Jon Miller - "Better team won"

T

Travisam

Well-Known Member
Jon, and other KF supporters, I have a question.

In both podcasts and all over the internet I've continuously seen the statement "The better team won" on Saturday, and in previous years when Iowa has lost to ISU and the host of other teams that were double digit dogs and beat the hawks. For clarification, I'd like to know if that statement means that the team with better players won, or the players that played most as a team won?

In almost every case, including on Saturday, before the game every armchair analyst did an "advantage vs." breakdown, and gave plenty of solid data in proving their case that Iowa held almost every advantage, and were correct in their analysis. Somehow, until this week all of a sudden, that has been forgotten after the game was over and all of a sudden "the better team won". Well how does that happen in a matter of 3 hours? How does a team that has every advantage lose every battle they held the advantage, and then after the game, they were the inferior team? It's just simply not true.

The fact of the matter is that in almost, if not every single one of the Cy-Hawk games since 2001, the hawks have had far superior players. Ferentz and staff certainly deserve the praise for player development for that being the case, but the fact remains the same. NFL draft results make this a fact that can't be debated. So, Iowa State has inferior players, inferior facilities, smaller fan base, a fraction of the resources, and absolutely no tradition yet continues to own Iowa under Ferentz. So what is the answer?

I could go on about this with my answer I've given for 4 years now, but that isn't the point of this post. I just want to know how this fact always gets ignored.

Bottom line. The team full of better players did not win on Saturday. If the "better team" won. Then why the hell were they the better team?
 
The team with the better players lost because a lot of the better players were not used. When Damon Bullock is used as your primary offensive weapon, you are in trouble. I like Damon, but he is a 3rd down back, not a featured runner.
 
Better team is not the same as more talented team.

Is Iowa the more talented team? Yes. But until this team gets develops something resembling an offense they are not the better team.
 
1hawkeye1 said:
This is the answer.
Click to expand...


That is the short answer to the problem. I guess I need to pose the question better. My question isn't really how do we fix it? I think that answer is clear. My question is more so how the hell people continued to just forget what they said about how the game should go based on advantages pregame, and then settle on "the better team won" and not come to a very definitive conclusion as to how/what the hell happened to eliminate all of that info and lose the game over and over. The past 8 years have frankly just blown my mind to be honest with you.
 
Coaching and preparation usually will always trump talent. Iowa certain had more talent but lacked in the other areas last week.
 
Travisam said:
That is the short answer to the problem. I guess I need to pose the question better. My question isn't really how do we fix it? I think that answer is clear. My question is more so how the hell people continued to just forget what they said about how the game should go based on advantages pregame, and then settle on "the better team won" and not come to a very definitive conclusion as to how/what the hell happened to eliminate all of that info and lose the game over and over. The past 8 years have frankly just blown my mind to be honest with you.
Click to expand...

I do not know of your experience or your wisdom but, perhaps this will help, Grasshopper.

Michael: I don't know anyone who could get through the day without two or three juicy rationalizations. They're more important than sex.
Sam Weber: Ah, come on. Nothing's more important than sex.
Michael: Oh yeah? Ever gone a week without a rationalization?

[video=youtube;X9FJiDFVoOo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9FJiDFVoOo[/video]
 
Travisam said:
Jon, and other KF supporters, I have a question.

In both podcasts and all over the internet I've continuously seen the statement "The better team won" on Saturday, and in previous years when Iowa has lost to ISU and the host of other teams that were double digit dogs and beat the hawks. For clarification, I'd like to know if that statement means that the team with better players won, or the players that played most as a team won?

In almost every case, including on Saturday, before the game every armchair analyst did an "advantage vs." breakdown, and gave plenty of solid data in proving their case that Iowa held almost every advantage, and were correct in their analysis. Somehow, until this week all of a sudden, that has been forgotten after the game was over and all of a sudden "the better team won". Well how does that happen in a matter of 3 hours? How does a team that has every advantage lose every battle they held the advantage, and then after the game, they were the inferior team? It's just simply not true.

