Where did anyone take us (football)?

kberyldial · 08-08-2007, 11:57 PM

I'll keep this short. For those that feel the need to continue to step over Mac's body to look at the will - go back and take a long look at the history, or lack there of that is ISU football. The WHOLE CENTURY - because it all matters. To even suggest that Dan Mac somehow drug our program down even the slightest bit is so shortsighted and negligent that it hardly is worth mentioning. I am a season ticket holder and have attended games since the 70's. ISU football has only recently scratched the surface of national notice. Majors and Bruce was a blip. Mac may also be a blip but please don't discount the reality of the situation that is football in Ames Iowa. To wrap this up quickly, Chizek is a huge upgrade. We'll ALL know - BLINDERS OFF - in 4 years whether or not anything beyond what Mac did can be done on a regular basis. At that point, and only then, let his legacy be set in stone.

Michael Lastuvka · 08-09-2007, 12:05 AM

Well done. Besides the multiple typos. Oh, and spelling Chizik wrong. And telling people with opinions to ********And making a separate thread for this piece of junk. Come to think of it, it wasn't well done at all

kberyldial · 08-09-2007, 12:35 AM

Originally Posted by Michael Lastuvka

Well done. Besides the multiple typos. Oh, and spelling Chizik wrong. And telling people with opinions to *******. And making a separate thread for this piece of junk. Come to think of it, it wasn't well done at all

So aside from defending your deeply ingrained internet posting grammatical interests, do you have an opinion - other than one of your fraternity brothers - on the subject? Oh, and that is in reference to the original piece of junk that you are somehow defending. Or, are you too young to actually remember Iowa State football pre-Dan Mac?

Michael Lastuvka · 08-09-2007, 12:46 AM

Oh, I don't have a problem with McCarney like one of my "fraternity brothers". Though it was hard to possibly drag the program any lower than it was when he took over, he did a good job for a few years but ultimately his downfall was hiring low quality assistants that couldn't hack it in recruiting or (especially) coaching. He inexplicably stayed loyal to them. While that may seem spiffy and gentlemanly, he's in a profession where loyalty doesn't mean jack when you go 4-8 in a season you were supposed to be 8-4.

I think he was far too simple-minded to take this team to the next level. But he did get us to a level of somewhat respect for a small frame of time, which i respect as something that hasn't been done much in ISU football's history.

That being said, I'm glad he's gone. The excitement had waned long ago.

darts180 · 08-09-2007, 12:48 AM

Well said K....We will find out what happens with Gene.

Michael, there are many, many fans like K, guys that have been around for a long time. I have found that many of them are still upset about having a great program just out of their reach ripped away by Woody Hayes hitting Charlie Baumann.

Mac played the Iowa boy up to the hilt. That was appreciated by many of the older fans, "he's one of us." Plus Mac was one of the best "five minute friends" I have ever seen, and he remembered faces well. He could spend time with anyone (and we have heard many stories of on this site), and for that brief time, he could make you feel like the most important person in the world. That is a great attribute to have. The man either had the worlds best pr team, or Brittney, Lindsey, Paris, etc. should pay him whatever it takes to have him take care of their media. The guy was brilliant. But once he stepped on the sidelines, well then you have to know about coaching, and that was what got him.

As Johnny Orr once said, and I think that it applies to McCarney.....(and I am paraphrasing) We love it in Ames more than when we got here, I love the fans, the university, everything about it, (pause for effect) now if we wouldn't have to play those damn games things would be perfect.

darts180 · 08-09-2007, 12:52 AM

Originally Posted by kberyldial

So aside from defending your deeply ingrained internet posting grammatical interests, do you have an opinion - other than one of your fraternity brothers - on the subject? Oh, and that is in reference to the original piece of junk that you are somehow defending. Or, are you too young to actually remember Iowa State football pre-Dan Mac?

K, I will be more than happy to give you your props for the first post.

