rdubbs
Banned
That is far from true. When a highly ranked team is upset by a non ranked team they take a mighty tumble (look back through the polls and you'll see what I'm talking about)
First Coaches Poll of 2010 Released
- Thread starter JonDMiller
- Start date
That is far from true. When a highly ranked team is upset by a non ranked team they take a mighty tumble (look back through the polls and you'll see what I'm talking about)
HawkeyeState81
Well-Known Member
I agree with Dodger, Nebraska is ranked primarily that high due to their schedule. Their offense has a lot ot prush and they don't have Suh yet they are ranked #9?! I don't agree with it but with that schedule it makes sense because if they are anything worse then 10-2 that is pretty sad...
I just think you need to use a little more critical thinking in your analysis. You need to look at the factors that influenced Iowa's performance in each of those years. The issue was player turnover. D - line in 2005 and D - backs in 2006. Each year we replaced long term starters with underdeveloped newcomers. This year we are replacing players with upper-classmen. Or, like in Hyde's case, underclassmen that may beat out highly regarded upper-classmen.
The issue wasn't the ranking, it was the personnel.
Your argument is based on a logical fallacy called post hoc, ergo propter hoc. This fallacy is based on a relation of time in that one thing happens first so it is considered to be the cause of something that happens afterward. In this case, the ranking is the cause for the team's lack of success. The problem is that one does not NECESSARILY follow the other.
The issue wasn't the ranking, it was the personnel.
Your argument is based on a logical fallacy called post hoc, ergo propter hoc. This fallacy is based on a relation of time in that one thing happens first so it is considered to be the cause of something that happens afterward. In this case, the ranking is the cause for the team's lack of success. The problem is that one does not NECESSARILY follow the other.
hawkeyescott
Well-Known Member
True, but Iowa isn't going to lose a game because they are ranked #7 anymore than they would if they are ranked #12, the loss will happen when it happens and I along with every Hawk fan should want Iowa ranked as high as possible when that loss does happen is what I'm saying.
HawkeyeMike23
Banned
They might take a mighty tumble, but usually they are still ranked. If you're ranked 14th or whatever and lose to an unranked team you might tumble right out of the rankings. There's no case where being ranked lower benefits you.
HawkeyeMike23
Banned
Agreed, the entire voting process of the coaches and AP polls is highly flawed. The rankings should be based on what you've done so far in the season, not how good you could be. Ideally, there should be tons of movement in the early weeks. For example a team like Houston, which beat Texas Tech and Oklahoma St. early on should shoot up the rankings to reflect their strong resume at that point. As they move into conference play against weaker opponents they should fall as BCS teams pick up better wins. With the way it is now, if you're a higher ranked team you basically have to lose for another team to move over you. This should not be the case, you shouldn't be rewarded for finishing higher in an arbitrary preseason poll.
The Big Twelve IS getting too much love. Two teams should be here, but three is questionable. However, this will all flesh out when they start playing.
As far as Oregon is concerned, they have to have a Pac Ten team somewhere around there. Same with Va Tech and the ACC. Big East must be embarrassed. Also, this year things are messed up because of Boise and TCU.
cuinknk
Well-Known Member
#10 seems about right to me. We're coming off a #7 final ranking and an Orange Bowl victory. There really shouldn't be any complaints about playing better as an underdog, if we ever want to have the success we all hope for (whether it's delusional or not), we are going to have to do it with a target on our back.
B10Husker
Member
This is just like every other year. You can argue where everyone is rated in the preseason poll from some reason or another. I wouldn't worry about it until the first game is played and a team in the preseason top 25 loses. Perception is everything in these polls and that is all it can be until the teams kick off in a few weeks.
rdubbs
Banned
So where do you think Iowa should be ranked right now?
sandhawk20
Well-Known Member
That logic doesn't make sense. Why assume that when we start with a worse ranking in the poll that we'll keep winning, and when we have a better ranking we'll lose. It's backwards thinking...neither has anything to do with the other.
It's always better to have as good a ranking as possible. Take 2002 for example...even if we had not lost to ISU we would have been ranked BEHIND Miami and OSU because they started with higher rankings than us and we would never be able to "pass" them.
cuinknk
Well-Known Member
So many people forget that, and assume a win against ISU would have put us in the title game.
rdubbs
Banned
You also can't say that it wouldn't happen. Higher preseason rankings have a way of being a negative thing, sure it's great for the national attention but the burden on players and the self worth can be too much.
silvanthalas
Well-Known Member
This is the key.
I look at the fact that Oklahoma is ranked ahead of us, and I can only laugh. They have not earned such a lofty position after last year, regardless of their past.
These polls need to reflect more reality than history. And every year, by not waiting until several weeks into the season, they create nothing but problems with teams who deserve to be highly ranked against those who remain highly ranked but don't deserve it.
B10Husker
Member
I think you could argue that Iowa deserves to be ranked as high as 5th or 6th. Your not gonna win an argument that they should be rated higher than the defending National Champs or event the defending Big Ten Champs. At this point in time it is even hard to argue that anyone is even better than the second place team in the SEC. I could see arguments against Texas considering the loss of McCoy & Shipley. I could also see an argument against Boise State given that they are in the MWC. I would put it like this: 1.Alabama 2.Ohio State 3.Florida 4.Texas 5.Boise State 6.Iowa and you can argue whether they deserve to be ahead of Texas and/or Boise State like I said. However I do think that Oklahoma, Nebraska, Oregon, and even Wisconsin and Miami have very good shots as well.
storminspank
Justin VanLaere
In no way am I advocating Bleacher Report as a legitimate news source, but this was interesting.
2010 USA Today Preseason Coaches Poll: Which Teams Got Disrespected? | Bleacher Report
2010 USA Today Preseason Coaches Poll: Which Teams Got Disrespected? | Bleacher Report
LMFAO - Dude, you have no proof of this. You are trying to make a case that doesn't hold up based on some weird psycho-babble that cant stand up to scrutiny. In your logic, every highly ranked team will lose and the lower ranked teams will win. That is crap. Look at the polls every year. You have to be ranked highly to get a shot, because some teams that are highly ranked are going to make it through. Of course some won't that is the nature of the game.
I think you should get some psychiatric help. It seems like you have a really bad self-esteem issue. Did you have some huge expectation crushed as a child?
Or wait, are you a Cubs fan?
1977Hawkeye
Well-Known Member
Incorrect.
In 2003, I think we started out ranked somewhere around in the 20's (23 or so).
In 2004, I believe we were somewhere near the Top Ten preseason. After a bad loss @ASU, and another loss @Michigan, we were unranked, only to win our final 8 games in a row.
You may be correct to say that in 2003, everyone thought we were a flash in the pan since we weren't ranked real high, but we were ranked. Different story in 2004. We started the season ranked fairly high, and finished the season high, so technically, we DID live up to the hype in '04.
Last edited:
rdubbs
Banned
LOL at you thinking preseason rankings are that important.
BigRedPowrWagon
Well-Known Member
Ive never understood why you would be upset to be ranked high. If you go undefeated and start out at 7. Chances are most of the teams are going to have 1 loss. That automatically puts you at the lead pack for the NC game. That is what you SHOULD be chasing. If your overrated you take your lumps and go on down the line. Do i think nebraska should be ranked 9, no but ill take it. When you can consistantly stay in the top 25 and keep putting up results. Thats when you get the recognition and the recruts. Very important when your just a couple of farming communities looking for out of state players.
