TOR-VIG'S COPIED NCAA PREVIEW THREADS:enjoy.

[TORONTO-VIGILANTE]

taken from websites:

ACC PREVIEW

T1. Florida State (6-2 in conference, 7-5 overall) - Offense: Being Florida State, there are athletes and players with raw talent that most programs can only dream about. The question is whether or not this crew can use all this talent to form a devastating offense. The quarterback situation is fine, but Chris Rix could be running for his life behind an inexperienced line with no depth. The running backs could be outstanding if Greg Jones is healthy again. Defense: Eleven starters (ten if you don't count Darnell Dockett) return and 26 lettermen will be in the mix for an experienced defense that got better and better as last season went on. There aren't any monsters on the defensive line other than Dockett, but the linebacking corps is more than good enough to pick up the slack. The secondary is experienced, but it has to be far better than it was last year. With at least eight good players to choose from, Mickey Andrews will find the right mix.
2003 Florida State offense | 2003 Florida State defense

T1. Maryland (6-2, 10-2) - Offense: The offense could be even better than its been over the last two years, but it can't afford any injuries. There's little depth at quarterback and on the line, but the starters are extremely talented. The receiving corps is big and explosive, but the offense will revolve around the running game led by Bruce Perry and Josh Allen. Defense: The back eight should be among the best in America. The secondary returns intact to go along the experienced linebacking corps. The line is bit of a problem with little developed depth and needing C.J. Feldheim to return from a knee injury.
2003 Maryland offense | 2003 Maryland defense

T1. North Carolina State (6-2, 9-3) - Offense: There's no weakness among the starters. The line is strong, the running backs have speed and power, the receivers have potential greatness written all over them and oh yeah, there's a Heisman caliber quarterback ready to pull it all together. The problem is in the depth as there isn't much of it yet. The hope is that the starters can stay healthy while the backups will develop in practices. Defense: It's all up to the line. Even after the loss of Dantonio Burnette and Terrence Holt, the defensive back seven is fast and tremendous led by a deep and talented group of corners. The line is a different story with no experience at tackle and little returning production from the ends.
2003 North Carolina State offense | 2003 North Carolina State defense

4. Virginia (5-3, 7-5) - Offense: It's all about the offensive line. Needing to overcome injuries and youth, the line took a long while to come together last season. The running game which was so average last year should be far better this season as a the line is better. The passing game could use a few game-breaking receivers, but Matt Schaub should make the average corps look great. Defense: This was a very, very young defense that took several lumps last season. Now this is an experienced group with several rising superstars. The linebackers could eventually be among the best in the country if Ahmad Brooks and Kai Parham make the instant impact many think they will. The secondary has to tighten up.
2003 Virginia offense | 2003 Virginia defense

5. Georgia Tech (4-4, 5-7) - Offense: The quarterback situation is the key needing consistent play from A.J. Suggs or Damarius Bilbo for the offense to run effectively. The receiving corps isn't good enough to allow for average quarterback play. There's a stable of experienced running backs ready to run behind one of the ACC's best offensive lines. Defense: The defense should be outstanding upfront with problems in the secondary. The pass rush should be tremendous with a slew of big, fast ends led by the return of Greg Gathers. The linebackers won't get much press, but they're good.
2003 Georgia Tech offense | 2003 Georgia Tech defense

6. Clemson (4-4, 6-6) - Offense: The Tigers have a dizzying array of offensive weapons and even more talent in reserve, but the team averaged a relatively low 25.4 points per game last year and was rarely clutch against good teams. The one area of the offense that's void of stars, the offensive line, could turn into one of the offense's most dependable areas. The goal is to improve the ground game, but that might be hard to do with so many great receivers to throw to. After years of a no huddle, spread attack, Clemson is going to use more I-formation.. Defense: The back seven is very, very small, but that shouldn't hinder its production cause of all of the speed. The safeties have to come through to help out the great corners. The line could end up being the strength of the defense with a few of the linebackers lost due to academic problems. Two superstars, linebacker John Leake and corner Justin Miller, will pick up the slack for problems elsewhere.
2003 Clemson offense | 2003 Clemson defense

7. Wake Forest (3-5, 5-7) - Offense: It's hard to imagine that a team with only three returning starters will be better than the year before, but it's possible. Wake Forest has replaced the departed starters with better athletes, and all they need is a little bit of time. The line should be outstanding and the running game should be as strong as it was last year. Wide receiver Jason Anderson is a star. Defense: The back eight pretty much returns intact, but the pass defense has to tighten up. Even though the entire undersized front line needs replacing and is a huge concern, it's active and might not be all that bad if the top four linemen can stay healthy.
2003 Wake Forest offense | 2003 Wake Forest defense

8. North Carolina (1-7, 3-9) - Offense: The offense was Darian Durant and a bunch of other guys. The running game was pathetic with no punch, and little overall production. Expect things to be much better with several decent prospects. With the team's top two receivers gone, Durant has to make everyone around him better. Defense: The Tar Heel defense took some lumps last year undergoing a youth movement. There are several starters returning, so the hope will be for the young players that had so many problems last year to become stronger. There's no pass rush and little talent among the upper classmen other than Dexter Reid and Michael Waddell.
2003 North Carolina offense | 2003 North Carolina defense

9. Duke (1-7, 4-8) - Offense: All eleven starters return, but the offense has to find some explosion. There are plenty of steady players to keep the chains moving, now they need to find someone to hit the home run. Scoring was a major problem for the team last year, but there'll be no excuse if the team only puts up 18.9 points per game this season. Defense: The Blue Devil front seven had the potential to be outstanding coming into the season, but then star lineman Shawn Johnson left the team. Now the pass rush is a serious concern and the experienced defensive backs have to be a whole lot better than they were last year. The linebackers should be outstanding.
2003 Duke offense | 2003 Duke defense

 

[TORONTO-VIGILANTE]

big east previews:

T1. Miami (6-1 in conference, 11-1 overall) - Offense: This is Miami so the talent is there, but the offense as a whole might be a year away from being a devastating machine. Brock Berlin and Derrick Crudup are more talented than Ken Dorsey, but they need more game experience and have to prove they can win like No. 11. Frank Gore is as talented as any running back Miami has had in recent years and his knee appears to be 100%. The receiving corps and offensive line is very good with backups as talented as the starters. Defense: The Miami defense should have the best back seven in college football with all the parts returning from the nation's best pass defense. The line is a little bit of a question mark needing several talented, but unproven, players to star. It shouldn't be a problem.
2003 Miami offense | 2003 Miami defense

T1. Pittsburgh (6-1, 10-2) - Offense: The Pittsburgh offense could explode this year if all the returning skill players can improve just a little bit. Quarterback Rod Rutherford is an emerging superstar and he has two sensational weapons at his disposal in Larry Fitzgerald and Kris Wilson. The running game should be strong, but the line has to fill in some big holes. Defense: Pittsburgh's defense doesn't have much star power outside of end Claude Harriott, but it should be in the top twenty all year. This group can best be described as solid with strong tackles, linebackers and safeties, but no one that stands out. The backups are talented and young. This should be a superior defense in 2004 and it won't be too bad this year.
2003 Pittsburgh offense | 2003 Pittsburgh defense

T1. Virginia Tech (6-1, 11-1) - Offense: Don't expect much of a drop-off in overall production from the offense that scored 30.6 points and averaged 371.5 yards per game. The running game will be as good as ever with Kevin Jones running behind an experienced line. The new wrinkle will be an upgraded passing game with a speedy receiving corps and a more mature Bryan Randall at quarterback. If Randall isn't the leader of the show, that means the time has arrived for Marcus Vick. Defense: The defense should be among the best in America if the backups can come through in the back seven. The line should come close to making 50 sacks and will be a brick wall against the run. The linebackers are very fast and very productive, while CB DeAngelo Hall leads what should be a strong secondary.
2003 Virginia Tech offense | 2003 Virginia Tech defense

4. Boston College (4-3, 7-5) - Offense: The offense had problems against any defense of substance, but blew up against everyone else. It'll take a little while for the Eagles to get into a rhythm like it got into with quarterback Brian St. Pierre. The quarterback situation should be fine. The problem could be the line needing to replace three top starters. If the line comes around, the skill players should have big seasons. Defense: The Eagles suffered some major losses to injury and still held teams to 19.5 points per game. There aren't any obvious, All-America-level stars, but there are enough good playmakers everywhere to assure a good season. If a middle linebacker emerges, the front seven will be outstanding.
2003 Boston College offense | 2003 Boston College defense

5. Syracuse (3-4, 6-6) - Offense: Syracuse was able to move the ball and score, but it struggled too much in key moments. The rushing attack should be outstanding with two great backs working behind a veteran offensive line. The talent is there at quarterback and receiver, but the Orangemen need far more production this year out of both areas. Defense: The defense was beyond horrible last year giving up 33.8 points and 478 yards per game. With those numbers, it might not be a bad thing that only two starters return to the back seven. The secondary is the biggest weak spot needing to tighten up in all phases. The line could be tremendous with several veteran stars.
2003 Syracuse offense | 2003 Syracuse defense

