Honestly I don't care about the schedule argument, my original point was that rankings are built on predictions, which they are. Does it make sense? No is nebraska overrated? Yes but the biggest ranking theives are boise state all the cocaine and hookers in the world couldn't convince me they are one of the five best teams in the country
NEBRASKA
- Thread starter HawkKing81
- Start date
HawkKing81
Well-Known Member
If you are going to have preseason rankings (which we shouldn't have), then you take into factors like previous season's success and returning starters, but you don't rank them on what their schedule looks like.
Once they play games and you have a chance to see them play, you rank them on all kinds of factors about how good you think they are, but again, you don't rank them on who they are going to play.
Because it's a ranking....not a prediction.
HawkKing81
Well-Known Member
HawKCP
Well-Known Member
Let's make this simple for you...if you were to take into account a team's schedule in preseason rankings you would be rewarding/punishing teams for winning/losing games that they haven't played yet.
That idea is ridiculous...wouldn't you agree?
We agree...preseason rankings are predictions...where we differ is on what the pollsters should be predicting. Should they predict who the better team is? Or should they predict who will win more games?
In the regular and postseason rankings one is perfectly entitled to use win/loss record when determining who is the best team...however in the preseason if one were to take strength of schedule into account they would rewarding/punishing a team for winning/losing a game the team has not yet played.
Wow ok, for the last time I don't care about the schedule and am not saying that teams are or should be ranked based on how they are predicted to do against their schedule. I am saying that rankings are predictions of how teams with siimilar resumes would fair against one another. The statement I took issue with was that rankings are not predictions, I don't know any other way to decide how to rank one team over another when they have identical records and similar resumes then to predict who would beat who/who the better team is. We are kind of arguing the same thing but for some reason you don't want to acknowledge that predictions of the nature described are used in rankings
HawkKing81
Well-Known Member
You said this:
"HUH???????
You mean they arent predicting who the best teams will be, or predicting how the final rankings will look???
I have been misguided all these years i guess"
No, rankings are not predictions of who the best teams will be or predicting how the final rankings will look.
Rankings are evaluations of someone's season at the current point in the season. When it's Week 8 in the season, you evaluate wins and losses, strength of the teams that the have played (past tense), etc.
Now for a preseason poll (which again, I don't think should exist), you need to take into account how a team did last year and what they have returning. But as soon as games are played, there is more data that you can put into your evaluations.
ShadasRevenge
Well-Known Member
I have no problem with the Nebraska love the media is giving out, I have bigger problems with the media that is picking Wisconsin ahead of Iowa in the Big 10.
I've been critical of the man love for Wisconsin for weeks now. I just don't see it. I get that they have John Clay and a good o-line returning, but what else is their. Scott Tolzein? Sorry. Iowa bitchmade him last year in Madison, and the Hawks will do the same this year in Iowa City.
Cyclones17
Well-Known Member
So let me get this straight. Hawk fans are calling Nebraska overrated and that they weren't that good last year. But when you compare the two teams they played this is how it looks.
Iowa beat Arizona 27-17 and Ark St 24-21 for a +13 point difference. Both games were at home
Nebraska beat Arizona 33-0 and Ark St 38-9 for a +62 point difference.
Does that really matter or show that Nebraska was better? No. I just don't get how Hawk fans can dismiss Nebraska for being overrated and can't fathom somebody saying the same thing to them despite the UNI, Indiana, Ark State, Mich St, Michigan, and Minnesota games all being closer than they should have been.
IMO both are very good teams that should have solid seasons next year. It wouldn't surprise me if either finished in the top 10
Iowa beat Arizona 27-17 and Ark St 24-21 for a +13 point difference. Both games were at home
Nebraska beat Arizona 33-0 and Ark St 38-9 for a +62 point difference.
Does that really matter or show that Nebraska was better? No. I just don't get how Hawk fans can dismiss Nebraska for being overrated and can't fathom somebody saying the same thing to them despite the UNI, Indiana, Ark State, Mich St, Michigan, and Minnesota games all being closer than they should have been.
