SportsNetwork.com 2012 preseason Poll:

[kdinva]

http://www.sportsnetwork.com/merge/tsnform.aspx?c=sportsnetwork&page=cfoot2/misc/cfoot225poll.aspx

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Montana ranked ahead of Lehigh. Yeah, sure, that makes sense.

[SpeedkingATL]

Hard for me to justify #1 votes for JMU, App and YSU. Also see GaState getting more votes than teams like Furman, Albany and Richmond....just becoming a transitional FBS doesn't make you any better the following year as the additional scholarships haven't fully kicked in. Who exactly have they beaten of note in their brief existance??

[Professor Chaos]

Not bad, nothing too egregious at this point. However, looking at some of the ORV schools with 10 points or less really makes you wonder about the intelligence of some of the voters who put those schools in their top 25.

[jmufan999]

Hard for me to justify #1 votes for JMU, App and YSU. Also see GaState getting more votes than teams like Furman, Albany and Richmond....just becoming a transitional FBS doesn't make you any better the following year as the additional scholarships haven't fully kicked in. Who exactly have they beaten of note in their brief existance??

Me too. I have no problem with Phil Steele's #2 ranking for JMU because that's how he's predicting the FCS final standings. Who knows what will happen then? But for this poll/ranking, I don't think JMU or ASU should be getting #1 votes. I think it's unbelievable that so many people are not ranking NDSU #1 this year. Unless the national champ loses A LOT, they usually start out #1 the next season in my book. Everyone has different opinions on that, but that's how I do it. EWU earned a #1 preseason ranking last year. Who would have guessed they'd missed the playoffs? No one predicted that. How could they have known?

[Nickels]

Hard for me to justify #1 votes for JMU, App and YSU. yeah, it baffled me as well.

[blackfordpu]

About what I expected.

[GlassOnion]

Ga St got votes? What the heck, they lost to Div 2 teams, and will probably win 1-3 games. BS.

[UNDColorado]

How did Cal Poly not even get a vote? That doesn't add up to me because if Poly played a team like Prairie View A&M they would blow them out.

[GlassOnion]

Also, Chattanooga did not make top 25, mistake IMO.

[asumike83]

Anything can happen and we won't really know until they hit the field but a couple things stood out.

A bit too high: James Madison, Appalachian, Wofford
A bit too low (or should be ranked): Stony Brook, Chattanooga, EKU

Georgia State getting top 25 votes, especially more votes than Furman, Albany and Richmond, is a joke.

[coover]

70 schools got votes. One of the voters, Eric Burdick, is from Cal Poly.

I guess we'll have to get our respect after the season starts. Watch out San Diego! There will be some very unhappy Mustangs.

[UNH Fanboi]

Montana ranked ahead of Lehigh. Yeah, sure, that makes sense.

How many seasons in the past 20 years has Lehigh had a better team than Montana? One, maybe two. I think it's pretty reasonable to predict that that trend will continue, especially with Lehigh losing their best player from last season.

[UNH Fanboi]

Montana ranked ahead of Lehigh. Yeah, sure, that makes sense.

How many seasons in the past 20 years has Lehigh had a better team than Montana? One, maybe two. I think it's pretty reasonable to predict that that trend will continue, especially with Lehigh losing their best player from last season.

[Screamin_Eagle174]

Me too. I have no problem with Phil Steele's #2 ranking for JMU because that's how he's predicting the FCS final standings. Who knows what will happen then? But for this poll/ranking, I don't think JMU or ASU should be getting #1 votes. I think it's unbelievable that so many people are not ranking NDSU #1 this year. Unless the national champ loses A LOT, they usually start out #1 the next season in my book. Everyone has different opinions on that, but that's how I do it. EWU earned a #1 preseason ranking last year. Who would have guessed they'd missed the playoffs? No one predicted that. How could they have known?

You can't predict injuries.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

How many seasons in the past 20 years has Lehigh had a better team than Montana? One, maybe two. I think it's pretty reasonable to predict that that trend will continue, especially with Lehigh losing their best player from last season.