6. West Virginia (2-5, 5-7) - Offense: The West Virginia offense has the skill weapons to run the ball as well as ever, but the offensive line might not be there to open the same holes as it did last year. Quarterback Rasheed Marshall has to step up the passing game, but he doesn't have the receivers to do it. Defense: The West Virginia defense wasn't always great, but it could defend against the run. Now the whole line has to be replaced and doesn't have any obvious stars up front. The back seven should be strong helped by changes in the secondary. If nothing else, the D will be really, really fast.
2003 West Virginia offense | 2003 West Virginia defense

7. Temple (1-6, 3-9) - Offense: The offense struggled mightily at times last year, but it wasn't always horrible. The passing attack could be great if quarterback Mike McGann progresses, or if superstar JUCO transfer Walter Washington becomes a factor right away. The addition of JUCO star Phil Goodman to an experienced receiving corps should add more zip. The concern is in the running game needing Makonnen Fenton to shine behind a deep, but average, line. Defense: For all of the problems Temple had last year, defense wasn't necessarily one of them. The D didn't give up all that many yards, but it couldn't keep teams out of the end zone continually hurt by bad field position and little help from the offense. Even so, this was a good group with a solid run defense, and it should be strong again. The secondary has to hope several JUCO transfers can contribute right away.
2003 Temple offense | 2003 Temple defense

8. Rutgers (0-7, 3-9) - Offense: New offensive coordinator Craig Ver Steeg is attempting to put in a new Pro-Style offense, but it's all about the offensive line. There are several running back options, some speedy receivers, and decent quarterback prospects, but none of that matters if the line isn't much, much better than it was last year. Rutgers averaged 1.5 yards per carry and allowed 51 sacks. With an inexperienced and injured line, the production might not improve. Defense: The numbers weren't great, but it's unfair to pin all of the problems last year on the defense. The offense rarely kept drives going and never helped give the D any support. Even so, the defense has to be stronger in all areas after giving up 33 points and 405 yards per game. There are a couple of great playmakers, but little overall talent.
2003 Rutgers offense | 2003 Rutgers defense

 

[TORONTO-VIGILANTE]

Big ten preview:

1. Michigan (7-1 in conference, 11-1 overall) - Offense: Michigan should be brutally effective with one of the nation's most talented offensive lines. Having a front wall like thus will allow seasoned veteran John Navarre time to throw, and provide big holes for star back Chris Perry. There isn't a whole bunch of explosiveness, so don't expect big play after big play. Look for this to be an offense that grinds out yards, time and moves down the field with little problem. Keep an eye on the team's conversion percentage on third down. It could be ridiculously high. Defense: With the glaring exception of the Iowa game, Michigan's defense turned into a brick wall as the regular season went on. Even though there were a few key injuries and problems against Florida, this was still a good defense. Now it needs to overcome the loss of players like Dan Rumishek, Shantee Orr, Victor Hobson, Charles Drake and Cato June. Michigan has the talent to reload, but it might take a while to jell.
2003 Michigan offense | 2003 Michigan defense

2. Ohio State (7-1, 11-1) - Offense: All eleven starters return to an offense that was maddeningly frustrating at times, powerful at others, and always, always clutch. The running game will be among the best in the country with three great backs running behind a senior filled offensive line. The passing game might not be high-octane, but it's effective. Defense: The defense bent, but hardly ever broke last season. It might be dangerous to play with fire again with several new replacements in the back seven. Fortunately, the defensive line is awesome with, potentially, the best pair of ends in the country. Leaders need to be found to replace Matt Wilhelm and Mike Doss.
2003 Ohio State offense | 2003 Ohio State defense

3. Wisconsin (6-2, 10-2) - Offense: With a statue at quarterback now, the offense will have to be a bit more conventional. The Badgers will still run the ball with star Anthony Davis to give the ball too, but the main job will be to protect senior quarterback Jim Sorgi so he can get the ball to his fantastic receiving corps. Defense: There's no reason for the defense not to be one of the best in the Big Ten. The front seven should be outstanding, and if the secondary can tighten up, look out. It'll be a major disappointment if the Badgers aren't near the top of the Big Ten in sacks.
2003 Wisconsin offense | 2003 Wisconsin defense

T4. Minnesota (5-3, 9-3) - Offense: If the Gophers can avoid injuries, this will be one of America's most devastating offenses with three outstanding running backs, a big, fast receiving corps and a veteran quarterback to lead the way. The offensive line has to be a bit more physical and has to keep progressing. Defense: The defense returns most of the top playmakers so the hope is for the experience to turn into production. The run defense was horrible last season while the secondary was nothing to write home about when the ball was in the air. The front seven appears to be far bigger and stronger, so don't expect as many problems against the run.
2003 Minnesota offense | 2003 Minnesota defense

T4. Purdue (5-3, 9-3) - Offense: Purdue has some of the most dangerous skill players in college football with two talented quarterbacks, three solid running backs and a sensational trio of receivers. All that talent will go to waste if the line can't replace several starters and find a few backups. Defense: There's not a whole bunch of depth, but the starters should be excellent. The line can get to the quarterback with consistency, while the linebacking corps, along with safety Stuart Schweigert, are excellent against the run. Once again though, there can't be a slew of injuries or there will be some major problems.
2003 Purdue offense | 2003 Purdue defense

6. Iowa (4-4, 7-5) - Offense: Iowa has to replace a Heisman Trophy runner-up at quarterback, a John Mackey Award winning tight end and four starters from the offensive line. It's not time to panic yet with a great set of receivers and good running backs returning, but this group won't be the juggernaut that last year's Iowa offense was. Everything started up front last year and unfortunately, this line isn't anywhere near as good. Defense: Even with some major losses, the defense should be outstanding. The line could be the best in the Big Ten if there aren't any injuries to the starters, while the linebackers could be strong with time. The concern is over the secondary where two young corners have to give Iowa more production than it got last year.
2003 Iowa offense | 2003 Iowa defense

T7. Illinois (4-4, 7-5) - Offense: Illinois has to overcome the loss of some major skill players including the whole receiving corps. Even so, things aren't that bad. There's talent at receiver with help on the way. The running backs should be strong going with a committee of backs. The quarterback situation is the best in the Big Ten. Defense: The Illini has speed and athleticism, but it isn't all that physical. The front seven should be great at getting into the backfield and should once again be solid against the run. The secondary is a concern without much talent on the corners.
2003 Illinois offense | 2003 Illinois defense

T7. Penn State (4-4, 7-5) - Offense: It'll be impossible to replace Heisman-caliber running back Larry Johnson, first-round draft pick receiver Bryant Johnson and almost the entire offensive line. Things aren't hopeless as the line will end up being fine with some time and the receiving corps has weapons. The running game is another story with little to no pop among the tailbacks. The stars are under center as Zack Mills and Michael Robinson form one of the better quarterbacking tandems in the Big Ten. Defense: There's experience and production returning, but almost all the star power of last year is gone. With several great young athletes, the defense should eventually be decent with a little work to figure out the right combinations. Until then, the linebacking corps will have to carry the load with several excellent prospects.
2003 Penn State offense | 2003 Penn State defense

T9. Michigan State (1-7, 4-8) - Offense: There aren't any established stars, so the Spartans will rely on several players to fill the roles at all the key spots. The quarterback situation will remain a mystery until the fall when Jeff Smoker gets an honest shot at taking back the job. The running backs and receivers lack any appreciable experience, but they can all fly. Defense: The MSU defense got worse as last year went on getting shoved around against good running teams. (Did Larry Johnson get touched?) This is a defense completely devoid of stars, but that doesn't mean it can't play. The linebacking corps has decent returning production, while the secondary has some excellent young prospects. Now the line has to come through against the run. Generating some semblance of a pass rush wouldn't be a bad thing.
2003 Michigan State offense | 2003 Michigan State defense

T9. Northwestern (1-7, 2-10) - Offense: If the offense can avoid injuries, it should be potent. The running backs are tremendous with the underpublicized Jason Wright and Noah Herron forming a solid 1-2 punch. The passing game will be fine if a deep threat emerges. The line has to replace two stars, but should be fine with a little bit of time. Defense: The potential is there for this defense to be a whole bunch better. After giving up 41 points and close to 500 yards per game, it can't be any worse. The return of Pat Durr and Ryan Peterson from injury should do wonders for the run defense. Production from the corners has to improve and a pass rush of any kind would be nice.
2003 Northwestern offense | 2003 Northwestern defense

11. Indiana (0-8, 2-10) - Offense: The offense will only work if the offensive line shines. The skill players should be excellent with the 1-2 receiving punch of Glenn Johnson and Courtney Roby working well with new quarterback Matt LoVecchio. There are three good running backs to rely on. The problem will be on the line with no depth and little overall experience. Defense: It's hard to see how this defense is going to come close to stopping anyone in the Big Ten. There are seven players with starting experience, but this is still a very, very young defense. The front seven is undersized and there's no depth whatsoever. The secondary should be greatly improved.
2003 Indiana offense | 2003 Indiana defense

 

[TORONTO-VIGILANTE]

