The Nebraska Cyclones

[DavenportHawk8]

Better if ISU hires Bo. It would be weird if he could turn ISU around while Reilly continues to struggle.

Talking to a friend of mine who is a BIG ISU supporter has heard that is one of the names they might try and go get. HE is a proven winner who can get talent. He is a bit of a loose cannon, but I think right now all Pollard wants to do is win. Expanding the stadium does nothing if you can't fill the seats.

Would not be surprised to see ISU make a push for him.

 

[leodisflowers]

I see the simple logic still escapes your vast IQ. Must be that degree you got from NU.

Right on cue! Blue hair next? How about Debbie, Nebby, or Fusker? It's ok Simple Jack...

 

[HerkyFan]

Right on cue! Blue hair next? How about Debbie, Nebby, or Fusker? It's ok Simple Jack...

Right on cue Leodis still can't defeat a simple argument.

More please.

 

[Lone Clone]

Your point is valid, but picking 1998 as a starting point is pretty arbitrary. Prior to 1998, Iowa had a decade and a half wining streak after all.

From 98-02, ISU amassed a 5 game winning streak when let's be real Iowa football was at it's worst and ISU was at it's best. From 2003-2010, Iowa was winning on average 3/4 years (still not acceptable given how bad to mediocre ISU teams were). From 2011-2015, ISU is 3-2, which, let's be real again, up until this season, the majority of Iowa fans were considering the "latter" Ferentz years as a rapidly declining regime. Regardless, I think most objective observers would say quite confidently that Iowa football as an overall program has been far more successful than Iowa State.

To your point, though, yes, the comparison is pretty lame.

1. Actually, that 5-year span was neither the best time for ISU nor the worst for Iowa. The Hawks went to bowl games in two of those years, and in one of them was undefeated in the Big Ten. Meanwhile, ISU finished over .500 only twice in that five-year span, and in one of those two years, wouldn't have done so if not for the win over Iowa.

2. I'm not an objective observer, but even I would say there's no question Iowa football has been more successful than ISU football over the years, just as there's no question Nebraska football has been more successful than Iowa football over the years. Facts don't lie.

3. Nebraska's domination of ISU was ebbing toward the end of the relationship. In the last 10 games they played, ISU was 3-7, with one of the losses in overtime and another in double overtime.

 

[HerkyFan]

Leave it to LC to ignore the part that isu's best team in school history occurred during the 5 year period in question.

Oops.

 

[FloridaHawk82]

Nebby should put their tail between their legs and go after the best coach for them... Frank Solich! Hand picked by Osborne, Nebby grad, won 9+ games. I'm not joking, even though there is zero percent chance it would happen.

 

[7227]

Glory days well they'll pass you by
Glory days in the wink of a young girl's eye
Glory days, glory days

 

[EZ2BJZ]

1912. That was the last year the clowns won a conference football championship. The same year Arizona was admitted as the 48th state. The same year Roald Amundsen announced the discovery of the South Pole. The Girl Scouts were organized. Cy Young retired from baseball. Fenway Park opened. Pravda was first published. Paramount Pictures was founded. Massachusetts passed the first minimum wage law. The US Army tested the first machine gun mounted on a plane. A New York ticker tape parade is held for Jim Thorpe and U.S. Olypians. Tarzan of the Apes is published. Woodrow Wilson is elected president. First Keystone Kops film is released.

Wow, either you're a history buff or you made wonderful use of Google Search. I would argue that Abraham Lincoln was instrumental in imposing the first minimum wage requirements for labor several years prior to 1912, but mmmeh...as the cool kids say these days, "All good."

 

[EZ2BJZ]

The reality is that this game is a toss up. Iowa has been ultra consistent and the Huskers haven't. If Tommy doesn't turn ball over it will be difficult to beat us. This game can only go three ways. Close with either team winning or Iowa blows us out. Our program is still mentally fu$&&@ up from Blo Pelini.....but we're coming around.
If you guys get off to good start its over because you don't beat yourself.

