Sporting News rankings

[bearcatbret]

http://www.sportingnews.com/college-...-41-cincinnati

As a UC homer, I think that this is total BS.

[kpzero]

Originally Posted by bearcatbret

http://www.sportingnews.com/college-...-41-cincinnati

As a UC homer, I think that this is total BS.

If you think those are bad, I hate to see what your reaction would have been to the original ratings before we pointed it out to the writer.

Here they are:

Grading the positions: QB (C+), RB (B+), WR/TE (C), OL (C-), DL (C+), LB (C+), DB (B), ST (B).

Ratings updated:

Grading the positions: QB (B), RB (B-), WR/TE (A-), OL (B), DL (C+), LB (C), DB (C+), ST (B-).

[Thegreatone]

Originally Posted by kpzero

If you think those are bad, I hate to see what your reaction would have been to the original ratings before we pointed it out to the writer.

Here they are:

Grading the positions: QB (C+), RB (B+), WR/TE (C), OL (C-), DL (C+), LB (C+), DB (B), ST (B).

Ratings updated:

Grading the positions: QB (B), RB (B-), WR/TE (A-), OL (B), DL (C+), LB (C), DB (C+), ST (B-).

Hahaha they originally had our WR/TE as one of our weaker points! Nice...

[kpzero]

And really, those ratings arent too far off. Personally, I would rate them somewhere around this:

QB (B+), RB (B+), WR/TE (A), OL (B), DL (C+), LB (C+), DB (B), ST (B+)

[cafemerald]

Originally Posted by kpzero

If you think those are bad, I hate to see what your reaction would have been to the original ratings before we pointed it out to the writer.

Here they are:

Grading the positions: QB (C+), RB (B+), WR/TE (C), OL (C-), DL (C+), LB (C+), DB (B), ST (B).

Come on now. These guys don't have time to go through stats that players have put up on the field.

Granted the Big East is difficult this year, but to not put UC in the top 1/3 teams in the country (out of 120) is ridiculous. If UC isn't pushing into the top 25, I'm sorry, your rankings are just way off base IMHO.

Questionable teams in the top 25:
4) Miami- They had a pretty good start last year, but fell off pretty fast. To catapult them to 4 is more ridiculous than to put us at 41.
7) Nebraska- They are like the anti-UC. Their defense is fantastic, but their offense is atrocious. Perhaps a year of work along with other teams in the Big 12 losing starters will help them... but 7?
14) Florida State- Has one team ever consistently been over rated more than Florida State?

And these are just the glaring obvious ones.

Are we really behind a 5-7 Purdue team that was mediocre in the mediocre Big 10? bwahaha.

[Major ----de Coverley]

Originally Posted by cafemerald

Come on now. These guys don't have time to go through stats that players have put up on the field.

Granted the Big East is difficult this year, but to not put UC in the top 1/3 teams in the country (out of 120) is ridiculous. If UC isn't pushing into the top 25, I'm sorry, your rankings are just way off base IMHO.

Questionable teams in the top 25:
4) Miami- They had a pretty good start last year, but fell off pretty fast. To catapult them to 4 is more ridiculous than to put us at 41.
7) Nebraska- They are like the anti-UC. Their defense is fantastic, but their offense is atrocious. Perhaps a year of work along with other teams in the Big 12 losing starters will help them... but 7?
14) Florida State- Has one team ever consistently been over rated more than Florida State?

And these are just the glaring obvious ones.

Are we really behind a 5-7 Purdue team that was mediocre in the mediocre Big 10? bwahaha.

Great comments. Even more amusing is to be ranked behind #29 notre dame.
Can you say another 6 and 6 for the media power ( not football power ).

[JerseySean]

Originally Posted by cafemerald

14) Florida State- Has one team ever consistently been over rated more than Florida State?

Notre Dame...

[coach]

the funniest comment/ranking is the receivers at an a-. if we are an a-, then there is no a or a+.

[subflea]

Originally Posted by coach

the funniest comment/ranking is the receivers at an a-. if we are an a-, then there is no a or a+.

I would have us at an A- since we don't have much depth.

[RedRocker]

Originally Posted by cafemerald

Are we really behind a 5-7 Purdue team that was mediocre in the mediocre Big 10? bwahaha.

That's a joke. I dare the entire state of Indiana (ND, PU, IU and BSU) to beat us on any given week.

[cafemerald]

Originally Posted by kpzero

If you think those are bad, I hate to see what your reaction would have been to the original ratings before we pointed it out to the writer.

Here they are:

Grading the positions: QB (C+), RB (B+), WR/TE (C), OL (C-), DL (C+), LB (C+), DB (B), ST (B).

Ratings updated:

Grading the positions: QB (B), RB (B-), WR/TE (A-), OL (B), DL (C+), LB (C), DB (C+), ST (B-).

You can also tell that there wasn't a "miscommunication in the grades" as the supposed author stated in the comments.

Our original ranking based on a gpa scale:
2.5

Our updated ranking:
2.7

Two Teams Ahead of Us:
Northwestern:
2.4

Purdue:
2.4

Team Behind Us:
Airforce:
2.5

So we can all see the cluster of 2.4-2.5 here at this series of rankings. Our updated position rankings should put us atleast in the 30's and not 40's. Yeah... "Miscommunication" my ***.

He slapped those grades on there last minute because some educated readers pointed out that breaking conference records as a backup quarterback should be rated slightly higher than a C+.
Perhaps he looked up other author's reciever rankings too and saw that two top 50 WR's are from UC. (Binns and Hazelton).

[bearcatbret]

Yes, with Zach on a couple of QB awards watch list and many rating our WR group as one of the best in the country, those rankings stink. I hope the results this year will prove me right and these pinheads wrong. I say minimum 9 wins.

[kpzero]

Originally Posted by bearcatbret

Yes, with Zach on a couple of QB awards watch list and many rating our WR group as one of the best in the country, those rankings stink. I hope the results this year will prove me right and these pinheads wrong. I say minimum 9 wins.

Zach will be great in our offense but he needs to work on his accuracy and ball placement. Our receivers helped him out a bit last year making acrobatic catches. Granted that should be improved with the offseason and increased reps in practice. His running ability is a nice asset.


As for our WRs, while we may know how loaded we are, the rest of the country has reason to doubt a little bit. Thompkins isnt likely to be eligible and hasnt taken an FBS snap. Carswell has 6 career catches. Barnett hasnt made an impact the past 2 years. Howard has only 3 career FBS catches and is coming off an injury that set him back. Personally I think a redshirt year would be the best for him. Hazelton hasnt played a meaningful game since 2007.

[swilsonsp4]

Originally Posted by kpzero

Zach will be great in our offense but he needs to work on his accuracy and ball placement. Our receivers helped him out a bit last year making acrobatic catches.

Collaros completed 75% of his passes. Pike completed 62.4%, on 2.5 times as many attempts. I'll give Pike the stronger arm, as he showed more of a propensity to throw deep, which would tend to depress the completion percentage. But both were throwing to the same set of receivers. Their TD:INT ratios were almost identical (10:2 vs 29:6). Therefore, neither of them were inaccurate.

I'm not saying Collaros is better than Pike, but accuracy isn't a problem.

[cincy_terp]

Haters gonna hate. Just gotta show em what you think you are worth come September 4th

[cmm27]

I would wager that the Indiana All-Star team would not be able to beat UC on any given Saturday.

Other than being completely wrong, I find these rankings to my liking.