2008 College Football

[imb]

why shouldn't Texas Tech be in the top 20?

 

I probably exaggerated a bit saying they shouldn't be top 20. Certainly not top 15, but teams drop off quite a bit after 15 or so. I'd probably put them around 18 or so.

 

I think they are a dark horse in the big 12 south. Probably one of the most difficult teams to read. If their defense steps up they will cause a lot of problems.

 

They're especially hard to read because they don't play anybody out of conference - moreso than almost anybody else.

 

They've got enough offense to pull off a big upset or two, but not enough defensive talent to win anything consistently. I'll doubt them until they prove me otherwise.

 

They've got talent on D... it's hard for me to think that a Texas team in the big 12 — even one in craphole Lubbock — won't have athletes on defense.

 

And while their offense is a gimmick, it can be an unstoppable gimmick and this is going to be as good an O as Leach has had there. I don't think a top 15 ranking is too crazy, especially since a lot of it has to be based on Harrell-Crabtree hype.

[shnsajax]

why shouldn't Texas Tech be in the top 20?

 

I probably exaggerated a bit saying they shouldn't be top 20. Certainly not top 15, but teams drop off quite a bit after 15 or so. I'd probably put them around 18 or so.

 

I think they are a dark horse in the big 12 south. Probably one of the most difficult teams to read. If their defense steps up they will cause a lot of problems.

 

They're especially hard to read because they don't play anybody out of conference - moreso than almost anybody else.

 

They've got enough offense to pull off a big upset or two, but not enough defensive talent to win anything consistently. I'll doubt them until they prove me otherwise.

 

Last years game against OU made me believe more than I had before.

[imb]

why shouldn't Texas Tech be in the top 20?

 

I probably exaggerated a bit saying they shouldn't be top 20. Certainly not top 15, but teams drop off quite a bit after 15 or so. I'd probably put them around 18 or so.

 

I think they are a dark horse in the big 12 south. Probably one of the most difficult teams to read. If their defense steps up they will cause a lot of problems.

 

They're especially hard to read because they don't play anybody out of conference - moreso than almost anybody else.

 

They've got enough offense to pull off a big upset or two, but not enough defensive talent to win anything consistently. I'll doubt them until they prove me otherwise.

 

Last years game against OU made me believe more than I had before.

 

That game was pretty frustrating. Bradford got hurt and we couldn't get anything going early. Then we started eating them up and we just ran out of time.

 

You really don't want to play in LUbbock, they find a way (REFS) to win out there.

[shnsajax]

Lubbock is an absolute hell hole.

[dew1679666265]

why shouldn't Texas Tech be in the top 20?

 

I probably exaggerated a bit saying they shouldn't be top 20. Certainly not top 15, but teams drop off quite a bit after 15 or so. I'd probably put them around 18 or so.

 

I think they are a dark horse in the big 12 south. Probably one of the most difficult teams to read. If their defense steps up they will cause a lot of problems.

 

They're especially hard to read because they don't play anybody out of conference - moreso than almost anybody else.

 

They've got enough offense to pull off a big upset or two, but not enough defensive talent to win anything consistently. I'll doubt them until they prove me otherwise.

 

Last years game against OU made me believe more than I had before.

 

I agree they can put it together for a game or two - I just have yet to see a Mike Leach-coached Texas Tech team play up to that level over the course of a season.

 

They can be a dangerous team in a specific game, but I haven't seen much from them to prove they can do it over the course of an entire season - and that's what a top 15 team should be able to do.

[dew1679666265]

why shouldn't Texas Tech be in the top 20?

 

I probably exaggerated a bit saying they shouldn't be top 20. Certainly not top 15, but teams drop off quite a bit after 15 or so. I'd probably put them around 18 or so.

 

I think they are a dark horse in the big 12 south. Probably one of the most difficult teams to read. If their defense steps up they will cause a lot of problems.

 

They're especially hard to read because they don't play anybody out of conference - moreso than almost anybody else.

