2018 will be special

[SonnyShackelford]

Future Power Rankings: Outside looking in
Travis Haney, ESPN Staff Writer

There were four newcomers to the 2015 Future Power Rankings, our Insiders’ three-year projection for the best teams in college football. TCU (12), Tennessee (16), Ole Miss (22) and Arizona State (25) all joined the top 25. So there’s room for change from year to year.

Which programs have the best chance to climb into the 2016 edition of the Future Power Rankings? Here are the top contenders to trend upward, beginning with the most likely:

1. Washington Huskies (FPR: 33)

This three-year projection is squarely centered on the track record of Huskies head coach Chris Petersen. Petersen, entering his second season at U-Dub, went a ridiculous 92-12 at Boise State. The competition level is ramped up in the Pac-12, granted, but so is the level of talent Petersen has at hand.

In addition to 92 wins at his previous stop, Petersen won eight games in his first season in Seattle; his predecessor, Steve Sarkisian, won eight games once in his five years (his final season). So, it’s a better start for Petersen than perhaps perceived.

The university resources and the recruiting turf are well above average -- certainly better than the landscape Petersen experienced, and thrived, in at Boise. There are compelling reasons to believe the Huskies will climb by 2017, even in a division that includes Oregon and Stanford. Petersen is No. 1.
http://insider.espn.go.com/blog/travis-haney/insider/post?id=4349

 

[MisterEm]

Future Power Rankings: Outside looking in
Travis Haney, ESPN Staff Writer

There were four newcomers to the 2015 Future Power Rankings, our Insiders’ three-year projection for the best teams in college football. TCU (12), Tennessee (16), Ole Miss (22) and Arizona State (25) all joined the top 25. So there’s room for change from year to year.

Which programs have the best chance to climb into the 2016 edition of the Future Power Rankings? Here are the top contenders to trend upward, beginning with the most likely:

1. Washington Huskies (FPR: 33)

This three-year projection is squarely centered on the track record of Huskies head coach Chris Petersen. Petersen, entering his second season at U-Dub, went a ridiculous 92-12 at Boise State. The competition level is ramped up in the Pac-12, granted, but so is the level of talent Petersen has at hand.

In addition to 92 wins at his previous stop, Petersen won eight games in his first season in Seattle; his predecessor, Steve Sarkisian, won eight games once in his five years (his final season). So, it’s a better start for Petersen than perhaps perceived.

The university resources and the recruiting turf are well above average -- certainly better than the landscape Petersen experienced, and thrived, in at Boise. There are compelling reasons to believe the Huskies will climb by 2017, even in a division that includes Oregon and Stanford. Petersen is No. 1.
http://insider.espn.go.com/blog/travis-haney/insider/post?id=4349

Disagree. 2021 will be special.

See thescript.gif

 

[RaceBannon]

That article illustrates why so many schools have shit schedules. 8 wins!!!1111!!!

Nobody even looks at how bad the wins were and how many games the team playes

 

[whatshouldicareabout]

Future Power Rankings: Outside looking in
Travis Haney, ESPN Staff Writer

There were four newcomers to the 2015 Future Power Rankings, our Insiders’ three-year projection for the best teams in college football. TCU (12), Tennessee (16), Ole Miss (22) and Arizona State (25) all joined the top 25. So there’s room for change from year to year.

Which programs have the best chance to climb into the 2016 edition of the Future Power Rankings? Here are the top contenders to trend upward, beginning with the most likely:

1. Washington Huskies (FPR: 33)

This three-year projection is squarely centered on the track record of Huskies head coach Chris Petersen. Petersen, entering his second season at U-Dub, went a ridiculous 92-12 at Boise State. The competition level is ramped up in the Pac-12, granted, but so is the level of talent Petersen has at hand.

In addition to 92 wins at his previous stop, Petersen won eight games in his first season in Seattle; his predecessor, Steve Sarkisian, won eight games once in his five years (his final season). So, it’s a better start for Petersen than perhaps perceived.

The university resources and the recruiting turf are well above average -- certainly better than the landscape Petersen experienced, and thrived, in at Boise. There are compelling reasons to believe the Huskies will climb by 2017, even in a division that includes Oregon and Stanford. Petersen is No. 1.
http://insider.espn.go.com/blog/travis-haney/insider/post?id=4349

No it isn't.

