SEC Sleeper Teams for the 2007-08 Season

[AU Blaaaaaaaake]

Which team(s) from either half of the of the SEC do you feel could unexpectedly post 9-3/10-2 or better records and why? (i.e., rosters, depth, coaching, schedule, etc.)


(edit- their will be a poll if it doesn't instantly appear)
(edit- the teams posted based on last years/recent results in the last 5 years or so i.e. lower tier SEC teams)

[AU Blaaaaaaaake]

On a personal note, I put Alabama and Kentucky. Both return leaders at QB, and both have some weapons to work with. Bama's schedule is pretty favorable as far as home field advantage is concerned, and the new coach will jump-start the team and fans. Kentucky has Woodson.

[GAMECOCK_FAN]

Which team(s) from either half of the of the SEC do you feel could unexpectedly post 9-3/10-2 or better records and why? (i.e., rosters, depth, coaching, schedule, etc.)


(edit- their will be a poll if it doesn't instantly appear)
(edit- the teams posted based on last years/recent results in the last 5 years or so i.e. lower tier SEC teams)
It seems it's way too early for predictions, but at this point I don't believe any of the team's you listed will go 9-3 or better (as you state in your original post), but I did pick Alabama from the West and SC from the East as the two teams most likely to be above the others listed....8-4 is a strong possibility for both Alabama and South Carolina if the "ball bounces" correctly IMO.....Possibly Kentucky as well.

[WallyGoat]

I always do that. It's multiple choice, and I only pick one. :brick:

Sorry SC fans, I meant to include the Cocks as a sleeper.

Alabama and South Carolina are my sleeper teams. :thumpsup:

Seriously, sorry.

[jonthetiger337]

I picked Kentucky because Alabama wouldn't really be a sleeper with Nick Saban, they're pretty much expecting for him to come in and win 9 or 10 games from the beginning. With South Carolina competing in as many games as they did this past year they wouldn't be a sleeper either.

[gatorunvrsty]

I picked SC and Kentucky. Woodson will be great. Spurrier will make Mitchell great. I think both teams will give everyone a run for their money. Lots of talent getting spread around in the SEC. I didn't pick UA, because I don't consider them a lower tier team to begin with. They're always loaded with talent, and they've had lots of success. They're the most successful program in the SEC. They have more than twice as many championships as any other school. You can't be a sleeper unless you've been really bad for a long time or never been good. They had a 10 win season just a year ago. A sleeper is an unexpected surprise, and UA being good wouldn't surprise me.

[Gator2753]

iI picked UK. I dont consider USc and Bama to be lower tier teams. The are middle of the pack teams on the rise! :thumpsup:

[TrueGCFan]

I think any of those teams with the expection of Miss St and Vandy could win 9 or more games. Of those listed I think SC and Bama have the most likely chance. I think UK had a good year, but we'll see. I remember in past years when expections were high for them and they fell on their face.
I think with SOS and Saban both with coach their teams up. And considering both teams have good talent they should have good years.
But this is the SEC and you just never know.

[Chief Broom]

I can't consider either Bama or SC as sleepers. Both fan bases and the media are expecting big things from them next year. Personally, I see both as at least a year away.
I picked Kentucky and Ole Miss. Both could play spoiler roles in the conference races and play in bowls. I feel as though kentucky is going to stay at the level they hit this past season or might win an additional game. I think Ole Miss was close to putting it together this year and will be better and more consistant than they were this year.

[AU Blaaaaaaaake]

I can't consider either Bama or SC as sleepers. Both fan bases and the media are expecting big things from them next year. Personally, I see both as at least a year away.
I picked Kentucky and Ole Miss. Both could play spoiler roles in the conference races and play in bowls. I feel as though kentucky is going to stay at the level they hit this past season or might win an additional game. I think Ole Miss was close to putting it together this year and will be better and more consistant than they were this year.


The reasons Bama and SC are in this poll are both reasonable.. SC is in it mainly because of recent results and because they have won only 1 ACC title and have yet to win an SEC title. Bama is in it because of recent results, and lack of depth due to scholarship limitations in recent history. Its doubtful that any major unbiased sports analyst would put SC or Bama at the top of their respective sides of the SEC.

