Strength of Schedule Criticism in 2002?

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

Obviously this year's team has received a lot of criticism for our schedule. But I don't recall similar criticism in 2002.

If you compare this year's schedule to 2002, I think this year's schedule is more difficult. The best out of conference team the 2002 team played was a 7 loss Iowa State team. In conference we played Penn State and Michigan who were in or near the top 10 at the time we played them. Michigan ended the year 10-3 and Penn State finished 9-4. Other than those games, the only other Big 10 bowl-eligible teams we played were Purdue (7 wins), Wisconsin (8 wins), and Minnesota (8 wins).

This year we played Pitt out of conference, who I think will prove to be better than the '02 Iowa State team. We have beaten Wisconsin who should end the season 10-2 or 9-3. We have beaten Northwestern, who has a very real chance of getting to 9 wins, and will probably have at least 8 wins. Illinois is another team that should be bowl-eligible by the end of the season. There are 3 other teams left on our schedule that are on the fringe of making a bowl (Indiana, Minnesota, and Nebraska).

I find it interesting that we seemed to be the media-darling in 2002, but this year we are facing a lot of criticism. So far, both teams are putting up similar stats in terms of margin of victory. The 2002 team's offense was better, but our defense has been better so far this year.

 

[EpenesaEpenesa]

The perception of the Big Ten was much different at that point in the media.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

2002 was before this ^^^

 

[bagdropper]

I remember in the pre-game to the Orange Bowl an interview with Bowlesby and Dolph, and scheduling was brought up. I've mentioned this story several times in scheduling threads, and I think it's a vald point.

Dolph posed the question about strengthening Iowa's non-con, and paraphrasing, BB stated that he had for years tried to schedule better teams, intersectional games etc. He would go to then big time programs and conferences offering home and homes or neutral site single games...and was effectively always counter-offered a 2 for 1 deal at best - the 2 being at their place.

He said many teams wouldn't even consider anything but home games.

Given that conference games are conference games...not much an AD can do there, the opportunity is always with non-cons. And with that, it takes two to tango unless the fan base is happy with what amounts to being less home games overall in those. And given money realities for the program (for both Iowa and the teams being negotiated with)...those opportunities are scarce.

Thisn't solely an Iowa problem. Teams need those home games to drive the program financially.


But Iowa indeed took some criticism for their schedule in 2002 from the home folks as well as nationally. I think winning at PSU and UM though mitigated the conference aspect of those criticisms (and the lack of an OSU that year) and added validity to Iowa's 2002 success.

That Michigan game...I think that shocked a lot of pundits. Michigan just plain didn't get manhandled at home like that by little ol' Iowa.

I give Iowa a pass on scheduling...going to play the bigguns at their house every year doesn't exactly sound like a good way to build and maintain a program year in year out. I remember in the 70's, it seemed like Iowa's non-con was always a Murderer's Row of UCLA, USC, and Penn State - with teams like Syracuse, Oregon State and Arizona thrown in there to fill in the gaps. They didn't "fear" playing Iowa back then either as a program, so playing at Iowa wasn't an issue. I also remember Hayden Fry stating when he arrived that Iowa couldn't build success with scheduling like this long term and deliberately eased the schedule going forward - which around 1985 we started seeing.

 

[LincolnHawkeye]

Obviously this year's team has received a lot of criticism for our schedule. But I don't recall similar criticism in 2002.

If you compare this year's schedule to 2002, I think this year's schedule is more difficult. The best out of conference team the 2002 team played was a 7 loss Iowa State team. In conference we played Penn State and Michigan who were in or near the top 10 at the time we played them. Michigan ended the year 10-3 and Penn State finished 9-4. Other than those games, the only other Big 10 bowl-eligible teams we played were Purdue (7 wins), Wisconsin (8 wins), and Minnesota (8 wins).

This year we played Pitt out of conference, who I think will prove to be better than the '02 Iowa State team. We have beaten Wisconsin who should end the season 10-2 or 9-3. We have beaten Northwestern, who has a very real chance of getting to 9 wins, and will probably have at least 8 wins. Illinois is another team that should be bowl-eligible by the end of the season. There are 3 other teams left on our schedule that are on the fringe of making a bowl (Indiana, Minnesota, and Nebraska).

I find it interesting that we seemed to be the media-darling in 2002, but this year we are facing a lot of criticism. So far, both teams are putting up similar stats in terms of margin of victory. The 2002 team's offense was better, but our defense has been better so far this year.

