Once upon a time..............

And the fact that all these programs with huge advantages have been "down in the first place" is just more proof that it's really hard to win consistently. There's a stat on here that only a handful of teams have more wins than us over the last 5 years. You know how much iowa is breaking the odds by being a top 10-15 winning team over a 5 year stretch?

And one last thing. No one says we can't be big winners. They just say it's really hard to at Iowa and we can't just assume that at every point in history we should be, just because (insert flavor of the month team here) happens to be doing good at this exact moment in time. We get it. Wisconsin is exceeding their expectations lately. There will always be a team that is. Just like iowa has in the past. Just like Nebraska has in the past. Iowa doesn't happen to be that team right now. They will be again some day. They just aren't right now.
 
I’ve followed Georgia since Kirk was hired and they pretty much mirrored each other. Typical 8-4 teams with an occasional nine win season. Then they got rid of their Kirk-like coach and hired an Alabama assistant who has elevated their program. That was just a few years ago not forty years.

USC was also flat for more than a decade almost two decades until they made the right hire and then that program flourished (granted with the help of illegal recruiting) before their coach moved onto the NFL.

If you don't think it's an advantage to have 20 4/5 stars grow up fans of LSU as opposed to 1 or maybe 2 (on a good year) 4 stars grow up as Iowa fans, you're crazy. Of course those programs have a huge advantage. That advantage doesn't guarantee they will be awesome every year. It just guarantees that their good will be better than our good, their average will be better than our average, and their bad will be better than our bad. Your "moving the stadium" comment makes no sense what's so ever. Come on man. Do you really not understand that if the state had 25 4/5 stars every single year that were dreaming of playing for iowa their whole lives, it wouldn't be a huge advantage?

Let's say mainly why the blue bloods have their down times and it is usually when their better coaches retire or move on. Bama struggled for a long time after the Bear retired. USC after McKay went to the pros and when Pete Carroll left. Texas went down after legendary coaches left. Washington after James left.

These programs will always have better talent than a lot of northern teams but it still comes down to winning really big based on the leadership, drive, charisma, recruiting ability, drive, scheme etc of the HEAD COACH. Southern high school football players can go outside all year and run routes, catch passes, throw the football etc.

Someone on this thread I think said Clemson has been a great program over the last 40 years and I really dont think that is correct. Just recently great and a long time playing in a weaker league.

I really think Urban can win big at about any top 30 school. About the same with Saban. What would happen if Saban or Meyer went to Texas A&M which is a school that almost gets there but not quite. These top coaches can sell it to the recruits, bring in the assistants, and put in a winning scheme.

What is Illinois' excuse?
 
You apologist always play the same lame card. If it is all that easy to get top recruits from fifty miles from their campus then why were these programs down in the first place? Did they move their stadiums magically. It plain and simple its the coaching that changed one way or the other. Why has LSU gone from a mediocre SEC teams to playing for a third NATIONAL title? Did they move their campus suddenly closer to these superior recruits?

Same with Georgia. Over the last twenty years under their previous coach they would have teams that were and weren’t ranked in the top twenty-five. Very similar to Kirk. Yes there are a lot more recruits because close by maybe thousands but they can only recruit like twenty every year out of those thousands. It’s called an airplane. It’s called recruiting trips. It’s called getting off your fat cat ass and making it happen.

Three numbers over 60, 15, and zero. Over sixty million in Kirk’s bank account over the last fifteen years with ZERO conference championships.

I am not some Johnny come lately fan Iowa fan. Suffered through the Commings years in the mid-seventies. I want to hope your right that recruiting is picking up and that the program is on the rise. No we’re suppose to believe that somehow the University of Wisconsin has discovered the magic potion.

My comment about what if our defense ranked as bad as our offense the last ten years is dead on correct. Something has got to change with our offensive schemes, offensive recruiting, or offensive coaching. Only a putz would think otherwise. Two NFL tight ends, a Future NFL quarterback, and supposedly one of the best lines in college football last year and how did that work out for us last year???

I want to see us get a shot at a highly ranked or recognized team in our bowl game and get the win. Then I will feel a little better. It’s been hard today to watch these games today and not ever being able to cheer for Iowa for a CONFERENCE title. UNTIL that happens there is no chance of EVER doing anything g better. Some I know don’t care even though they claim to be Iowa fans. They say we can’t but I refuse to believe that. Maybe as long as the the same ole same ole continues in Iowa City then possible those fans are correct.

