Iowa/ISU rematch

[Taco]

I would actually love to hear the case for Iowa in this argument. What have the hawks done this year to make anyone think they are better than the Clones?

First off, Iowa and Iowa State won't play each other in a bowl game. Outside of the state of Iowa, nobody would watch that game, period.

Second, I don't think anyone has said that Iowa is a better team than the Cyclones this year. From reading everyone's posts, and from what I believe myself, the Hawks and Cyclones are extremely similar this year in terms of talent. Iowa has come out at times this year and looked solid, and has come out this year and looked like garbage. They shut down Michigan's defense and were able to put points up pretty easily against a team who ranks 8th in the country in defense. On the flip side, they curl up and get beat by a bad Minnesota team.

The Cylcones, on the other hand, come out and totally dominate Texas Tech, and beat an extremely talented Okie State team, but lay an egg against Kansas and almost get beat. Not to mention several beatdowns, Texas, Baylor, Mizzou.

Third, both teams play better at home.

Fourth, Iowa State beat Iowa earlier this year, which is all that really matters. That being said, the game went into three overtimes. I think it's fair to say that both teams are about as similar talent wise as they have been in a long time, and that's good for everyone living in the state of Iowa. That, along with both b-ball teams being on the rise should provide some entertainment for fans of both teams.

 

[Taco]

If you want to play the what if ******** I'll play along. If we don't have the TOs against Iowa and the missed FGs by at least two TDs. We were clearly the better team Sept. 10th and were clearly the better team right now. You have a lot of balls saying that Iowa would beat ISU now after we beat the #2 team in the nation an you lose to Minnesota and look unimpressive for the last two weeks.

Clearly? Is that why it took three overtimes? ISU was better, and won the game, but is clearly the appropriate word to describe that?

Yes, ISU just beat Okie State, and no one is not acknowledging that, but didn't ISU almost lose to Kansas in the previous game? Would you label that game as unimpressive as well?

 

[tm3308]

If you want to play the what if ******** I'll play along. If we don't have the TOs against Iowa and the missed FGs by at least two TDs. We were clearly the better team Sept. 10th and were clearly the better team right now. You have a lot of balls saying that Iowa would beat ISU now after we beat the #2 team in the nation an you lose to Minnesota and look unimpressive for the last two weeks.

Reading comprehension. It's a wonderful thing, my friend.

I said the Iowa team that we're seeing now would beat an ISU team led by Jantz. Because Iowa is better now than they were then.

But with Barnett under center, I can't say that. Because with Barnett, ISU is better, too.

 

[kas4cy]

I realize that, and I was thinking more in terms of the '80s, when a January bowl game actually meant something. I just should have been clearer on that point. To be a little more precise, a NYD game is better than a December game. Some of the garbage placed between the BCS bowls don't count, in that case.

Ah, yes. Back before I was born when a bowl game in January actually meant something. How old does that make you feel now?

I still stand by the point that unless you're in those top 3 or 4 bowls, January should not be used as an assumption of a good bowl game. The Big 10 has, by schedule, the most January games.

Fun note, If I remember correctly, the only way Iowa State would be ever able to get to a January bowl would be a BCS game... as all of the Big 12 games are in December...

 

[Clones85']

How is Iowa better now than they were in September? Defense isn't any better. Not saying Iowa's bad but to me they are the exact same team as they have been all year. Haven't gotten better or worse. Just inconsistent

 

[kas4cy]

Clearly? Is that why it took three overtimes? ISU was better, and won the game, but is clearly the appropriate word to describe that?

Yes, ISU just beat Okie State, and no one is not acknowledging that, but didn't ISU almost lose to Kansas in the previous game? Would you label that game as unimpressive as well?

Actually, as much as I disagree with how he's arguing his points, I'd use the word clearly as well. The vast majority of Iowa fans that I talked to since then were amazed that Iowa was able to get that to overtime. And in their minds, there's no way they were a better team on that day. That's not even my opinion, that's what other die-hard hawks have told me. When fans of another fanbase tell you they're stunned that they had a chance to win the game, that's a pretty good time to use "clearly."

