Explain to me Michigan being ranked and Iowa not

N

NorthKCHawk

Well-Known Member
This is mostly rhetorical because I know how the word works. But compare Iowa and Michigan this year:

Two non-con scrub games, one of which Michigan struggled with. Iowa took care of business in both.
Both took a beat down by a Top 5 team, but Michigan got drubbed in the Big House. Iowa in the Shoe.
Both have a couple good, but not great wins. (Iowa--Minny on the road and Washington; Michigan--USC and Minny)
Iowa's second loss was to a Top 10 team. Michigan's second loss was to an unranked team that we just clobbered.
Common opponents? Michigan lost to Washington and barely snuck by Minny at their house. We kicked the shit out of both teams.

Take off the emblems and compare those records blind and the wrong team is ranked.
 
It's simple, right?

Iowa beat Washington
Michigan lost to Washington

Unless....

You throw out all victories and losses where the road team.had to travel 2 or more time zones.
 
One reason is that the ppl voting are mostly beat writers and watch their teams weekly with little chance to see much else. In the coaches poll, there’s a long-running joke that the secretary or SID vote.

Polls are fun to discuss but very flawed. The one that matters is the CFP. The first of six of those drops on Nov 5 (Election Day that should be fun).

All that said, Michigan should not be ranked.
 
Regardless of our feelings toward poll bias, Michigan is a blue blood and defending national champions. They're also playing Illinois who's already ranked and lets be honest a game between two ranked teams increases viewership so they get the nod.
 
On an annual basis, if you take the preseason AP Poll and compare it to the final AP poll, 9 of the top 25 teams in the preseason poll will not be present in the final AP top 25 poll. Some years it might be 8 or 10, but on average 9. Iowa was in the 2024 preseason poll and Illinois wasn't as one example this year. The AP writers are actually better than the coaches at predicting the top 25. Many years ago it was the top 20 teams that were ranked by AP.

Trying to explain the logic used by the AP writers in ranking teams is difficult.
 
RobHowe said:
One reason is that the ppl voting are mostly beat writers and watch their teams weekly with little chance to see much else. In the coaches poll, there’s a long-running joke that the secretary or SID vote.

Polls are fun to discuss but very flawed. The one that matters is the CFP. The first of six of those drops on Nov 5 (Election Day that should be fun).

All that said, Michigan should not be ranked.
Click to expand...
I was surprised by Iowa's relatively high position in the early CFP rankings last year.

Assuming Iowa, Iowa State and Ohio State win these next few weeks, we might be pleasantly surprised where Iowa sits on November 5.

I think they'll also need some help. They really two of these four - MN, WA, WI and NE - to win a bunch of games, ideally be ranked, and add a couple higher profile wins to Iowa's resume.
 
RobHowe said:
One reason is that the ppl voting are mostly beat writers and watch their teams weekly with little chance to see much else. In the coaches poll, there’s a long-running joke that the secretary or SID vote.

Polls are fun to discuss but very flawed. The one that matters is the CFP. The first of six of those drops on Nov 5 (Election Day that should be fun).

All that said, Michigan should not be ranked.
Click to expand...
Completely agree and i think most FB fans would agree..... IMO there should be zero rankings until after game 4 of the season. The thing is there's too much $ & clicks that come w/ the rankings and for that reason they won't change it.
 
Glass1/2fullguy said:
The thing is there's too much $ & clicks that come w/ the rankings and for that reason they won't change it.
Click to expand...
The funny thing about the teams that have name recognition is they actually got that by giving out more scholarships back before their was a limit, then paying players under the table when their was a limit. And now we've come full circle and back to the no salary cap of the 60's
 
NorthKCHawk said:
This is mostly rhetorical because I know how the word works. But compare Iowa and Michigan this year:

Two non-con scrub games, one of which Michigan struggled with. Iowa took care of business in both.
Both took a beat down by a Top 5 team, but Michigan got drubbed in the Big House. Iowa in the Shoe.
Both have a couple good, but not great wins. (Iowa--Minny on the road and Washington; Michigan--USC and Minny)
Iowa's second loss was to a Top 10 team. Michigan's second loss was to an unranked team that we just clobbered.
Common opponents? Michigan lost to Washington and barely snuck by Minny at their house. We kicked the shit out of both teams.

Take off the emblems and compare those records blind and the wrong team is ranked.
Click to expand...


Perhaps it is a matter of Size

Michigan is BIgger

Stadium Wise
 
Michigan should not be ranked.
Won't say if Iowa should be ranked.
Michigan should not be ranked.

The good part is, on paper, Michigan winds up 6-6.
On the road at Illinois, Indiana, OSU
At home against Oregon.

Course, I think they'll find a way to beat either Illinois or Indiana. Fine. 7-5.
Too bad Iowa doesn't play them this year. Kirk would be at or near .500 against Fichigan again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top