 

They've got enough offense to pull off a big upset or two, but not enough defensive talent to win anything consistently. I'll doubt them until they prove me otherwise.

 

They've got talent on D... it's hard for me to think that a Texas team in the big 12 — even one in craphole Lubbock — won't have athletes on defense.

 

And while their offense is a gimmick, it can be an unstoppable gimmick and this is going to be as good an O as Leach has had there. I don't think a top 15 ranking is too crazy, especially since a lot of it has to be based on Harrell-Crabtree hype.

 

I didn't mean to imply they don't have athletes on defense, but they clearly don't have enough talent to win consistently in the Big 12. If they're a top 15 team, they should be expected to be one of the top teams in the conference - they've never shown they can be over an entire season.

[RedFlash]

Bama's recent record (past 10 years) certainly drops them. In rivalry games they are certainly hated by a couple of schools almost more than anyone, but outside of that and the SEC I don't think many people really pay attention to them.

 

You may be right nationally (which I guess is all that matters), but I've really been more annoyed by Bama fans since they've been terrible.

 

Many of them still think they're God's gift to college football (and, perhaps, humanity) and talk that way. Saban coming to Bama has only made things exponentially worse.

 

Not all Bama fans think Bama is "God's gift to college football." But you cannot denied Alabama's place as one of the TRUE historic football programs in America, and for that we Crimson Tide fans are extremely proud of the school. With that said, we also know that Alabama, due to rat finks(Fulmer almost---index finger and thumb are an inch apart----got Alabama leveled with the Death Penalty)), and stupid boosters (Keller among others) haven't been relevent consistantly since 1992 whoopin of Me-ami. Which is why we went crazy when Nick Saban came to Alabama. If you look at the class coming in 2008, and the class he's got for 2009, I guarantee you that people on this board will hate Alabama again, and will put us with the Yankees/Red Sox, USC, Miami, Notre Dame of the world. I promise you this, as much as some people don't want to here it, but Alabama will be playing for a National Title within 2 yrs.

[TruffleShuffle]

Lubbock is an absolute hell hole.

 

i've also been told that the county that's home to lubbock is a dry county... which would make it even more of a hellhole.

[CuseCubFan69]

Surprised this wasn't mentioned - the coaches' poll came out today and Georgia was #1, though it was far from unanimous. Pretty surprised to see Michigan in there, very surprised to see West Virginia so high, and pretty surprised Kansas was left out of the top 10.

 

The AP rankings are scheduled to come out on the 16th, and I'll post the Week 1 thread soon afterwards.

 

Here are my thoughts on the poll:

 

Michigan and Notre Dame have no business receiving votes

 

Perhaps it's my bias, but Tennessee should be higher. 12-14 would be about right, I think.

 

BYU, Texas Tech and Va Tech shouldn't be in the top 20.

 

Auburn shouldn't be ahead of Tennessee. Similar talent levels, Auburn has a new QB, new offensive coordinator, new defensive coordinator and a new offensive scheme. Tennessee has a new QB and offensive coordinator.

 

Georgia deserves its preseason number one, but will be ridiculed when it drops. I'm afraid most people won't realize how tough the Bulldogs' schedule is and how, potentially, three of the best teams in the nation are in the SEC East.

 

I think that's enough complaints. :D

 

EDIT: One last thought, and this is for Cuse. South Florida is a good team and likely should be a bit higher. Perhaps top 20, but not top 15. And I'll give them credit, outside of a patsy first game (UT-Martin) USF is playing some good to decent teams non-con (Kansas, NC State, UCF).

 

South Florida only returns 10 guys on offense so I'm sure they will be worse since the writers usually get these things right.

 

And Andy, WV returns a lot of players including White, Devine and their offensive line, I thought being ranked 8th showed no respect.

 

I'm sure the writers really wanted to put Michigan in the Top 5 but felt that they only lost a couple of key players and punished them w/only a top 25 ranking.

[shnsajax]

Lubbock is an absolute hell hole.