What, specifically, do you see in this year's Montana team that deserves such an honor?

The brand-new coach, which came in after spring practice?

The brand-new QBs?

The brand-new RBs?

The all-American WR? Oh, wait. He's on Lehigh. Nevermind.

Or perhaps it was the defense that lost 10 seniors?

It is complete and utter bull**** that Montana's reputation alone gives them a ranking above Lehigh.

[SpiritCymbal]

Also see GaState getting more votes than teams like Furman, Albany and Richmond....just becoming a transitional FBS doesn't make you any better the following year as the additional scholarships haven't fully kicked in. Who exactly have they beaten of note in their brief existance??

That was my first thought too. That's definitely a case of uninformed voters just throwing in programs that have been in the college football news over the off-season.

[GlassOnion]

It is complete and utter bull**** that Montana's reputation alone gives them a ranking above Lehigh.

I must agree, I think Montana's a great program, but their ranking this year has me scratching my head.

[BisonFan02]

Murray State 292, Northern Arizona 259, Norfolk State 222, Chattanooga 191, Liberty 150, South Carolina State 137, Bethune-Cookman 134, McNeese State 127, Grambling State 87, Tennessee Tech 77, Portland State 73, North Dakota 68, Alabama State 66, Jackson State 63, Southern Illinois 63, William & Mary 59, Southern Utah 54, Georgia State 49, Furman 43, Albany 39, Richmond 31, Villanova 30, Penn 16, Duquesne 14, South Dakota State 10, San Diego 9, Elon 9, Drake 8, Holy Cross 7, Prairie View A&M 6, South Dakota 6, Alabama A&M 4, Southeast Missouri 4, Georgetown 3, Idaho State 3, Sacramento State 3, Cornell 2, Bryant 1, Eastern Illinois 1, Jacksonville 1, Missouri State 1, Samford 1, UT Martin 1, The Citadel 1, Western Illinois 1

xchinscratchx ... I'm sure there are more than what I put in bold that can be questioned, but this ORV is a mess.

[GlassOnion]

Those Ga St votes are just ludicrous. I am positive that The Citadel, with their 1 point, could whip Ga St's A. No doubt in my mind.

[blueballs]

Any poll that doesn't have Chattanooga as unanimous #1 is flawed and biased...

[Squealofthepig]

It is complete and utter bull**** that Montana's reputation alone gives them a ranking above Lehigh.

Then get a better reputation. Both Lehigh and Montana both are way down from last year's final poll, with Montana's upheaval and Lum's graduation. Hard to know where either team will end up, and it's a preseason TSN poll. Worry about the last poll!

[FCS_pwns_FBS]

What, specifically, do you see in this year's Montana team that deserves such an honor?

The brand-new coach, which came in after spring practice?

The brand-new QBs?

The brand-new RBs?

The all-American WR? Oh, wait. He's on Lehigh. Nevermind.

Or perhaps it was the defense that lost 10 seniors?

It is complete and utter bull**** that Montana's reputation alone gives them a ranking above Lehigh.

Montana is the most consistent winner in the FCS. They have more playoff appearances than any team in the last 15 years and I don't think any team is close.

[Sam_Kats]

Love having the Griz come down to Texas...

[GlassOnion]

Montana is the most consistent winner in the FCS. They have more playoff appearances than any team in the last 15 years and I don't think any team is close.

Yes, but they dont typically lose 65% of their team/coaches every year.

[Screamin_Eagle174]

What, specifically, do you see in this year's Montana team that deserves such an honor?

The brand-new coach, which came in after spring practice?

The brand-new QBs?

The brand-new RBs?

The all-American WR? Oh, wait. He's on Lehigh. Nevermind.

Or perhaps it was the defense that lost 10 seniors?

It is complete and utter bull**** that Montana's reputation alone gives them a ranking above Lehigh.

