Pre Season Ranking in "The Athletic "

iceeater1969

iceeater1969

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,660
As a total unknown we are a crap shoot. This year i am in the camp that says - its all about playing tough , smart, and getting better.


This preseason poll seems to give extra weighting to good g5 teams.
 

GT99

Georgia Tech Fan
Messages
45
Oldgoldandwhite said:
I’ll be extremely disappointed if we finish outside the top 40.
Click to expand...

I'll be extremely happy if we finish inside the top 40. We certainly weren't last season (you'd be hard pressed to make the case we were top 50 last season - most computers that do complete rankings had us in the 50s). I'm very optimistic about the future, but I don't expect to be better than last season.
 
slugboy

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
11,491
GT99 said:
I'll be extremely happy if we finish inside the top 40. We certainly weren't last season (you'd be hard pressed to make the case we were top 50 last season - most computers that do complete rankings had us in the 50s). I'm very optimistic about the future, but I don't expect to be better than last season.
Click to expand...

The human polls don’t go down that far, but you’d be an avid GT fan to put us in the top 50 last year.

Stats and analytics did not put us in the top 50 last year. Our S&P+ rating last year was #74.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
Yup, typical sports media bull****. 2-6 in the ACC and 3-9 overall. F all of them.
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
slugboy said:
The human polls don’t go down that far, but you’d be an avid GT fan to put us in the top 50 last year.

Stats and analytics did not put us in the top 50 last year. Our S&P+ rating last year was #74.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

We barely lost at South Florida to a team we outgained 600+ to 425 yards because we gave up 2 stupid back to back kickoff returns.
We barely lost to the ACC Coastal Champion Pittsburgh because of a stupid fake punt call.
We lost to eventual National Champion #1 Clemson.
We got stung in the butt by stupid Duke. That was a legitimate bad game.
We went into #8 Georgia at 7-4 and lost.

I don't really care what formulas show - those are the same formulas that lead to people predicting us to finish in the bottom of the ACC last year (and most years). We finished 5th in the ACC last year. So they can all suck it.

I mean, if you are playing > 0.500 football, just by numbers, you have to finish in the top of half of P5/G5, which is what, about 115 teams? If we played > 0.500 football, and 3 of our losses were #1, #8, and Division Champ, no way we're in the bottom half of P5/G5.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Deleted member 2897

Guest
lv20gt said:
That isn't how math works champ.
Click to expand...

Yes it does "champ". If you play better than 0.500 football and your strength of schedule is above average...sure the sports media can rank you down low, but they're full of **** if they do. Its why little teams that go 11-2 (like Appalachian State last year or 11-win UAB) don't get ranked and its why teams like Texas had 4 losses but finish ranked inside the top 10.
 

GT99

Georgia Tech Fan
Messages
45
bwelbo said:
We barely lost at South Florida to a team we outgained 600+ to 425 yards because we gave up 2 stupid back to back kickoff returns.
We barely lost to the ACC Coastal Champion Pittsburgh because of a stupid fake punt call.
We lost to eventual National Champion #1 Clemson.
We got stung in the butt by stupid Duke. That was a legitimate bad game.
We went into #8 Georgia at 7-4 and lost.

I don't really care what formulas show - those are the same formulas that lead to people predicting us to finish in the bottom of the ACC last year (and most years). We finished 5th in the ACC last year. So they can all suck it.

I mean, if you are playing > 0.500 football, just by numbers, you have to finish in the top of half of P5/G5, which is what, about 115 teams? If we played > 0.500 football, and 3 of our losses were #1, #8, and Division Champ, no way we're in the bottom half of P5/G5.
Click to expand...

130 FBS teams now. Pretty much every team outside of the top 10 (and some inside it) has those "coulda woulda shoulda" games. Frankly, the difference between everyone in the Coastal last year other than UNC was pretty much a bad play or bad bounce or two - you could replay the season with the same players and staffs 6 times and get 6 different division winners.
Record doesn't tell you everything, but I agree it's tough to say that a winning record against above average schedule strength puts us at 74. 50s makes sense to me (I say this as someone who likes the S&P+ ratings and references them a lot).
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
GT99 said:
130 FBS teams now. Pretty much every team outside of the top 10 (and some inside it) has those "coulda woulda shoulda" games. Frankly, the difference between everyone in the Coastal last year other than UNC was pretty much a bad play or bad bounce or two - you could replay the season with the same players and staffs 6 times and get 6 different division winners.
Record doesn't tell you everything, but I agree it's tough to say that a winning record against above average schedule strength puts us at 74. 50s makes sense to me.
Click to expand...

Yea don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing we're a top 30 team. But by comparison, Oklahoma State got votes in the polls after finishing 7-6. 7-6 ain't great. But its not terrible when your schedule is full of decent teams and you play 2 non-conference road P5 games. We played 10 teams last year who had at least 6 wins.
 
Top