Sports Network Ranks the Teams [Archive]

kats89

July 5th, 2005, 04:26 PM

TSN (http://www.sportsnetwork.com/default.asp?c=sportsnetwork&page=cfoot2/misc/dougherty_archive/extrapoint_070505.htm)

Discuss.

He does a good job of giving a reason for why he has them ranked where they are in his opinion. That is why they play the games.

GSUAlumniEagle

July 5th, 2005, 04:26 PM

James Madison should be #1. To be the man, you have to beat the man.

kats89

July 5th, 2005, 04:28 PM

James Madison should be #1. To be the man, you have to beat the man.

Agree with that. I think JMU should sit on top, but it only matters what the rankings are at the end of the season.

Proud Griz Man

July 5th, 2005, 04:30 PM

I don't agree with his "just adequate" comment about Eastern Washington's defense. You won't find many 1-AA championship contenders with a "just adequate" defense.

exbearkat

July 5th, 2005, 04:32 PM

Coming off a losing season in 2004 at 5-6, ranking Texas State at #19 is a bit extreme. However, as mentioned early on in the article, only one of last years semi-finalists (Montana) was ranked in the TSN preseason poll, so obviously anything can/will happen. :)

OL FU

July 5th, 2005, 05:08 PM

I appreciate that he rates every team.
Top ten (with a few order changes) is very close to AGS, he drops Delaware and includes Southern Illinois.

Actually the top twenty five is similar to AGS.

I assume this is not the poll that will be included in the consolidated rankings since it is not the official TSN pre-season poll.

yomama

July 5th, 2005, 05:11 PM

I couldn't help but notice that at #25, Lasalle is misspelled as Lafalle or something. :confused:

catbob

July 5th, 2005, 05:13 PM

This is NOT the official TSN poll, that will come out in August. This is Matt Dougherty's take on every team in IAA.

OL FU

July 5th, 2005, 05:15 PM

This is NOT the official TSN poll, that will come out in August. This is Matt Dougherty's take on every team in IAA.

Good. Let's vote some one else number 1.

Coastal89

July 5th, 2005, 05:20 PM

29. Wofford (8-3) - The Terriers have been known for their strength on both lines in the past, but have their work cut out after losing top players on each side along with both contributors at quarterback.
I wonder if they will allow JD melton to play football as a walk-on QB. He signed a baseball scholy but he was named Mr. Football in SC last year throwing for over 3000 yds and 29 TDs as a senior at Myrtle Beach High.

SoCon48

July 5th, 2005, 05:44 PM

Wofford. It might be good that Wofford lost so many starters from last year's team evidenced by their wins over weak out of conference and lower tier SoCon opponents to formulate their 8-3 record. They actually finished with the same in-conference record as ASU who had one of its worst years in a while. Wofford lost to Furman, ASU (38-17) and GSU (58-14). Their wins came over SC State (not exactly a powerhouse), JC Smith (everybody's easy spot on the sched), 2-9 Chattanooga, 3-7 Citadel, 3-8 Elon, 4-7 WCU, Gardner freakin Webb, and SoCon exile VMI (by 1 pt).
Coastal. Coastal has 2 1/2 slots on the schedule to prove itself. JMU and ASU (didn't exactly tear up the SoCon last year) . SC State is not one to write home about most years, thus counts as one half a good opponent. No matter how those first two opponents turn out. Coastal should finish with a great record due to its Wofford-esque schedule.

rokamortis

July 5th, 2005, 06:21 PM

I would give SC State more credit than that but just my humble opinion.

eaglesrthe1

July 5th, 2005, 06:33 PM

I don't agree with his "just adequate" comment about Eastern Washington's defense. You won't find many 1-AA championship contenders with a "just adequate" defense.

What he says is that if they are just adequate, then they will be a threat to go all the way. Not that they are just adequate.

Proud Griz Man

July 5th, 2005, 06:38 PM

What he says is that if they are just adequate, then they will be a threat to go all the way. Not that they are just adequate.

I know what he said.

