Big 12 Football: What the experts are saying.

CF PreviewAs I mentioned in my What’s coming up? post, I purchased four major college preseason football publications: Athlon, Sporting News, Phil Steel and Lindy’s. Even though I feel like I put out a lot of material, I’m just amazed at how much is involved in these previews. Of course, for all I know, they have 50 people doing it. In any event, there is no way I can compete by virtue of my own analysis, but what I can do is to take what they have done and analyze that.

We might as well start with the basics. Shown below are the rankings of the Big 12 teams.

Team	PS	LN	SN	AT	Cum
Texas	2	2	2	3	9
Oklahoma	4	3	3	2	12
Okla. St.	14	10	10	9	43
Nebraska	22	22	28*	16	88
Tex. Tech	41	26	20	31	118
Kansas	53*	21	25	26	125
Colorado	42	60	42*	49	193
Missouri		46		37
Baylor		54		52
Tex. A&M		63		66
Iowa St.		91		81
Kansas St.		70		68

PS-Phil Steele, LN-Lindy’s, SN-Sporting News, AT-Athlon, Cum-Cumulative

* - These are estimates based upon where the team ranked in the conference predictions. Kansas was not in Phil Steele’s top-50. Nebraska and Colorado were not in Sporting News’ top-25.

The most obvious blunder here is KU and Steele. How can you have three other publications with Kansas in the top-26, but not even in the top-50 in Steele’s rankings?

Actually, there are six teams that are ranked in the top 26 by each of the other three – Sporting News, Athlon and Lindy’s, but not in Phil Steele’s top-26. Here are the average ranking of each and then Steele’s rank.

Team	Avg.	PS
Oregon	11.7	50+
Georgia Tech	16.3	28
Florida State	16.7	34
North Carolina	20.3	30
Utah	21.0	44
Kansas	24.0	50+

PS-Phil Steele

Besides, Kansas, Oregon leaps off the page. Sporting News has them at #11, Athlon at #13 and Lindy’s at #15, but they are not in Steele’s top 50! That’s either 1) the greatest/boldest prediction in history, 2) an incredible oversight or 3) an incredible oversight.

INCONSISTENCIES

While I’m on the subject of Steele, here is what he said in his summary of Oregon. “They (Oregon) will most likely be ranked in the Top 15 at the start of the year.” So, either he believes they will fall drastically or else whoever picked the top 50 didn’t read “his” analysis.

Here’s another seeming inconsistency. Under “Phil’s Top 72 Wide Receivers” he lists KU’s Dezmon Briscoe at #5 and Kerry Meier #9… in the entire country. Who could have a better duo than that? However in another list “2009’s Top Receiving Units”, he has Kansas as #14. Huh? Keep in mind the 72 Wide Receivers list is “draft eligible”, but still.

Shown are the top 15 teams (plus three others) based on Top Receiving Units and the individual rankings. Comments below.

	Team	WR	WR	TE
1	N. Dame	6	22	19
2	Illinois	1	15/57
3	Texas	8		21
4	USC	12	48	15
5	Georgia	38		42
6	LSU	3	27	9
7	Arkansas			3
8	Houston
9	S. Miss.
10	Florida	21	25/36
11	Tulsa
12	Texas Tech	50	59
13	SMU			13
14	Kansas	5	9
15	Pittsburgh	24		10
OTHERS
18	Wisconsin	16	61	5
31	Cincy	7	28
34+	Tennessee	30	46	23/33

I don’t have to know anything about anything that has to do with anything and I can tell you that either different people are doing these lists – all named “Phil” or else he can’t remember what he wrote from one list to another. His Top Receiving Units list only goes to #33. So that means Tennessee is at least #34 despite having four players ranked on “his” receiving lists! While Houston, S. Miss and Tulsa may have players not eligible for the NFL draft, there is no way they could have a receiving corp that much superior to Tennessee – or Wisconsin for that matter.

What I don’t understand about this kind of thing – and I’ve been tearing apart these pre-season magazines for 25 years – is why they don’t evaluate their own material against themselves – or just admit different people did them and put their name next to the list!

Anyway, I’ll be doing more on this, but I figured I’d just start with a few things that popped out at me.

Submitted by Martin Manley on July 2, 2009 - 12:32am.
College Football - Big 12 | Stories | login or register to post comments

Big12

Submitted by steven on August 4, 2009 - 10:10pm.

Texas quarterback Colt McCoy's tale of hauling hay on his grandfather's farm an interesting story revealed at last week's Big 12 football media days.hosting reviews The Texas Bowl Committee announced that the 2009 Texas Bowl will be televised nationally by ESPN. The game will be played on Thursday, December 31, 2009, at Reliant Stadium. Kickoff is scheduled for 2:30 p.m. CT. low cost hosting Fifth-ranked Texas' 45-35 defeat of top-ranked Oklahoma in the Red River Rivalry is a back-and-forth battle highlighted by big plays.business hosting

KU ranking

Submitted by harlanman76 on July 5, 2009 - 11:43am.

Martin, I heard an interview with PS on this very topic. While he holds the team and talent in high regard, Phil looks very closely at the conference schedule and this is a large component of his rankings.

KU has a fairly brutal schedule. They are the only North team that plays TT, OU and UT. The are on the road at TT, UT and CU. In a seven week stretch, they play only two home games; OU and NU. The schedule is why PS doesn't rank KU higher than he does.

On a side note; I arrived at this story via a link from another site so I don't know if you are a newpaper columnist or just a web bloger. Either way, I am surprised at the editing errors in a story written by a professional journalist. May I be so bold as to suggest a little proofreading before a story is published would be helpful? There seems to be a problem with subject and verb agreement and verb conjugation.

harlanman

Submitted by Martin Manley on July 5, 2009 - 6:17pm.