The reality is every game is a toss up. Because every game is played by human beings. Not computers, statistics, etc. If past games this season are a fair indicator, Iowa seems more focused and more in sync on the road this year. I like the psychological aspect of the game favoring Iowa as well, and again, I like Iowa's chances. We shall see.

 

[Herkmeister]

All Rhoads lead to Lincoln.

 

[EZ2BJZ]

1. Actually, that 5-year span was neither the best time for ISU nor the worst for Iowa. The Hawks went to bowl games in two of those years, and in one of them was undefeated in the Big Ten. Meanwhile, ISU finished over .500 only twice in that five-year span, and in one of those two years, wouldn't have done so if not for the win over Iowa.

2. I'm not an objective observer, but even I would say there's no question Iowa football has been more successful than ISU football over the years, just as there's no question Nebraska football has been more successful than Iowa football over the years. Facts don't lie.

3. Nebraska's domination of ISU was ebbing toward the end of the relationship. In the last 10 games they played, ISU was 3-7, with one of the losses in overtime and another in double overtime.

Lone Clone,

1) You're right. I should have said the START of the 5 year span was when Iowa was at its lowest point (98-00). However, yes, significant improvement was made in 01 and obviously peaking in 02 with an undefeated Big Ten season and an Orange Bowl appearance. I would argue (unless you are referring to the 1970s) that Iowa State was in fact at its best with the 9-3 season and bowl victory over Pitt in 2000. The season ISU had in 2002 is still a head-scratcher to me, because that team with Seneca Wallace was really good. Their monumental collapse starting in the middle of the season was really too bad because that team had talent. Yes, the schedule was brutal, but the way that team lost was not reflective of the talent they had. So on your point about ISU not being at their best, unless you are trying to cover a really broad scope of history (that includes the 1970s for me), I would argue 2000-2002 they were at their best. From 98-99, yes, ISU won the "we-don't-suck-quite-as-much-as-you-do award" to your whole point on finishing at or below .500. In all, despite a few minor discrepancies I chose not to be thorough about, I would say my statement about that general time of being a high and low point in the history of both programs respectively is quite accurate. Again, I'm not going back to the glory days of the 1970s for Iowa State or the dark days of the 1960s and 70s for Iowa. My point was to give a general overview of that time period up until the present day.

2) I agree completely. I don't recall making any statements that would contradict either one of those points. Furthermore, I don't know too many fans of many college football teams who would be opposed to having Nebraska's rich history in football. With that said, what I think most Hawkeye posters are pointing out is the lunacy and general anal retention of Nebraska fans flaunting their history in the whimsical hope that said history somehow makes them relevant today and worthy of national recognition. And those feelings from Iowa fans probably stem from the collective sentiment Nebraska fans expressed about how their team was going to roll through the Big Ten when they first joined and the fact such a sentiment has been nowhere close to manifesting into reality. In short, Nebraska fans have earned the right to be ridiculed and can enjoy continuing to feast on the large helping of crow they fixed up for themselves.

3) I agree.

 

[grote40]

Good programs have multiple Top 10 finishes the past decade. Nebraska isn't one of them.

It must really suck for skirt fan to be a "has been".

Neither has Iowa. So neither are good programs in your opinion?

 

[HerkyFan]

Neither has Iowa. So neither are good programs in your opinion?

Sure they have 2005 and 2009. When the next top 10 rolls around I expect Iowa will still have 2 top ten finishes.

 

[grote40]

Sure they have 2005 and 2009. When the next top 10 rolls around I expect Iowa will still have 2 top ten finishes.

Sorry, I thought we were talking national rankings and not conference rankings. My mistake, and congrats on the 7-5 finish in 2005.

