Uh, didn't the squawks lose to Illinois last year? I am surprised South Carolina isn't a top 5 squad in the preseason though, they sure were back in January.
Phil Steele
- Thread starter CLONEing around
- Start date
Uh, didn't the squawks lose to Illinois last year? I am surprised South Carolina isn't a top 5 squad in the preseason though, they sure were back in January.
Wow, reminds me why college football preseason rankings ,Phil Steele and Athlon Sports mags anger me.
Uh, didn't the squawks lose to Illinois last year? I am surprised South Carolina isn't a top 5 squad in the preseason though, they sure were back in January.
Have you ever had a post that doesn't include 'squawk' or a post that isn't derogatory about Iowa?
If you could, point out where he said anything about Iowa or South Carolina.
He does have his fair share of busts, and misses out a few surprise teams (ex. Kansas), but most of the time he does a pretty good job. He predicted that ISU would finish high in the Big 12 North (after our horrendous 2-10 season, to boot) and to finish ahead of Nebraska for the 2004 season; took a lot of flak from Husker fans at the time.
Just someone that is pointing out that your posts share the same worth as a 1 legged dog. I don't think I've ever seen you add to a conversation in a constructive manner, rather insert some sort of weak insult about the Hawks any chance you get.
The next time you make a positive contribution to a thread will be the first.
Don't worry, he just did the same thing to SouthernHawk in another thread. Sounds like he just needs to get laid.
I got reamed a few weeks ago when I said there are Hawkeye posters that contribute more to the board than Cyclone posters. Here's a prime example.
I think Iowa's ranking is fair. Until they prove they can finish in the top 15 again, absolutely no reason to put them up that high like some magazines are.
I just think these rankings this year are a joke. As evidenced by several of the teams.
I just think these rankings this year are a joke. As evidenced by several of the teams.
No worries, I've seen his shenanigans before over on HR.com. Not to mention the countless jabs over here where he's less likely to get called out.
Didn't mean to sidetrack the thread fellas, my apologies.
You're probably right, and I would imagine that most (if not all) of the pre-season mags will pick OSU to win it, mainly out of habit. I'm of the opinion that the Big 10 is pretty much up for grabs this year.
Ohio State loses a lot on defense, namely Laurinaitis, and both of their starting receivers from last season.
Penn State lost their entire receiving corps and 3/5 of their o-line, including AQ Shipley, but they bring back quite a bit on d.
IDK if I buy Nebraska as a top 25 team just yet, they'll need to prove their worth against Mizzou, KU again and the team that obsesses about them CU who can always pull one out despite what their record may be at the time. Texas Tech falling back off the national map so quickly? And Okie St taking their spot I definitely do buy, however.
So, I was reading through the Phil Steele mag tonight, and ran across his Close Win/Close Loss page near the back. His basic theory that teams with a lot of close wins do worse the following year, and teams with a lot of close losses do a lot better the next year.
I remember this being true about ISU after Chizik's first year, with a total of 4 close losses, 5 if you include the OU game which was close until late. This stat made me cautiously optimistic the past season, until the bottom literally just dropped out during the Baylor game. I sincerely believe that Bates' departure had to do with whatever made the team lose faith in Chizik, because they were just not the same team after that game. Up to that point, had a few things gone differently, we would have been 5-0.
That stat remains true this year as well. Last season, we had a total of 4 close losses according to Phil Steele's definition (behind by a touchdown or less until around the 4th quarter, or loss by a touchdown). This is Iowa, UNLV, Kansas, and Colorado in a nutshell.
And according to his stats, teams with 4 close losses or more have an 85% chance of improving that record the following year.
I know, all we'd have to do is get a 3-9 record to count towards that 85%... but some very big jumps have occurred to teams falling under this stat, including last year's Minnesota team, and other teams from recent history including Illinois, Arkansas, BYU, etc.
Granted, Phil Steele has us finishing last in the Big 12 North, but considering the toughness of the conference last year, that could be a 5-7 last place finish. Much better than 5-19.
I remember this being true about ISU after Chizik's first year, with a total of 4 close losses, 5 if you include the OU game which was close until late. This stat made me cautiously optimistic the past season, until the bottom literally just dropped out during the Baylor game. I sincerely believe that Bates' departure had to do with whatever made the team lose faith in Chizik, because they were just not the same team after that game. Up to that point, had a few things gone differently, we would have been 5-0.
That stat remains true this year as well. Last season, we had a total of 4 close losses according to Phil Steele's definition (behind by a touchdown or less until around the 4th quarter, or loss by a touchdown). This is Iowa, UNLV, Kansas, and Colorado in a nutshell.
And according to his stats, teams with 4 close losses or more have an 85% chance of improving that record the following year.
I know, all we'd have to do is get a 3-9 record to count towards that 85%... but some very big jumps have occurred to teams falling under this stat, including last year's Minnesota team, and other teams from recent history including Illinois, Arkansas, BYU, etc.
Granted, Phil Steele has us finishing last in the Big 12 North, but considering the toughness of the conference last year, that could be a 5-7 last place finish. Much better than 5-19.
His mag is unequivocally the best out there IMO. He is indeed fond of net close loses, t/o ratio, and lost starts. He is mostly spot on with valid thoughts when he isn’t.
He also uses a composite “recruiting ranking” that is more reliable in my mind, as evidenced by the fact that some teams, (Iowa being one of them) that he routinely ranks with higher classes than rivals does. And if NFL talent is any indication it seems he has a better formula than most.
In reading ISU’s review I got the feeling he thinks the offensive talent is very solid to quite good, but there would be growing pains with new systems and finding they’re chemistry & identity. Defensively I got the feeling he thinks they are very limited athletically and quite slow in areas.
For Iowa I get the feeling that he remembers they have hosed him a couple times in the recent past. He goes so far as to say he thinks they may have the most talent in the Big 10, but the schedule was daunting.
I would concur with southern hawk in that Iowa is right were they needed to be. Any higher and we seem to get big headed and we all know how that turns out……………..:wideeyed:..........I'd say Phil thinks like I do.
Chad
Shenanigans? What are you 12? Yeah Illinois at 19 is so terrible. Steele predicted them to have a good year in 2007 and he was right. He also predicted them to have a bad year last year and he was right.
The Illini have a chance to have one of the best offenses not only in the big 10 big 10 but also in the country. It's the defense that will be suspect.
Oh and I have never seen so many losers post on their rivals own free message board. I mean seriously squawk fans. Is the trailer park really that boring?
The Illini have a chance to have one of the best offenses not only in the big 10 big 10 but also in the country. It's the defense that will be suspect.
Oh and I have never seen so many losers post on their rivals own free message board. I mean seriously squawk fans. Is the trailer park really that boring?