Does Lehigh not have a new QB too? Did UM not advance further in the playoffs than Lehigh last year?

Also, I don't think UM has brand new RBs. They return all of them.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

You can't predict injuries.

I can predict excuses..................................

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Yes, but they dont typically lose 65% of their team/coaches every year.

No, we typically lost pretty much all the staff and then end up in the playoffs anyway.
HC's:
Don Read
Mick Dennehy
Joe Glenn
Bobby Hauck
Robin Pflugrad

and if you want to go into Coordinators and other coaches that list gets real long. We missed it one time in the era so keep thinking that those coaching changes mean everything if you want to. That record was built in spite of changes and it hasn't stopped us yet. One time it has kept us out of the playoffs in that entire span.

[McNeese75]

Love having the Griz come down to Texas...

Don't count on it this year with your schedule.

[GlassOnion]

No, we typically lost pretty much all the staff and then end up in the playoffs anyway.
HC's:
Don Read
Mick Dennehy
Joe Glenn
Bobby Hauck
Robin Pflugrad

and if you want to go into Coordinators and other coaches that list gets real long. We missed it one time in the era so keep thinking that those coaching changes mean everything if you want to. That record was built in spite of changes and it hasn't stopped us yet. One time it has kept us out of the playoffs in that entire span.

Ok. And the players part of the equation? Returned 8 starters on offense, and just 2 on defense, and have now lost the starting QB.

UM returns just 32% of its starters.

[THE DANIMAL]

What, specifically, do you see in this year's Montana team that deserves such an honor?

The brand-new coach, which came in after spring practice?

The brand-new QBs?

The brand-new RBs?

The all-American WR? Oh, wait. He's on Lehigh. Nevermind.

Or perhaps it was the defense that lost 10 seniors?

It is complete and utter bull**** that Montana's reputation alone gives them a ranking above Lehigh.

Change your tampon bro, We return all our running backs by the way. The head coach has been on the staff for sometime. Assistant Head Coach if I'm not mistaken for years. We don't need a "all american Wide receiver" to win games. Quarterback is definitely a big question mark but as I remember last year we were in the same predicament and it turned out ok. Many of our defensive players have started many games and have experience. But either way, it's just a preseason poll by a bunch of idiots. The Griz will for sure have an interesting year. xthumbsupx

[Screamin_Eagle174]

I can predict excuses..................................

Yeah, the Griz had a lot of them in 2010, and have even more lined up for this year.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Ok. And the players part of the equation? Returned 8 starters on offense, and just 2 on defense, and have now lost the starting QB.

UM returns just 32% of its starters.

Maybe you just don't understand the Griz history? 1996 of the top of my head, lost the HC, lost the QB and several other key parts on O, Lost much of the key defensive players, went 15-0 on a way to a meeting with Marshall in Huntington in the NC game.

I'm not gonna argue with you because I'm fine with you thinking whatever you feel like thinking. To act like this something we don't face about every four years is silly. Wait until you see that defense again and tell me how greatly it affected us. Check into how much playing time the guys coming back have and see if that makes the losses of numbers look a little easier to take.

You may think you are gonna be getting a bunch of young pups that teams will be giving lessons to...I just don't see it that way.

It's early though and I could be wrong but to act like this is something huge just seems short sighted to me.

In fact, now that I think about it there was a pretty massive turnover in 2000-2001 of players, coaches, etc. and I believe we had two NC appearances in those years as well. Just sayin', this isn't new to us in spite of what y'all think.

[Grizcountry420]

Yeah, the Griz had a lot of them in 2010, and have even more lined up for this year.

B!tch Please!

[Squealofthepig]

Yeah, the Griz had a lot of them in 2010, and have even more lined up for this year.

Dude, you're the one who brought up injuries as an excuse. xpeacex

[GlassOnion]

Yeah, guess we'll see. 1996, is 16 years ago, and 2001 was a decade. I just dont see any relevancy in that.

