Big Ten Overrated? (Also Hawkeye talk)

[revrew]

Three Big Ten teams in the Top 10 (or 11, depending on polls), all of whom lose this weekend. Rough breaks, or seriously overrated?

Now, I'm an Iowa native, and a Big Ten backer, but I'm willing to suggest the latter.

I know with certainty that Iowa is overrated (though props to ISU for playing very well. I think the 'Clones may be a dangerous underdog in their conf. this year). There was so much buzz in Iowa this year about the Hawks, and buzz about Tate for Heisman, that several key factors were overlooked.

#1. The Hawks no longer have a defensive line. I agree that they may have fantstic 'backers, but without a line, even great backers will only be stopping RBs from touchdowns, not from an automatic 4-5 yards per carry. Iwebema looks like a good DL, but after him, the next most interesting is a converted TE who's currently second string.

#2. Tate still has no one to throw the ball to. I know Tate was awesome last year, but the lack of height (TE being the exception), strength, and speed at the WR spot does suggest Tate is going to have to hard time winning a Heisman. That's even more unlikely considering...

#3. The Hawks return an OL that couldn't pass block last year and appear to have gotten even worse at it this year. This whole team's hype is based on Tate being a god, but even God would have a hard time throwing first downs while lying flat on his back.

Lest we forget, football begins in the trenches, is all about controlling the line, and the Hawks are unimpressive at every position that doesn't contain the suffix "back".

[Butter]

Michigan is overrated, Chad Henne was absolutely awful against ND... Ohio St. was slightly overrated, but I still think they're one of the top 10 teams in the country. But then, I would.

Iowa was overrated, and Purdue is overrated.

The conference as a whole is not all that great right now, a point glaringly underlined by the general suckitude of Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern, and Penn State.

Wisconsin may well be underrated, but they have always been a wildly unpredictable team. One week, they'll beat Ohio State by 28, the next lose to Northwestern at home by 14.

Michigan State is a big question mark, as beating Hawaii by 28 is not all that uncommon at this point.

And Minnesota utterly trounced two teams that aren't all that bad in Tulsa and Colorado State, but they've been famous the last few years for starting out 5-0 or 6-0 and finishing up 7-5.

[rafini]

How can Ohio State be considered overrated when it lost by three points (and actually led in the fourth quarter) against a team it was ranked lower than?

Now I'm a PSU fan, so I could care less that Ohio State lost, but I could never understand the concept of a team falling in the rankings when they lose to another team they're supposed to lose to (Texas No. 2, Ohio State No. 4) - and yes I understand the whole home-field advantage skews it some, but still ...

[Honolulu_Blue]

Henne looked like teh suck Saturday. Not good at all. I thought the defense stepped up and played much better than I would give them credit for. The offense was horrible. When Hart went down they had no running game at all. Henne is begining to look like the reincarnation of John Navarre, but without a 'go to' wideout this year. Avant is good, but he's not the player Edwards was.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I thought Ohio State played pretty well. They just couldn't cash in their opportunities. Too many field goals when they should have been scoring touchdowns.

While I hate OSU plenty, I love their linebacker corps. I think they may fall under the "Chris Spielman Exemption", which allows H_B to like linebackers even if they do happen to play for OSU. Note, not every OSU linebacker falls within the "Chris Spielman Exemption", see: Andy Katzenmoyer (never did like that guy).

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by rafini

How can Ohio State be considered overrated when it lost by three points (and actually led in the fourth quarter) against a team it was ranked lower than?

Now I'm a PSU fan, so I could care less that Ohio State lost, but I could never understand the concept of a team falling in the rankings when they lose to another team they're supposed to lose to (Texas No. 2, Ohio State No. 4) - and yes I understand the whole home-field advantage skews it some, but still ...

It's always refreshing when someone looks up and sees the emperor is wearing no clothing.

The ranking system is a formula based almost entirely on reputation, number of losses and timing of losses. It gains its authority from a group of people who are probably less likely to see every team play than the average fan who sacks out on the couch every weekend.