 

[Lone Clone]

Lone Clone,

1) You're right. I should have said the START of the 5 year span was when Iowa was at its lowest point (98-00). However, yes, significant improvement was made in 01 and obviously peaking in 02 with an undefeated Big Ten season and an Orange Bowl appearance. I would argue (unless you are referring to the 1970s) that Iowa State was in fact at its best with the 9-3 season and bowl victory over Pitt in 2000. The season ISU had in 2002 is still a head-scratcher to me, because that team with Seneca Wallace was really good. Their monumental collapse starting in the middle of the season was really too bad because that team had talent. Yes, the schedule was brutal, but the way that team lost was not reflective of the talent they had. So on your point about ISU not being at their best, unless you are trying to cover a really broad scope of history (that includes the 1970s for me), I would argue 2000-2002 they were at their best. From 98-99, yes, ISU won the "we-don't-suck-quite-as-much-as-you-do award" to your whole point on finishing at or below .500. In all, despite a few minor discrepancies I chose not to be thorough about, I would say my statement about that general time of being a high and low point in the history of both programs respectively is quite accurate. Again, I'm not going back to the glory days of the 1970s for Iowa State or the dark days of the 1960s and 70s for Iowa. My point was to give a general overview of that time period up until the present day.

2) I agree completely. I don't recall making any statements that would contradict either one of those points. Furthermore, I don't know too many fans of many college football teams who would be opposed to having Nebraska's rich history in football. With that said, what I think most Hawkeye posters are pointing out is the lunacy and general anal retention of Nebraska fans flaunting their history in the whimsical hope that said history somehow makes them relevant today and worthy of national recognition. And those feelings from Iowa fans probably stem from the collective sentiment Nebraska fans expressed about how their team was going to roll through the Big Ten when they first joined and the fact such a sentiment has been nowhere close to manifesting into reality. In short, Nebraska fans have earned the right to be ridiculed and can enjoy continuing to feast on the large helping of crow they fixed up for themselves.

3) I agree.

1. First of all, I was indeed thinking of the '70s, as that doesn't seem so long ago to me as it does to you :-(

With all due respect to the 2000 ISU team, which accomplished some great things and will always be fondly remembered by fans, it had a very undemanding schedule. It played only two ranked opponents, and lost to them by scores of 49-27 and 56-10.

The schedule factor also can explain your head-scratching over the 2002 season. The schedule wasn't just difficult; it was ridiculous. Iowa State played 7 ranked teams that season -- 4 of them Top Ten -- and 6 of those games were on the road. I think the '02 team might have gone undefeated with the '00 schedule. But it wasn't a very deep team, and sometimes Seneca tried to do too much. And he, like a lot of the others, was beaten up. The telling moment in that season was the inexplicable loss to UConn in the final home game.

Finally, I guess I don't really understand the point. Assuming for the sake of argument that your statement was correct, so what? I could make an even better case that the 15-year Iowa streak came when ISU was at its worst and Iowa at its best.

2. I grew up hating Big Red, so I'm not likely to disagree with anything negative said about them. But their history of achievements cannot be denied or minimalized.

3. Good.

 

[dbleagle1]

Since 1998 they have also lost 10 times to ISU, with them winning the game 8 times. They should pick a better comparison.

Yup.......that's why I have been a vocal proponent of dropping them from our schedule......to them, it's their bowl game. Whether we beat them or lose to them, it hurts our SOS and they go on and win their 1 more game that season.....

 

[Lone Clone]

Yup.......that's why I have been a vocal proponent of dropping them from our schedule......to them, it's their bowl game. Whether we beat them or lose to them, it hurts our SOS and they go on and win their 1 more game that season.....

That statement isn't any less dumb just because it's made all the time. But whatever makes you feel better.

 

[EZ2BJZ]

1. First of all, I was indeed thinking of the '70s, as that doesn't seem so long ago to me as it does to you :-(

With all due respect to the 2000 ISU team, which accomplished some great things and will always be fondly remembered by fans, it had a very undemanding schedule. It played only two ranked opponents, and lost to them by scores of 49-27 and 56-10.