It only takes 1 or two guys that dont live up to their billing to bring down a defense, and a QB can do it to an offense alone. When you've got 15 guys stepping into the #1 spots, you have alot more chances for a couple guys to fall short, and your depth takes a hit.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Dude, you're the one who brought up injuries as an excuse. xpeacex

I don't go to eGriz because I can't stand that sort of, it's shameful to make excuses and I don't remember seeing it from Griz fans in 2010 either on the boards I go to.

[eaglesrback]

Maybe you just don't understand the Griz history? 1996 of the top of my head, lost the HC, lost the QB and several other key parts on O, Lost much of the key defensive players, went 15-0 on a way to a meeting with Marshall in Huntington in the NC game.

I'm not gonna argue with you because I'm fine with you thinking whatever you feel like thinking. To act like this something we don't face about every four years is silly. Wait until you see that defense again and tell me how greatly it affected us. Check into how much playing time the guys coming back have and see if that makes the losses of numbers look a little easier to take.

You may think you are gonna be getting a bunch of young pups that teams will be giving lessons to...I just don't see it that way.

It's early though and I could be wrong but to act like this is something huge just seems short sighted to me.

In fact, now that I think about it there was a pretty massive turnover in 2000-2001 of players, coaches, etc. and I believe we had two NC appearances in those years as well. Just sayin', this isn't new to us in spite of what y'all think.

They dont THINK is the problem. One of the very few consistant threats to win it all in any given year.Me and my Eagle brothers have a lot of respect for Montana. Should never under estimate the Griz.

[GlassOnion]

They dont THINK is the problem. One of the very few consistant threats to win it all in any given year.Me and my Eagle brothers have a lot of respect for Montana. Should never under estimate the Griz.

Brown noser.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Yeah, guess we'll see. 1996, is 16 years ago, and 2001 was a decade. I just dont see any relevancy in that.

It only takes 1 or two guys that dont live up to their billing to bring down a defense, and a QB can do it to an offense alone. When you've got 15 guys stepping into the #1 spots, you have alot more chances for a couple guys to fall short, and your depth takes a hit.

How does it not have any relevancy when it is exactly what you are talking about and we have a history of it not being a major factor?

Jesus Christ you, I, & everyone else are making predictions about things that have not happened yet and the only thing we can use is history.

It only takes one or two guys for any team that don't live up to the billing so how is this different for anyone else? Every name out there on the field this year has had a real good amount of playing time because our coaches have made sure that those young guys have gotten a lot of reps in games.

Most of those guys that are still there this year are a big part of why we were we were at last year on defense.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

B!tch Please!

Hes an EWU fan thats what they do...uchebag...................................... .............

[Screamin_Eagle174]

Dude, you're the one who brought up injuries as an excuse. xpeacex

I didn't bring it up as an excuse. I brought it up as a statement of fact; injuries are unpredictable, and EWU lost 14 starters to injuries last year. No one saw that coming.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

"The only reason we lost to Montana State is because our field wasnt RED enough!" - EWU Fan last year....xcoffeex

[GlassOnion]

Many of your current players werent even weened in 1996, yet you cant see how someone thinks its irrelevant? Thats being rather thick isnt it?

Great Britain dominated much of the world in the 18th and 19th centuries, does that mean theyre going to do it again? Hell no. But, but its history!

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

I didn't bring it up as an excuse. I brought it up as a statement of fact; injuries are unpredictable, and EWU lost 14 starters to injuries last year. No one saw that coming.

Of course nobody saw the injuries, but we all saw the excuses coming................its what you do.

[Screamin_Eagle174]

"The only reason we lost to Montana State is because our field wasnt RED enough!" - EWU Fan last year....xcoffeex

Not a single EWU fan said anything of the sort. But if they did, it would be akin to Griz fans saying the only reason they lost on the red turf was because of Taiwan Jones. Or because the Griz gave it to us. Don't you have a rape victim to go terrorize or some drunken driving to do?

