Are the Ferentzs trolling our emotions?.....not intentionally of course...but something to chew on...

[Luftgekuehlt67]

@cincyhawk Why don't you just find a better team to root for? Wouldn't it be easier for you?

I haven't had time to post it, but I did some amateur analysis of Iowa's historical Massey ratings a couple weeks ago, dating back to 1899.

Iowa has essentially been truly elite for two fleeting moments in time: early 20s and 1958-60.

Early 20s was under Howard Jones and he was cheating. The 1958-1960 stretch was of course Evy.

Hayden Fry's best year was 1985, and that was only good enough for 10th in that year's Massey analysis.

I'm very proud of our program, but a big part of it for me is the whole "punching above our weight" reputation. Another poster pointed out that we also have a little bit of a "black hat" vibe going on, too. We're often the CFP dream killers, ruining elite teams' seasons. I like that, too.

There's a segment of the fan base (and I think that segment is over represented here on HN) that mentally wakes up and walks past an imaginary Iowa football trophy case every morning. It's just brimming with national championship trophies, Big Ten titles, All Americans, etc.

Don't get me wrong, our real trophy case is very impressive, but only if you take it within the context of the "punching above our weight" context.

It's a 120+ track record of pretty average football on the whole. When we poke our heads into that "good" range every few seasons (like we've done consistently over the past 40 years), it's extra special. Enjoy it, but don't make the mistake of *expecting* it.

6-0 and #2 was awesome, I loved it. My enthusiasm for 6-1 and #11 is only marginally (if at all) less because I was well aware of the fact that we fell ass backwards into #2 and 6-0 and was planning to savor every moment as a result. If you are in a position where the only acceptable outcome from 6-0 and #2 was to win out, that's a "you" problem, cuz you've hitched your horse to the wrong wagon.

Obviously, I'm not pleased with how the Purdue game turned out but, short of having a magic wand that would allow me to advance the OL's development another season in the span of a week, I'm not sure much else can be done. It's a developmental program with peaks and valleys. Bad place for a valley because the road to 12-0 looked wide open, but that's life.

 

[IowaPhan]

Iowa was promoted to its level of incompetence and then tripped miserably. Could Riley Moss and his ability to rally the backfield have made a difference? Probably not, as people were instructed to give a wide berth to Purdue’s receivers, which by default deemed our DB’s as not so effective – a sobering fact for a now suspect defense. Don’t forget that McSorley was doing well against us before exiting.

Why can’t we have QBs like the big-boy teams? KF recruits 6’4” QBs who sometimes hit targets. Let’s pay less for the big arm, but more for the accuracy. Tate seemed good, and he was dual-threat. Maybe a shorter guy inherently knows his job is to hit targets most of the time and scramble when needed. Maybe shorter guys read more how-to books on QB-ing. Iowa fans anguish through years of QB performance until our anointed one’s senior year and then just get more of the same. OK, a bit of credit to Beathard. Let’s eliminate the QB position from the ‘developmental program’ and simply get more creative, such as tapping an Australian, going to the transfer portal, or our 3rd string guy.

Are we truly elite, but with one bad experience? Elite programs cheer over a good win, but don’t internalize it so deeply as to fall into a batter’s slump while imbibing Homecoming. If Iowa is somewhere between good and elite, then we’ll beat Wisconsin decisively. Petras didn’t perform, and if this is repeated early at Wisconsin, start giving Padilla reps in the middle of the game, but hint that he not trip again – he’s used his single trip allotment. But mostly, he’s shorter than Petras.

 

[cincyhawk]

I haven't had time to post it, but I did some amateur analysis of Iowa's historical Massey ratings a couple weeks ago, dating back to 1899.

Iowa has essentially been truly elite for two fleeting moments in time: early 20s and 1958-60.

Early 20s was under Howard Jones and he was cheating. The 1958-1960 stretch was of course Evy.

Hayden Fry's best year was 1985, and that was only good enough for 10th in that year's Massey analysis.

I'm very proud of our program, but a big part of it for me is the whole "punching above our weight" reputation. Another poster pointed out that we also have a little bit of a "black hat" vibe going on, too. We're often the CFP dream killers, ruining elite teams' seasons. I like that, too.

There's a segment of the fan base (and I think that segment is over represented here on HN) that mentally wakes up and walks past an imaginary Iowa football trophy case every morning. It's just brimming with national championship trophies, Big Ten titles, All Americans, etc.

Don't get me wrong, our real trophy case is very impressive, but only if you take it within the context of the "punching above our weight" context.

It's a 120+ track record of pretty average football on the whole. When we poke our heads into that "good" range every few seasons (like we've done consistently over the past 40 years), it's extra special. Enjoy it, but don't make the mistake of *expecting* it.