I don't know if I would agree with that, while I admit that our non-conference schedule is probably better this year then in 2002 (although that 7 loss Iowa State team did start 6-1 and was ranked 9th in the country before tanking). This years conference schedule is considerably easier. Playing at Penn State and at Michigan are both much tougher games that Wisconsin or Northwestern this year. Also, Purdue, Wisconsin and Minnesota were all pretty good teams getting to 7-8 wins in 2002 (All 3 won their bowl games by the way). In 2015, Wisconsin and Northwestern are decent (probably 8-9 wins each, end up ranked 15-25), but the rest of our Big 10 schedule is pretty poor. Illinois might make it to a bowl with 6-7 wins, but the remaining teams (Maryland, Indiana, Minnesota, Purdue, Nebraska) will all probably end up with 4-6 wins and most won't make it to a bowl.

 

[NashvilleHawk]

2002, I just remember us being criticized for our passing defense, and losing leads, late in the game.
I heard the talk of Ohio State and Iowa, not playing each other, but this wasn't a dig on Iowa, then.

The one watchable program on ESPN is with Matt Schick, Tom Luginbill and Charles Arbuckle.
These 3 know their stuff and whatever biases they have, they keep it to, themselves.
It's just great on-air conversation to watch, with these 3.

 

[bagdropper]

2002, I just remember us being criticized for our passing defense, and losing leads, late in the game.
I heard the talk of Ohio State and Iowa, not playing each other, but this wasn't a dig on Iowa, then.

The one watchable program on ESPN is with Matt Schick, Tom Luginbill and Charles Arbuckle.
These 3 know their stuff and whatever biases they have, they keep it to, themselves.
It's just great on-air conversation to watch, with these 3.

That is a good show they have, and they are warming to Iowa as they keep winning.

 

[BeepBeepInMyJeep]

We ended up 5th behind 10-2 USC and SEC champ Georgia was the only other one loss team. So yea there were plenty of people dogging our schedule and missing Ohio St.

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

We ended up 5th behind 10-2 USC and SEC champ Georgia was the only other one loss team. So yea there were plenty of people dogging out schedule and missing Ohio St.

We were #3 in both the AP and Coaches Poll at the end of the season.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings/_/seasontype/2/year/2002/week/16

 

[His Hawkness]

We were #3 in both the AP and Coaches Poll at the end of the season.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings/_/seasontype/2/year/2002/week/16

But #5 in the poll that mattered.

http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/2002_archive_bcs.html

 

[DodgerHawki]

Obviously this year's team has received a lot of criticism for our schedule. But I don't recall similar criticism in 2002.

If you compare this year's schedule to 2002, I think this year's schedule is more difficult. The best out of conference team the 2002 team played was a 7 loss Iowa State team. In conference we played Penn State and Michigan who were in or near the top 10 at the time we played them. Michigan ended the year 10-3 and Penn State finished 9-4. Other than those games, the only other Big 10 bowl-eligible teams we played were Purdue (7 wins), Wisconsin (8 wins), and Minnesota (8 wins).

This year we played Pitt out of conference, who I think will prove to be better than the '02 Iowa State team. We have beaten Wisconsin who should end the season 10-2 or 9-3. We have beaten Northwestern, who has a very real chance of getting to 9 wins, and will probably have at least 8 wins. Illinois is another team that should be bowl-eligible by the end of the season. There are 3 other teams left on our schedule that are on the fringe of making a bowl (Indiana, Minnesota, and Nebraska).

I find it interesting that we seemed to be the media-darling in 2002, but this year we are facing a lot of criticism. So far, both teams are putting up similar stats in terms of margin of victory. The 2002 team's offense was better, but our defense has been better so far this year.

The reason it wasn't brought up was because it really didn't matter. Iowa wasn't getting in the title game because an undefeated Ohio State against undefeated Miami. No real arguments about other teams being in that game. Now had OSU dropped one of the several very close games they had (Wisconsin, Penn State, Purdue, Michigan) then it would have been a very interesting conversation.

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

But #5 in the poll that mattered.

http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/2002_archive_bcs.html

Yes, but that was due to computer rankings, not human polls. The premise of this thread is that people (i.e., humans), were not critical of Iowa's schedule in 2002 but they are critical of our schedule this year. To that point, computer rankings (i.e., not human) are not relevant to the discussion.

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

The reason it wasn't brought up was because it really didn't matter. Iowa wasn't getting in the title game because an undefeated Ohio State against undefeated Miami. No real arguments about other teams being in that game. Now had OSU dropped one of the several very close games they had (Wisconsin, Penn State, Purdue, Michigan) then it would have been a very interesting conversation.

Leading up to the end of the season we did not know Ohio State and/or Miami would end up undefeated. I agree that, in the end, SOS did not matter. The same could be true this year - we just don't know at this time. The criticism in 2002 would have been provided in the final weeks of the season when there was uncertainty as to who would be in the title game if OSU or Miami were to lose late in the season.

Maybe I am just creating revisionist history, but I don't recall any criticism of our strength of schedule back in 2002.

