Coastal vs ECU

[MtnMan14]

How did Marshall beat Notre Dame? - App beating A&M - GaSo beating Nebraska - ODU beating VT? Coastal would have most likely beaten UVA

A&M finished 5-7, Nebraska 4-8, and VT 3-8. All of those teams were bad to terrible. The only one that finished the year decent was ND but they got off to a very rough start under a new coaching staff and turned it around after Marshall. All of those other teams are near the bottom of their conference. Those are wins to be proud if you’re still in the FCS or a middling G5, but if you want to be taken seriously as “the best” G5 conference as we keep saying we are, then those aren’t wins to brag about.

[PoplarHillApp]

The announcers kept talking about this bowl game being a "coming out" for McCall since he entered the portal, and how much attention he was going to receive.

I'm not sure it was the attention McCall wanted. Based on the game and performance, he may be staying put unless he goes to Liberty.

[WVAPPeer]

How these teams finished the season could most certainly been affected by how their first couple of weeks games played out - remember, T A&M beat two top 15 teams right after we beat them ---
I mean, I know this is a "what-if" but what-if App had converted that 2 pt conversion against UNC - how do you think each of the team's season would have developed?

[MtnMan14]

How these teams finished the season could most certainly been affected by how their first couple of weeks games played out - remember, T A&M beat two top 15 teams right after we beat them ---
I mean, I know this is a "what-if" but what-if App had converted that 2 pt conversion against UNC - how do you think each of the team's season would have developed?

The top 25 wins you speak of are Miami who finished 5-7 and Arkansas who finished 6-6. Both finished unranked. Rankings are pointless that early in the year. Do you still consider Texas A&M to be #6? Because if you do, I have some beachfront property in Oklahoma for sale…

[bigdaddyg]

How these teams finished the season could most certainly been affected by how their first couple of weeks games played out - remember, T A&M beat two top 15 teams right after we beat them ---
I mean, I know this is a "what-if" but what-if App had converted that 2 pt conversion against UNC - how do you think each of the team's season would have developed?

The top 25 wins you speak of are Miami who finished 5-7 and Arkansas who finished 6-6. Both finished unranked. Rankings are pointless that early in the year. Do you still consider Texas A&M to be #6? Because if you do, I have some beachfront property in Oklahoma for sale…

I completely agree and this is just my opinion but if I could change anything with college football I'd have zero rankings until after 6 games. Some arbitrary ranking of a team preseason or even a couple games in means nothing if a highly ranked team week 2 goes 6-6. Happens every year. For us the A@M win was cool but was by no means some stunning upset especially since they struggled all season.

[WVAPPeer]

So in your mind early season losses don't really have much affect on how a team progresses thru the season - Of course, pre-season rankings mean nothing but those teams were ranked on what "experts" thought of the team at that point ---
If you don't understand that concept - well ---

[WASU 93]

So in your mind early season losses don't really have much affect on how a team progresses thru the season - Of course, pre-season rankings mean nothing but those teams were ranked on what "experts" thought of the team at that point ---
If you don't understand that concept - well ---

I agree with you. Confidence and momentum are big in college football (and in football in general). IMO, if we complete a red zone pass on the first possession of the second half against JMU and go up 35-10 (and the play was there), then we probably finish the season 8-4 or 9-3 and contend for the East. Instead, we had our struggles, compounded them by pressing and finished where we finished.

Had A&M survived App State, they may have been ranked in the Top 15 at the midpoint of the season.

I think the reason so many fans were upset at the end of the season was because they thought we had the talent to meet our pre-season expectations. It came down to a lack of execution, not having all of the players available, coaching decisions and a pattern of slow starts.

[bigdaddyg]

So in your mind early season losses don't really have much affect on how a team progresses thru the season - Of course, pre-season rankings mean nothing but those teams were ranked on what "experts" thought of the team at that point ---
If you don't understand that concept - well ---

I agree with you. Confidence and momentum are big in college football (and in football in general). IMO, if we complete a red zone pass on the first possession of the second half against JMU and go up 35-10 (and the play was there), then we probably finish the season 8-4 or 9-3 and contend for the East. Instead, we had our struggles, compounded them by pressing and finished where we finished.