I'll say it a different way ... they had a 2004 defense that was just adequate and Sam Houston State scored some 21 points in the fourth quarter of that 1-AA quarterfinals game. Just adequate - ain't good enough in December. ;)

kats89

July 5th, 2005, 07:10 PM

I know what he said.

I'll say it a different way ... they had a 2004 defense that was just adequate and Sam Houston State scored some 21 points in the fourth quarter of that 1-AA quarterfinals game. Just adequate - ain't good enough in December. ;)

Their defense might have been just adequate in 2004, but the coaches got VERY conservative at the end of the game. If we had been more of a balanced squad in run vs pass, I don't think there was anyway we had a chance to come back in that game. It was one of those things when Long just got into a zone and led them back to a win.

catamount man

July 5th, 2005, 07:16 PM

Like the man said, all we need is CONSISTENT QB play to compliment our tough defense. Word in Cullowhee is we have a juco from California arriving on campus sometime later this month. I hope! GO CATAMOUNTS!!!

Obzerver

July 5th, 2005, 07:38 PM

SoCon48

July 5th, 2005, 11:45 PM

S.C. State most years have not done anything to show that they would even finish above the middle of the SoCon.
They're not a horrible team, but nobody to boast about having on a I-AA schedule. They do get good media coverage and attendance compared to the level of football they put on the field.
They lost to Wofford in their own house last year..and as mentioned before, Wofford hardly beat anyone with a .500 record.

WCU LawCat

July 5th, 2005, 11:58 PM

...and Wofford's win over WCU didn't come until 4 min left in the 4th quarter when they broke our back with a suprise PASS of all things. We lost 15-12.

rcny46

July 6th, 2005, 12:25 AM

Add me to the list of those who don't think UNH will come close to the level they achieved last year.Ranking them in the sixth spot is insane.Matt Dougherty mentioned that they have most of their defense back,but in reality,they lost five starters from a unit that was vulnerable to begin with.The replacements for those who left are for the most part inexperienced.UMass is easily the team to beat in the A-10 north(IMHO),and deserves a much higher ranking.

eaglesrthe1

July 6th, 2005, 12:33 AM

I know what he said.

I'll say it a different way ... they had a 2004 defense that was just adequate and Sam Houston State scored some 21 points in the fourth quarter of that 1-AA quarterfinals game. Just adequate - ain't good enough in December. ;)

GSU has won more than one title with a just adequate defense. UMass also. YSU won a couple with a just adequate offense. JMU had a just adequate offense last year. It's easier of course if you dominate on both sides of the ball, but not impossible. I think that it's more important on how you match up to a particular team than where you are statistically.

I'll say it a different way. If you are playing in December, then you are a threat to go all the way.

golionsgo

July 6th, 2005, 01:04 AM

GSU has won more than one title with a just adequate defense. UMass also. YSU won a couple with a just adequate offense. JMU had a just adequate offense last year. It's easier of course if you dominate on both sides of the ball, but not impossible. I think that it's more important on how you match up to a particular team than where you are statistically.

I'll say it a different way. If you are playing in December, then you are a threat to go all the way.

One of the definitions for ADEQUATE is "sufficient for a specific requirement." If the requirement at hand is winning a national title, then an "adequate defense" should be good enough to get the job done.

Big Dawg

July 6th, 2005, 01:04 AM

umassfan

July 6th, 2005, 03:21 AM

My only statement is to anyone who said JMU should be ranked number one cuz they won it all last year... that was last year my friends... this is a new JMU team. If they returned every player I can see your point but they didnt therefore who should be number 1 is everyones guess.

saint0917

July 6th, 2005, 07:02 AM

I couldn't help but notice that at #25, Lasalle is misspelled as Lafalle or something. :confused:

It's not misspelled, #25 is Lafayette, not LaSalle.

Way down at the bottom where the Mid-Majors are LaSalle is #16

grizbeer

July 6th, 2005, 10:07 AM

Obzerver have any starters or key backups been injured or quit the team - I thought I heard there has been some issues over there, but don't remember seeing any names? EWU is my pick to go to Chatty (unless they play the Griz in the Semi-finals ;) ), it would be good to see another BSC team in the NC game.

