AJC: Iowa #2 for Next Year
- Thread starter JonDMiller
- Start date
HawKCP
Well-Known Member
I don't know about us being ahead of tOSU. Not that I don't like our team because I think we're top 5...maybe I was too impressed by the Rose Bowl...but it seems like me like we might see a coming of age a la Vince Young in his Junior year next year with Terrelle Pryor and if that happens...I don't know if they're going to get beat.
The thing that always cracks me up about these things is how people justify their rankings:
5. Boise State: The Broncos leave their blue turf to play Virginia Tech in Washington, D.C., next season. I’m sorry, but I don’t see them winning that game.
How does that explanation justify a #5 ranking...furthermore...what does that have to do with anything when you're considering preseason rankings. You're supposed to be ranking who the best teams in the country are...not prognosticating as to who will finish where. Their schedule has nothing to do with how good they are.
Ok...I'll get off my soap box now.
The thing that always cracks me up about these things is how people justify their rankings:
5. Boise State: The Broncos leave their blue turf to play Virginia Tech in Washington, D.C., next season. I’m sorry, but I don’t see them winning that game.
How does that explanation justify a #5 ranking...furthermore...what does that have to do with anything when you're considering preseason rankings. You're supposed to be ranking who the best teams in the country are...not prognosticating as to who will finish where. Their schedule has nothing to do with how good they are.
Ok...I'll get off my soap box now.
hawkfan2679
Well-Known Member
I'm with you. I know these polls don't mean anything, and everyone will try to say that it doesn't affect the players. But I was an athlete once (not D-1A quality, but an athlete nonethless
)...the feeling is a lot different when you are slightly off the radar to when everyone is telling you how good you are. I would love to be #10 or so...I don't want to see a repeat of 2005, regardless of the reasoning for our under-performance.
theboat
Well-Known Member
I thought the exact same thing. If the vest cuts him loose, what I saw at the rose bowl was extremely impressive and scared the crap out of me for next year. I just hope that what we saw had as much to do with a Pac-10 defense as it did with Pryor.
JonDMiller
Publisher/Founder
How does that explanation justify a #5 ranking...furthermore...what does that have to do with anything when you're considering preseason rankings. You're supposed to be ranking who the best teams in the country are...not prognosticating as to who will finish where. Their schedule has nothing to do with how good they are.
-------
So if Iowa would have been 9-3 or 8-4 last year, are you saying they should have been ranked inside the Top 10, and ignore that they lost to a tough schedule?
Some people rank preseason as where they think teams will finish, because they factor in things like schedule. I know I like doing that...I like to predict the season for each BCS team and a few non bcs teams, and then rank based on that...because that stuff matters.
-------
So if Iowa would have been 9-3 or 8-4 last year, are you saying they should have been ranked inside the Top 10, and ignore that they lost to a tough schedule?
Some people rank preseason as where they think teams will finish, because they factor in things like schedule. I know I like doing that...I like to predict the season for each BCS team and a few non bcs teams, and then rank based on that...because that stuff matters.
HawkKing81
Well-Known Member
I think there is a distinction between rankings and projections. For instance, I might rank Ohio St. ahead of Iowa, because I think they have a lot coming back, but I would project that by the end of the season Iowa will be ranked ahead of Ohio St. because OSU plays @ Kinnick.
I believe that is the way the polls should be. The rank should be RIGHT NOW, who is the best team and having the best season (or in this case has the most coming back). The polls should not be who is GOING to win.
HawkKing81
Well-Known Member
Go Hawks.
HawKCP
Well-Known Member
The problem that I have with doing so is that preseason rankings end up playing a larger role than they should in the rankings for the rest of the season. As several teams found out this year...if you start the season ranked low in the preseason rankings you've got an uphill climb to get into the NCG. That...in and of itself...is ridiculous to think that prognosticators have a large amount of influence on the end results of the season.
I have used this example before...but until Iowa lost a game...I can't think of a single criteria that could have been used to justify ranking Texas ahead of us other than the fact that they were ranked higher preseason.
There are several criteria that pollsters use to rank teams in the preseason that I completely disagree with. For example...last year I heard a lot of people ranking Penn St. high because their schedule was weak and they thought they had a chance at running the table thus justifying a higher ranking than teams who might be better but face a tougher schedule.