If the choices for the poll were based on how each fanbase felt about their team, Ole Miss/Vandy/Miss St./kentucky would be the only ones in the poll.

[BamaDude06]

Its doubtful that any major unbiased sports analyst would put SC or Bama at the top of their respective sides of the SEC.

Which if fine, because they have proved over and over they don't really know what will happed. Who did the media have winning the SEC this year? Not Florida. The media has only correctly "predicted" who would come out on top in the SEC two times since 1992.

Note: Not meant to say I think Alabama will finish on top. IMO, LSU should win the West next year.

[AU Blaaaaaaaake]

Which if fine, because they have proved over and over they don't really know what will happed. Who did the media have winning the SEC this year? Not Florida. The media has only correctly "predicted" who would come out on top in the SEC two times since 1992.

Note: Not meant to say I think Alabama will finish on top. IMO, LSU should win the West next year.


It just makes them a sleeper pick, I'm not saying I put any weight into what "experts" predict.

[gatorunvrsty]

The reasons Bama and SC are in this poll are both reasonable.. SC is in it mainly because of recent results and because they have won only 1 ACC title and have yet to win an SEC title. Bama is in it because of recent results, and lack of depth due to scholarship limitations in recent history. Its doubtful that any major unbiased sports analyst would put SC or Bama at the top of their respective sides of the SEC.

If the choices for the poll were based on how each fanbase felt about their team, Ole Miss/Vandy/Miss St./kentucky would be the only ones in the poll.
Those are the only ones that can realistically be called sleepers. SC could have just as easily been 9-3. If not for some ref help in the LSU and UF games, AU would have a worse record than SC, and be listed as a sleeper (by your formula). They almost beat several of the teams not on the list, including UF and UGA. SC played better than AU against UF, even though AU got the win. And SC definitely played better than AU against UGA. Bama's recent history hasn't been that bad. They were bad this year, in large part, because of their coach; who's gone. Somehow, I knew this thread was started to rag Bama fans. I thought it when I saw they were even listed. Saying Alabama and sleeper in the same sentence doesn't even sound right, because they've been a power for so long. Obviously, most of the people responding agree. :thumbsdow

[BamaDude06]

Personally, afterthis past season I don't have a problem calling Bama a "sleeper", but I doubt you will ever find any team that considers Alabama a "sleeper" because they are still Alabama, regardless of record. Just ask Northern Illinois. They consider their 2003 win over a 4-9 Bama team one of the biggest in program history. Also in 2003, Hawai'i didn't care Bama was 4-9. They were happy they could tell their grandchildren "We beat Alabama."

That said, I voted for Alabama and South Carolina because I think they have the best shot at an 8, 9, and possibly 10 (including bowl) win season on that ist.

[AU Blaaaaaaaake]

Those are the only ones that can realistically be called sleepers. SC could have just as easily been 9-3. If not for some ref help in the LSU and UF games, AU would have a worse record than SC, and be listed as a sleeper (by your formula). They almost beat several of the teams not on the list, including UF and UGA. SC played better than AU against UF, even though AU got the win. And SC definitely played better than AU against UGA. Bama's recent history hasn't been that bad. They were bad this year, in large part, because of their coach; who's gone. Somehow, I knew this thread was started to rag Bama fans. I thought it when I saw they were even listed. Saying Alabama and sleeper in the same sentence doesn't even sound right, because they've been a power for so long. Obviously, most of the people responding agree. :thumbsdow


Alabama hasn't been a "power" in the sec since the early 90's, then got caught cheating. Since then they have had 5 losing seasons in 10 years, with the greatest accomplishment being a 10-2 season under Shula in which their defense pulled off a couple miracles and they still got beat by LSU and AU. This thread wasn't started to rag Bama fans, and I don't know why you feel like you have to stick up for them in this thread when if anything this thread has shown that people (including myself) think its possible for Bama to pull off a 9 or 10 win season.

Coming "close" to winning, means nothing in college football. Different teams show up for different games, which is why SC is still a sleeper. They aren't on the list to "rag on" SC, they are on it because they have yet to win big in the SEC (and rarely won big in the ACC).

