CFN: Iowa Look-ahead

bmuff · 01-29-2008, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by SouthernHawk

You can claim how weak the Big Ten is all you want, but the fact of the matter is, the Big 12 wasn't that much better.

I just wanted to know why he picked ISU to win in Kinnick, because I was interested to see what his reasoning was. He didn't have any reasoning other than how weak the Big Ten was last year, how ISU somehow was the more improved team towards the end of the year (never mind the obvious "spin" away from the fact that Iowa had a better overall record and a better record to end the season).

I got my answer, and am now satisfied.

I think this argument will be better suited when the game comes close. Right now, we have no idea what the teams will look like, what impact players each team may or may not have, and all that good stuff.

First off, the Big XII WAS a better conference last year. And on top of that, ISU had to play all of the best teams. Iowa avoided two of the best teams in a down conference and still only managed 6-6.

If you think that ISU did not improve during the year, you are crazy. How do you lose to Kent and UNI early on and then play OU to the wire and beat KSU and CU (who was a bowl team)? Iowa had a good stretch in the middle of the year, but failed to capitalize on it barely beating a bad Minny team and losing to WMU.

I fully expect ISU to win in kinnick this fall. Iowa was lucky that game last year was even close. If ISU didn't suck so bad in the red zone, it would have been a blowout at half. And before you say something about "ifs", even KF said they were lucky to only be down 12 at half. To me, the teams lose about the same amount of talent. Both teams return their entire OL. UI loses their DEs, ISU loses their DTs. Both lose two LBs. UI loses their RBs, ISU loses Blythe and Meyer...both look to have decent replacements at those positions.

Bottom line is if both teams have similar talent (which I think they do), and you account 3 points for home field, you still have to give ISU the advantage because UI isn't changing their schemes. If they continue to avoid playing the nickel vs the spread and their main offense is the I formation, ISU will exploit that all day. The only way iowa wins is if they have a major talent advantage, which I don't think they do.

SouthernHawk · 01-29-2008, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by Seth

First:

WRONG. Since ISU won 7 of the last 10, that means there's no way Iowa only lost 6 of the last 25. It's math, sorry.

My bad, it was actually 19 of the last 26. My point still stands.

Second:

ISU also won 2 of our last 3. See what I did there? That said, would you deny the difficulty of installing a new coach and system? Would you further deny that winning vs. KSU and CU in a row after losing to Toledo, UNI, and Kent State is a marked improvement? We beat you when we sucked, then we got better. Twist stats all you want, but quite frankly, no one's buying it.

And Iowa got better. I'd like you to point out anywhere that I said ISU stayed as bad as they did to begin the year. What I did say, however, was that Iowa also improved, and were an upset away from going bowling with a 7-5 record. I'm not sure how many teams ISU beat with a record .500 or above, but I know it wasn't as many as Iowa.

Nobody is twisting, I'm stating facts. Iowa finished just as strong (and stronger IMO) than ISU did. ISU got blown out by KU, and Iowa lost to WMU. Hardly a strong ending for either team.

Third:

Actually, the Big 12 was THAT much better. ESPN - 2007 Bowl Challenge Cup standings - College Football The Big 12 won the 2nd most Bowl games (2nd only to the SEC) and had a .625 Bowl win percentage. Compare that to the .375 percentage the Big T(elev)en posted. The Big 12 also had a very high out-of-conference win percentage, went 1-1 in BCS games, and arguably should have had a third team play in the BCS. The Big 10? Yeah, they went 0-2 getting blown out in both the Rose Bowl and the Nat'l Championship game. Sorry bud, but I don't think anyone is buying that argument.

I'm aware that the Big 12 had a decent post-season record.

That being said, the BigTen and Big 12 had very similar pre-conference records, with wins mostly over pasty teams.

The Big 12 was better than the Big Ten - but the difference wasn't huge.

BTW - a 14 point loss isn't a blow out (OSU vs. LSU)

SouthernHawk · 01-29-2008, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by bmuff

First off, the Big XII WAS a better conference last year. And on top of that, ISU had to play all of the best teams. Iowa avoided two of the best teams in a down conference and still only managed 6-6.

If you think that ISU did not improve during the year, you are crazy. How do you lose to Kent and UNI early on and then play OU to the wire and beat KSU and CU (who was a bowl team)? Iowa had a good stretch in the middle of the year, but failed to capitalize on it barely beating a bad Minny team and losing to WMU.

I fully expect ISU to win in kinnick this fall. Iowa was lucky that game last year was even close. If ISU didn't suck so bad in the red zone, it would have been a blowout at half. And before you say something about "ifs", even KF said they were lucky to only be down 12 at half. To me, the teams lose about the same amount of talent. Both teams return their entire OL. UI loses their DEs, ISU loses their DTs. Both lose two LBs. UI loses their RBs, ISU loses Blythe and Meyer...both look to have decent replacements at those positions.

