Cyclones will be ranked preseason #5 or #6

  • Fanatics -

    Thank you for your patience today and welcome to the newest version of Cyclone Fanatic!

    Most of the changes we have made are very simple, but will greatly improve your user experience while visiting the website.

    We have upgraded our forum software to speed things up. Our homepage is much cleaner and should be even more mobile friendly than before.

    We appreciate your loyalty and are committed to not only keeping Cyclone Fanatic in tip-top shape, but continuing to build this community for the next decade and beyond.

    We ask that if you are experiences any glitches to let us know in this thread . Will will be diligently working on the site all day.

    Thanks again.

    Chris Williams - Publisher

AuH2O

Well-Known Member
Sep 7, 2013
4,883
5,372
113
I have a friend who I agree with say there shouldn't even be top 25 rankings until week 4. Rather than hyping up some of these teams so early let them play then figure it out.
This is certainly true. Indiana was a fraud and shot to 12th or so by getting a blown call to beat Pedo State in OT. Based on last year and what they had back it was reasonable to have PSU ranked high in the preseason, but of course that turned out to be wrong. Still, Indiana benefited from this error and stayed ranked way too high all year based on losing to OSU and beating bad teams. Obviously this year was different since there were weeks of games in other conferences, but it was a good example of what happens.
 

ZRF

Active Member
Jan 3, 2015
381
191
43
It's possible but not very likely given the reasons already mentioned. Clemson and Alabama are locks due to their consistency as well as run of recent playoff appearances and championships. Ohio State will be another that will be there and possibly Notre Dame. OU was the conference champ and the hype train on Rattler (and rightfully so) will be high. Georgia had a lot of pub early in the seasons and getting their QB back will put them in the top 6. That's before the persistent SEC bias plaguing preseason polls (A&M and Florida will likely be massively overrated).

We will likely be in the 7-10 range. 5 or 6 would be a justifiable surprise while lower than would be a slight. Anything lower than 15 would be unjustifiable.
 

bozclone

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2011
2,725
2,477
113
Indiana
The top ten were all traditional powers, but they also happened to finish 2019 ranked highly and none had lost (some hadn't played). Miami was ranked so highly due to the transfer of a QB thought to be a Heisman candidate, and they were off to a good start. Texas was a few spots higher than they should've been, but what's new?

I think people are acting like the top 10 or playoffs are always full of undeserving big-name teams. These teams are usually in the playoff/top 10 because they are the best teams.

As for the CFP, the biggest outrage that people point to is Ohio State getting picked over TCU and Baylor. It was not clear-cut. At the time of the playoff selection they all had one loss. Baylor's SOS sucked. OSU and TCUs were both were pretty good and very similar. However, do you pick TCU when Baylor won the head to head and also had one loss? Not to mention, OSU used their last weekend to completely dismantle a solid Wisconsin team. It just was not as clear cut as people remember.

And this year people are mad about OSU getting in over A&M? Going in to the selection OSU was 2-0 vs. the last CFP top 25. A&M was 1-1. Are we going to value a bunch of wins vs. unranked teams? I would've preferred A&M getting in since their only loss was to Alabama and avoiding a slip-up in the SEC for that many games is impressive. But I am not going to buy that OSU getting in over A&M is some travesty.
My point is that it is difficult to be a non traditional football power and be ranked in the preseason top 10. I think we should be, but I don't think it is a slam dunk. Schools like Texas, Georgia, Auburn, Penn St, LSU..... are going to get the benefit of the doubt most years. They have a lot of talent on their rosters and the press will often project them higher than a team like Iowa State. Some of those schools had really bad 2020 seasons, we will see if the press takes that into consideration.
 

AuH2O

Well-Known Member
Sep 7, 2013
4,883
5,372
113
I think a few of us mentioned earlier, UNC is going to be that team that gets lots of love this year that will make the average fan take a second look.

Because it wasn't the subject of endless crying, UNC had a ton of opt-outs vs. A&M and gave them all they can handle. UNC has the two ingredients that voters look for - Coach and QB. Howell is so damn good.
 

mj4cy

Asst. Regional Manager
Staff member
Mar 28, 2006
28,534
9,124
113
Iowa
Probably 10-13, because preseason rakings favor the B1G and SEC and bluebloods and sexy sleepers. There is 7 months for the sports world to talk themselves into over ranking those teams.

Alabama, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Georgia, Notre Dame will all be ahead of ISU

Clemson, USC, Florida, Texas A&M will probably be ahead of ISU

Indiana, Miami, North Carolina, Northwestern, BYU, Wisconsin, Texas may be ahead of ISU
Nebraska will work its way back into the Top 25 somehow.
 

RustShack

Well-Known Member
Jan 27, 2010
8,450
1,400
113
Adventureland
I have a friend who I agree with say there shouldn't even be top 25 rankings until week 4. Rather than hyping up some of these teams so early let them play then figure it out.
That’s why the playoff rankings start later in the season. The only rankings that matter.
 

tolfbfan

Well-Known Member
Nov 29, 2015
2,513
3,476
113
55
Ohio
Start slow? Or Start Bad?