Proud Griz Man

July 6th, 2005, 10:14 AM

Proud Griz Fan, there was team that made it to the National Championship game that had a defense that wasn't rated in the top ten in either the pass or run category. I wonder where the two teams that were in the Championship game ranked in all of I-AA in those two categories?

Hey Obzerver, my point was that a "just adequate" D will win you many games but will not probably carry you through the playoffs. I didn't punk your D, or say anything glowing about last year's Griz D. Case in point - is the NFL Indy Colts who have a strong O and some weaknesses on D.

:deadhorse

LBPop

July 6th, 2005, 10:36 AM

Matt is totally justified in his dismissal of the Georgetown Hoyas. Based on recent performance, nobody should expect much from these kids. They have more talent than they have displayed, but they just cannot seem to win. Heck, they even outgained Lehigh last season and managed to get thumped on the scoreboard.

Having said that, I have seen some serious improvement in a few important areas. I would not be surprised to see Georgetown become a factor in this year's Patriot League race...not as a contender, but as a spoiler. I would wager that at least one team who does not win the league in 2005 will look back at the game they lost to the Hoyas as the reason.

I will be watching closely during summer drills next month. Hope I'm not looking through a father's rose colored glasses. :o

kats89

July 6th, 2005, 10:42 AM

Proud Griz Fan, there was team that made it to the National Championship game that had a defense that wasn't rated in the top ten in either the pass or run category. I wonder where the two teams that were in the Championship game ranked in all of I-AA in those two categories?

I wouldn't say that the Grizzly defense was a championship defense. As a matter of fact I would say they were "just adequate". Even though we lost in the semi-final game, we still put up 400 yds of offense on them. They are just fortunate that most of their playoff games are in Wash/Griz stadium and they played another team with a "just adequate" defense.

JoltinJoe

July 6th, 2005, 11:06 AM

It all depends on how you say things.

Dougherty focuses on Fordham's loss of some defensive starters, but he could have just as easily said that Fordham returns almost all of its offensive starters from an exciting and athletic unit which suffered from inexperience last year, leading to mistakes that may have cost Fordham five games, including four against to PL teams. With experience and fewer errors, the Rams might turn those games around this year.

There is a school of thought that holds that a team which lost a number of close games is poised to make big advances the next year.

colgate13

July 6th, 2005, 11:20 AM

Proud Griz Man

July 6th, 2005, 11:23 AM

I wouldn't say that the Grizzly defense was a championship defense. As a matter of fact I would say they were "just adequate". Even though we lost in the semi-final game, we still put up 400 yds of offense on them. They are just fortunate that most of their playoff games are in Wash/Griz stadium and they played another team with a "just adequate" defense.

I didn't ever say that the Grizzly defense was a championship defense. UM was young and improving, but lived off of turnovers. UM ended up #2, and JMU showed us the weaknesses in the D. :confused:

:deadhorse

catatac

July 6th, 2005, 12:10 PM

But you did make it to the Championship game with a defense that was not that good statistically. Also, wasn't one of the 2 Championship games you won - done with a fairly poor D?

Obzerver

July 6th, 2005, 05:45 PM

That was the point I was trying to make...And grizbeer we did have some players leave in the Spring due to some politics and had four players injured in a car accident last week where the 4 Runner rolled seven times. Nobody killed but it does looks like they were in an Ultimate Fighting match that the ref never stopped...a couple may be out for next season.

JoltinJoe

July 6th, 2005, 05:58 PM

I don't think Mr. Dougherty did a ton of homework on some of the PL and Ivy teams. His Colgate write up is pretty weak: we lose Brown, Branch and Graham. Duh! But there's plenty coming back and new faces with talent. Fordham's another example of focus on the negatives...

I'm disappointed in his Dartmouth write up. Teevens isn't in his second year at Dartmouth... just the second in a row. It's a bit more complicated than that.