Bottom line is if both teams have similar talent (which I think they do), and you account 3 points for home field, you still have to give ISU the advantage because UI isn't changing their schemes. If they continue to avoid playing the nickel vs the spread and their main offense is the I formation, ISU will exploit that all day. The only way iowa wins is if they have a major talent advantage, which I don't think they do.

You do realize that ISU was tied for last with Baylor in PPG, 10th in the Big 12 in rushing yards per game, and 11th in the Big 12 in passing yards per game, right? They were also towards the bottom in turnovers per game.

Now that we have that out of the way, they got a little better to end the season, but then again, so did Iowa. If you want to factor in the fact that Iowa returns all but the running backs (but did add in a highly ranked JUCO), then Iowa's offense won't be as bad.

While I agree that it would be nice to see Iowa's offense change, it probably won't. The way Iowa plays football, is they know other teams know what they're doing, they just try to out-physical them. Up until the past 3 years, that had been working.

ISU still has a long ways to go in talent level. Iowa has 3 top 25 recruiting classes that will be seeing playing time next year, and a top 40 class from this season. If you want to talk about talent, then you need to look at the rankings, which is severely in Iowa's favor. There is no other way to rank talent until the players see playing time.

Also, Iowa has a big advantage in overall experience, both offensively and defensively.

I haven't been happy with the past few years, but I think some people are kidding themselves if they think Iowa is as bad as they make them sound.

CTTB78 · 01-29-2008, 04:12 PM

Iowa State now expects to beat Iowa ever year.

balken · 01-29-2008, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by SouthernHawk

Iowa returns all but the running backs (but did add in a highly ranked JUCO), then Iowa's offense won't be as bad.

While I agree that it would be nice to see Iowa's offense change, it probably won't. The way Iowa plays football, is they know other teams know what they're doing, they just try to out-physical them. Up until the past 3 years, that had been working.

ISU still has a long ways to go in talent level. Iowa has 3 top 25 recruiting classes that will be seeing playing time next year, and a top 40 class from this season. If you want to talk about talent, then you need to look at the rankings, which is severely in Iowa's favor. There is no other way to rank talent until the players see playing time.

Also, Iowa has a big advantage in overall experience, both offensively and defensively.

I haven't been happy with the past few years, but I think some people are kidding themselves if they think Iowa is as bad as they make them sound.

All of that said, there is one disadvantage that Iowa will not be able to overcome - Ken O'Keefe.

Total Offense National Rank

2007 - 109th
2006 - 27th
2005 - 22nd
2004 - 101st
2003 - 92nd
2002 - 13th
2001 - 45th
2000 - 102nd

Average since 2000 - 64th

cycloneman003 · 01-29-2008, 04:17 PM

how the heck do they get so much praise for being "so good" apparently when we beat them every year it seems like.. and we get no respect? i dont like to listen to this garbage because they may look great on paper but every year they dont show up and eventually people will realize they are not a top tier program like people think

SouthernHawk · 01-29-2008, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by balken

All of that said, there is one disadvantage that Iowa will not be able to overcome - Ken O'Keefe.

Total Offense National Rank

2007 - 109th
2006 - 27th
2005 - 22nd
2004 - 101st
2003 - 92nd
2002 - 13th
2001 - 45th
2000 - 102nd

Average since 2000 - 64th

Not gonna disagree with that, lol

Seth · 01-29-2008, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by SouthernHawk

I'd like you to point out anywhere that I said ISU stayed as bad as they did to begin the year.

OK.

Originally Posted by SouthernHawk

Now you can spin this all you want, but the point is, ISU still lost to UNI, Kent State, and Toledo. Beating Colorado and Kansas State to end the season is HARDLY an improvement. Don't forget the 30 point losses to TTU, Texas, and Kansas after mid-season.

You're right, you didn't say we stayed as bad. You said it was "HARDLY an improvement." I disagree with you either way.

Seth · 01-29-2008, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by SouthernHawk

BTW - a 14 point loss isn't a blow out (OSU vs. LSU)

Did you even watch the game? It wasn't as close as the final score would indicate. OSU got dominated pretty much from the get-go, and it was a 21 point lead until OSU scored with 1:13 left to pull within 14. When you're talking about a national championship game, losing by 21 with under 2 minutes remaining...that's pretty much a blow-out. Besides, Illinois' Rose Bowl showing sucked enough to make up for whatever margin you require for a "blow out" in the nat'l championship game.

SouthernHawk · 01-29-2008, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by Seth

OK.

You're right, you didn't say we stayed as bad. You said it was "HARDLY an improvement." I disagree with you either way.

You can disagree, that's cool. I just don't think beating CU and KSU is a sign of major improvement. Is it improvement? Sure. But it's hard to say "Hey look, we won two games to end the season, so we're so improved, we could go on the road and pick up a road win against a rival team in a hostile environment, even though they've improved just as much (if not more) than we have."

Iowa and ISU were very even at the time they played last year. There is no denying that. It was a 15-13 game - that's hardly one sided. Iowa did, however, finish the season 6-6, while ISU finished 3-9. That's all I'm saying. No spin, nothing. You can argue SOS all you want, but even if you want to do that, most of the time, ISU wasn't even in the games against the "top dogs" of the Big 12. Outside of OU, ISU wasn't even in the games against the top teams.

