Bowl Projections after week 6

[Naturalhoosier 15,434]

This guy still thinks we'll be bowling.

 

 

Brian Bennett, ESPN B10 Blog

 

Lockheed Martin Armed Forces Bowl: Indiana

[Naturalhoosier 15,434]

We're down, but not out.

 

The guys at ESPN still like our chances to Bowl this year.

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/125895/b1g-roundtable-whos-in-and-whos-out-for-bowls

[MartintheMopMan 7,765]

We're down, but not out.

 

The guys at ESPN still like our chances to Bowl this year.

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/125895/b1g-roundtable-whos-in-and-whos-out-for-bowls

Eh, "only have to beat Maryland on the road" is a much bigger task than they're making it out to be. Maryland is no where near as bad as their record indicates and I'm surprised they didn't talk about that more. Maryland just made the classic mistake of playing good teams during non-conference. Bowling Green is ranked 37th in FEI and 33 in S&P. West Ginny is 33rd in FEI and 9 in S&P. That's darn good. I mean sure they got creamed but still.

 

They then turned around and started into an absolute gauntlet in the Big Ten. Michigan, OSU, PSU in a row. They play at Iowa this week.

 

Their breather game is Wisco, then at MSU before we go to face them.

 

That schedule is coconuts. We would be right where they are if we played it too. It's ranked 11th in SOS.

[Naturalhoosier 15,434]

Yeah my apologies for being positive. Back to your regular scheduled programming.

[MartintheMopMan 7,765]

Yeah my apologies for being positive. Back to your regular scheduled programming.

My fault. I didn't mean to bring a discussion of our opponents skill levels into a thread about an article whose conclusions are based on our opponents skill levels. It would be much better to think Maryland was going to be an easy game and be surprised when it wasn't.

 

What I meant to say was:

 

Oh yeah! Go team! We all have faith in you too!

[akhosrof 1,168]

I'll be at the UMD game cheering my tail off! Can't wait

[johnsoniu 6,459]

My fault. I didn't mean to bring a discussion of our opponents skill levels into a thread about an article whose conclusions are based on our opponents skill levels. It would be much better to think Maryland was going to be an easy game and be surprised when it wasn't.

 

What I meant to say was:

 

Oh yeah! Go team! We all have faith in you too!

Except you didn't really discuss the skill level of our opponents. You pointed out their difficult schedule, admitted they got creamed, and deduced they are not near as bad as their record ( 94th ranked O and 104th ranked D  notwithstanding). Then came the obligatory shot that we'd have just as crappy a record as them if we played that schedule.

 

As far as any realistic IUFB fan thinking a road conference game will be easy, probably not very likely, but thanks for repeatedly telling us just how we should approach IU football.

 

BTW, your quote in your first post "only have to beat Maryland on the road" doesn't occur in the article. Did you get it from the comments section or just paraphrase your interpretation since, you know, it might fit your narrative better?

[MartintheMopMan 7,765]

Except you didn't really discuss the skill level of our opponents. You pointed out their difficult schedule, admitted they got creamed, and deduced they are not near as bad as their record ( 94th ranked O and 104th ranked D notwithstanding). Then came the obligatory shot that we'd have just as crappy a record as them if we played that schedule.

As far as any realistic IUFB fan thinking a road conference game will be easy, probably not very likely, but thanks for repeatedly telling us just how we should approach IU football.

BTW, your quote in your first post "only have to beat Maryland on the road" doesn't occur in the article. Did you get it from the comments section or just paraphrase your interpretation since, you know, it might fit your narrative better?

"if they can just beat Purdue and Maryland, they're in"

Sorry for not pulling the exact quote I was thinking of. Each author who picked us did so because they believed we could beat Maryland and Purdue.

And is saying they may be better than their record indicates not about their skill level?

[johnsoniu 6,459]

"if they can just beat Purdue and Maryland, they're in"

Sorry for not pulling the exact quote I was thinking of. Each author who picked us did so because they believed we could beat Maryland and Purdue.

And is saying they may be better than their record indicates not about their skill level?

 "not near as bad" and "may be better" are entirely different statements to me.  Which one we are going with for future reference? ;)

 

I suppose addressing just how good or bad they actually are presupposes  the actual skill of the players. But your only evidence of that skill being better than the record suggests is that they played a bunch of good teams, and didn't look particularly good while doing so. Just curious as to what you see in them that makes them better than a below/slightly below average B1G team.

 

They looked absolutely horrid against WVU but the parts of their game I caught last week against Penn St they looked better. With a new coaching regime, I'm not sure what to expect when we head out there.

