De-constructing a Popular Preseason Poll

Is this sort of thing nessarily bad? I mean a lot of guys out there, like Kirk Herbstreit, have been questioning Iowa based on their inability to handle expectations (citing the "fat cats" years as evidence). But another way to look at it is to say that there are still a lot of doubters out there who think the Hawks have already peaked (or at least plateaued), and are incapable of winning the conference. There's the disrespect we're looking for that motivates us... let's prove the doubters wrong and show them that we can do it!
 
COLAHawk said:
Is this sort of thing nessarily bad? I mean a lot of guys out there, like Kirk Herbstreit, have been questioning Iowa based on their inability to handle expectations (citing the "fat cats" years as evidence). But another way to look at it is to say that there are still a lot of doubters out there who think the Hawks have already peaked (or at least plateaued), and are incapable of winning the conference. There's the disrespect we're looking for that motivates us... let's prove the doubters wrong and show them that we can do it!
Click to expand...

I really don't care about Iowa's ranking, as I stated. But using their own self defined criteria, a lot of it is at odds with itself.
 
Jon's position is not about whether it is good for the Hawks to be ranked higher or lower. His critique is based on his assumption that the criteria CFN is saying they are using doesn't justify their conclusions. I think he has a decent point.
 
JonDMiller said:
I really don't care about Iowa's ranking, as I stated. But using their own self defined criteria, a lot of it is at odds with itself.
Click to expand...


I agree to a point...I don't really care where we're ranked either, unless it's the coach's poll. The higher you're ranked on the Coach's the easier it is to make/stay on top. I believe that all of these other polls influence who the coaches, or their SIDs, choose to be ranked where.
 
If you have a formula as to how you rank, rate, dissect a matter and then the results from using that formula make no sense, it should be questioned.

Good stuff, Jon.
 
CFN is a great resource, love it ... used to be better though, before they made it conform to the FOX / scout format
 
JonDMiller said:
I really don't care about Iowa's ranking, as I stated. But using their own self defined criteria, a lot of it is at odds with itself.
Click to expand...
I know you don't care about the actual ranking itself. The point I'm trying to make is that yet another instance like this is not necessarily bad for the team because it adds fuel to the fire.
 
Jon,

You are missing the point here and this subject is actually one of my biggest pre-season pet peaves with college football.

First of all, let me say that I don't think there should be pre-season rankings to begin with. I like most people feel they should wait until the 4th week in the season before they come out with rankings.

However, since they do have preseason rankings, we need to make an important distinction which I think CFN is doing and you are not. There is a HUGE difference between rankings and predictions. Rankings are what the team should be ranked at the current time, predicitions are what people think they will be ranked by year's end.

For preseason rankings, you not only should use, but you HAVE to use rankings and not predictions.

Nebraska is the perfect example in my mind. CFN is not saying that Nebraska won't be ranked in the top 10 by years end, in fact, I would guess that's what they would predict, because they have a very easy schedule. But they are saying Nebraska at this point, has no reason to be in the top 10. They lost 4 games last year, they didn't beat a team that finished the season ranked, they lost to Iowa State. And they lost big time defensive studs which were the best players on their 4 loss team.

If you just rank Nebraska in the top 10 TODAY, because you know they have a very easy schedule, you are giving them a HUGE advantage to start the season. Now if they do lose to Washington or someone else early on, instead of falling out of the rankings where they probably should be they will only drop to the Top 20 or thereabouts.

Again, there should not be preseason rankings, but if there is, it has to be rankings on not predictions to be as fair as possible.
 
HawkKing81 said:
Jon,

You are missing the point here and this subject is actually one of my biggest pre-season pet peaves with college football.

First of all, let me say that I don't think there should be pre-season rankings to begin with. I like most people feel they should wait until the 4th week in the season before they come out with rankings.

However, since they do have preseason rankings, we need to make an important distinction which I think CFN is doing and you are not. There is a HUGE difference between rankings and predictions. Rankings are what the team should be ranked at the current time, predicitions are what people think they will be ranked by year's end.

For preseason rankings, you not only should use, but you HAVE to use rankings and not predictions.

Nebraska is the perfect example in my mind. CFN is not saying that Nebraska won't be ranked in the top 10 by years end, in fact, I would guess that's what they would predict, because they have a very easy schedule. But they are saying Nebraska at this point, has no reason to be in the top 10. They lost 4 games last year, they didn't beat a team that finished the season ranked, they lost to Iowa State. And they lost big time defensive studs which were the best players on their 4 loss team.

If you just rank Nebraska in the top 10 TODAY, because you know they have a very easy schedule, you are giving them a HUGE advantage to start the season. Now if they do lose to Washington or someone else early on, instead of falling out of the rankings where they probably should be they will only drop to the Top 20 or thereabouts.

Again, there should not be preseason rankings, but if there is, it has to be rankings on not predictions to be as fair as possible.
Click to expand...

explain oklahoma then. explain georgia. explain florida. i'd give you nebraska...but explain the other ones jon pointed out
 
Some of those teams are ranked high STRICTLY on projections AND NAME and nothing else...Florida and Oklahoma are two.