[THE DANIMAL]

Dude, you're the one who brought up injuries as an excuse. xpeacex

+1

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Not a single EWU fan said anything of the sort. But if they did, it would be akin to Griz fans saying the only reason they lost on the red turf was because of Taiwan Jones. Or because the Griz gave it to us. Don't you have a rape victim to go terrorize or some drunken driving to do?

Dont you have a flat billed hat to wear?
Dont trip over your saggy jeans trying to look all hippy hoppy there screaming beagle.......and please stop with the excuses, it makes you look sillier than the way you dress.

[Screamin_Eagle174]

Dont you have a flat billed hat to wear?
Dont trip over your saggy jeans trying to look all hippy hoppy there screaming beagle.......and please stop with the excuses, it makes you look sillier than the way you dress.

Sorry, I guess I learn from the best. You're full of more excuses than d*cks your mom was full of when you were conceived.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Sorry, I guess I learn from the best. You're full of more excuses than d*cks your mom was full of when you were conceived.

Thats funny coming from a guy whos mom uses more Valtrex than Paris Hilton on a Saturday night in Bangkok.
http://www.judiciaryreport.com/images/paris-hilton-valtrex-perscription.jpg

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Many of your current players werent even weened in 1996, yet you cant see how someone thinks its irrelevant? Thats being rather thick isnt it?

Great Britain dominated much of the world in the 18th and 19th centuries, does that mean theyre going to do it again? Hell no. But, but its history!

Many of last years palyers weren't even weened in 1996 either. I don't see how that makes any difference at all when you are stating that we have a coaching change, and turnover at QB, and turnover on D as reasons? I'm showing you that this is not unusual but what is unusual is for it to affect our play on a yearly basis.

The reason it doesn't affect us like you are suggesting is because regardless of who comes and goes we have a history of keeping a pretty fair amount of talent out there to compete.

You are purposely being thick so don't try and circle that reasoning around on me. What you claim will happen has happened prior and given the circumstances I'm saying history is not on your side which is what my point was in the first place.

If you don't understand that simple point I do not know what I can do to help you. If you feel like discussing feeding habits of young men back in the day then go ahead but you are on your own with that one.

[dgreco]

Glad to see Bryant was receiving a vote

[GlassOnion]

Many of last years palyers weren't even weened in 1996 either. I don't see how that makes any difference at all when you are stating that we have a coaching change, and turnover at QB, and turnover on D as reasons? I'm showing you that this is not unusual but what is unusual is for it to affect our play on a yearly basis.

The reason it doesn't affect us like you are suggesting is because regardless of who comes and goes we have a history of keeping a pretty fair amount of talent out there to compete.

You are purposely being thick so don't try and circle that reasoning around on me. What you claim will happen has happened prior and given the circumstances I'm saying history is not on your side which is what my point was in the first place.

If you don't understand that simple point I do not know what I can do to help you. If you feel like discussing feeding habits of young men back in the day then go ahead but you are on your own with that one.

There isnt a program in college football, that I would keep in the top 11 of their respective division if they lost 65% of their starters and their coach. Not Alabama, not LSU, not Ohio State, and not Montana. Period. If App lost 65% of its players and coach, Id call it a rebuilding year, and wouldnt particularly be surprised if we fell out of the top 25. Montana is not lightyears ahead of the rest of the top FCS programs, despite what you see through your rose colored glasses.


Im not going to hold Montana to a different and lower standard than I would any other program because of something that happened two decades ago.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

I agree with GlassOnion, Montana is ranked way to low this team should be at least top 7.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

There isnt a program in college football, that I would keep in the top 11 of their respective division if they lost 65% of their starters and their coach. Not Alabama, not LSU, not Ohio State, and not Montana. Period. If App lost 65% of its players and coach, Id call it a rebuilding year, and wouldnt particularly be surprised if we fell out of the top 25. Montana is not lightyears ahead of the rest of the top FCS programs, despite what you see through your rose colored glasses.


Im not going to hold Montana to a different and lower standard than I would any other program because of something that happened two decades ago.

