PonyFans.com

Four AAC teams in the Top 25 of the poll that REALLY matters:

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footb ... fp-top-25/

https://www.espn.com/college-football/s ... penn-state
The AAC has four teams in the rankings: No. 21 Memphis, No. 23 Boise State, No. 24 Navy and No. 25 SMU.

I really wish someone on that committee could explain why Boise State is ranked higher than us. They lost to a losing a team yet we lost #21 at their stadium. What a joke. I get it. We never been here so just enjoy it but I hate stupidity from this lazy committee.

SMU_Alum11 wrote:I really wish someone on that committee could explain why Boise State is ranked higher than us. They lost to a losing a team yet we lost #21 at their stadium. What a joke. I get it. We never been here so just enjoy it but I hate stupidity from this lazy committee.

It does stink, but, if we can win out, have Memphis drop one game, and then win the AAC championship game, you have to think we would be ahead of Boise, even if they do win out, bassed on the teams we would have beaten along the way.

We just need to keep winning and hope either houston, Cincy, or USF can give us a hand.

You just have to feel whoever wins the AAC championship game will be in the Cotton Bowl, hopefully it is the Ponies.

What is most interesting to me about the P5 and CFP is that instead of providing a clear champion drawn from the "elite" schools, there are essentially only 6-8 teams that realistically have a shot at the championship each year...and there are not any real additions to that mix each year.

It is entertaining to hear the cries of the teams and fans from the P5 that are going to remain on the outside looking in...and it is interesting that the CFP committee is starting to realize everyone isn't a 'Bama or Clemson fan. In a few years this could become a BIG problem.

Welcome to the brave new world of college football

On the surface, our ranking seems a bit low, but honestly, as a neutral observer who first saw SMU on prime time television last Saturday night, one would conclude we have a very good offense (who was missing a starting receiver) and a defense with poor DBs and a special teams that looked to be the worst I have seen in a D1 team. We would only check one out of three areas. I’d consider us lucky to be ranked based on the eye test, and there’s no likely improvement on special teams. We have to score a lot of points in order to out score any one, and after watching the game, I’m not sure we’re better than Cincinnati or Navy. We have to improve to truly have a chance to stay ranked by the end of the season.

Mustangs_Maroons wrote:On the surface, our ranking seems a bit low, but honestly, as a neutral observer who first saw SMU on prime time television last Saturday night, one would conclude we have a very good offense (who was missing a starting receiver) and a defense with poor DBs and a special teams that looked to be the worst I have seen in a D1 team. We would only check one out of three areas. I’d consider us lucky to be ranked based on the eye test, and there’s no likely improvement on special teams. We have to outscore opponents, and after watching the game, I’m not sure we’re better than Cincinnati or Navy. We have to improve to truly have a chance to stay ranked by the end of the season.

From a DB perspective, Stephens has been solid, the rest though is a crap shoot, not great, but better than we field most years. Denbow, bless his heart, God knows he tries, but you could have an epic debate throughout the night over many drinks over whether he is more of a liability as a safety or as a punter. Either way, he has cost us.

Special teams could be better, if we are willing to bite the bullet and put our defensive starters and most athletic offensive players out on the field on kickoff coverage. You risk injury, but SMU's B team is just not athletic enough to cover kickoffs. For good reason, you like to put guys out there that don't normally play on kickoffs, but SMU cannot afford that luxury. Get the starters out there on kickoffs.

We are fortunate to be in the Top 25 and to have so many AAC teams on that list. It shows how far the conference has come but there are a lot of good teams out there who undoubtedly feel like they belong on that list. What's interesting is how many really strong teams are looking at that list and feeling like they aren't going to get a shot at the playoffs. How much longer before this thing gets expanded to 8 teams? If Baylor wins out, are they in? What one loss team from the PAC or SEC or Big 10 or Big XII get excluded? This system gets more controversial year after year it seems, especially looking at the possibilities this time of year.

You got it CP. Its undoubtedly going to 8 team playoff. I think the other push will be P5s cant schedule FCS and at most 1 G5 to give the CFP committee good data points on selections. That will kill the chances for G5s to get a shot even in a 8 team playoff.

I would like to think that an 8 team playoff format would include all the P5 champs, the top ranked G5 team and 2 wild cards which will still be controversial on those WC calls but will be much more "inclusive"

They should follow a simple equation, which would make the regular season and conference championship more meaningful:
- Every conference must have divisions
- No independents can qualify
- Take a look at all of the conference championship game winners and pick your best 4 teams.

Done.

JasonB wrote:They should follow a simple equation, which would make the regular season and conference championship more meaningful:
- Every conference must have divisions
- No independents can qualify
- Take a look at all of the conference championship game winners and pick your best 4 teams.

Done.

You can't keep ND out of the equation. Before anyone says why does Notre Dame get special treatment, and the reason is because they can do it. Others would like to generate what they produce and would be independent if they could, but no other football program outside of ND can.

Mustangs_Maroons wrote:

JasonB wrote:They should follow a simple equation, which would make the regular season and conference championship more meaningful:
- Every conference must have divisions
- No independents can qualify
- Take a look at all of the conference championship game winners and pick your best 4 teams.

Done.

You can't keep ND out of the equation. Before anyone says why does Notre Dame get special treatment, and the reason is because they can do it. Others would like to generate what they produce and would be independent if they could, but no other football program outside of ND can.

Probably Texas. Their own network. Their own view of things. Back by state government. They could but instead they settle for managing behind the scenes of the Big12.

SMU_Alum11 wrote:

Mustangs_Maroons wrote:

JasonB wrote:They should follow a simple equation, which would make the regular season and conference championship more meaningful:
- Every conference must have divisions
- No independents can qualify
- Take a look at all of the conference championship game winners and pick your best 4 teams.

Done.

You can't keep ND out of the equation. Before anyone says why does Notre Dame get special treatment, and the reason is because they can do it. Others would like to generate what they produce and would be independent if they could, but no other football program outside of ND can.

Probably Texas. Their own network. Their own view of things. Back by state government. They could but instead they settle for managing behind the scenes of the Big12.

If the playoff forced the equation, they would join a conference. Done.

shadowman wrote:

Mustangs_Maroons wrote:On the surface, our ranking seems a bit low, but honestly, as a neutral observer who first saw SMU on prime time television last Saturday night, one would conclude we have a very good offense (who was missing a starting receiver) and a defense with poor DBs and a special teams that looked to be the worst I have seen in a D1 team. We would only check one out of three areas. I’d consider us lucky to be ranked based on the eye test, and there’s no likely improvement on special teams. We have to outscore opponents, and after watching the game, I’m not sure we’re better than Cincinnati or Navy. We have to improve to truly have a chance to stay ranked by the end of the season.

From a DB perspective, Stephens has been solid, the rest though is a crap shoot, not great, but better than we field most years. Denbow, bless his heart, God knows he tries, but you could have an epic debate throughout the night over many drinks over whether he is more of a liability as a safety or as a punter. Either way, he has cost us.

Special teams could be better, if we are willing to bite the bullet and put our defensive starters and most athletic offensive players out on the field on kickoff coverage. You risk injury, but SMU's B team is just not athletic enough to cover kickoffs. For good reason, you like to put guys out there that don't normally play on kickoffs, but SMU cannot afford that luxury. Get the starters out there on kickoffs.

For DB, Armani Johnson is going to be a special player. Robert Jones is a solid corner, but he doesn't hold up in man-to-man coverage like Armani did when he was healthy. His injury has had a significant impact on the effectiveness of our defensive backfield.