I find it hard to concede and say we are little ole Iowa and we NEVER can.

Oh poor poor Mr. Not Johnny Come Lately Fan, it is so so sad that you have had to suffer through so much pain and misery, not being able to see your beloved team play in the conference championship game! My heart hurts for you, because you being such a loyal and longtime fan deserve so much more! I hope, for your pitiful sake, that as a consolation prize, Iowa goes to a top tier bowl game and beats a favored SEC team just to make you feel a little better. I know that wouldn't be much, but it will have to do until we can get you a guaranteed conference championship every year with a few national titles mixed in. I know that would be tough to swallow too, to actually lose one, because spending 4 million a year on a head coach should lock us down for these nattys every year.

Is that what you want to hear? Seriously? Because that is what it sounds like. It also sounds pathetic.

Everyone wants to be elite, everyone. There are 14 teams in the B1G and all of them want to win, with 7 or 8 of them devoting the resources to do just that. You have 3-4 in the ACC, 9-10 in the SEC, 4-5 in the Big 12 and another 5 or 6 in the PAC 12. That makes somewhere plus or minus 30 teams that want to be great, elite, and do everything that we aspire to do. That is no excuse, just a fact that there is a lot of competition. And before you start whining more about KF's salary, go look at those 30 teams and see what they pay their coaches and let me know how that goes.

Fyi, I dont know if you noticed or not but we did go 12-0 only 4 years ago and made the conference title game and nearly won it.

I get it, when you look at the college football landscape the elite teams are dynamic on offense and they all spread you out. Some say we should do that too. But here is where the problem is: if you spread, there is no way that Iowa will be able to recruit the skill position talent it takes to run that on a consistent basis and so we will be competing against teams that do what we do with better talent. How many games will we win against OSU, PSU, or any other elites doing that? So would we be better off running the current scheme of playing close games?

This year, like last, we were in every game and could have won them all with things we can control with our scheme. We didnt lose any games because of the scheme. Turnovers, protection, no running game, all of those were the factors.

So you are the coach and given 2 choices: current scheme and have the ability to control the outcome of every game based on execution, or try to compete playing the same way as everyone else at a talent disadvantage? Which is it?
 
This year, like last, we were in every game and could have won them all with things we can control with our scheme. We didnt lose any games because of the scheme. Turnovers, protection, no running game, all of those were the factors.

The Wisconsin game was lost because of scheme. Iowa's scheme was attacking Wisconsin's strength and Iowa refused to abandon it until they were down 21-6.

Once they did abandon it, Iowa outscored Wisconsin 16-3
 
The Wisconsin game was lost because of scheme. Iowa's scheme was attacking Wisconsin's strength and Iowa refused to abandon it until they were down 21-6.

Once they did abandon it, Iowa outscored Wisconsin 16-3

I disagree. Dont confuse scheme with strategy. What Iowa did in the 2nd half was to exploit Wisconsins secondary by going downfield. Should they have done that all game? That's debatable.

The real problem with the Wisconsin game and what the coaches did not expect was giving up 250 to Taylor.
 
Oh poor poor Mr. Not Johnny Come Lately Fan, it is so so sad that you have had to suffer through so much pain and misery, not being able to see your beloved team play in the conference championship game! My heart hurts for you, because you being such a loyal and longtime fan deserve so much more! I hope, for your pitiful sake, that as a consolation prize, Iowa goes to a top tier bowl game and beats a favored SEC team just to make you feel a little better. I know that wouldn't be much, but it will have to do until we can get you a guaranteed conference championship every year with a few national titles mixed in. I know that would be tough to swallow too, to actually lose one, because spending 4 million a year on a head coach should lock us down for these nattys every year.

Is that what you want to hear? Seriously? Because that is what it sounds like. It also sounds pathetic.