P.S. We beat you by 10 points.

[gatorunvrsty]

Alabama hasn't been a "power" in the sec since the early 90's, then got caught cheating. Since then they have had 5 losing seasons in 10 years, with the greatest accomplishment being a 10-2 season under Shula in which their defense pulled off a couple miracles and they still got beat by LSU and AU. This thread wasn't started to rag Bama fans, and I don't know why you feel like you have to stick up for them in this thread when if anything this thread has shown that people (including myself) think its possible for Bama to pull off a 9 or 10 win season.

Coming "close" to winning, means nothing in college football. Different teams show up for different games, which is why SC is still a sleeper. They aren't on the list to "rag on" SC, they are on it because they have yet to win big in the SEC (and rarely won big in the ACC).

P.S. We beat you by 10 points.
Of course people think they can win that many games. That's what makes them not a sleeper. The only people who voted for that are simply saying thay think they'll be good next year. The people responding in print don't believe Bama can be considered one.


P.S. We won our 2nd National Championship by 27. You just keep on hugging that Cotton Bowl Trophy.

[AU Blaaaaaaaake]

Of course people think they can win that many games. That's what makes them not a sleeper. The only people who voted for that are simply saying thay think they'll be good next year. The people responding in print don't believe Bama can be considered one.


P.S. We won our 2nd National Championship by 27. You just keep on hugging that Cotton Bowl Trophy.


Listen man, if the poll bothers you that much, then don't vote/participate in the discussion. If you don't think they are a "sleeper" team, then that's great, but the facts are against you. I didn't make this thread to cut down any of these teams, get over it :thumpsup: . KThanks! :happy:

[BamaDude06]

Alabama hasn't been a "power" in the sec since the early 90's, then got caught cheating. Since then they have had 5 losing seasons in 10 years, with the greatest accomplishment being a 10-2 season under Shula in which their defense pulled off a couple miracles and they still got beat by LSU and AU. This thread wasn't started to rag Bama fans, and I don't know why you feel like you have to stick up for them in this thread when if anything this thread has shown that people (including myself) think its possible for Bama to pull off a 9 or 10 win season.

Coming "close" to winning, means nothing in college football. Different teams show up for different games, which is why SC is still a sleeper. They aren't on the list to "rag on" SC, they are on it because they have yet to win big in the SEC (and rarely won big in the ACC).

P.S. We beat you by 10 points.

Last 10 seasons: 4 sub .500, one .500, Three 10 win (more than Auburn), and over that span, and yet we have the same thing Auburn has to show: 1 SEC champ

[UKat]

I can't consider either Bama or SC as sleepers. Both fan bases and the media are expecting big things from them next year. Personally, I see both as at least a year away.
I picked Kentucky and Ole Miss. Both could play spoiler roles in the conference races and play in bowls. I feel as though kentucky is going to stay at the level they hit this past season or might win an additional game. I think Ole Miss was close to putting it together this year and will be better and more consistant than they were this year.If UK wins an additional game they would finish out 9-4........I would call that in the park with SC. Last year UK was a sleeper....yes I understand that to gain respect they need to equal or better this past season in '07' but I believe they are in the ballpark with SC as a middle tier SECE team.

[BAMA NATE]

I don't have a problem with Bama being considered a sleeper but I don't know how much I'd agree with that. A great season from Bama wouldn't be completely unexpected. 10-2 is very possible with the return of Wilson and Saban taking the reigns but I voted for us anyway. USCar would be my other choice but I forgot to check them.

[uscrules]

I consisder a sleeper team to be one that is not picked to be in the top three of the East or the West. That being said, then I am sure the media will not pick SC or ALA in the top three. The east will be FLA, Tenn, and GA. and in the west it will be LSU, Auburn and Arkansas. I of course do not agree with those, however that will be the way it is.

[Neo]

If UK wins an additional game they would finish out 9-4........I would call that in the park with SC. Last year UK was a sleeper....yes I understand that to gain respect they need to equal or better this past season in '07' but I believe they are in the ballpark with SC as a middle tier SECE team.


