Four B1G in Top 10 USA Today

Donate To GopherHole


Different story for the Big 12.

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

Yeah how do you have Iowa ahead of:

North Carolina
UCLA
Oklahoma State
Boise State
Oregon
Western Michigan?

I'd like to hear the reasoning employed, but I already know there wasn't any.
 

After yesterday Wisco has no business being in the top ten. Course they probably won't even be ranked in three weeks
 


Pompous Elitist said:
Yeah how do you have Iowa ahead of:

North Carolina
UCLA
Oklahoma State
Boise State
Oregon
Western Michigan?

I'd like to hear the reasoning employed, but I already know there wasn't any.
Click to expand...
Because NDSU would likely beat 5 of those 7 teams
 


Pompous Elitist said:
That's quite an unprovable statement. Iowa has the worst loss by far of the one loss teams.
Click to expand...
Saying they couldn't is also an unprovable statement so I guess we are at an impasse


FWIW, I wouldn't have Iowa in my top 25
 





How is Florida Stare rated that high after barely winning a couple weeks ago against a two-loss team, and getting destroyed yesterday? A top 15 team doesn't get beat like that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Ozzy&Ray said:
How is Florida Stare rated that high after barely winning a couple weeks ago against a two-loss team, and getting destroyed yesterday? A top 15 team doesn't get beat like that.
Click to expand...

I hate preseason rankings. They anchor a team either high or low with no on-field supporting evidence (e.g. "hey, they were good last year so they will be good this year"). And when contradicting evidence starts to appear on the actual field of play, those same voters are probably hesitant to change their tune for fear of looking like they didn't know any better.

Someone wrote a good argument FOR preseason rankings awhile back, but I can't remember what it was.
 

BarnBoy said:
I hate preseason rankings. They anchor a team either high or low with no on-field supporting evidence (e.g. "hey, they were good last year so they will be good this year"). And when contradicting evidence starts to appear on the actual field of play, those same voters are probably hesitant to change their tune for fear of looking like they didn't know any better.

Someone wrote a good argument FOR preseason rankings awhile back, but I can't remember what it was.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter is they voted before the season or waited a few weeks or more. Most of the voters would have their own idea of who is on their list, and would likely vote the same way no matter how the vote was conducted.
 



You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom