First Coaches Poll of 2010 Released

rdubbs said:
First Scotty it's "they're" (it's tough to read when you can't seem to use the correct wording) #2, preseason rankings aren't important but I can't see a team saying "yeah, we don't want to be preseason #1, please revote" Go back the last 10 years and look where teams started the season and where they finished. Preseason #1's don't have a great track record. I am happy Iowa is #10 but would also have no problem with them being #14 or #15 to start the season and if they take care of business on the field, they'll be playing in a great bowl game in 2011.
Click to expand...

1) I guess you might as well go after the grammer when you have nothing to add

2) This isn't about a team starting #1 and finishing #1, it is about a team being #20 in the preseason and trying to get to #1 and how difficult it is as compared to a team that started #7 in the PRESEASON POLL.
 
rdubbs said:
First Scotty it's "they're" (it's tough to read when you can't seem to use the correct wording) #2, preseason rankings aren't important but I can't see a team saying "yeah, we don't want to be preseason #1, please revote" Go back the last 10 years and look where teams started the season and where they finished. Preseason #1's don't have a great track record. I am happy Iowa is #10 but would also have no problem with them being #14 or #15 to start the season and if they take care of business on the field, they'll be playing in a great bowl game in 2011.
Click to expand...

Since 2002, 9 of that 18 teams that have played for the title have been ranked No. 1 or 2 in the preseason poll. That's pretty strong evidence that preseason polls do matter.
 
hawkeyescott said:
1) I guess you might as well go after the grammer when you have nothing to add

2) This isn't about a team starting #1 and finishing #1, it is about a team being #20 in the preseason and trying to get to #1 and how difficult it is as compared to a team that started #7 in the PRESEASON POLL.
Click to expand...


Wow rdubbs what is so hard to understand here? If you start 14th or 20th or whatever you have a heck of a lot more teams to pass then when you start at 10th. The object to the season is to climb as high as possible and make it to the title game. So with the current structure of college football preseason rankings mean a whole HECK of a lot as the first poll taken after the 1st week of the season branches off from where all teams start........
 
HawkeyeMike23 said:
Since 2002, 9 of that 18 teams that have played for the title have been ranked No. 1 or 2 in the preseason poll. That's pretty strong evidence that preseason polls do matter.
Click to expand...

Couldn't you also say that the preseason polls actually "got it right" those seasons?
 
rdubbs said:
USC and Oklahoma were better?
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not, but there's no proof of that since Auburn went undefeated.

USC and OU were ahead of Auburn all year in the polls. It stayed that way because none of these teams lost. It's as simple as that. Auburn was the odd man out because USC and OU were higher in the preseason polls, and not enough teams ahead of them lost.

I don't know how you can argue that preseason rankings don't matter when we're talking about a system that is based solely on where you are ranked.
 
CAARHawk said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree 100 percent(even though I had to google 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc'). :)

Sometimes I really don't get Iowa message boards. We have people scream constantly that we never get any respect. Then, when we do, people get nervous because they have some misconceived notion that we can only be good if we are disrespected.

I think it's safe to say some of you really overthink things. Luckily that's never been a problem with me.
 
burky247 said:
I agree 100 percent(even though I had to google 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc'). :)

Sometimes I really don't get Iowa message boards. We have people scream constantly that we never get any respect. Then, when we do, people get nervous because they have some misconceived notion that we can only be good if we are disrespected.

I think it's safe to say some of you really overthink things. Luckily that's never been a problem with me.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%.

This topic also reminds me of the same argument people make that, because the 2005 recruiting class was highly rated nationally, and it was a bust, then it follows then that it's bad if we recruit 4-5 star recruits. Yet at the same time, those same folks will tell you that we probably can't expect Iowa to ever win a national title because we don't recruit the same level of talent as programs like Texas and Florida.

Granted, Ferentz seems to be doing well recruiting alot of 2-3 types of players. But to me, that's more about talent evaluation and player development. This coaching staff seems to excel in grabbing overlooked recruits and turning them into good football players. Sometimes NFL players.

I don't believe that 4-5 star recruits are "worse" than "2-3" star players.

People tend to over-analyze stuff and think that the exceptions are the rule. There are always exceptions to every rule.
 
What the hell don't you understand? USC had Reggie Bush, Matt Leinart and a great defense, so picking them as preseason #1 wouldn't have been rocket science.
 
rdubbs said:
What the hell don't you understand? USC had Reggie Bush, Matt Leinart and a great defense, so picking them as preseason #1 wouldn't have been rocket science.
Click to expand...

And what don't you understand about the fact that the #1 preseason ranking gave USC an automatic leg up on every other team in the country towards finishing at #1 in the final poll?
 
1977Hawkeye said:
And what don't you understand about the fact that the #1 preseason ranking gave USC an automatic leg up on every other team in the country towards finishing at #1 in the final poll?
Click to expand...

And a loss would have dropped them. Nice try though.
 
1977Hawkeye said:
But they didn't lose.

You're still yet to tell us how preseason rankings don't matter.
Click to expand...

They don't matter. #1 and #2 in the preseason never make it to face eachother for the national title later in the season. It DOESN'T matter where you are ranked. Winning all your games is all that gives you a shot at winning a title. Iowa being at #10 doesn't mean they won't get a chance to play for a title and it doesn't mean they will. For ****sake why is that so hard to understand? Some of you think that being in the top 10 in the preseason guarantees you can win a title, which it doesn't, it gives you a chance but EVERYBODY has a chance to win a title before the season.
 
for ****sake what is so hard to understand that there are less teams that need to lose in front of you to allow that to happen?

if preseason rankings mean nothing...say alabama wins but look like pure hell doing it, will they be dropped completely out of the rankings? absolutely not. they will stay right where they are. if iowa beats eastern illinois 167-0, will they jump to #1 for looking so impressive? absolutely not.
 
whammer33024 said:
for ****sake what is so hard to understand that there are less teams that need to lose in front of you to allow that to happen?

if preseason rankings mean nothing...say alabama wins but look like pure hell doing it, will they be dropped completely out of the rankings? absolutely not. they will stay right where they are. if iowa beats eastern illinois 167-0, will they jump to #1 for looking so impressive? absolutely not.
Click to expand...

It does no good to use common sense with him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top