The real problem is that even if teams like that lose an early game to a team they should not they still do not drop very far in the polls simply because the media does not want them to drop. They like them to remain high in the polls because they are media darlings. Teams like that have a very definite advantage over teams like Iowa simply because of name recognition...
 
whammer33024 said:
explain oklahoma then. explain georgia. explain florida. i'd give you nebraska...but explain the other ones jon pointed out
Click to expand...

First of there is also a difference between "projections" and "predictions". It is ok to project how good you think a team is going to be, based on the talent they have, but it is not ok to rank a team based on their upcoming schedule.

It is ok to disagree with someone's projections. I surely don't think that Georgia should be ranked that high. And if we want to ridicule CFN for that, I am ok with that. But they see something in those teams that give them reason to believe that they will be a good team. That's ok. What is not ok is giving a team the benefit of the doubt because their schedule is favorable. That has nothing to do with the talent on a team. Again....if you factor in the upcoming schedule for a team, you give certain teams a huge advantage. Those games have not been played yet, so you can't use them as data points for your rankings.

At least CFN is giving the reason why those teams you mentioned are where they are. Can we disagree with their reasons....sure.

Let's use this scenario. Let's say Iowa was undefeated going into Ohio State and Ohio State had lost 1 game to Purdue. Let's say that a pollster thinks that Iowa is going to lose the game. Well, that pollster can't rank Iowa below Ohio State, just because he thinks Iowa is going to lose can he? No, he HAS to rank Iowa ahead of Ohio State, because they have played essentially the same teams and OSU has one loss. He can't rank Iowa lower because he THINKS they will lose to OSU. Does that make sense?

That's why you MUST not include upcoming schedule in rankings.
 
HawkKing81 said:
At least CFN is giving the reason why those teams you mentioned are where they are. Can we disagree with their reasons....sure.
.
Click to expand...

Why should anyone care that someone has UNC as the #13 team in the nation, right now, but expects for them to go 6-6? I am sorry...having those things right in those profiles in some instances is laughable. this is one. I just dont see any way you can try to sell someone as the #13 team today, when you think they might not even make a bowl game. Good luck with that.
 
While I don't agree with CFN's perceptions on how good particular programs are right now, I'd argue that I can understand several of their picks. Here are a few thoughts ...

- Some folks simply bite on hyperbole and hype. In the case of North Carolina, a lot of pundits love their coach ... and, more importantly, many folks view UNC fielding the best D in all of college football next year. I don't agree with the perception of the 2010 Tar-heels ... however, the above points are great fodder for those who would want to pick them ahead of Iowa.

- Wisky is pretty much in a similar category with UNC. It's all about perception. Folks look at Wisky's O and see it as a complete behemoth. Furthermore, many folks who look at Wisky's D likely saw the 2009 Wisky D as being a very young group ... and consequently overlooked some of the key cogs that the D lost.

- When you're talking about programs like Florida and OU, you're also talking about "brand names." Furthermore, it doesn't hurt that both Stoops and Meyer are viewed as being among the elite coaches in the college game ... and it also doesn't hurt that Florida and OU are renown for be loaded with talent due to the high recruiting rankings that they enjoy, year in and year out.

- Georgia is a bit of an outlier. I don't know really what to say there. They do have one of the best WRs in college football (IIRC) ... however, that is about as much of a reach as I can make.
 
to sum up your point, you can't rank a team highly because they have a weak schedule.

is it okay to drop a team because of a tough schedule?

jon even says that the only way you can judge a team AT THIS POINT is by looking at what they did last year and what they have returning
 
JonDMiller said:
Why should anyone care that someone has UNC as the #13 team in the nation, right now, but expects for them to go 6-6? I am sorry...having those things right in those profiles in some instances is laughable. this is one. I just dont see any way you can try to sell someone as the #13 team today, when you think they might not even make a bowl game. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

Jon, because UNC has to play a very tough schedule.

I agree, CFN does need to do a better job pointing out why they will go 6-6, but they do play GA Tech, LSU, Miami, V-Tech and have several other tough games.

Still, the fact remains...you CAN'T factor in the upcoming schedule when you are ranking teams. Just because UNC plays a much tough schedule than Nebraska and will likely end up with more losses, does not mean they are a worse team than Nebraska.
 
I think some people are missing the boat on this.

CFN claims to look at the team right now. As in right. now.
If you are doing that, then predicted records is meaningless.

Furthermore, an 11-2 Orange Bowl winning Iowa team that finished SEVENTH in the nation shouldn't be much lower (perhaps higher) than that ranking if you look at returning players and incoming recruits.

If CFN was projecting teams as to where they are to finish, I have no problem with Iowa being ranked 14th. Hell, I'd be ok with them out of the Top 25, as no one knows how the games will end or how the ball will bounce. But if it's right now, there's no evidence to put Iowa outside the Top 10. Zero.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top