Had A&M survived App State, they may have been ranked in the Top 15 at the midpoint of the season.

I think the reason so many fans were upset at the end of the season was because they thought we had the talent to meet our pre-season expectations. It came down to a lack of execution, not having all of the players available, coaching decisions and a pattern of slow starts.

That's all very true but if an "expert " thinks a team is the 6th best without playing a game then goes 7-5 regardless of the circumstances his expert opinion was just a wild ass guess. Our win over Michigan remained an incredible win considering that they still went 8-4 and won a bowl game.

[MtnMan14]

So in your mind early season losses don't really have much affect on how a team progresses thru the season - Of course, pre-season rankings mean nothing but those teams were ranked on what "experts" thought of the team at that point ---
If you don't understand that concept - well ---

I never said it makes no difference. But good teams don’t let their season tank after a bad early season loss i.e. Notre Dame. All of the aforementioned teams sans Notre Dame did exactly that. They were not good teams. Why can’t people just accept that we were not good this year and it had zilch to do with the Sun Belt being the best conference in college football. I usually just lurk and don’t often post, but you guys are delusional about where we are. We are a below average G5 team currently. Simple as that. You argue in circles like a dog chasing your tail.

Edit: and by you, I mean this forum as a collective. The sunbelt is good and that’s why we aren’t good but we’re happy the sunbelt rivals are getting their ass kicked during bowl season so the sunbelt actually isn’t good but they are when we want to argue that that’s the reason we went sub .500 against the FBS this year. It’s a joke.

[311neers]

We have to get better before I can be happy that coastal is dropping back to the way they were.

You bring up an important point.

There are literally hundreds of ways a team can get better, but here are four specific areas involving game management that I hope coach Clark and his staff improve on:

1) End of first half offensive strategy. We’ve been way too conservative in this area. Sitting on the ball and running out the clock with a minute left and two time outs robs a team of a scoring chance. They’re too precious to squander.

2) Third-and-short strategy. We’re way too prone to run it up the middle. Sure, we have a good offensive line and we all would like to impose our will, but our batting average against mostly eight-man fronts has been one of the worst in FBS. Time to mix it up.

3) Fourth-and-short strategy. Every situation is different and Clark seems to be evolving/improving in this area, but going for it on fourth down on our half of the field (especially early in the game) is a losing strategy. Yup, we’ve all read studies that suggest otherwise. But they’re written by people who don’t understand the nuisances of football. It’s about risk and reward. We’ve got to get that figured out.

4) Player management. This is always a touchy issue because the coaches see our team in practice every day. We don’t. But from the outside looking in, it seems our staff is too reluctant to use reserve players in game competition. True, most of our games were close and didn’t lend themselves to unloading the bench. But we did have two uncompetitive games. McBride, Burger and Tabscott all should have seen more playing time. And who knows how things would have ended if Michael Hughes had been used more consistently? He had a great season kicking PATs, but never got much run for field goals after his miss in the season opener.

clock management has to be a top priority as well. He’s been putrid for 3 years now with it.

[bigdaddyg]

We have to get better before I can be happy that coastal is dropping back to the way they were.

You bring up an important point.

There are literally hundreds of ways a team can get better, but here are four specific areas involving game management that I hope coach Clark and his staff improve on:

1) End of first half offensive strategy. We’ve been way too conservative in this area. Sitting on the ball and running out the clock with a minute left and two time outs robs a team of a scoring chance. They’re too precious to squander.

2) Third-and-short strategy. We’re way too prone to run it up the middle. Sure, we have a good offensive line and we all would like to impose our will, but our batting average against mostly eight-man fronts has been one of the worst in FBS. Time to mix it up.

3) Fourth-and-short strategy. Every situation is different and Clark seems to be evolving/improving in this area, but going for it on fourth down on our half of the field (especially early in the game) is a losing strategy. Yup, we’ve all read studies that suggest otherwise. But they’re written by people who don’t understand the nuisances of football. It’s about risk and reward. We’ve got to get that figured out.