The schedule factor also can explain your head-scratching over the 2002 season. The schedule wasn't just difficult; it was ridiculous. Iowa State played 7 ranked teams that season -- 4 of them Top Ten -- and 6 of those games were on the road. I think the '02 team might have gone undefeated with the '00 schedule. But it wasn't a very deep team, and sometimes Seneca tried to do too much. And he, like a lot of the others, was beaten up. The telling moment in that season was the inexplicable loss to UConn in the final home game.

Finally, I guess I don't really understand the point. Assuming for the sake of argument that your statement was correct, so what? I could make an even better case that the 15-year Iowa streak came when ISU was at its worst and Iowa at its best.

2. I grew up hating Big Red, so I'm not likely to disagree with anything negative said about them. But their history of achievements cannot be denied or minimalized.

3. Good.

The original point I was making was in response to a comment a Nebraska fan made about Iowa's head-to-head record against Iowa State and how silly and arbitrary it was to pick 1998 as a starting point to substantiate whatever claim he was making. With that said, I think the reality most Hawkeye fans don't want to admit is that the talent discrepancy that once existed between Iowa and ISU (I speak of the 80s and early/mid 90s) no longer exists. Even this season, when I look at for example Iowa and Iowa State offensively, I don't see a glaring difference talent-wise. In fact, I would say Iowa State's receiving core collectively is better than Iowa's. However, the difference has clearly been the leadership and poise of CJ Beathard and an offensive line that prior to the start of this season was being talked about as a weakness of this team. Iowa has also up until the last couple weeks played very solid defense and has forced a lot of turnovers. That in a nutshell is why Iowa has been successful this year. I also think Kirk Ferentz doesn't get enough credit for how well he develops players, which is clearly evidenced by the number of former players, many of whom were marginally recruited out of high school, who are now in the NFL.

I'm not too particularly fond of Nebraska, either, but I respect their history for what it is. Thankfully, for those of us who have endured numerous years of Nebraska fans' incessant touting of Lincoln, Nebraska as the mecca of college football and Tom Osbourne as the second coming of Jesus of Nazareth, it's been very enjoyable and to an extent cathartic watching the steady and continuous decline of Nebraska football. Frankly, the fact their rich history is becoming more and more a distant memory is one of many things I am thankful for this holiday season. Cheers!

 

[4norsemen]

The truth is a bitch slap isn't it.

Ha. Good Lord, at least pretend like you have been there before.

 

[Lone Clone]

The original point I was making was in response to a comment a Nebraska fan made about Iowa's head-to-head record against Iowa State and how silly and arbitrary it was to pick 1998 as a starting point to substantiate whatever claim he was making. With that said, I think the reality most Hawkeye fans don't want to admit is that the talent discrepancy that once existed between Iowa and ISU (I speak of the 80s and early/mid 90s) no longer exists. Even this season, when I look at for example Iowa and Iowa State offensively, I don't see a glaring difference talent-wise. In fact, I would say Iowa State's receiving core collectively is better than Iowa's. However, the difference has clearly been the leadership and poise of CJ Beathard and an offensive line that prior to the start of this season was being talked about as a weakness of this team. Iowa has also up until the last couple weeks played very solid defense and has forced a lot of turnovers. That in a nutshell is why Iowa has been successful this year. I also think Kirk Ferentz doesn't get enough credit for how well he develops players, which is clearly evidenced by the number of former players, many of whom were marginally recruited out of high school, who are now in the NFL.

I'm not too particularly fond of Nebraska, either, but I respect their history for what it is. Thankfully, for those of us who have endured numerous years of Nebraska fans' incessant touting of Lincoln, Nebraska as the mecca of college football and Tom Osbourne as the second coming of Jesus of Nazareth, it's been very enjoyable and to an extent cathartic watching the steady and continuous decline of Nebraska football. Frankly, the fact their rich history is becoming more and more a distant memory is one of many things I am thankful for this holiday season. Cheers!

We are on the same page. Cheers, indeed.