Page 1 of 1

SI rankings of WAC and our opponents

PostPosted: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:37 pm
by SoCal_Pony
WAC
Fresno St #29, Hawaii #50, Boise St #61, San Jose St #90, Nevada #96, LA Tech #100, Rice #102, Tulsa #106, SMU #107, UTEP #110

Non-Conference
OSU #25, TCU #28, TTech #74, Baylor #85

While I am surprised at TTech’s low ranking, I think they will be very difficult to beat in Lubbock.

My bold prediction: This is the last year SMU starts the season in triple digits for a very long time.

Re: SI rankings of WAC and our opponents

PostPosted: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:38 pm
by PonyTales
Great prediction - and I think you're right.

Can't believe Boise's ranked that low. They're really tough.

Re: SI rankings of WAC and our opponents

PostPosted: Mon Aug 11, 2003 8:02 pm
by Charleston Pony
that lack of respect for SMU is going to help us one of these years, when we become the surprise team of the year.

These pre-season predictions can come pretty close to picking the top 10-15 teams, but after that there is a fine line between good and bad seasons.

If we can find some offense this year, I'd like to think we can at least compete with everyone on our schedule. Keep in mind that four of our five toughest opponents come to Ford this year. If we can get more than 10,000 people out to support these guys, they just might find it inside of them to overachieve THIS YEAR.

Re: SI rankings of WAC and our opponents

PostPosted: Mon Aug 11, 2003 8:03 pm
by KnuckleStang
Is it just me, or do Texas Tech and Hawaii look a little low as well?

So Cal noticed the TT thing, sorry, didn't see that at first.

[This message has been edited by KnuckleStang (edited 08-11-2003).]

Re: SI rankings of WAC and our opponents

PostPosted: Mon Aug 11, 2003 8:27 pm
by JasonB
Baylor is ranked too high.

Tech, Hawaii, us, and SJS are not rated high enough.

Boise lost a lot of players, they will not be as good this year. 61 is a bit of a slight though.

Re: SI rankings of WAC and our opponents

PostPosted: Mon Aug 11, 2003 8:30 pm
by Water Pony
I'll say it again, several teams "exceed" expectations every year. Who will beat these predictions? I say SMU in 2003 will surprise.

Who else?

Re: SI rankings of WAC and our opponents

PostPosted: Mon Aug 11, 2003 10:38 pm
by Sam I Am
Bennett has been able to develop a rushing game for SMU. In college football that is usually a sign of strong, winning team. Although I am not expecting a great leap forward, the team is developing the righit fundamentals to win big eventually. I think we are grossly under rated based on what we see developing, but based on our past records the triple digits are fair before the season begins.

Re: SI rankings of WAC and our opponents

PostPosted: Mon Aug 11, 2003 11:57 pm
by WreckEm16
Sagarin has Tech at #28. That seems much more realistic to me.