The problem with this ranking is that the schools in the moneyed 5 get artificial rankings boost because of their conference. For example, in the B12, Iowa St. Kansas, and Kansas St belong in the bottom ranks. In the BIG, Indiana, Northwestern, and Purdue that could be considered for the bottom. Even in the SEC they have Tennessee, Vandy, and Kentucky that are embarrassments. In the ACC everything north of Georgia except Clemson is pretty bad.
1 Like
Tulane and Tulsa seem to be heading in that direction and hopefully UCONN will improve under Edsall. ECU I agree needs to improve and SMU makes me nervous with the coaching change but we shall see. We also need our top teams in the conference to continue to be strong as well. I think UH will continue to be a top dog, I just hope the conference as a whole stays strong.
2 Likes
100% agree. Rankings are not real since it based with the P5âs as the leading indicator. It is indeed fake news.
First off, this is a ranking going into next season, not overall ranking of programs.
Out of the 4 teams they ranked >100 for the American, Iâd probably only argue about Tulane. Green Wave went 5-7 last year and their out of conference losses were to Oklahoma and FIU. They also knocked off a good Army team and, of course, us. Maybe you can point to their defensive losses as a reason to be wary of them, but Fritz has shown a tendency to win. Ranking them 114th is ridiculous.
The other three, ECU, Tulsa, and UCONN, probably should be ranked that low. UCONN was awful last year and Iâm not sure Edsel is going to get them going this coming year. Tulsa was awful (except for, of course, that win against us) and Iâm not sure Montgomery can figure out how to play defense (except against us). ECU is a dumpster fire that lost their starting QB and also lost to an FCS team.
Looking through the list, the only other school Iâd probably switch Tulane out with is Baylor. Not sure why theyâre not >100 other than they think Rhule will turn them aroundâŠthey havenât come up in the countdown yet as theyâre only to around 98 so far.
I see Iowa State, Kansas State, Northwestern, Purdue, and Kentucky mentioned as bad teams, except all of those teams made bowl games last season. Northwestern was 10-3 last year. As far as the ACC, everything north of Georgia except Clemson? NC State, Louisville, Wake Forest, Boston College, Virginia Tech, Duke, and Virginia all made bowl games last season. Even when teams are bad, such as Tennessee, they still go 4-0 out of conference (against 5-6 Georgia Tech, 8-5 Southern Miss, 4-8 UMASS, and FCS Indiana State).
We need our bad teams to win those out of conference games. We need all our teams to win the out of conference games.
3 Likes
Despite winning a couple of NY day bowl games, the AAC has also been a disaster come bowl season. We complain about playing in insignificant bowls, but conference teams havenât been winning those (ergo the Cougars).
How in the hump did we lose to Tulane. Holy crap.
We have been losing those bowl games in many occasions with less than a full staff on board as the head coach has moved on to another school or a key coordinator.
1 Like
I donât think coach turnover matters. It gives the announcers something to talk about but in the end, itâs a bowl loss. We need bowl wins, annually, whether itâs a marquee match up or not.
1 Like
Of course it matters. But a loss is a loss. We won the most thrilling comeback in school history with an interim coach, but that doesnât mean a full staff is not preferable or that continuity does not matter for the kids.
Matters to the players and partisan fans, sure, but not to the power brokers who decide who gets the cookies.
Back to Aresco, he is getting paid in the Power Conference level so he needs to get a home run on our new tv contract or take a major pay cut.
I suspect it will be 10-12 million per school. Not P5 money but a significant increase.
1 Like
Probably, and I bet he doesnât offer to cut his pay either. 
If memory serves me right Aresco turned down a $21 million offer when we were in the Big East
because he wanted to negotiate some more. At that point the Big East broke up and we
ended up about $20 million poorer. If he had signed the Big East would probably not have
been able to break up given the contract. There is a lot more to that story than we know.
2 Likes
Agree. His UCF comments told me volume. His resume could point out that he is much closer to espn than everyone knows. What better way for espn to negotiate deals if they have an "inside"man? I am just asking/insinuating if I may.
That wasnt Aresco, it was Marinnato (marinara sauce), and it wasnt 21M a year, it was closer to 11 (dont exactly remember the number)
3 Likes
And as I recall, it was Pitt and Georgetown that led the charge to turn down the offer, two of the more prominent programs in the Big East who, it turns out, were looking for greener pastures at the same time. At least, thatâs what I recall being reported . . . .
That comeback bowl win against Pitt might have been sweeter than the Ticket City Bowl win against Penn State.
2 Likes