#13 Pre-Season Coaches Poll
- Thread starter FLGCK93
- Start date
I'm good with it in this sense: Look at the schedule - if we get past the VA Tech opener, we should be 3-0 before we face Mizzou.
Yeah? So? - So, if we get past VA Tech, and assuming a few ( just 2 really ) ahead of us loses early on in the first 3 weeks, we should be a lock for the playoffs (ranking wise) and that one little detail may, just may, give our guys the confidence and the gumption to be undefeated by the time we roll into LSU. - Every little mental detail matters, and the rankings are huge, as is the VA Tech opener.
I would say too optimistic, these guys almost always get burned when they give us a strong ranking.
So ranked outside the playoff bracket to start. Probably ranked inside the bracket in week two if we win.
The only thing wrong with that theory is that you could be ranked inside and still not get in!
Why is everyone so worried about being in the CFP rankings? Yall realize there’s a whole season to play right?
Better to start at 13 then where we started last year and have to climb uphill all year.
Clarification: There's a lot of if's in what I was trying to say....
If we are indeed ranked #13 at the start of the season...
If we do happen to beat VA Tech in the opener...
If only 2 teams ahead of us lost in the first 3 weeks - (a realistic possibility, upsets happen)
If we were to beat the first 3 teams on our schedule - (another very realistic possibility)
And finally, the most important if: If the season were only 3-4 weeks long and ended then...
Then yes, we'd be a lock for the playoffs.
The bigger point I was trying to make is that if we were 3-0, or 4-0 and were ranked, say, #10 or #9, it might give our gives a little extra motivation to play hungrier knowing all they had to do was win and they're in the playoffs. Not quite the same uphill mountain climb as starting not even ranked in the top #25 with no expectations. - There's more at stake now, IMHO. That's what I was saying.
Better to start at 13 then where we started last year and have to climb uphill all year.
Exactly.
Preseason rankings mean absolutely nothing. Rankings four weeks into the season mean nothing. There should not be any rankings published until after the 5th game of the season.
13th or 30th, it really doesn't matter at all where a team is ranked to start the season.
13th or 30th, it really doesn't matter at all where a team is ranked to start the season.
I agree and disagree with your sentiment. From a pure math standpoint, you're right. It doesn't matter. Just win.
On the other hand, if you were actually a kid on the team - being "ranked" #13 to start the season might be that extra little motivator to keep you focused on the fact that YES - YOU ARE that close to the playoffs, versus the easy mentality of starting the season ranked outside the top #25, and playing for SC. That mentality being - "We're not even ranked and SC has never done anything anyway."
Simple analogy: It might be easier mentally to climb Mt. Everest if you're only 13 steps away from the top, versus starting at the bottom of the hill. I'll gladly take any psychological advantage, even if it's gimicky.
If a team needs that ranking to stay focused and give their all, the team has the wrong players and/or coaches.
Polls and rankings mean nothing until around the first of November. I have a friend who went to Clemson and he is obsessed with where they are ranked all season long. I tell him the rankings don't mean anything until the end of the season and they really don't mean too much then. The committee has shown they will put teams in the CFP and leave teams out regardless of where they are ranked.
Absolutely it can help from a confidence and morale standpoint.
Ill take a turn agreeing, but with a caveat. There are rare occasions where someone comes out of nowhere, and their final ranking may hinge on a low starting point in the polls.
That sort of thing usually shakes out in the season, but its better to at least be in shooting distance to start. Imo
That's better than not being ranked and thinking we might have 2 players! I'll say this, if you can hold you're own starting the season ranked 13th, I would say you have a good shot at the playoffs!
No idea what to expect this season. I'm high on DC Clayton White. Will he have the defense rebuilt and ready to go? If not, we will have to score a lot. But is our OL going to produce in order to do that?
The opener vs VT is going to be a good test. And don 't sleep on Vanderbilt in game 3. If we win the first 3 games, I will like our chances to make the playoffs.
The opener vs VT is going to be a good test. And don 't sleep on Vanderbilt in game 3. If we win the first 3 games, I will like our chances to make the playoffs.
If we can't easily beat VT, SC State and Vandy, not only will we not make the playoff, we might not have a winning record.
VT is a cupcake. We are an 8.5 pt favorite and I look for that number to grow before kickoff. If Beamer can't easily handle a very middling ACC team with a rebuilt roster, he has serious issues.
The first 3 games will tell us if we aren't bad, but absolutely won't say anything about our chances to make the playoffs (maybe best to wait until we play a team that has made the playoffs to make that call?).
Last edited:
I don't disagree with much of what's said above.
My attitude is that this will be Beamer's 5th season here. It's time to make noise nationally. Last season was a good start to becoming nationally relevant. He needs to build on that and keep it going. If not, saying last season was a fluke would be hard to dispute.