6-0 and #2 was awesome, I loved it. My enthusiasm for 6-1 and #11 is only marginally (if at all) less because I was well aware of the fact that we fell ass backwards into #2 and 6-0 and was planning to savor every moment as a result. If you are in a position where the only acceptable outcome from 6-0 and #2 was to win out, that's a "you" problem, cuz you've hitched your horse to the wrong wagon.

Obviously, I'm not pleased with how the Purdue game turned out but, short of having a magic wand that would allow me to advance the OL's development another season in the span of a week, I'm not sure much else can be done. It's a developmental program with peaks and valleys. Bad place for a valley because the road to 12-0 looked wide open, but that's life.

That's all true. Which is why when the possibility is there, you get excited. You saw my posts about how this is rare.

The problem with the Purdue loss is that shouldn't have been a punch above your weight game. That game is next, at Wisconsin. A last second loss to Purdue? Not shocking. But that? That was backbreaking.

You can't tell me that finishing 8 - 4 / 7 - 5 and not making it to Indy wouldn't make you disappointed after that start.

Getting flogged by the moderator over caring about the team I've rooted for for thirty-five years is just dumb.

 

[HuckFinn]

There were two teams that could control their own destiny with a win against Iowa in the West coming into last weekend. Minnesota and Purdue. Iowa could lose one against any other team, and win the West.

They lost to one of the only teams that they couldn't lose to and be in the driver's seat. Now they need help, even if they win out. If they lose another, it's over because now they're even with Wisconsin and Northwestern, and behind Minnesota and Purdue. The best they could do on their own is tie with Wisconsin, and Purdue, in that scenario. With a head to head loss against both Purdue and Wisconsin, it's game over.

Oh. I thought MN and Purdue had more games to play. I guess they will both go undefeated.

 

[Luftgekuehlt67]

Oh. I thought MN and Purdue had more games to play. I guess they will both go undefeated.

Yeah, I think people are being a bit hasty throwing our West division title hopes out the window so quickly.

As I said in another thread, my confidence definitely took a hit - I don't think anyone could have watched that Purdue game and come away saying anything different - but it's not like this is a field of invincibles. Not even close.

If you look at every team in the Big Ten West, I think every single one of them has blown game(s) this year and, in all likelihood, will do so again over the remaining 5 weeks of play.

Depending on how you feel about how good Notre Dame is/isn't this year, *maybe* you could say Wisconsin hasn't blown a game yet (losses are PSU, Michigan, and ND) but, with their lack of QB play, I think the clock is just ticking on them getting burned, too.

I need to look again, but last week I felt like 7-2 would win the West.

 

[cincyhawk]

Oh. I thought MN and Purdue had more games to play. I guess they will both go undefeated.

It's the "needing help" part. Before Saturday, they didn't need help. Now they pretty much have to win out and have Purdue lose twice more, or it gets super confusing in the West. That's what really bothers me. If it looked like that was definitely going to happen, I'm not bothered as much.

But if they play like Saturday, Purdue looks like they'll split OSU and MSU, and you have to believe they'll be favorites over Wisconsin now at home, at Nebraska, at NW, and at Indiana.

I might be wrong, but if that happens, that puts Perdue at 7 - 2.

Iowa losing to Wisconsin at Wisconsin or Nebraska or puts Iowa 7 - 2 if they don't drop anymore. And I think they split those games.

If Iowa wins next week, we're OK as long as we don't lose to Minnesota and Perdue drops both MSU and OSU.

Edit: fixed win totals.

 

[HaydenHawk56]

It's the "needing help" part. Before Saturday, they didn't need help. Now they pretty much have to win out and have Purdue lose twice more, or it gets super confusing in the West. That's what really bothers me. If it looked like that was definitely going to happen, I'm not bothered as much.

But if they play like Saturday, Purdue looks like they'll split OSU and MSU, and you have to believe they'll be favorites over Wisconsin now at home, at Nebraska, at NW, and at Indiana.

I might be wrong, but if that happens, that puts Perdue at 7 - 2.

Iowa losing to Wisconsin at Wisconsin or Nebraska or puts Iowa 7 - 2 if they don't drop anymore. And I think they split those games.

If Iowa wins next week, we're OK as long as we don't lose to Minnesota and Perdue drops both MSU and OSU.

Edit: fixed win totals.

Doesn't Purdue already have a league loss? If Iowa loses no more and Purdue loses just one more, we are over them correct?

 

[hwkifan4evs]

Doesn't Purdue already have a league loss? If Iowa loses no more and Purdue loses just one more, we are over them correct?

Yes, you're correct. Everyone seems to forget that Minnesota beat them. I think Purdue loses at least 2 more minimum. Which means beat Minnesota and it's Indy bound. Especially if Purdue beats Wiscy this week. Then even with a loss to Wisconsin, Iowa would still go to the championship game. I'd bet my damn house on MSU and OSU, to steal their line, "beating the #2" out of Purdue.