PonyFans.com

One of the better if not best reviews and preview of the SMU football program.

I agree. Thourough, thoughtful, and I love that they put in a blurb from last years expectations.

But it's depressing, being as that we are only picked as 99th.

A few mistakes here and there, and some opinions I might disagree with, but overall a very fair article.

I still think we are higher than 99 though!

While there are some question marks with this team, this is unadulterated b.s. Revisiting the Congrove-based percentile rankings I posted earlier, being the 99th best team of 125 would put us way down at the 21st percentile -- when we've been running at or above the 50th percentile three of the last four years. I don't see it. Way, way too low.



If you want to go with a little skepticism due to the unknowns with this team, put us around 70 of 125 teams (or about the 45th percentile). But last year's final Congrove ranking of 62 is probably about right as a starting point for 2013. Not 99.

I agree that is low, but how many games did we win due purely to irreplaceable Margus?

I also thought it was really well done. Not often (ever?) that you see someone writing from a national perspective who will say anything about last year being a disappointment or Jones being on somewhat of a hot seat going into the year.

By the way, guess who the Congrove #99 ranked team was last year? Memphis. That's USA TODAY's expectation, that SMU will be this coming year what Memphis was last year? Wow.

ponyboy wrote:By the way, guess who the Congrove #99 ranked team was last year? Memphis. That's USA TODAY's expectation, that SMU will be this coming year what Memphis was last year? Wow.

The reviewer predicted that we'd likely win 4 games which is what Memphis won last year (albeit versus a much weaker schedule than our 2013 slate). Their re-rank was #101 (up from #119).

sbsmith wrote:

ponyboy wrote:By the way, guess who the Congrove #99 ranked team was last year? Memphis. That's USA TODAY's expectation, that SMU will be this coming year what Memphis was last year? Wow.

The reviewer predicted that we'd likely win 4 games which is what Memphis won last year (albeit versus a much weaker schedule than our 2013 slate). Their re-rank was #101 (up from #119).

I agree, this guy is digging in and projecting how the team will do this year, not how we did the last few years. If he thinks we will be 4-8, which is not an unreasonable projection, then what is wrong with him saying we are #99.

If someone thinks we will be higher, go game by game and give your own prediction, but to point to prior years and say he is wrong because we are not ranked at the average of past performance is not a good way to make the case. He himself says he predicted SMU to be #56 last year and had us at #68 (pretty consistent with your #62 Congrove) at the end of the year, so it is not like he is unaware of how we did.

This ranking isn't really a measure of talent (on which I think we would be way better than #99) - it is a measure of projected final record at the end of the season. He predicts 4-5 wins. With our OOC and entry to AAC play, I don't think that is too weak of a projection, although we all hope SMU can do better.

To me, this ranking reflects just how difficult our OOC schedule is this year. Personally, I think we pull off a few unexpected wins, like a TT or Rutgers. But the point of the article is that JJ has feasted on weaker cusa teams - of which we have less on the schedule this year.

And regardless, pre-season rankings are garbage outside of the top 25. It all depends on a few plays here or there that can turn a projected loss into a win and vice versa. We could go 12-0 or 1-11, or really anywhere between.

PS - look at some of the teams in way better conferences that are ranked below us - Kentucky, Illinois, BC, Colorado, etc. Surely we all think that Kentucky could step into a lower conference like the SunBelt or Cusa and pretty much finish at or near the top. Yet they are ranked at #101 because they are going to lose most of their conference games and finish with 3 or 4 wins.

We've fluctuated from #42 to #66 the last four seasons per Congrove -- which uses the same 125 team pool as this USA TODAY countdown. (And note: Sagarin ranked us *higher* than Congrove on its final 2012 ranking). We're seriously expected to fall off 33 places from our worst ranking in that four year period? 37 places from last year's ranking? Wow.

ponyboy wrote:We've fluctuated from #42 to #66 the last four seasons per Congrove -- which uses the same 125 team pool as this USA TODAY countdown. (And note: Sagarin ranked us *higher* than Congrove on its final 2012 ranking). We're seriously expected to fall off 33 places from our worst ranking in that four year period? 37 places from last year's ranking? Wow.

What is your prediction for our record? That is how he has ranked teams. You keep criticizing this guy because his analysis of the coming year's team does not fit into the range of the performance of the last four year's teams, but would it really be very insightful if he ranked everyone based on their Congrove 4 year trailing average?

Yeah, everyone that's complainging about this guys article needs to give a legit game by game win/ loss projection. I have no problem with him saying we'll win 4-5. Hell, half the people on here keep saying it will be a miracle and JJ's best coaching job if we go 6-6. We have a lot of unkowns, it's a fair assesment

We're going to beat Texas Tech. It's the most important game because it's the next game. Buy more tickets and bring your family and friends ... it's happening. First you believe, then you do.