The problem is ours never fluctuates. We only play non con cream puffs at home, mix in the clowns and the carousel b10 west and even have had the easiest crossover schedule of any b10 west team ever. It is incredible how so many of you fall for the charade annually
Miss Mudd fans
- Thread starter Ben Rumson
- Start date
pythagoras
Well-Known Member
Steven F Austin
LA-Lafayette
LA-Tech
and K-State
HOLY FUCKING SHIT SHUT UP ABOUT CREAM PUFFS
Yet on years (every other) that we play the top teams of the east, along with Wisconsin, an improving Purdue, an improving ISU and a sometimes Nebraska, we have a pretty good sos (4th?? Last year??)
So logic would dictate to try and schedule another pretty good ooc every other year. There has to be a school who would do it.
Again my contention is that if Iowa wants to really strut their stuff and players raise their stock, next year is the opportunity to do so.
okeefe4prez
Well-Known Member
This year needed to be a spring board year. Needed to put up 10, maybe 11 wins (with the bowl) and finish around 15, get a decent ranking into next year and come out of the gate throttling people. We could be pretty good next year and thank goodness Northwestern will suck again without Thorson, but Purdue is getting better and Nebraska only has one way to go, so my optimism heading into '19 waned quite a bit, particularly when we had that little 3 game skid.
You don't think ours fluctuates? Some years we do play Mich.MSU,OSU,PSU, Never all of them the same year but still every few yrs we do and are big under dogs. Plus Wisky, NW and I know we've owned NE for 4 yrs but prior to that they weren't the pushover they've been and we were underdogs against them too. I agree this year we clearly underperformed but in prior years we did well against tougher schedules and overachieved. That is the enigma that is Iowa football hence the fluctuating ceiling I feel we have. MS ST rarely can realistically ever say they should do better than 9-3. They can hope for it but good luck..
I had high hopes as well. They very easily could have won 10 plus.
But we have to remember, coming into the year we had like one receiver who caught more than a few passes. We had zero backs that were proven.
Our ol was fairly young.
Surprisingly our D was so good, because we were replacing 3 lb. Our whole d did an excellent job this year!!!
But face it, nobody had high hopes because of what I said above about the O, it was because the schedule was "easier".
But some more of those things should be worked out next year, now that everyone knows what it's going to take.
Jesus, get a clue.
All bullshit excuses for sucking in an awful division. Who is responsible for all the things you mention? Kirk Ferentz. You act like its his first year as head coach. He has been here 20 years. His recruiting sucks, plain and simple. Some of the things should be worked out next year? Like what? Stanley will all of a sudden get a clue? It will be his 5th year, the light isn't magically going to go on for him. Where is the talent at receiver? Nowhere. What about replacing our 2 best players in Fant and Hock? Are we getting a new OC? Same shit every year. Wait till next year, we are young, blah blah blah. All excuses for a subpar coach that is stale as hell, and needs to retire.
#1DieHardHawk
Well-Known Member
The first 3-4 seasons of M*A*S*H were outstanding. Still watch the reruns to this day. Once Henry left, it was a gradual downhill slide.
Northside Hawk
Well-Known Member
Let's get our galoshes on and slog our way through this one muddy step at a time.
Our awful division was 4-0 in bowl games last year.
Stanley is not a fifth year player next year. He's never redshirted.
What we have coming back at receiver next year, while not spectacular, is better than what we had coming back this year.
It is not a done deal that Hock is going pro. You're jumping to conclusions.
Our OC, while not overseeing a juggernaut, did improve substantially from his first year on the job.
We return plenty of players with starting experience next year, particularly the offensive skill positions and on defense. We will be experienced, not young.
Our coach is anything but subpar. Part of the reason for the conference being the way you so eloquently put it is because we have bankrupted several teams who have tried to emulate us. Minnesota had some bad luck with Jerry Kill but may finally have their man after years of trial and error. Purdue and Nebraska may have their men now, too. Illinois and Indiana (who also tragically lost a good one in Terry Hoeppner) are still trying. All of had years of trial and tribulation trying to imitate our program. Northwestern has done no more than equal it. Only Wisconsin, in the West anyway, has surpassed what we've accomplished.
Hoo, that was messy. I can finally take off my boots now.
mopkins
King Kong
The big ten kinda hosed itself by adding an extra conference game. They should be doing what the sec does and schedule a cupcake late in the season for an extra bye week.