 

[RaccoonHarry]

Travis Haney is your source?

obligatory...

 

[ApostleofGrief]

But in 2018 the team will be young

 

[PurpleJ]

That article illustrates why so many schools have shit schedules. 8 wins!!!1111!!!

Nobody even looks at how bad the wins were and how many games the team playes

Everybody does it.

 

[RoadDawg55]

That article illustrates why so many schools have shit schedules. 8 wins!!!1111!!!

Nobody even looks at how bad the wins were and how many games the team playes

Take off LSU and Notre Dame in 2009 for Georgia State and Eastern like Peterman had and Sark is at 7-5 before the bowl game. Sad, but true.

 

[HeretoBeatmyChest]

That article illustrates why so many schools have shit schedules. 8 wins!!!1111!!!

Nobody even looks at how bad the wins were and how many games the team playes

8 wins and #41 in SRS.

Arkansas was 7-6 but was #12 in SRS...better than every pac-12 school but Oregon.

 

[RoadDawg55]

That article illustrates why so many schools have shit schedules. 8 wins!!!1111!!!

Nobody even looks at how bad the wins were and how many games the team playes

8 wins and #41 in SRS.

Arkansas was 7-6 but was #12 in SRS...better than every pac-12 school but Oregon.

They were better than UW, but that's ridiculous. They beat one team that finished in the top 25, and that was a free falling Ole Miss that was plungered in their bowl game.

UCLA beat four teams that finished in the top 25 (#12 ASU, #18 Kansas State, #19 Arizona, #20 USC).

 

[SonnyShackelford]

That article illustrates why so many schools have shit schedules. 8 wins!!!1111!!!

Nobody even looks at how bad the wins were and how many games the team playes

8 wins and #41 in SRS.

Arkansas was 7-6 but was #12 in SRS...better than every pac-12 school but Oregon.

They were better than UW, but that's ridiculous. They beat one team that finished in the top 25, and that was a free falling Ole Miss that was plungered in their bowl game.

UCLA beat four teams that finished in the top 25 (#12 ASU, #18 Kansas State, #19 Arizona, #20 USC).

Arkansas would have plungered UCLA last year

 

[RoadDawg55]

That article illustrates why so many schools have shit schedules. 8 wins!!!1111!!!

Nobody even looks at how bad the wins were and how many games the team playes

8 wins and #41 in SRS.

Arkansas was 7-6 but was #12 in SRS...better than every pac-12 school but Oregon.

They were better than UW, but that's ridiculous. They beat one team that finished in the top 25, and that was a free falling Ole Miss that was plungered in their bowl game.

UCLA beat four teams that finished in the top 25 (#12 ASU, #18 Kansas State, #19 Arizona, #20 USC).

Arkansas would have plungered UCLA last year

Based on what exactly?

 

[HeretoBeatmyChest]

That article illustrates why so many schools have shit schedules. 8 wins!!!1111!!!

Nobody even looks at how bad the wins were and how many games the team playes

8 wins and #41 in SRS.

Arkansas was 7-6 but was #12 in SRS...better than every pac-12 school but Oregon.

They were better than UW, but that's ridiculous. They beat one team that finished in the top 25, and that was a free falling Ole Miss that was plungered in their bowl game.

UCLA beat four teams that finished in the top 25 (#12 ASU, #18 Kansas State, #19 Arizona, #20 USC).

Its an objective formula. UCLA was #14.

Arkansas lost to Alabama by 1, Miss St by 7 on the road and crushed Ole Miss and LSU by a combined 47-0. They also beat Texas by 24 in the bowl game who UCLA only beat by 3 at the start of the year. Their last 5 games against Texas and 4 ranked teams they only gave up 9ppg.

 

[Fire_Marshall_Bill]

Arkie stays close with SEC teams, therefore, they're really good?

 

[RoadDawg55]

That article illustrates why so many schools have shit schedules. 8 wins!!!1111!!!

Nobody even looks at how bad the wins were and how many games the team playes

8 wins and #41 in SRS.

Arkansas was 7-6 but was #12 in SRS...better than every pac-12 school but Oregon.