The fact of the matter is that in almost, if not every single one of the Cy-Hawk games since 2001, the hawks have had far superior players. Ferentz and staff certainly deserve the praise for player development for that being the case, but the fact remains the same. NFL draft results make this a fact that can't be debated. So, Iowa State has inferior players, inferior facilities, smaller fan base, a fraction of the resources, and absolutely no tradition yet continues to own Iowa under Ferentz. So what is the answer?

I could go on about this with my answer I've given for 4 years now, but that isn't the point of this post. I just want to know how this fact always gets ignored.

Bottom line. The team full of better players did not win on Saturday. If the "better team" won. Then why the hell were they the better team?
Click to expand...

Very good post. I would say Iowa has the better players, but ISU's players were assembled better in scheme by their coaches compared to what the Iowa Staff did with their players scheme wise. I might give an advantage to ISU in the place kicking department, but Iowa lost this game because they were not prepared scheme wise by their coaches.

Bottom line is Iowa is the superior team and should not have lost this game. But, sometimes the better team (more talented team) does not win when they get out-coached, outplayed, or both by the other weaker team. I think both happened here in this game, but more so on the Xs and Os and the players being played and not being played for Iowa. I blame the Iowa coaches more for this particular loss.

ISU should not be winning in this series with as much frequency as they have shown since around 1998, but alas they have been doing it because of our coaching philosophy under Ferentz in keeping games close/playing not to lose. To be fair, ISU has improved their program to a certain degree since the Hayden years (from a terrible, pathetic doormat to a mediocre to bad team most years with maybe a couple of good teams mixed in there under Dan) and they are capable of winning against Iowa when Iowa does not play balls to the walls and are up for this game.

Honestly, I think Iowa was on its way towards a rout last Saturday if, if, if Ferentz would have played like Hayden use to. However, he took his foot off the pedal. I honestly think to if CJ played the last 2 games as a starter and was allowed to play like he could and stretch the field, Ball St and ISU would have been blow outs.

Iowa players deserved a better fate against ISU.
 
Last edited:
clicheusername3 said:
Girls like you two just keep me coming back. Still no actual response, not shocked.
Click to expand...

Obviously you're not finding validation in life so you have to find it on a message board. You must have a pretty pathetic, sad life. Sorry about that, bro.

Now come back with some smart reply that only you will think is funny. I'll be waiting.

Oh, and for the response. Iowa has more talent on its roster. Any decent evaluator of talent would say this. We just have a genius of a head football coach that maximizes his team's talents.
 
Only my opinion but Iowa has better talent and should be better coached on the lines.

We didn't exploit that advantage. ISU won the turnover battle and their QB outplayed our QB. We should have had an advantage in the skill position, at least at WR with as many injuries as they had but it didn't matter with the QB play on Saturday.

QB play is the difference in football. It won the game for ISU.
 
Honest question: do you really believe that Iowa had the better personnel yesterday at every position? I will admit to a biased point of view, but I thought that, especially in the second half:
- ISU's secondary cover Iowa's WR very well
- With solid coverage, the front seven were able to pay more attention to the run
- ISU's receiving core was able to get open (either by scheme, talent, or both) - it could be argued that J. West was the best player on the field yesterday
- ISU's pass blocking was excellent
- Sam Richardson has finally settled down and, therefore, played very well (the whole NDSU game he was too skittish to be effective at anything)
- Tight ends both showed flashes of great
- ISU's defensive line, through scheme or talent or both, disrupted Iowa's plays through most of the second half

As far as the analysis before the game, that was based on too many unknowns to be accurate. None of know how good NDSU, KSU, Ball St., or UNI are and, therefore, we don't know how well our respective teams are. We both have reasons for believing in our teams: for ISU, too many injuries last year to think they wouldn't be better if healthy and for Iowa, too much success last year to think it wouldn't just be next man in this year.