BIG XII preview

NORTH
1. Kansas State (7-1 in Big XII, 12-1 overall) - Offense: With a sensational backfield and the maturation of quarterback Ell Roberson, the Wildcats will be as explosive as always if the offensive line comes around. With only two starters returning up front, every practice is critical to get this group together. Even with the question marks, the line should be fantastic after a little bit of time. If the Wildcats want to throw, they have solid receivers to get the ball to. Defense: The Wildcats were amazing last year with a great run defense and shut down corners against the pass. There aren't any superstars like Terence Newman and Terry Pierce, but the cupboard isn't bare with several good backups ready to shine and decent returning starters. The key will be the play of the defensive line needing to replace three starters.
2003 Kansas State offense | 2003 Kansas State defense

2. Colorado (5-3, 6-6) - Offense: Colorado has been able to win with a sensational running game working behind a tremendous line. The running backs are there, but the line isn't with nine underclassmen among the top twelve linemen. The receiving corps has speed, depth and talent, but a quarterback has to emerge to be able to deliver the ball. Defense: The Buffs could have some huge problems if injuries hit with little to no experienced depth in key spots. There are eight returning starters, but few stars. Using a 4-2-5 defense is a plus with a rail thin linebacking corps. The defensive backs can hit, but there's some concern over how well the veteran corners can lock down. Look out for the ends to get in the backfield early and often.
2003 Colorado offense | 2003 Colorado defense

3. Missouri (5-3, 9-3) - Offense: Missouri's offense should be unstoppable as long as Brad Smith is playing. The running backs are strong, the offensive line is experienced and talented, and the receiving corps has potential. It all comes down to Smith who has the weight of the entire program on his shoulders. Defense: The Tigers didn't progress well having problems late in the year stopping anyone. This year's crew is young, but there's depth everywhere with some outstanding newcomers to the secondary and good options just about everywhere else.
2003 Missouri offense | 2003 Missouri defense

4. Nebraska (4-4, 7-5) - Offense: Nebraska is still going to run the ball out of the I, but there are going to be a few minor changes. New offensive coordinator Barney Cotton is going bring the Nebraska passing game into the 21st century in baby steps by starting out incorporating more short passes. There are a couple of problems with this. 1) Jammal Lord can't throw these passes with any consistency, 2) Nebraska doesn't have any receivers to threaten anyone and 3) the line is learning how to pass block. All is not lost though as there's more speed at receiver than the program has had in years and there are several intriguing running backs to roll behind a great line. Defense: The defense struggled through some major growing pains last season and has to be far better this year. New defensive coordinator Bo Pelini is going to try and changed things up with his hard-nosed attitude and aggressive style. There aren't many standout players like a Chris Kelsay or a DeJuan Groce, but there are several good, rising playmakers.
2003 Nebraska offense | 2003 Nebraska defense

5. Iowa State (1-7, 4-8) - Offense: As good as Seneca Wallace and the rest of the Iowa State offense was at times in 2002, it wasn't all that explosive. Wallace made some highlight plays, but when he bogged down, the offense died. The Cyclones only averaged 3.7 yards per carry while the passing game was hardly high-octane. Don't be shocked if the offense is better this year with more players asked to carry the load. The receivers and running backs will be strong, but the offensive line and quarterback situation is still a bit of a concern. Defense: The players are there for a good 2003 season. The line could be something spectacular with a little more improvement with everything revolving around two great tackles. The back seven is experienced, but not anything special compared to the top Big XII teams. Linebacker Brandon Brown could be a superstar.
2003 Iowa State offense | 2003 Iowa State defense

6. Kansas (1-7, 3-9) - Offense: The offense showed signs of life last season moving the ball well at times. Quarterback Bill Whittemore and running back Clark Green are two of the better, unknown talents in the Big XII. The line needs work with only one returning starter and that one, junior guard Tony Coker, has a bad back. This will still be a work in progress, but it could be fine as long as Whittemore and Green are healthy. Defense: As bad as the Kansas defense was last season, there's hope for the future. It might not happen right away this year, but it should get better soon. It's asking a lot to improve by leaps and bounds after giving up 42.2 points per game, but the KU D should be stronger as the young players of last year get a little more experienced. Don't expect miracles, but they should be able to shave ten points off the average.
2003 Kansas offense | 2003 Kansas defense

SOUTH
1. Texas (8-0 in Big XII, 12-0 overall) - Offense: Texas might have the best offense in America, but the skill players won't be able to reach their potential if the young and inexperienced line doesn't come together. The quarterback situation will be fine with Chance Mock and Vincent Young each able to lead the team without a problem. The running backs and receivers should be killers. Defense: The defense loses three huge producers, but should be fine. The secondary will be one of the best in the country with three returning starters, while the linebackers should be solid led by Derrick Johnson. The concern might be the size on the ends other than Kaylen Thornton, but that shouldn't be too much of a problem with the huge players at tackle.
2003 Texas offense | 2003 Texas defense

2. Oklahoma (7-1, 11-1) - Offense: The Sooners are going to find ways to score, but there aren't a lot of obvious stars. The OU offense is set up by its fantastic defense with a premium placed on not turning the ball over and to take advantage of great field position. There isn't a Quentin Griffin on the team, but the running game should be fine in Renaldo Works really is as good as he looked at times this spring. The passing game might not be all that potent unless some of the talented receivers finally realize their potential. The line should be excellent. Defense: This is the best defense in America. Nine starters return to what was one of the best defenses in 2002, and it only gets stronger with the emergence of some great prospects. With a little more of a pass rush from the ends and a little bit of tightening up in the pass defense, this could be the best defense that college football has seen in several years.
2003 Oklahoma offense | 2003 Oklahoma defense

3. Texas A&M (4-4, 7-5) - Offense: A&M's offense was dying before Dustin Long and Reggie McNeal took over. When Long blew up for seven touchdown passes against Texas Tech, it might have sparked a new era of A&M football with an offense that actually moves the ball. The running backs and receivers need to provide a little more of a spark. The offensive line will be strong on the outside needing the guards to step up in the middle. Defense: Several top players need to be replaced and the depth needs to be developed almost everywhere. Even so, Texas A&M, as always, has good defensive players and should be able to adjust from the 3-4 to the 4-3 without too much of a problem. Defensive coordinator Carl Torbush is a good one and should have this group humming.
2003 A&M offense | 2003 A&M defense

4. Oklahoma State (3-5, 7-5) - Offense: If the tackles can come through and be dependable, there might not be any way to stop this offense. Quarterback Jose Fields will once again put up some huge numbers throwing to the Woods brothers, while an extremely talented stable of backs tear up defenses on the ground. Defense: The defense wasn't all that strong last year, and that was with a ton of returning experience. It's never a good thing when you're counting on several true freshmen to play big roles. The run defense should be fine, but the pass defense could have problems breaking in new corners and with few pass rushing threats to put the pressure on.
2003 OSU offense | 2003 OSU defense

 

[TORONTO-VIGILANTE]

5. Texas Tech (3-5, 5-7) - Offense: Tech won't be quite as potent without star quarterback Kliff Kingsbury, but everyone else returns to what should be an explosive offense. With all four starting receivers returning and two great running backs working behind a decent line, it'll all be up to quarterback B.J. Symons to run the show. He should do just fine. Defense: Even with all the experienced talent and playmakers, the Texas Tech defense was worse last year than it was in 2001. Expect an even bigger drop-off this year with a terrifyingly inexperienced front seven. The secondary has a great pair of safeties, but the group isn't going to have problems against top passing teams.
2003 Texas Tech offense | 2003 Texas Tech defense

6. Baylor (0-8, 2-10) - Offense: The hope is for more overall explosion with Guy Morriss and offensive coordinator Brent Pease installing a more open passing attack. The Bears have enough decent receivers to make this interesting, but it'll take a little while For a team that scored 11 points or less in seven games, they have to do whatever's possible to put points up on the board. With an experienced group of skill players returning, that should be possible. Defense: Baylor's defense couldn't stop anyone last season allowing 41.3 points and 405.2 yards per game. This year, seven starters return to a group that should be more athletic, but not all that experienced with no developed depth and some injury concerns at a few key spots. The tackles are starting from scratch, but they need to shine to take the pressure off the small and average linebacking corps. Morriss compares his defense to Mississippi State's aggressive style.
2003 Baylor offense | 2003 Baylor defense

 

[TORONTO-VIGILANTE]

CONF USA

1. Southern Miss (8-0 in conference, 11-1 overall) - Offense: Southern Miss is changing up the offense to try and be more explosive and get more big plays. Even with a Derrick Nix's 1,194-yard season, the running game was still a bit stale. The average passing attack didn't help matters. The offensive line will be a work in progress all season long, but the skill players should all be better than solid. Defense: The Southern Miss defense gave up 18.3 points and 336 yards per game. With all of the stars returning, there's no reason to think the Eagles won't be just as good, if not better, this year. Forget doing much anything against the huge hitting back seven. To nitpick, everyone needs to get a little stronger and a little bigger, but every team wants to do that.
2003 Southern Miss offense | 2003 Southern Miss defense

