UofL ranked #25 in Early Pre-Season Poll---ESPN

[jalovell23]

#25 Louisville Cardinals



2014 record:[/B] [/B][/B][/B]9-4, 5-3 ACC





Returning starters:[/B] [/B][/B][/B]4 offense, 4 defense, 1 special teams





Key personnel losses:[/B] WR James Sample





The skinny:[/B][/B] The Cardinals lost a plethora of playmakers on both sides of the football, but coach Bobby Petrino went the junior college route to rebuild his roster. Also, Louisville already had a handful of FBS transfers ready to step in. Former TCU star DeVonte' Fields signed with the Cardinals and could become a premier pass-rusher. UAB transfer Shaq Wiggins should help in the secondary, after Louisville lost all four starting defensive backs, including Gaines, Holliman and Sample, who left early for the NFL draft. Petrino was able to keep defensive coordinator Todd Grantham, who turned down a job with the Oakland Raiders, and offensive coordinator Garrick McGee, who turned down an interview with Oklahoma.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12289032/ohio-state-buckeyes-lead-post-signing-day-2015-way-too-early-top-25-rankings

 

[CardLaw]

To me, the two interesting teams on that list are Tennessee (#20) and Ole Miss (#14).

Tennessee looks to me like the 2015 version of Ole Miss last year: a young team that is clearly ascending. I watched three or four UT games last year and the talent is there. Experience was lacking. I think they played something like 12 or13 freshmen and about as many sophomores. Their schedule is tougher than was Ole Miss's a year ago with an early season game at home versus Oklahoma (UR). They have to go to Florida (UR) who I think will be vastly improved and later they have trips to Alabama (#4), and Missouri (#24). Their home slate includes Arkansas (#22) and Georgia (#8) along with South Carolina (UR). They will take some losses in there. But I bet they are competitive in everyone of those games. I think they are probably still a year away but 8-4 is a reasonable estimate of their likely record.

Ole Miss is now a year older and if they can solve the QB position (the only player lost off the 2014 offense), they should be tough. In addition to their six games against the SEC west (four of whom are ranked here), one of their cross-over games is at Florida. They also travel to Alabama, Auburn (#12) and Mississippi State (UR - and I expect to be down this year). OOC they go to an improving Memphis for a rivalry game. Even though I think they will be better in 2015, I expect their record to be a bit less lofty than it was in 2014.

Everyone else is "the usual suspects" and about where you would imagine.

 

[Ipartiedwithhopgood]

In regards to Tenn - their young QB appears to have that extra gear and could be a budding star. I could see him elevating the program in the years to come.

For Louisville to be returning only 4x4 and even be in this conversation is a rather amazing thing. If we can live up to that or even up the ante then we have a lot to be excited about.

 

[ULCard17]

So ESPN has #12 vs #25 in the Chick fil a kickoff game. I like it.

 

[beakwithteeth]

Gonna take a little time and maybe a few wakes along the way, but once CBP gets this boat up on plane she's gonna fly!

 

[cardsfan53]

I look for us to be improved on the offensive side of the ball as I believe the QB position will be much improved. Parker will be greatly missed, but he missed the first half of the season last year anyway. Another year in the system will help the offensive line be better this season as well. On defense we lost some excellent players, but have some good players that are going to step in. Fields and the 2 DB's from Georgia I'm interested to see what they can do. Our LB are solid with Kelsey and Burgees returning. And I'm also looking for some guys that been waiting to have a Holliman type breakout season.

 

[zipp]

Post NSD, another interesting team on that list?...TCU.

Here's the #2 ranked team going in and coming off a very successful 2014 season. And playing in one of the nation's football hotbeds--Texas--and in a P5 conference.

Their 2015 recruiting class was 37th according to Rivals. Freaking 37th.

And if you go back and check the rankings of their last few recruiting classes, the players responsible for these lofty rankings in the polls and postseason, TCU has never scratched the Top 25.

Which reiterates the two things that I continually bang the drum about...

Conference affiliation and on-the-field success do NOT necessarily, or certainly not immediately, translate to recruiting success. It's a different animal with different dynamics. Those of you disappointed with our recruiting based on factors like these are not connecting the dots properly.

But fear not, because recruiting class rankings are obviously not an absolute, irrefutable indicator of on-the-field success. And this is despite what LPT fans may be trying to tell you. IOW, if you have a guy like Patterson or Petrino, don't underestimate what that guy can do for you by the end of the year.

And if you don't, you better land some good recruits...

