Preseason AP poll is out
- Thread starter ScottHood
- Start date
IMO, there probably shouldn't even be a poll until every conference has played half their league games.
It's all guessing right now.
It's all guessing right now.
Oregon getting props for a qb that has YET to pan out and a recruiting class that hasn't stepped foot on campus yet. I guess.
The P12 has always been a "who has the tenured QB" league, so I guess a bird in the hand? By all accounts Eason is the second coming of Christ in cleats, meanwhile I'm feeling our 9-10 win season slipping to 7-8 wins because we couldn't get any of the kids who've been on campus for 3 years game ready and the hot shot gun slinger we brought in isn't moving the needle at all, which speaks volumes to what a special talent GM actually is (further proven by his NFL play).
The P12 has always been a "who has the tenured QB" league, so I guess a bird in the hand? By all accounts Eason is the second coming of Christ in cleats, meanwhile I'm feeling our 9-10 win season slipping to 7-8 wins because we couldn't get any of the kids who've been on campus for 3 years game ready and the hot shot gun slinger we brought in isn't moving the needle at all, which speaks volumes to what a special talent GM actually is (further proven by his NFL play).
What part of ZERO points in the first three quarters, 19 of 33 passing for 166 yards, 203 yards in total offense, and 11 first downs v. Michigan State doesn't impress you?
God wears green and yellow and goes by the name Justin Bieber Herbert!
And no school has better mascots than these ...
I know this is likely the wrong board for feedback, but I'm not understanding the Oregon love, 5-4 in the P12 last year, about as ugly a bowl win as you can have, and yes good recruiting class, but most all of those kids won't contribute this year. Until they actually beat somebody of some substance, I just don't get it.
Also Stanford, they are becoming the new USC, they only have like 5 or 6 starters back from a team that hasn't won a game against anybody on their level or better in quite some time, yet they are just assumed to be good. I honestly think they will be 5th in the North this year behind Cal.
Also Stanford, they are becoming the new USC, they only have like 5 or 6 starters back from a team that hasn't won a game against anybody on their level or better in quite some time, yet they are just assumed to be good. I honestly think they will be 5th in the North this year behind Cal.
Pac-12 with 5 ranked teams and the Cougs at #23 makes me happy. It keeps our name on the ticker for the first three weeks of the season at least and is good exposure for the program. Those are the kinds of things that lead to an upswing in recruiting.
I don't know. Shaw hasn't won fewer than 8 games, ever. I don't think 25th is an unreasonable prediction.
Better than Nebraska, coming off a 4 win season, ranked ahead of them.
Don't sleep on the Cornhuskers. I'm not as anti-Husker as I used to be, but I still enjoy when they are mediocre. Their play last year compares pretty favorably to our team in 2000. Four of their losses were by less than one score and they went 4-2 to finish the season. We went 4-7 in 2000 with four close losses before going 9-2 in 2001.
Looking at their schedule, Colorado is their landmine in the first four games and there is a pretty good shot that they'll be 5-1 at the midpoint of the season. The back half of their season features games against Minnesota, Indiana, Purdue, and Maryland; a group of teams that finished collectively just under 0.500 plus winnable games against Iowa and Wisconsin. It will not be a surprise to see Nebraska at 9-3 heading into the bowl season.
I'm not so sure Gordon wasn't ready last year. He probably just needed someone like Gardner Minshew to come in put it all together for him and get the torch passed to him this year. He is looking really good so far and I believe that he can get us to the coveted North title. Sometimes, you just need something to make it all click for you and maybe that "something" for Gordon was Minshew.
I'm happy to see the others ranked so high. It will help us when we beat them, unless they have already dropped so far that it doesn't matter.
By the time we face Oregon, the ducks just might have three losses (Auburn, Stanford, UW). If that's the case, we'll smack their demoralized arses around to the tune of 55-16 in Autzen Stadium.
4 north teams ranked is good for the division and conference but teams need to take care of business in noncon. Oregon has to beat Auburn, we have to beat Houston and Stanford can’t Shaw their games. Stanford’s noncon is pretty damn brutal. Home to Northwestern, at UCF and home Notre Dame. UW noncon is pretty cake. Don’t think BYU is an issue for them.
The problem with Oregon being ranked 11th comes when Auburn beats them, and if it's arse whupping, the Pac-12 likely won't recover nationally and, therefore, dismissed from the college football playoff early on. On a side note, if Utah can put together an offense, the Utes will run roughshod over the Pac-12 South and coast into the conference title game. Their defense is going to be very, very good.
I've never seen Gordon play, so I'm looking forward to it.
Also, if they are as close competitively as it appears, it probably makes more sense to have Gordon start and GG backing him up as opposed to the other way around.
