Red Flag

[Steve]

Originally Posted by SouthernHawk

Still, this is irrelevant. And here is why.

Just because ISU faced a more difficult schedule does not mean they faced better defenses. Missouri, Texas Tech, Northern Iowa, Kent State, Kansas State, and Colorado were not known for their defenses.

Iowa, while playing weaker opponents (I'll grant you that) played better defensive teams. I'd take the Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Penn State, and even Purdue defenses over those listed above.

The difference in the opponents would be offensive production, which can be shown by Iowa's 18.1 PPG allowed in comparison to ISU's 31 PPG.

Basically, you can't go on rankings alone to judge why an offense was so bad. Iowa had a pretty darn good defense last year, but the offense was so putrid that they were an overall mediocre football team.

And finally, this is just depressing me - arguing over who's offense was less awful.

Most of the Big XII defenses that you list are better than you are giving them credit for. Especially when you look at the offensive teams and talent that they went up against. The best offensive team in the Big Ten would have been ranked behind seven teams in the Big XII.

The slightly higher total defense numbers from the Big XII teams can be attributed to the explosive offensive teams in the conference. The Big Ten numbers were more of a result of mediocre offenses going up against average defenses.

[ISU BET]

potato tomato. who really cares. this argument has completely gone off the deep end in a 'my dad can beat up your dad' sort of way.

[Cyclonesrule91]

Originally Posted by SouthernHawk

Still, this is irrelevant. And here is why.

Just because ISU faced a more difficult schedule does not mean they faced better defenses. Missouri, Texas Tech, Northern Iowa, Kent State, Kansas State, and Colorado were not known for their defenses.

Iowa, while playing weaker opponents (I'll grant you that) played better defensive teams. I'd take the Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Penn State, and even Purdue defenses over those listed above.

The difference in the opponents would be offensive production, which can be shown by Iowa's 18.1 PPG allowed in comparison to ISU's 31 PPG.

Basically, you can't go on rankings alone to judge why an offense was so bad. Iowa had a pretty darn good defense last year, but the offense was so putrid that they were an overall mediocre football team.

And finally, this is just depressing me - arguing over who's offense was less awful.

Dude, you were already the King of Spin in my book, but with this post you have truly outdone yourself. Evaluating and/or Twisting the facts to support your argument or discredit someone else is a tactic that you have perfected.

You ever thought about being a politician........?

[CyRocket]

You can talk all you want, you can throw up all the stats you want, you can continue to throw up the early season losses to less than stellar teams but the truth is that the Big 12 is by far the better conference. Also it is true that ISU was a much better team at the end of the season while the Hawks played their worst football at the end. There is no way to hide the facts, NO matter how many coats of white wash you sling.

[SouthernHawk]

Originally Posted by Steve

Most of the Big XII defenses that you list are better than you are giving them credit for. Especially when you look at the offensive teams and talent that they went up against. The best offensive team in the Big Ten would have been ranked behind seven teams in the Big XII.

The slightly higher total defense numbers from the Big XII teams can be attributed to the explosive offensive teams in the conference. The Big Ten numbers were more of a result of mediocre offenses going up against average defenses.

Here's the thing, there's no way to prove that the reason the Big 12 had worse defensive states because of explosive offenses. Were the offenses more explosive in the Big 12? Sure as heck were. However, looking at OOC games and post-season would prove that the Big 12 was no where near a defensive juggernaut. They put up big numbers against opponents (Texas vs. ASU, KU vs. VT, Okie State vs. IU, etc...), but they also had big numbers put up against them (IU put up quite a few, ASU scored a lot on Texas, and OU got thrashed by WVU).

The point is, while the Big 12 was the better overall conference, it's no nearly as seperated from the Big Ten as people would like to think. Case in point - off the top of my head, I think the two conferences are basically .500 against eachother over the last decade in pre-conference and in bowl games. And the wins come from a variety of teams.

If I have time, I'll go through and look at the Big 12 vs. Big Ten matchups over the last 10 years, and then we'll get a better picture of the conference seperation. But if I do that, I don't want any "Yeah, well that game was just a mis-match", because as we know, that's a poor argument.

Originally Posted by ISU BET

potato tomato. who really cares. this argument has completely gone off the deep end in a 'my dad can beat up your dad' sort of way.

These are the best kinds of arguments. Everybody has been civil thus far, and with there being absolutely nothing else to talk about, what does it hurt?

And my dad could beat up your dad :)

Originally Posted by Cyclonesrule91

Dude, you were already the King of Spin in my book, but with this post you have truly outdone yourself. Evaluating and/or Twisting the facts to support your argument or discredit someone else is a tactic that you have perfected.

You ever thought about being a politician........?

Actually, first off - the only "twisting" I did was instead of overall totals, I used overall offensive efficiency. Iowa had the more efficient offense, while ISU put up slightly better yardage.

And I am technically a poltician, so I suppose it fits me well?

[SouthernHawk]

Originally Posted by CyRocket

You can talk all you want, you can throw up all the stats you want, you can continue to throw up the early season losses to less than stellar teams but the truth is that the Big 12 is by far the better conference. Also it is true that ISU was a much better team at the end of the season while the Hawks played their worst football at the end. There is no way to hide the facts, NO matter how many coats of white wash you sling.

There is a way to dis-prove this. Iowa finished 4-2 with wins against two bowl teams, and ISU finished 2-4 with wins over one bowl team.

[DJK15]

Originally Posted by SouthernHawk

There is a way to dis-prove this. Iowa finished 4-2 with wins against two bowl teams, and ISU finished 2-4 with wins over one bowl team.

Dude, haven't you been listening? Weak schedule, Big Ten sucks, blah blah blah. Keep your logic out of this debate.