Best football season ever?

[AllN4Cy]

8-5.

Beat 2 top 5 teams.
Beat another ranked team.

Got flat out robbed of a win against Kansas State, so definitely record should be 9-4.

Gave away the game against Iowa. Had it in the bag. 10-3.

Got robbed of an OT chance against Oklahoma State. That was a touchdown. 11-2.

Got screwed at West Virginia. Butler would have scored if the ref isn't such a clown blowing the whistle for "forward progress stopped". Joke. 12-1.

Texas we sucked. 12-1.

What a great season. Top 10 finish! Great job Cyclones!!!!

 

[Cyclonepride]

I'm pretty confident that this is at least one of the best two or three teams that we've had since the mid-80's (when I became an avid fan).

 

[Tower_Grove_Cy]

2000 was really good and finished in the Top 25 but the wins weren't as impressive as this year. To their credit, they beat everyone they should have (which we can't say this year) except possibly the A&M loss, I can't remember how good they were that year.

We all know what could have been in 2005...

My parents tell me that the Earl Bruce years were the best ever but I haven't asked them to compare those years to this year yet.

 

[CyCrazy]

It needs to be on the short of the best few, and what could have been.

 

[NWICY]

Darn good yr and a team that certainly exceeded expectations of the fan base.

 

[CTTB78]

......
My parents tell me that the Earl Bruce years were the best ever but I haven't asked them to compare those years to this year yet.

Those Earle Bruce teams did beat Nebraska back to back when Nebraska was still Nebraska. The '76 team was a great team, probably our best.
But with two top 5 wins, and shutting down a top 20 team in the bowl on their home field, this CMC team might have had the best season we have seen with the Cardinal and Gold.

 

[dualthreat]

The 2000 team benefited from a much weaker schedule than 2017.

This year was the best team in the past 30 years.. I'm too young to remember the '70s teams. I think one of them was better though

 

[madguy30]

2000 was really good and finished in the Top 25 but the wins weren't as impressive as this year. To their credit, they beat everyone they should have (which we can't say this year) except possibly the A&M loss, I can't remember how good they were that year.

We all know what could have been in 2005...

My parents tell me that the Earl Bruce years were the best ever but I haven't asked them to compare those years to this year yet.

The 2000 team got handled by anyone with a pulse, but at least pulled off the wins.

I look at the 2005 team as unsuccessful vs. potential and soft schedule and key players returning from an OK 2004 season. They lost to Baylor at home and caved when adversity hit...things would be fine until one thing went wrong. I could see that team losing to Baylor this year.

This year's team should be regarded as one of the best easily...no bad or awful losses, beating 3 ranked teams including when the pressure was on vs. TCU, make a couple plays even outside refs here and there and the record truly reflects it as the best. Their defensive execution was the best I saw vs. OU.

I'd also add that to me the team chemistry and true leadership was the best I've seen from what I could tell. I'm not sure if other ISU teams would have regrouped and beat Memphis.

 

[BWRhasnoAC]

It needs to be on the short of the best few, and what could have been.

Hopefully Campbell can let the what if's of this season go now that its finalized. You could see he lightened up after the win. Probably a huge sense of relief having the season over.

 

[FinalFourCy]

Most competitive, no doubt.

Basically a 9-4 season with two top-5 wins and a few fourth quarter leads blown. Competing for a conference title and CFP. Shore up the run blocking and we’re a top-10 team.

I’d say it’s the best team. Those 70’s teams wouldn’t stand much of a chance against this one imo.

 

[Yellow Snow]

The 2000 team got handled by anyone with a pulse, but at least pulled off the wins.

The 2000 team won nine games only playing 2 ranked teams (#1 and #15)... getting SMOKED by both and lost to aTm 30-7 at home (unranked). Had the easy rotation in the conference that year to boot.

This year was better. Everybody knows we won nine games.

Think about it this way. No matter who or where we played this year, we never lost 56-10 or 49-27 like we did that year. Not to mention we played everybody in the conference this year that we missed that year.

My 2 cents. I'm 46 for reference.

 

[Clonefan94]

It was up there for me being a fan since the 70s. Tough to say best ever considering the juggernauts that OU, Nebraska and Texas used to be. I will say this though, as far as competitiveness goes, this was the best team I remember seeing. We were in every game with a chance to win in the 4th quarter. I've never been able to say that about any Cyclone team. It was certainly a great year, just not sure if it was heightened by the low expectations to start the year. I think if we had a few bad breaks and bad calls go our way, it certainly would have been the best season ever on record.

 

[CYTUTT]

8-5.

Beat 2 top 5 teams.
Beat another ranked team.

Got flat out robbed of a win against Kansas State, so definitely record should be 9-4.

Gave away the game against Iowa. Had it in the bag. 10-3.

Got robbed of an OT chance against Oklahoma State. That was a touchdown. 11-2.

Got screwed at West Virginia. Butler would have scored if the ref isn't such a clown blowing the whistle for "forward progress stopped". Joke. 12-1.

Texas we sucked. 12-1.

What a great season. Top 10 finish! Great job Cyclones!!!!

If UCF can claim a national title, this is a no-brainer!

 

[Brandon]

Best in my memory against a good schedule. Can't wait for next year!

 

[acoustimac]

Most competitive, no doubt.

Basically a 9-4 season with two top-5 wins and a few fourth quarter leads blown. Competing for a conference title and CFP. Shore up the run blocking and we’re a top-10 team.

I’d say it’s the best team. Those 70’s teams wouldn’t stand much of a chance against this one imo.

I'd beg to differ. I watched those 70's teams. The game was very different back then and if played under their rules it would be interesting. Those teams were much more physical and the defenses were beastly. I'd rank at least two of the Bruce squads at the top of the list and this one would be in the top 5 for sure. I say that because some of the early Cyclone squads (the Dirty 30 for example) ought to be considered. Putting this year's team up in this category is quite an honor.

 

[FinalFourCy]

I'd beg to differ. I watched those 70's teams. The game was very different back then and if played under their rules it would be interesting. Those teams were much more physical and the defenses were beastly. I'd rank at least two of the Bruce squads at the top of the list and this one would be in the top 5 for sure. I say that because some of the early Cyclone squads (the Dirty 30 for example) ought to be considered. Putting this year's team up in this category is quite an honor.

The rules haven’t changed enough for the fact that those lines averaged 235 would be a huge problem.

 

[IASTATE07]

I'd beg to differ. I watched those 70's teams. The game was very different back then and if played under their rules it would be interesting. Those teams were much more physical and the defenses were beastly. I'd rank at least two of the Bruce squads at the top of the list and this one would be in the top 5 for sure. I say that because some of the early Cyclone squads (the Dirty 30 for example) ought to be considered. Putting this year's team up in this category is quite an honor.

For those of us that weren't around, how do the size of the players today compare to the players back then?

 

[CycloneErik]

My favorite season, and the best one I've seen.

 

[Spanky]

Robbed or not, a 5 loss season doesn't compare to what we fielded in the "old days" and how we were respected.

 

[acoustimac]

For those of us that weren't around, how do the size of the players today compare to the players back then?

To compare the teams you'd have to do it artificially. Yes, players were smaller, but experienced much more physical games as rules allowed much more contact and "techniques" that are illegal in today's game. It would sure be interesting to see one of the game systems come up with a way to have the teams face off.