This way, if Gordon performs well, great. If he doesn't, or if he gets injured, we're bringing in an experienced QB who'll be able to jump right into the job without the stage being too big for him.
Also, if they are as close competitively as it appears, it probably makes more sense to have Gordon start and GG backing him up as opposed to the other way around.
This way, if Gordon performs well, great. If he doesn't, or if he gets injured, we're bringing in an experienced QB who'll be able to jump right into the job without the stage being too big for him.
FWIW, a week ago, everyone was on the Gubrud train. This week.....it's Gordon. We might be well advised to wait another week before getting too invested in any of our QB's.
A continued testament to how long it takes for the "glow" of sustained success to fade. People bag on Oregon because they never won a title and they're all hat no cattle blah blah blah. Fact is, Nike U was exciting, ran an interesting offense and had cool (to young recruits) uniforms. They were also pretty good even though they always fell short.
Now it's been 5 years (!) since they last made some noise, but every preseason the CFB community throws them a victory celebration. That glow is good for some time. Just ask Notre Dame and Michigan, who haven't held crystal for almost a quarter-century but are writing their Oscar speeches every August.
If WSU can string together 5-10 years of sniffing conference titles and bringing home bowl trophies, we could bring back Paul Wulff and we'd still get a couple of SI covers.
I bag on Oregon because they're the creation of a billionaire with a mid-life crisis.
I'm on the WSU train. One of the many things I love about coach Leach is that I trust his personnel judgment completely; particularly at the QB position. Whoever starts will have won the job and is the guy who'll give us the best chance to win.
As I said above, from an outsiders viewpoint, I think having a guy like GG serving as a backup gives us a lot of insurance at QB, something we haven't had in a few years. Let's say Gordon is playing well, but goes down with an injury the week before a road game at Oregon, or Utah, or UW. Unlike a raw underclassman, GG would go under center with confidence and the expectation that he'll perform well. That's a pretty big plus.
If Tinsley is the QB, I feel certain WSU will win 7, 8, 12, 14 games.
I understand your point, first I loathe preseason polls, they just become self fulfilling prophecies. I guess I look at it more as a projection as well, I also don't give too much credence to what happened 5 years ago, those guys aren't playing and in more recent memory Stanford hasn't beaten anybody on their level or higher in a few years, has only 5 or 6 starters back, so just looking at this year in a vacuum I don't get it. Subjectively I'm not sold on their QB as anything better than mid level in the P12 either. So when I look at them, yes they might win 8, but if they lose to UW, WSU, Oregon and Cal, meh, those 8 wins will be against the bottom end of the league and non-con. Anyway, enough 'Furd talk, its a WSU board.
Well, if they win 8, then they'll be right in the ballpark of 25th. Look at the teams that end up ranked around 25 each year. Mostly 8 & 9 win Power 5 teams, or 10 win mid majors. Really no one that blows your socks off, or is more consistently good than Stanford.
Oregon = too high (closer to 20)
UW = about right
Utah = too low (top 10 team)
WSU = too low (closer to 15)
Stanford = about right
It's insane to suggest the Pac-12 doesn't have a single top 10 team at the start of the year. The conference deserves 5 ranked teams to start the year, but several deserve to be ranked higher.
UW = about right
Utah = too low (top 10 team)
WSU = too low (closer to 15)
Stanford = about right
It's insane to suggest the Pac-12 doesn't have a single top 10 team at the start of the year. The conference deserves 5 ranked teams to start the year, but several deserve to be ranked higher.
Preseason polls are pretty much the same, year after year. Sportswriters are kind of lazy, and drill down on their local team but honestly may not know that much about the college landscape as a whole. Rather than go way out on a limb, just pick the "name" teams, and then as the season progresses you can write story after story about teams that are unexpectedly good, or teams failing to live up to the expectations you set for them.
The biggest problem I have with the preseason polls is they are used to confirm our bias. If voter thinks a team is Top 10, and they lose early, if they run off a few wins, voter is much more quickly to move them back up than if an unranked or lowly ranked team loses early, or even not, they have to keep winning to get the benefit of the doubt and its based on what, perception?
Yet we use these polls as a major component of who wins the NC, I just think its a really backwards way to look at it. I'm fine with no polls ever, or at the very least waiting until mid-late October.
I bet I can get 7 out of the top 10 teams that will be in next years preseason poll NOW, just by listing:
Alabama
Clemson
Ohio St.
Oklahoma
Michigan
Georgia
Florida
LSU
Notre Dame
Texas
Well if you think preseason polls are stupid, wait until the bowl projections come out in a week or two.
Well if you think preseason polls are stupid, wait until the bowl projections come out in a week or two.
True Dat!
