Uncle. You just go ahead and die on this hill. I think you sound ridiculous trying to call me out with semantics and defending a very weak position, but whatever. If Brian was so bad 2 years ago.....which he was.....then why wasn't he let go then? Because Kirk didn't want him let go that's why. Only when the uproar became too loud was his hand finally forced. If you think that isn't true......then you are truly naive or just ain't paying attention.
My point, which you missed completely, was that the lack of offense wouldn't be a big deal if the defense was holding teams like PSU to 13 points. I could have said if we beat PSU 13-10 instead of lose 13-10.....I simply included one loss and one win in my example with the understanding that we will not win them all. To be a complete team you need to be able to win in different ways. Write me a diatribe on how you disagree with that.
So the lack of offense wouldn't be as big a deal if the defense were better than nationally elite? I agree, if Iowa had one of the best defenses of all-time, the lack of offense wouldn't be as big a deal. But somehow, I don't think that's what you're trying to really say.
Somehow, I think what you're really trying to say is exactly what you said in your initial post.
There are few complete teams (able to win in multiple ways) out there. A couple of them didn't have the record Iowa did. I'll take the 10 wins over being "complete". And the others are blue blood programs. Does Iowa deserve the extensive criticism for not being a blue blood?
That's the only position I defend. That the extensive criticism Iowa football receives is not warranted. I'm not sure how you could possibly call that a "very weak position".
Yes, there is a level of semantics to it. Because it's understandable for people to have some frustration with the offense. But my point is that the frustration should only go so far. Largely, the poor offense has been navigated around, and Iowa has still, by many measures, been very successful. Overall, Iowa fans should be very satisfied.
Fans that are overall dissatisfied are wrong. They have no case rooted in football logic. Their claim that, "the extensive criticism of Iowa football has been warranted", wouldn't even make it into Football Court. A prosecutor wouldn't even accept the case. Upon the negative fans having sought his representation, the prosecutor would begin to look at the case. He would start to notice points that could be made on each side. And he would quickly decide not to accept the case, telling the negative fans that their claim has some validity, but ultimately they had no case, and to come back after a couple of seasons where Iowa has only won 7 or 6 games. It's that simple.
The case that dissatisfied fans think they have stems almost entirely from the fact that they haven't been entertained. Very little "football logic" to support it.
You are truly naive or not paying attention if you think AD's aren't capable doing their job without the uproar of fans or in spite of the head coach's desires. Kirk may not have wanted Brian let go, but he doesn't get to make those decisions.
No, Barta hadn't yet done it, but with the 25pt stipulation it appeared that he was laying the groundwork to let Brian go. The Iowa way has been to keep their trust in their people longer than most places do. And it has traditionally paid off for them. The uproar of the fans was plenty loud enough in BF's 2nd to last season.
And you continue to get it wrong when you say, "only when the uproar became too loud was his hand finally forced". BF didn't leave because Kirk's hand got forced. BF was let go by Goetz