 

[Birdie King]

Originally posted by CardLaw:

To me, the two interesting teams on that list are Tennessee (#20) and Ole Miss (#14).

Tennessee looks to me like the 2015 version of Ole Miss last year: a young team that is clearly ascending. I watched three or four UT games last year and the talent is there. Experience was lacking. I think they played something like 12 or13 freshmen and about as many sophomores. Their schedule is tougher than was Ole Miss's a year ago with an early season game at home versus Oklahoma (UR). They have to go to Florida (UR) who I think will be vastly improved and later they have trips to Alabama (#4), and Missouri (#24). Their home slate includes Arkansas (#22) and Georgia (#8) along with South Carolina (UR). They will take some losses in there. But I bet they are competitive in everyone of those games. I think they are probably still a year away but 8-4 is a reasonable estimate of their likely record.

Ole Miss is now a year older and if they can solve the QB position (the only player lost off the 2014 offense), they should be tough. In addition to their six games against the SEC west (four of whom are ranked here), one of their cross-over games is at Florida. They also travel to Alabama, Auburn (#12) and Mississippi State (UR - and I expect to be down this year). OOC they go to an improving Memphis for a rivalry game. Even though I think they will be better in 2015, I expect their record to be a bit less lofty than it was in 2014.

Everyone else is "the usual suspects" and about where you would imagine.

Re the second paragraph, the BlueNecks know what is coming from the Vols. Butch has it going down there it may be another 25 before they beat the Vols.

 

[cardsfan53]

Originally posted by zipp:
Post NSD, another interesting team on that list?...TCU.

Here's the #2 ranked team going in and coming off a very successful 2014 season. And playing in one of the nation's football hotbeds--Texas--and in a P5 conference.

Their 2015 recruiting class was 37th according to Rivals. Freaking 37th.

And if you go back and check the rankings of their last few recruiting classes, the players responsible for these lofty rankings in the polls and postseason, TCU has never scratched the Top 25.

Which reiterates the two things that I continually bang the drum about...

Conference affiliation and on-the-field success do NOT necessarily, or certainly not immediately, translate to recruiting success. It's a different animal with different dynamics. Those of you disappointed with our recruiting based on factors like these are not connecting the dots properly.

But fear not, because recruiting class rankings are obviously not an absolute, irrefutable indicator of on-the-field success. And this is despite what LPT fans may be trying to tell you. IOW, if you have a guy like Patterson or Petrino, don't underestimate what that guy can do for you by the end of the year.

And if you don't, you better land some good recruits...

Thats why my thoughts are if we can bring in 25-35 or so ranked class each year we will be fine. Football more than ANY sport is about coaching and player devlopment.

 

[CardLaw]

Originally posted by cardsfan53:

Originally posted by zipp:
Post NSD, another interesting team on that list?...TCU.

Here's the #2 ranked team going in and coming off a very successful 2014 season. And playing in one of the nation's football hotbeds--Texas--and in a P5 conference.

Their 2015 recruiting class was 37th according to Rivals. Freaking 37th.

And if you go back and check the rankings of their last few recruiting classes, the players responsible for these lofty rankings in the polls and postseason, TCU has never scratched the Top 25.

Which reiterates the two things that I continually bang the drum about...

Conference affiliation and on-the-field success do NOT necessarily, or certainly not immediately, translate to recruiting success. It's a different animal with different dynamics. Those of you disappointed with our recruiting based on factors like these are not connecting the dots properly.

But fear not, because recruiting class rankings are obviously not an absolute, irrefutable indicator of on-the-field success. And this is despite what LPT fans may be trying to tell you. IOW, if you have a guy like Patterson or Petrino, don't underestimate what that guy can do for you by the end of the year.

And if you don't, you better land some good recruits...

Thats why my thoughts are if we can bring in 25-35 or so ranked class each year we will be fine. Football more than ANY sport is about coaching and player devlopment.

Great players tend to make great coaches.

If you take the average ranking of each class from 2010-14 from the Rivals database then sort the team by the average class ranking, then heading into last season your top 10 looks thus:

1. Alabama
2. Florida
3. Florida State
4. Southern Cal
5. Auburn
6. LSU
7. Ohio State
8. Georgia
9. Texas
10. Notre Dame

Oregon ranks 16th, TCU 36th and Baylor 38th. (Louisville was 42nd for those of you playing at home). As you can see, three of the playoff teams were in the Top 10 and the other was in the top 16. But TCU and Baylor defied those odds as was pointed out above. Given the Big 12 went 2-5 in its bowl games, you can argue their W/L records were overly inflated by a weak conference. But I think TCU more than legitimized its season in its trouncing of Ole Miss in its bowl game. But, while two "lowly" teams finished with appropriate accolades, four of the Top 10 under-performed relative to what we might have expected (Florida, LSU, Texas and Notre Dame). There are a variety of reason why that may happen (coaching being but one). But, from this limited data set, we see it is more likely that teams with lofty rankings will under perform than teams with more modest rankings will over perform.