2. TCU (7-1, 10-2) - Offense: The running game will be magnificent with two outstanding backs running behind a solid line. The passing game is a different story with several new faces at receiver and no real depth behind still-recovering Tye Gunn at quarterback. Defense: The Horned Frogs lost several starters including star linebacker LaMarcus McDonald and top defensive back Jason Goss, but there might not be much of a drop-off from the defense that dominated last year. This is a fast crew with several all-star candidates. If they can to work together like last year's defense, there won't be much of a problem. If nothing else, the TCU D will be one of the best in the nation at getting into the backfield.
2003 TCU offense | 2003 TCU defense

T3. Cincinnati (5-3, 7-5) - Offense: UC should still be explosive even after losing most of its ammo. The Bearcats lose the top four pass catchers, an all-star back DeMarco McCleskey and several top players on the line. It'll be a numbers game with five running backs and six receivers looking to pick up the slack. The line isn't deep, but it should be strong inside with two good guards and a rock at center. Defense: The defense isn't all that big, but it's fast, productive and should be very good again. Even without a signature star like Antwan Peek, the Bearcats should be solid everywhere with good starters and decent depth. The tackles are the only big concern.
2003 Cincinnati offense | 2003 Cincinnati defense

T3. Louisville (5-3, 7-5) - Offense: The offensive line was a disaster last season, but it should be far better this year with more experience and more depth. That's good news for a running game featuring superstar-to-be Eric Shelton. Stefan LeFors and Justin Rascati are locked in a battle to replace star quarterback Dave Ragone, but they might simply be buying time until superstar recruit Michael Bush joins the team. Defense: The defense never quite got the credit it deserved last year, but it got strong as the season went on. Several top players are gone including Dewayne White, Anthony Floyd and Curry Burns, so it'll be up to a few young guns to instantly star. The corners and linebacking corps will be great.
2003 Louisville offense | 2003 Louisville defense

T3. Tulane (5-3, 7-5) - Offense: The Green Wave should explode. Ten starters return, and that doesn't count star receiver Roydell Williams coming back from an early season injury. It'll all be up to the line. After giving up 42 sacks, it needs to keep quarterback J.P. Losman clean so he has time to connect with his loaded receiving corps. Running back Mewelde Moore is one of the best backs in college football. Defense: The defensive production improved last year by leaps and bounds allowing 120 fewer yards per game. With only three returning starters, the potential is there for a return to the dark times of the Green Wave defense. There's great athleticism everywhere, but no depth on the line or secondary. The linebacking corps is going to have to carry things for a while.
2003 Tulane offense | 2003 Tulane defense

6. Memphis (4-4, 6-6) - Offense: The Tigers have the backfield to shine with a great quarterback and a wonderful stable of backs, but the young receivers need to shine right away. The line will take a while to come together needing to replace four starters. Defense: Memphis had a few problems making plays last year getting torched by most offenses with a pulse. The front seven has to be more physical upfront, but they're experienced and could grow into something strong as the year goes on. The blazing fast secondary will be fine if it can avoid injuries.
2003 Memphis offense | 2003 Memphis defense

7. East Carolina (4-4, 4-8) - Offense: The potential is there for this to be a strong offense, but the passing game has to come around. The line will be one of the best in the league and a devastating run blocking group to open holes for a great group of backs. The receiving corps could be a big problem if no one steps up into the number one spot. That's not good news for a quarterback, Paul Troth, that needs weapons to work with. Defense: Expect the production to be significantly better under head coach John Thompson and defensive coordinator Jerry Odom. The defense will switch from a 3-4 to a more traditional 4-3 with several other new wrinkles added. The linebackers are light, but good. The secondary and line return a little bit of game experience, but few big-time players.
2003 East Carolina offense | 2003 East Carolina defense

8. UAB (3-5, 5-7) - Offense: The offense is full of athletes and full of young talent. Now it has to grow up. Quarterback Darrell Hackney and receiver Roddy White could be the most dangerous pitch-and-catch combination in the league. The backs and line are big and experienced, but each has to be more productive. Defense: New defensive coordinator Wayne Bolt has scrapped the 4-2-5 defense for a more traditional 4-3. The players are there to make a dramatic turnaround in overall production with a strong back seven and no concerns among the new starters. A pass rush needs to develop to help out the corners.
2003 UAB offense | 2003 UAB defense

9. South Florida (2-6, 4-7) - Offense: USF might not have a Marquel Blackwell to carry the offense on his shoulders, but the overall production might not slip with several good looking offensive players ready to shine. If quarterback Ronnie Banks plays well, all should be fine with a deep corps of running backs, good young receivers, and a rising group of stars on the line. Defense: The entire front four is gone along with star linebacker Kawika Mitchell and both corners. The defense won't completely collapse with athletic prospects at each position, but the team will be backing on instant production from these newcomers in key spots. The starting safety tandem is one of the best in America.
2003 South Florida offense | 2003 South Florida defense

10. Houston (1-7, 3-9) - Offense: It'll be hard to be as explosive as it was last season with the loss of the top two receivers and running back Joffrey Reynolds. Even so, there's enough talent here to move the ball with the best deep threats returning in the passing game and several decent options at quarterback. If Barrick Nealy can return after tearing his ACL, the offense should turn out to be fine. Defense: The defense gave up way too many points and was miserable against the pass. The alignment has gone from a 4-2-5 to a 4-3 taking the pressure off the safeties so they don't have to make so many plays against the run. The front seven should be a wall against average running teams, so the key will be for the corners to be able to lock down.
2003 Houston offense | 2003 Houston defense

11. Army (0-8, 0-12) - Offense: The running backs and receivers are relatively talented, but the Black Knights have to settle the quarterback situation and has to pray that an inexperienced line can jell in a hurry. The offense only scored 18.8 points per game last season and should be a bit more potent this year. Defense: The defense has better athletes than it's had in years and now has to stop someone. Completely helpless last season, the Cadets gave up 40.9 points and 393 yards per game last year failing to stop anyone. To be fair, much of the problem was due to an offense that never kept the chains moving, but this year's defense has to be far stronger.
2003 Army offense | 2003 Army defense

 

[TORONTO-VIGILANTE]

BIG MAC

EAST
1. UCF (8-0 in MAC, 9-3 overall)- Offense: The offense will only go as far as the inexperienced line and receiving corps can carry it. Quarterback Ryan Schneider and running back Alex Haynes are among the best in the country and will put up some huge numbers once again. The line is counting on several redshirt freshmen, while the receiving corps doesn't have many productive players returning. Defense: Even though the defense loses two stars in DE Elton Patterson and CB Asante Samuel, don't expect UCF to have too many problems. The front seven should be the best in the MAC, while the secondary will be strong if Rovel Hamilton can be almost as good as Samuel. There's good depth almost everywhere.
2003 UCF offense | 2003 UCF defense

2. Miami (6-2, 8-4) - Offense: With a quarterback like Ben Roethlisberger operating behind a big, veteran offensive line, the Miami offense should explode. The receivers are average, but there are a lot of them to work with. Luke Clemens and Cal Murray give the RedHawks a great rushing punch. Defense: Trouble. Only three starters return and there's almost no depth at any key spot. The defensive tackles are light while the ends have to prove they can consistently get into the backfield. The secondary has the most overall talent, but they have to be much better after getting torched last year.
2003 Miami offense | 2003 Miami defense

3. Marshall (6-2, 8-4) - Offense: Marshall's offense isn't going to suddenly be mistaken for Nebraska's, but look for more running with a talented corps of backs, and a quarterback with good running skills. Stan Hill can throw the ball a bit and will put up some good numbers with Darius Watts and Josh Davis to throw to. Defense: The defense was far better last year than it was in 2001, but it needs work going into 2003. This is a very young, very thin defense hoping to be strong against the run without much size, and great against the pass with an inexperienced secondary. Just about everyone on the defense can run, but this group will have problems against anyone with a power running attack.
2003 Marshall offense | 2003 Marshall defense

4. Akron (5-3, 7-5) - Offense: The offense could be among the best in the MAC with all eleven starters returning. The line is huge and experienced so running back Bob Hendry should have a big season. The player that makes it all go is quarterback Charlie Frye. He has mobility and a big arm to get the ball to the experienced and deep receiving corps. Defense: The offense could be among the best in the MAC with all eleven starters returning. The line is huge and experienced so running back Bob Hendry should have a big season. The player that makes it all go is quarterback Charlie Frye. He has mobility and a big arm to get the ball to the experienced and deep receiving corps.
2003 Akron offense | 2003 Akron defense

5. Ohio (3-5, 4-8) - Offense: The running game should be as strong as always with a talented backfield and two good quarterbacks to run the offense. The line is big and deep, but several top prospects are injured. Don't expect the receivers to do anything more than block. Defense: The run defense wasn't all that bad last year even though it allowed 23 touchdowns. The problem was the secondary as the Bobcats allowed a not-so-bad 224 passing yards per game, but they gave up 24 touchdown passes. There aren't many stars on the defense with several career reserve players needing to turn into top playmakers.
2003 Ohio offense | 2003 Ohio defense

