Fryowa
Administrator
So by your logic Vanderbilt should be ranked ahead of Alabama. Jesu…Objectively, Iowa State went on the road and beat Iowa head-to-head. Jesu...
So by your logic Vanderbilt should be ranked ahead of Alabama. Jesu…Objectively, Iowa State went on the road and beat Iowa head-to-head. Jesu...
That would be strictly a matter of subjective opinion, whether it be by me, you, or a programmed computer. On the other hand, an objective game has already been played between the two teams, with an objective timekeeper and referees. The result of the game is a proven fact. Until next season, no one has any basis to say Iowa is a better team than Iowa State. You can say it, but it has no basis in fact or logic, it's just opinion.That was two months ago...with McNamara at QB. The question is who is a better team right now. If they played again this Saturday, you betting on Iowa State?
If Vandy had an 8-1 record (and Alabama a 6-3 record) with a win over the Tide, then duh, yeah.So by your logic Vanderbilt should be ranked ahead of Alabama. Jesu…
Yeah seems totally legit to leave out both teams’ strengths of schedule…If Vandy had an 8-1 record (and Alabama a 6-3 record) with a win over the Tide, then duh, yeah.
I've not said there's no flaw in the logic. I'm saying the flaws in the logic of trusting an objective ranking formula are much less than the flaws in trusting votes cast by a bunch of extremely biased reporters who've never played nor coached football.As far as rankings go, there is a flaw in Gry's logic. Predicting who will beat another team is not the same thing as ranking a team's performance based upon the body of work to date. Just because one team is ranked ahead of another does not mean that they will be predicted to win the game. Lots of variables go into that.
It’s not my fault btw if people don’t have the power to understand math, statistics (as a field), and the fact that biased human opinion is meaningless. There’s a whole bunch of people here I envision being in Vegas laying money on a roulette table thinking the longer they play the better their odds get because “at some point odds say you have to win eventually.”
This would be similar to the Mens NCAA BB tourney up until the expansion of the tournament field.I am a big numbers guy.
I'm a huge fan of numbers. I like talk data all the time and fashion myself as an amateur data analyst. Sometimes what I post is based on fallible data purporting to support a flimsy arguments. One of my favorite TikToks at the moment is this guy that does "things that shouldn't match, but do".
And he'll show graphs demonstrating near perfect correlations of things like "the popularity of the first name Nelson matches cottage cheese consumption" or "the number of plumbers in Texas matches google searches for flights to Antartica".
That being said, data driven predictions are fallible as well. Less so, no doubt, than coaches or sports writers.
I do think "today's" Iowa team beats the ISU team that beat the Hawks. I think they beat the ISU team of today as well, at home. For sure. On the road? A bit tougher call. But that's just what I think. But, I also bristle at the idea of data somehow proving that.
In the end, this is why I CANNOT stand the nature of this playoff system. If we're going to do this, it's very easy. Figure out which conferences you want to include. Let the conference determine a champion. The champions go to the playoffs. I'm fine with rankings determining seedings, and can live with them determining any necessary 'byes'. My family is split over this. Some think that a Big 12 (or even lesser conference) matchup against an Oregon is "bad football" to watch on TV. We're not trying to create "good TV". The point is determining a champion. Count me as old school. I think the wild cards are a bad introduction to baseball. Win your damn division. Win your damn conference. Especially in a sport like college football where time/scheduling limitations exist.
Similarly, you can only factually say that Iowa State was a better team on the day they played. Saying they are a better team right now is merely your opinion unless they play again today.That would be strictly a matter of subjective opinion, whether it be by me, you, or a programmed computer. On the other hand, an objective game has already been played between the two teams, with an objective timekeeper and referees. The result of the game is a proven fact. Until next season, no one has any basis to say Iowa is a better team than Iowa State. You can say it, but it has no basis in fact or logic, it's just opinion.
The only that I would be confident about a rematch if played today, is that it wouldn't be close. Either IA blows them out or lays another goose egg in all phases.I do think "today's" Iowa team beats the ISU team that beat the Hawks. I think they beat the ISU team of today as well, at home. For sure. On the road? A bit tougher call. But that's just what I think. But, I also bristle at the idea of data somehow proving that.
It's simple. McNamara isn't accurate. His mechanics are all over he place. He's even worse with the pressure of playing from behind.The only that I would be confident about a rematch if played today, is that it wouldn't be close. Either IA blows them out or lays another goose egg in all phases.
The attendance fall off goblin again, D? Really? If you consider them irrelevant, the door is open for you. See ya’Both Iowa and Iowa State are irrelevant programs. Iowa State is in a conference that is irrelevant . They blend right in with their conference. Iowa was only relevant in the Big Ten West. Going to one division really hurts Iowa’s relevance.
They may finish on the average in the sixth to twelve range, moving forward. Eventually I expect to see a fall off in attendance unless the offense is resurrected.