The extra conference game does no good for the conference as a whole...it only adds a guaranteed 7 extra losses to big ten teams. But hey...dat tv moneyzzz
Maryland and Indiana both finished with 5 wins. Add an extra non conference cupcake to their schedule and they are suddenly bowl eligible .
The extra conference game does no good for the conference as a whole...it only adds a guaranteed 7 extra losses to big ten teams. But hey...dat tv moneyzzz
Maryland and Indiana both finished with 5 wins. Add an extra non conference cupcake to their schedule and they are suddenly bowl eligible .
99topdawg
Well-Known Member
Totally agree. I still liked the ones with Potter and Frank, but really didn't like Charles, and when Hot Lips became Margaret. Hawkeye got too "political" (or whatever you call it) and seemed to be too serious.
dahlhawk
Well-Known Member
If you look at their schedule you will see they played badly against all the the top teams they played, except Auburn, thats their only quality win. Kinda like ISU is ours. They offensive was abysmal in their 4 losses.
#1DieHardHawk
Well-Known Member
Harry Morgan did a great job, and his character was a nice addition. There was one episode in particular, where he was the sole remaining live member of his former unit, and gave a toast to his deceased friends, that jumps out to me. There was just something special about the Henry character, though. He was the glue of the show.
The political agenda was obvious. Even Larry Linville, in an interview after he left, criticized the direction the show was heading. Like many great comedies, the producers and writers forgot what made the show great in the first place. I kept watching - and the show continued to have a huge following - but, if we're being honest with ourselves, M*A*S*H was basically crap the last 5 seasons or so.
What I do nowadays is pay attention to the opening credits. As the helicopter is flying in, if the background is hazy, I watch it. If it's clear, I switch the channel.
I understand that.
I was more pointing out that LSU plays UCF.
In 07 UNI did pretty good. Ndsu does pretty good lots of years. (I understand divisions).
I'm just saying that when in the fbs, you could easily see how 20-30 spots on a sos could be more even than just the sos stat, but 60 some spots??
So basically we are saying the chances (percentage) of Iowa having the same w/l results playing Miss states schedule are far greater than UCF flip flopping schedules with LSU and having the same results.
In other words, how in the **** does a team that has the 3rd hardest sos and went 9-3, with one loss to #1 ranked Alabama and another loss to a team by 2 points (both scored in the 70's) and have the 4th hardest schedule, get paired up with a team that while may not have lost a game, didn't play anyone, as their 70th ish ranked sos shows????
Something is not right about that and those numbers, and I can tell you that just in my head and don't even need a pencil and paper.
I didn't get into all that and tried to stick more to Hawk football, because I can tend to ramble about how I arrive at some things and we live in a fast food, skip to the chase world. I figure, yeah I may talk a lot, but I also figure there is equal chance that people just don't listen well enough. So f them is what I decided a long time ago.
All that said, no I don't think Miss states record is better than ours. It might be slightly, but again just in my head, it looks pretty even, or far more even than some bowls.
99topdawg
Well-Known Member
Agree. And to this day, I know what a tontine is. Also, I do similar to what you do. I hit the info button to see what year the episode was made to decide if I'm going to watch it. I'll watch the later ones if it's a practical joke episode, etc, but most of them are, as you say, crap.Harry Morgan did a great job, and his character was a nice addition. There was one episode in particular, where he was the sole remaining live member of his former unit, and gave a toast to his deceased friends, that jumps out to me. There was just something special about the Henry character, though. He was the glue of the show.
The political agenda was obvious. Even Larry Linville, in an interview after he left, criticized the direction the show was heading. Like many great comedies, the producers and writers forgot what made the show great in the first place. I kept watching - and the show continued to have a huge following - but, if we're being honest with ourselves, M*A*S*H was basically crap the last 5 seasons or so.
What I do nowadays is pay attention to the opening credits. As the helicopter is flying in, if the background is hazy, I watch it. If it's clear, I switch the channel.
guffus
Well-Known Member
For me MASH was on at the perfect time in my life, with the Henry Blake / Frank Burns episodes on when I was a little kid. Then as the show matured into something different with Potter, Wenchester, and BJ it was on when I was getting older and maturing myself.
Later when I would watch the show in reruns, the show manages to appeal to both my inner child and my older adult. I love the whole package.
Later when I would watch the show in reruns, the show manages to appeal to both my inner child and my older adult. I love the whole package.
Ree4
Well-Known Member
SteveGarvey1
Well-Known Member
Doubt you could even have a Klinger character, a guy pretending to be crazy by dressing up as a woman. Oh yeah, there'd be a lot of people offended by that today.