6. Kent State (1-7, 2-10) - Offense: Quarterback Josh Cribbs has to be on the field. The Golden Flashes don't have the talent level necessary to compete with the better teams in the MAC, but Cribbs at least gives them a chance. The coaching staff is making a conscious effort to get a little more balance to the offense, but it'll be interesting to see if that actually happens. Defense: Kent State is strong up the middle and in trouble on the outsides. The tackles, inside linebackers and safeties are great. Now the ends, outside linebackers and corners have to develop. Head coach Dean Pees is taking over the defensive coordinator duties and will get creative as the year goes on.
2003 Kent State offense | 2003 Kent State defense

7. Buffalo (0-8, 1-11) - Offense: The offense welcomes back eight starters and should be far better on the ground than it was last year. The line is deep and relatively good while the running backs could be solid if someone develops behind Aaron Leeper. The passing attack could be a major problem without much explosion in the passing game. Defense: The defense had major problems fighting through inexperience last year. Now most of the top players return including almost all of the front seven. The concern will be on the corners and at defensive tackle where there's barely enough D-I level starters much less and depth..
2003 Buffalo offense | 2003 Buffalo defense

WEST
1. Bowling Green (8-0 in MAC, 10-2 overall) - Offense: The Falcons should be able to overcome the loss of their leading rusher, Joe Alls, and leading receiver, Robert Redd, with several great prospects at the skill positions. The line will turn out to be fine with a little bit of time. The star of the show, quarterback Josh Harris, could be the type of player that carries the team on his back to the MAC title. Defense: The back seven should be among the best in the MAC with a pair of lock down corners to go along with speed and experience at safety and in the linebacking corps. The line will count on a true freshman and several sophomores to come through.
2003 Bowling Green offense | 2003 Bowling Green defense

2. Northern Illinois (7-1, 8-4) - Offense: Michael Turner is one of the best backs in the country and could be even better if the passing game improves. There are stars in the young receiving corps and quarterback Josh Haldi is a rising passer. The line needs to make a few adjustments, but it could be fine if some young players come through. Defense: The defense has the potential to be something great if the tackles turn out to be players and the pass defense stops giving up big plays. There's speed and talent in the defensive back seven and should make a ton of big plays.
2003 Northern Illinois offense | 2003 Northern Illinois defense

3. Toledo (5-3, 6-6) - Offense: Toledo uses a multiple spread offense with three and four wide receiver sets, but this is a running team with one of the biggest offensive lines in America and three cat-like quick running backs that should go nuts again this season. The passing game lacks an established playmaker at both quarterback and receiver. Defense: The 4-4 alignment will have to find a way to get more pressure on the quarterback and has to be stronger against the run with the loss of Tom Ward and David Gardner. The line is experienced, but it has to be better. The secondary should be fine with the return of Brandon Hefflin. The safeties will be excellent.
2003 Toledo offense | 2003 Toledo defense

4. Ball State (3-5, 4-8) - Offense: The offense revolved around the sensational all-around talents of Marcus Merriweather last season. There isn't a player of that caliber to carry the load this year, so several average players must turn into top producers. There are several good options at almost every position highlighted by a decent quarterback battle between Andy Roesch and Talmadge Hill. Defense: Six starters return to a decent that wasn't all that bad last season. It'll struggle with power running games and high octane passing attacks, but it should hold down most average MAC offenses.
2003 Ball State offense | 2003 Ball State defense

5. Western Michigan (3-5, 4-8) - Offense: This will be an extremely interesting offense with a nice stable of backs and experience and depth at quarterback and receiver. The problem is one this line with almost no experience, no depth, and no beef. Defense: The Broncos should have an excellent pass rush led by Jason Babin and a decent secondary to stop most MAC passing games. The problem is with the linebacking corps that doesn't have any proven playmakers and almost no depth.
2003 Western Michigan offense | 2003 Western Michigan defense

6. Central Michigan (1-7, 3-9) - Offense: The offense was completely reliant on the running game last season and now the coaching staff wants to get the passing attack going. With several receivers coming off of injury, that could happen, but CMU will still be strongest in the running game. Running back Terrence Jackson is a load when he?s healthy while the line will be good enough to give him some big holes to run through. Defense: The offense was completely reliant on the running game last season and now the coaching staff wants to get the passing attack going. With several receivers coming off of injury, that could happen, but CMU will still be strongest in the running game. Running back Terrence Jackson is a load when he?s healthy while the line will be good enough to give him some big holes to run through.
2003 Central Michigan offense | 2003 Central Michigan defense

7. Eastern Michigan (0-8, 2-10) - Offense: The Eagles were able to move the ball and score points last season, but the three key members that made the offense go (QB Troy Edwards, RB Ime Akpan and WR Kevin Walter) are gone. If the skill players become playmakers out of the gate, the offense should be decent with several returning starters and decent overall depth. Defense: The defense had to deal with injuries and inconsistency last season leading to one of the worst defensive performances in college football history. New defensive coordinator Tim Rose is changing some things around experimenting with different formations to try and find something that'll work. If nothing else, there's a ton of returning experience.

 

[TORONTO-VIGILANTE]

mountain west:

1. New Mexico (6-1 in conference, 9-3 overall) - Offense: The offense rarely showed pop last year and was positively painful against UCLA in the Las Vegas Bowl. That should change with a sensational line and veterans everywhere since ten starters are returning. The power running game should be fine, but there has to be some explosiveness. Defense: The New Mexico defense got better and better as last year went on becoming a brick wall by the end of the season. Seven starters return with the front seven looking outstanding on the ends, but weak up the middle. In the secondary, the safeties are tremendous, but the corners are soft.
2003 New Mexico offense | 2003 New Mexico defense

2. Colorado State (5-2, 10-2) - Offense: If you like last year's Ram offense, you'll enjoy the 2003 version. It'll be a steady diet of runs with a trio (and possibly a foursome) of good backs along with a gritty running quarterback in Bradlee Van Pelt operating behind a veteran offensive line. The passing game isn't explosive, but it might not need to be with this running game. Defense: New defensive coordinator Steve Stanard has a lot to work with. Seven starters return to a defense that was outstanding at times last year. The linebackers and corners should be tremendous, but there's a concern that there's no pass rush coming from the line. The linebackers are the best pass rushers on the team, but they're even better when they don't have to blitz.
2003 Colorado State offense | 2003 Colorado State defense

T3. BYU (4-3, 7-5) - Offense: The offense took a nose dive last year only averaging 22.7 points per game. The team was able to move the ball, but it had problems finishing off drives. Expect there to be a little more production this year with more experience at quarterback helped by a strong corps of running backs. The receivers and line are average at best. Defense: Is this some kind of a joke? How can a college defense have this much developed depth? The Cougars are changing things around going to a 3-3-5 alignment, and it'll be interesting to see if the porous run defense is helped by bringing another defensive back onto the field. Eleven starters come back, and that doesn't even count the return of the best player, corner Jernaro Gilford. The Cougars have enough experienced backups to field a whole other front six.
2003 BYU offense | 2003 BYU defense

T3. UNLV (4-3, 8-4) - Offense: UNLV has way too many weapons not to be one of the more explosive teams in the Mountain West. With NFL-caliber talents at both receiver and running back, there's no reason the Rebels shouldn't put points up on the board in bunches. Quarterback Kurt Nantkes has to build on the great performance against Colorado State to end last year, and the line must develop some quality depth. Defense: The defense wasn't horrible last season, but it was rarely clutch. With a ton of returning experience and some superstar talents in safety Jamaal Brimmer and linebackers Adam Seward and Ryan Claridge, the defense should be better. This will be a much faster and far more athletic defense.
2003 UNLV offense | 2003 UNLV defense

T3. Utah (4-3, 6-6) - Offense: The offense is making some changes under Urban Meyer going to a spread formation taking out the fullback and asking the quarterback to run as well as throw. The Utes will mostly go to the no-huddle offense, but they might not have the receivers to run it properly. The line and running backs should be extremely strong. Defense: There's talent here and Kyle Whittingham's return as defensive coordinator will help mold this group into a decent defense. The secondary will be a bit of a concern if the safeties don't come around. The linebackers have potential, but can't be expected to star. The ends are the best in the Mountain West.
2003 Utah offense | 2003 Utah defense

6. Air Force (3-4, 8-4) - Offense: Air Force is going to air it out 45 times a game in a new form of the run and shoot utilizing five receiver sets. Yeah right. If anything, Air Force will run the ball more than ever with a veteran offensive line, a good backfield, and a superstar at quarterback driving the train. The receivers are fast enough to burn teams that forget about them. Defense: The depth isn't there, the front line is undersized, the secondary is too slow blah, blah, blah. The Falcons have the same problems they've always had, but the coaching staff is always able to work around them. The switch to the 3-3-5 alignment worked last season as the team was able to use faster players to gang up on ball-carriers rather than rely on size. Anthony Schlegel also helped make the defense strong and he won't be easily replaced.
2003 Air Force offense | 2003 Air Force defense

7. San Diego State (2-5, 5-7) - Offense: The offense will move the ball and score points, but it has to do it with some consistency and overcoming a serious downgrade in receiving talent. The line could end up being outstanding with a little bit of time. There's talent at running back and there needs to be more work for Fred Collins and Michael Franklin. Defense: The defense could potentially be far better than last season with a tremendous linebacking corps and several all-star candidates in the secondary. The Aztecs will get to the quarterback, but they have to find ways to keep offenses out of the end zone.
2003 San Diego State offense | 2003 San Diego State defense

8. Wyoming (0-8, 2-10) - Offense: While this isn't going to be a four-yard-and-a-cloud-of-dust offense, there's going to be more of a running game than there was in the past. With a decent stable of backs, UW should be able to move the ball on the ground with a little bit of consistency. Even with the minor change, the passing game is still going to dominate as Casey Bramlet looks ready for a big senior season with a loaded receiving corps. Defense: The defense was one of the worst in the nation giving up a whopping 36 points and 491 yards per game. Things will change a little bit trying to attack more and using blitzes from all angles. The coaching staff is going to be very creative to find ways to get to the quarterback.

