(09-04-2016 09:29 AM)CatMom Wrote:  GS was supposed to beat Savannah St. If they didn't or the game was close it still was an FCS team. Doesn't matter if the MAC east "sucks" Ohio still makes Bowl games consistently. Their last losing season was 2009.

We came into our game 21 point dogs. We had 14 guys that had ever played in an FBS game. Our DLine was 50 lbs on average, across the line, lighter than their OLine and our OLine was smaller than their D. We were picked 10 or 11th in the SBC and we won.

It's about this week's game only. Some people just refuse to give TXST any credit. We may suck and we may suck the rest of the year but this week those young men earned some respect.

Don't let one person's view of the power rankings ruffle your feathers.

Your boys did a fine job and did the conference as service by getting an OOC FBS win. Congrats!

FWIW, I called the Texas State win over Ohio and said several times they just needed a better coach and not a 3-year rebuilding job.

I feel South Al should be no 1 after this week not only did they help UL during the flooding they beat a P5 school. Tennessee is over rated as a discipline coached team App State went conservative trying not to lose rather than win so I don't feel they are no 1 this week. As far as my Cajuns we played a team that is not in our league. Don't know if we were the worst team this week because I feel Ark State losing to Toledo was worst because no one expected us to beat Boise State. As a league we got work to do, so lets get to work.

(09-04-2016 09:29 AM)CatMom Wrote:  GS was supposed to beat Savannah St. If they didn't or the game was close it still was an FCS team. Doesn't matter if the MAC east "sucks" Ohio still makes Bowl games consistently. Their last losing season was 2009.

We came into our game 21 point dogs. We had 14 guys that had ever played in an FBS game. Our DLine was 50 lbs on average, across the line, lighter than their OLine and our OLine was smaller than their D. We were picked 10 or 11th in the SBC and we won.

It's about this week's game only. Some people just refuse to give TXST any credit. We may suck and we may suck the rest of the year but this week those young men earned some respect.

The TXST played hard and congrats on a hard fought win. Please understand Ohio is not a MACC contender. Ohio is 6-9 against the MAC West since their last losing season. They have weakened their OOC schedule, have only played one ranked team since 2009, and almost always have 1 FCS school on their schedule. So for them to be Bowl eligible they need to win 4 MAC games, 1 FCS , and 1 OOC. or any combination.

(09-04-2016 12:17 AM)CatMom Wrote:  You beat an FCS. USA beat an SEC team and we beat a possible contender MAC team. Yeah, go ahead and put your team above ours.

Texas State is on the rise because they have an APP alum leading them......

(09-04-2016 11:09 AM)AppinSC Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 12:17 AM)CatMom Wrote:  You beat an FCS. USA beat an SEC team and we beat a possible contender MAC team. Yeah, go ahead and put your team above ours.

Texas State is on the rise because they have an APP alum leading them......

I think it's best to temper expectations for TXST. It was huge for us because even we expected to be terrible.

Ohio is a solid, well coached team... and may well still be a MAC contender BUT I don't think I saw a preseason ranking that had them higher than the 70's.

We still have a long way to go.... but it was just awesome to finally see our boys playing with some swagger and heart.

(09-04-2016 11:03 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 09:29 AM)CatMom Wrote:  GS was supposed to beat Savannah St. If they didn't or the game was close it still was an FCS team. Doesn't matter if the MAC east "sucks" Ohio still makes Bowl games consistently. Their last losing season was 2009.

We came into our game 21 point dogs. We had 14 guys that had ever played in an FBS game. Our DLine was 50 lbs on average, across the line, lighter than their OLine and our OLine was smaller than their D. We were picked 10 or 11th in the SBC and we won.

It's about this week's game only. Some people just refuse to give TXST any credit. We may suck and we may suck the rest of the year but this week those young men earned some respect.

The TXST played hard and congrats on a hard fought win. Please understand Ohio is not a MACC contender. Ohio is 6-9 against the MAC West since their last losing season. They have weakened their OOC schedule, have only played one ranked team since 2009, and almost always have 1 FCS school on their schedule. So for them to be Bowl eligible they need to win 4 MAC games, 1 FCS , and 1 OOC. or any combination.

The MAC East has to have a Championship Game rep though, and the Eastern Division is so honestly horrible that Ohio could be that team.

Yes, Toledo or NIU will beat their brains in if they make the title game, but by definition, that makes them a contender.

(09-04-2016 09:29 AM)CatMom Wrote:  GS was supposed to beat Savannah St. If they didn't or the game was close it still was an FCS team. Doesn't matter if the MAC east "sucks" Ohio still makes Bowl games consistently. Their last losing season was 2009.