Thoughts?
 
agcy68 said:
Honest question: do you really believe that Iowa had the better personnel yesterday at every position? I will admit to a biased point of view, but I thought that, especially in the second half:
- ISU's secondary cover Iowa's WR very well
- With solid coverage, the front seven were able to pay more attention to the run
- ISU's receiving core was able to get open (either by scheme, talent, or both) - it could be argued that J. West was the best player on the field yesterday
- ISU's pass blocking was excellent
- Sam Richardson has finally settled down and, therefore, played very well (the whole NDSU game he was too skittish to be effective at anything)
- Tight ends both showed flashes of great
- ISU's defensive line, through scheme or talent or both, disrupted Iowa's plays through most of the second half

As far as the analysis before the game, that was based on too many unknowns to be accurate. None of know how good NDSU, KSU, Ball St., or UNI are and, therefore, we don't know how well our respective teams are. We both have reasons for believing in our teams: for ISU, too many injuries last year to think they wouldn't be better if healthy and for Iowa, too much success last year to think it wouldn't just be next man in this year.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Yes I do.....not at every position....but most of them. The thing is, (educated guess) Iowa had some of its best players not playing and standing on the sidelines for whatever reason only Ferentz knows. I think ISU schemed better for the game and played inspired in the 2nd half......it is not that I would say Iowa is light years better than ISU talent wise, but at the very least is marginally better at most positions (to definitely better at some). I think the best QB on the field for either team was not playing and standing on the Iowa sidelines. Put CJ in with a vertical game, read option and Iowa wins by 2-3 scores....I really believe that.
 
I mean, what do you want me to do, go after him with an ice pick? I think I've laid it out there as much as I am going to in season
 
Travisam said:
Jon, and other KF supporters, I have a question.

In both podcasts and all over the internet I've continuously seen the statement "The better team won" on Saturday, and in previous years when Iowa has lost to ISU and the host of other teams that were double digit dogs and beat the hawks. For clarification, I'd like to know if that statement means that the team with better players won, or the players that played most as a team won?

In almost every case, including on Saturday, before the game every armchair analyst did an "advantage vs." breakdown, and gave plenty of solid data in proving their case that Iowa held almost every advantage, and were correct in their analysis. Somehow, until this week all of a sudden, that has been forgotten after the game was over and all of a sudden "the better team won". Well how does that happen in a matter of 3 hours? How does a team that has every advantage lose every battle they held the advantage, and then after the game, they were the inferior team? It's just simply not true.

The fact of the matter is that in almost, if not every single one of the Cy-Hawk games since 2001, the hawks have had far superior players. Ferentz and staff certainly deserve the praise for player development for that being the case, but the fact remains the same. NFL draft results make this a fact that can't be debated. So, Iowa State has inferior players, inferior facilities, smaller fan base, a fraction of the resources, and absolutely no tradition yet continues to own Iowa under Ferentz. So what is the answer?

I could go on about this with my answer I've given for 4 years now, but that isn't the point of this post. I just want to know how this fact always gets ignored.

Bottom line. The team full of better players did not win on Saturday. If the "better team" won. Then why the hell were they the better team?
Click to expand...
I tend to agree that NFL players mean better players but I would throw a player like Troy Davis out there. One of the best all time college RBs but not an NFL RB. Jesse Smith was an All Big 12 LB but not a NFL LB. Jason Berryman was a great college DE but a tweener in the NFL.
iSU gets a lot more of those type of players whose ceilings are college.

I would argue that every year, iSU has beaten iowa they have had the better team except 2002. I believe every other year, iowa and iSU's final records were within two games of each other. In other words...similar results.

I used to hear, iowa got better when the season went on but that was debunked in 2001. I used to hear iowa doesn't care but player interviews, the play of the iSU fight song all week, etc tend to debunk that theory, then there is the myth of it being iSU's superbowl which was debinked this week in the Gazette of all places.

As to why predictions by a guy that runs a website are being proven wrong by on field results....consider the source of the prediction. He simply isn't very accurate, plays to his audience and is trying to sell advertising. Miller won't be in busniess long if he rips iowa. He has admitted as much
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top