 

[TORONTO-VIGILANTE]

PAC 10

1. USC (7-1 in conference, 10-2 overall) - Offense: There's so much talent here that it's hard to think the offense will be a problem, but there's almost no proven experience in the backfield and little depth at receiver. The offensive line should be among the five best in America with a second team that would be the first string on most teams. The four-way battle at quarterback should continue up until the start of the season. Defense: The front seven could be among the best in America if a playmaker emerges at middle linebacker. The secondary has the potential to be great if the starters can stay healthy and some newcomers can star right away.
2003 USC offense | 2003 USC defense

2. UCLA (6-2, 9-3) - Offense: There's a great deal of young talent to build around. The backfield features sophomores at quarterback and running back, while the receiving corps could turn into one of the Pac 10's best if Drew Olson or Matt Moore can get them the ball. They'll all have to get used to a new offensive system that'll strive for as much balance as possible. Defense: UCLA's defense will be geared around its speed and athleticism using more blitzes and attacking the ball more. With seven returning starters, a great secondary, solid pass rushers and speedy linebackers, this will be a defense to watch.
2003 UCLA offense | 2003 UCLA defense

3. Washington (6-2, 9-3) - Offense: The coaching staff wants to get more physical and more two dimensional with a running game to take the pressure off the passing attack. But why? To paraphrase Freddie Bauer, played by John Candy, in the movie Splash, when something works for you, you stick with it. It's not like Washington needs the time of possession. It dominated last year holding the ball more than four minutes more than the opposition. This isn't a run n' shoot offense, it's a very effective passing attack that should be just as strong with the return of quarterback Cody Pickett and receiver Reggie Williams. There's talent in the backfield, so now the veteran offensive line has to open some holes. Defense: The Huskies were great against the run, but some of that was because teams spent most of its time bombing away on the secondary. To be fair, the front seven did hold opposing running games to a paltry 2.8 yards per carry, and should be almost as strong again this year. The secondary could be better with the return of Roc Alexander at one corner and the emergence of Derrick Johnson at the other. The safeties have to stay healthy and must come through with big seasons.
2003 Washington offense | 2003 Washington defense

T4. Arizona State (5-3, 9-3) - Offense: With nine returning starters and their better overall grasp of the offense, the Sun Devil offense should be unstoppable. The running game could use more pop and the offensive line has to be more productive, but quarterback Andrew Walter should make up for any mistakes made. Defense: With seven players returning, the defense has the potential to use their experience to get better in the 4-2-5 scheme. Losing starts like Terrell Suggs, Mason Unck and Solomon Bates hurts and it'll take several players have to replace their production. The secondary should be more productive with several top players coming back.
2003 Arizona State offense | 2003 Arizona State defense

T4. Oregon (5-3, 8-4) - Offense: This is still an offense trying to find some consistency. The quarterback situation isn't any more settled than it was at the beginning of spring ball. The Ducks lost running back Onterrio Smith early, but there are four good prospects ready to take over. The receivers weren't healthy this spring, so Oregon still doesn't quite know how the rotation is going to work out. If some tackles emerge, the line will be strong. Defense: Oregon's defense was strong upfront, but pathetic against the pass getting burnt by everyone. This year's Duck defense has a more experienced secondary, so now there needs to be more production. The run defense should continue to be strong loaded at tackle.
2003 Oregon offense | 2003 Oregon defense

T4. Oregon State (5-3, 9-3) - Offense: With ten returning starters off a team that averaged almost 32 points per game last season, there's reason for Beaver fans to be a bit giddy. With a talented, but slightly erratic, quarterback throwing to a magnificent receiving corps, running back Steven Jackson should go crazy in the one-back set. The line is full of veteran starters, but there are few stars and little developed depth. Defense: Even after losing star players like corner Dennis Weathersby and linebacker Nick Barnett, the defense should be strong with great ends, a rock at middle linebacker and two great safeties. This isn't a big defense, but it's extremely athletic.
2003 Oregon State offense | 2003 Oregon State defense

7. Washington State (4-4, 6-6) - Offense: Even with the loss of several key stars, the offense should be fine as long as quarterback Matt Kegel can step in for Jason Gesser and produce. The running backs are strong working behind a good offensive line. The receiving corps should be good if the top prospects can develop to take the heat off of Devard Darling. Defense: The defense will be strong even after losing Rien Long and Marcus Trufant. The run defense should once again be among the best in the Pac 10 with a tremendous front seven. The secondary is experienced, but it has to be better than it was last year when it gave up over 255 yards per game.
2003 Washington State offense | 2003 Washington State defense

8. Stanford (1-7, 2-9) - Offense: The offense didn't explode like it should've last year with injuries taking its toll on some key positions. The possibility is there for a big season if some receivers can emerge to help out the quarterbacks, but nothing's going to happen unless the way-too-young offensive line comes together in a hurry. Defense: This is a very interesting defense that should be fun to watch as the year goes on. There's a slew of unbelievable athletes at almost every position, but they have to turn into great football players. For example, the secondary is loaded with track guys with wonderful speed, but they couldn't cover anyone last year. There could be a ton of improvement from the defense that gave up 34.3 points and 384.7 yards per game last year.
2003 Stanford offense | 2003 Stanford defense

9. California (1-7, 1-11) - Offense: Cal might lose quarterback Kyle Boller, but the offense will still be strong helped by the return of star running back prospect Adimchinobe Echemadu from a knee injury running behind a veteran offensive line. The receiving corps has good players returning to go along with a good tight end option in Brandon Hall. Defense: Uh oh. The defense improved last year allowing around 14 points less than 2001, but it still wasn't all that great. Now there's almost no returning experience, no depth and little developed talent. The secondary will have the most problems, but the front seven is also going to need time.
2003 California offense | 2003 California defense

10. Arizona (0-8, 2-10) - Offense: There's no reason whatsoever for the Arizona offense to score a mere 227 points again. The running game was pathetic last year and needs Clarence Farmer to not only come back from a knee injury, but is also coming off suspension. The line is fine, but not deep while the receiving corps has explosive young talent ready to break out. The quarterback situation is a bit of a problem with almost no experience returning. Defense: The defense wasn't all that bad last season considering the offense didn't provide any support. Switching to a 3-4, Arizona will take advantage of the bulk of linebackers and will try and get pressure into the backfield from the outside. The secondary might be fine if Michael Jolivette comes back healthy at corner.
2003 Arizona offense | 2003 Arizona defense

 

[TORONTO-VIGILANTE]

SEC

1. USC (7-1 in conference, 10-2 overall) - Offense: There's so much talent here that it's hard to think the offense will be a problem, but there's almost no proven experience in the backfield and little depth at receiver. The offensive line should be among the five best in America with a second team that would be the first string on most teams. The four-way battle at quarterback should continue up until the start of the season. Defense: The front seven could be among the best in America if a playmaker emerges at middle linebacker. The secondary has the potential to be great if the starters can stay healthy and some newcomers can star right away.
2003 USC offense | 2003 USC defense

2. UCLA (6-2, 9-3) - Offense: There's a great deal of young talent to build around. The backfield features sophomores at quarterback and running back, while the receiving corps could turn into one of the Pac 10's best if Drew Olson or Matt Moore can get them the ball. They'll all have to get used to a new offensive system that'll strive for as much balance as possible. Defense: UCLA's defense will be geared around its speed and athleticism using more blitzes and attacking the ball more. With seven returning starters, a great secondary, solid pass rushers and speedy linebackers, this will be a defense to watch.
2003 UCLA offense | 2003 UCLA defense

3. Washington (6-2, 9-3) - Offense: The coaching staff wants to get more physical and more two dimensional with a running game to take the pressure off the passing attack. But why? To paraphrase Freddie Bauer, played by John Candy, in the movie Splash, when something works for you, you stick with it. It's not like Washington needs the time of possession. It dominated last year holding the ball more than four minutes more than the opposition. This isn't a run n' shoot offense, it's a very effective passing attack that should be just as strong with the return of quarterback Cody Pickett and receiver Reggie Williams. There's talent in the backfield, so now the veteran offensive line has to open some holes. Defense: The Huskies were great against the run, but some of that was because teams spent most of its time bombing away on the secondary. To be fair, the front seven did hold opposing running games to a paltry 2.8 yards per carry, and should be almost as strong again this year. The secondary could be better with the return of Roc Alexander at one corner and the emergence of Derrick Johnson at the other. The safeties have to stay healthy and must come through with big seasons.
2003 Washington offense | 2003 Washington defense

