2011= ouch

[theshadow]

Yes because a win against a Nebraska or Iowa is always held in the same regard as a win against a North Dakota, while we also know that a 2009 6-6 ISU team that went to a bowl is considerably better than an 1976 8-3 ISU team that did not go to a bowl.

Where did anyone argue that the 2009 squad was better than the 1976 squad?

It's been well-documented that other schools have routinely used the patsy scheduling method to generate more wins, which led to bowl games (even minor bowl games), which led to more fan support and better recruits, which led to more donations, even more wins and better bowl games.

 

[theshadow]

Things are really going to get messy in Big 12 scheduling. If ISU gets rid of the @Utah game in 2011, that would mean they'd have to move another game to the beginning of the season (I could see UNI) or kick off the season against a Big 12 opponent.

Hey, why not? It'd be a much better TV draw to have a conference game right out of the gate than a game against a mid-major or I-AA team. Or, with no league championship game, the first weekend of December becomes a viable game date.

The SEC regularly starts conference play in Week 2, and sprinkles in non-conf games throughout the year. It seems to work for them.

 

[GoShow97]

Where did anyone argue that the 2009 squad was better than the 1976 squad?

It's been well-documented that other schools have routinely used the patsy scheduling method to generate more wins, which led to bowl games (even minor bowl games), which led to more fan support and better recruits, which led to more donations, even more wins and better bowl games.

Can you follow a simple response/reply. Do you have a problem following along.

No one stated the 2009 team was better than the 1976 team. The point is to illustrate - in this case real events - that just becasue a team goes to a bowl it does not indicate how good the team is relative to performance, thereby making the point that bowl games can be over-rated when used as a measurement of performance.

Not debating the correlation between patsy scheduling and wins. It's pretty much a given that on average the easier schedule you have the more wins you are likely to get. But to say that all wins are the same or that a win is a win is absurd. A win is not a win in college football. One only has to look at how the rankings are effected and how teams get upgraded or down graded based in part by the quality of win or how many touch downs they won by. A win is not a win under this context. All wins are not considered equal.

Can you follow along now.

 

[GoShow97]

Where did anyone argue that the 2009 squad was better than the 1976 squad?

It's been well-documented that other schools have routinely used the patsy scheduling method to generate more wins, which led to bowl games (even minor bowl games), which led to more fan support and better recruits, which led to more donations, even more wins and better bowl games.

One other point. Peeps regularly like to point to Kansas State to support their contention that their patsy scheduling is what enabled them to acheive the success that they did by increasing their win total. What they fail to mentionor ignore is that durring this same time period KSU was also beating the likes of Nebraska, Oklahoma and Colorado 9 (when CU was good). You can banter on and on how a patsy schedule is the answer to improving a football program but in reality it's a false premise. You still have to beat the big dogs to be successfull. Might as well play quality teams.

 

[CycloneErik]

I would think the round-robin schedule (Big Ten-style) is most likely. Nobody is going to want to give up non-conference games, and everyone can live rotating one team out every 9 years.

 

[LivntheCyLife]

If Colorado is leaving after 2010, they better inform the Big 12 fast. The penalty becomes stiffer as time goes on.

My guess is that CU wants to be asked to leave by the Big XII so that they don't have a potential penalty. I think CU leaving after 2011 works best for everybody involved, but nobody wants to be the one to breach the contract.

 

[mj4cy]

Come on, man. You don't read these boards enough. We should all want a daunting schedule so our team is tested against the best!! Wins and bowl games are overrated.

So you'd rather be the team with no guts that takes the easy road to get weak bowl games rather than go for the best?

 

[ISUAlum2002]

So you'd rather be the team with no guts that takes the easy road to get weak bowl games rather than go for the best?

I'd rather have a reasonable schedule while a new coach and coaching staff is still trying to get on solid footing, and allow the wins and bowl games to start building, and get some legitimacy while they're out on the recruiting trail before trying to hack through a murderer's row schedule.

 

[NWIAclone]

So you'd rather be the team with no guts that takes the easy road to get weak bowl games rather than go for the best?

