Maybe next year, Hawkeyes.

To, too, and two

Thank you man, I don't like people getting confused.

I did you a favor and added two commas for you. Not to mention I spelled out the number two, instead of using the numerical version.

Tapatalk butchered my post. It was supposed to say(using symbols instead of words) : to is not equal to too and 2 is much less than 18.

Sent from my DROID Incredible using Tapatalk
 
O boy this thread just got a little awkward after last nights events.

Let's see here... 5 arrests... to 18... damn we need to catch up to even in the running with Iowa...
seriously... you're little ***** fight with mike was funny and all... but come on.. be smart when you're here, if you're gonna try and make a point don't be an *** about it. tm does a great job at that.
 
Let's see here... 5 arrests... to 18... damn we need to catch up to even in the running with Iowa...
seriously... you're little ***** fight with mike was funny and all... but come on.. be smart when you're here, if you're gonna try and make a point don't be an *** about it. tm does a great job at that.

You mean 18 over the last 4-5 years right? According to a poster on hawkeyereport, the total since 2003 is 34 iowa football arrests, to 28 ISU arrests. Not sure that is completely accurate, but since no ISU posters corrected him, I would say it is reasonably close. Are you saying that the extra 6 arrests for Iowa are that much of a difference?

Edit: Would also like to point out that Iowa has averaged about 5 player arrests/citations every year. ISU is about 4. And since ISU already has 3 in the first 2 months of this year, I would venture to say that the moral high road is a tough one to play no matter what team you cheer for. College kids make dumb decisions, simple as that.
 
Last edited:
You mean 18 over the last 4-5 years right? According to a poster on hawkeyereport, the total since 2003 is 34 iowa football arrests, to 28 ISU arrests. Not sure that is completely accurate, but since no ISU posters corrected him, I would say it is reasonably close. Are you saying that the extra 6 arrests for Iowa are that much of a difference?

Edit: Would also like to point out that Iowa has averaged about 5 player arrests/citations every year. ISU is about 4. And since ISU already has 3 in the first 2 months of this year, I would venture to say that the moral high road is a tough one to play no matter what team you cheer for. College kids make dumb decisions, simple as that.

I'll agree with that but what really ticks me off is why kids from either ISU or Iowa are getting a free education and play college sports, something that anyone on either boards would love to do.. why would you risk a free education and a dream that not that many people get to do.. seems like they always seem like they are entitled to something. like when they walk into a bar.. some seem like they walk into a bar underage and expect to be served because they are football players from ISU or Iowa
 
I'll agree with that but what really ticks me off is why kids from either ISU or Iowa are getting a free education and play college sports, something that anyone on either boards would love to do.. why would you risk a free education and a dream that not that many people get to do.. seems like they always seem like they are entitled to something. like when they walk into a bar.. some seem like they walk into a bar underage and expect to be served because they are football players from ISU or Iowa

Could not agree more with you. I was asked to walk on to play at ISU and Iowa, didn't ever try for numerous reasons, but always burned me that kids take this opportunity for granted, while others, like myself, would have done anything for a free ride to play the greatest game in the world.
 
We will see what CPR does with this. And then we will see what happens in the future.

If this becomes a recurring theme.

BTW there ames, let's see that link showing 28 football arrests since 2003.

Plus 2007-2008 is well within last 5 years. And we KNOW that there have been arrests since then.

Nice attempt to deceive there sparky.
 
O boy this thread just got a little awkward after last nights events.
You see this is what is funny... according to hok fans...3 arrests/year= 5 arrests per year. We still have a ways to go to catch the hoks. I don't see any hypocrisy in the football thread. Most ISU fans mock the hoks because of the shear number of arrests to the football team. That still stands. We now have three this year whereas iowa has averaged 5/year since kirk became coach. ISU has averaged 3/year since Rhoads has taken over. And if you only inlcude guys that were charged, then 2/year. Do you see the differnce? 5>2 (btw-> means greater than for you hok fans).