 

i've also been told that the county that's home to lubbock is a dry county... which would make it even more of a hellhole.

 

That's one of the main reasons.

[NewUserName]

Michigan is returning something like 9 starters on defense....and arent completely talentless on offense...I have a bad feeling they arent going to be as bad as many think

 

I was hoping Michigan St would get no votes. I am pretty excited about this upcoming season. I think they could be a surprise team like Illinois were last year.

[dew1679666265]

Bama's recent record (past 10 years) certainly drops them. In rivalry games they are certainly hated by a couple of schools almost more than anyone, but outside of that and the SEC I don't think many people really pay attention to them.

 

You may be right nationally (which I guess is all that matters), but I've really been more annoyed by Bama fans since they've been terrible.

 

Many of them still think they're God's gift to college football (and, perhaps, humanity) and talk that way. Saban coming to Bama has only made things exponentially worse.

 

Not all Bama fans think Bama is "God's gift to college football."

 

That's why I said "Many of them." :wink: Seriously, though, I've known sensible Bama fans and wouldn't lump all of them together. But, there are a whole lot of Tide fans who think exactly as I said.

 

And you're right, Bama is one of the most storied college football institutions. Like I said, I have a huge amount of respect for Bear Bryant and Bama's history - I just don't like the team. :D

 

But you cannot denied Alabama's place as one of the TRUE historic football programs in America, and for that we Crimson Tide fans are extremely proud of the school. With that said, we also know that Alabama, due to rat finks(Fulmer almost---index finger and thumb are an inch apart----got Alabama leveled with the Death Penalty)), and stupid boosters (Keller among others) haven't been relevent consistantly since 1992 whoopin of Me-ami. Which is why we went crazy when Nick Saban came to Alabama. If you look at the class coming in 2008, and the class he's got for 2009, I guarantee you that people on this board will hate Alabama again, and will put us with the Yankees/Red Sox, USC, Miami, Notre Dame of the world. I promise you this, as much as some people don't want to here it, but Alabama will be playing for a National Title within 2 yrs.

 

I wouldn't call Fulmer a rat fink. It was, after all, Alabama that was cheating in the first place for him to be able to turn them in. Should he have followed some unwritten rule that coaches aren't supposed to turn each other in? Maybe, but he's not a "rat fink" for doing it.

 

And a national title in 2 years is, perhaps, a bit optimistic. SEC title game appearance in that time is very realistic, but will Saban last much longer than that? If he gets bored with this job, he'll leave at any time.

[dew1679666265]

For those interested:

 

Kentucky dismissed QB Curtis Pulley for "violating team rules." This isn't a terrible surprise to me, but I think it fairly severely hurts Kentucky this season - I like Pulley and think he would have been a solid SEC quarterback.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3520053

[Vanilla Ice]

damn spurrier stopped voting for duke

and we are starting to show signs of life now too.

mind you that means maybe three wins, but still.

 

West Virginia could have been ranked higher than eighth, White will be better than last year, Devine was better than Slaton at the end of the year anyways. The offensive line is back, wide recievers don't matter that much but we lost Reynaud. Special teams will be better. The front 7 on defense might be a little shaky but not too bad. Eighth is not overrated IMO. (I have a little bias, though)

[bukie]

I'm curious...what is it that puts Wisconsin as a clear #2 in the Big Ten? I'm not saying they aren't the second-best team, I was just thinking coming into the season it'd be Ohio State first, and then who knows (Wisconsin, Illinois, Penn State, Michigan, Michigan State, who knows?) second.

 

According to the polls, though, it's clearly Ohio State, Wisconsin, everybody else.

[dew1679666265]

damn spurrier stopped voting for duke

and we are starting to show signs of life now too.

mind you that means maybe three wins, but still.

 

West Virginia could have been ranked higher than eighth, White will be better than last year, Devine was better than Slaton at the end of the year anyways. The offensive line is back, wide recievers don't matter that much but we lost Reynaud. Special teams will be better. The front 7 on defense might be a little shaky but not too bad. Eighth is not overrated IMO. (I have a little bias, though)

 

I think you'll be pleased with David Cutcliffe. He's a very underrated coach and from the sound of it, he's done a decent job recruiting at Duke.