That's cool, we'll see if your way of doing things holds water then I guess. If you lose to UM at home can you imagine how bad that is gonna feel?

Hell, we got nothing to lose considering the shape we're in.xthumbsupx

[asumike83]

My opinion, I think #11 is a little high just because of the uncertainty at QB and the turnover in starters and among the coaching staff. The guys stepping in to replace them have seen the field before but while they have to step up and play a bigger role, there also has to be the quality depth behind them. I'd have them in the 15-18 range myself (I had them at #8 in my preseason AGS poll but that was before JJ was officially gone).

That being said, your top programs like Montana, Appalachian, Georgia Southern, etc. tend to be pretty stocked and it is entirely possible that these unproven commodities will step in and keep the train rolling. While that is definitely a possibility, I'd rank them a little lower to start the year because there are so many inexperienced players that will be leaned on heavily.

[GlassOnion]

That's cool, we'll see if your way of doing things hold water then I guess. If you lose to UM at home can you imagine how bad that is gonna feel?

Hell, we got nothing to lose considering the shape we're in.xthumbsupx

If we lose, I'll come back quite unabashed, and will congratulate you and the Griz like any team would deserve. Im not ashamed of having an opinion, opinions are like A holes, everyones got one.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

If we lose, I'll come back quite unabashed, and will congratulate you and the Griz like any team would deserve. Im not ashamed of having an opinion, opinions are like A holes, everyones got one.

Sounds fair. Just trying to give you some information that you may have overlooked. This stuff happens and we rebound.

None of us are afraid of having opinions or attacking those of others.

[GlassOnion]

Sounds fair. Just trying to give you some information that you may have overlooked. This stuff happens and we rebound.

None of us are afraid of having opinions or attacking those of others.

Noted.

[Saint3333]

App 6th, are they paying attention, that's at least 5 if not 10 spots too high.

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

How did Cal Poly not even get a vote? That doesn't add up to me because if Poly played a team like Prairie View A&M they would blow them out.


....or they could play South Dakota School of Mines....or whatever they are called...right?

[Pard4Life]

What, specifically, do you see in this year's Montana team that deserves such an honor?

The brand-new coach, which came in after spring practice?

The brand-new QBs?

The brand-new RBs?

The all-American WR? Oh, wait. He's on Lehigh. Nevermind.

Or perhaps it was the defense that lost 10 seniors?

It is complete and utter bull**** that Montana's reputation alone gives them a ranking above Lehigh.

Stop whining. You are going to be in the top ten unjustifiably by week four or five with your cupcake schedule and certainly by week 12 on reputation ALONE at 9-2. In 2004 we barely made the top 25 with a record identical to yours and a less arduous schedule. I think you should understand the reputation system.

You should be happy with #16 which is too high to begin with.

[IaaScribe]

I'll get to see Montana and Lehigh up close on back-to-back weeks in September, so I'll make my judgement then.

[darell1976]

How did Cal Poly not even get a vote? That doesn't add up to me because if Poly played a team like Prairie View A&M they would blow them out.

I was thinking the same thing. UND got 68....South Dakota a team that didn't win any title or road game got 6 votes. Zero for Cal Poly???

[Squealofthepig]

I was thinking the same thing. UND got 68....South Dakota a team that didn't win any title or road game got 6 votes. Zero for Cal Poly???

Cal Poly is gonna have a lot of room to impress though - hosting San Diego and UC Davis (with a payoff trip to Wyoming), then possible (though far from definite) road wins at North Dakota and Weber State, followed by winnable home games vs. Northern Colorado and Portland State - without either Montana team on their schedule, a case can be made that the Big Sky is theirs to lose. The only negative is 3 of the last 4 on the road, including the red turf at EWU, so momentum may not be theirs, but a playoff spot would not surprise me this year.

