And to think ISU "should be" 1-7...

**CyFan61** · 10-30-2011, 05:15 PM

Looking at the lines for each game so far and who has been favored, if every game had gone as it "should have", ISU would be 1-7 right now and on track for a 2-10 season.

Instead, the Cyclones are 4-4 coming off of their most complete game of the season, and, assuming they get a win this weekend against Kansas, will again have three shots at the end of the season to become bowl eligible.

It's amazing to think that during this season (most after the Missouri game) there were fans calling for coaches to be fired and the structure of the team to change drastically. CPR and his staff have done a fantastic job playing teams with superior talent. I am so excited to see how the rest of this season plays out.

Just keep things in perspective and know that ISU "shouldn't" be anywhere near .500 right now.

Go Cyclones!

**CysRage** · 10-30-2011, 05:20 PM

Good post. I said at the beginning of the year I would be happy with 4 wins due to the strength of our schedule. Now that we have reached 4, I would love to see us get 6!

**cyfan15** · 10-30-2011, 05:24 PM

In other words, we're 3-4 in games we were supposed to lose. That's good coaching.

**cychhosis** · 10-30-2011, 05:24 PM

An astute observation by an astute poster! Thanks for the perspective.

**acgclone** · 10-30-2011, 05:36 PM

Maybe I'm way off, but I don't remember a lot of posters calling for Rhoads to be fired or for him to fire staff members.

There were a couple of posts that posed those kinds of questions, and certainly a lot of us that had great concern after the way we had played in the previous 4 games, but I don't really know many posters that actually called for anyone's head.

**cyclones500** · 10-30-2011, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by acgclone

Maybe I'm way off, but I don't remember a lot of posters calling for Rhoads to be fired or for him to fire staff members.

There were a couple of posts that posed those kinds of questions, and certainly a lot of us that had great concern after the way we had played in the previous 4 games, but I don't really know many posters that actually called for anyone's head.

Fairly accurate. Quite a few rumblings about the offense — more "can you win with/recruit for this style" than calling for a new coordinator (although there was some of that).

Recently there was talk about "hot seat" dangers for Rhoads.

Generally a lot of those were squelched by more even-keeled fans.

It's natural to go to one extreme or the other, depending on the most recent game(s). Especially with such bipolar results.

**CyFan61** · 10-30-2011, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by acgclone

Maybe I'm way off, but I don't remember a lot of posters calling for Rhoads to be fired or for him to fire staff members.

There were a couple of posts that posed those kinds of questions, and certainly a lot of us that had great concern after the way we had played in the previous 4 games, but I don't really know many posters that actually called for anyone's head.

I know there was some of that on here, but there was quite a bit from the crowd of Cyclone fans that I talk about this with. Many felt that Herman needed to go because his offense was a bad system. Next thing you know, his "bad system" drops 41 on Tech, on the road.

**heitclone** · 10-30-2011, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by CyFan61

I know there was some of that on here, but there was quite a bit from the crowd of Cyclone fans that I talk about this with. Many felt that Herman needed to go because his offense was a bad system. Next thing you know, his "bad system" drops 41 on Tech, on the road.

Declaring it successful based on one game is just as bad as calling for Herman's head after a few bad games. In his 2.5 years in Ames so far performances like last night have been rare, in fact the offense has struggled for most of that time. IMO questioning whether or not he is a good fit is/was a fair question.

**JUKEBOX** · 10-30-2011, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by heitclone

Declaring it successful based on one game is just as bad as calling for Herman's head after a few bad games. In his 2.5 years in Ames so far performances like last night have been rare, in fact the offense has struggled for most of that time. IMO questioning whether or not he is a good fit is/was a fair question.

Agreed.

**HFCS** · 10-30-2011, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by CyFan61

I know there was some of that on here, but there was quite a bit from the crowd of Cyclone fans that I talk about this with. Many felt that Herman needed to go because his offense was a bad system. Next thing you know, his "bad system" drops 41 on Tech, on the road.

I loved AA as a QB for ISU, I loved Jantz's comebacks even with the mistakes, but it is quite clear that under Herman the 1.5 games Barnett has played have been the best our running attack has looked in this system.

Barnett may end up giving some legitimacy to those who said Herman need the right system QB. It certainly looks that way the way he instinctively makes decisions in the running game. If he can improve his throwing accuracy we could all be the Tom Herman fanclub the next few years, who knows?

**Cydkar** · 10-30-2011, 06:31 PM

Betting lines aren't game predictors. They are betting predictors.

**alarson** · 10-30-2011, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by heitclone

Declaring it successful based on one game is just as bad as calling for Herman's head after a few bad games. In his 2.5 years in Ames so far performances like last night have been rare, in fact the offense has struggled for most of that time. IMO questioning whether or not he is a good fit is/was a fair question.

Agreed. Currently Tech is the only team against which Herman has shown his offense can score what you need to score in the big 12 to win games. Only one b12 game has been won this year by a team scoring <30 points, making that a decent benchmark number for an offense in this league, and in 3 years, Herman's offenses have hit 30 in regulation exactly 3 times in conference play, two of which came against Texas tech (the other came in the 09 loss to KU, 41-36).

Am i calling for his head? No. That would be premature i think. But i also agree that its premature to say 'his offense has arrived' as well. Everyone said similar things after we played Tech (and put up lots of points) last year, and we never saw offensive performance anywhere close to that again until last night.

Lets see what happens against Kansas. The lowest number of points scored against them by an FBS opponent this year is 42, by Northern Illinois. That kind of sets the bar.

**Rhoadhoused** · 10-30-2011, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by Cydkar

Betting lines aren't game predictors. They are betting predictors.

QFT. Although they basically show the general populations opinion of a game, they don't really show what people who really know what they are talking about think.

**CyFan61** · 10-30-2011, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by heitclone

Declaring it successful based on one game is just as bad as calling for Herman's head after a few bad games. In his 2.5 years in Ames so far performances like last night have been rare, in fact the offense has struggled for most of that time. IMO questioning whether or not he is a good fit is/was a fair question.

Note that I am not attempting to declare Herman or his system a perfect fit, just arguing that those who want to see him gone are jumping the gun. IMO, a coach and his system (HC, OC, & DC at minimum) need at least 5 years to really be fairly judged. It's too early.

**CyFan61** · 10-30-2011, 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by Cydkar

Betting lines aren't game predictors. They are betting predictors.

Has there been a game this season where the majority of the "experts" (term used very loosely) picked ISU, other than UNI?

The only possible option is UConn. It's the only one that I'm not sure on.

Besides, when you discuss who's favored in a game, you use the line on it.