Their formula is far simpler than any computer-based formula, yet the "computer geeks" who created them are destroyed in the press for relying on formulas instead of performance.*

It's sad that these newspaper rankings determine the national championship, because they're not worth even a glance.

* - this is the worst possible time to be looking at my own ranking system, because it's not designed to be useful until the fifth or sixth week, and still is more than 80% last season's adjusted rating - so there are several 0-1 teams in the top 10, something that's definitely not politically correct.

[Butter]

I see a few Michigan fans in here.... what is the general consensus on Lloyd Carr right now?

[Huckleberry]

Of course I agree with Jim. What I don't get is why poll voters don't all use the computer ratings, later in the season of course, to help with their votes. Learn something about the ratings systems and decide which one you think uses the inputs that you agree with. Then take advantage of the fact that the computer is able to run the thousands of game result comparisons that we all try to consider when deciding how to rank teams.

I'm participating as a voter in TheFanPoll and will without question be using my own ratings to help with my vote once the ratings stabilize. Then again, I'm going to figure out how to setup a preseason rating algorithm I agree with so I can use them as a sanity check from the very beginning in the future.

[Warhammer]

This brings up one of my HUGE beefs with the way NCs are figured out anymore. Just because a team is undefeated does not mean they are the best team in the country.

Everyone always crows about how the SEC is the best conference in the country (ok, everyone down here crows about that). But, who the heck do they play out of conference? Seriously, which team outside of Florida (who plays FSU) or Tennessee (UAB, Notre Dame, Memphis) plays a tough non-conference game? How can you gauge how good the conferences are, unless they play some big non-conference competition? Yet, if Tennessee loses to say Notre Dame, it is because they were beat up from their tough SEC schedule. It is almost a self-fulfilling prophesy and at the end of the year, they are good because everyone perceives them to be good because they have a big conference name.

However, if a team plays a killer schedule and loses one game, are they not better than the team that plays the 50th toughest schedule and goes undefeated? Yet, we assume that the best team in the country HAS to be undefeated if possible. While I understand that argument, that is not necessarily the case. Let's look at 1993 when FSU won the NC. Notre Dame defeated FSU convincingly in the second to last game. Then Notre Dame turns around and loses to Boston College 41-38. Everyone forgets that the game was 38-3 at one point and the Irish came back. Boston College wins on a last second FG. Yet, the pollsters decide that FSU deserves to be #1. Why? Boston College being a worse loss was the reason given at the time, but BC was 8-3 I believe that year, hardly a "bad" loss. In the NFL, the tie-breaker would have been given to ND because of the head-to-head game. No one argues with that logic there, but heaven forbid we apply that in CFB.

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

This brings up one of my HUGE beefs with the way NCs are figured out anymore. Just because a team is undefeated does not mean they are the best team in the country.

Everyone always crows about how the SEC is the best conference in the country (ok, everyone down here crows about that). But, who the heck do they play out of conference? Seriously, which team outside of Florida (who plays FSU) or Tennessee (UAB, Notre Dame, Memphis) plays a tough non-conference game? How can you gauge how good the conferences are, unless they play some big non-conference competition? Yet, if Tennessee loses to say Notre Dame, it is because they were beat up from their tough SEC schedule. It is almost a self-fulfilling prophesy and at the end of the year, they are good because everyone perceives them to be good because they have a big conference name.

However, if a team plays a killer schedule and loses one game, are they not better than the team that plays the 50th toughest schedule and goes undefeated? Yet, we assume that the best team in the country HAS to be undefeated if possible. While I understand that argument, that is not necessarily the case. Let's look at 1993 when FSU won the NC. Notre Dame defeated FSU convincingly in the second to last game. Then Notre Dame turns around and loses to Boston College 41-38. Everyone forgets that the game was 38-3 at one point and the Irish came back. Boston College wins on a last second FG. Yet, the pollsters decide that FSU deserves to be #1. Why? Boston College being a worse loss was the reason given at the time, but BC was 8-3 I believe that year, hardly a "bad" loss. In the NFL, the tie-breaker would have been given to ND because of the head-to-head game. No one argues with that logic there, but heaven forbid we apply that in CFB.