[MartintheMopMan 7,765]

Apparently, since Football is basically soccer, we could go bowling with a 5-7 record as long as fewer than 83 schools have records better than 5-7 and Nebraska, Rutgers, and Georgia Tech all have 4-8 records.

 

So, there's always that.

 

http://lastwordonsports.com/2015/10/30/indiana-football-go-bowling-5-7-heres/

[Naturalhoosier 15,434]

Apparently, since Football is basically soccer, we could go bowling with a 5-7 record as long as fewer than 83 schools have records better than 5-7 and Nebraska, Rutgers, and Georgia Tech all have 4-8 records.

 

So, there's always that.

 

http://lastwordonsports.com/2015/10/30/indiana-football-go-bowling-5-7-heres/

 

I hate that there are so many bowls.  Trust me, I love the fact that it's easier to get into bowl (I mean, all things considered), but it's sooooo diluted.  Bleh!

[LIHoosier 26,280]

I hate that there are so many bowls.  Trust me, I love the fact that it's easier to get into bowl (I mean, all things considered), but it's sooooo diluted.  Bleh!

Which should anger us even more that IU hasn't been able to mediocre its way into the likes of the 2000 Flushes Toilet Bowl.

[TheWatShot 14,066]

Every year, it gets easier and easier to go to a bowl. And every year, we still can't do it. 

[LIHoosier 26,280]

Apparently, since Football is basically soccer, we could go bowling with a 5-7 record as long as fewer than 83 schools have records better than 5-7 and Nebraska, Rutgers, and Georgia Tech all have 4-8 records.

 

So, there's always that.

 

http://lastwordonsports.com/2015/10/30/indiana-football-go-bowling-5-7-heres/

UVA just beat Tech, that'll help the cause.

[MartintheMopMan 7,765]

UVA just beat Tech, that'll help the cause.

And Purdue knocked off Nebraska.

 

I forgot we also needed Army, BC, and Vandy to keep not doing well. But, I think we can rely on that.

[Class of '66 Old Fart 84,881]

Osterman tweeted that it's likely this year that a 5 - 7 record will make some teams bowl eligible because it's unlikely there will be a sufficient number of teams with 6 -6 records to fill a total of 40 bowl games.  His tweet cited the following which is from a Nebraska sportswriter   http://www.omaha.com/huskers/could---nebraska-make-a-bowl-game-why-yes/article_1e600244-7bf1-11e5-8dd6-c325606df17d.html

 

and that article contains a link to a 2012 CBS sports article:  http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/19719427/you-may-see-a-5-7-bowl-team-in-the-future

 

I'm not smart enough to try to figure out if the Hoosiers could be one such team if we finished the year at 5 - 7.  But in my old and cranky opinion, if 5 wins is the best we can do, we don't deserve a bowl game appearance.

 

And in a follow-up tweet, Osterman indicated our multi-year APR for last year was 977.

[MartintheMopMan 7,765]

Osterman tweeted that it's likely this year that a 5 - 7 record will make some teams bowl eligible because it's unlikely there will be a sufficient number of teams with 6 -6 records to fill a total of 40 bowl games.  His tweet cited the following which is from a Nebraska sportswriter   http://www.omaha.com/huskers/could---nebraska-make-a-bowl-game-why-yes/article_1e600244-7bf1-11e5-8dd6-c325606df17d.html

 

and that article contains a link to a 2012 CBS sports article:  http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/19719427/you-may-see-a-5-7-bowl-team-in-the-future

 

I'm not smart enough to try to figure out if the Hoosiers could be one such team if we finished the year at 5 - 7.  But in my old and cranky opinion, if 5 wins is the best we can do, we don't deserve a bowl game appearance.

 

And in a follow-up tweet, Osterman indicated our multi-year APR for last year was 977.

My article up above is about that situation this year. Written before Saturday's games, so we're actually in a better position now for it since some teams we needed to lose lost. There are 6 teams ahead of us in APR who could possibly pull together a 5-7 record, but it's pretty unlikely for 5 of them now. Rutgers is the team to watch for that situation. I mean, it's still possible for multiple 5-7 teams, but you always want to be the first choice.

[WayneFleekHoosier 48,448]

We don't deserve to Bowl with 1 B1G Ten win. That is worse than participation medals.

[Alford Bailey 12,389]

We don't deserve to Bowl with 1 B1G Ten win. That is worse than participation medals.

I tend to agree with this BUT we need to go get the money.

[Naturalhoosier 15,434]

Shoot, I'll take it.  The NCAA did this to themselves really.  If this is how they want to play, then so be it.  I'm not above it.  LET THEM PLAY!  LET THEM PLAY!  :)