For my part, when I look at pre-season projections like this I first see if the ranking method is consistent. If it is, then I see if the consistent ranking method is fairly applied to Ohio State (or Florida, or others that did not make the cut). Only if that proves true would I be concerned that Katz has accurately employed his Magic 8 ball.
In this case he does not pass test number 1.
I need only cite one example of a poor application of ranking criteria. He duns teams that lose major players, he duns teams with questionable incoming classes to replace that lost talent (a two-fer if you wish). Fair enough, just do that consistently.
Exhibit 1 where this is not done in a consistent manner?
Texas A&M.
Katz rates them as #20.
Quote:
20. Texas A&M  2006-07 Record: 27-7, 13-3
Mark Turgeon got DeAndre Jordan to re-commit to the program, and that alone should keep this squad in the top 20. Joseph Jones declared for the draft but it's likely he'll return to A&M. But losing Acie Law IV and Antanas Kavaliauskas, and the transition from Billy Gillispie to Turgeon, has to knock the Aggies down.
|
So you know Acie Law is gone, big man Kavaliauskas is gone, but because of one possible retention and one featured future freshman this team gets a #20 ranking, even in the face of a coaching change?
Yeah, that is consistent.
Ohio State meantime has -
No coaching change.
Loses Oden, may lose Cook (likely) may lose Conley (also likely), yet;
Brings in a very highly ranked freshman class, with positional skill across the board and a true big man to take up the slack at center.
For which Katz drops them off his board?
Yep, got to love that consistent analysis.
Which is why I can just round file Katz's piece.
Linear Mode