That is actually a pretty weird season to bring up as it goes against the point you were just trying to make in that West Virginia went undefeated that year and did not play for the national championship. So sometimes an undefeated team gets passed by a 1 loss team that played a tougher schedule. I think the main reason FSU got in over ND was that FSU's loss was earlier in the year, which is a seperate flaw in the ranking system. Also at that point there was a lot of sympathy for Bowden as he had never won a title.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

But, who the heck do they play out of conference? Seriously, which team outside of Florida (who plays FSU)

Even down here, though, Florida is made fun of for their non-conference schedule beyond FSU. In fact, FSU fans look down on Florida and Miami because they refuse to play each other every year. Meanwhile, FSU's season is bookended by Miami and Florida every year, while they take on the likes of FAMU or La Tech.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

I see a few Michigan fans in here.... what is the general consensus on Lloyd Carr right now?

Well, I am not calling for his head or anything, but I thought the play calling was a little uninspired. I have been seening the same stuff from him for years now (e.g., that naked bootleg tight-end pass). I thought he stuck with Henne too long. Guitteriez seems like a capable back-up and should have been given a shot to at least try and light a spark under the offense.

Carr's done a fine job. He's won a ton of games (like pretty much every Michigan coach). He brought home a National Title in '97. He usually has the team pretty well prepared for bowl games.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Even down here, though, Florida is made fun of for their non-conference schedule beyond FSU. In fact, FSU fans look down on Florida and Miami because they refuse to play each other every year. Meanwhile, FSU's season is bookended by Miami and Florida every year, while they take on the likes of FAMU or La Tech.

That's my point. Florida and Tennessee play arguably the toughest non-conference schedule in the SEC and Florida only plays FSU.

Originally Posted by timmynausea

That is actually a pretty weird season to bring up as it goes against the point you were just trying to make in that West Virginia went undefeated that year and did not play for the national championship. So sometimes an undefeated team gets passed by a 1 loss team that played a tougher schedule. I think the main reason FSU got in over ND was that FSU's loss was earlier in the year, which is a seperate flaw in the ranking system. Also at that point there was a lot of sympathy for Bowden as he had never won a title.

I thought WVA had gone undefeated the year or two before that. In any case that year, it was before the BCS so there was no single game for the NC. The thing that stuck out in my mind was FSU's loss was in their second to last, or last game of the year. Notre Dame's loss was the game after FSU.

Also, the fact that Bowden got the sympathy vote says a lot about how we determine the NC.

[dixieflatline]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

The conference as a whole is not all that great right now, a point glaringly underlined by the general suckitude of Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern, and Penn State.

This is supposed to be the soft underbelly of the conference but Illinois definitely looks better than they were last year, Penn State has already beaten two Big east teams(lower big east teams if such a term exists), and northwestern crushed Ohio and then beat NIU two teams that look like they could do OK in the MAC. Even Indiana has two wins. As I said last week I think these teams still are at the bottom of the conference but these teams aren't as bad as they were last year. A trip to PSU or NW isn't going to be a gimme for the big boys this year like it was before.

Wisconsin may well be underrated, but they have always been a wildly unpredictable team. One week, they'll beat Ohio State by 28, the next lose to Northwestern at home by 14.

Michigan State is a big question mark, as beating Hawaii by 28 is not all that uncommon at this point.

And Minnesota utterly trounced two teams that aren't all that bad in Tulsa and Colorado State, but they've been famous the last few years for starting out 5-0 or 6-0 and finishing up 7-5.

And I think these three teams which would probably be the middle three are all very solid teams. Minnesota's running attack is just unbelieveable. Maroony(sp?) should be a high draft pick and that line is just great. If they could just throw the ball a bit they would be a top team.

Wisco has a nice win against BG and their defense will be better than they showed in that game. Barry's last season for some motivation and a QB that looks like he might not be too bad.

MSU is a wildcard not having played anyone yet. But last year they were great when Stanton was playing and just horrible when he wasn't. He is currently healthy though that could change anytime. Their defense is pretty bad but they will put up the points. We will see how good they are this week.

