Zamboni_Driver's Preseason Rankings

[buffalowill]

I just can't understand the reasoning for Texas being placed so high on your ranking ZD other than the fact it is a nice name and you are trying to squeeze another LSA team into the mix. Unless they have a bunch of stud freshmen coming in, based on last year's performance I don't think they belong on that list at all.
Let's look at what they did last year (which is what a lot of this ranking is based on):

Best win:
Toss-up
A SMU team that didn't play anybody by 1?
A 4-9 UCSD team that finished 3rd in their division?


Bad losses:
Loss at home to a 7-7 Santa Clara team that finished 3rd in their division.
Loss at home by 3 to a 6-9 UCLA team that finished last in the LA division with 0 wins!
Loss at a 3-9 USD team that also finished last in their division.

I think much of their ranking is derived from a close loss to Colorado early in the season. Regardless it was still a loss and not a win.

I will definitely agree that a good and ranked Texas team is good for the MCLA, but lets not place them where they shouldn't belong at the expense of more deserving teams.

[Zamboni_Driver]

I just can't understand the reasoning for Texas being placed so high on your ranking ZD

Good question. So how we each rank a team and value or devalue their assests from year to year is obviously arbitrary (except if someone moves to the irrational and subtracts 20 for the loss of 1 player)

It worked this way for me:

I had Texas, Loyola Marymount, and Simon Fraser all fighting for the 25th spot in 2007. Simon Fraser had a huge T25 GAA (which people will argue was acceptable because it was against Oregon and look how good they were - great, and who else did you play to give me an ability to rate you? No one, thus they were not ranked). Comparing LMU and Texas - LMU lost to everyone they were suppose too (higher ranked) and beat everyone they were suppose too. Texas played teams tight that they shouldn't have (Colorado, Chapman, and Texas A&M) and lost to some they shouldn't have. What struck me the most was their average pt difference in a loss was 1.5.

I interpreted this to indicate that Texas was a fairly good team capable of really good play, but couldn't quite put it together. Now potentially the analysis of their team and all their returning players should be tempered a bit because of last year. So I could see an arguement where they get docked 1 or 2 for that, which would switch them to 21st.

Now if anyone is wondering why Texas is higher than Texas A&M with the same points - the tie break went to the team with momentum - I think all the returners will convert those 1 loses into wins and thus they have the positive momentum.

I loved to hear how you analyze Texas - where they ended up last year, and where did they add value and where they lost, and overall where they should be ranked? (I ask not for confrontation, but for more discussion)

[Karl Lynch]

UT had some significant injuries to offensive players last year. Those guys will be back this year.

Also UT has lots of veterans on this year's squad.

ZD's point about average loss is important for this team because they are find ways to keep games close.

[Sonny]

Detailed preview of Illinois (if you needed additional information):
http://www.collegelax.us/news/2007/12/2 ... e-preview/

[scooter]

Detailed preview of Illinois (if you needed additional information):
http://www.collegelax.us/news/2007/12/2 ... e-preview/

It sounds as if Illinois has the potential to be really really good this year. Losing pretty much no starters, and more veteran leadership is always a plus. Has anyone seem them play yet? and if so, how good were they?