I thought seriously about making it top seven, not top five. Last year always comes into play with preseason polls and there isn't any way people don't look at LSU last season and see the scoring struggles on the road and factor that into a ranking—and if the trend continues this seasons potential.
It's strange, those types of things never effect Alabama, Notre Dame, Ohio State, or USC's preseason rankings.
When have any of these teams you've mentioned entered the season in the same case scenario? Seeing a lot of love from the AP for teams like Notre Dame, USC, or Ohio State isn't new. But, since you've mentioned this... Look at Notre Dame in this poll. Here's a team that lost one game last year and starts off at #14—lower than the 12th ranked Tigers. USC ends 2012 at a 7-6 mark and starts at #24. That seems reasonable based on the talent found at USC. Ohio State at #2? Yeah, makes sense there as well. I think LSU is a top ten team. I don't have a vote. I can't sit here and tell you why the voters ranked the Tigers where they are. But, I do believe I can see their reasoning.
Too numerous too count. And, it ebbs and flows. In the 70-80s, it was Nebraska and Oklahoma. Good teams, mind you, but they consistently started the season ranked high, played a cupcake schedule w/o having to deal w/the extra demands of consistent high quality teams, then finish the season ranked high, healthy, and beat an actual good team to end the year. Sound familiar? Other teams that benefit from prior success regardless of player losses: ND, ALA, USC, OSU, and maybe Miami/FSU during their years in the running. To be clear, personally, I am not complaining, just responding to your post. I like where we are, like that nobody is expecting much of our offense despite bringing in a top flight OC. Even you referred to last years offensive challenges as an indicator of what to expect this year, and I don't blame you. I just feel that won't be the case. We will be smoother, more efficient, and that will equate to first downs rather than stalled drives, long gains rather than overthrows, and wider margins of victory rather than close wins or losses in the last minute of the game
No proven star receivers, huh? What about Jarvis Landry, and Odell Beckham, Jr.? They're multi-talented, not only catching the football on offense, but on Special teams, as well. I expect both to be on All-American lists this year!
I don't believe I was clear with what I was saying here. Taking the OU or Nebraska teams of the 70's-80's— Did any of those teams have a year starting with double digit departures to the NFL, fresh off of a season where they struggled scoring on the road, lost their bowl game to a team most considered inferior (outside of Clemson, SC?) I don't consider things like struggles on the road as an indicator of what will happen this year. I do consider it to be something to weigh. I understand what Cam brings to the table. And, I can easily see why people have faith in him. Yet, I have to consider the faith you have in what he can do with the offense isn't that much different in the faith placed in Kragthorpe when he was first hired. It wasn't much different when Crowton was hired with everyone pointing to his time at Oregon and BYU as reasons for optimism. LSU in 2013? Is it fair to say it's a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma...
You aren't looking at this through the eyes of a voting member of the AP but through the eyes of an LSU fan. (And I don't disagree with both players having a tremendous amount of talent and potential given good QB play.) Your everyday AP guy is going to look at stats from 2012 when judging returning talent for 2013 and neither Landry or Odell Beckham ranked in the top 100 in receiving statistics (yards per game, yards on the season, or receptions per game.) Heck, Mett threw as many INT's last year as they scored TD's (combined,) and registering 12 TD's for a season for these two doesn't equate to proven.
