in preseason polls. Can't really believe the Miami/FSU thing, but stats are stats.

Comments?

I always get a kick out of SI's preseason poll. It's usually around 98% wrong. Who pays them off?

This is why I like it when we're ranked, but not ranked too high. We play better when we aren't shown as much respect. Of course, it's a double edged sword, as everyone wants respect. As long as we get it when it most matters, at the end of the year, we can live with a little less love in the preseason.

[ July 23, 2006, 07:09 PM: Message edited by: Penn State ]

I'm with you Penn State. It is nice to get some recognition in the pre-season. But, in reality, who really knows how anyone is going to play. Polls before the first game are a waste.

Yeah, those preseason polls are fun to look at. Remember Athlon or Sporting News last year had the Vols at #1 -- and they finished sub .500. They should be further up that overrated list just on the basis of that!

But like im4psu said, the polls are meaningless until games are played. This year, for example, where would one rank West Virginia going in the season? I've seen them in the top five, another down around 12 or 13. Do you rank them on how good a team they might be on paper now -- or what their record (and therefore their ranking) will be at the end of the season? WVU has an easy schedule (even one of the stories GymMountaineer trumpeted admitted that wink ), with the toughest game being in Louisville, and may well end up undefeated at the end. But should they be ranked in the top five now because of that?

[ July 24, 2006, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: DCBucky ]

WVU is not overrated. They have potential to be a legitimate MNC contender regardless of their schedule. The way I see the BE has much in common with the old version of the ACC before they added VT, BC and Miami.

They have 1-2 dominate teams which in the ACC was FSU and (insert random ACC team here) and the rest of the conference was very average. For the BE, it's WVU and Louisville right now. FSU was viewed every year from 1991-2004 as legitimate MNC candidates and let's be honest here...the ACC those years were honestly about the same level as the BE is now. FSU won the ACC 13 of 14 of those years and played in several national title games winning a couple. Right now, WVU is the BE's version of the old ACC's FSU. They DO have a legitimate shot at a Fiesta Bowl bid if they simply win all their games.

Not sure I'm ready to call WVU the ACC's version of FSU. They need to really dominate the BE the way FSU did for a longer period of time and be more of a legit national title contender than just this upcoming season.

Good Post Derby wink

WVU finished ranked 5th in the country last year, yet some are suggesting they aren't a top 5 caliber team with practically their entire team back next season ( and the season after next)?

Who will be better? Certainly Ohio State and Notre Dame will be very good, but WVU won a BCS bowl game last year and has just as equally talented players on the roster coming off their BCS bowl win.

Pollsters I've seen thus far are all over the map re: WVU. I think the Athlon guide I have puts them at 5 -- however collegefootballnews.com puts them way down at 15.

The problem you 'eers fans are gonna face all year is that many in the media (and on countless fan boards, but who cares about those wink ) will constantly be labeling WVU as overrated -- mainly due to the weak schedule and perceived weak league -- face it -- the toughest game is at Lousville -- this is not like playing at Michigan, at Texas, at Notre Dame, at Tennessee, etc. And you have the misfortune of playing the Terps in probably another down year.

All you can do is go out and win the games you've scheduled. Get to and win your BCS bowl -- that'll shut everyone up!

WVU was ranked #2 by Streets & Smith. Also, Pat Forde and another ESPN analyst has WVU ranked #1 pre season. Additionally, Las Vegas has them as their pre season #1 team.

WVU doesn't have to prove its worth. We already did that last year with a top 5 team that returns almost everyone.

The schedule is not our issue. WVU didn't ask for the conferences to realignment. It happened. West Virginia has some good non-conference games lined up in the future with Auburn, Florida State, Michigan State, Notre Dame, and a yearly game with Maryland ( with a 2 year absence starting next year so the Terps can play Cal.

WVU isa proven Top 5 team from last year, so its assinine for people to complain they don't belong this year if they win big this year.

WVU doesn't have to prove its worth. We already did that last year with a top 5 team who has practically everyone coming back.

Stating WVU's game at Louisville is not like playing at Tennessee, Michigan, Texas, and Notre Dame is kind of off base.

Louisville is a better program right now than Michigan and Tennessee and definitely more difficult to beat at home than those two teams. Also, I'm not convinced you can say Notre Dame is on another level than the Cards. ND was 9-3 last year. The Cards were the same record. The year before Louisville was 12-1 while Notre Dame was Mediocre. Only Texas off that list ( based off their National Championship) is of a higher level than the Cards.

Also, Louisville has more offensive talent than Texas this year. Texas has no one comparable to Brohm and Michael Bush.

[ July 29, 2006, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: GymMountainEER ]

Here's another overrated/underrated poll based on final poll standings vs. preseason polls.

BlueRaider,

If WVU wins the Big East in 2006, its the Mountaineers 4th straight Big East crown ( 1 of those years was with Miami in the conference). ALso, WVU was 6-1 in 2002 and in 2nd place.