 

If nothing else, his track record in the SEC should help pull in some good players at Duke.

[Vanilla Ice]

Cutcliffe is doing really well in the recruiting for Duke. I have gotten really excited about him. He set a goal of losing 1,000 pounds as a team because it was in such bad shape. He said that if the kickers continue to do as bad as last year, he will go for it on every fourth down and two-point conversion. (we had to have open tryouts in the general student population for a kicker last year). He has some players to work with. Thad Lewis has been great for us at QB, he should be scary next year as a senior and two years under Cutcliffe. Eron Riley should be drafted next year (hes a WR). Oghobaase has been a stud at DT and Taulili and Vincent Rey have been very good LB's. The rest of the team is pretty shaky and I would be very happy with a 3 win season.

[dew1679666265]

Cutcliffe is doing really well in the recruiting for Duke. I have gotten really excited about him. He set a goal of losing 1,000 pounds as a team because it was in such bad shape. He said that if the kickers continue to do as bad as last year, he will go for it on every fourth down and two-point conversion. (we had to have open tryouts in the general student population for a kicker last year). He has some players to work with. Thad Lewis has been great for us at QB, he should be scary next year as a senior and two years under Cutcliffe. Eron Riley should be drafted next year (hes a WR). Oghobaase has been a stud at DT and Taulili and Vincent Rey have been very good LB's. The rest of the team is pretty shaky and I would be very happy with a 3 win season.

 

I'm not sure the turnaround will be as dramatic at Duke, but when Cutcliffe returned to Tennessee in 2006, he took over Erik Ainge who, in 2005, put up these numbers: 45.5 completion %, 5.08 yards per attempt, 5:7 TD:INT ratio.

 

After one offseason with Cutcliffe, Ainge turned into this: 67 comp %, 8.59 Y/A, 19:9 TD:INT

 

And his senior year: 62.6%, 6.79 Y/A, 31:10 TD:INT

 

In 2005, the Tennessee offense averaged 18.6 points per game and was downright miserable. When Cutcliffe took over in 2006, the offensive output increased to 27.8 points per game. If you take out the two games where Jonathon Crompton played (due to an injury to Ainge), the number improves to 29.4.

 

If nothing else, Duke's offensive output should go up a decent amount.

 

EDIT: We also improved from a 5-6 record to a 9-4 record - largely because of an improved offense (the defense was one of the best in the NCAA in 05).

[fiver]

Bama's recent record (past 10 years) certainly drops them. In rivalry games they are certainly hated by a couple of schools almost more than anyone, but outside of that and the SEC I don't think many people really pay attention to them.

 

You may be right nationally (which I guess is all that matters), but I've really been more annoyed by Bama fans since they've been terrible.

 

Many of them still think they're God's gift to college football (and, perhaps, humanity) and talk that way. Saban coming to Bama has only made things exponentially worse.

 

Not all Bama fans think Bama is "God's gift to college football." But you cannot denied Alabama's place as one of the TRUE historic football programs in America, and for that we Crimson Tide fans are extremely proud of the school. With that said, we also know that Alabama, due to rat finks(Fulmer almost---index finger and thumb are an inch apart----got Alabama leveled with the Death Penalty)), and stupid boosters (Keller among others) haven't been relevent consistantly since 1992 whoopin of Me-ami. Which is why we went crazy when Nick Saban came to Alabama. If you look at the class coming in 2008, and the class he's got for 2009, I guarantee you that people on this board will hate Alabama again, and will put us with the Yankees/Red Sox, USC, Miami, Notre Dame of the world. I promise you this, as much as some people don't want to here it, but Alabama will be playing for a National Title within 2 yrs.