Everyone wants to be elite, everyone. There are 14 teams in the B1G and all of them want to win, with 7 or 8 of them devoting the resources to do just that. You have 3-4 in the ACC, 9-10 in the SEC, 4-5 in the Big 12 and another 5 or 6 in the PAC 12. That makes somewhere plus or minus 30 teams that want to be great, elite, and do everything that we aspire to do. That is no excuse, just a fact that there is a lot of competition. And before you start whining more about KF's salary, go look at those 30 teams and see what they pay their coaches and let me know how that goes.

Fyi, I dont know if you noticed or not but we did go 12-0 only 4 years ago and made the conference title game and nearly won it.

I get it, when you look at the college football landscape the elite teams are dynamic on offense and they all spread you out. Some say we should do that too. But here is where the problem is: if you spread, there is no way that Iowa will be able to recruit the skill position talent it takes to run that on a consistent basis and so we will be competing against teams that do what we do with better talent. How many games will we win against OSU, PSU, or any other elites doing that? So would we be better off running the current scheme of playing close games?

This year, like last, we were in every game and could have won them all with things we can control with our scheme. We didnt lose any games because of the scheme. Turnovers, protection, no running game, all of those were the factors.

So you are the coach and given 2 choices: current scheme and have the ability to control the outcome of every game based on execution, or try to compete playing the same way as everyone else at a talent disadvantage? Which is it?

I love it how people think Iowa will win more if they just try harder. Like it's just that easy to do but Iowa doesn't care enough to just put a little more effort into it. People think the world revolves around Iowa and what other teams try to do is completely irrelevant.
 
I disagree. Dont confuse scheme with strategy. What Iowa did in the 2nd half was to exploit Wisconsins secondary by going downfield. Should they have done that all game? That's debatable.

The real problem with the Wisconsin game and what the coaches did not expect was giving up 250 to Taylor.

Spot on.

Two games--PSU and Wiscy--featured quick-strike scores at the the end. What was needed to complete comebacks in those games? The defense had to hold the opponent offense to 3-and-out. We didn't get it done either time, even knowing the opponent was not going to throw the ball.
 
I disagree. Dont confuse scheme with strategy. What Iowa did in the 2nd half was to exploit Wisconsins secondary by going downfield. Should they have done that all game? That's debatable.

The real problem with the Wisconsin game and what the coaches did not expect was giving up 250 to Taylor.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't Iowa's zone blocking go under scheme?

And isn't Iowa's zone blocking one of their biggest, if not their single biggest weakness?

And Iowa's biggest weakness matched up with Wisconsin's strength, their front 7. Yet Iowa continued using it in attempts to attack Wisconsin. Instead of attacking their biggest weakness which is their DBs.

Strategy/playcalling are part of that of course. but it seems to me that Iowa's scheme was weak and Iowa's coaches failure to recognize or accept it. Particularly when their most consistent running play, the Stanley sneak, is not zone blocking. Its straight ahead, hat on hat.
 
If the Iowa defense rated at the same level as Iowa’s offense we would one of the worst programs in the conference, but hey don’t change anything just keep on keeping on.

True, but in the flip side, if Iowa had even a solid offense, I think most years would look more like 2002.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: THE OFFENSE IS HOLDING THIS PROGRAM BACK.

Is what KF is delivering good enough? In my mind, yes, but that is no excuse for sticking with the status quo. Why not try to improve the O when there is clearly tons of room for progress? It's the elephant in the room, which is not being addressed, and it drives me nuts.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't Iowa's zone blocking go under scheme?

And isn't Iowa's zone blocking one of their biggest, if not their single biggest weakness?

And Iowa's biggest weakness matched up with Wisconsin's strength, their front 7. Yet Iowa continued using it in attempts to attack Wisconsin. Instead of attacking their biggest weakness which is their DBs.

Strategy/playcalling are part of that of course. but it seems to me that Iowa's scheme was weak and Iowa's coaches failure to recognize or accept it. Particularly when their most consistent running play, the Stanley sneak, is not zone blocking. Its straight ahead, hat on hat.

Yes, you are correct, zone blocking does fall under scheme. It is a foundational element of this offense. However, Iowa does not always utilize the zone blocking scheme, and will mix in the hat on hat blocking that you are suggesting.