While its a LITTLE bit premature to state WVU is FSU of the Big East just yet, only Miami has dominated the Big East in the past to what WVU has in the last 5 years.


You can't argue with a program that is 23-4 ( 3-1 against Pitt, 4-0 against Syracuse, 2-1 against BC, 2-0 against VT, 1-0 against Louisville, & 2-0 versus UCONN) in their last 27 conference games.

I doubt Miami staying in the Big East would have even been a barrier to WVU claiming Big East titles.

[ July 29, 2006, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: GymMountainEER ]

LOL. How did even this thread turn into a referendum on West Virginia?

NCH, no thread is Mountaineer proof, absolutely none.

Possibly Blue Raider you should give a little information as to why this happened. With the hijacking of Big East threads by posters that had no interest in participating other than to insult ( insults that were not sports related) the conference and more specifically West Virginia. This led to many problems. Before that, WVU issues remained in in Big East threads.

However, Its all Water under the bridge now.

You have made two references to to past issues of Outsports by making comments of my posting behavior. Hopefully you can refrain yourself from throwing blanketed comments or maybe remain on the other side of tracks where over active imaginiations seem to run rampant consisting of gossip and erroneous assertions.

Additionally, This topic/thread was about overrated and underrated programs. WVU was brought up ( not by me). I simply responded to some threads.

Maybe we should talk about Syracuse being underrated after their 1-10 season?

[ July 31, 2006, 08:54 PM: Message edited by: GymMountainEER ]

As you wish, I usually think of Buffalo as overrated since I don't believe they should be rated over anyone at any time.

[ July 31, 2006, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: blueraider ]

Yes it was I who used WVU as an example in this thread.

Mainly since I think of all teams its ranking will be the one discussed most -- NOT JUST HERE -- but in the media.

And it should be a fun discussion -- with variables such as their SoS, their defense, how good will their offense be. Name me another team in such a setting.

the whole SOS thing is another strawman; we can look at what the schedule looks like on paper but who can say for sure how strong a team is on any given gameday

look at Oklahoma; is anyone going to say that Texas SOS has now dropped because of the problems that OU is facing?

The scheduling issue is very overrated and its thrown at teams selectively by some portions of the media & fans to offset certain programs from being included in the national championship discussion

Texas, Ohio State, and USC have done very well in scheduling very good OCC teams.

However, Oklahoma's schedule looks very light, yet no one is stating the Sooners will win the National Championship because of their easy schedule.

Aside from Texas, Oklahoma only plays the #25 ranked pre season team in Texas Tech.


Even with the loss of Bomar, Oklahoma still has an opportunity to be a 11-1 type team because of the schedule.

They were only an 8-4 team last season, just lost their QB, lost another starter on the O-Line, yet OU is a top 5 team? Is this ranking a product of an easy schedule or just because their name is "Oklahoma" and a top ranking is expected?

[ August 05, 2006, 07:09 AM: Message edited by: GymMountainEER ]

In many cases, schedules are made years in advance. So who's to say how good or bad a team will between the time they're scheduled until actual kickoff. In addition, teams are locked into 7 or more conference games each year. So there's absolutely no control over that. BE teams used to be saddled with Temple (now, it's Cincy); the ACC has Duke; the SEC, Vandy, the B-12, Baylor, etc. Playing those weak teams weakens SOS.

Just to add to Jersey's point, schedules are made in advance. Often times the scheduling is done when a team is a lot better or in some cases not as good as they were when the agreement was made.


Here is my obligatory WVU reference. lol! West Virginia scheduled Mississippi State 2-3 years ago when the Bulldogs were a middle of the pack SEC program. Miss State even won the SEC West Division in 99. Now, Miss State has fallen on hard times with new coach Sylvestor Croom.


Also, Oklahoma scheduling Washington is another example of where the Sooners assumed the Huskies would be a top 20 team when this game was agreed upon 4-5 years ago. However, the Huskies have fallen onto bad times and this game is now seen as a complete mismatch with one team being a National Championship caliber team versus a Pac-10 Bottom feeder.


Unless the NCAA oversees scheduling and mandates match ups where best teams will have access to play the best teams in the regular season, the scheduling argument needs to be put into proper context and all teams that go undefeated from BCS conferences and should have an opportunity to play for a National Championship. Also, the MWC & Big West should probably even have an opportunity to showcase its best team if its undefeated ( as the new format allows a better access from the previous BCS set up). Fresno State proved it has BCS talent in its shoot out with USC in LA last year.

Also, take a look at the SEC OCC. 90 percent of the SEC's OCC games are played at home. Unless scheduling becomes fair and balanced, its ridiculous to throw their lack of schedule into the mix when discussion of what team is deserving and not for the BCS and its championship game.

[ August 05, 2006, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: GymMountainEER ]