My consistent view is that college football statistics are less meaningful than, say, NFL statistics, because the differences in the teams they play is so big. The worst NFL team isn't that bad. In college, the difference between playing a Georgia or Ohio State, and NIU and UMass is ridiculous. They aren't useless--and yes, I heavily relied on them in the first post in this thread--but one of the reasons rankings have always had so much sway in college football is because the feel test seems so much more important than merely the record.
I'm blinded by my dislike of Fickell, so I still find it hard to believe that Wisconsin is a top-tier Big Ten team. This is probably what it was like for Notre Dame fans who disliked Brian Kelly. And I can find all the faults I need to back it up with numbers. Similarly, I'm used to Iowa, under Ferentz, being a very good, but not elite team. One that probably should beat Minnesota--a pretty good team--but not when Iowa loses the turnover battle so badly.
So I'm sticking with my prediction, though I acknowledge there is an awful lot of bias built in.