We came into our game 21 point dogs. We had 14 guys that had ever played in an FBS game. Our DLine was 50 lbs on average, across the line, lighter than their OLine and our OLine was smaller than their D. We were picked 10 or 11th in the SBC and we won.

It's about this week's game only. Some people just refuse to give TXST any credit. We may suck and we may suck the rest of the year but this week those young men earned some respect.

And some people don't view power rankings that way. I don't disagree with looking at the entire body of work, and right now there are some lingering concerns about last year with just one game in the books for this season. Some people are going to need more persuasion that TX State has turned a corner. It's a good win, but flukes can happen as well. The question is what do ya'll do to follow it up?

This is the same stuff we went through in 2014. People thought we were just a flash at NC State. Then "oh well it's just SSU." Then GT happened. And finally, when we pasted USA, perceptions started shifting. Your body of work up to this point has been pretty bad. You've had a potential turning point. You have to follow it up with good performance though.

(09-04-2016 08:56 AM)sarkelcpa Wrote:  

(09-03-2016 11:56 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  1. App State
2. Georgia Southern
3. South Alabama
4. Texas State
5. Troy
6. ULL
7. Arkansas State
8. Idaho
9. NMSU
10. Georgia State
11. ULM

I put App at #1 because I don't rank based on W/L record, but just as an assessment on where a team appears to be.
I honestly see Tennessee making a bowl game, Miss State I'm not too sure. Miss State looks like they dropped off a lot on offense from last year.
Don't see anything from GS that shows we're going to drop off or be better compared with late last year.

I disagree with your ranking of us. To me, we looked like we were learning a whole new offense by as stilted we played. The offense did not look comfortable and overall, we looked like a well-oiled FCS team last night.

We looked stilted because we repeatedly ran 5 or 6 plays. The coaches also need to figure out an OT needs to be switched out. They probably know, but the only options are true freshmen so they had to see for themselves one would guess.

Having seven folks who will be contributors during the season, suspended one game, also played a role. If those guys were in there to sub out I would have expected SSU to not break 100 yards of total offense.

All that said, that was the best SSU team I've since in Paulson since the 1989 version that Shannon Sharped played on. Erik Raeburn actually had those guys looking like a football team, and they weren't sloppy ... just overmatched in talent. They'll win a few more than expected, I think.

We should be ranked like 19th

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Sorry, I see this as what the thread title says, week 1 rankings. Not what a team did last year or how they were ranked pre-season or how they'll end up. It is based on the game these teams just played....nothing else.

We may not win another game but we won this one and for this week, or any other week, I'll still rank an FBS win higher than an FCS win every time.

(09-04-2016 11:50 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 11:03 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 09:29 AM)CatMom Wrote:  GS was supposed to beat Savannah St. If they didn't or the game was close it still was an FCS team. Doesn't matter if the MAC east "sucks" Ohio still makes Bowl games consistently. Their last losing season was 2009.

We came into our game 21 point dogs. We had 14 guys that had ever played in an FBS game. Our DLine was 50 lbs on average, across the line, lighter than their OLine and our OLine was smaller than their D. We were picked 10 or 11th in the SBC and we won.

It's about this week's game only. Some people just refuse to give TXST any credit. We may suck and we may suck the rest of the year but this week those young men earned some respect.

The TXST played hard and congrats on a hard fought win. Please understand Ohio is not a MACC contender. Ohio is 6-9 against the MAC West since their last losing season. They have weakened their OOC schedule, have only played one ranked team since 2009, and almost always have 1 FCS school on their schedule. So for them to be Bowl eligible they need to win 4 MAC games, 1 FCS , and 1 OOC. or any combination.

The MAC East has to have a Championship Game rep though, and the Eastern Division is so honestly horrible that Ohio could be that team.

Yes, Toledo or NIU will beat their brains in if they make the title game, but by definition, that makes them a contender.

The MAC East is so horrible blah blah blah but still the East has won 4 of the last 8 MAC Championship games against the all mighty West. You'll have to excuse our Toledo fans, they're a little sensitive.

1. USA - Beat Miss St on the road. Unexpected and amazing.
2. App St - I thought App St would give the Vols a run for their money. I didn't know they would be the ones to blow it. Great game.
3. TXST - 21 point dog gets a road win. Great start to Withers era
4. Idaho - Good start to the season over a typically better than average FCS team
5. Troy - Got the FCS win as expected over a typically below average FCS team
6. GS - Beat SSU as expected (worst FCS team ever). Game against USA next week is going to be fun.
7. ULM - Won the game even if it wasn't pretty.