You can make any team sound mediocre by focusing on the negatives. If Dougherty thinks Fordham is No. 67, fine, but when he tries to justify that opinion by highlighting only the negative, you get the feeling he's just trying to back-in to his preconceived notions.

He killed the PL teams last year too, and two of them made the playoffs and, as usual, acquitted themselves well.

kats89

July 6th, 2005, 06:39 PM

I didn't ever say that the Grizzly defense was a championship defense. UM was young and improving, but lived off of turnovers. UM ended up #2, and JMU showed us the weaknesses in the D. :confused:

:deadhorse

Although you did say that a team will not make it to through the playoffs with a "just adequate" defense. :deadhorse

Hey Obzerver, my point was that a "just adequate" D will win you many games but will not probably carry you through the playoffs.

GrizFoo

July 6th, 2005, 07:06 PM

adequate basically means good enough to get the job done. But what if an "adequate" D meets a dominant O. I would say the adequate D would be shown to be inadequate for that game.
So in what terms would adequate be applied? If a D is adequate to get you to the NC game then that is one thing, but if a D is adequate to get you to the playoffs that is another. If you D is only adequate enough hold a DII team to under 28 points, yet another situation.
Obviously the Griz D was adequate to get them to the NC game, but not adequate enough to win it. Though you'd have to condiser the O too, but that only complicates things.
What if you have a less than adequate D, but a overwhelming O. Will you still win games? After deep thought :rolleyes: :D , I say yes. Your O can compensate for a less than adequate D. Anything beyond that is beyond my mental capacity at this time. :bang:

eaglesrthe1

July 6th, 2005, 07:15 PM

Hey Obzerver, my point was that a "just adequate" D will win you many games but will not probably carry you through the playoffs.

Well, in all honesty, he's "probably" right. I guess it all depends on how adequate your offense is. I just looked at the past GSU title years. In 86 the Eagles went 13-2, with the losses to I-A's ECU and Florida, and gave up a whopping 25 pts a game! :eek: Tracy Ham...was the man!

cosmo here

July 6th, 2005, 07:31 PM

I don't think Mr. Dougherty did a ton of homework on some of the PL and Ivy teams. His Colgate write up is pretty weak: we lose Brown, Branch and Graham. Duh! But there's plenty coming back and new faces with talent. Fordham's another example of focus on the negatives...

I'm disappointed in his Dartmouth write up. Teevens isn't in his second year at Dartmouth... just the second in a row. It's a bit more complicated than that.

Lets remember that there are more than 100 teams to cover, with just a sentence or two alloted to each. Most of the hits on the column are from readers who aren't as knowledgeable on the PL, so he has to focus on the fairly obvious. Brown, Branch and Graham are gone; Gainous and Kornegay are gone. I agree that Fordham will probably finish higher than 67, Colgate may be better than 44. You certainly have some inside info on Colgate replacing the skill position guys. Of course, Joe McCourt is gone, but Lafayette fans are pretty excited with Jon Hurt, Al Belton and others in the backfield. Last year HC was 55, Lafayette was 69 in the preseason rankings.

yomama

July 6th, 2005, 07:52 PM

It's not misspelled, #25 is Lafayette, not LaSalle.

Way down at the bottom where the Mid-Majors are LaSalle is #16

But...but...but. That's not what Street & Smith said.

cosmo here

July 6th, 2005, 08:21 PM

But...but...but. That's not what Street & Smith said.

it looks like Street & Smith ranked its top 20, then filled in with a couple "at-large" and projected mid-major champs. not a true top 25.

DFW HOYA

July 6th, 2005, 08:33 PM

Dougherty just doesn't seem to like the Hoyas. He cites a "blowout loss" at Monmouth to pick the Hoyas 92nd of 98 schools. That "blowout" was a 17 point loss at Monmouth, a three point game in the third period.

A bad loss? Yeah. But Monmouth finished 10-1 in a league which gives up to 30 equivalencies a year--not exactly "mid major" by some definitions. But a blowout? No.