I think it has more to do with the competition they've played(see Hawaii last year)
8/30 @ UAB 1-0 (1-0) W 45-22
9/06 @ North Texas 2-0 (1-0) W 56-26
9/20 New Mexico 3-0 (1-0) W 56-14
9/27 Central Arkansas 4-0 (1-0) W 62-34
10/04 Rice 5-0 (2-0) W 63-28
10/11 @ Southern Methodist 6-0 (3-0) W 37-31
10/18 UTEP 7-0 (4-0) W 77-35
They have a video game offense but their defensive scheme is aweful (see GT vs Tulsa bowl game, Jan 2004). They've got a new head coach but they run the same scheme they did then.
If they face a team with a legit offense they'd get whooped.
I think it has more to do with the competition they've played(see Hawaii last year)
8/30 @ UAB 1-0 (1-0) W 45-22
9/06 @ North Texas 2-0 (1-0) W 56-26
9/20 New Mexico 3-0 (1-0) W 56-14
9/27 Central Arkansas 4-0 (1-0) W 62-34
10/04 Rice 5-0 (2-0) W 63-28
10/11 @ Southern Methodist 6-0 (3-0) W 37-31
10/18 UTEP 7-0 (4-0) W 77-35
No, seriously...it's because they play nobody the entire year.Quite simple. We were on ESPN. We played a game that just fired their coach mid-season prompting much talk about Dabo's first game. It's called exposure. We got a lot of prime exposure and it paid off in many votes.
This is why we need ESPN games and not Raycom. Now if we can every team to fire their coach game-week, that would help also.
Exactly. This "Tech gets more exposure" thing is a nice thought for Tulsa fans to feel better about their team with, but the bottom line is that they have played nobody, period. I don't buy the line of "It doesn't matter who you play, that many points is damn impressive," at least not as far as the national rankings go.No, seriously...it's because they play nobody the entire year.
Utah, TCU, and Pitt haven't seen much ESPN action either, but they are still above us.