I was listening to a Jeff Long interview on the radio on Thursday morning with Taylor Zarzour and Greg McElroy when they asked him a question about whether the committee takes into account the injury to Seth Russell in their rankings due out Tuesday. He very matter-of-factly stated that the committee does not prognosticate and they only take into account the games that have been played to date.
This got me wondering: if they don't prognosticate, or look to the future, why would they allow themselves to be influenced by the past?
I'm expecting to see a Top 4 of Ohio State, Clemson, Baylor and LSU. Two of those teams (OSU and Baylor) have the worst SOS of all remaining unbeatens, and have yet to even play a ranked team (I'm well aware of the positive credentials of both schools). But they are ranked at the top of the polls, based primarily on what they did last year. And if the committee's Top 4 does, in fact, look like the above list, I'll be pretty disappointed.
I have no delusions of seeing Iowa in the top 4, and to be honest, I'm fine with that. We know what we need to do from here on out. But it is frustrating to continually hear the Hawks be undermined by the media (yes, I know that is their job). For instance, I think it was Zarzour but I might be wrong, Mr. Long was asked if the committee takes things like strength of schedule in account when looking at 'teams like Iowa.' I mean, they negatively used the Hawks as an example in a question referencing the one category that Iowa can actually hang its hat on at this point in the season. This stuff gets old...
Nonetheless, the committee could completely surprise me and come out with a top 4 that truly is based on the first 9 weeks of this season. What a pleasant surprise that would be. And how awesome is it that Iowa is in this conversation?!?! Its been awhile since I've been annoyed by the national media discounting my undefeated alma mater! Looking forward, sort of, to more discussion after Tuesday night!
This got me wondering: if they don't prognosticate, or look to the future, why would they allow themselves to be influenced by the past?
I'm expecting to see a Top 4 of Ohio State, Clemson, Baylor and LSU. Two of those teams (OSU and Baylor) have the worst SOS of all remaining unbeatens, and have yet to even play a ranked team (I'm well aware of the positive credentials of both schools). But they are ranked at the top of the polls, based primarily on what they did last year. And if the committee's Top 4 does, in fact, look like the above list, I'll be pretty disappointed.
I have no delusions of seeing Iowa in the top 4, and to be honest, I'm fine with that. We know what we need to do from here on out. But it is frustrating to continually hear the Hawks be undermined by the media (yes, I know that is their job). For instance, I think it was Zarzour but I might be wrong, Mr. Long was asked if the committee takes things like strength of schedule in account when looking at 'teams like Iowa.' I mean, they negatively used the Hawks as an example in a question referencing the one category that Iowa can actually hang its hat on at this point in the season. This stuff gets old...
Nonetheless, the committee could completely surprise me and come out with a top 4 that truly is based on the first 9 weeks of this season. What a pleasant surprise that would be. And how awesome is it that Iowa is in this conversation?!?! Its been awhile since I've been annoyed by the national media discounting my undefeated alma mater! Looking forward, sort of, to more discussion after Tuesday night!