Looking at the average of class rankings heading into 2015 (using 2011-15 Rivals rankings), the Top 10 is as follows:

1. Alabama
2. Florida State
3. Ohio State
4. Southern Cal
5. Auburn
6. LSU
7. Georgia
8. Florida
9. Clemson
10. Notre Dame

TCU is 35th (and Louisville 37th again for those of you playing at home). All of the Top 10 save for maybe Florida and Notre Dame are expected to contend this year as is TCU. Of those outside the Top 10, TCU, Oregon (16th), Baylor (39th) Michigan State (29th) and UCLA (17th) all made the ESPN pre-season Top 10 ranking. It is unlikely all of them will be serious contenders come next November. But you would be somewhat surprised if any of the teams in the Top 10 in average class ranks is not. (Though certainly some will knock the others out - especially in the SEC with Alabama set to play Auburn, LSU and Georgia; Auburn to play Alabama, Georgia and LSU; and LSU plays Alabama, Auburn and Florida).

 

[cardsfan53]

I think it's unrealistic to believe we will pull in top 5-10 classes year in and year out at UofL. We have to focus more on the player development and coaching part of it.

 

[zipp]

Originally posted by CardLaw:
Great players tend to make great coaches.

If you take the average ranking of each class from 2010-14 from the Rivals database then sort the team by the average class ranking, then heading into last season your top 10 looks thus:

1. Alabama
2. Florida
3. Florida State
4. Southern Cal
5. Auburn
6. LSU
7. Ohio State
8. Georgia
9. Texas
10. Notre Dame...
No one's arguing that good players aren't preferred over bad players. Or that good players don't make a good coach better.

When you start taking averages, you're going to lose resolution on other important variables like coaching. And many of the teams in your ranking also have good coaches. It's often difficult to isolate and identify important relationships in uncontrolled data. I don't think your analysis proves or disproves the relative importance of coaching...

 

[cardsfan53]

Originally posted by zipp:

Originally posted by CardLaw:
Great players tend to make great coaches.

If you take the average ranking of each class from 2010-14 from the Rivals database then sort the team by the average class ranking, then heading into last season your top 10 looks thus:

1. Alabama
2. Florida
3. Florida State
4. Southern Cal
5. Auburn
6. LSU
7. Ohio State
8. Georgia
9. Texas
10. Notre Dame...
No one's arguing that good players aren't preferred over bad players. Or that good players don't make a good coach better.

When you start taking averages, you're going to lose resolution on other important variables like coaching. And many of the teams in your ranking also have good coaches. It's often difficult to isolate and identify important relationships in uncontrolled data. I don't think your analysis proves or disproves the relative importance of coaching...

Over that time period those to have won
1. Alabama 48 wins
2. Florida 29 wins
3.FSU 48 wins
4.USC- 36 wins
5. Auburn 31 wins
6. LSU 41 wins
7.OSU 44 wins
8. Georgia 40 wins
9. Texas 30 wins
10. ND 37

The same time period UofL has 39 wins. Oregon has 48, Micigan St has 42, TCU has 34

So no one is denying that it takes good football players to win games, but coaching also plays a role in college football

 

[CardLaw]

Originally posted by cardsfan53:

Originally posted by zipp:

Originally posted by CardLaw:
Great players tend to make great coaches.

If you take the average ranking of each class from 2010-14 from the Rivals database then sort the team by the average class ranking, then heading into last season your top 10 looks thus:

1. Alabama
2. Florida
3. Florida State
4. Southern Cal
5. Auburn
6. LSU
7. Ohio State
8. Georgia
9. Texas
10. Notre Dame...


No one's arguing that good players aren't preferred over bad players. Or that good players don't make a good coach better.

When you start taking averages, you're going to lose resolution on other important variables like coaching. And many of the teams in your ranking also have good coaches. It's often difficult to isolate and identify important relationships in uncontrolled data. I don't think your analysis proves or disproves the relative importance of coaching...