I have no problem once the schedule has played itself out and the records indicate something...but preseason rankings should be based on who you feel is the better team...not on trying to predict who will win certain games.
In this instance...it seems like this pollster is saying that he is ranking Boise State lower than what he normally would due to the fact that he believes they will lose a game early in the season. I don't like Boise St...but if this poll meant anything that would clearly be a detriment to Boise St based on how this guy thinks a game will play out rather than based on things that happen on the field. If you think that Boise St will lose that game because they are not as good as Virginia Tech then rank VT higher than BS...but to knock a team down by a few spots because you're guessing they'll lose a game...that should not happen. (Again...I really don't like Boise St and I think they are routinely given far too much credit...but this proves a point).
ThunderHawk
Well-Known Member
Great quote from the AJC blurb:
jameskalina
Well-Known Member
Interesting reading.
Southernhawk
Well-Known Member
I'll take No. 2 over No.9/10 anyday. It's better publicity for recruits knowing that the program has earned respect. And I think it's just as much motivation to stay #1 or 2 as it is to play the "no respect" card and "sneak up" on people. I'd rather have people know we're good, get their best, and kick their vowel-ss anyway. Has Iowa wrestling recoiled or choked from being rated No. 1 at the beginning of the season?
hawkeyescott
Well-Known Member
Huge difference between comparing Iowa wrestling to football. Brands is getting most of the best wrestlers in the country to come to Iowa. Put it this way, if stars were awarded to wrestling recruits Brands would be getting all 4 and 5 star recruits, the football team gets maybe 1 or 2 4 or 5 star recruits a year.
Southernhawk
Well-Known Member
The point is do they prefer to "sneak up" on people or have people known they're the best, take everybody's best effort and still win? It's an attitude, not recruiting stars. I'd rather start out the best and finish the best.
HawKCP
Well-Known Member
Recruiting is a very small part of what has made Iowa wrestling so successful. In fact...the recruiting advantage that we have exists because of the other things that have made the program successful.
Brands is a more selective recruiter than Ferentz...he is not willing to take on certain kids regardless of how good they are.
Oky St and Minnesota recruit at least on the same level as Iowa if not higher many years.
Brands is a more selective recruiter than Ferentz...he is not willing to take on certain kids regardless of how good they are.
Oky St and Minnesota recruit at least on the same level as Iowa if not higher many years.
Southernhawk
Well-Known Member
I agree. The polls should not start until conference play starts for most teams. However, the situation as it is currently, this is another reason for me wanting Iowa to start at the top rather than work its way to the top.
hawkeyescott
Well-Known Member
You were talking about Iowa wrestling being #1 and not choking and the point I'm trying to make is that it is harder for the football team to stay at #2 or #1 as compared to the wrestling team staying at #1 because the wrestling team is that much better than everyone else except for 2 or 3 teams. It isn't the attitude, when you have that much better athletes you are going to win and Iowa wrestling has that much better wrestlers than everyone else and the football team doesn't.
Iowa wrestling could use their 2nd team at nationals and still finish in the top 10 if not top 5, do you think the 2nd team for Iowa football is in the top 10?
Last edited:
Southernhawk
Well-Known Member
You still don't get my point. I am not comparing the conditions/quality of the two programs. My point is simple: attitude. Wrestling for Iowa IS an attitude. Those who prefer to start at 9 or 10 may be afraid of failure. You don't think Iowa could get up for ISU, Arizona, tOSU, PSU if they are rated No. 2? Do you think being rated #9/10 we would sneak up on people? That's ridiculous. The only other team on our schedule that is rated ahead of us in most polls is tOSU. So they would be the only team we sneak up on? And if we win all games up to tOSU game, we are definitely not sneaking up on them. So enough of this "Let's start at 9/10 crap." Let's start at No. 2.
No. 1 belongs to Alabama till they prove they're not through inadequate play or a loss.
Last edited:
hawkeyescott
Well-Known Member
Got it now, and I agree. If you are at #2 or #9 you are going to get the best shot from the other team so you might as well start higher.