IMO both are very good teams that should have solid seasons next year. It wouldn't surprise me if either finished in the top 10
HawkKing81
Well-Known Member
Funny that YOU didn't put our other common opponent and the score. Of the 3 common opponents, Iowa was 3-0 and Nebraska was 2-1. I think those are the only stats that matter.
Iowa beat 3 ranked teams (2 on the road, one on a neutral site) and only lost 2 games. Who did Nebraska beat?
It's not even close my friend.
Cyclones17
Well-Known Member
I'm not saying one is better than the other. I just think it's silly to disregard their success and look at their failures but not look at your own.
Nebraska failed to close out games at Va Tech and in the title game against Texas. Therefore they didn't beat a ranked team.
Iowa failed to look good against UNI, Ark State, Indiana.
In the end both teams had solid seasons last year and look to have good teams this year. Who cares?
1) The raped Arizona in their bowl game, almost beat Texas and VT
2) The have a cake schedule (shouldn't be used, but we all know it is)
3) They are Nebraska
4) Their offense pretty much *has* to be better than last year
5) In fairness, they have improved each year since Pelini took over
I would think that they should probably be ranked around #13-15, but can see them being a Top 10 team if they can replace Suh in that defense. We'll see once the season begins...
HawkKing81
Well-Known Member
Arizona was an big win against an average team.
Iowa State was a loss to a bad team.
Texas Tech was a big loss to an average team.
VT and UT were losses.
I agree they are improving, but they are not top ten material yet. Until they win a big game, I am not buying it.
ShadasRevenge
Well-Known Member
Cyclone fans keep saying this, but never mention how good Iowa looked in the wins at Happy Valley, Madison, and Ames. I wonder why.
Cyclones17
Well-Known Member
Because I don't think you looked good at Happy Valley. You won and that's all that mattered but you were losing heading into the 4th quarter of that game.
Same for Madison. Losing at halftime and the tides turned when Wisconsin's RB got hurt
Now you guys did look good in that Ames game if I remember correctly. Which no matter how much liquor I drink...I still remember
DP5555
Well-Known Member
2 Things
IAHawkFan - I would think that they should probably be ranked around #13-15, but can see them being a Top 10 team if they can replace Suh in that defense.
I agree they should be ranked around #15, I think they've proved they belong there. I can't see them being a Top 10 team because Suh is not replaceable.... by ANYONE. I'm a huge Hawkeye fan and I don't think Clayborn could replace Suh if he played for Nebraska. A defensive lineman like that doesn't come around very often.
Cyclones17 - Same for Madison. Losing at halftime and the tides turned when Wisconsin's RB got hurt
This is where your lack of football knowledge becomes apparent. The tides turning had zero to do with Clay getting hurt and everything to do with the adjustments Iowa made at halftime on defense. The front 7 was trying to raise too much hell in the first half and forgetting their responsibilities. They were over-pursuing the entire first half and Clay took advantage of it by making great cutbacks. The coaches (and announcer even I believe) noticed this and the players corrected it. They then made sure every time Clay touched the ball he got pounded. His vulnerability shows when he gets shut down and hit hard... he's a quitter.
IAHawkFan - I would think that they should probably be ranked around #13-15, but can see them being a Top 10 team if they can replace Suh in that defense.
I agree they should be ranked around #15, I think they've proved they belong there. I can't see them being a Top 10 team because Suh is not replaceable.... by ANYONE. I'm a huge Hawkeye fan and I don't think Clayborn could replace Suh if he played for Nebraska. A defensive lineman like that doesn't come around very often.
Cyclones17 - Same for Madison. Losing at halftime and the tides turned when Wisconsin's RB got hurt
This is where your lack of football knowledge becomes apparent. The tides turning had zero to do with Clay getting hurt and everything to do with the adjustments Iowa made at halftime on defense. The front 7 was trying to raise too much hell in the first half and forgetting their responsibilities. They were over-pursuing the entire first half and Clay took advantage of it by making great cutbacks. The coaches (and announcer even I believe) noticed this and the players corrected it. They then made sure every time Clay touched the ball he got pounded. His vulnerability shows when he gets shut down and hit hard... he's a quitter.
