Indy win....still a shiny apple?
- Thread starter Seth53
- Start date
PlatypusMessiah
Well-Known Member
You know... my greatest fear out of the start of the season is that all that's happened is another beat down of Indiana, and other beat down of Iowa St., except everyone had numbers in front of their names. Indiana, in particular, looks nowhere near a top 20 team right now.
proudhawkfan21
Well-Known Member
Because their two losses are to two top 8 teams in the country?
I watched part of that game, first half. Indiana was sailing along and controlling both sides of the LOS. Cincinnati had a third and 10 from their side of the field and their QB threw an incompletion. But (upon further review), Indiana's best defensive player, McFadden, got called for targeting and was disqualified. Cincinnati, instead of punting the ball back, got a first down and marched down the field and scored. HUGE momentum shift and it seemed like Indiana never recovered. Didn't see any of the second half and it does appear Cincinnati pretty much had their way. But that was a perfect example of how one play can completely change a game.
Was a total BS call, too.
JoeyLabasForPresident
Well-Known Member
The game was closer than the final score suggests, and frankly makes Iowa's defense look that much more elite. Was a fun game. Indiana is not a bad team. I bet they wish they were in the West right now.
If Cincy is a top ten team, then where does Iowa sit? Indiana was dominating them until McFadden got thrown out.
Once that happened, cincy's line could give ridder enough time to get off the 18 yard throws over the middle he loves so much, and that was game. Also - Cincy and Indiana love jump balls. They also throw lots of picks.
Once that happened, cincy's line could give ridder enough time to get off the 18 yard throws over the middle he loves so much, and that was game. Also - Cincy and Indiana love jump balls. They also throw lots of picks.
Indiana is a good team. Better defense than I thought they would have. Not a top 15 team as Pennix is a huge disappointment. Everyone thought he would be maybe the best QB in the conference a real difference maker. Hasn't happened. And as they always say it's hard to hide the QB
JoeyLabasForPresident
Well-Known Member
I mean, he was, but that was before a major injury. Recouping takes time.
PlatypusMessiah
Well-Known Member
With games against tOSU, Michigan, Sparty, and PSU still on Indiana’s schedule…. Damn straight I worry that they can’t beat ranked teams. If the Hoosiers manage to win 2 of those, that’s an 8-4 and barely ranked team.
ChosenChildren
Well-Known Member
Indiana is good. Wisconsin and Penn State are better. Those two games are going to define Iowa's season. Iowa needs to win at least one of those two games. I think we can handle everyone else on our schedule if we keep improving the OL.
HaydenHawk56
Well-Known Member
How do you like them Indiana apples?
NorthKCHawk
Well-Known Member
Ejecting a kid for that type of hit is ruining the game. He had no intent, and in fact, he was pushed into the QB by the OL. His head was down, but he was not headhunting. The rule has got to change. The refs should have the ability to call a PF for a high hit without running the kid. We all know the difference between a hit where a defender is headhunting and one where there is unintentional helmet to helmet. The rule as is changes the outcome of games.
As for the Indiana win, I think the apple remains shiny. Think of it this way, if Indiana had beaten Iowa, it would still be in the Top 20 today. We are one half of the reason Indiana is 1-2.
As for the Indiana win, I think the apple remains shiny. Think of it this way, if Indiana had beaten Iowa, it would still be in the Top 20 today. We are one half of the reason Indiana is 1-2.
Did you see the unnecessary roughness they called on the Cincinatti TE? The guy he was blocking was on the ground, the Cinci guy took a beat to think about it, and then he dove helmet-first into the head of the defender laying on the ground. That was pure, unadulterated attempt to injure...and yet they didn't call targeting! The guy got penalized 15 yards for it, but they didn't throw him out, and the commentators never mentioned the obvious dissonance.
One guy (McFadden) accidentally has his helmet collide with the QB because he is getting pushed from behind and the QB stumbles into him...out for the game.
One guy maliciously tries to injure an opponent by spearing him as he is lying defenseless on the ground...no one even mentions that perhaps that is worthy of an ejection.
Weird times, man, weird times.
I watched a lot of that game and most of the first half. IU's defense looked stout and was giving Cincy fits. If Cincy is a real top 10 team then IU had their number until some turnovers in the second half and mostly offensive problems by Indiana.
I dont think IU will match their Big 10 wins from last year but Ohio St is weak on D, Penn St is like Indiana with a better defense than offense, and MSU is better.
I agree with you. Notice how the refs are keeping track of unsportsmanlike conduct as they say it is so and so's first unsportsmanlike conduct call. So maybe the refs would kick out a player for two unsportsmanlike calls.
I think with the targeting many times it is accidental but the player gets thrown out of the game. I would say a 2nd targeting call in a game would be the automatic ejection.
NorthKCHawk
Well-Known Member
I love the idea of keeping track of targeting. Maybe it carries over like soccer yellow cards or technical fouls in the NBA. Three targeting calls in a season and you sit out a game. Something like that. Gives these kids a little bit of margin for error in a high speed game.
I think you could reserve an automatic run if the ref deems the kid had intent or the hit was egregious. Again, other sports do it. Red cards versus yellow cards in soccer
I think you could reserve an automatic run if the ref deems the kid had intent or the hit was egregious. Again, other sports do it. Red cards versus yellow cards in soccer
The best idea I've seen is to have it like basketball with a flagrant 1 and 2.