Yes..... however,

a) our Big XII schedule flushes your "team with no guts" label down the crapper.

b) making a bowl game in the Big XII conference flushes your "easy road to a weak bowl game" notion down the crapper too

c) Texas/Oklahoma on the schedule every year and "go for the best" are the same thing

 

[icecreamclone34]

@Utah
Iowa
@Connecticut
Northern Iowa
Kansas State
@Texas Tech
Oklahoma
Texas
@Kansas
@Nebraska
Colorado
@Missouri

-losing 6 starters on offense including Arnaud, Robinson, Williams, Franklin, Lamaak, and Alvarez


Who will we be losing after next year at MLB. AJ Klein will be starting there against sreaf offense and will move to SAM in base With Matt T in middle at that time. They have years left .

-lose 5 starters on defense including Parker, Johnson, Sims, O’Connell and likely who ever steps in the middle LB spot.

Obviously there is always a revolving door, but especially the offense is going to lose a lot of talent after this year. The schedule make this years look easy. Only consolation is that we will get to play Baylor instead of Nebraska, but (according to the current schedule) we still play 8 teams in 2011 that won 8 or more games in 2009 and 5 of those are on the road. 10 of the 12 teams we play had a .500 or better record in 2009.

 

[theshadow]

No one stated the 2009 team was better than the 1976 team.

"while we also know that a 2009 6-6 ISU team that went to a bowl is considerably better than an 1976 8-3 ISU team that did not go to a bowl."

to say that all wins are the same or that a win is a win is absurd. A win is not a win in college football.

Ahhhh, so now win ≠ win. Some interesting math you have going on there.

Peeps regularly like to point to Kansas State to support their contention that their patsy scheduling is what enabled them to acheive the success that they did by increasing their win total. What they fail to mentionor ignore is that durring this same time period KSU was also beating the likes of Nebraska, Oklahoma and Colorado 9 (when CU was good).

Kansas State went from 0-1 wins to 6-7 wins by beating 3 or 4 slaps and scratching out a couple of conference wins. Once they got that foundation -- and the money, recruits and support that came with it -- THEN they started knocking off the big boys on occasion. They didn't beat Colorado until 1997 (Year 9 under Snyder), after four straight bowl seasons. Didn't beat Nebraska until 1998 (Year 10). They beat Oklahoma five years in a row (93-97), and in four of those years the Sooners were average or worse (9-3; 6-6; 5-5-1; 3-8; 4-8).

 

[ripvdub]

I really hope they are waiting til after this season to cancel the Utah game for next year.

 

[GoShow97]

"while we also know that a 2009 6-6 ISU team that went to a bowl is considerably better than an 1976 8-3 ISU team that did not go to a bowl."

GoShow97 : Really? Is it that hard for you to understand the use of sarcasm. No a 6-6 bowl team is not considerably better than a 8-3 non bowl team.
Of course An 8-3 team is better than a 6-6 team even if said 6-6 team went to a bowl. Which again leads to my point that a bowl game does not equal a quality team. Again, bowl games are over rated in this respect. Can you follow the pattern of simple respond/reply.

Ahhhh, so now win ≠ win. Some interesting math you have going on there

GoShow97 : It has nothing to do about math. Math? What does a win have to do anything about math? The point is - and it is repeated over and over again each and every weekend of BCS NCAA football polls - not all wins are the same. A win is not a win.
If a win is a win and all wins are the same please explain how teams can lose ranking position after an ugly win or with a win against a crappy team. Sure they all show up in the same column, but this is not the point.
Ask any Cyclone what they feel was ISU's biggest win in 2009. Overwhelmingly a majority will say Nebraska. Why is that if a win is a win ana all wins are equal.
Not to mention why they keep track of strength of schedule.