4) Player management. This is always a touchy issue because the coaches see our team in practice every day. We don’t. But from the outside looking in, it seems our staff is too reluctant to use reserve players in game competition. True, most of our games were close and didn’t lend themselves to unloading the bench. But we did have two uncompetitive games. McBride, Burger and Tabscott all should have seen more playing time. And who knows how things would have ended if Michael Hughes had been used more consistently? He had a great season kicking PATs, but never got much run for field goals after his miss in the season opener.

clock management has to be a top priority as well. He’s been putrid for 3 years now with it.

Clock management, play calling and general flow of the offense has been considerably worse the last 3 years. We used to quickly line up then audible at the line with plenty of time remaining on the play clock. Last few years it looks like we are slower, get into a bind with the clock and generally just run the play called regardless of the situation

[Cro-Magnon App]

Clock management seems simple if a coach is organized. But there are many coaches who do it poorly - college and pro.

[wb247]

Final rankings are a correction of late season rankings. Late season rankings are a correction of mid season rankings. Mid season rankings.... yada yada yada...

You need them all, including preseason rankings. Being talked about during corrections are why being ranked as early as possible is important. Does preseason resemble final? No. Should it? No. Otherwise why play the games.

[AppWyo]

We have to get better before I can be happy that coastal is dropping back to the way they were.

You bring up an important point.

There are literally hundreds of ways a team can get better, but here are four specific areas involving game management that I hope coach Clark and his staff improve on:

1) End of first half offensive strategy. We’ve been way too conservative in this area. Sitting on the ball and running out the clock with a minute left and two time outs robs a team of a scoring chance. They’re too precious to squander.

2) Third-and-short strategy. We’re way too prone to run it up the middle. Sure, we have a good offensive line and we all would like to impose our will, but our batting average against mostly eight-man fronts has been one of the worst in FBS. Time to mix it up.

3) Fourth-and-short strategy. Every situation is different and Clark seems to be evolving/improving in this area, but going for it on fourth down on our half of the field (especially early in the game) is a losing strategy. Yup, we’ve all read studies that suggest otherwise. But they’re written by people who don’t understand the nuisances of football. It’s about risk and reward. We’ve got to get that figured out.

4) Player management. This is always a touchy issue because the coaches see our team in practice every day. We don’t. But from the outside looking in, it seems our staff is too reluctant to use reserve players in game competition. True, most of our games were close and didn’t lend themselves to unloading the bench. But we did have two uncompetitive games. McBride, Burger and Tabscott all should have seen more playing time. And who knows how things would have ended if Michael Hughes had been used more consistently? He had a great season kicking PATs, but never got much run for field goals after his miss in the season opener.

clock management has to be a top priority as well. He’s been putrid for 3 years now with it.

Clock management, play calling and general flow of the offense has been considerably worse the last 3 years. We used to quickly line up then audible at the line with plenty of time remaining on the play clock. Last few years it looks like we are slower, get into a bind with the clock and generally just run the play called regardless of the situation

Clock management is so much better now than it ever was under Saterfield, we hardly ever get delay of game penalties now and have won games that Saterfield would have lost because of his poor clock management.

[MtnMan14]

Final rankings are a correction of late season rankings. Late season rankings are a correction of mid season rankings. Mid season rankings.... yada yada yada...

You need them all, including preseason rankings. Being talked about during corrections are why being ranked as early as possible is important. Does preseason resemble final? No. Should it? No. Otherwise why play the games.

“being ranked as early as possible is important.”

Isn’t this just proof of early rankings being gimmicky though? If you’re a big brand you get the benefit of the doubt and a high ranking preseason whether it’s deserved or not. That’s why “Texas is back” every year, until they aren’t. I think it’s the exact opposite of what you’ve stated. If the preseason rankings mattered, then why play the games? They don’t matter, which is why they play the games. They’re just there to create media hype. Which is great, but we can’t justify our season because we beat a ranked team that ended up being awful.

