CFN has UT #10

#5
#5
(orange+white=heaven @ Jul 19 said:
Anyone think 9-3 will be good enough for tenth at the end of this coming season?
Click to expand...

Doubtful . . . About the only way I could see that happening is to lose a couple of games early and then finish extremely strong.
 
#6
#6
(orange+white=heaven @ Jul 19 said:
"Predicted finish: 9-3..."
Anyone think 9-3 will be good enough for tenth at the end of this coming season?
Click to expand...
ND and UGA were both final Top 10 with three losses, including bowl game results, so I guess it's possible. This "ranking" has been out for 2-3 months now I think.
 
#7
#7
(VolunteerHillbilly @ Jul 19 said:
ND and UGA were both final Top 10 with three losses, including bowl game results, so I guess it's possible. This "ranking" has been out for 2-3 months now I think.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and I should've done the math before posting.
This year 9-3 will just leave you heading into bowl season,
so the real question is does 10-3 get us a top ten....

 
#8
#8
(orange+white=heaven @ Jul 19 said:
Yeah, and I should've done the math before posting.
This year 9-3 will just leave you heading into bowl season,
so the real question is does 10-3 get us a top ten....
Click to expand...

With alot of luck it could be 11-3 if we would make it to SEC championship and win.
 
#9
#9
(orange+white=heaven @ Jul 19 said:
Yeah, and I should've done the math before posting.
This year 9-3 will just leave you heading into bowl season,
so the real question is does 10-3 get us a top ten....
Click to expand...
Could be.
 
#10
#10
2003, the last season that 12-games were the norm in the regular season.... Kansas State was 8th in the AP w/ a 11-3 record prior to the bowl game. They played in a preseason bowl and the Big12 championship game. They also played two non Div-IA schools. Georgia was 11th w/ a 10-3 record after losing to LSU in the SECCG. The highest ranked 9-3 teams were Iowa and Purdue at 12 and 13.

In 2002, Penn State was 10th with a 9-3 record prior to bowls. Michigan was 12th with a 9-3 record. Surprisingly, Colorado was 14th with a 9-4 record.
 
#11
#11
(GAVol @ Jul 19 said:
Doubtful . . . About the only way I could see that happening is to lose a couple of games early and then finish extremely strong.
Click to expand...

But, that logic is pretty faulty. Losing 3 early on would likely mean dropping games to Cal, Florida, and either Georgia or Alabama. I'm guessing that 2 SEC losses, especially if they were to Georgia and Florida, would leave us watching the SECCG from the comfort of our family room couch. No way do wins over Arky, Vandy, and Kentucky in November bump us into the top-10 without a SEC Championship.
 
#12
#12
(kiddiedoc @ Jul 19 said:
But, that logic is pretty faulty. Losing 3 early on would likely mean dropping games to Cal, Florida, and either Georgia or Alabama. I'm guessing that 2 SEC losses, especially if they were to Georgia and Florida, would leave us watching the SECCG from the comfort of our family room couch. No way do wins over Arky, Vandy, and Kentucky in November bump us into the top-10 without a SEC Championship.
Click to expand...

I wasn't even considering the schedule, just that poll-wise it's usually better to lose early than late.
 
#13
#13
Yeah, but you know that we don't give ourselves the luxury of a big win at the end of the year, unless we make it to hot-lanta. I never have liked our November schedule, and I never will.
 
#14
#14
(kiddiedoc @ Jul 19 said:
But, that logic is pretty faulty. Losing 3 early on would likely mean dropping games to Cal, Florida, and either Georgia or Alabama. I'm guessing that 2 SEC losses, especially if they were to Georgia and Florida, would leave us watching the SECCG from the comfort of our family room couch. No way do wins over Arky, Vandy, and Kentucky in November bump us into the top-10 without a SEC Championship.
Click to expand...

Arkansas could very well be a top 15 team when we play them.
 
#15
#15
Is it just me, or are Texas' running backs super overrated? Everything I read says they have the best backfield in the country, but it sure didn't seem that way in the Rose Bowl last year. In fact, their ineptitude is what I felt kept USC in the game. Had the RBs been decent, I think Texas could have won by 14. Instead, they frequently fumbled and dropped passes. Without Vince Young, Texas is going to rely heavily on these apparently awesome (in some people's eyes) RB's. I just don't see it working out for them. I wouldn't be surprised if Oklahoma wipes the field with them next year. Also, Oklahoma State has done well against Texas the last couple of years, but some incredible Vince Young-led comebacks have led to Longhorn wins. That won't happen next year. Texas' defense might help them end up with only 2 or 3 losses in the weak Big 12, but I still don't think they'll be that great a team in 2006.
 
