The KU Flop and the Importance of 2009 for ISU

[aeroclone]

As most of you probably know, KU and ISU swap opponents from the south every two years. One team gets the soft rotation of aTm, OSU, and Baylor while the other gets UT, OU, and TT. (Lucky for them they get one home and one away for OU and UT while be get all or nothing)

I see KU's experience this year and last year as a huge indication for why we need to win next year. A lot of people think we have a 4 or 5 year rebuild here, but with the hard rotation back on the schedule in year 4 and 5, I don't know that we will see much on the field.

The run that KU made last season was proof to many of us that the non-traditional schools in the Big 12 could break through. KU went 12-1 last season with an Orange Bowl win. They did this against the softer south rotation. The only regular season game they played against an opponent that finished the season ranked was a 36-28 loss to Mizzou.

Flash forward to this season with UT, OU, and TT on the schedule. KU was expected by many to once again compete with Mizzou for the north title. They are now 6-4 with upcoming games against UT and Mizzou. Dropping these they will go bowling at 6-6 and with a bowl loss could be looking at a losing season. If ISU could have held on at home, this team could be looking at going from a 12 win BCS bowl season to staying home in one short year.

We need to break through big in 2009. Because if we can't make some noise in 09, it may be 2012 before we have a big opportunity again, and that is a long time to wait when our last bowl game is already several years in the rear view mirror. We may have a much improved team by 2010, but with OU, UT, and TT on the schedule to go with Utah and at Iowa out of conference, a team much much much better than the one we have today could be fortunate to put together a 6 or 7 win season.

Chizik wants to compete with the big south schools, and hopefully someday we will, but I really don't see any way that those games aren't 3 L's in 2010 and 11. Just look at the separation between those schools and KU and Mizzou, who are way beyond where I would hope for us to be in a couple years.

I know rebuilding takes time, and I know Chizik is going to need patience. But I also feel there needs to be a real sense of urgency to do something next year. The team and the fanbase needs some success to help smooth out the bumps we are going to have further down the road. I don't want to say that next year is absolutely do or die, but I do feel that it is pretty darn close!

 

[pyrocyz]

I disagree...I think that a hard schedule is fine if you have a team that can play one game at a time. If you minimize the damage that is gained from playing UT, TTU and OU then the rest of the schedule can be very manageable. Why can't we win the north and go 9-3? If a team doesn't believe that the whole season is based on those three games, then it doesn't matter if you have to play the harder teams in the south.

 

[Cydkar]

Schedule always matters. It just does. You can't will that fact away.

 

[mplscyclone]

The schedule matters but it is what it is. If we want to be taken seriously, we have to play with the best. Okie State and Texas Tech a few years ago weren't the super-powers of the league and now they are good.

I want to have a program that can compete each year, not just in years where we play the "easier" south teams. I thought that's why we fired Mac and brought in Chizik: to get the program up to another level. I'm willing to wait 4-5 years if that's what it takes to get to that point.

 

[trajanJ]

That rotation sucks. ISU and KU are the only teams that have to deal with that. It's not just the losses to those top South teams that hurt you, but also the injuries during that run that in turn hurts you against the rest of the North. Those 3 teams are so physical that you always seem to lose some starters after playing them. Personally I think Chizik should get 6 years before you can judge him, because when you are KU or ISU it takes a lot of time to rebuild. Mangino is still rebuilding and he's going on his 7th year. This is the first year he can actually use the Orange Bowl and the new facilities to help him recruit. If you're not one of the big boys it takes a long time.

 

[CyBobby]

I agree with you about the 2010-2011 schedules being mighty tough...The magic formula for all north div schools is thus: Win all 4 nonconference games and then win half(4) of the conference games and go on your way to the bowl game....

I'm NOT DUMB enough to say that ISU can't make a bowl game in '10 or '11...but it mite just be a daunting task..improbable? Maybe Impossible?...not hardly, it is possible if Gene has done enough infrastructure work with the fb program!!:yes:


"you can't play what you can't recruit"...quoting Earle Bruce

 

[aeroclone]

I disagree...I think that a hard schedule is fine if you have a team that can play one game at a time. If you minimize the damage that is gained from playing UT, TTU and OU then the rest of the schedule can be very manageable. Why can't we win the north and go 9-3? If a team doesn't believe that the whole season is based on those three games, then it doesn't matter if you have to play the harder teams in the south.

I really don't think it will be that easy. A home date with Utah and a road game at Iowa in 2010 are pretty high hurdles to clear on the way to 9-3. And do you think the entire North will just roll over for us? I would expect there will be at least one top 25 program there as well.

Plus, let's say we do go 9-3. That would put us at 5-3 in conference, what are the chances that we get into the title game at 5-3?

Having a good team's season ruined by this schedule isn't unique to KU this season. Just look back at our own history. In 2002 we are 6-1, ranked in the top 10, with a QB getting some early heisman buzz. Enter the south, exit with a 7-7 season and a disaster on some blue turf. The season that followed was even uglier at 2-10.

I maintain that this team has to show something next season or getting through the 2010 and 11 seasons is going to be tough. And it isn't going to do us much good as far as recruiting, donations, or ticket sales are concerned either.

 

[clonomaniac]

I honestly believe we won't see a winning season until at least 2 years from now but due to the difficult schedule, I do believe it will hurt the chance of Gene Chizik's keeping his job as a head coach at Iowa State. At that point, I could care less, we will have a newly rebuilt stadium and anyone in their right mind would love to have a job here at ISU.

Now, I hope I am wrong and we win big 12 north next year.

 

[aeroclone]

The schedule matters but it is what it is. If we want to be taken seriously, we have to play with the best. Okie State and Texas Tech a few years ago weren't the super-powers of the league and now they are good.

I want to have a program that can compete each year, not just in years where we play the "easier" south teams. I thought that's why we fired Mac and brought in Chizik: to get the program up to another level. I'm willing to wait 4-5 years if that's what it takes to get to that point.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we can never compete with these teams. I know it is Chiziks goal to do so, and I hope that we can get there. But does anyone here think that we will be ready to do that by 2010? Mizzou was close to having a national title shot last season and was in talks to start this season, and look how well they have faired against OU and UT.

My point would be that we are currently finishing up our 3rd consecutive year of bad football. If we have another bad season next year, our chances of bouncing back in 10 and 11 don't look good. At that point you are in a 6 season slump, 5 of them under Chizik. 5 seems to be the magic number a lot of people throw out there for how long he should have to get it done. I really feel like next year is the year, and if not, we may have to wait until year 6.... if people are patient enough.

I feel like Chizik is the man for the job and I want to see him stay here and succeed here, but I feel like with the way the rebuilding process is going, the rebuilding schedule and the football schedule may prevent him from showing us much before year 6, and I would hate to lose him because the fanbase wasn't willing to wait it out that long.

 

[jaretac]

We need to break through big in 2009. Because if we can't make some noise in 09, it may be 2012 before we have a big opportunity again, and that is a long time to wait when our last bowl game is already several years in the rear view mirror.

Hopefully we will have a bowled in end zone by 2012 and we will be able to make allot of noise.:wink:

Teams change rapidly. Your talking about Iowa and Utah being good in '10 and at the same time talking about how Kansas went from 6 wins to 12 wins and possibly back down to 6 wins in three years.

Making future prediction based on current situations is never accurate. Let's look at the north in three years. Who is going to be on top? Who knows about Kansas and Kansas State. Missouri and Nebraska will be losing allot of players this year and next year and you can only guess that they will be down. Colorado and Iowa State are probably going to be two of the top teams in the north.

Your making predictions based on three games, when we have to play 6 other games against the same opponents every year. Even if we lose all three games against south teams, we will still have 9 other games to get ourselves into a nice bowl.

 

[cybsball20]

Just look at what we return and what all the other teams lose... I honestly see 7-8 wins next year... I also guessed 3-4 for this year...

 

[jakemcilroy]

Schedule always matters. It just does. You can't will that fact away.

Because those types of teams not only beat you...they injure all your good players.

Don't forget in 2011 we have UCONN with Utah and Iowa non-conf.

 

[clonomaniac]

Making future prediction based on current situations is never accurate.

NO prediction is ever accurate. However, predicting for future based on current trend and the past happenings is always wise.

 

[Ficklone02]

I disagree...I think that a hard schedule is fine if you have a team that can play one game at a time. If you minimize the damage that is gained from playing UT, TTU and OU then the rest of the schedule can be very manageable. Why can't we win the north and go 9-3? If a team doesn't believe that the whole season is based on those three games, then it doesn't matter if you have to play the harder teams in the south.

Schedule matters for sure....thinking we are going to play perfect football and get all the other games as wins is pretty lofty thinking. That perfect scenario might happen once every forty years in my estimation.

 

[Ficklone02]

Just look at what we return and what all the other teams lose... I honestly see 7-8 wins next year... I also guessed 3-4 for this year...

True...but all those teams aren't going to stop recruiting either.

 

[cybsball20]

True...but all those teams aren't going to stop recruiting either.

Agree, but the one constant in college football is that the teams that return the most make huge gains. Alot of teams will be going through growing pains next year breaking in new players...

 

[aeroclone]

Just look at what we return and what all the other teams lose... I honestly see 7-8 wins next year... I also guessed 3-4 for this year...

I agree with your outlook for next season..... but I had us at 5 or 6 this year.

Sure, we can still go 9-3 both years and make some solid bowl games, but does anybody really think that we are going to improve enough two years from now to be 18-0 against teams that aren't OU, UT, and TT? It also seems like a stretch to think that KU and Mizzou are going to going to take steps backwards while KSU, CU, and Nebby all stay at the same level. We will have some tough games other than the big 3 from the south. And our non-conference schedule is worse than I can ever remember.

There just isn't any room for error there if you still want a really good season. And as ISU, you can always count on giving one away that you shouldn't. Heck, even teams like USC drop the occasional game that they shouldn't. Problem is, when you are basically starting the season at 9-3, a drop here and a tough game there finds you right back at 7-5 and off to Shreveport.... which I believe we got tired of pretty quick, hence the push for the coaching change.

 

[tejasclone]

Having a good team's season ruined by this schedule isn't unique to KU this season. Just look back at our own history. In 2002 we are 6-1, ranked in the top 10, with a QB getting some early heisman buzz. Enter the south, exit with a 7-7 season and a disaster on some blue turf. The season that followed was even uglier at 2-10.

I would contend that the 2002 season hinged around a single game, not the complete "hard" South rotation. Remember, we beat TTU and we were competitive at Texas (had the lead at halftime) that year, but the loss to OU simply pulverized our confidence. Another reason why we lost so many games the second half of that year was because we played 4 out of 5 on the road, all against ranked teams. CU and KSU were also ranked fairly significantly that year. In the first 7 games of the 2002 season, we only played 2 away from JTS: one was in Kansas City (with a heavily partisan ISU crowd) and the other was in Kinnick (in the same state). Our 5 home games were against some bad teams: Kansas (Mangino's first year), Tennessee Tech, Troy State, Nebraska, and TTU.

I disagree with the notion that playing UT, OU, and TTU are automatic losses. Chizik wants his players and his fans to defy that attitude, which has become so firmly entrenched in our collective consciousness. He expects his guys to compete with and beat those teams, and so should we. Going to a bowl game with UT, OU, and TTU on the schedule is sweeter than one with with OSU, A&M, and BU.

 

[Steve]

I would contend that the 2002 season hinged around a single game, not the complete "hard" South rotation. Remember, we beat TTU and we were competitive at Texas (had the lead at halftime) that year, but the loss to OU simply pulverized our confidence. Another reason why we lost so many games the second half of that year was because we played 4 out of 5 on the road, all against ranked teams. CU and KSU were also ranked fairly significantly that year. In the first 7 games of the 2002 season, we only played 2 away from JTS: one was in Kansas City (with a heavily partisan ISU crowd) and the other was in Kinnick (in the same state). Our 5 home games were against some bad teams: Kansas (Mangino's first year), Tennessee Tech, Troy State, Nebraska, and TTU.

I disagree with the notion that playing UT, OU, and TTU are automatic losses. Chizik wants his players and his fans to defy that attitude, which has become so firmly entrenched in our collective consciousness. He expects his guys to compete with and beat those teams, and so should we. Going to a bowl game with UT, OU, and TTU on the schedule is sweeter than one with with OSU, A&M, and BU.

What I recall about the '02 season is that as the season progressed, opponents discovered that ISU had no answer to extreme defensive pressure. Seneca spent the last half of the season running for his life as there was no blitz pickup, no hot reads, and no reliable deep threats to stop teams from constantly bringing pressure.

 

[jaretac]

NO prediction is ever accurate. However, predicting for future based on current trend and the past happenings is always wise.

I'm not trying to start an argument and I do think that schedules matter, I'm just trying to point out that he was trying to predict 3 years from now when the top experts can't even acutely predict the outcome of a top 10 team this year.

And since we are bringing up history, on average, ISU beats Oklahoma once every 14 years. The last time we beat Oklahoma was in 1990 which means we are past due. As for Utah, we have never lost to Utah in 4 meetings. So if we use history as our aide, those our two wins right there.

We don't know if Iowa or Utah or UConn or Oklahoma or any other school is going to do well in 2010. The whole conference might turn upside down and that may be the weakest schedule we've ever had.

Though I doubt it, follow me for a second. Ok St is a very good young team that may be one of the strongest south teams next year. Baylor is greatly improving with a very young team. Texas is likely to lose allot of starters in the next two years and same with Texas Tech. Oklahoma is the one team that appears to be solid for awhile, but I've got questions about how solid they really are. I've already talked about how upside down the North could look as early as next year.

I will say that regardless of win or loss, I like the fact that we have some good non conference games scheduled.