But the Pre stuff is dangerous territory. Because people, in their fervor to defend Dan McCarney, seem to omit a lot of things that are relevant.

kberyldial · 08-09-2007, 01:00 AM

I'll back off. I'll admit that I didn't read the entire 6+ page of responses to the original post that prompted me to contribute tonight. For that I apologize for offering a new thread on the matter. And Michael, we agree that Mac was blindly loyal. But I do get a bit worked up when I see short sighted posts about Mac in the real context that IS our football program. I retreat.

Ficklone02 · 08-09-2007, 01:12 AM

The evolution of college football and the Iowa State athletic department makes it almost impossible to compare coaches from different eras.....its still fun though.

If you are an ISU fb coach in the 70's and 80's you were at a serious disadvantage.....you didn't have the budget we now have, and you were playing teams that were well oiled programs like NU and OU every year.....and probably most importantly, you couldn't win 6 games and get into a bowl game. I don't have the numbers readily available, however, I believe we had some seasons were we won a good deal of games yet did not receive an invitation to a bowl game.

Anyways, moving into DM's era, he had the advantage of more bowl games, and a bigger budget. Now Chizik, he's seriously got every commitment a coach needs to run a successful program. So, to compare these guys.....I don't know, but I guess its still fun. :)

kberyldial · 08-09-2007, 01:13 AM

Originally Posted by darts180

K, I will be more than happy to give you your props for the first post.

But the Pre stuff is dangerous territory. Because people, in their fervor to defend Dan McCarney, seem to omit a lot of things that are relevant.

And I admitted to the upgrade. No doubt about it. But I reiterate - and I believe this to be true (l'll even change my year from 4 to 5),
If it isn't done in 5 years with Chizik, it won't be done. AND, I'll continue to buy season tickets and go see the team that I love so much. However, should it not get accomplished, I won't drag Chizik's name down. For in the end it is truely an interpretation of "getting it accomplished."

darts180 · 08-09-2007, 01:18 AM

Originally Posted by kberyldial

I'll back off. I'll admit that I didn't read the entire 6+ page of responses to the original post that prompted me to contribute tonight. For that I apologize for offering a new thread on the matter. And Michael, we agree that Mac was blindly loyal. But I do get a bit worked up when I see short sighted posts about Mac in the real context that IS our football program. I retreat.

Obviously, over the past two years, I was no Dan McCarney fan. But the thing is that I gave him every chance in the world to prove me wrong. The man broke my heart more than any 10 women I have dated, yet I went back year after year.

The truth is, Dan McCarney was good for Iowa State in a lot of respects. The problem is that he was a bad coach and as far as I could tell that is what he made millions from Iowa State to do. And because he was a bad coach, he inadvertantly stunted any potential growth that his program showed.

Then his inability to accept responsibility for baffling decisions, further hurt his cred.

And, in terms of loyalty, I guess I can see it, but he used the ol "fire the assistants to save his own ***" card in '03. He made bad hires, I agree, but those were as much his fault for hiring them, as it was their fault for the lack of ability that they demonstrated in their time here.

kberyldial · 08-09-2007, 01:19 AM

Originally Posted by Ficklone02

The evolution of college football and the Iowa State athletic department makes it almost impossible to compare coaches from different eras.....its still fun though.

If you are an ISU fb coach in the 70's and 80's you were at a serious disadvantage.....you didn't have the budget we now have, and you were playing teams that were well oiled programs like NU and OU every year.....and probably most importantly, you couldn't win 6 games and get into a bowl game. I don't have the numbers readily available, however, I believe we had some seasons were we won a good deal of games yet did not receive an invitation to a bowl game.

