If North Carolina is genuinely better than Michigan (which I don't believe) then we are in trouble when Liberty comes to Boone.

http://collegefootball.ap.org/poll

sixtoes9134 wrote:If North Carolina is genuinely better than Michigan (which I don't believe) then we are in trouble when Liberty comes to Boone.

http://collegefootball.ap.org/poll

I think that you are reading to much into the rankings. These rankings are preseason guesses based on nothing more than how a team performed last year and what is coming back. On paper in early August, UNC looked better than Michigan. They were ranked and they won so there was no need to drop them out. Michigan's opponent this past week, in the eye of the voter, did not show them enough to garner more votes. I would imagine a strong showing this week against Notre Dame would vault them into the top 25 assuming someone does something to fall out.

AppSt94 wrote:

sixtoes9134 wrote:If North Carolina is genuinely better than Michigan (which I don't believe) then we are in trouble when Liberty comes to Boone.

http://collegefootball.ap.org/poll

I think that you are reading to much into the rankings. These rankings are preseason guesses based on nothing more than how a team performed last year and what is coming back. On paper in early August, UNC looked better than Michigan. They were ranked and they won so there was no need to drop them out. Michigan's opponent this past week, in the eye of the voter, did not show them enough to garner more votes. I would imagine a strong showing this week against Notre Dame would vault them into the top 25 assuming someone does something to fall out.

Agreed, soundly beating a team that appeared to only show to collect a pay check will not vault one into the top 25.

Besides, Duke had more votes after week one than Michigan.

UNC's rank has more to do with their journalism school than their football team. We won't be losing to Big South nobody two years in a row.

AppSt94 wrote: I think that you are reading to much into the rankings. These rankings are preseason guesses based on nothing more than how a team performed last year and what is coming back

I mean, that's not a bad basis on which to rank teams though, is it?

Gonzo wrote:UNC's rank has more to do with their journalism school than their football team.

Not quite sure I follow. Are you saying a large portion of the AP voters are UNC grads?

EastHallApp wrote:

AppSt94 wrote: I think that you are reading to much into the rankings. These rankings are preseason guesses based on nothing more than how a team performed last year and what is coming back

I mean, that's not a bad basis on which to rank teams though, is it?

I'm not sure they are worthy of the ranking. But they did win 6 or their last 7 with a two point loss to Duke.

Since Turner Gill took over, in Liberty's three games vs. FBS they lost by 3 to Wake, by 7 to Kent State, and then led UNC midway through the third quarter before getting buried under an avalanche of turnovers. At some point, you figure they're going to break through and win an FCS game. Just hope it isn't against us.

I'm not ready to predict that we lose to them, but I do expect a tough game. At this point I'd say it will probably be a one-score margin either way.

They look to be a tough out. They seem to play up or down to their competition. If I am game planning for them, and I am not, I run the ball down their throat and grind their defense down. Wear them down physically and then spread them out in the 4th quarter. We don't have the depth difference yet but we do have the ability to wear them down in the trenches.

EastHallApp wrote:

Gonzo wrote:UNC's rank has more to do with their journalism school than their football team.

Not quite sure I follow. Are you saying a large portion of the AP voters are UNC grads?

Yes

Gonzo wrote:

EastHallApp wrote:

Gonzo wrote:UNC's rank has more to do with their journalism school than their football team.

Not quite sure I follow. Are you saying a large portion of the AP voters are UNC grads?

Yes

There are probably more than a few voters with degrees from Carolina. But I'm not sure that it has more to do with people guessing how good a team is based off last year. I don't think they take into consideration subte coaching changes and quality of backups.

Gonzo wrote:

EastHallApp wrote:

Gonzo wrote:UNC's rank has more to do with their journalism school than their football team.

Not quite sure I follow. Are you saying a large portion of the AP voters are UNC grads?

Yes

This conspiracy is more widespread than I realized: It appears UNC journalism grads are also taking over positions on football coaching staffs around the nation as well: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/polls/

Well if it's coaches then I would give it more credence. But again it's hard to evaluate how good a team is after one week.

I think UNC turning the ball over like crazy early on had something to do with Liberty hanging around like they did. Once the Holes got their heads out of their butts, it wasn't close

AppSt94 wrote:Well if it's coaches then I would give it more credence. But again it's hard to evaluate how good a team is after one week.

Honestly I wouldn't give them that much credence. Most of those coaches just have a staffer fill out their ballot for them I think. And it's not like they're sitting around studying all the teams anyway; they're too busy with their own teams and their opponents.

mtnjax wrote:I think UNC turning the ball over like crazy early on had something to do with Liberty hanging around like they did. Once the Holes got their heads out of their butts, it wasn't close

That is definitely true. It cut both ways, though. UNC turnovers kept Liberty in the game, but Liberty turnovers knocked them out of it.

The significant stat to me for the future is that Liberty was outgained by less than 100 yards.

EastHallApp wrote:

AppSt94 wrote:Well if it's coaches then I would give it more credence. But again it's hard to evaluate how good a team is after one week.

Honestly I wouldn't give them that much credence. Most of those coaches just have a staffer fill out their ballot for them I think. And it's not like they're sitting around studying all the teams anyway; they're too busy with their own teams and their opponents.

Yes. I agree that the coaches are probably not actually filling out the ballots. Still I give them more credence than a journalist. Remember the whole controversy about west coast bias. I think this whole 4 team playoff thing is better than the BCS but it's not the best way to solve the champion.

AppSt94 wrote:Well if it's coaches then I would give it more credence. But again it's hard to evaluate how good a team is after one week.

Nonsense!

There are several on here, like GoApps70, that can evaluate players after two series in a blowout game. Who needs one week--or Spring/Fall camp--when you have these MMB coaches' skills? Seriously, I don't know why they're wasting their time posting here, when they should be on the sidelines on Saturdays and Sundays.

ASUMountaineer wrote:

AppSt94 wrote:Well if it's coaches then I would give it more credence. But again it's hard to evaluate how good a team is after one week.

Nonsense!

There are several on here, like GoApps70, that can evaluate players after two series in a blowout game. Who needs one week--or Spring/Fall camp--when you have these MMB coaches' skills? Seriously, I don't know why they're wasting their time posting here, when they should be on the sidelines on Saturdays and Sundays.