Matt and Miller 1460 KXNO

sportstalkmatt said:
Ok- you got me. Iowa has a better punter.

And do you guys think that "Bring Back whoever" blasts are going to change anything? Plus you list the whole show out so I take it you listen....which I appreciate a lot. I don't care if you don't like me...that's fine but argue with me...not for something that has zero impact on the discussion
Click to expand...

Thanks for the dialogue Matt...

Would you not agree however, that you are speaking in hyperbole when you say that Iowa would have no shot against Texas or the SEC winner? Texas and Florida have both shown tremendous flaws. Alabama, has been solid, but they don't exactly have a juggernaut offense.

Just understand that people can get a bit frustrated when you make comments that come off as a little extreme.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts...
 
Iowa is a good football team....not elite. They would need to play a perfect game to beat Alabama or Florida...something that Stanzi prevents them from doing.

Texas vs. Iowa would be a fun game cause I think Texas has some issues on Offense but I still take TX in that game...It's all hypothetical.
 
sportstalkmatt said:
Iowa is a good football team....not elite. They would need to play a perfect game to beat Alabama or Florida...something that Stanzi prevents them from doing.

Texas vs. Iowa would be a fun game cause I think Texas has some issues on Offense but I still take TX in that game...It's all hypothetical.
Click to expand...


We don't have "elite" players and quite frankly I'm good with that. This coaching staff has had some solid recruiting classes from a star-perspective and proven they don't coach egos very well. However, this team CAN play with the elite teams in the country, just the same as Arkansas played with Florida. The scary thing is they can certainly have a major hiccup too. Nice to hear now you think TX would at least be a game you'd watch.

PS- Thanks for confirming this was all hypothetical... whew, I was nervous.
 
I know he was down south and all, but it seems every thing that is being talked about ends up going toward Nebraska this and Nebraska that.

When Matty first started at KXNO, about the time KC got the OWI, he was adament about stating that (paraphrase) "you don't see that in Lincoln" and "KF needs to control his team like Bo Pelini" "Bo banned players from going downtown" etc....Every little thing goes toward Nebraska or Boston.
 
EyeLoveItEyeLoveIt said:
We don't have "elite" players and quite frankly I'm good with that. This coaching staff has had some solid recruiting classes from a star-perspective and proven they don't coach egos very well. However, this team CAN play with the elite teams in the country, just the same as Arkansas played with Florida. The scary thing is they can certainly have a major hiccup too. Nice to hear now you think TX would at least be a game you'd watch.

PS- Thanks for confirming this was all hypothetical... whew, I was nervous.
Click to expand...

We have elite players on both sides of the ball. Moeaki, Bulaga, Spievey, Clayborn are all elite, plus we have many other potential NFL guys than just them. This team is much more talented than people give them credit for especially guys like Matt. We have good team speed and we are physical, smart, disciplined and well coached. Our fastest player who is now hurt was no where near our best player, I just think speed is a little over rated.
 
sportstalkmatt said:
Iowa is a good football team....not elite. They would need to play a perfect game to beat Alabama or Florida...something that Stanzi prevents them from doing.

Texas vs. Iowa would be a fun game cause I think Texas has some issues on Offense but I still take TX in that game...It's all hypothetical.
Click to expand...

Ah yes...the elite players argument. I heard you preaching thsi tripe on the air today, and immediately changed the station. You lost a listener today. Not because of the way you constantly interrupt and belittle the people who call in because they might have a different opinion than yours, but because of bringing up an old, recycled argument that Hawk fans have heard before.

The argument about the team speed and elite players that Iowa doesn't have is at least 6 years old now - it wasn't true then, and isn't true now. At some point you'll figure it out.
 
HaydensHawk said:
We have elite players on both sides of the ball. Moeaki, Bulaga, Spievey, Clayborn are all elite, plus we have many other potential NFL guys than just them. This team is much more talented than people give them credit for especially guys like Matt. We have good team speed and we are physical, smart, disciplined and well coached. Our fastest player who is now hurt was no where near our best player, I just think speed is a little over rated.
Click to expand...

