Big Ten vs. Other Conferences

[SouthernHawk]

Originally Posted by MontyBurns

*** SOUTHERNHAWK FACT CORRECTION ***

Dana Brown was on the Iowa team at the start of the 2007 season. He was kicked off the team in October, 2007. Not in 2006. I know your players get arrested so often that they all run together, but try to keep the years straight.

Here are some links which prove you wrong (again). Please note that these articles are all dated October 2007:

Another Hawkeye charged - Metro

Three Iowa football players being investigated for sexual assault / QCTimes.com

Dana Brown Dismissed :: Sophomore violated team policies





I thought you said he was back. Now you say he is expected to return. When are you going to get your story straight? KF has stated that Greene "plans" to be back. Of course he never planned to flunk out in the first place. If I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath.

I'll give you that one - but the point is, he was never going to be a starting RB, so that hardly hurts Iowa's depth at the running back spot.

He was not even listed on the depth chart in 2007. And yes, it's worth holding my breath for Greene to return, because it's widely been expected for him to come back and make an impact.

By the way, how do you feel about ISU receiving a co-champion trophy for the Big 12 North?

How do you expect ISU to do next year?

Cyclone62 is right - this argument has just become completely stupid. You're not willing to provide any facts to support your claims that Iowa will be worse next year. The only things you have done are: attack simantics and avoid my questions about A) ISU's season next year and B) How you feel about ISU receiving a trophy for their Big 12 North co-championship.

[rworkman83]

Originally Posted by SouthernHawk

I'll give you that one - but the point is, he was never going to be a starting RB, so that hardly hurts Iowa's depth at the running back spot.

He was not even listed on the depth chart in 2007. And yes, it's worth holding my breath for Greene to return, because it's widely been expected for him to come back and make an impact.

By the way, how do you feel about ISU receiving a co-champion trophy for the Big 12 North?

How do you expect ISU to do next year?

Cyclone62 is right - this argument has just become completely stupid. You're not willing to provide any facts to support your claims that Iowa will be worse next year. The only things you have done are: attack simantics and avoid my questions about A) ISU's season next year and B) How you feel about ISU receiving a trophy for their Big 12 North co-championship.

I'm not sure how anyone has avoided this question, because you just asked it for the first time two paragraphs above where you complain that we are avoiding it.

I'm not going to avoid it. I don't have any problem with us getting a trophy for being co-champions.

There is no tiebreaker to decide who the champion is. The only tiebreaker that is used is to determine who will represent the North in the title game.

Anytime you can add a trophy like that, it is all worth it. Recruits aren't always going to know you were co-champions. They are going to see the trophy, see it says 2004, and say I wanna be a part of the next one.

[Cyclone62]

That tie-breaker for who represents the north is the equivalent of determining who the north champion is, for what it's worth.

[rworkman83]

Originally Posted by Cyclone62

That tie-breaker for who represents the north is the equivalent of determining who the north champion is, for what it's worth.

If that was the case, then we shouldn't have a trophy. The Big 12 doesn't have a tiebreaker system to break regular season standings. The only tiebreakers determine postseason positions.

[Cyclone62]

Originally Posted by rworkman83

If that was the case, then we shouldn't have a trophy. The Big 12 doesn't have a tiebreaker system to break regular season standings. The only tiebreakers determine postseason positions.

If what i said wasn't the case, then we should have been representing the north. However, this is going to evolve into a semantics argument, and I don't feel like getting into that. The Big 12 champ is determined through the North champ playing the South champ. That is it. Not the 3rd best south team against the 1st north team or vice versa. It's number 1 North vs. number 1 South.

[SouthernHawk]

Originally Posted by rworkman83

I'm not sure how anyone has avoided this question, because you just asked it for the first time two paragraphs above where you complain that we are avoiding it.

I'm not going to avoid it. I don't have any problem with us getting a trophy for being co-champions.

There is no tiebreaker to decide who the champion is. The only tiebreaker that is used is to determine who will represent the North in the title game.

Anytime you can add a trophy like that, it is all worth it. Recruits aren't always going to know you were co-champions. They are going to see the trophy, see it says 2004, and say I wanna be a part of the next one.

Originally Posted by rworkman83

If that was the case, then we shouldn't have a trophy. The Big 12 doesn't have a tiebreaker system to break regular season standings. The only tiebreakers determine postseason positions.

Actually, I agree 100% with you. In fact, it would be Mr. Burns who does not. His argument is that Purdue's 51-0 drubbing over the co-champs of the Big East is basically worthless because "The Big East doesn't have co-champs, just like ISU wasn't co-champs of the Big 12 North".

[JHudd]

Lets not put too much lipstick on this pig, 'Cuse as Co-Champs was still only a 6-6 team overall.

[agcy68]

"Also, apparently you view returning an entire offensive line as a bad thing. They were bad last season, and if you knew anything about what you were talking about, you'd realize that the more time a line gets to play together, the better they are. Barring another injury-plagued season, they should be much improved.

And JC was indeed the worst statistical QB in the BT. But, again, if you payed any attention to what you were arguing, you'd also realize that the #1 factor to his poor QB rating were the 46 sacks."

Bringing back and entire offensive line does not neccesarily mean they will be better, see ISU of a couple of years ago.

I can understand the JC comment. The problem with that argument on a Cyclone board is that when that argument was used with Austin Flynn for his sophomore year, Hawk fans basically laughed out loud.

