AUwent

Nothing about Devin Williams’ commitment? Solid pickup, I’d say.

And, given all that, one more win in year 2 shouldn’t be too much of an ask. Unless we’re committing to starting a LOT of underclassmen to set up a big jump in year 3.

I think it’s about equal…the two toughest teams on schedule last year were at home. *At least in theory*, I feel like in a rebuilding process it’s better to get the teams that you’d have a better shot at beating on a neutral field anyway. Put it this way—all other things being the same would you want a presidential candidate from whatever largest state is opposite your party (CA or TX) or from a swing state? But if you’re correct and we have as many senior starters as we’re projected to, that would be COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE.

I just want one more (reg season) win—if not we’d BETTER be starting at least 15 players who will be back next year.

Should we be worried? I know it's super duper early but it just seems like we're on a bit of a cold streak with regards to targets naming their favorites.

Sorry to double post, but Edward nails it here.

Yeah, I think year 4 is really when we make a run. But we're going to have to show improvement between that--can't be like, say, Drinkwitz's first three years.

Gonna be honest, a little frustrated no one has addressed my question earlier. -.-

By no means do I like big money donors having such a say over a program. I'm just sick of people (in our own fanbase and outside of it) acting like we're the only program where that happens.

Alright, this seems to be the most active thread on the subject. So with that in mind, I looked at how ESPN ranked six of our opponents in its early top 25. I'm not mad that we're unranked, my focus here is more on the sentiment that year 3 is when we take a leap. But how are we going to do that if we're full of seniors this year? For example it's hard for me to be enthusiastic about that Lewis guy for this very reason.

https://www.on3.com/pro/news/college-football-odds-ranking-sec-with-las-vegas-2024-win-totals-over-under-top-to-bottom/ Early over/under win total projections are out: Georgia--10.5 Texas--10.5 Alabama--9.5 LSU--9.5 Mississippi--9.5 Missouri--9.5 Tennessee--8.5 Texas A&M--8.5 Auburn--7.5 Oklahoma--7.5 Kentucky--6.5 Arkansas--5.5 Florida--5.5 USCe--5.5 MSU--4.5 Vanderbilt--2.5

high school arena lol

He might mean for the longer term future, of course, but I was very surprised by Josh Pate's SEC power rankings (Missouri at #10). https://twitter.com/LateKickJosh/status/1754330548900684077/photo/1

Admittedly not a good weekend commitment wise between KD Riddick and Offord. No reason for panic (yet) given that our 2025 class is still top 10 on Rivals and 247 (top 11 on 247 using average rating), though.

Sucks to replace this much of our staff but I guess this is just CFB moving forward. Unlike with 🥔 we seem to have upgraded with our replacements (at least besides maybe Durkin).

So are you saying the Kelly to DC rumors are false? I’m confused.

If I had to theorize, us and Kiffin are waiting to see if an NFL job comes open. Of course, that might mean we have to hire someone else next year. 🤷‍♂️

Well, I completely agree that improvement is needed, but that's kind of a no-brainer with any coaching staff unless you have a Gus 2013-style first year. Steve Sarkisian went 5-7 and lost to 2-10 Kansas his first year. Brent Venables went 6-7 his first year. To your last point, this might be a good thread for you. I will say, Freeze deserves four years, and if we have to part with him at the end of that, the buyout period for both Gus and Potato will be over and only two years on his will be left.

#1--There's on-field things to question and improvements to be made, but IDK how you can look at our class and get that negative of an impression. #2--If the money men needed instant success in year 1 (with how gutted our roster was) to provide, it never was going to work period. #3--We just paid for two massive buyouts and a facility.

Which is why I wish we hadn't bothered pursuing RW in favor of getting a transfer QB (after we got CC, at least).

The rotation equation has to add up to 15. It's why the two commonly proposed scheduling models are 1/7/7 and 3/6/6, both add up to 15. The first two years of the 14 team era were also technically stop gaps in terms of cross division opponents and even some intra-division games were played in the same spot two years in a row, so it's not hard to imagine the same thing happening here. By the time the 2026 schedules are made, a season of the 12 team playoff will have happened to make everyone feel better about being able to make it. It all smacks of saber rattling to me; I just don't think all the hand-wringing about rivalry loss is going to be proven justified.

Ok, apparently Wright (+ Muskrat) are juniors? EDIT: Also, if I'm being perfectly fair, the median number of returning starters last year in the SEC (not counting the new guys) was 11.5. So by and large, the days of returning >15 starters are over

Worth noting that your numbers don’t quiiiite add up. 2 + 6 + 6 = 14 not 15 That said I’m almost certain they’ll throw another schedule together without any real plan going forward. Basically I expect the vast majority of key rivalries to continue.

At least for this year, feels like the offensive line is shaping up to be a strength for us? But yeah defensive line needs help.

Well, time to take whatever NIL $ we had set aside for him and throw it at positions of need, be that this year or next. 🤷‍♂️