 

[tm3308]

Ah, yes. Back before I was born when a bowl game in January actually meant something. How old does that make you feel now?

I still stand by the point that unless you're in those top 3 or 4 bowls, January should not be used as an assumption of a good bowl game. The Big 10 has, by schedule, the most January games.

Fun note, If I remember correctly, the only way Iowa State would be ever able to get to a January bowl would be a BCS game... as all of the Big 12 games are in December...

I believe the Pac-12 doesn't have any new year's games outside of the Rose Bowl, as well. I think they're the only 2 conferences of the Big 6 that do that.

And it doesn't make me feel too old. I wasn't born yet in those days, either lol.

 

[Taco]

How is Iowa better now than they were in September? Defense isn't any better. Not saying Iowa's bad but to me they are the exact same team as they have been all year. Haven't gotten better or worse. Just inconsistent

Yes, they've been inconsistent. But would you say ISU has been consistent?

First 3 games of the year, they won by an average of 2.3 points per game.
Next four games, they lost by an average of 24.25 points per game.
The one game that they won by more than 6 points was against Tech, who they beat by 34.
Then their last 2 games, they won by an average of 4.5 points per game.

Would you say that demonstrates consistency?

 

[cayin]

Outside of beating Michigan, and having the best WR on the field, not much. Coker is a different player now, too (Running with much less concern for ball security, but he's still taking care of the ball. He's just running more naturally.).

But the defense still ain't very good, although Bernstine and Binns have been great all year and over the past month or so, respectively.

Marvin M. is indeed a great receiver. Many Iowa fans were wanting and asking why Iowa did not throw his way more during our game. I doubt many knew there was an NFL caliber cornerback on him in leonard Johnson. Johnson has also had great games against other great wideouts from other schools. He shut down Kendall Wright. The best receiver in the country, Blackman from OSU, said LJ was the best corner he has played against. So for Iowa, it is not just so easy to go to McNutt, it wasn't there because LJ shut him down.

 

[Taco]

Actually, as much as I disagree with how he's arguing his points, I'd use the word clearly as well. The vast majority of Iowa fans that I talked to since then were amazed that Iowa was able to get that to overtime. And in their minds, there's no way they were a better team on that day. That's not even my opinion, that's what other die-hard hawks have told me. When fans of another fanbase tell you they're stunned that they had a chance to win the game, that's a pretty good time to use "clearly."

You can't be serious.

Iowa led 10-0, then ISU came back to tie it at 10-10. Iowa kicked two field goals to lead 16-10, then ISU scored to make it 17-16. Iowa scored and converted the 2 point conversion to make it 24-17. ISU then scored with a minute and a half left in the 4th to tie the game at 24. Iowa rand the ball and sat on the clock, playing for overtime.

How in the h*** can you even try to argue that Iowa was the lucky one to be able to "get to overtime"? Seriously, please take off the blinders for just one second and look at what you're saying.

 

[cayin]

Clearly? Is that why it took three overtimes? ISU was better, and won the game, but is clearly the appropriate word to describe that?

Yes, ISU just beat Okie State, and no one is not acknowledging that, but didn't ISU almost lose to Kansas in the previous game? Would you label that game as unimpressive as well?

It shouldn't have taken ISU 3 overtimes. ISU had 100 more yard of offense at the end of regulation. ISU shot it's self in the foot with stupid mistake and unforced turnovers like a high snap in the redzone. It wasn't to much of anything Iowa did that made the game close but rather ISU hurting it's self. It was evident the Iowa defense just did not have the speed to shut down a dual threat qb. I do think Iowa underestimated ISU because Iowa blew them out so bad the last two years and Iowa may not have played with a sense of urgency or the right amount of intensity they could have.

 

[UNIGuy4Cy]

Ya unfortunately I believe ISU would manhandle Iowa if they played again. Our defense has just turned the corner and if they can shut down the teams they have, Iowa may not sniff the 50.