#16
#16
(kptvol @ Jul 19 said:
Is it just me, or are Texas' running backs super overrated? Everything I read says they have the best backfield in the country, but it sure didn't seem that way in the Rose Bowl last year. In fact, their ineptitude is what I felt kept USC in the game. Had the RBs been decent, I think Texas could have won by 14. Instead, they frequently fumbled and dropped passes. Without Vince Young, Texas is going to rely heavily on these apparently awesome (in some people's eyes) RB's. I just don't see it working out for them. I wouldn't be surprised if Oklahoma wipes the field with them next year. Also, Oklahoma State has done well against Texas the last couple of years, but some incredible Vince Young-led comebacks have led to Longhorn wins. That won't happen next year. Texas' defense might help them end up with only 2 or 3 losses in the weak Big 12, but I still don't think they'll be that great a team in 2006.
Click to expand...

Right, base a player's talent on one game.
 
#18
#18
(VolinArizona @ Jul 20 said:
Right, base a player's talent on one game.
Click to expand...

Well I could also look at the Ohio State game, in which the Texas tailbacks also looked crappy. Or I could look at the other good teams Texas played last year. Wait, I can't recall any others.
 
#19
#19
(kptvol @ Jul 19 said:
Well I could also look at the Ohio State game, in which the Texas tailbacks also looked crappy. Or I could look at the other good teams Texas played last year. Wait, I can't recall any others.
Click to expand...

*sigh*

Jamaal Charles averaged 7.4 yards per carry. Ramonce Taylor averaged 6.8 yards per carry. They combined for 23 rushing touchdowns. The team was also +7 in the turnover department. Texas also played Oklahoma (better than their record), Colorado, and Texas Tech - good teams. Charles will probably have close to 1200 yards in 2006.
 
#20
#20
(VolinArizona @ Jul 20 said:
*sigh*

Jamaal Charles averaged 7.4 yards per carry. Ramonce Taylor averaged 6.8 yards per carry. They combined for 23 rushing touchdowns. The team was also +7 in the turnover department. Texas also played Oklahoma (better than their record), Colorado, and Texas Tech - good teams. Charles will probably have close to 1200 yards in 2006.
Click to expand...

Yes, I was really impressed with Oklahoma's dominance of Tulsa and near victory at TCU. Any team that plays in the Big 12 North (recently), including Colorado is a joke. Texas Tech is a perrenial Big 12 also-ran.
 
#21
#21
(kptvol @ Jul 19 said:
Yes, I was really impressed with Oklahoma's dominance of Tulsa and near victory at TCU. Any team that plays in the Big 12 North (recently), including Colorado is a joke. Texas Tech is a perrenial Big 12 also-ran.
Click to expand...

You're so right man! Oklahoma loses their first game of the season with a freshman at QB against a very very good TCU team (and this game was in Norman, but I guess you don't know as much as you think). You'd make a better argument about Oklahoma having a tough time against Baylor. Oklahoma was 100% completely shafted at Texas Tech. 8-3 should've been their record, and very well could have been 9-2.

Colorado was ranked in the top 25, so I don't think that's a joke. Texas Tech? They have been in a bowl for 6 straight years and can put up a ton ton ton of points.

You have your pre-conceived notions with nothing behind it. That's fine. However, remember that Jamaal Charles was a freshman last season and was better than any RB we have currently (not that I don't think our unit is great, because I love our RBs). You truly just don't know enough about the topic, and I seriously don't mean any offense.
 
#22
#22
(VolinArizona @ Jul 20 said:
You're so right man! Oklahoma loses their first game of the season with a freshman at QB against a very very good TCU team (and this game was in Norman, but I guess you don't know as much as you think). You'd make a better argument about Oklahoma having a tough time against Baylor. Oklahoma was 100% completely shafted at Texas Tech. 8-3 should've been their record, and very well could have been 9-2.

Colorado was ranked in the top 25, so I don't think that's a joke. Texas Tech? They have been in a bowl for 6 straight years and can put up a ton ton ton of points.

You have your pre-conceived notions with nothing behind it. That's fine. However, remember that Jamaal Charles was a freshman last season and was better than any RB we have currently (not that I don't think our unit is great, because I love our RBs). You truly just don't know enough about the topic, and I seriously don't mean any offense.
Click to expand...

Thanks for reading my mind and understanding completely my knowlede of college football. I suppose I should have said "against" rather than "at". For that error, I apologize for my ambiguity. I still contend that the Big 12 is not a very good conference. In fact, even with the crapiness of UT football last year, I think we would have been a lock for a bowl game had we been in either division of the Big 12. Oklahoma is not a terrible team, even though they were below OU standards last year. Nonetheless, I refuse to be impressed by Texas' running backs against any Big 12 foe.

Here's the problem with Colorado. They didn't have any impressive wins in 2005. They managed to barely beat CSU. They also beat some other crappy teams and maybe a couple of decent ones. They got completely destroyed by Texas, Miami, and Nebraska. They did, however, play decently in a loss against Clemson and for that I give them some credit. I still don't think an OU victory over Colorado is any sort of validation.