As I said last week I don't think the top the big ten is as good as other top conferences but top to bottom it's still pretty good.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by dixieflatline

MSU is a wildcard not having played anyone yet. But last year they were great when Stanton was playing and just horrible when he wasn't. He is currently healthy though that could change anytime. Their defense is pretty bad but they will put up the points. We will see how good they are this week.

This week will be a big test for the Sparties. I agree, they go as Stanton goes. He's a great player. If he wouldn't have gotten hurt in the UofM game last year, there is no way MSU loses that game. If he can stay healthy, they can put up some points.

Next week should be exciting.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I thought WVA had gone undefeated the year or two before that.

They went undefeated in '89, as well (Major Harris, Whoo!). In '93 they were torched by Florida in the Sugar Bowl, though...I still remember seeing Darrin Studstill (WVU's QB) in such a daze that he tried to go back to the huddle with his helmet on sideways after a Gator had knocked him into next week.

[dixieflatline]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

This week will be a big test for the Sparties. I agree, they go as Stanton goes. He's a great player. If he wouldn't have gotten hurt in the UofM game last year, there is no way MSU loses that game. If he can stay healthy, they can put up some points.

Next week should be exciting.

I think this will be a very interesting game next week. Opening line looks like ND by 7 which I think is about right. The ND defense has looked great so far but this MSU offense is another animal all togather. Stanton is 43 of 55 for almost 600 yards and 5 TDs in the two cupcake games. With his arm and his running ability he really creates problems for the defense. He might be the best QB nobody really knows about but that is due in part to his inability to stay healthy. If MSU pulls the upset that would really help the conference image and make the MSU UM game pretty interesting in a few weeks.

[JasonC23]

That Iowa game was the most embarrassing piece of crap I've ever seen under Kirk Ferentz. Yes, even worse than last year's ASU debacle. To come out that flat, unprepared, yet overconfident against your rival...on their home turf...is simply inexcusable. I lost count of how many times they ridiculously shot themselves in the foot. And don't get me started on the starting QB playing poorly, then excusing himself from the rest of the game by tackling a guy with his head. Ugh, ugh, triple ugh.

I only felt better when I reminded myself that last year's team had the aforementioned ASU debacle, followed by a pretty poorly played loss at Michigan...then didn't lose the rest of the year. So they've got that going for them, which is nice.

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by VPI97

They went undefeated in '89, as well (Major Harris, Whoo!). In '93 they were torched by Florida in the Sugar Bowl, though...I still remember seeing Darrin Studstill (WVU's QB) in such a daze that he tried to go back to the huddle with his helmet on sideways after a Gator had knocked him into next week.

Actually it was in '88 WVU went undefeated with the Maj. You of all people should remember at least one of their losses in '89. VT 12 WVU 10.
I have nothing to say about that Sugar Bowl, though.

[General Mike]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

I'm participating as a voter in TheFanPoll and will without question be using my own ratings to help with my vote once the ratings stabilize. Then again, I'm going to figure out how to setup a preseason rating algorithm I agree with so I can use them as a sanity check from the very beginning in the future.

Me too.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

Actually it was in '88 WVU went undefeated with the Maj.

My bad...I was thinking '89 because it was the '89 Fiesta Bowl.

You of all people should remember at least one of their losses in '89. VT 12 WVU 10.

Actually, at the time I was a huge WVU fan...we had season tickets to Mountaineer Field from '82 to '89 and went to both the '82 Gator Bowl and '84 Bluebonnet Bowl. My parents also went to the '89 Fiesta Bowl and '93 Sugar Bowl. It was only until I enrolled at VT that I began to see the error of my ways.

[Kodos]

Indiana's second win was over a I-AA team. And they only won on a last-minute drive. I believe we have a much better futue, but right now, Indiana is still mostly a doormat.

[Mustang]

Rating teams before week 5 or 6 is pointless. If you are unranked at the beginning of the season, it takes forever and a day (if ever) for you to crack the top 10.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Mustang

Rating teams before week 5 or 6 is pointless. If you are unranked at the beginning of the season, it takes forever and a day (if ever) for you to crack the top 10.

Unless you're Notre Dame