However you want to shake it out, no matter if the offense employs a zone blocking scheme or a power blocking scheme, or if the defense plays a 3-4, 4-3, or a 5-2, it really doesn't matter. There is really no inherent advantage with any matchup, it really depends on how good the players are, if the offense can sustain blocks and if they defense can shed them and fill the gaps. On both sides of the ball the personnel has to complement the scheme. The goal of both Iowa and Wisconsin, although they do it differently, is to force the opponent to bring an extra defender in the box thus creating a numbers advantage in the passing game. At that point, the offense will play action. That is the game within the game.

Where I think Iowa is right now, and this is just me, is that the scheme is sound but our offensive line personnel and our running backs except for Goodson don't really match the scheme as well as it should to be effective. I think there needs to be some serious attention paid to the offensive line staff, whether they are coached properly and whether we are are recruiting the right players. I am no coach so I couldnt tell you the details here, but it does seem that our offensive line this past year of Jackson, Wirfs, Linderbaum, and the Paulsens was much more about bulk than movement, but that is not every year.

So I guess I partly agree and partly disagree with you. It is a very good point though.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't Iowa's zone blocking go under scheme?

And isn't Iowa's zone blocking one of their biggest, if not their single biggest weakness?

And Iowa's biggest weakness matched up with Wisconsin's strength, their front 7. Yet Iowa continued using it in attempts to attack Wisconsin. Instead of attacking their biggest weakness which is their DBs.

Strategy/playcalling are part of that of course. but it seems to me that Iowa's scheme was weak and Iowa's coaches failure to recognize or accept it. Particularly when their most consistent running play, the Stanley sneak, is not zone blocking. Its straight ahead, hat on hat.
Iowa RBs ran for 5 ypc against Wisconsin. The blocking was not the issue.

It was long, sustained Wisconsin possessions (coupled with an untimely fumble and a 3rd quarter lull) that kept us off the field, and unable to find a rhythm until late. The Badgers won the TOP battle by 15 minutes.
 
Iowa RBs ran for 5 ypc against Wisconsin. The blocking was not the issue.

It was long, sustained Wisconsin possessions (coupled with an untimely fumble and a 3rd quarter lull) that kept us off the field, and unable to find a rhythm until late. The Badgers won the TOP battle by 15 minutes.

Prior to throwing the football at the end of the 3rd quarter Iowa's drive chart looked like this:

4 plays
4
6
8
1 (end of half)
4
4
3

Iowa's RBs did have a good ypc but it obviously wasn't translating on the field. Wisconsin's long sustained drives were aided by the fact that Iowa's O couldn't stay on the field. 5/7 real drives were about as short as a drive can be without turning the ball over.
 
Prior to throwing the football at the end of the 3rd quarter Iowa's drive chart looked like this:

4 plays
4
6
8
1 (end of half)
4
4
3

Iowa's RBs did have a good ypc but it obviously wasn't translating on the field. Wisconsin's long sustained drives were aided by the fact that Iowa's O couldn't stay on the field. 5/7 real drives were about as short as a drive can be without turning the ball over.

So you think that Wisconsin's long sustained drives were caused by the offense not staying on the field? Didn't cross your mind that Wisconsin's long sustained drives were because our defense couldn't stop Taylor?

The offense not staying on the field had absolutely nothing to do with Wisconsin sustaining long drives. All that did was give them more drives.
 
So you think that Wisconsin's long sustained drives were caused by the offense not staying on the field? Didn't cross your mind that Wisconsin's long sustained drives were because our defense couldn't stop Taylor?

The offense not staying on the field had absolutely nothing to do with Wisconsin sustaining long drives. All that did was give them more drives.

No I said Wisconsin's long drives were aided by the Iowa's offensive not staying on the field. We always here about complementary football at Iowa. It works both ways. When the offensive can't stay on the field, the D gets gassed. Iowa's run D was smashed in that game, no denying that. But its a lot harder when they're on the field most of the time.
 
I will be cheering for every team in our conference to win all their games. That helps me feel a little better when our conference dominates the other teams from other conferences. Yes I want Ohio State to win it all so I can tell my in laws to ZIP IT.

I root for them all except Pedo State.

I just can’t
 
Last edited:
I root for them all except Pedo State.

I’m just can’t

If it’s the Pedo State part that holds you back I can’t blame you for that. I too find that whole situation despicable. It may take along time for people to let that go, and I can’t blame them.
 

Latest posts

Top