Oklahoma lost to the better teams they played: Texas, UCLA, and Texas Tech. They didn't beat any other decent team (LIKE BAYLOR!!!!) impressively, either. I stand by my assessment of OU's 2005 team and Texas' running backs.

Also, you may question my logic and reasoning, but I don't think you should call my knowledge of football into question. I might disagree with you, and I might even be wrong, but that does not necessarily indicate ignorance (offense intended or not).
 
#23
#23
(kptvol @ Jul 19 said:
Thanks for reading my mind and understanding completely my knowlede of college football. I suppose I should have said "against" rather than "at". For that error, I apologize for my ambiguity. I still contend that the Big 12 is not a very good conference. In fact, even with the crapiness of UT football last year, I think we would have been a lock for a bowl game had we been in either division of the Big 12. Oklahoma is not a terrible team, even though they were below OU standards last year. Nonetheless, I refuse to be impressed by Texas' running backs against any Big 12 foe.

Here's the problem with Colorado. They didn't have any impressive wins in 2005. They managed to barely beat CSU. They also beat some other crappy teams and maybe a couple of decent ones. They got completely destroyed by Texas, Miami, and Nebraska. They did, however, play decently in a loss against Clemson and for that I give them some credit. I still don't think an OU victory over Colorado is any sort of validation.

Oklahoma lost to the better teams they played: Texas, UCLA, and Texas Tech. They didn't beat any other decent team (LIKE BAYLOR!!!!) impressively, either. I stand by my assessment of OU's 2005 team and Texas' running backs.

Also, you may question my logic and reasoning, but I don't think you should call my knowledge of football into question. I might disagree with you, and I might even be wrong, but that does not necessarily indicate ignorance (offense intended or not).
Click to expand...


Fair enough, and I understand your points. However, Oklahoma allowed, on average, 91 rushing yards per game, and 2.8 ypc, some of the best marks in the country. Texas ran for 203. Yes, some of that is due to Vince Young, and some of it to Charles. I cannot stress enough that Charles averaged 7+ yards per carry. That's insane! AS A FRESHMAN! That's even more insane. Give him the 239 carries Ken Darby had, and Charles racks up 1768 yards. The 254 carries Irons had? 1880 yards for Charles. Could someone keep that pace at 225+ carries? I don't know, but it's impressive nonetheless.

And I cannot with a straight face say that Texas Tech beat Oklahoma. Did you see the "touchdown" Tech scored?

Oh, and from 2000-2002, the Big 12 was one of the best 2 conferences in the country. It was 3rd in 2003, 2nd in 2004, and 4th last season. Sounds okay to me. They also shape up to be the 2nd best in 2006, behind the SEC.

Regardless, we'll have to agree to disagree, which is what makes college football, IMO, the best damn thing in the world!
 
#24
#24
(VolinArizona @ Jul 20 said:
Fair enough, and I understand your points. However, Oklahoma allowed, on average, 91 rushing yards per game, and 2.8 ypc, some of the best marks in the country. Texas ran for 203. Yes, some of that is due to Vince Young, and some of it to Charles. I cannot stress enough that Charles averaged 7+ yards per carry. That's insane! AS A FRESHMAN! That's even more insane. Give him the 239 carries Ken Darby had, and Charles racks up 1768 yards. The 254 carries Irons had? 1880 yards for Charles. Could someone keep that pace at 225+ carries? I don't know, but it's impressive nonetheless.

And I cannot with a straight face say that Texas Tech beat Oklahoma. Did you see the "touchdown" Tech scored?

Oh, and from 2000-2002, the Big 12 was one of the best 2 conferences in the country. It was 3rd in 2003, 2nd in 2004, and 4th last season. Sounds okay to me. They also shape up to be the 2nd best in 2006, behind the SEC.

Regardless, we'll have to agree to disagree, which is what makes college football, IMO, the best damn thing in the world!
Click to expand...

Agreed, the Big 12 has been one of the best conferences in the country. The exception (in my opinion) has been 2004 and 2005. Charles averaging over 7 ypc is ridiculous, but I don't think he'll be able to do it next year without Vince Young running the spread offense. But I guess we shall see. Also, you are correct about the OU-TT game last year. I wish the season would hurry up and start.
 
#25
#25
Regarding Tennessee's ranking... Furthers my belief that CFN is all up on Tennessee's huevos for whatever reason.

As for the perception of Texas' running backs, I think it's a way for "experts" to rationalize ranking Texas so high when they won't have Vince Young to bring wins.

And for Oklahoma, they started off slow after losing crazy steam from the NFL losses over the years, Stoops had them back up and running by mid-season. Oklahoma having a rebuilding year is the reason Texas won the Big XII South. This year I'm giving Oklahoma 75% at winning the Big XII South and the rest of the field a collective 25%.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top