SouthernHawk · 01-29-2008, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by Seth

Did you even watch the game? It wasn't as close as the final score would indicate. OSU got dominated pretty much from the get-go, and it was a 21 point lead until OSU scored with 1:13 left to pull within 14. When you're talking about a national championship game, losing by 21 with under 2 minutes remaining...that's pretty much a blow-out. Besides, Illinois' Rose Bowl showing sucked enough to make up for whatever margin you require for a "blow out" in the nat'l championship game.

So you'd agree that ISU got blown out by Missouri? Because the difference in almost every category in both games is almost identical.

And yes, I did watch the game.

Seth · 01-29-2008, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by SouthernHawk

Outside of OU, ISU wasn't even in the games against the top teams.

Man, your selective memory is amazing. Who here on this board remembers the Mizzou game? Remember how close it was? Remember how hostile of an environment that was? Remember how, take away one end-zone pick and score at the end of the game and it's a tie game?

The truth is, we hit rock-bottom against TTU and UT. I won't deny that. Who would? But then vs. OU, @ Mizzou, vs. CU, vs. KSU we played much better in everyone of those games and gave ourselves a chance to win. That's 4 games in a row, amazingly at the end of the season. It's like, I don't know, some how the system soaked in, and we got better. Not that you could ever acknowledge that. You wanna point out the KU debacle? OK. Fine. We got blown out at KU. ISU, in an obviously difficult year, with a new coach, a new system, and a short roster, lost to an 11-1 BCS game winning team on their turf by a crapton. Do you have a point there?

bmuff · 01-29-2008, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by SouthernHawk

You do realize that ISU was tied for last with Baylor in PPG, 10th in the Big 12 in rushing yards per game, and 11th in the Big 12 in passing yards per game, right? They were also towards the bottom in turnovers per game.

Now that we have that out of the way, they got a little better to end the season, but then again, so did Iowa. If you want to factor in the fact that Iowa returns all but the running backs (but did add in a highly ranked JUCO), then Iowa's offense won't be as bad.

While I agree that it would be nice to see Iowa's offense change, it probably won't. The way Iowa plays football, is they know other teams know what they're doing, they just try to out-physical them. Up until the past 3 years, that had been working.

ISU still has a long ways to go in talent level. Iowa has 3 top 25 recruiting classes that will be seeing playing time next year, and a top 40 class from this season. If you want to talk about talent, then you need to look at the rankings, which is severely in Iowa's favor. There is no other way to rank talent until the players see playing time.

Also, Iowa has a big advantage in overall experience, both offensively and defensively.

I haven't been happy with the past few years, but I think some people are kidding themselves if they think Iowa is as bad as they make them sound.

Please. You're going to bring up recruiting rankings? One look at iowa's 2005 class throws that out the window. Recruiting rankings are fun to discuss, but there's a lot more to it than stars on a website. The players actually have to show up and perform. To me, either the talent is very similar OR iowa's talent is severely underperforming.

And iowa has a "big advantage" in overall experience? Please tell me how. By my count, ISU returns 8 on O, 7 on D. Iowa may return more, but not many (I'm thinking 10 on O, 6 on D). So one more equates to a big advantage? Actually, if you count Shada as a starter, iowa would only be returning 5 on D, which would put ISU and iowa dead even on the returning starters count.

Iowa will again try to out-physical ISU and run it down their throats. And just like last year, it won't work. ISU will pack the box and force Christenson to beat them. And ISU will line up in 3,4,5 WR sets on offense and force iowa to cover them with LBs.

Seth · 01-29-2008, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by SouthernHawk

So you'd agree that ISU got blown out by Missouri? Because the difference in almost every category in both games is almost identical.

And yes, I did watch the game.

Nope. Read my above post. That game was much closer than the 14 pt final score. That's one we could've come away with. Contrast that with the Nat'l Championship in which it was never in doubt LSU was gonna run away with it. That's the difference bud.

SouthernHawk · 01-29-2008, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by Seth

Man, your selective memory is amazing. Who here on this board remembers the Mizzou game? Remember how close it was? Remember how hostile of an environment that was? Remember how, take away one end-zone pick and score at the end of the game and it's a tie game?

The truth is, we hit rock-bottom against TTU and UT. I won't deny that. Who would? But then vs. OU, @ Mizzou, vs. CU, vs. KSU we played much better in everyone of those games and gave ourselves a chance to win. That's 4 games in a row, amazingly at the end of the season. It's like, I don't know, some how the system soaked in, and we got better. Not that you could ever acknowledge that. You wanna point out the KU debacle? OK. Fine. We got blown out at KU. ISU, in an obviously difficult year, with a new coach, a new system, and a short roster, lost to an 11-1 BCS game winning team on their turf by a crapton. Do you have a point there?

Like I said in my previous post, if you're going to count the Missouri game as close for ISU, then you can't count the OSU-LSU game as a blow out. The numbers were almost exactly identical in every statistical category.