Bad isn't going to cut it, but "slow" is acceptable. I really think Campbell approaches the beginning of the season cautiously. You don't want to play your best football in September (at least psychologically). You need to be just good enough to win, and then continue to improve throughout the season. Check his comments after our Louisiana loss. He basically says exactly that. "I thought we were at a point in our program where a loss like this wouldn't happen" I believe he intentionally avoids getting the guys to play their A game week 1. You just have to be good enough to win, and then move on.

Save your best football for October and into November+
I think early in the year, talent level drives wins more than "The Process". But, I think CMC hopes that experience and depth will be enough early in the season to "win Ugly".
 
  • Agree
Reactions: dualthreat

cyclones500

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2010
25,367
11,479
113
Michigan
basslakebeacon.com
SIAP

Sporting News says #9

247's placement of ISU is more fun, but SN list looks more believable overall (at least as far as predicting actual AP rank). 247 is a bit light on SEC teams, compared to what we see historically. Not to say SEC "deserves" more teams for '21, since each season is different. I just don't think voting will materialize that way.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: bozclone

cyclonedave25

Well-Known Member
Jul 10, 2007
20,488
8,519
113
Chicago, IL
I have a friend who I agree with say there shouldn't even be top 25 rankings until week 4. Rather than hyping up some of these teams so early let them play then figure it out.
100% agree. The AP poll is for talking points and TV ratings only. The casual fan is more likely to tune into #7 Iowa St vs #15 Iowa, rather than just Iowa State vs Iowa.
 

VeloClone

Well-Known Member
Jan 19, 2010
36,740
21,645
113
Brooklyn Park, MN
100% agree. The AP poll is for talking points and TV ratings only. The casual fan is more likely to tune into #7 Iowa St vs #15 Iowa, rather than just Iowa State vs Iowa.
Absolutely agree. The problem is that it sets a baseline that every following poll stems from. Instead of seeing a highly ranked team lose an early game and reevaluating everything they look at "how far should we drop team X". And instead of looking anew at their entire body of work each week they simply look at how they did last week. Yeah they lost to another ranked team in week 1, but that other ranked team is now 3-3 so that loss is worse than we thought when we voted week 2. So maybe they haven't lost since but the fact that the loss is worse than we thought means it should be reevaluated and they might continue to drop because of it. Or that unranked team a barely ranked team lost to in week 1 is now 6-0 and ranked. It was a bad loss when we ranked in week 2 but definitely isn't now (sound familiar?).

The pollsters should throw away last week's rankings and evaluate teams each week. The problem is that practically no AP voter does this and definitely no Coaches voter does this.
 

tolfbfan

Well-Known Member
Nov 29, 2015
2,513
3,476
113
55
Ohio
Another reason - new comers. Where is our recruiting class rank, somewhere in the 40s? (I haven't looked in a while)

5 years of having a class in the 40s makes it hard for an outsider to rank you preseason in the top 10.
True, but when you typically take that top 40 talent and get into top 20 annually people notice and higher rankings result.
 

ZRF

Active Member
Jan 3, 2015
381
191
43
I think a few of us mentioned earlier, UNC is going to be that team that gets lots of love this year that will make the average fan take a second look.

Because it wasn't the subject of endless crying, UNC had a ton of opt-outs vs. A&M and gave them all they can handle. UNC has the two ingredients that voters look for - Coach and QB. Howell is so damn good.
Much better rankings than Sporting News'.
 

jctisu

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2017
1,279
1,477
113
33
That’s why the playoff rankings start later in the season. The only rankings that matter.
Problem is it’s human nature to look at things that are already in place. You can’t tell me those on the committee don’t see the AP rankings leading up to those first CFP rankings. As some have said Indiana got a massive jolt due to a supposed top-ten win against Penn State. Well Penn State ended up being trash but the damage was done and even the CFP committee have them the benefit of the doubt coupled with playing Ohio State close.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: VeloClone

VeloClone

Well-Known Member
Jan 19, 2010
36,740
21,645
113
Brooklyn Park, MN
Problem is it’s human nature to look at things that are already in place. You can’t tell me those on the committee don’t see the AP rankings leading up to those first CFP rankings. As some have said Indiana got a massive jolt due to a supposed top-ten win against Penn State. Well Penn State ended up being trash but the damage was done and even the CFP committee have them the benefit of the doubt coupled with playing Ohio State close.
Agree. The committee(s*) should have unlabeled nitty-gritty sheets where they are evaluating resumes without team names attached. Then after that evaluation they can look at "eye-test" but not before. It might be eye-opening for them to see their own biases there in black and white.

*same goes for the BB tournament selection committee.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jctisu

qwerty

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Apr 3, 2020
1,044
1,032
113
56
Muscatine, IA
Agree. The committee(s*) should have unlabeled nitty-gritty sheets where they are evaluating resumes without team names attached. Then after that evaluation they can look at "eye-test" but not before. It might be eye-opening for them to see their own biases there in black and white.

*same goes for the BB tournament selection committee.
NET actually does a decent job of placing wins and losses into the quadrants. The W/L moves with the current ranking of the team, not at time of event.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: VeloClone

Help Support Us

Become a patron