[BeauFoster]

Final rankings are a correction of late season rankings. Late season rankings are a correction of mid season rankings. Mid season rankings.... yada yada yada...

You need them all, including preseason rankings. Being talked about during corrections are why being ranked as early as possible is important. Does preseason resemble final? No. Should it? No. Otherwise why play the games.

“being ranked as early as possible is important.”

Isn’t this just proof of early rankings being gimmicky though? If you’re a big brand you get the benefit of the doubt and a high ranking preseason whether it’s deserved or not. That’s why “Texas is back” every year, until they aren’t. I think it’s the exact opposite of what you’ve stated. If the preseason rankings mattered, then why play the games? They don’t matter, which is why they play the games. They’re just there to create media hype. Which is great, but we can’t justify our season because we beat a ranked team that ended up being awful.

Early polls are never going to change. Everyone knows they’re useless, but the media needs to be able to pump up ranked matchups, and they drive the boat. Just accept it and move on.

[bigdaddyg]

I'm pretty sure that those of us who think that early rankings are useless and meaningless also accept them for what they are- a snapshot of the perceived top teams at that point in the season, whether it be preseason or week 3. Our argument is that if a perceived strong team is ranked 6th after 2 games and gets upset by a team perceived to be much weaker or less talented then said strong team goes on to a 7-5 record that week 3 win/loss takes on new meaning. It just sounds a bit silly at year end to still say that App beat the number 6 team in the nation and really feel great about it.

[MtnMan14]

Final rankings are a correction of late season rankings. Late season rankings are a correction of mid season rankings. Mid season rankings.... yada yada yada...

You need them all, including preseason rankings. Being talked about during corrections are why being ranked as early as possible is important. Does preseason resemble final? No. Should it? No. Otherwise why play the games.

“being ranked as early as possible is important.”

Isn’t this just proof of early rankings being gimmicky though? If you’re a big brand you get the benefit of the doubt and a high ranking preseason whether it’s deserved or not. That’s why “Texas is back” every year, until they aren’t. I think it’s the exact opposite of what you’ve stated. If the preseason rankings mattered, then why play the games? They don’t matter, which is why they play the games. They’re just there to create media hype. Which is great, but we can’t justify our season because we beat a ranked team that ended up being awful.

Early polls are never going to change. Everyone knows they’re useless, but the media needs to be able to pump up ranked matchups, and they drive the boat. Just accept it and move on.

This is exactly what I said at the end of my post…

My point was less about the early polls because obviously they’ll continue to exist, and more about the fact that saying we beat #6 Texas A&M who went on to beat two top 15 teams is a silly statement given the end result of the season for all of those teams. None of those teams were actually top 25 teams at all so it’s a moot point. I’m only using in the context in which it relates to App State Football. The indisputable reality is that we did not beat the 6th best team in the country, or even a mid tier SEC team at that. But hey, I guess everyone believe whatever helps them sleep at night. I just hope we can figure out how to improve, because we are currently doing the opposite whether folks want to admit it or not. Go Apps!

[BambooRdApp]

As long as the U is in existence and in the ACC, they will always be preseason pick to win and at near top...then they lay a rotten egg for a season...that has been the case for most of last decade. Polls do not mean anything until November 1st.
I look at the Texas A&M game differently. We beat a team from the SEC. Period. That is a big freaking deal. If you really think about it, given resources at their disposal compared to ours, we should not even be beating Vandy from SEC. But we probably would beat them in year's past, etc. I take the win over A&M for what it is. We beat a team with 10 to 20 times the resources we have ..and recruiting classes that always rank at least 30 spots ahead of us annually... before and after Fisher arrived. I hear the excuse that they were playing young underclassmen on defense, etc. That was Coach Fisher's choice. He has upperclassmen (using sophomore and above as upperclassmen) he could have played....and most, if not all, were probably ranked higher than our kids coming out of high school. I could care less if they were ranked 6th or 36th. We beat a team from the SEC that has a multitude of more resources and supposedly better talent. I will take it and not apologize for a win.

[mike87]

3 years ago when we were receiving pre-season votes, the early polls were much more reliable.