Nothing against SH here, but these arguments are used every year by a lot of hawk fans AND they use the converse argument against ISU's potential. Brings to mind the idea of a pot and kettle for some reason.

[SouthernHawk]

Originally Posted by JHudd

Lets not put too much lipstick on this pig, 'Cuse as Co-Champs was still only a 6-6 team overall.

And ISU as co-champs of the Big 12 North was 7-5.

The point isn't that they were a super-great team. They weren't. But for Purdue to beat them 51-0, that was a relatively solid win for the BT, and not a "weak win" that Monty was trying to point out.

Originally Posted by agcy68

"Also, apparently you view returning an entire offensive line as a bad thing. They were bad last season, and if you knew anything about what you were talking about, you'd realize that the more time a line gets to play together, the better they are. Barring another injury-plagued season, they should be much improved.

And JC was indeed the worst statistical QB in the BT. But, again, if you payed any attention to what you were arguing, you'd also realize that the #1 factor to his poor QB rating were the 46 sacks."

Bringing back and entire offensive line does not neccesarily mean they will be better, see ISU of a couple of years ago.

I can understand the JC comment. The problem with that argument on a Cyclone board is that when that argument was used with Austin Flynn for his sophomore year, Hawk fans basically laughed out loud.

Nothing against SH here, but these arguments are used every year by a lot of hawk fans AND they use the converse argument against ISU's potential. Brings to mind the idea of a pot and kettle for some reason.

And I can agree to an extent. I have cautious optimism. But JC wasn't a terrible QB. The fact is, he had 2,269 yards, 17 touchdowns to 6 interceptions, and a 56% completion (not great, but not horrible). IMO, if the offensive line improves even just half way, he'll have a much better year (and the o-line should improve quite a bit, or an assistant coach is not doing their job).

[jdoggivjc]

Originally Posted by SouthernHawk

And ISU as co-champs of the Big 12 North was 7-5.

The point isn't that they were a super-great team. They weren't. But for Purdue to beat them 51-0, that was a relatively solid win for the BT, and not a "weak win" that Monty was trying to point out.



And I can agree to an extent. I have cautious optimism. But JC wasn't a terrible QB. The fact is, he had 2,269 yards, 17 touchdowns to 6 interceptions, and a 56% completion (not great, but not horrible). IMO, if the offensive line improves even just half way, he'll have a much better year (and the o-line should improve quite a bit, or an assistant coach is not doing their job).

Bret Meyer Completions: 233 Attempts: 382 Yards: 2151 Completion%: 61.0 Y ards/Att: 5.63 TD: 9 Int: 13 Rating: 109.3
Jake Christensen Completions: 198 Attempts: 370 Yards: 2269 Completion% 53.5 Yards/Att: 6.13 TD: 17 Int: 6 Rating: 116.9

Outside of TDs and INTs, it's strikingly comparable. Of course, that's explainable considering ISU had one of the nation's toughest schedules last year and Iowa, err, didn't...

Point is, not a single sane poster on this site will claim Meyer is an average quarterback, much less a good one. However, JC has similar stats and somehow is supposed to be the next coming? Especially against the schedule he saw last year? I'm not buying.

[SouthernHawk]

Originally Posted by jdoggivjc

Bret Meyer Completions: 233 Attempts: 382 Yards: 2151 Completion%: 61.0 Y ards/Att: 5.63 TD: 9 Int: 13 Rating: 109.3
Jake Christensen Completions: 198 Attempts: 370 Yards: 2269 Completion% 53.5 Yards/Att: 6.13 TD: 17 Int: 6 Rating: 116.9

Outside of TDs and INTs, it's strikingly comparable. Of course, that's explainable considering ISU had one of the nation's toughest schedules last year and Iowa, err, didn't...

Point is, not a single sane poster on this site will claim Meyer is an average quarterback, much less a good one. However, JC has similar stats and somehow is supposed to be the next coming? Especially against the schedule he saw last year? I'm not buying.

The touchdown to interception ratio is HUGE, and you know that as well as I do. If you saw those stats minus the TD/INT ratio, you could probably pick either QB and be satisfied with your decision. Those aren't bad numbers.

However, JC's 17/6 is much better than Meyer's 9/13 - regardless of difficulty of schedule, that's a big difference. JC's biggest problem? The offensive line couldn't keep him off of his back - and like I've maintained for quite a while now, if the o-line improves at all (and they deffinitely will), it will be a much better year for JC.

And there is another glaring difference - those numbers put up by Meyer were in his Senior season with at least one 3 year starter at WR. JC's numbers came during his Sophomore season with 0 experienced receivers.

[jmb]

Originally Posted by SouthernHawk

The touchdown to interception ratio is HUGE, and you know that as well as I do. If you saw those stats minus the TD/INT ratio, you could probably pick either QB and be satisfied with your decision. Those aren't bad numbers.

However, JC's 17/6 is much better than Meyer's 9/13 - regardless of difficulty of schedule, that's a big difference. JC's biggest problem? The offensive line couldn't keep him off of his back - and like I've maintained for quite a while now, if the o-line improves at all (and they deffinitely will), it will be a much better year for JC.

And there is another glaring difference - those numbers put up by Meyer were in his Senior season with at least one 3 year starter at WR. JC's numbers came during his Sophomore season with 0 experienced receivers.