ISU #6 in Massey Computer Rankings
- Thread starter Dale
- Start date
I don't know how we could be that high..... we've only beat two really bad teams....... and one of them has only scored 1 TD all year and that was a 16 yd drive.
I think if recent trends hold true I like this team to still win 7-8 games.
Another winning conference record would be pretty great.
Another winning conference record would be pretty great.
Clean up our own stupid mistakes... and this is a really solid football team. I was really happy with what I saw yesterday minus all the stupid unforced errors of course. We basically moved the ball up and down the field most of the day against a solid defense, and our defense played very well too.
Well, it has Iowa #29, so that probably explains it.
Massey (and similar) early in season are erratic and mostly useless. Fun to be in top 10 for amusement, though.
With the utter chaos yesterday I don’t see why ISU and 40 other teams couldn’t be in 8-25 range.
Our conference looks to be extremely deep but not dominant top heavy as some years.
Outside of Clemson and maybe USC I’m not sure the Sun Belt isn’t as legit as ACC and Pac.
Our conference looks to be extremely deep but not dominant top heavy as some years.
Outside of Clemson and maybe USC I’m not sure the Sun Belt isn’t as legit as ACC and Pac.
I’ve never seen another fan base so intent on proving their team isn’t very good. It’s comically stupid.
First to post that I want a winnable bowl opponent in a nice location instead of being up-graded too an unwinnable bowl against far superior competition even if its near an amusement park. No "We want Bama" signs....this year.
I know, too soon.
I know, too soon.
The biggest reason for Iowa State's high ranking actually goes back to last year, when they finished 15th in Massey (due, to what I know about Massey, to a top-ten schedule and close losses to good teams). That's the starting point for the rankings this season, and with a weird second week of the season and a good (in Massey's eyes) win...well, here we are.
Not that I agree with his model's assessment of us, but trying to explain...
I don't follow analytics all that closely, but I've got ESPN+ so I occasionally check out Bill Connelly's SP+ rankings. This week is an example of where analytics can really get its head up its own ass sometimes.
It's always prefaced with language about how it's an efficiency ranking, forward-facing, not predictive, etc. It's meant to eliminate fluky bounces and rewards teams that line up and beat (or nearly beat) their opponents straight up. Fair enough.
So given that, I don't know how you explain the last couple of weeks.
Five days ago:
#41. Iowa (1-0)
#42. Iowa State (1-0)
This morning:
#39. Iowa (1-1)
#43. Iowa State (2-0)
Yesterday was full of fluky bounces, but they should more or less cancel out. Perhaps Iowa's blocked punts carry a lot of weight. But can there be any argument that ISU didn't beat Iowa straight up, and that it was not a fluky win?
Seems like when your ranking moves up a team that lost at home, and moves down the team that beat them - not weeks later after other results are factored in, but just hours after the game was played - you have a pretty iffy ranking system.
It's always prefaced with language about how it's an efficiency ranking, forward-facing, not predictive, etc. It's meant to eliminate fluky bounces and rewards teams that line up and beat (or nearly beat) their opponents straight up. Fair enough.
So given that, I don't know how you explain the last couple of weeks.
Five days ago:
#41. Iowa (1-0)
#42. Iowa State (1-0)
This morning:
#39. Iowa (1-1)
#43. Iowa State (2-0)
Yesterday was full of fluky bounces, but they should more or less cancel out. Perhaps Iowa's blocked punts carry a lot of weight. But can there be any argument that ISU didn't beat Iowa straight up, and that it was not a fluky win?
Seems like when your ranking moves up a team that lost at home, and moves down the team that beat them - not weeks later after other results are factored in, but just hours after the game was played - you have a pretty iffy ranking system.