They were better than UW, but that's ridiculous. They beat one team that finished in the top 25, and that was a free falling Ole Miss that was plungered in their bowl game.

UCLA beat four teams that finished in the top 25 (#12 ASU, #18 Kansas State, #19 Arizona, #20 USC).

Its an objective formula. UCLA was #14.

Arkansas lost to Alabama by 1, Miss St by 7 on the road and crushed Ole Miss and LSU by a combined 47-0. They also beat Texas by 24 in the bowl game who UCLA only beat by 3 at the start of the year. Their last 5 games against Texas and 4 ranked teams they only gave up 9ppg.

I completely disagree. I don't have a problem with SRS, and think it can be useful, but it's not the bible either. It's a formula. Results are results. Beating 4 top 25 teams is better than beating one. I don't think close losses should be rewarded. A team that goes 2-6 in conference is mediocre at best. Rewarding them with a #12 ranking is ridiculous. And while the SEC was a strong conference, they also shit the bed come bowl season. Ole Miss was plungered, Miss State was beaten soundly, Auburn lost to a Wisconsin team coming off a 59-0 loss, LSU lost to a mediocre Notre Dame.

Arkansas lost a late season game to Missouri after their impressive 47-0 two game stretch. They were plungered by Auburn and Georgia. They improved as the season went along and the arrow is pointing up, but they weren't close to being the #12 team.

Kansas State beat Texas 23-0. UCLA beat Texas by 3. Was Kansas State 20 points better than UCLA? No, and UCLA beat Kansas State in the bowl game. Stanford lost to ASU, who was plungered by UCLA. Than Stanford plungered UCLA. Comparing scores is futile.

 

[RaceBannon]

UCLA beat Pac 12 teams

 

[RoadDawg55]

UCLA beat Pac 12 teams

We've had enough SEC arguments here and I know nobody will change their mind, but Arkansas went 2-6 in conference. They beat an LSU team that had a worse QB than Miley and Ole Miss. I don't even think UCLA was all that good, but you might be retarded if you think Arkansas had a better season. By the same SRS metric, Arkansas was better last season than a 12-1 FSU team.

 

[RaceBannon]

UCLA beat Pac 12 teams

We've had enough SEC arguments here and I know nobody will change their mind, but Arkansas went 2-6 in conference. They beat an LSU team that had a worse QB than Miley and Ole Miss. I don't even think UCLA was all that good, but you might be retarded if you think Arkansas had a better season. By the same SRS metric, Arkansas was better last season than a 12-1 FSU team.

I don't even know what SRS means. As you suspected I was just continuing the theme here

 

[whatshouldicareabout]

Its an objective formula. UCLA was #14.

Arkansas lost to Alabama by 1, Miss St by 7 on the road and crushed Ole Miss and LSU by a combined 47-0. They also beat Texas by 24 in the bowl game who UCLA only beat by 3 at the start of the year. Their last 5 games against Texas and 4 ranked teams they only gave up 9ppg.

So I guess no lower ranked team has ever beaten a higher ranked team?

 

[EwaDawg]

That article illustrates why so many schools have shit schedules. 8 wins!!!1111!!!

Nobody even looks at how bad the wins were and how many games the team playes

8 wins and #41 in SRS.

Arkansas was 7-6 but was #12 in SRS...better than every pac-12 school but Oregon.

They were better than UW, but that's ridiculous. They beat one team that finished in the top 25, and that was a free falling Ole Miss that was plungered in their bowl game.

UCLA beat four teams that finished in the top 25 (#12 ASU, #18 Kansas State, #19 Arizona, #20 USC).

Its an objective formula. UCLA was #14.

Arkansas lost to Alabama by 1, Miss St by 7 on the road and crushed Ole Miss and LSU by a combined 47-0. They also beat Texas by 24 in the bowl game who UCLA only beat by 3 at the start of the year. Their last 5 games against Texas and 4 ranked teams they only gave up 9ppg.

I completely disagree. I don't have a problem with SRS, and think it can be useful, but it's not the bible either. It's a formula. Results are results. Beating 4 top 25 teams is better than beating one. I don't think close losses should be rewarded. In fact ITS BOOBSfs to say close loses are ANYTHING but Fucking Losses.