Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

I hate ESPN and their predictions

I cant recall the last time we were "predicted" to finish with 6 wins. So we have that in our favor. I also think winning all 3 non-conf games is a must this year.


9.ISU
Projected finish: 3-9
Win total range: 2-10 to 5-7
Chance to win Big 12: 0 percent
 
Last edited:
Frankly, I don't mind it. Since I'm not an Insider I can only see Texas, and am therefore forced to make up the rest of the list. I think people will be surprised who he picked to finish second in my head...
 
I wonder if someone could put together CPRs 4 year win/loss totals vs. who has predicted him. I bet he would be +5-6 games.
 
We dont care but still can hate them. Texas wont win the big 12 i would probably put my life savings on that one.
 
they said with the minimal amount of returning starters and also not finishing in top 75 in defense along with losing our best defensive players were in trouble because of the youth and that under CPR we have shown to be a giant killer but not a serious contender.....i think we are on the verge of being a serious contender though :yes:
 
We'll also finish 8th in the league in basketball too. And we were going to get destroyed by #2 OSU. Predictions are dumb. Gotta play the games
 
I wont begrudge anyone for a poor prediction. Gotta earn respect, and we havent really shown anything to the national crowd recently besides one game (which nationally, most would view as a fluke), and we've shown plenty of other awful performances (tulsa bowl game, for example) to even that out.
 
Prediction people need to start adding "The Paul Rhoads" factor into their predictions. The guy is worth 1.35 upset wins and at least 2.3 even odd wins! My math is also made up tho
 
How dare they disrespect us and pick us to drop so far in the standings from last year! What, we finished 9th last year? Well LOUD NOISES then.
 
cytown said:
I cant recall the last time we were "predicted" to finish with 6 wins. So we have that in our favor. I also think winning all 3 non-conf games is a must this year.


9.ISU
Projected finish: 3-9
Win total range: 2-10 to 5-7
Chance to win Big 12: 0 percent
Click to expand...

I don't see how they would put 5-7 as the "best" case. UNI, Tulsa, Iowa, Baylor, Kansas, and WVU would be six wins. And you don't need cardinal tinted glasses to think that we have a legitimate chance to win all of those games.
 
All 3 non-cons are a must every year if we want 6 wins any given year.
 
Rabbuk said:
All 3 non-cons are a must every year if we want 6 wins any given year.
Click to expand...

All three non-cons should be a win every year. But we really need to be moving beyond the stage where 3 wins is that best we can muster in conference. I expect the defense to take a step back this season but if our offense still hasn't shown improvement in year five that is a very bad sign.
 
Judoka said:
All three non-cons should be a win every year. But we really need to be moving beyond the stage where 3 wins is that best we can muster in conference. I expect the defense to take a step back this season but if our offense still hasn't shown improvement in year five that is a very bad sign.
Click to expand...
I think at some point it's just the zone-read doesn't work here.
 
Zero percent chance to win Big 12? In my experience there is no such thing as Zero percent chance, maybe very small, but not zero.
 
alarson said:
I wont begrudge anyone for a poor prediction. Gotta earn respect, and we havent really shown anything to the national crowd recently besides one game (which nationally, most would view as a fluke), and we've shown plenty of other awful performances (tulsa bowl game, for example) to even that out.
Click to expand...


Exactly. We have had 1 winning season since 2005. Thats pretty disastrous for most programs.
 
Your life will improve greatly when you stop caring what ESPN and other media outlets with obvious conflicts of interest thinks about ISU athletics. ESPN loves it some SEC, some NFL, the La Lakers, the Heat, Tim Tebow and ACC basketball. Not everything else content-wise but a lot of it becomes secondary to them because they have to bow down to their bedfellows first, which leads to hack bloggers like Ubben or some other random guy who nobody has heard of producing regular everyday content.


Seriously, when your lead blogger for a conference has admittedly never attended a game in at least two of the home stadiums but regularly visits the others? Does that sound credible to you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rabbuk
You must log in or register to reply here.

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom