Sorry if this has been posted elsewhere, but has anyone else read the article on Iowa in yesterday's Wall Street Journal? It is proof that the WSJ should stick to business and should never attempt to cover sports again.
Basically, the gist of the article is that Iowa's recent run into the top 5 was great for college football and was "one of the most stunning—if not inspiring—stories in the recent history of college football." Because Iowa has a small population and corn, it shouldn't be able to compete with the big boys of college football. Iowa has never won a national championship and was ranked 22nd coming into the season, so its remarkable that they were ranked so high. The article goes on to say that, despite the fact that Iowa is about 4 hours from "several Midwestern cities", they have to compete with a number of other schools for recruits. There are only 4 other teams in the BCS top 20 with a lower percentage of recruits from their home state (Okie St., Boise St., Arizona, and Oregon), but they get benefit from being close to Texas (for Okie St.) and California (for the other 3).
Now, I hate the Hawkeyes, but the reason this article annoys me isn't anti-Hawkeye bias. This article is just dripping with East-coast bias. First of all, it says that the state of Iowa is one of the smallest states to have a major-conference program. Fact is, it has 2 of them, which would have made their flimsy argument a bit stronger, but they don't bother with that. Second, Iowa may not have won a national championship, but they still have history as a program. I'd say they have a better history pre-1996 than Florida. Third, Nebraska has about half the population of Iowa. I suppose that when Nebraska was good, that was even better for college football? Fourth, Boise has an advantage because of it's proximity to California? Really? Looked at a map of the United States lately? I have. It took me all of 30 seconds to find out that the major California city nearest to Boise is Sacramento, which is 550 miles away. Fifth, Iowa is a BCS conference school. If you are going to discuss a "plucky" team breaking into the top 5, isn't it more impressive for a school that isn't in one of the privileged conferences?
The article says practically nothing about what Iowa has actually done on the field and barely even mentions Ferentz at all. Essentially, the writers looked at last week's BCS poll, saw Iowa, did a quick Google-search to find out where Iowa's at, realized it was actually a state, and thought, "Isn't that cute. Little Iowa has a team in the top 5."
Basically, the gist of the article is that Iowa's recent run into the top 5 was great for college football and was "one of the most stunning—if not inspiring—stories in the recent history of college football." Because Iowa has a small population and corn, it shouldn't be able to compete with the big boys of college football. Iowa has never won a national championship and was ranked 22nd coming into the season, so its remarkable that they were ranked so high. The article goes on to say that, despite the fact that Iowa is about 4 hours from "several Midwestern cities", they have to compete with a number of other schools for recruits. There are only 4 other teams in the BCS top 20 with a lower percentage of recruits from their home state (Okie St., Boise St., Arizona, and Oregon), but they get benefit from being close to Texas (for Okie St.) and California (for the other 3).
Now, I hate the Hawkeyes, but the reason this article annoys me isn't anti-Hawkeye bias. This article is just dripping with East-coast bias. First of all, it says that the state of Iowa is one of the smallest states to have a major-conference program. Fact is, it has 2 of them, which would have made their flimsy argument a bit stronger, but they don't bother with that. Second, Iowa may not have won a national championship, but they still have history as a program. I'd say they have a better history pre-1996 than Florida. Third, Nebraska has about half the population of Iowa. I suppose that when Nebraska was good, that was even better for college football? Fourth, Boise has an advantage because of it's proximity to California? Really? Looked at a map of the United States lately? I have. It took me all of 30 seconds to find out that the major California city nearest to Boise is Sacramento, which is 550 miles away. Fifth, Iowa is a BCS conference school. If you are going to discuss a "plucky" team breaking into the top 5, isn't it more impressive for a school that isn't in one of the privileged conferences?
The article says practically nothing about what Iowa has actually done on the field and barely even mentions Ferentz at all. Essentially, the writers looked at last week's BCS poll, saw Iowa, did a quick Google-search to find out where Iowa's at, realized it was actually a state, and thought, "Isn't that cute. Little Iowa has a team in the top 5."