 

[El Simbolo]

Better question, how did OSU's 2002 schedule compare to our schedule this year? They didn't have to play the other top team in their conference. I'm not sure who else from the B10 they missed or what their non-conf schedule was like. But I don't remember anyone dogging them or suggesting Georgia should be playing Miami.

 

[LincolnHawkeye]

Better question, how did OSU's 2002 schedule compare to our schedule this year? They didn't have to play the other top team in their conference. I'm not sure who else from the B10 they missed or what their non-conf schedule was like. But I don't remember anyone dogging them or suggesting Georgia should be playing Miami.

They played a pretty decent Texas Tech team and top 15 Washington St team non conference, their 2 byes that year were Iowa and Michigan St (who was pretty average that year), so our Big ten schedules were about even. I think the biggest knock on them was that they kept barely scraping by against mediocre teams

 

[Dauminator]

They played a pretty decent Texas Tech team and top 15 Washington St team non conference, their 2 byes that year were Iowa and Michigan St (who was pretty average that year), so our Big ten schedules were about even. I think the biggest knock on them was that they kept barely scraping by against mediocre teams

Average, nothing, MSU was awful that year.

 

[goodbyebobby]

Average, nothing, MSU was awful that year.

Wasn't Bobby Washington their HC? Smoker was their QB and I think he was done after our 44-16? beatdown.
#33 had some big hits that day though he did every game didn't he?

 

[Dauminator]

I had to look it up. You were closer than I was, it was Bobby Williams. Iowa was the first of four straight lopsided losses for Sparty, and the fourth one finished him off.

http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/active/m/michigan_state/2000-2004_yearly_results.php

 

[Titanhawk2]

They played a pretty decent Texas Tech team and top 15 Washington St team non conference, their 2 byes that year were Iowa and Michigan St (who was pretty average that year), so our Big ten schedules were about even. I think the biggest knock on them was that they kept barely scraping by against mediocre teams

They also played Kent St. and San Jose St, and got all good big ten teams in Columbus

 

[His Hawkness]

Yes, but that was due to computer rankings, not human polls. The premise of this thread is that people (i.e., humans), were not critical of Iowa's schedule in 2002 but they are critical of our schedule this year. To that point, computer rankings (i.e., not human) are not relevant to the discussion.

But the computer polls were strongly based on SOS at the time. Even if we were undefeated, no way we would have went in over Miami or OSU and no way the one loss Iowa team would have went in over a one loss Georgia. Very telling that a two loss USC team was already ahead of a one loss Iowa in the final BCS rankings.

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

But the computer polls were strongly based on SOS at the time. Even if we were undefeated, no way we would have went in over Miami or OSU and no way the one loss Iowa team would have went in over a one loss Georgia. Very telling that a two loss USC team was already ahead of a one loss Iowa in the final BCS rankings.

Everything you said is true. However, the point I was trying to make is that the media (i.e., humans) were not critical of our schedule in 2002, but they are critical of it now. Overall, I think the SOS of both teams was a little below average for power-5 conferences. I just find it interesting that in 2002 the media and human polls were so high on Iowa, whereas this year the media seems to be very critical of us because of our SOS.

 

[beanT]

But the computer polls were strongly based on SOS at the time. Even if we were undefeated, no way we would have went in over Miami or OSU and no way the one loss Iowa team would have went in over a one loss Georgia. Very telling that a two loss USC team was already ahead of a one loss Iowa in the final BCS rankings.

I don't think that is right. An undeated Iowa team would have jumped OSU after their OT win against a bad IL team on the heals of a miracle win against Purdue. I believe that was the same weekend of Iowa was getting style point in MN. They ended the season with a benchmark game that was close against MI. After that 3 game stretch for OSU, the only thing keeping Iowa from a #2 ranking was the ISU loss.

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

I don't think that is right. An undeated Iowa team would have jumped OSU after their OT win against a bad IL team on the heals of a miracle win against Purdue. I believe that was the same weekend of Iowa was getting style point in MN. They ended the season with a benchmark game that was close against MI. After that 3 game stretch for OSU, the only thing keeping Iowa from a #2 ranking was the ISU loss.

We would have jumped OSU in the human polls for sure, however the computer polls were dragging us down. We would not have been #2 in the BCS standings because of the computer polls.

 

[MauiHawk]

Not intending to weigh in one way or another, but just heard a fun fact about our remaining schedule: Iowa has more BigTen wins than its last 5 opponents combined!

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

Not intending to weigh in one way or another, but just heard a fun fact about our remaining schedule: Iowa has more BigTen wins than its last 5 opponents combined!

That is a crazy fact, especially considering that we've already had our bye week in the Big 10.

 

[beanT]

We would have jumped OSU in the human polls for sure, however the computer polls were dragging us down. We would not have been #2 in the BCS standings because of the computer polls.

Removing a bad loss to ISU would have shot us up the computer polls as well. They finished 7-6 on the season and hurt the computer rankings.