T4. Arizona State (5-3, 9-3) - Offense: With nine returning starters and their better overall grasp of the offense, the Sun Devil offense should be unstoppable. The running game could use more pop and the offensive line has to be more productive, but quarterback Andrew Walter should make up for any mistakes made. Defense: With seven players returning, the defense has the potential to use their experience to get better in the 4-2-5 scheme. Losing starts like Terrell Suggs, Mason Unck and Solomon Bates hurts and it'll take several players have to replace their production. The secondary should be more productive with several top players coming back.
2003 Arizona State offense | 2003 Arizona State defense

T4. Oregon (5-3, 8-4) - Offense: This is still an offense trying to find some consistency. The quarterback situation isn't any more settled than it was at the beginning of spring ball. The Ducks lost running back Onterrio Smith early, but there are four good prospects ready to take over. The receivers weren't healthy this spring, so Oregon still doesn't quite know how the rotation is going to work out. If some tackles emerge, the line will be strong. Defense: Oregon's defense was strong upfront, but pathetic against the pass getting burnt by everyone. This year's Duck defense has a more experienced secondary, so now there needs to be more production. The run defense should continue to be strong loaded at tackle.
2003 Oregon offense | 2003 Oregon defense

T4. Oregon State (5-3, 9-3) - Offense: With ten returning starters off a team that averaged almost 32 points per game last season, there's reason for Beaver fans to be a bit giddy. With a talented, but slightly erratic, quarterback throwing to a magnificent receiving corps, running back Steven Jackson should go crazy in the one-back set. The line is full of veteran starters, but there are few stars and little developed depth. Defense: Even after losing star players like corner Dennis Weathersby and linebacker Nick Barnett, the defense should be strong with great ends, a rock at middle linebacker and two great safeties. This isn't a big defense, but it's extremely athletic.
2003 Oregon State offense | 2003 Oregon State defense

7. Washington State (4-4, 6-6) - Offense: Even with the loss of several key stars, the offense should be fine as long as quarterback Matt Kegel can step in for Jason Gesser and produce. The running backs are strong working behind a good offensive line. The receiving corps should be good if the top prospects can develop to take the heat off of Devard Darling. Defense: The defense will be strong even after losing Rien Long and Marcus Trufant. The run defense should once again be among the best in the Pac 10 with a tremendous front seven. The secondary is experienced, but it has to be better than it was last year when it gave up over 255 yards per game.
2003 Washington State offense | 2003 Washington State defense

8. Stanford (1-7, 2-9) - Offense: The offense didn't explode like it should've last year with injuries taking its toll on some key positions. The possibility is there for a big season if some receivers can emerge to help out the quarterbacks, but nothing's going to happen unless the way-too-young offensive line comes together in a hurry. Defense: This is a very interesting defense that should be fun to watch as the year goes on. There's a slew of unbelievable athletes at almost every position, but they have to turn into great football players. For example, the secondary is loaded with track guys with wonderful speed, but they couldn't cover anyone last year. There could be a ton of improvement from the defense that gave up 34.3 points and 384.7 yards per game last year.
2003 Stanford offense | 2003 Stanford defense

9. California (1-7, 1-11) - Offense: Cal might lose quarterback Kyle Boller, but the offense will still be strong helped by the return of star running back prospect Adimchinobe Echemadu from a knee injury running behind a veteran offensive line. The receiving corps has good players returning to go along with a good tight end option in Brandon Hall. Defense: Uh oh. The defense improved last year allowing around 14 points less than 2001, but it still wasn't all that great. Now there's almost no returning experience, no depth and little developed talent. The secondary will have the most problems, but the front seven is also going to need time.
2003 California offense | 2003 California defense

10. Arizona (0-8, 2-10) - Offense: There's no reason whatsoever for the Arizona offense to score a mere 227 points again. The running game was pathetic last year and needs Clarence Farmer to not only come back from a knee injury, but is also coming off suspension. The line is fine, but not deep while the receiving corps has explosive young talent ready to break out. The quarterback situation is a bit of a problem with almost no experience returning. Defense: The defense wasn't all that bad last season considering the offense didn't provide any support. Switching to a 3-4, Arizona will take advantage of the bulk of linebackers and will try and get pressure into the backfield from the outside. The secondary might be fine if Michael Jolivette comes back healthy at corner.
2003 Arizona offense | 2003 Arizona defense

 

[TORONTO-VIGILANTE]

my fave, the small, good ol sun belt conference....


1. North Texas (7-0 in conference, 9-3 overall) - Offense: The Mean Green offense was downright painful to watch at times last season only averaging 19.2 points per game. Things started to pick up as the season went on facing Sun Belt teams, but it'll be hard for this group to do much against good competition. The key will be the play of the line breaking in two redshirt freshmen on the left side. Defense: This is one of the best defenses in America with almost every starter returning. Granted, the team plays in the Sun Belt, but this D should be able to give everyone on its schedule a nasty time. Forget running on the front seven as long as star tackle Brandon Kennedy is healthy. The secondary boasts one of the best safety combinations in America.
2003 North Texas offense | 2003 North Texas defense

2. MTSU (5-1, 7-5) - Offense: Quarterback Andrico Hines could make a big jump up and become one of the breakout quarterbacks of 2003, but he needs weapons. The receiving corps is nothing special (unless some of the big young players make plays right away), and the running game needs the backups to help out Don Calloway. The line could be the best in the Sun Belt. Defense: The defense had some major problems never coming through with the big play. Chalk it up to youth as several players needed to learn on the fly. The 2003 defense could be better with a little improvement in the pass defense. There was no pass rush last year, but that could change with more talent on the ends.
2003 MTSU offense | 2003 MTSU defense

3. New Mexico State (5-2, 6-6) - Offense: The Aggie option offense should keep on rolling. Without much talent at receiver, there'll be more of a reliance than ever on the running game. Quarterbacks Paul Dombrowski and Buck Pierce should run the offense well, but they'll need to run for a while behind a line that needs time and depth. Defense: At times, NMSU's defense was strong and now it returns the whole front seven. It should be a little better against the run, but the brand new secondary could have some major problems.
2003 New Mexico State offense | 2003 New Mexico State defense

4. Arkansas State (3-3, 5-7) - Offense: ASU loses two stars off the offensive line, leading WR James Hickenbotham and record-setting running back Danny Smith. The offense was hardly explosive last season and certainly won't be this year needing to get more production out of the passing game. Mike Cox is an emerging star at receiver. Defense: After switching to a 4-2-5 alignment, the defense became better and faster with one of the better pass defenses in the Sun Belt and a productive front six. The tackles are outstanding while there are four good options at linebacker. This will be the strongest defense in the league behind North Texas.
2003 Arkansas State offense | 2003 Arkansas State defense

5. UL Lafayette (1-4, 2-10) - Offense: The passing game should be solid with quarterbacks with strong arms throwing to Fred Stamps and a decent receiving corps. The line is deep and should be good in the Sun Belt. Now they have to find a way to open up the lanes to get a running game going. Defense: The Ragin' Cajuns have to replace almost the entire secondary and needs to generate more of a pass rush. A massive infusion of junior college players should not only shore up the depth, but also fill in some major holes. The front six, or seven depending on the alignment, shouldn't be too bad.
2003 UL Lafayette offense | 2003 UL Lafayette defense

T6. UL Monroe (1-5, 3-9) - Offense: The offense was non-existent at times last season, but it should be better this year with experience everywhere but running back. The passing attack should be excellent with rising star Steven Jyles throwing to an experienced and dangerous receiving corps. The running game could be a problem. Defense: The defense should be much, much better if it can avoid the injuries that hit them so hard last year. With the return of players like linebacker Maurice Sonnier and defensive end Mabrae Wilson, the Indians will have more playmakers and be more effective.
2003 UL Monroe offense | 2003 UL Monroe defense

T6. Utah State (1-5, 3-9) - Offense: The Aggies always seem to find ways to move the ball and put up points, but it might take a while before this group finds its stride. There are questions at all the skill positions with almost no returning production. The line is good, but it's not so good that it'll be the wall needed to give the newcomers time to get their feet wet. Defense: The Aggies gave up 472 yards and over 39 points per game last year, so radical changes needed to be made. New defensive coordinator David Kotulski has switched the alignment to a 3-4 to try and beef up the middle of the D.
2003 Utah State offense | 2003 Utah State defense

8. Idaho (1-6, 3-9) - Offense: The line is experienced and could be strong if some depth develops. That'll be a huge plus for a team trying to keep its quarterback upright and needing to get a little more boost in the running game. The receiving corps will be the key needing a few playmakers to emerge. Defense: The Idaho defense has to find something it can do well. The pass defense was abysmal giving up 274.4 yards per game while the Vandals allowed 190.2 yards per game on the ground. There's experience in most of the key areas, but those returning have to play much, much better. The team needed an infusion of newcomers to give hope for things to be better.
2003 Idaho offense | 2003 Idaho defense

 

[TORONTO-VIGILANTE]

the "WHACK" conference...