UK wouldn't be considered a middle-tier team just yet. You've only had 2 winning seasons since 1998.

That hardly elevates the UK program to middle tier status. Get a few more winning seasons and then we'll talk.

[AceLeroy]

I voted for Bama , because by sleeper I take that to mean a team that does much better than expected.

That will be Bama.

[Chief Broom]

If UK wins an additional game they would finish out 9-4........I would call that in the park with SC. Last year UK was a sleeper....yes I understand that to gain respect they need to equal or better this past season in '07' but I believe they are in the ballpark with SC as a middle tier SECE team.
I don't disagree with that at all. I was trying to point out that the expectations for SC had gotten higher and Bama almost always has high expectations. The biggest difference is UK fans don't trash talk pre-season about how they are gonna kick everybody's butt.

I think Brooks has done a great job cleaning up the mess that Mume left behind. It wouldn't surprise me at all if UK stayed at the 7-9 win range for the next several years. They could even surprise again UGA, and another top tier and end up in ATL.

[Chief Broom]

UK wouldn't be considered a middle-tier team just yet. You've only had 2 winning seasons since 1998.

That hardly elevates the UK program to middle tier status. Get a few more winning seasons and then we'll talk.
Your criteria seem a bit arbitrary, why is since 1998 significant. Since 1998 UK is 41- 64 or 39%. Miss State is 43-63 or 40.5% and SoCar is 49-57 or 46%. What tier do you put Miss State and SoCar on?

[WarEagle73]

I think it will be Mississippi State as next year's sleeper. Sly is slowing turning this team around. They will have to have some lucky breaks to do this though. They seemed to play real good at times last year and if he can get some consistency from his quaterback next year I think they stand a good chance to suprise some folks.

I don't really know what Kentucky has coming back next year so I won't speculate on them. As far as USC goes I think they should win 7 - 9 games. It will not be easy with Rice bolting for the NFL, but with the talent the Ol' Ball Coach has for developing quaterbacks I think they'll be in the upper half of the East. I think most folks will expect them to be in the top three of the east so that will eliminate them from being considered a "sleeper".

As far as Vandy & Ol' Miss... They are Vandy & Ol' Miss.

I really don't consider Bama to be a sleeper next year either. I think next year may be a little rough on Bama due to the shock this team will be going through adjusting to Saban from Shula. Bama's situation right now reminds me of Auburn when Tubberville first arrived. Bama right now is a team that is not the normal well disciplined and tough football team that Bama has had in the past. When the pads go on and Saban starts putting his fingerprint on this team, the change will send some of the players packing. In a nutshell, he will cull the herd of the weak & lame. It will hurt the team depthwise for a season or so, but in the long run it will make the team much better. This is exactly what happened to Auburn.

P.S. I do not now, nor have I ever worked for ESPN. This means my opinion and a quater will not buy you anything becasue everything costs more than a quater nowdays. :spam:

[nooneLT]

i disagree about which mississippi state is gonna be the sleeper. ole miss has had much better recruiting than miss state the last couple of years. coach o may be crazy but he's got a whole bunch of talent down there in oxford. it becomes more even when you talk about coaching though.

[Neo]

Your criteria seem a bit arbitrary, why is since 1998 significant. Since 1998 UK is 41- 64 or 39%. Miss State is 43-63 or 40.5% and SoCar is 49-57 or 46%. What tier do you put Miss State and SoCar on?


I tried using since 1998 because it was a random number. UK has only 2 winning seasons since then, but since you wanna stick to this century, we can. Well, let's go by since 2000 then....

Kentucky: 28-53-0
MSU: 25-56-0


And now....

USC: 48-36-0

Now, hmmmm let's see.

Since 2000, USC has been bowl eligible five (5) times and since 2000, they've been to four (4) bowl games.

Since 2000, MSU has been bowl eligible once and has been to one (1) bowl game.

Since 2000, UK has been bowl eligible twice and have been bowling once.

The stats speak for themselves Chief. It doesn't matter about your disdain for USC. The fact of the matter is, UK & MSU are lower tier teams in the SEC while USC is a middle tier team.

