Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Football' started by JUKEBOX, Oct 6, 2013.
I would like to think we have better facilities then them, and we are in about the same location.
We are from a lower population area and recruit against mostly teams who are hundreds of miles closer to recruits and we are not an elite elite academic university. They recruit against schools in the same geographic area as them. We have also not had an easy enough schedule yet to really have a breakout year until this year which is going to be our worst year under CPR.
I was Thinking the same thing dude????
you know Iowa is the fall back school for people who don't get into NW?
and their location > our location.
They've had better coaching in the past leading to more success over time. And presently they get a lot of wins against the B1G bottom feeders like Illinoize, Indiana and Purdont. Win totals impress people even if the wins are not impressive.
Location is much better and it's a top 20 school academically.
For a scheduling example, the didn't play one single team that was ranked at the time they played last year. That must be nice.
They've played 11 ranked teams going back to 2009.
We have played 11 since 2011, and 19 since 2009.
This is 100% correct.
Better academic reputation. Better location to sell (north side of Chicago vs. Ames). Higher profile alums (broadcasting, journalism, and acting - not necessarily athletics). Conference mates with similar climate. Closer physical proximity to talent. Better recent tradition (rose bowl appearance in my life vs. Shreveport???) Plus they have been making B10 money for years (although not sure what they are doing with it because their stadium appears to suck).
Your are all wrong, its because they have a bowled in stadium.
Not really buying the academics argument. Why doesn't Harvard, Vanderbilt, etc. have great football teams? Stanford is the only elite football program lately with great academics and they were terrible before Harbaugh.
The location argument is kind of a bad excuse too. We are only 5 hours away from them. There are plenty of Chicago kids that go to Iowa State.
And yet, with all that success (relatively speaking), they still hand over 50% of they're stadium capacity to the visiting fanbase. If there was such a thing as fanbase karma, they'd have some 0-12 seasons in store, and we'd be gearing up for a run of national championships.
I'm not a fan but Notre Dame played for the National Title last year.
Vanderbilt does. And Stanford does.
Harvard doesn't because they don't give scholarships for sports/aren't D1 (someone who knows better correct me there on the schollys) and are focused solely on academics.
Here is Vandy's current recruiting class: Yahoo Sports: Rivals.com 2014 Vanderbilt Commitments
Probably more 4 stars than ISU has had in 10 years in one class. And they had 9 wins last year.
Notre Dame sucks.
NW is also in IL, and the Illini have been very bad for several years. Also, IL is huge population wise compared to Iowa. Gary B. is also one of the best coaches in the county. He is a guy that knows exactly what he has and where and how to use them, something that the ISU coaching staff could do a lot better.
The difference between Chicago and Ames is night and day, so you're wrong.
First, selling the north side of Chicago is much easier than selling Ames.
Second, winter in Illinois is the same as Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, etc, etc, etc. Winter in Iowa is much different than winter in Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas.
Third, Illinois produces more FBS talent than Iowa. Plus they get exposure in Ohio, Michigan, and Pennslyvania. We don't get exposure in any of those states. We have to travel farther to get our recruits.
So it is not a bad excuse. It is a fact.
Why is the north side of Chicago better than Ames?
Harvard is one of the greastest historical football powers of all time. so there!
More clubs, miles of beaches, close to major airport, a couple hundred thousand single women.