The rest were tough to gauge which was worse. I think stAte was the biggest surprise. NMSUs score is expected without Rose III. UL losing isn't a shock but the halftime score was. I expected GSU to win and was wrong.

Note: Since FCS teams should be beat, I ranked the teams based on how tough each one is to play. Expected for ULM since they looked shaky.

(09-04-2016 08:33 PM)CatMom Wrote:  Sorry, I see this as what the thread title says, week 1 rankings. Not what a team did last year or how they were ranked pre-season or how they'll end up. It is based on the game these teams just played....nothing else.

We may not win another game but we won this one and for this week, or any other week, I'll still rank an FBS win higher than an FCS win every time.

It also says "completely arbitrary".

ar·bi·trar·y
ˈärbəˌtrerē/ - based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system

So, no one is wrong.

Carry on

I find the conjecture here as to how teams are ranked to be a tad ridiculous. Some want to rank based on record, some want to rank based on how a team performed relative to the competition they faced. I believe performance is what should be gauged, otherwise all you need to do is link the Sun Belt standings home page and everyone will get the point.

Winning is great, but at this stage in the season it's all relative to who you are playing.

(09-03-2016 11:24 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  1. South Alabama (Automatic because they beat a P5 team)
2. App State (For giving a Top 10 team hell)
3. Texas State (Because they looked like a real football team)
4. Georgia Southern (Only 54 points against Savannah? Fire the OC!)
5. Troy (Lost a place because they gave up 17 to Peay)
6. Idaho (Despite Latah County comparing Montana State to Toledo)
7. ULM (Made Southern look good)

11 (Tie) Georgia State, Arkansas State, ULL, NMSU (Because they all abjectly failed)

You get more credit for winning on a missed fg over what is essentially the team picked last in the SEC, than for taking the #9 team in the country and preseason pick to win the SEC East into OT?? 😕

Sent from my XT1254 using CSNbbs mobile app

(09-04-2016 09:14 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(09-03-2016 11:24 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  1. South Alabama (Automatic because they beat a P5 team)
2. App State (For giving a Top 10 team hell)
3. Texas State (Because they looked like a real football team)
4. Georgia Southern (Only 54 points against Savannah? Fire the OC!)
5. Troy (Lost a place because they gave up 17 to Peay)
6. Idaho (Despite Latah County comparing Montana State to Toledo)
7. ULM (Made Southern look good)

11 (Tie) Georgia State, Arkansas State, ULL, NMSU (Because they all abjectly failed)

You get more credit for winning on a missed fg over what is essentially the team picked last in the SEC, than for taking the #9 team in the country and preseason pick to win the SEC East into OT?? ?

Sent from my XT1254 using CSNbbs mobile app

See my previous post. Rankings based on wins and losses essentially meaning standings. Some people rank based on performance relative to who is faced. I suppose that is what makes this arbitrary thread different from the Power Rankings thread, though I expect most will still rank USA first simply because they won rather than who they played.

Talking about Week 1 during the UT-ND game, "and Tennessee on Thursday night, probably didn't deserve to win but they moved on" when speaking of Alabama and Tennessee and week 1 to week 2 changes.

(09-04-2016 08:54 PM)Eagle22 Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 08:33 PM)CatMom Wrote:  Sorry, I see this as what the thread title says, week 1 rankings. Not what a team did last year or how they were ranked pre-season or how they'll end up. It is based on the game these teams just played....nothing else.

We may not win another game but we won this one and for this week, or any other week, I'll still rank an FBS win higher than an FCS win every time.

It also says "completely arbitrary".

ar·bi·trar·y
ˈärbəˌtrerē/ - based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system

So, no one is wrong.

Carry on

Arbitrary....as long as you agree with me.

(09-04-2016 08:33 PM)CatMom Wrote:  Sorry, I see this as what the thread title says, week 1 rankings. Not what a team did last year or how they were ranked pre-season or how they'll end up. It is based on the game these teams just played....nothing else.

We may not win another game but we won this one and for this week, or any other week, I'll still rank an FBS win higher than an FCS win every time.

So Week 2 rankings should be only for Week 2?

(09-04-2016 09:34 PM)eaglewraith Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 08:33 PM)CatMom Wrote:  Sorry, I see this as what the thread title says, week 1 rankings. Not what a team did last year or how they were ranked pre-season or how they'll end up. It is based on the game these teams just played....nothing else.

We may not win another game but we won this one and for this week, or any other week, I'll still rank an FBS win higher than an FCS win every time.

So Week 2 rankings should be only for Week 2?

I think it should be like you come in to the season without any prior knowledge of how the teams are that year. So your knowledge of the teams only comes from the games each week.