I could go on with the head to head records, but that would just further drive you into isolation. :whistle:

[WallyGoat]

I tried using since 1998 because it was a random number. UK has only 2 winning seasons since then, but since you wanna stick to this century, we can. Well, let's go by since 2000 then....

Kentucky: 28-53-0
MSU: 25-56-0


And now....

USC: 48-36-0

Now, hmmmm let's see.

Since 2000, USC has been bowl eligible five (5) times and since 2000, they've been to four (4) bowl games.

Since 2000, MSU has been bowl eligible once and has been to one (1) bowl game.

Since 2000, UK has been bowl eligible twice and have been bowling once.

The stats speak for themselves Chief. It doesn't matter about your disdain for USC. The fact of the matter is, UK & MSU are lower tier teams in the SEC while USC is a middle tier team.

I could go on with the head to head records, but that would just further drive you into isolation. :whistle:

1998 was also the first year of the BCS (UT won it all). UK is only 41-64 in the BCS era of college football.

[Chief Broom]

I tried using since 1998 because it was a random number. UK has only 2 winning seasons since then, but since you wanna stick to this century, we can. Well, let's go by since 2000 then....

Kentucky: 28-53-0
MSU: 25-56-0


And now....

USC: 48-36-0

Now, hmmmm let's see.

Since 2000, USC has been bowl eligible five (5) times and since 2000, they've been to four (4) bowl games.

Since 2000, MSU has been bowl eligible once and has been to one (1) bowl game.

Since 2000, UK has been bowl eligible twice and have been bowling once.

The stats speak for themselves Chief. It doesn't matter about your disdain for USC. The fact of the matter is, UK & MSU are lower tier teams in the SEC while USC is a middle tier team.

I could go on with the head to head records, but that would just further drive you into isolation. :whistle:
You greatly over estimate your abilities little one.

let's use the last two years, UK was third in the East this year and SC was fifth. Last year SC was third and UK was fifth. They are on the same tier maybe second, maybe third. :laugh:

[UKat]

I don't disagree with that at all. I was trying to point out that the expectations for SC had gotten higher and Bama almost always has high expectations. The biggest difference is UK fans don't trash talk pre-season about how they are gonna kick everybody's butt.

I think Brooks has done a great job cleaning up the mess that Mume left behind. It wouldn't surprise me at all if UK stayed at the 7-9 win range for the next several years. They could even surprise again UGA, and another top tier and end up in ATL.Thanks for your honesty and respect.....I know for UK to earn respect they have to string together a couple of more winning seasons and agree with that scenario....Neo does forget that while cheater Hal Mumme was at UK they had one of the best offenses in the SEC for 4 yrs.....and also went to the Music City Bowl and Outback Bowl.

Yes USC does have the better coach in Spurs......and he is a better recruiter but I feel few schools do as much with lesser talent than UK. I think as this past season went on they improved vastly and I'd doubt SC would've wanted to play UK in the last couple of games. Their game early in the season was a tossup and I'm not so sure UK couldn't have beaten them later in the season.

It doesn't really matter as thats all water under the bridge.....what matters now is '07' and if Keenan Burton doesn't declare for the NFL UK will return almost all of their starters.........they do lose 2 OL though & I would hope they continue on their winning streak. I guess it comes down to we UK fans are tired of being the SEC whippin boys and being looked down upon. I do know how SEC schools felt for years in BB when UK fans looked down on them. I'm old enough lol to go back to UK fb and bb from the mid 60's.

[Chief Broom]

Ukat, I'm getting a bit long in the tooth as well. I remember the Curry era at Uk and felt as though he did a lot with his available talent plus he ran the program in a classy way. As I remeber, Curry always had a solid OL with a good back and reciever. Defenses played smart.

I feel bad about what Mume did there because he came from my Alma Mater. He had a good offense but got caught red-handed and left the program in worse shape than he found it.

Kentucky has often played the dogs tough and pull off an upset from time to time. However, I have no recollection of bad sportsmanship from UK in either victory or defeat.

