Lots of new football links today

[jkwuc89]

The Enquirer released their Bearcat football preview articles today. The links are on Bearcatnews.com (http://bearcatnews.com). I don't agree with them picking UC 6th in the Big East.

[Bearcat85]

I know I'm biased, but I am so frustrated by USF getting picked ahead of us, and getting so much more mention by national sports media in BE coverage as the "up and comer".

They had the same record as us in the BE last year, including one win each over a big team. They won one more OOC game than us, but didn't play the number 1 and 10 team on the road. We crushed them head to head.

What the heck to we have to do to get respect? My only consolation is that over the last 8-10 years, we have consistently finished better in conference than pre-season projections.

[Deaf_Bearcat]

Well, I think Enquirer is trying to minimize its expectation on the 2007 UC football season, but I know its reputation for not covering enough UC football articles for many years.

IMO, I think UC will finish 6-6 or a little better and 5th-6th place in BE this year. I think that the UC football team has plenty of "sleepers".

[General Woundwort]

53-17. That is the combined score in UC's two games against South Florida and Rutgers last year. They weren't just wins, they were easy wins. Granted, they were both at home, but we were also under the handicap of a coach who seems to think scoring lots of points is immoral.

The Bearcats are almost certainly better this year. They return 13 starters, and even at positions where they suffered big losses (like TE) they have plenty of talent to replace them. QB is seen as the big problem, but consider this:

Our starter from last year is now our 3rd string QB.

We got to a bowl game with Grutza (who was at the helm for the 23-6 destruction of SoFlo) and some Davilla. If Mauk/Pike are even marginally better than Grutza (and if Kelly is right they are) it stands to reason that this team will be taking a step forward this year.

It's not that I think we are going to destroy Rutgers and SoFlo again, but I don't see any reason why we are automatically considered inferior to two teams that we had so little trouble with a year ago, and whose recent history does not indicate that they are fundamentally superior programs to UC.

Past three seasons: UC 19-17, SoFlo 19-17, Rutgers 22-14.

Last year in Big East: UC 4-3, SoFlo 4-3, Rutgers 5-2.

The difference in overall record was due to the fact that UC lost non-conference games to Va Tech and OSU, while RU and SF both played a string of patsies out of conference.

Yet Rutgers is perceived as a powerhouse, SoFlo as the up and coming star, and UC as a bottom feeder.

[JerseySean]

I'm not concerned about where they pick us -- just how we finish. Sometimes it's nice to fly under the radar. Hopefully, we'll have a great season and move to the top for next year's predictions. But until we truly compete in the BE for a title, we are not deserving of any top prediction -- not even ahead of USF, despite our win last year. I hope this year moves us into the upper eschelon of the league, worthy of comparisons to WV and UL in the coming years...

[BearcatDrew]

The Enquirer released their Bearcat football preview articles today. The links are on Bearcatnews.com (http://bearcatnews.com). I don't agree with them picking UC 6th in the Big East.

I believe that is the AP Big East outlook, so its not actually the Enquirer's predictions.

[shaunsimpson]

This team is a wildcard. The offense is a big ? and did Kelly hurt the D? I personaly think the O will be much better and the D will play quicker, which will be needed for games against WVU and Louisville.

[jon b]

Yea, I don't care a whole lot about where we are picked to finish. I'd rather be picked 6th and finish 2nd than vice versa. although I understand ideally to be picked 2nd and finish there (or even first, but trying to hold onto some reality!).