Over that time period those to have won
1. Alabama 48 wins
2. Florida 29 wins
3.FSU 48 wins
4.USC- 36 wins
5. Auburn 31 wins
6. LSU 41 wins
7.OSU 44 wins
8. Georgia 40 wins
9. Texas 30 wins
10. ND 37

The same time period UofL has 39 wins. Oregon has 48, Micigan St has 42, TCU has 34

So no one is denying that it takes good football players to win games, but coaching also plays a role in college football

To you and Zip both . . .

It wasn't my point that coaching does not make a difference. I think in college football it is more decisive than in the NFL. My point was more directed at the poster I originally quoted in making my post and his statement that if UL can bring in classes in the 25-35 range it would be "fine" which I took as a statement that with classes that low, UL could ultimately find itself in the current playoff scheme. I think TCU and Baylor this past year prove it is possible to get into the conversation and TCU will open 2015 "in the conversation", but the reality thus far no one outside the top 16 in classes has made into the actual playoff . . . yet.

To Zip's point that averages tend to mask certain things I agree. They always do. But it is a two way street. Averages in this instance also tends to null out both good and bad data. The ranking of a given class in Rival's system takes into account both the quality of the players and the number of players. So, if you look at Michigan this year (#48) you see they signed 6 four stars and 6 three stars. UL by comparison signed 3 four stars and 18 three stars. But even though on balance Michigan had a higher quality class, UL is ranked higher due to Michigan signing only 14 players total. Taking an average of class ranks evens those types of anomalies. (Michigan ranks #20 in the five year average leading into 2015).

As to coaching itself, several years ago I looked at data for successful D-1 coaches at big time programs (BCS conference schools) who subsequently took jobs at lesser, non-BCS level schools. All but one at the time had a worse won/loss record at the "lesser" division school with only one, Bo Pelini, being at or above .500 at the lower tier school. Coaching matters. I agree. But the decisive factor at the end of the day is players. An average coach with good players will beat a good coach with average players about nine times out of ten.

 

[zipp]

It's not debatable that you can win big in college football without Top Ten recruiting classes. Too many teams and coaches have done it. Sure it's more difficult and sure it takes a really good coach.

Those teams with the best recruiting classes--Alabama, Florida, Florida State, Southern Cal, Auburn, LSU, Ohio State, Georgia, Texas, and Notre Dame--are simply the old guard of college football. They get the best recruits currently and they have for quite awhile, but they deliver vastly different results. Several have gone thru recent coaching changes. The national champ is in there, but so are teams that barely made bowl games.

I believe that Petrino can be very successful at U of L with Top Thirty recruiting classes. Jurich does too or Petrino wouldn't be here...

 

[CardLaw]

Originally posted by zipp:
It's not debatable that you can win big in college football without Top Ten recruiting classes. Too many teams and coaches have done it. Sure it's more difficult and sure it takes a really good coach.

Those teams with the best recruiting classes--Alabama, Florida, Florida State, Southern Cal, Auburn, LSU, Ohio State, Georgia, Texas, and Notre Dame--are simply the old guard of college football. They get the best recruits currently and they have for quite awhile, but they deliver vastly different results. Several have gone thru recent coaching changes. The national champ is in there, but so are teams that barely made bowl games.

I believe that Petrino can be very successful at U of L with Top Thirty recruiting classes. Jurich does too or Petrino wouldn't be here...

It is possible, but I think it would take a significant confluence of events. For one thing, you have to have most of your guys good at the same time. Mississippi State had that this past season. It was a talented, senior-laden team. Their average class rank over the five classes preceding 2014 season was 35.00. They had a monster class this year (#16) so they come into 2015 with a last five rank of 30.6. But, now they are young so are likely to be out of the hunt by mid-October if not sooner.

The other thing you need is the right schedule. It can't be too soft and you need to have most of your toughest opponents at home. Then you need the right opponents in that schedule playing the way you need them to be playing. They have to be good enough to help you, but not so good that you can't handle one or two. UL will play Clemson or FSU on the road each year. Whichever in a given year, you need the one on the road to not be quite as good as they usually are. You can't have any surprise opponents. Every now and then UNC or BC or someone like that steps up and has a stellar year. You can't have that happen in the year you catch them on the road.

But first, you need something like top 30 classes. UL's current average for the last five classes is 39.00. The last five, per Rivals have been ranked 29, 42, 52, 40, 32. TCU by comparison is 26, 37, 30, 50, 37 (average of 36.00). I would argue TCU should have been in the playoff last year and FSU should have been left out. No one thought that had a chance of happening. So that is another factor you have to have in your favor - you cannot have some other team steal your slot based on their record/reputation.