[UKat]

Ukat, I'm getting a bit long in the tooth as well. I remember the Curry era at Uk and felt as though he did a lot with his available talent plus he ran the program in a classy way. As I remeber, Curry always had a solid OL with a good back and reciever. Defenses played smart.

I feel bad about what Mume did there because he came from my Alma Mater. He had a good offense but got caught red-handed and left the program in worse shape than he found it.

Kentucky has often played the dogs tough and pull off an upset from time to time. However, I have no recollection of bad sportsmanship from UK in either victory or defeat.I dont recognize bad sportsmanship from any SEC school.....I really remember the Fran Curci teams of the mid-late 70's...the 77 team went 10-1 and finished top 3 in the nation but as usual was on probation because of UK paying for players.....lol typical for us. I have to have some of a soft spot for the dawgs as my inlaws live in Newnan, Ga.

[Chief Broom]

I guess I'm old school. The bad sportsmanship I speak of is the taunting and jawboning that has become commonplace. I remember when Curry was at Bama and they were playing Miami in the Sugar Bowl. Miami wouldn't even shake hands at mid-field before the game and they seemed to taunt Bama players after every tackle or incomplete pass. Finally a Bama player retaliated and when he got to the sideline Curry grabbed him by the facemask chewed his a## out! If we had the same standards today that would happen on every other play. UGA's Tra battle was bad to do it this year and Richt got on him a few times but not everytime.

[Cockfan720]

Thanks for your honesty and respect.....I know for UK to earn respect they have to string together a couple of more winning seasons and agree with that scenario....Neo does forget that while cheater Hal Mumme was at UK they had one of the best offenses in the SEC for 4 yrs.....and also went to the Music City Bowl and Outback Bowl.

Yes USC does have the better coach in Spurs......and he is a better recruiter but I feel few schools do as much with lesser talent than UK. I think as this past season went on they improved vastly and I'd doubt SC would've wanted to play UK in the last couple of games. Their game early in the season was a tossup and I'm not so sure UK couldn't have beaten them later in the season.

It doesn't really matter as thats all water under the bridge.....what matters now is '07' and if Keenan Burton doesn't declare for the NFL UK will return almost all of their starters.........they do lose 2 OL though & I would hope they continue on their winning streak. I guess it comes down to we UK fans are tired of being the SEC whippin boys and being looked down upon. I do know how SEC schools felt for years in BB when UK fans looked down on them. I'm old enough lol to go back to UK fb and bb from the mid 60's.

I totally agree...I think the Kentucky-Carolina game in Columbia next year will be a great SEC contest...I think I might go to that one. I agree that Kentucky vastly improved up until the end of the year as did South Carolina...I think if we played today (or near the end of the season) it would've been a close shoot out type of game (much like our bowl game was).

While Spurrier may be the better coach, Brooks greatly impressed me in the bowl game...that fake punt was a GREAT call!!! :thumpsup: And then to throw the bomb right after a big break like that is reminiscent of the ole ball coach himself.

[UKat]

I totally agree...I think the Kentucky-Carolina game in Columbia next year will be a great SEC contest...I think I might go to that one. I agree that Kentucky vastly improved up until the end of the year as did South Carolina...I think if we played today (or near the end of the season) it would've been a close shoot out type of game (much like our bowl game was).

While Spurrier may be the better coach, Brooks greatly impressed me in the bowl game...that fake punt was a GREAT call!!! :thumpsup: And then to throw the bomb right after a big break like that is reminiscent of the ole ball coach himself.

SC fans understand UK fan's pain..........cause up until y'all landed Spurs you rarely got any respect. Spurs and winning had definetly helped in that dept.

[GeauxTo]

I think the two biggest surprises for 2007 are going to be Kentucky and Ole Miss.

Kentucky was little less than awesome in their bowl victory, and they are fielding their best team in years. Look for the Wildcats to be in every game.

Ole Miss finished the season looking very impressive. Despite innuendos that Orgeron is a buffoon, it doesn't appear to be so. He can recruit and he can coach. Ole Miss is going to beat some people who least expect it.

South Carolina under Spurs will continue to rise, but losing Rice to the NFL is a big blow.