Sports Illustrated just published their 2006 rankings

[footballfanatic]

Sports Illustrated just published their rankings for the 2006 season. I pulled out selective quotes that sum up the spirit of the reviews. Editor's note: The opinions expressed here are not entirely those of the poster.

1. Florida "Best all around team"
2. Michigan "NC hopes depend on how much its defense improves"
3, Oklahoma "If Peterson stays healthy, OU competes for title"
4. Texas "Talent keeps them in top 10. Don't expect title run from green QB's"
5. West Virginia "Will they face enough quality to get a shot at title?"
6. Fighting Irish "...Shootouts will only take them so far. Defense must improve."
7. Ohio State "They'll need lots of points with such inexperienced defense."
8. LSU "Defense will carry them, but Russell must get off to fast start."
9. Auburn "Challenge LSU for 1st place in SEC's Western Division."
10. USC "Another 10 win season will not be a shock."

[SoonerMooner]

1. Florida "Best all around team"


Yes, they will be good and they have talent. But how are they better than OU across the board? Yes, maybe at certain positions, but top to bottom?

I guess you can just chalk this up to the old saying that opinions are like butts. Everyone has one. BFD. I would love to see OU vs UF for the title. I think we match up extremely well with them, and anybody for that matter.

I wouldn't give UF more that 14-17 points against our freakish defense.

[Snrfn4ever08]

i'm not sure i have as much of a problem with florida being ranked #1 as i do with michigan ranked #2. they can't be serious:confused:

[IronSooner]

Michigan #2 is a joke.

[Salt City Sooner]

i'm not sure i have as much of a problem with florida being ranked #1 as i do with michigan ranked #2. they can't be serious:confused:
They ALWAYS have an off the wall prediction or 2. 5 years later, this little gem still cracks me up:

http://i.cnn.net/si/si_online/covers/images/2001/0813_large.jpg

Now this wouldn't have been that bad had they been referring to the Ducks, who got jacked out of the title game that year, but they instead picked Oregon St. #1, & they finished 5-6.

[RooseveltRoughRider]

S.I.'s opinion is not any more legit than any of ours....in most cases I would say less.

[footballfanatic]

For the record, Bob Stoops on the ESPN Austin affiliate said preseason rankings are meaningless, and that tolerates no talk about it with the players or coaches.

[IronSooner]

Good 'ole Joey Heisman...really menacing in that pic.

[The Maestro]

I just can't understand the Michigan pick, either. What makes them think their improvement on defense is going to be any better than Ohio State's?

And if Texas isn't making a run at the title how are they ranked 4th? That's pretty damn close to what I would call a run at the title.

Don't give SI too much trouble. I remember some preseason rag picked OU as their national title preseason pick in 1995! Yes, with "him" as the coach!

[RooseveltRoughRider]

LMAO @ "Him"

[OU4LIFE]

Florida may indeed be the best team out there, but with their schedule, they'll be lucky if they only lose 2 games.

[melbitoast]

Everyone has question marks, but there is no way UF is #1. With no RB?? Are they serious?

LMAO! That pic of Harrington is priceless!

[NDIrish]

2. Michigan "NC hopes depend on how much its defense improves"
6. Fighting Irish "...Shootouts will only take them so far. Defense must improve."
7. Ohio State "They'll need lots of points with such inexperienced defense."
8. LSU "Defense will carry them, but Russell must get off to fast start."


SportsIllustrated seems to think that in College football the "defense wins championships" rule applies. I seem to remember a certain USC team that was college football's dominate force for three straight years with no defense. SportsIllustrated is better at analyzing pro football games where defense actually does matter.

I'm not saying that defense has no effect in college football (Ohio State last year), but unless you have a top defense combined with an above average offense it won't help you in college football. SportsIllustrated doesn't realize this and it leads to Michigan being ranked 2, and Notre Dame and Ohio State being ranked 6 and 7.

[TheGodfather889]

Michigan's not competing for a National Title as long as Lloyd Carr is still there.

[Collier11]

Everyone has question marks, but there is no way UF is #1. With no RB?? Are they serious?

LMAO! That pic of Harrington is priceless!


Remember we won a natl title with a soph so it can be done, and almost won a natl title with the GREAT and under-utilized Kejaun jones ;)

[NormanPride]

SportsIllustrated seems to think that in College football the "defense wins championships" rule applies. I seem to remember a certain USC team that was college football's dominate force for three straight years with no defense. SportsIllustrated is better at analyzing pro football games where defense actually does matter.

I'm not saying that defense has no effect in college football (Ohio State last year), but unless you have a top defense combined with an above average offense it won't help you in college football. SportsIllustrated doesn't realize this and it leads to Michigan being ranked 2, and Notre Dame and Ohio State being ranked 6 and 7.

I'd agree, except has Michigan's D ever really been dominant? I mean to the point that they were known for it? Like tOSU's or OU's or Bama's? That makes the pick even more ridiculous... tOSU touted for its offense and Meatchicken touted for its D? ...What?

I also don't think tOSU or ND will have good enough Ds to warrant higher than a 5 ranking despite their offenses. But that's just IMO.