|
CFN 2006 Bottom 19 rankingsModerators: PonyPride, SmooPower
19 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
CFN 2006 Bottom 19 rankingsWell, we are not in the bottom 19. Tulane and Rice are.
http://www.collegefootballnews.com/2006 ... ttom19.htm
I always wondered if Tulane's crop of Texans they got LAST year might be having a change of heart. I seem to recall we lost out on 2 or 3 2- to 3-star guys to Tulane...
How Syracuse is not that list is beyond me. They were awful and look to continue to be next year.
![]() Official Cult of Chris Phillips Member
If we lose ANY of those 4 games...
In the immortal words of Elmer Fudd..."Kill da Wabbit, kill da WA-BIT!!"
Let's not put the cart before the horse. Unless, Phillips starts at QB we will have a starting QB that has not taken a Division 1-A snap. We have seen this far too often at SMU over the past decade. It does not usually make for a recipe for success in college football.
Personally, I find these bottomfeeder lists not worth the paper and the time that someone puts into writing them. SI's bottom 10 list tries (poorly) to inject humor into it, but it still is a poor attempt. The kids at these schools, most of them non bcs schools, work just as [deleted] much smaller budgets than the big schools, and these 'rankings' end up being more mean than anything else.
Add SHSU, and we have 5 that we MUST win.
So, even if we suck, we should be 5-7 next year. And I assume we DON'T suck that bad.
that's a good assumption. ![]() Official Cult of Chris Phillips Member
We went .500 in conference last year. We should expect to do that well again. We play one I-AA team and two games against teams on this list from what is considered by any measure the worst conference in I-AA.
You can talk about lack of QB and holes at LB, but the fact is that with this schedule and 17 returning starters, seven wins minimum ought to be expected. I will personally be disappointed with anything less.
19 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is onlineUsers browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests |
|