State has a pretty strong claim for the best defense in the country. This isn't message board fluff - plenty of pundits agree.
I'm unsure of your point. State beat Arkansas, LA Tech (by 36), and UMass. Also beat LSU, A&M, and Louisville (without the starting QB and with an interim coach). Nearly beat Bama and Fitz's injury probably cost them the Ole Miss game. I don't anyone is saying that State are "world-whoopers," just that they have the talent on the roster to make some noise. Which isn't unreasonable when you see what they are returning.
It's always baffling to me that when publications make a "Best Stadium" list they include Ole Miss but only talk about the Grove. The Grove is great and iconic - no one can deny that. But in no world is Vaught a top-25 stadium, especially if you base it solely on the structure itself (as this ranking claims to do). It's absurd. Literally every other school's description in the ranking talks about the stadium itself and for Ole Miss they just fawn over the Grove.
State won the SEC title in '59 but UK went to the tournament in State's place. There was a law in Mississippi at the time that prohibited the schools from playing integrated teams. That's why State "missed" the tournament that year.
Joe, do you have some sort of axe to grind with State? They beat an SEC team in a tough away environment and yet they move down below a team they throttled earlier this year? I'd say Arkansas is probably on par with Tennessee in terms of quality, so it's hard to argue that LSU's win was impressive enough to move them ahead. All things being equal, it makes no sense to drop a team just because they had a sub-par performance (after a tough, emotional loss the prior week).
I understand that any power ranking is subjective but having State at 6, behind SC and LSU (who they beat by thirty), is the pinnacle of absurdity. There is no logical justification for this. Sure, State looked terrible yesterday but they were clearly looking ahead to the Bama game. I'll refrain from pointing out your error about UMass's previous games. I'd kinda understand if you had State at 5 with LSU ahead of them, since LSU is playing much better than they were in September. But I cannot comprehend anyone sincerely believing that SC is better than State. Most SC fans would probably agree.
Which means he has won 31 SEC games. Which means he can win at the SEC level.
Sure, State has lost the past two games in pretty bad fashion (Georgia game was 31-3, FYI). But both games were against superior opponents in tough environments. Let's maybe back off the "misery" train for a minute. As you said yourself, State is favored (according to FPI) in all but one of their remaining games. If they win those, they're a nine-win team, probably third in the West, and on the verge of getting to ten wins for only the fourth time in history. That's hardly a miserable season.
He also had a blocked punt and two touchdowns. Not sure what more you need to merit a top-10 inclusion.
They spelled "premier" wrong. "Premiere" had a different meaning.
I think you're missing the point. All three were in the upper-echelon of college quarterbacks (Tebow likely the GOAT) and were finalists for the Heisman. In terms of pro success, Smith is a two-time pro-bowler and Dak has one under his belt already, not to mention a OROTY. Tebow was middling but all three have won at least one playoff game in the NFL as a starting quarterback. That's not even counting Cam Newton, who Mullen also coached at Florida. Can you name another coach with that kind of track record at the collegiate and NFL level?
No, but I've suffered for wearing a Braves shirt with people yelling "Roll Tide" at me. It's a navy blue shirt.
This was article was definitely drafted last week and just now posted. MSU and LSU already played the super regional in baseball.
Shea Patterson is clearly the better passer at the moment and probably has the most upside in general. I can see this going either way, even as a State fan. One thing to consider that wasn't really addressed is coaching. Mullen is a proven quarterback developer, particularly between the first and second years as a starter. Patterson is the first non-transfer quarterback Ole Miss has had since before Freeze arrived so much more is needed in terms of development. It's unclear whether Freeze or the new OC can do that, since not much development was needed with Wallace and Kelly.
Interesting point - it just depends on which aspect of coaching you value more and which translates to more success on the field. Is recruiting more important? Player development? X's and O's? Coordinator management? Mullen's success seems to indicate that player development and X's and O's matter more to a program, since he has won consistently with easily the least talented roster in the West. Freeze is unquestionably a better recruiter, but does that alone make up for his failings in other areas? I think there's a good argument for either coach to be ahead of the other. I think Mullen is better in-game and better at player development but Freeze's success on the recruiting trail has translated to more on-field success (outside of State's six-week stretch at No. 1).
A FSU friend of mine told me that this was taken out of context. It is a direct quote but he continued by saying that he enjoyed his time at State and loved the people. It was a booster meeting so he probably did it for laughs.
South Alabama (6-6) is a bowl team. They're playing Air Force in the Arizona Bowl.
Wait, will they have to return their 2015 Peach Bowl rings?
I think it's safe to assume A&M has an advantage there, too.
Fred Ross had a 88-1007-5 line in 2015 compared to 30-489-5 in 2014. All State receivers (and Dak) had statistically better seasons in 2015 than in 2014. How is that a drop off? If the argument is that he should have fewer drops, then fine - you can make that argument for literally every receiver ever. But it's hard to understand how Ross can be labeled unpredictable when he ended the regular season with four straight 100+ yard games, against strong defenses in Missouri, Alabama, and Ole Miss.
State behind UK and Missouri seems pretty harsh. All teams have significant question marks but absent a compelling reason, put the team who beat the other two last year (in dominant fashion) in front.
Of course it doesn't make it okay but it does change the nature of the crime. Simmons wasn't charged with domestic violence because it wasn't a domestic dispute - i.e., the victim wasn't Simmons' spouse/girlfriend/mother of his child/cohabitee. Wiley was charged with domestic violence.
He's been enrolled since January. A for effort, though.
This has to be an oversight. No one in their right mind would ever place Kentucky ahead of Mississippi State less than a week after State thumped UK. Or for that matter consider Kentucky a "Challenger". If this is a serious ranking, you need see someone ASAP.