Kansas State went from 0-1 wins to 6-7 wins by beating 3 or 4 slaps and scratching out a couple of conference wins. Once they got that foundation -- and the money, recruits and support that came with it -- THEN they started knocking off the big boys on occasion. They didn't beat Colorado until 1997 (Year 9 under Snyder), after four straight bowl seasons. Didn't beat Nebraska until 1998 (Year 10). They beat Oklahoma five years in a row (93-97), and in four of those years the Sooners were average or worse (9-3; 6-6; 5-5-1; 3-8; 4-8).

GoShow97: In the end they still had to beat the big dogs. Playing slaps did nothing to obtain beating them. I would rather ISU lose to a quality opponent then to win against some sister of the poor schools. Sooner are later you need to beat the big dogs, might as well play them.

So back full circle and my first response in this thread.
1. Bowl games are over rated when used as an indicator of performance.
2.Not all wins are the same. Yes, it is true, some wins count more, some wins count less.

 

[heitclone]

The scary thing is that schedules this tough are going to be the norm once CU,Nebby cast off. I really hope we don't do what the Big 10 currently has done, the Pac 10 had the best formula for this, theres no reason to not play everyone.

 

[iowast8fan]

Kansas State went from 0-1 wins to 6-7 wins by beating 3 or 4 slaps and scratching out a couple of conference wins. Once they got that foundation -- and the money, recruits and support that came with it -- THEN they started knocking off the big boys on occasion. They didn't beat Colorado until 1997 (Year 9 under Snyder), after four straight bowl seasons. Didn't beat Nebraska until 1998 (Year 10). They beat Oklahoma five years in a row (93-97), and in four of those years the Sooners were average or worse (9-3; 6-6; 5-5-1; 3-8; 4-8).

I have to agree with this. Snyder schedules weak non-conference teams for a reason. He built a base of easy wins to get to minor bowls, then built upon those wins to get better bowls in later seasons. I think theshadow makes a valid point, and I've always felt the same way. Sure, you have to beat the big boys to get to the big bowl games, but we aren't there yet.

So, why risk a bowl game by playing strong non-conference teams. It's the current BCS formula that is flawed. A win over a crappy team is worth more points than a loss over a great team. For a mediocre team like ISU, crappy non-conf games gives us a chance to make a bowl game. For a better team, crappy non-conf games bumps them up to a better bowl game. It just makes sense with the current system for assigning bowls. Get the wins!

 

[supertone]

I hope this doesn't offend anyone but you guys should drop UNI. You guys probably won't be Big12 title contenders that year. The TV execs have asked for more non-con matchups. You guys would essentially be guaranteed 3 non-con games on TV to start the year which ups your share of revenue.

Worst case scenario: You lose all 3 but guarantee yourselves a nice chunk of the revenue sharing because of # of appearances. I think this would bring more $$$ to ISU than a bowl game appearance.

Best case scenario: You win a couple or all of those non-con games. Everyone in the country got to see them. You are now on the national radar and probably just got yourself on TV for every conference game (maybe not against Baylor). You guys get a ridiculous payday, bowl game, and national attention.

It is a gamble but the upside seems worth it, IMO.

 

[jaretac]

Welcome to the reality of college football. One thing that you fail to address is that other teams are faced with the exact same issues as ISU. Plus, things are not static. I'm not as concerned with losing starters as much as I am concerned with the developement of players in the program. Starters will always be leaving the program, this is a given. One hopes that player developemnt overcomes the loss. This is not a given. Alot can change in one season, so I would expect ISU coming out strong for 2011.

I understand what you are saying but there is a difference. Utah, Iowa, Missouri has some depth that ISU just doesn't have (thank you Chizik). Losing our best QB, RB, and WR in one year is a big blow to a already thin depth chart.

The only team I really see dropping off over the next few years is Missouri.

 

[RustShack]

I'm not worried about our RB depth at all. Maybe Rhoads likes his QB he recruited to take over and have 3 or 4(if he RS's) years of him. Also we will still have Johnson and Darks for another year.. plus we have a few other decent WR recruits. I'm not too worried.

 

[Incyte]

Drop Utah. We dont' need 11 games against BCS teams.

 

[RustShack]

What if we beat Utah this year? Will everyone still want to drop them next year?