins: 35 SMU, 66 WKU, 89 Southern Miss, 91 UAB, 98 Ball State, 107 Charlotte, 111 FIU, 114 MTSU, 122 UTSA, 127 ODU, FCS Wagner

The SMU win was great but they lost to the 2 best two teams they played.

Average rating for the 10 FBS teams they beat: 96
Average rating for the 9 FBS teams UCF beat: 77

With our win totals only off by 1, us thumping FAU when we played, and also thumping the only CUSA team they lost to, I can see why we were ranked ahead of them. The name brand is part of the equation but other ways of looking at it also point to UCF > FAU for 2019.
No question I agree you should be but with how many votes they got after the CUSA title game and beating SMU I thought perhaps they would sneak in at 25 and they got close at 27. UCF's loss to Pitt and Tulsa to me should put you guys in the 29-37 type range at bottom of receiving votes but name definitely helped. You guys look a lot better late in the year as well, which helps.

What do you think you guys would do if you swapped schedules with them? I would say FAU goes 7-5 and UCF would go 12-1 plus win their bowl game. I just don't get how any CUSA team can get votes with 2-3 losses because of how weak their schedule is. Had we lost to UNC or SC I would say we would not even deserve to be in a ballot.

I always go back to how would a legit top 20 team do against a team and none of these P5 teams with 7-8 wins would lose games to these G5 teams with losing records. They would beat them by 20+. Shoot, Washington was 7-5 and they beat Boise 38-7.
It's always a little bit of optics and psychology too. If your losses are mostly front loaded like FAUs were, it's probably better because the voters are able to move past it eventually and the focus is more on the later season momentum.

I was also on the fence whether we would get in too, the Tulsa loss being the dagger. Pitt still feels meh but an 8 win ACC team, especially one early in the season, is easier to forgive as the season goes on.

Oddly enough, I'd see us with a similar record as FAU. Ohio State is a guaranteed loss. If would be a toss up if we had play a doppelganger UCF like opponent. Could go either way. And then a random upset loss. So somewhere between 13-1 and 11-3. FAU with our schedule could do well, maybe 8 wins. But it'd be a tougher slate for sure that could see them barely make bowl eligibility.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Appalachian Football”