Page 1 of 2
SI 2010 Football Rankings

Posted:
Mon Aug 17, 2009 10:36 pm
by Blvd_Stang
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/f ... ref=sihpT1We are ranked 89 which I think is pretty fair considering last years record, and the fact we're ranked above several decent programs in Big Conferences : Syracuse, Hawaii, Iowa State, Indiana...And only slightly above us: Purdue, Louisville and Texas A&M.
I see a lot of potential in this years squad because of the position changes JJ has made in order to optimize talent and athleticism. Hopefully this potential can start translating to wins...!!
Re: SI 2010 Football Rankings

Posted:
Tue Aug 18, 2009 9:31 am
by PerunaPunch
If SI is correct, we win 6 (if GOSFAGO will pardon my premature inclusion of SFA on the win list).
I'm a little surprised by the high ranking of UTEP and the fall of Rice, although Rice did lose a couple of great players.
Re: SI 2010 Football Rankings

Posted:
Tue Aug 18, 2009 10:07 am
by RednBlue11
PerunaPunch wrote:If SI is correct, we win 6 (if GOSFAGO will pardon my premature inclusion of SFA on the win list).
I'm a little surprised by the high ranking of UTEP and the fall of Rice, although Rice did lose a couple of great players.
they wont, but we will beat them down by speaking english on a regular basis
Re: SI 2010 Football Rankings

Posted:
Tue Aug 18, 2009 12:31 pm
by Stallion
Rice lost 3 GREAT GREAT players(Casey too). Very possibly the 3 greatest players in the last 20 years of Rice Football. I bet they accounted for about 80% of their offense. They have quality but unproven options to replace them though-hard to tell how good Rice will be. UTEP No. 46-that's just ridiculous-one of the most off the wall predictions I've ever seen. But Trevor Vittatoe is a stud who keeps getting better and better. If he continues to play like he did in the second half last year I see him as a darkhorse for CUSA MVP.
Re: SI 2010 Football Rankings

Posted:
Tue Aug 18, 2009 1:48 pm
by lwjr
Rice is ranked below us?! Talk about, "From the Penthouse to the Outhouse". Surely they will not be that bad. Since I see six of our opponents ranked below us, I assume that means six wins and a bowl.
Stallion, hang on to that and let's see where everyone is at the end of the year.
Can't wait for the season to start!!!
PONY UP!!!
JACK THE LUMBERJACKS!!!!!!!!!
Re: SI 2010 Football Rankings

Posted:
Tue Aug 18, 2009 2:16 pm
by KnuckleStang
Aggies behind Duke. haaaaa
Re: SI 2010 Football Rankings

Posted:
Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:32 pm
by GOSFAGO
Big day for SMU, no longer not in the top 100. great day
Re: SI 2010 Football Rankings

Posted:
Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:38 pm
by RednBlue11
GOSFAGO wrote:Big day for SMU, no longer not in the top 100. great day
pardon me but, where is your team ranked?
Re: SI 2010 Football Rankings

Posted:
Wed Aug 19, 2009 4:02 pm
by Dark Horse
Stallion wrote:Rice lost 3 GREAT GREAT players(Casey too). Very possibly the 3 greatest players in the last 20 years of Rice Football. I bet they accounted for about 80% of their offense. They have quality but unproven options to replace them though-hard to tell how good Rice will be. UTEP No. 46-that's just ridiculous-one of the most off the wall predictions I've ever seen. But Trevor Vittatoe is a stud who keeps getting better and better. If he continues to play like he did in the second half last year I see him as a darkhorse for CUSA MVP.
I'd say two "great" players — Casey and of course Dillard — and I'd call Clement "good."
Difference is slight, I realize. I just think the other two made him better.
Either way, they lost, as Stallion said, a majority of their offensive talent.
Re: SI 2010 Football Rankings

Posted:
Wed Aug 19, 2009 4:07 pm
by GOSFAGO
Not trying to offend SMU fans, but after the ranking of 75th they really just throw darts at a board containing the remaining teams. Drunk and blindfolded
Re: SI 2010 Football Rankings

Posted:
Wed Aug 19, 2009 4:29 pm
by Stallion
Geez!!!!!
When are the Chase Clement detractors going to give up. I remember this same discussion BEFORE last season when I said he was one of the best players in CUSA. Got a lot of heat for that. All he did was get voted CUSA MVP by the Coaches and MVP of Rice's first Bowl Win in 50 years. Give it up. He is a one of the greats in Rice Football History leading Rice out of the wilderness to appear in their first 2 Bowls in half a decade. Plus he has absolutely made SMU look silly during his career. Do you guys watch much CUSA Football?
2007:Threw for 364 and rushed for 124 to lead an Owls' rally at SMU
2008: Was 24-37 for 258 yards 0 Ints and 6 (count 'em) 6 TDs before taking a siesta on the bench in the 3rd Q. Added 109 yards on 13 carries.
He destroyed ALL Rice Career Passing Records including for TDs, Completions and Yardage
http://riceowls.cstv.com/sports/m-footb ... ase00.html
Re: SI 2010 Football Rankings

Posted:
Wed Aug 19, 2009 4:45 pm
by Boston Pony
True, the reality is that after top 30 the darts come out. Of course that's true for D-1AA as well (SFA isn't in the FCS Now preseason rankings which shows 41 teams).
Re: SI 2010 Football Rankings

Posted:
Wed Aug 19, 2009 5:33 pm
by Pony in SA
And remember Chase drove himself up to SMU from Alamo Heights to try and talk to previous coaches and was told he did not really have Division 1 talent.
Sort of like not looking at SA Madison kids even though USC has offered their RB Green and they are loaded with D-1 talent this year (Nate Askew the WR, the DB who Texas is now pushing for, etc.)
Re: SI 2010 Football Rankings

Posted:
Wed Aug 19, 2009 6:29 pm
by GOSFAGO
So how does this happen....
SMU-89th 1-11 Last year
Memphis-94th Beat SMU 31-26 in 08
Tulane- 106th Beat SMU 34-27 in 08
Rice-107th Beat SMU 56-27
So yes,they use a dart board for these rankings. Even Texas State made it a game last year. And they were in the Southland Conference. So I dont wanna hear how it wont be a game Week 1.
Re: SI 2010 Football Rankings

Posted:
Wed Aug 19, 2009 7:00 pm
by Treadway21
GO F*GS GO - you need to lay off the double negatives. You may not have had to learn this term in your remedial english class , but double negatives are not used in standard english.