[Go Lehigh TU Owl]

#16 should motivate the troops. People think Lum was the entire team which is insane. Those same people probably never heard of Lum prior to last year or doubted him too. The skill players are flat out awesome this year and Cecchini is one of top OC in FCS. Colvin will be either first or second team all league.

Pardlife i love your bitterness. I need to find your analysis of Lum heading into last year. I'm sure it was spot on.

[UNDColorado]

....or they could play South Dakota School of Mines....or whatever they are called...right?

I see that you think I am taking a shot at the Bison, but actually I was looking at the 6 votes they somehow received. Meanwhile a competitive, co-conference champ, Poly receives zero. Doesn't make sense at all if you actually think about it.

Get over yourself troll.

[mgbison]

I don't think skill players are Lehigh's problem. Its your offensive line play I'd be worried about when playing the top teams from the major conferences. I was amazed Lum didn't get hurt against NDSU. He was getting hit every time he threw the ball.

[WrenFGun]

I've made this point in this thread pretty much every year since I've been a member of this board, but teams without proven starting QB's are ranked way, way too high. Teams like Montana and New Hampshire are getting a lot of respect, but the QB situations are a mess. In New Hampshire's case, their projected starter is likely out for the Holy Cross game and either R-So Andy Vailas or R-Fr Sean Goldrich will be starting the game. Both are more talented than James Brady (Georgetown transfer) but have limited experience and are likely to make a fair amount of mistakes.

Every year we see teams ranked high who just need a QB to click, and every year they fall precipitously. Just last year, Delaware, W&M and Villanova experienced this, and it wouldn't surprise me if the same happened to a bunch of teams this year.

[darell1976]

Cal Poly is gonna have a lot of room to impress though - hosting San Diego and UC Davis (with a payoff trip to Wyoming), then possible (though far from definite) road wins at North Dakota and Weber State, followed by winnable home games vs. Northern Colorado and Portland State - without either Montana team on their schedule, a case can be made that the Big Sky is theirs to lose. The only negative is 3 of the last 4 on the road, including the red turf at EWU, so momentum may not be theirs, but a playoff spot would not surprise me this year.

Thats why I think the BSC title is going to be between Cal Poly and Montana State. Too many questions surround Montana, and like you said Cal Poly doesn't play either Montana or Montana State. The game against UND they can win, and they can lose. We always play them close and this game (sellout I am sure) will be no different.

[Tuscon]

Y'all are so mad about Georgia State receiving votes, but on paper we're a pretty good team. Last year we were plagued with injuries on both sides of the ball and inconsistent at QB. This year, our conditioning is a lot better and the QB situation seems to have stabilized. The votes are on what we SHOULD do, who the hell knows if it happens on the field though.

[BisonBacker]

Y'all are so mad about Georgia State receiving votes, but on paper we're a pretty good team. Last year we were plagued with injuries on both sides of the ball and inconsistent at QB. This year, our conditioning is a lot better and the QB situation seems to have stabilized. The votes are on what we SHOULD do, who the hell knows if it happens on the field though.

Games are not won on paper!

[Tuscon]

Games are not won on paper!

They are in the preseason.

[danefan]

I've made this point in this thread pretty much every year since I've been a member of this board, but teams without proven starting QB's are ranked way, way too high. Teams like Montana and New Hampshire are getting a lot of respect, but the QB situations are a mess. In New Hampshire's case, their projected starter is likely out for the Holy Cross game and either R-So Andy Vailas or R-Fr Sean Goldrich will be starting the game. Both are more talented than James Brady (Georgetown transfer) but have limited experience and are likely to make a fair amount of mistakes.

Every year we see teams ranked high who just need a QB to click, and every year they fall precipitously. Just last year, Delaware, W&M and Villanova experienced this, and it wouldn't surprise me if the same happened to a bunch of teams this year.

Amen.

That's precisely why I can't argue against Albany's ranking. We have to replace a QB and the #2 from last year left due to academic reasons. So now we're stuck with a kid that is 0-1 in passing attempts in his career. He's got all the tools but he's a complete unknown.