 

[kas4cy]

Yes, they've been inconsistent. But would you say ISU has been consistent?

First 3 games of the year, they won by an average of 2.3 points per game.
Next four games, they lost by an average of 24.25 points per game.
The one game that they won by more than 6 points was against Tech, who they beat by 34.
Then their last 2 games, they won by an average of 4.5 points per game.

Would you say that demonstrates consistency?

I don't believe he said anything about ISU being consistant, but no, they're not. That's not what his argument was. It was that in his eyes, Iowa has been any better than they were at the beginning of the season, and he supported his point. You bringing up ISU having the same issue proves nothing and is not relevant.

 

[Taco]

It shouldn't have taken ISU 3 overtimes. ISU had 100 more yard of offense at the end of regulation. ISU shot it's self in the foot with stupid mistake and unforced turnovers like a high snap in the redzone. It wasn't to much of anything Iowa did that made the game close but rather ISU hurting it's self. It was evident the Iowa defense just did not have the speed to shut down a dual threat qb. I do think Iowa underestimated ISU because Iowa blew them out so bad the last two years and Iowa may not have played with a sense of urgency or the right amount of intensity they could have.

You must not watch many Iowa football games. Their entire defensive scheme is built around the idea that they will give up a lot of yards, as long as their defense can keep the opposing offense out of the endzone. While this defense is not nearly as good as previous years, they were able to keep ISU out of the endzone and force some turnovers. That is the underlying premise of a "bend but don't break defense". If you want to go ahead and look at Iowa's box scores over the past 10 years, you will find out that they often give up a lot of yards.

 

[Clones85']

Yes, they've been inconsistent. But would you say ISU has been consistent?

First 3 games of the year, they won by an average of 2.3 points per game.
Next four games, they lost by an average of 24.25 points per game.
The one game that they won by more than 6 points was against Tech, who they beat by 34.
Then their last 2 games, they won by an average of 4.5 points per game.

Would you say that demonstrates consistency?

No ISU has not been consistent. I didn't mention who would win or my thoughts on ISU, I'm simply commenting on Iowa. They are no better than they were in September. The Hawkeye fan base is on a roller coaster ride. One week they are winning the division, the next they are the worst team in the conference and Ferentz needs to be fired, than they are good again, than they are going to lose out and not make a bowl game, than even with 6 wins they are going to turn it down b/c they are above a crappy bowl game, now they have clearly gotten better.

Hawks are who they are. An ok football team that doesn't have a huge room for error. Just like Iowa State.

 

[Taco]

I don't believe he said anything about ISU being consistant, but no, they're not. That's not what his argument was. It was that in his eyes, Iowa has been any better than they were at the beginning of the season, and he supported his point. You bringing up ISU having the same issue proves nothing and is not relevant.

It is relevant. Which ISU team shows up if they play again? The team that barely beats a terrible Kansas team by a field goal in the closing minutes, or the team that shocks everyone and knocks off Okie State.

If Iowa shows up and puts up their best showing and ISU shows up and does the same, who knows what would happen. That being said, both teams could show up and lay an egg, as they both have several times this season.

Definitely relevant.

 

[kas4cy]

You can't be serious.

Iowa led 10-0, then ISU came back to tie it at 10-10. Iowa kicked two field goals to lead 16-10, then ISU scored to make it 17-16. Iowa scored and converted the 2 point conversion to make it 24-17. ISU then scored with a minute and a half left in the 4th to tie the game at 24. Iowa rand the ball and sat on the clock, playing for overtime.

How in the h*** can you even try to argue that Iowa was the lucky one to be able to "get to overtime"? Seriously, please take off the blinders for just one second and look at what you're saying.

Blinders are not on. If you have ever seen me on this board, I tend to keep a very level headed mind when talking sports. I hardly make a biased point. And as I said, if you read. Iowa fans said that, I'm relaying.