Feel free to stand over my shoulder at 1:32AM.

Even so, what errors? I don't believe there are any in this post.

I work extremely hard to avoid them - even though I deal with hundreds, if not thousands, of data points for most of my posts - usually 1-2 every day.

Please list any errors so that I can determine if you are right and I am wrong.

As to the schedule, I already dealt with that in a previous response and I dismiss it. As I said, polls will give more value to a team that loses by 2 versus Texas than wins by 20 versus ISU.

Regardless, if you had read his 2009 Preview, you would see that on page 317 HE (not me) lists the toughest 2008 schedules (KU is #19). On the following page he lists the toughest 2009 schedules (KU is #26)! The obvious point is that the whole argument that KU is omitted from the 2009 top-50 because of schedule is moot by any possible way of looking at it.

Martin

Submitted by harlanman76 on July 5, 2009 - 10:30pm.

[quote=Martin Manley]

Feel free to stand over my shoulder at 1:32AM.

Even so, what errors? I don't believe there are any in this post.

Martin

[/quote]

Believe what you want and interpret the data how you see fit. It's your blog. Others disagree with your assertions and conclusions. PS's methodology and intent is different than the other publications. I actually like your premise of the article but I think your intrepretation of the data is flawed by being a KU fan and not an objective jornalist.

"Please list any errors so that I can determine if you are right and I am wrong."

Remember, you asked.

"The group that were not ranked in the..."- The group WAS not ranked.

"Of course, for all I know, they have 50 people doing it." Are they doing 'it' (interesting visual) or are 50 people writing the previews?

"Actually, there are six teams that are ranked in the top 26 by each of the other three – Sporting News, Athlon and Lindy’s, but not in Phil Steele’s top-26." You started the phrase with a hyphen and ended with a comma. There are other incorrect uses of the hypen in the article.

"Besides, Kansas, Oregon leaps off the page" Extra comma after "Besides". Should read: "Besides Kansas, Oregon leaps of the page."

harlan

Submitted by Martin Manley on July 7, 2009 - 3:48am.

Good God, you're pathetic.

I thought you meant LEGITIMATE errors, not some grammatical crap. Don't you have anything better to do?? Ooops, double question mark - surely a no-no.

BTW: "I think your interpretation of the data is flawed by being a KU fan and not an objective jornalist."

You would think that if a person were going to the trouble to dissect a person's grammar and attack them as a journalist, the LEAST they could do is to spell the word right!

As to the REAL issue, you did not even address the singular most important issue which you clearly have no answer for - PS's 2008 and 2009 strength of schedule.

People like you, who have no hope of reasonable debate and have to resort to childish grammar, ... make me want to puke! Please go back to wherever you came.

Martin

BURN!

Submitted by KSU2180 on July 29, 2009 - 2:02am.

This is classic... Martin, you just got pwned! Your "KU slant" is obvious and simply in poor taste. I get that the rules are more relaxed on a blog but damn man get off KU's nuts. Not everyone has to think they will be a top 25 team. I bet you went looking for errors in his publication just to make this post didn't you? Did you provide the same scrutiny to the other publications? No you didn't because they "gave KU respect."

The Big Twelve?

Submitted by therealTO on July 2, 2009 - 12:30pm.

Really, you should call this article, something other than Big Twelve Football: What the experts are saying. You focused on KU pretty much the entire article, until you talked about Oregon, not a big XII team. Stop being a homer, or stop trying to write like you aren't one.

The

Submitted by Martin Manley on July 2, 2009 - 3:14pm.

1) There is plenty of big 12 there.

2) This is only part 1 - which I made clear.

3) I'm not a "homer" in the derogatory sense you imply. I specifically noticed KU because I'm a KU fan.

Martin

Steele

Submitted by BCMoore on July 2, 2009 - 10:50am.

Two receivers do not make a receiving corps.

Steele correctly factors schedule into his analysis, to a greater degree than most of these publications, which are generally gang-written. Last year KU fans were up in arms over his prediction they'd finish behind Nebraska. Of course...they did finish behind Nebraska.

KU fans (such as yourself) might take a closer look at what he says so the shock of another mediocre finish in 2009 doesn't kill you.

Submitted by Martin Manley on July 2, 2009 - 3:18pm.

The problem with your argument is that schedule is largely irrelevant IMO.

Of course, it means more losses, but that has nothing to do with "best"! The polls will give more credit to losing to (say) OU at OU by 2 than winning at home over ISU by 20. The preseason rankings should be a function of which team is best, which is second, third, etc. At least that is how I view preseason rankings and I'm sure it is how 90%+ view them and how they should be viewed IMO.

I'll bet anyone just about anything that KU will begin (and end) in the top-50 of virtually any poll or power rating - including the RPI. Omission from the top-50 is ridiculously bad.

Martin

I think, considering the

Submitted by BCMoore on July 3, 2009 - 8:09pm.

I think, considering the schedule, it's highly likely that KU will end the season struggling to stay in the top fifty.

Why is Iowa St. ahead of KSU

Submitted by wolfpacback on July 2, 2009 - 7:51am.

Why is Iowa St. ahead of KSU in your chart? Am I missing something and reading it wrong, or was it just a mistake of positioning?

Wolf:

Submitted by Martin Manley on July 2, 2009 - 3:24pm.

I guess it does look that way, but that was not the intention. The group that were not ranked in the other publications are not in an order - just random.

Martin

Horizontal

COOL FACTOIDS OF THE DAY

Contributor

Recommendations

Big 12 Football: What the experts are saying.

User login

Martin's Best