Anyways, moving into DM's era, he had the advantage of more bowl games, and a bigger budget. Now Chizik, he's seriously got every commitment a coach needs to run a successful program. So, to compare these guys.....I don't know, but I guess its still fun. :)

Budgets aside. That's a whole different argument. But I've looked this up before in a debate on the rivals site and I am guessing that we've won more than six games at Iowa State less than ~10 times in the last 100 years. No kidding. NOTE - MORE than 6!

rworkman83 · 08-09-2007, 02:22 AM

Originally Posted by kberyldial

Budgets aside. That's a whole different argument. But I've looked this up before in a debate on the rivals site and I am guessing that we've won more than six games at Iowa State less than ~10 times in the last 100 years. No kidding. NOTE - MORE than 6!

While I agree with you on the McCarney thing, I do believe he took us to bigger things, just not the best things, we have had 21 seasons in the past 100 where we had 6 or more wins. Nine of those seasons came during the Walden/McCarnery Eras.

Cyclone90 · 08-09-2007, 03:05 AM

Basing anything McCarney, Walden or any other coach has done in our history should be based on winning percentage, not number of wins in a season. We didn't start playing an 11 game schedule until 1970, so six wins is not a fair comparison. The Media Guide says we've had 30 coaches in our history. Want to know where Dan ranked overall in winning percentage? How about 22nd right below Jim Criner.

How about in an arbitrarily chosen "modern" era since Clay Stapleton in 1958. Essentially 7 coaches if you don't count Banker following Criner for a few games. Dan? 6th right above Walden.

Coach Mac did great things for our program, and he should get extra points for doing it with the start of the Big 12 after the Walden debacle. We should be eternally grateful and hold him in high regards but to place him too high on a pedestal vs. his peers is foolish.

theshadow · 08-09-2007, 03:26 AM

Originally Posted by Cyclone90

We didn't start playing an 11 game schedule until 1970, so six wins is not a fair comparison.

If you're counting winning seasons, then it is absolutely fair. You need six wins in both a 10-game AND 11-game schedule in order to have a winning season, unless you have a tie in there somewhere.

The 1972 Liberty Bowl team would not necessarily have even qualified for a bowl today because they finished the regular season at .500 (5-5-1).

WINNING SEASONS SINCE 1928 (when ISU joined the Big Six)
McCarney - 4/12 (.333)
Walden - 1/8 (.125)
Criner - 1/4 (.250)
Duncan - 1/4 (.250)
Bruce - 3/6 (.500)
Majors - 1/5 (.200)
Stapleton - 3/10 (.300) [also two .500 seasons]
Myers - 0/1
DiFrancesca - 0/3
Stuber - 1/7 (.143) [and one .500 season]
Michalske - 2/4 (.500) [and one .500 season]
Donels - 0/2
Yeager - 1/4 (.250)
Veenker - 2/6 (.333) [and one .500 season]
Workman - 0/3*
TOTAL - 20/79 (.253) [and five .500 seasons]

*-had winning seasons in 1926 and 1927 before the formation of the Big Six Conference.

HandSanitizer · 08-09-2007, 07:18 AM

Originally Posted by theshadow

If you're counting winning seasons, then it is absolutely fair. You need six wins in both a 10-game AND 11-game schedule in order to have a winning season, unless you have a tie in there somewhere.

The 1972 Liberty Bowl team would not necessarily have even qualified for a bowl today because they finished the regular season at .500 (5-5-1).

WINNING SEASONS SINCE 1928 (when ISU joined the Big Six)
McCarney - 4/12 (.333)
Walden - 1/8 (.125)
Criner - 1/4 (.250)
Duncan - 1/4 (.250)
Bruce - 3/6 (.500)
Majors - 1/5 (.200)
Stapleton - 3/10 (.300) [also two .500 seasons]
Myers - 0/1
DiFrancesca - 0/3
Stuber - 1/7 (.143) [and one .500 season]
Michalske - 2/4 (.500) [and one .500 season]
Donels - 0/2
Yeager - 1/4 (.250)
Veenker - 2/6 (.333) [and one .500 season]
Workman - 0/3*
TOTAL - 20/79 (.253) [and five .500 seasons]

*-had winning seasons in 1926 and 1927 before the formation of the Big Six Conference.

I think I just threw up a little looking at that...