 

 

This post is very interesting considering you didn't accept the friendly wager I offered a couple of pages back. I'll still make that offer even though one of Auburn's starting CBs just went down for the season with a knee injury. Are you going to accept the wager or continue to speculate while wearing the chrimson glasses?

[Vanilla Ice]

Basically the Duke offense is a very good semi-mobile QB, a very good WR, an average RB and average 2 and 3 WR's, and a young bad offensive line. Do you think that the offense will be balanced? I would be very surprised because we only averaged like 2.7 yard a carry last year. What kinda offense do you think we'll see? Also, Lewis had pretty good stats last year.

 

55.3 completion percent, 6.75 yards per attempt, 21:10 TD:INT ratio as a true sophomore

 

What kinda numbers do you think I'll see?

[dew1679666265]

Basically the Duke offense is a very good semi-mobile QB, a very good WR, an average RB and average 2 and 3 WR's, and a young bad offensive line. Do you think that the offense will be balanced? I would be very surprised because we only averaged like 2.7 yard a carry last year. What kinda offense do you think we'll see? Also, Lewis had pretty good stats last year.

 

55.3 completion percent, 6.75 yards per attempt, 21:10 TD:INT ratio as a true sophomore

 

What kinda numbers do you think I'll see?

 

A lot of it depends on the natural ability of the players. Cutcliffe's focus is to get the ball in the hands of playmakers. The last couple of years, fans here got a little testy when the UT offense threw a bunch of out patterns and curls.

 

The thing is, Cutcliffe was trying to get the ball to guys like Robert Meachem, Lucas Taylor, Gerald Jones, etc. and let them try to make plays - as opposed to Ainge trying to chuck the ball 25 yards downfield and completing a difficult pass. Basically, get the quick completion and let the athlete get downfield.

 

With a bad offensive line and a mobile QB, I wouldn't be surprised to see Cutcliffe move Lewis out of the pocket and throw short, quick routes. He doesn't like the slant pattern (he thinks it's too risky to toss the ball to the middle of the field), but he loves out and in patterns, as well as curls and screens. With a bad O-line, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see those types of patterns.

 

If the running game doesn't do well, he will give up on it if the passing game is good enough. By year 2, Cutcliffe had enough faith in Ainge that when the running game didn't work early on, he'd put the game solely in Ainge's hands. Will he do that with Lewis? If he does it means he really likes him.

 

He'll also throw out a variety of formations - ranging from traditional I-form to five wide shotgun. Whatever the team's personnel allows him to do, he'll try.

 

As for his philosophy with QBs, he's a quarterback coach by trade so that's his strength. When Cutcliffe arrived at UT, Ainge's psyche was utterly shot. He had no confidence and was absolutely horrid in 2005. The first thing Cutcliffe did was focus on getting the ball out of Ainge's hands, thus keeping him upright and out of pressure. That allowed Ainge to rebuild his mentality and get some confidence back - leading to him putting up some of the best #s in UT history.

 

From the looks of Lewis' numbers, it appears he's got some natural ability. A comp % of 60 and perhaps a higher TD:INT ratio wouldn't be out of the question. Definitely fewer sacks for Lewis this season.

 

Sorry for the ridiculously long post, hopefully it'll help. :D

[TruffleShuffle]

so ben olson broke his foot again? i bet raisin is feeling really good about this season now.

[Guest]

so ben olson broke his foot again? i bet raisin is feeling really good about this season now.

 

He was going to die behind that o-line anyways. Not sure how someone can break their foot twice in non-contact drills.

 

This season is going to be so brutal. Thanks for leaving the cupboard empty, Dorrell.

[CuseCubFan69]

so ben olson broke his foot again? i bet raisin is feeling really good about this season now.

 

That young man needs a little more milk and cheese.

[TruffleShuffle]

so ben olson broke his foot again? i bet raisin is feeling really good about this season now.

 

He was going to die behind that o-line anyways. Not sure how someone can break their foot twice in non-contact drills.

 

This season is going to be so brutal. Thanks for leaving the cupboard empty, Dorrell.

 

sure, blame the black guy.