[eaglewraith]

Y'all are so mad about Georgia State receiving votes, but on paper we're a pretty good team. Last year we were plagued with injuries on both sides of the ball and inconsistent at QB. This year, our conditioning is a lot better and the QB situation seems to have stabilized. The votes are on what we SHOULD do, who the hell knows if it happens on the field though.

The results of last year show you're not a good team.

There's nothing that's happened that's changed that. Until you play another game, there's no way to prove you're a good team. Based on everything I've seen, you SHOULD continue to be horrible.

[Apphole]

That's cool, we'll see if your way of doing things holds water then I guess. If you lose to UM at home can you imagine how bad that is gonna feel?

Hell, we got nothing to lose considering the shape we're in.xthumbsupx

We've lost to teams that aren't top 10's before. It wouldn't necessarily mean you were underrated.

Not that I'm not absolutely expecting a win.

[Tuscon]

The results of last year show you're not a good team.

There's nothing that's happened that's changed that. Until you play another game, there's no way to prove you're a good team. Based on everything I've seen, you SHOULD continue to be horrible.

Ok.

[SpeedkingATL]

Fortunately in the case of Montana and App, we'll have a decent idea of what they have when they play each other the second game of the season. That said, both teams are replacing a lot of starters from last year and both teams will likely be much better by mid season than by game two. I expect both to be tough outs when the playoffs roll around. No particular reason to not rate SHSU, NDSU and GaSo in the top 5 to start the year with their number of returning players.

[asumike83]

Y'all are so mad about Georgia State receiving votes, but on paper we're a pretty good team. Last year we were plagued with injuries on both sides of the ball and inconsistent at QB. This year, our conditioning is a lot better and the QB situation seems to have stabilized. The votes are on what we SHOULD do, who the hell knows if it happens on the field though.

Considering how much tougher your schedule is than the 2011 slate when you went 3-8, the improvement would have to be pretty incredible for GA State to even be considered a fringe Top 25 team. Not saying it isn't possible but it would be one of the biggest turnarounds in recent memory.

You'll have one FBS money game, ODU, SC State and UTSA just like last season but there is a huge increase in the quality of your other seven opponents.

2011: Clark Atlanta, Jacksonville State, Murray State, South Alabama, St. Francis, West Alabama, Campbell
2012: Richmond, William & Mary, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Villanova, James Madison, Maine

That is three sub-D1 teams, one non-scholarship FCS and no playoff teams outside of ODU in 2011. In 2012, you'll face all full-scholarship FCS programs with three teams in addition to ODU (Maine, New Hampshire, JMU) that made the playoffs last season. Like I said, anything can happen but that is going to be tough sledding for a new program.

[eaglewraith]

Ok.

Not saying you can't turn it around. But you've gotta turn in some results first.

Or we could just be arguing about some voters who got their GSU's confused as well. It's happened in the past with UND and NDSU.

[Tuscon]

Not saying you can't turn it around. But you've gotta turn in some results first.

Or we could just be arguing about some voters who got their GSU's confused as well. It's happened in the past with UND and NDSU.

In which case we can seriously start questioning the credibility of the poll. I agree we need to deliver, and I do understand that the quality of competition is MUCH greater in 2012 than we've faced yet. I just think last year was due to a combination of factors that just aren't there anymore. We're going to be sneaking up on more than a couple teams I think.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

I just hope nobody gets injured this season or we will never get rid of Screaming Beagle and his laundry list of explanations about why EWU sucks. BTW they are rated too high in this poll, new QB, no defense...........how they are in the top 15 is a brain teaser.

[UD77]

That was my first thought too. That's definitely a case of uninformed voters just throwing in programs that have been in the college football news over the off-season.

My guess would be that they mixed GaState with GSU. University of Delaware gets that with Delaware State at times.

[chattownmocs]

Uh, you know. Their obviously a lot of people that understand that Chattanooga has been a highly competitive team the last few years. Just not many who understand how dominant the Mocs are about to be.