My attitude is that this will be Beamer's 5th season here. It's time to make noise nationally. Last season was a good start to becoming nationally relevant. He needs to build on that and keep it going. If not, saying last season was a fluke would be hard to dispute.
Your attitude is bonkers.
Beamer has performed as well as our best coach in the history of the program over a 4-year time span and has garnered national attention several times along theway.
In addition, he's had to deal with the NIL/Portal, SEC Expansion, and a more difficult SEC East.
Spurrier went 7-5 in his 5th Season. What was your attitude then?
The BOTs continue to get more aggressive as the season approaches.
So if he doesn't have 3 straight 11-3 seasons starting next year will that end the talk of being the best?
Then he would move to 2nd best?
Spurrier made that run as he pushed the recruiting rank waaaay up for a few years.
He also recently noted that if he was coaching in this new era he would immediately try to find "the largest wallets he could."
Jacque -- You ready to open up your NIL purse strings and push us into the Top 10 in recruiting?
You would absolutely be the last person in the world to know about my charitable donations.
You would absolutely be the last person in the world to know about my charitable donations.
That comparison was a bad joke the first time it was brought up. The repetition just showed it wasn't offered in seriousness.
What does this even mean?
In his first four seasons, Beamer has more overall wins AND more wins against ranked opponents than Spurrier did over the same time frame.
That's 51 games - Highly statistically signifcant.
As mentioned above, the SEC East is much better today (I've run these numbers for you) than it was during Spurrier's first four seasons and there's a pay-to-play league (NIL) to create further separation between the haves and have-nots.
Last season, we had one of the best seasons in history with a bunch of no name players outside of the emerging Sellers.
You don't think if we bought the staff a Lattimore, Clowney, Jefferies, etc. they would have the potential to rip a few seasons?
Time to stop talking in generalities. Frog BOT -- make a real argument.
I agree SB is already one of the best we've ever had, but he's not a household name yet - nationally. Spurrier was all of that before he got here.Your attitude is bonkers.
Beamer has performed as well as our best coach in the history of the program over a 4-year time span and has garnered national attention several times along theway.
In addition, he's had to deal with the NIL/Portal, SEC Expansion, and a more difficult SEC East.
Spurrier went 7-5 in his 5th Season. What was your attitude then?
The BOTs continue to get more aggressive as the season approaches.
I'm sure you would have thought the same with how bad we looked against Old Dominion last year. But then we go 9-3, a couple bad flags against LSU away from making the playoff.
Just win. Hopefully we can win going away, but the win's the most important thing.
So, overall record of 29-22 and a conference record of 15-17 is something to be excited about? Beamer has been the definition of "adequate for a mid to lower tier SEC program" as a coach. If Beamer goes 7-5 this season, will you be super excited because he is doing the same as Spurrier over the same time frame?Your attitude is bonkers.
Beamer has performed as well as our best coach in the history of the program over a 4-year time span and has garnered national attention several times along theway.
In addition, he's had to deal with the NIL/Portal, SEC Expansion, and a more difficult SEC East.
Spurrier went 7-5 in his 5th Season. What was your attitude then?
The BOTs continue to get more aggressive as the season approaches.
How is the SEC East more difficult now than when Spurrier coached? Tenn had been down for a decade before Heupel came along, UF has been a shadow of what they were in the early to mid first decade of the 2000's. UGA is much improved but we don't play them every year anymore. Vandy, UK and MO aren't any better than they have traditionally been. What teams in the East are much better than they were 10-15 years ago?
Every coach at every college in the country has had to deal with NIL, the portal and expansions and realignments.
Shane is 1 game better in the win column than Spurrier after 4 seasons, hardly setting a new standard (Spurrier's first season there were only 11 regular season games so the addition of another cupcake would have probably tied their records up). After Spurrier's 5th season, I and a lot of people were really wondering if Spurrier was still up to coaching at the top level of college football. 35-28 and 1-3 in bowl games after 5 seasons didn't exactly look like the program had turned the corner.
Not falling for the trap, Botman.
We've been through this several times and I've shown you in great detail how the SEC East was considerably weaker under Spurrier over the same timeframe.
Beamer is the best we've ever had to date at this point in time in terms of performance.
If you want to jump on your bike and go find us a better coach, we'll leave a candle in the window.
Agree. But would you not agree that the evaluation should be based on performance vs name?
If Beamer's last name was Spurrier, a team like A&M would have thrown a $60mil+ contract at him after last season given what he's done at USC with the resources we have available.
You are delusional if you think a big money program would throw huge money at a coach with a losing conference record and .568 overall winning percentage and not even having won his division regardless of what his name was. Skip Holtz had a better winning percentage than that after four seasons (.584) and a 3-0 bowl record at La Tech and I don't remember A&M, UGA or even Carolina throwing big money at him to try and get him in spite of his last name.
You seem to overlook the fact that the only reason Beamer was hired was because of his last name. How many other position coaches did Carolina offer the head coaching job to?