I'd also like to remind you that ISU outgained Iowa by about 100 yards in regulation and shot themselves in the foot with 2 turnovers in the red-zone. One of which on the 1 yard line that was fortunate for Iowa to not be a touchdown. I understand your point, but I feel you might be seeing that game out of bias as you're clearly the only one that thinks ISU shouldn't have won that game that day.

 

[Taco]

No ISU has not been consistent. I didn't mention who would win or my thoughts on ISU, I'm simply commenting on Iowa. They are no better than they were in September. The Hawkeye fan base is on a roller coaster ride. One week they are winning the division, the next they are the worst team in the conference and Ferentz needs to be fired, than they are good again, than they are going to lose out and not make a bowl game, than even with 6 wins they are going to turn it down b/c they are above a crappy bowl game, now they have clearly gotten better.

Hawks are who they are. An ok football team that doesn't have a huge room for error. Just like Iowa State.

Exactly, I think we're kind of arguing the same point here. The exact same thing can be said for ISU. ISU shows up the first 3 weeks and fans are proclaiming Steele Jantz to be the savior and should be getting Heisman talk. Then they come out and get blown out 4 weeks in a row, and people are pi**ed off and are saying CPR can't hack it, and Pollard needs to step in and show some discipline, because the team lacks focus and has a bunch of personal fouls all the time. Now, CPR is the savior and fans are worried other teams may come in and poach him.

ISU and Iowa are shockingly similar this year, that's all I'm trying to say. In no way did I say they are better than ISU, I think they are similar. Similar does not mean better than.

 

[Taco]

Blinders are not on. If you have ever seen me on this board, I tend to keep a very level headed mind when talking sports. I hardly make a biased point. And as I said, if you read. Iowa fans said that, I'm relaying.

I'd also like to remind you that ISU outgained Iowa by about 100 yards in regulation and shot themselves in the foot with 2 turnovers in the red-zone. One of which on the 1 yard line that was fortunate for Iowa to not be a touchdown. I understand your point, but I feel you might be seeing that game out of bias as you're clearly the only one that thinks ISU shouldn't have won that game that day.

And the other turnover was a fumble, that if I'm not mistaken, Marcus Coker fumbled the ball right back to ISU on the very next play.

And for the outgaining in yards debate, look at my previous post. Iowa always gives up yards, always. That is how their defense is built. Last year in the Insight Bowl, they gave up over 500 yards of offense. Who won that game?

 

[kas4cy]

You must not watch many Iowa football games. Their entire defensive scheme is built around the idea that they will give up a lot of yards, as long as their defense can keep the opposing offense out of the endzone. While this defense is not nearly as good as previous years, they were able to keep ISU out of the endzone and force some turnovers. That is the underlying premise of a "bend but don't break defense". If you want to go ahead and look at Iowa's box scores over the past 10 years, you will find out that they often give up a lot of yards.

Has Iowa changed their philosophy in recent years? Because back when I was in high school and young their idea of defense was to put on pressure and hit you in the mouth until you make mistakes and capitalize on said mistakes. They didn't have that mentality, nor do I recall any of the coaching staff say that when I watched their games. Could be wrong though.

You can make the argument that every defense on any team has that mentality though, just for the record.

It is relevant. Which ISU team shows up if they play again? The team that barely beats a terrible Kansas team by a field goal in the closing minutes, or the team that shocks everyone and knocks off Okie State.

If Iowa shows up and puts up their best showing and ISU shows up and does the same, who knows what would happen. That being said, both teams could show up and lay an egg, as they both have several times this season.

Definitely relevant.

I understand the argument of "which team shows up," but you did not phrase it that way.

ISU beat a bad Kansas team that played its best game of the year to that point with Iowa State coming off of a huge win. No question there. They also didn't look like world beaters when beating Okie State. ISU actually looked pretty much what ISU is. I think a lot of Okie State losing was a lot more about Okie State not playing on offense and defense how they usually play. Weeden missed a lot of throws all night and ISU didn't really light the place up. Iowa State has been inconstant, no question.