1. Fresno State (8-0 in conference, 9-4 overall) - Offense: The Bulldogs could have one of the most potent attacks in the nation with a sensational receiving corps, a workhorse back that could be a superstar and an up-and-coming quarterback. The line is decent, but not very deep. Defense: The defense had to overcome some major injuries last year that not only sapped several starters, but also many of the backups. The 2003 defense should be a little bit better if the secondary is developed. The linebacking corps will be great and should make a ton of tackles behind an average line.
2003 Fresno State offense | 2003 Fresno State defense

2. Hawaii (7-1, 9-4) - Offense: The passing game will lead the nation. Quarterback Timmy Chang is experienced enough to run it to perfection with a vast array of decent, but not ultra-talented, receivers. The running game will be fine if it's ever used. The line is strong up the middle, but a potential nightmare on the ends. Defense: This could be the best Hawaii defense under June Jones if he can find a decent replacement for Boston College bound defensive coordinator Kevin Lempa. The pass rush should be tremendous taking the pressure off the loaded secondary. All three starting linebackers have to be replaced, but if some players step up to take over the production and leadership provided by Chris Brown and Pisa Tinoisamoa, the D will be outstanding.
2003 Hawaii offense | 2003 Hawaii defense

3. Boise State (6-2, 9-4) - Offense: The backfield should be outstanding with quarterback Ryan Dinwiddie and running back David Mikell, but there are huge problems everywhere else. The top four pass catchers are gone as are the stars on the offensive line. Defense: The defense is extremely small for a top 25 caliber team, but it's very effective. The corners and outside linebackers should be excellent. The line doesn't have any real stars, but it gets the job done. Even with eight returning starters, it's asking a lot of the defense to repeat the performance of last year without Quintin Mikell and Chauncy Ako.
2003 Boise State offense | 2003 Boise State defense

4. San Jose State (5-3, 6-6) - Offense: The offense should be one of the most explosive in America with a veteran quarterback throwing to an experienced receiving corps behind a big, strong line. The running game isn't used all that much, but the talent is there to move the ball on the ground. Defense: The Spartan defense improved. It only gave up 493 yards per game rather than the 501 it gave up in 2002. This is the ultimate boom-or-bust defense finishing fourth in the nation in takeaways and third in interceptions. With the offense always moving the ball, it's a shame the defense can't come close to stopping anyone allowing 300.5 yards per game and 32 touchdowns through the air and 193 yards per game and 25 scores on the ground. A ton of experience returns to hopefully make things better under new defensive coordinator Chris Wilkerson.
2003 San Jose State offense | 2003 San Jose State defense

5. Nevada (4-4, 5-7) - Offense: Seven starters return to an offense that averaged 27.6 points and 434.2 yards per game. The problem? Two of the main cogs, quarterback Zack Threadgill and receiver Nate Burleson are gone, but the line returns strong and deep to pave the way for a great corps of running backs. Defense: Technically, ten starters return, but it might as well be 11 with Ronnie Hardiman expected to be a full-time starter again at Rover. This was, and continues to be, a young defense still trying to get some production. With all the returning experience and all the returning depth, there's no reason the D should give up 31 points and 420 yards per game again.
2003 Nevada offense | 2003 Nevada defense

6. Louisiana Tech (4-4, 5-7) - Offense: All the pieces are there with a marquee quarterback, a way-too-deep receiving corps, and a nice prospect at running back. It could all fall apart if the young offensive line doesn't jell right away. Luke McCown has mobility, but he could get killed if the line isn't at least as strong as last season. Defense: The defense has a ton of returning experience everywhere but linebacker. The secondary had problems last season against everyone, but some of the problems stemmed from a front seven that had a hard time getting to the quarterback. There's no proven pass rusher and there's a desperate hope that a brand new linebacking corps can be better than last season's veteran crew. If the D can cut down on giving up the big play, it might not be that bad.
2003 Louisiana Tech offense | 2003 Louisiana Tech defense

7. Rice (3-5, 4-8) - Offense: The offense sputtered a little too much last season and didn't control the clock like it should've. With a good line and more experienced quarterbacks, Rice should be able to run things more efficiently, and should be more dangerous in WAC play. Defense: The Rice defense doesn't do any one particular thing well. It was a strong D against the run last year, but now it needs to replace most of the front seven. The secondary might be a little bit better if the all the young players can come through.
2003 Rice offense | 2003 Rice defense

8. SMU (2-6, 2-10) - Offense: The offense is loaded with experience and could be far better if all the key parts can stay healthy. This is a running offense with a great stable of backs, but the Mustangs might be able to throw a bit with the return of receiver Chris Cunningham and the development of quarterback Richard Bartel. Defense: SMU's defense had problems last year wearing down. It's not a big defense and it showed giving up 127 points in the fourth quarter. The secondary has to play far better and needs to make more plays, but the front seven should be relatively strong.
2003 SMU offense | 2003 SMU defense

9. UTEP (1-7, 3-10) - Offense: The offense was hammered by injuries last season, but the pieces are potentially there to put up some points this year. Finally. There are four options at quarterback, but one has to emerge from the pack and become a star. The receivers are young, but relatively talented. The line could be strong. Defense: This was one of the worst defenses in America last year, but the potential is there for a huge improvement. The front six are deep and athletic, but not all that big. The secondary is soft and needs a pass rush to help take the pressure off.
2003 UTEP offense | 2003 UTEP defense

10. Tulsa (0-8, 2-10) - Offense: The offense was never potent last year, but the potential is there for some big things to happen. With eight starters, there might be a ton of improvement in every phase. The running game needs a second back to help out Eric Richardson. The receivers could surprise and have a big season. If James Killian has a huge year replacing Tyler Gooch, the offense should be fine. Defense: This was one of the worst defenses in America last season, but all hope isn't lost with several options at every position. While there's great depth everywhere, there aren't many top starters. The switch to the 3-3-5 alignment will need time to work.
2003 Tulsa offense | 2003 Tulsa defense

 

[TORONTO-VIGILANTE]

and for those that care....

1. Notre Dame (8-4 overall) - Offense: The offense was downright painful to watch at times last year. The skill position players are there to improve the overall production, but the line isn't close to being as strong. There's only one returning starter and no depth meaning the skill players must be even sharper. The receiving corps could be outstanding with a little time. Defense: The Irish defense was dominating at times last season and should be a force again. It'll be hard to run against this group with a mostly unsung, but talented, front seven returning many of the key parts. If the secondary can find an adequate replacement for Shane Walton, the pass defense should be solid.
2003 Notre Dame offense | 2003 Notre Dame defense

2. Connecticut (7-5) - Offense: UConn has some great young stars with junior quarterback Dan Orlovsky ready to become a big-time player if some receivers step up. Terry Caulley is a great running back, but he might not be big enough to handle a ton of work without getting hurt. The line should be fine, but there's little developed depth. Defense: The depth isn't quite there and there are a few problems with overall athleticism, but this is a solid defense with some superstar players. End Uyi Osunde, safety Chris Meyer (if reinstated after a suspension) and linebacker Maurice Lloyd could play for almost anyone. The run D could stand to be a little stronger, but this defense will get to the quarterback and will be fine against the pass.
2003 Connecticut offense | 2003 Connecticut defense

3. Navy (5-7) - Offense: The offense is going to run, run and run some more with several players in an experienced backfield that can break off big runs. Now that these players know the offense, they should form a devastating rushing attack and be among the top five in the country. There won't be much of a passing game other than what comes out of the backfield. Defense: The defense had some major problems last season giving up too many yards both on the ground and in the air. The 2002 Midshipmen defense didn't do any one thing well and will stick with the 3-4 scheme. Now the team has to incorporate several new starters and hope the old ones can get better. The secondary has to find ways to breakup and pick off more passes, while the defensive line has to get in the backfield on a more consistent basis.
2003 Navy offense | 2003 Navy defense

4. Troy State (3-9) - Offense: The offense wasn't able to do anything last season only breaking 16 points against one D-I team. New offensive coordinator Mark Fleetwood will change things around from the spread offense to more of an I-formation attack. Several key players return, but everyone has to play much, much better especially quarterback Hansell Bearden. Defense: The Troy State defense has been strong over the last few years, but new defensive coordinator Vic Koenning, the former Wyoming head coach, will have his work cut out for him with several major holes to fill. Even though only one starter returns among the defensive front seven, the Trojans should be more athletic up front. The secondary could be tremendous if several injured stars can return healthy.
2003 Troy State offense | 2003 Troy State defense

 

[stagger lee]

Thanks for the post(s) TV

Good luck this season.

 

[ajoytoy]

thx T-V for the great read....

 

[AR182]

tv,

thanks for all you have done in the college football forum.

gl this season!!

 

[ND2002HORNS]

AR - I am moving to Scottsdale Aug.22. Get my e-mail from Jack and we should get all the Arizona madjacker's together. I only know a few people in Scottsdale so it would be nice to get know a few of you. Later,

HORNS

 

[Bama6895]

Thanks for all the info.

Not that there is not a SEC preview. You have an SEC labeled that but it is the Pac 10 preview again. Just wanted to let you know and again thanks.

 

[AR182]

nd2002horns,


i will send you an e-mail tomorrow, looking forward to meeting up with you.

 

[ND2002HORNS]

Thanks AR!

HORNS