For my part, when I look at pre-season projections like this I first see if the ranking method is consistent. If it is, then I see if the consistent ranking method is fairly applied to Ohio State (or Florida, or others that did not make the cut). Only if that proves true would I be concerned that Katz has accurately employed his Magic 8 ball.
In this case he does not pass test number 1.
I need only cite one example of a poor application of ranking criteria. He duns teams that lose major players, he duns teams with questionable incoming classes to replace that lost talent (a two-fer if you wish). Fair enough, just do that consistently.
Exhibit 1 where this is not done in a consistent manner?
Texas A&M.
Katz rates them as #20.
20. Texas A&M
2006-07 Record: 27-7, 13-3
Mark Turgeon got DeAndre Jordan to re-commit to the program,
and that alone should keep this squad in the top 20.
Joseph Jones declared for the draft but it's likely he'll return to A&M. But losing
Acie Law IV and
Antanas Kavaliauskas, and the transition from Billy Gillispie to Turgeon, has to knock the Aggies down.
So you know Acie Law is gone, big man Kavaliauskas is gone, but because of one possible retention and one featured future freshman this team gets a #20 ranking, even in the face of a coaching change?
Yeah, that is consistent.
Ohio State meantime has -
No coaching change.
Loses Oden, may lose Cook (likely) may lose Conley (also likely), yet;
Brings in a very highly ranked freshman class, with positional skill across the board and a true big man to take up the slack at center.
For which Katz drops them off his board?
Yep, got to love that consistent analysis.
Which is why I can just round file Katz's piece.