You're right... players come in 2 and 3 stars and leave 4 after spending some time in the program. The definition of elite with the talking heads is much different than our definition though. The speed card is waaaaaay overrated.

-I hate Brent Doucheberger
 
In less than 48 hours of this site existing, this is the most viewed and most replied to post. I guess people must be listening ;)
 
The problem I have with some of the commentators and analysts that cover college football is that they think that a team needs to have the elite player, e.g. four- and five-star recruits on their recruiting scale or be in their Top 150, in order to have a good team. They forget that a good coach can turn lemons into lemonaide. Good coaches can, through training and effective programs and schemes, can turn so-so individual players into great teams. A wise man once said, "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts." It seems the talking heads are focused on the parts than the whole.
 
I had never heard the Matt and Miller show before, but listened to it streaming online today for the first time (well, from about 4:30 until 6:00). For some reason, by the way Matt is described, I was expecting him to be verbally pi$$ing on the Hawks every chance he gets. I didn't get that impression, but maybe my sample size is too small.
 
VanMan1 said:
The problem I have with some of the commentators and analysts that cover college football is that they think that a team needs to have the elite player, e.g. four- and five-star recruits on their recruiting scale or be in their Top 150, in order to have a good team. They forget that a good coach can turn lemons into lemonaide. Good coaches can, through training and effective programs and schemes, can turn so-so individual players into great teams. A wise man once said, "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts." It seems the talking heads are focused on the parts than the whole.
Click to expand...

Well said Van-diggity. I'll take Iowa W's over a L with "elite" players all day long!

-I hate Brent Doucheberger
 
hawkfan2679 said:
I had never heard the Matt and Miller show before, but listened to it streaming online today for the first time (well, from about 4:30 until 6:00). For some reason, by the way Matt is described, I was expecting him to be verbally pi$$ing on the Hawks every chance he gets. I didn't get that impression, but maybe my sample size is too small.
Click to expand...

Matt is more than willing to give the Hawks their due, but he's also just as quick to tear them down in the same breath.. When Iowa blew ISU off the field in Ames, the only thing Matt could talk about on Monday was how Iowa had only been a "better kind of bad" than ISU. He refused to give Iowa any credit for forcing 6 turnovers, or to Norm Parker for devising a gameplan that dared Arnaud to beat them while giving up yards on the ground at the same time. It was a brilliant game plan, and everybody not named Perrault could see it.

If Iowa wins this weekend, Perrault will find some sort of way to nit-pick it Monday afternoon.
 
This leads me to the question what truely makes a team elite? Is it recruiting rankings? coaching? W's and L's? chemistry?

I would argue that Florida and Alabama this year are not elite. An elite team is one that is virtually unbeatable, like the 95 Cornhuskers that nobody finished within 2 touchdowns of. Florida and Alabama have elite defenses this year but neither is untouchable as the Arkansas vs Florida game showed. Each team has a clunky offense that is missing on one element or another at times.

You might argue that by virtue of the comeback that Florida is elite; they came through when it matters. By that definition of elite this Hawkeye team may be elite; the hawkeyes have won six games where they've overcome deficits.

If you want to argue consistencies and winning streaks, well the Hawkeyes are right there between Florida and Texas in longest win streaks.

When sportscasters start talking about conferences in generalities I always hear more rhetoric than reason. The big 10 has and continues to represent well in putting players into the NFL.

Before the 2002 season was the last time we heard the big 10 is bad to this degree. The talking heads boldly proclaimed before the bowl season that the big 10 would lose all their bowl games. As it turned out in 2002 the big 10 was arguably the best conference in college football.

With 9 teams at 4 wins or better already this year the big 10 does not look half bad. Even teams at the bottom of the conference are pulling upsets (purdue over OSU) or providing tough games (purdue against ND, Oregon).