Lattimer and Howard are idiots and I hope they get suspensions. CPR needs to stress that this crap is not allowed and he needs to keep it in check. As most hok fans will tell you, most schools have these issues. HOWEVER, 1-2 a year isn't a big deal. 3-4, I don't like and 5+ is simply unacceptable.

Let's hope that this is it for the year.

BTW- Hypocrisy = hok fans pointing fingers about arrests.
 
Last edited:
You mean 18 over the last 4-5 years right? According to a poster on hawkeyereport, the total since 2003 is 34 iowa football arrests, to 28 ISU arrests. Not sure that is completely accurate, but since no ISU posters corrected him, I would say it is reasonably close. Are you saying that the extra 6 arrests for Iowa are that much of a difference?

Edit: Would also like to point out that Iowa has averaged about 5 player arrests/citations every year. ISU is about 4. And since ISU already has 3 in the first 2 months of this year, I would venture to say that the moral high road is a tough one to play no matter what team you cheer for. College kids make dumb decisions, simple as that.
I would love to see those arrest numbers as they seem a little high. Although I did notice is says "football arrests" for Iowa versus "arrests" for ISU. That would make more sense if it included MBB and FB for ISU. Also do they include arrests or are they a list with guys that have been charged andfound guilty. ISU has had guys arrested but later have had all charges dropped.

As I have stated before, one would expect ISU to have more arrests with as much coaching turnover that we have had especially since coaches have to take fliers on kids. FWIW- two out of the three guys arrested this year were late signers in CPR's first class.

In the end, over the last 5 years, it isn't even close and iowa has had a coach in place for 12+ years whereas ISU has had three FB coaches and 3 MBB coaches

BTW- Why 2003? That is an obscure year. EDIT...Nevermind. That is the Jason Berryman year.
 
I would love to see those arrest numbers as they seem a little high. Although I did notice is says "football arrests" for Iowa versus "arrests" for ISU. That would make more sense if it included MBB and FB for ISU. Also do they include arrests or are they a list with guys that have been charged andfound guilty. ISU has had guys arrested but later have had all charges dropped.

As I have stated before, one would expect ISU to have more arrests with as much coaching turnover that we have had especially since coaches have to take fliers on kids. FWIW- two out of the three guys arrested this year were late signers in CPR's first class.

In the end, over the last 5 years, it isn't even close and iowa has had a coach in place for 12+ years whereas ISU has had three FB coaches and 3 MBB coaches

BTW- Why 2003? That is an obscure year. EDIT...Nevermind. That is the Jason Berryman year.


I am not sure which one of the three ******** musketeers from HR this guy is (jwrong, 5-5=his iq, or my personal favorite tsa), BUT I am STILL waiting for that link to all of these arrests over the past 5 years.

Come on ames, be a man for a change, put your big girl panties on and provide the link....Wonder why you refuse to?:skeptical::skeptical:
 
I even said in my post that I was not sure how accurate that was, but no one really challenged the number so I assumed it was reasonable. And no, I nor anyone else has a link to a list of them, if there was I would have posted it earlier and not put the disclaimer in my post.

Since you guys are actually refuting the numbers, I will assume that they are in fact off and withdraw the claim. Happy? :smile:
 
I even said in my post that I was not sure how accurate that was, but no one really challenged the number so I assumed it was reasonable. And no, I nor anyone else has a link to a list of them, if there was I would have posted it earlier and not put the disclaimer in my post.

Since you guys are actually refuting the numbers, I will assume that they are in fact off and withdraw the claim. Happy? :smile:

Well, as long as we're torturing numbers............I'd like to ask you what's up with the fact that 97% of your posts include demonstratable falsehoods*. Don't you respect the truth, AH?

*(statistics on the nature of AmesHawk's posts pulled directly from CYlent Bob's ***)
 
Well, as long as we're torturing numbers............I'd like to ask you what's up with the fact that 97% of your posts include demonstratable falsehoods*. Don't you respect the truth, AH?

*(statistics on the nature of AmesHawk's posts pulled directly from CYlent Bob's ***)

I call BS on 97%.

73.6 % of statistics are made up on the spot. :smile:
 

Help Support Us

Become a patron