Well, yes. At least this is what I've heard from hawk fans every time we've beat them since I've been a fan. Including after the '05 game. "Well, we're still the better team" is a direct quote form a hawk fan thirty seconds after that game ended.
Iowa vs. Big 12
- Thread starter chadm
- Start date
Well, yes. At least this is what I've heard from hawk fans every time we've beat them since I've been a fan. Including after the '05 game. "Well, we're still the better team" is a direct quote form a hawk fan thirty seconds after that game ended.
I'm simply asking a question.....since when does what happens on the football field not matter?
And can you please link something that shows the head to head results of the Big 12 and Big East the past decade?
2001-2011 vs Big East
Baylor 0-2
Colorado 1-1
ISU 0-0
Nebraska 2-1
Missouri 0-0
Kansas 1-1
KSU 0-5
A&M 1-3
Texas 0-0
Texas Tech 0-0
Oklahoma 3-1
OSU 0-0
Big 12 is 8-14 against Big East in the last decade. :wideeyed:
Record vs. Conferences
Last edited:
Last 10 years (2001-2010)
ISU -none played (last played a big east team in 2000)
Mizzou -none played
Kansas 1-1 (both games against S Florida)
KSU 0-5 (twice to Syracuse, twice to Louisville, Rutgers)
OU 3-1 (beat Cinci twice, Uconn, lost to WV)
OSU - none played
Texas - none played
Texas A&M 1-3 (beat Pitt, lost to Pitt and Va Tech twice-they were Big East at the time)
Texas Tech - none played
Baylor 0-2 (lost to UConn twice)
Colorado 1-1 (both games against WV)
Nebraska 2-1 (beat Pitt twice, lost to Miami-then a member of Big East)
So for the current Big 12 that's 5-12 and overall 8-14. Even using the best case scenario with keeping the wins of teams not currently in the Big 12 and eliminating wins from teams not currently in the big East the Big 12 is only 8-11.
Edit: the ISU loss toUConn in 2002 doesn't count since they were not a member of the Big East at the time
ISU -none played (last played a big east team in 2000)
Mizzou -none played
Kansas 1-1 (both games against S Florida)
KSU 0-5 (twice to Syracuse, twice to Louisville, Rutgers)
OU 3-1 (beat Cinci twice, Uconn, lost to WV)
OSU - none played
Texas - none played
Texas A&M 1-3 (beat Pitt, lost to Pitt and Va Tech twice-they were Big East at the time)
Texas Tech - none played
Baylor 0-2 (lost to UConn twice)
Colorado 1-1 (both games against WV)
Nebraska 2-1 (beat Pitt twice, lost to Miami-then a member of Big East)
So for the current Big 12 that's 5-12 and overall 8-14. Even using the best case scenario with keeping the wins of teams not currently in the Big 12 and eliminating wins from teams not currently in the big East the Big 12 is only 8-11.
Edit: the ISU loss toUConn in 2002 doesn't count since they were not a member of the Big East at the time
Last edited:
So, for the recap we have:
Iowa winning SEC easily, by virtue of 3-1 bowl record.
ISU winning SEC even more easily by virtue of 7-6 record vs Iowa in recentish games.
The Big XII "dominating" the Big Ten, 23-19.
The Big East "more dominating" the Big XII for conference supremacy for all time, 12-5.
But wait, the Big Ten turns in a "MOST dominating" performance of the Big East, 20-10.
Ladies and gentlemen, it appears we have reached one of those paradox things that will destroy the very fabric of the universe as Doc Brown prophesied way back when.
It's been nice knowing you all!
Iowa winning SEC easily, by virtue of 3-1 bowl record.
ISU winning SEC even more easily by virtue of 7-6 record vs Iowa in recentish games.
The Big XII "dominating" the Big Ten, 23-19.
The Big East "more dominating" the Big XII for conference supremacy for all time, 12-5.
But wait, the Big Ten turns in a "MOST dominating" performance of the Big East, 20-10.
Ladies and gentlemen, it appears we have reached one of those paradox things that will destroy the very fabric of the universe as Doc Brown prophesied way back when.
It's been nice knowing you all!
Last edited:
So, for the recap we have:
The Big XII "dominating" the Big Ten, 23-19.
The Big East "more dominating" the Big XII for conference supremacy for all time, 12-5.
But wait, the Big Ten turns in a "MOST dominating" performance of the Big East, 20-10.
Ladies and gentlemen, it appears we have reached one of those paradox things that will destroy the very fabric of the universe as Doc Brown prophesied way back when.
It's been nice knowing you all!
lol. well played sir.:twitcy:
Sorry I'm a little ornery this morning. The wife-to-be's last minute wedding stress has me a little punchy and I decided to take it out on this thread. Hopefully I have offended both sides of the argument equally!
So yes, on the football field (where it matters) the Big East has been better than the Big 12. Do I THINK the Big 12 is better? Am I GUESSING that most our teams are better than theirs? Yes. BUT at this point it's just an educuated guess. What actually happens on the football field is everything.
And the Big 10 on the football field the past decade has not been good
And the Big 10 on the football field the past decade has not been good
Team vs. Team... yes.
Conference vs. Conference... no.
The matchups are so arbitrary... good/great team from conference A against bad/terrible team from conference B, I don't know how you could expect THAT to really gauge which conference is superior.
And revisit another thread on here somewhere and you'll see that I agree that this year, as of right now, ISU > Iowa.
It does, but hopefully you can understand that it's a little flawed to use a ranked Mizzou team beating a 3-9 Illini team as evidence that the Big 12 is the better conference.
If the Clones lost the rest of their games and the Hawks won the rest. That would do it.
Exactly. Just because team A beats team B doesn't make team A better than B. It means they were better on that day, nothing else. Many times it does work out that they are a better team but if the better team always won, there wouldn't be upsets.
In ISU's case, as of right now they are absolutely a better team than Iowa. Will they remain that way for another 10 weeks? I don't know. They might and they might not. That's the fun of sports.
If Iowa goes 10-2 by season's end and ISU is 2-10, or anywhere in that neighborhood for either, I think you'd be kidding yourself if you said ISU was the better team. Chances of that happening are doubtful, and if both teams are within a few wins/losses of each other by season's end you'd have to give the nod to ISU as the better team.
Pretty scientific stuff, obviously.
Correct. 44-41 in 3 OTs makes them pretty darned close, though. But obviously, you need to give the nod to ISU.
Let's compare Iowa's remaining schedule to ISU's.
IOWA STATE
#19 Texas
@#17 Baylor
@ Mizzou
#8 Texas A&M
@ Texas Tech
Kansas
#7 Oklahoma State
@#1 Oklahoma
@ Kansas State
IOWA
Louisiana Monroe
@Penn St
Northwestern
Indiana
@Minnesota
#22 Michigan
Michigan State
@Purdue
@Nebraska
We play 5 road games to your 4. We play 5 ranked teams to your 2. 4 in the top 20 to your 1. 3 in the top 10 to your 1.
So, in short, if Iowa State wins 3 out of the next 6 ......and Iowa wins 6 out of the next 3, you will all of a sudden think Iowa is better? B/c they won more games?
Not necessarily, especially if Iowa's 3 losses came to the three hardest teams on their schedule and ISU beats the teams they are supposed to beat.
Anyway, the most important thing is that they were better than Iowa when it mattered: game day.