You ask the cyclone and big 12 homers to stop with the Iowa couldn't compete in the big 12 nonsense when the results on the field this year appear to indicate the big 12 is down. If Iowa finishes the deal and goes 12-0 against the nation's toughest road schedule and are not worthy of facing the SEC champ, then who is? USC is essentially as guilty as the hawkeyes for letting teams that are nowhere as good beat them or sneak back into games with them (Washington, Notre Dame). By proclaiming that Iowa couldn't possibly compete with Florida or Alabama you are basically taking the same label based position that the Husker and Cyclone fans are taking.
 
hawkguy90 said:
This leads me to the question what truely makes a team elite? Is it recruiting rankings? coaching? W's and L's? chemistry?

I would argue that Florida and Alabama this year are not elite. An elite team is one that is virtually unbeatable, like the 95 Cornhuskers that nobody finished within 2 touchdowns of. Florida and Alabama have elite defenses this year but neither is untouchable as the Arkansas vs Florida game showed. Each team has a clunky offense that is missing on one element or another at times.

You might argue that by virtue of the comeback that Florida is elite; they came through when it matters. By that definition of elite this Hawkeye team may be elite; the hawkeyes have won six games where they've overcome deficits.

If you want to argue consistencies and winning streaks, well the Hawkeyes are right there between Florida and Texas in longest win streaks.

When sportscasters start talking about conferences in generalities I always hear more rhetoric than reason. The big 10 has and continues to represent well in putting players into the NFL.

Before the 2002 season was the last time we heard the big 10 is bad to this degree. The talking heads boldly proclaimed before the bowl season that the big 10 would lose all their bowl games. As it turned out in 2002 the big 10 was arguably the best conference in college football.

With 9 teams at 4 wins or better already this year the big 10 does not look half bad. Even teams at the bottom of the conference are pulling upsets (purdue over OSU) or providing tough games (purdue against ND, Oregon).

You ask the cyclone and big 12 homers to stop with the Iowa couldn't compete in the big 12 nonsense when the results on the field this year appear to indicate the big 12 is down. If Iowa finishes the deal and goes 12-0 against the nation's toughest road schedule and are not worthy of facing the SEC champ, then who is? USC is essentially as guilty as the hawkeyes for letting teams that are nowhere as good beat them or sneak back into games with them (Washington, Notre Dame). By proclaiming that Iowa couldn't possibly compete with Florida or Alabama you are basically taking the same label based position that the Husker and Cyclone fans are taking.
Click to expand...


Bump +1
 
I finally gave up and switched 100% to Marty. At least Marty will laugh at himself and admit when shown his thinking is flawed. Matt won't. The last time I listened is when Miller was saying ISU should get out of playing a couple bigger programs (Utah and UConn?) and schedule a couple of "sure wins" instead. His argument was that at this stage, ISU needs to do what it takes to get to a bowl game. This would get the fans energized, give them more practice time and more exposure. Matt said that would be horrible because they should expect to compete with these bigger programs. He went on to say that recruits want to play for a "winning program". Well, if they play the 2 cupcakes and go to a bowl game, doesn't that constitute a winning program? I'm sure they'd rather get beat by the bigger programs and stay home in December. So far, they haven't shown they can compete with the bigger programs. They need players first.
 
Last edited:
MikeinIA said:
I honestly tried to listen to their radio show and just could not do it. I think Ken Miller is great and I feel that Matt just brings the show down. At 4pm I immediately switch to 1700AM. I don't think Marty's show is as good as it was on 1460AM with Kenny, but it is a much better product than the Matt & Miller Show.
Click to expand...

There seems to be a trend here. I too have blown off KXNO for 1700 iin the afternoon due to this Matt whoever he is. This guy is as unknowledgeable as they come and quite frankly bores me to death. I could stomach Miller (a.k.a "Cyclown Hack" and "Pizetti for President") when he was holding the reigns on Tirrell but now but he just cant carry the load. Frankly, the man and woman who were the first announcers on KXNO were better than these two and I can't even remember their names!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top