Bottom 10 BCS Schedules...

[isugcs]

Originally Posted by ornryactor

I know it doesn't mean anything, but I still think it's interesting that of those 10 schools, only two aren't in the Big XII or Big 10 (who each have four teams on the list).

This is very true, and might be a reflection of the difficulty encountered during the conference schedule.

[Indyclone]

Originally Posted by ISUFan22

If we are 2-2 after our first 4 games, it's going to be a very long season. IMO, we aught to be 3-1 if not 4-0 headed into the KU game. I know we were bad last year, but we best not look even remotely as bad to start '08 as we did to start '07.

We could look better then last year and still be 2-2. Last year we only had one non-conference road game. This year the two we have aren't exactly the easiest places to play, I believe UNLV only got beat at home last year to Wisconsin something like 16-10 and throw in the fact we have lost our last two trips to IC all at the same time of breaking in a new QB. So it isn't impossible to actually be much more improved over last year yet the record may not indicate the improvement. But I still think we will be 3-1. If we lose to Iowa they will take it out on UNLV, and if we beat Iowa I think this team could have a let down and get upset against UNLV. I really hope we do start 4-0, but realistically I expect this team to split the back to back road games. Actually it would have been nice if we played UNLV before Iowa.

[LindenCy]

In general I wish we played Iowa later in the season, like game 3 or 4.

EDIT: I am just not on today...we play them in game 3...:)

[MontyBurns]

According to this guy we have the 47th toughest schedule in the nation:

Toughest Schedule

He's been pretty accurate in the past in predicting which teams' record will get better or worse based on schedule changes.

[Al_4_State]

Originally Posted by cstrunk

Yes sir. We better be 3-1 after our first four games or else 4-8 or 5-7 is pretty much assured for our final record. We need to be 6-6 this year.

I respectfully dissent. We need measurable improvement, but to expect a bowl eligible season w/a rookie quarterback is not prudent, imo. Its only going to set up disappointment. I think 5-7 is fine this year. I know in '04 we had a rookie qb coming off a 2-10 season, in which we got blown out in every single loss, only to go to a bowl, but that was a bit of a fluke...

[ornryactor]

Originally Posted by MontyBurns

According to this guy we have the 47th toughest schedule in the nation:

Toughest Schedule

He's been pretty accurate in the past in predicting which teams' record will get better or worse based on schedule changes.

Interesting. I didn't read all of the article, but this did catch my eye:

In 2004 on these pages, I looked at Iowa St’s schedule and forecast a turnaround season. Of their 11 foes, only 1 ranked in my Top 25 at the start of the year. While teams like N Illinois, Kansas and Nebraska all had great seasons in 2003, they were far from powers in 2004. Based on 2003’s records, Iowa St faced the 8th toughest schedule in the country!!!!! My ratings had their schedule at #60 and I felt only 1 of their foes would be in the Top 25 and just 5 or 6 in bowls (which is a low number for a BCS school). When the dust cleared, Iowa St faced only 5 bowl teams and came within a missed FG of winning the then-weak Big XII North, hardly the 8th toughest schedule in the land.


As a comparison, I also said that based on 2003’s record, Kentucky had the 105th toughest schedule or 15th easiest in 2004, with their opponents just 63-76 (45%). I looked at their schedule and saw 5 Top 25 contenders, as well as projected 2004 bowl teams like S Carolina and Louisville. I said that Kentucky clearly played a much tougher schedule than Iowa St, yet based strictly on 2004’s records, Iowa St played the 8th toughest and Kentucky the 15th easiest. UK’s foes finished the year at 72-56 (#20), hardly an easy schedule.