Look Ahead poll 2010

[dmclone]

It's Christmas day 2010. Chizik is just finishing up his 4th year as HC. In those 4 years, the Cyclones have went 23-25 in the regular season.

I'm assuming we will have 12 regular season games each year and ISU went 3-9 in his first year.

Would you consider this a success?

 

[cytech]

No because if we only played in 12 games each year, that would mean we have not gone to any bowls.

 

[ianoconnor]

IMO, there isn't any way Chizik will not achieve success... the guy is a proven winner and has excellent recruiting resources. I'm really looking forward to the future of Cyclone Football.

 

[Cyclonepride]

I would think success would look like:

2008- 7-6 (inc. bowl)
2009- 8-5 (inc. bowl)
2010- 7-6 (inc. bowl)

With the 3-9, that's 25-26. Realistic, not bad, not great

 

[cytech]

I like where you are going with that, but it really all depends on who we beat and who we lose too. I really want to see a upset over another quality team.

 

[brianhos]

If we are only at 25 and 26 why did we get rid of Dan? That will be the question everyone is asking.

 

[cycloneworld]

If we are only at 25 and 26 why did we get rid of Dan? That will be the question everyone is asking.

Exactly, we got rid of Dan to win 9+ games per year. Not 7-8.

 

[cyfanatic]

I voted yes because whether we like it or not...ISU is a TOUGH job to have in football! Not saying I don't think GC can achieve greatness...I am just saying it won't be easy at all! Therefore, if we are in two bowl games in the next three seasons, I think GC will have done a very good job!

 

[BryceC]

Let's assume to get to 23-25 he has this kind of record:

3-9
5-7
4-8
11-1

Then yes, I would consider it a resounding success.

 

[isuno1fan]

If we get to 6-8 wins/yr and do it with an exciting brand of football and not the "play not to lose" stuff DMac would pull then I will be quite content.

 

[Aclone]

Sorry, couldn't partake. It's simply way-y-y too early for such a poll. At least let's see what this recruiting class looks like.

 

[wolverine68]

How about you add a "depends" catagory?

 

[CTTB78]

We got rid of Dan to play consistent, winning football. Let's get there first.
If GC can win at least 7 games every year, I would be extremely happy.

 

[83Clone]

Exactly, we got rid of Dan to win 9+ games per year. Not 7-8.

How many times did Mac win 7 or 8 games in his 12 year tenure?

3??

It's not like he did it every year

 

[brianhos]

If we get to 6-8 wins/yr and do it with an exciting brand of football and not the "play not to lose" stuff DMac would pull then I will be quite content.

I would like to see you say that after a couple of 6 win season. Yeah if we can break to 8 that would be another story. But Dan was good for 6 every other year.

Unless we consistently get 8, it would be a failure and JP will probably lose his job.

 

[Clone9]

If we are only at 25 and 26 why did we get rid of Dan? That will be the question everyone is asking.

We got rid of Dan so we could have a chance of winning 9+ games. I'm convinced we wouldn't have gotten there without him. We might not get there, but at least we have a chance. We got rid of Dan because we were sick of the same old records, not because we were unhappy with him.

 

[Rogue52]

I voted no because I would be disappointed with that kind of record in 4 years. I'd at least hope we'd be at .500 after 4 years.

A 23-25 record in 4 years could look like this:

3-9
5-7
7-5
8-4

Now, if that were followed by seasons of 10 or 11 wins, then great. But I'd like to see that 4th season be at least 9 wins...

 

[ISU_Alum_2000]

Unless we consistently get 8, it would be a failure and JP will probably lose his job.

Woaaaahhh.... sounds like someone has had a few too many Elsinore's.

You might need a couple back-bacon sandwiches to soak up some of that booze.