Some thoughts after the Missouri debacle and the rough 0-3 start in league play:
enCYCLONEpedia: Blowout bitterness | Cyclone Fanatic
enCYCLONEpedia: Blowout bitterness | Cyclone Fanatic
enCYCLONEpedia: Blowout bitterness
- Thread starter khaal53
- Start date
These blowout games are why I have never looked back so fondly at the 2000 season. I believe the combined final score of those 3 losses was about 120 - 30. Each time we met a quality opponent, we came up woefully short. Don't get me wrong - I enjoyed the bowl win as much as anybody else but didn't feel like this season represented anything more than a weak schedule.
The three losses totaled 135-44. I wouldn't let it tarnish the season, it was a landmark year. I'd be more disappointed that the 2000 season has yet to be topped in the past 10 years.
I agree that blow outs will happen. My problem with this season is that we have three already, with Texas and Mizzou being pretty mediocre teams. We still have scoring machines coming up like OSU, OU, and A&M coming up. I don't want to be one of those guys, but realism would state that unless we get some major problems corrected the end of the 2011 blow outs isn't for a while.
No arguments there from me. I think Missouri is better than their record right now and I'm not sure about Texas. Still plenty of football to be played.
This thread got me thinking about our losses over my time as a fan and how prominent blowouts are in CFB.
There are blowouts every weekend, and inevitably they leave the team on the losing end wondering what happened and “Are we really that much worse than the other team?” I began to wonder just how common blowouts occur even when the two teams are supposedly among the elite in CFB. This led me to look at the history of BCS games and the outcomes of said games.
Since the inception of the BCS in 1992 there have been various number of games each year deemed BCS bowls.
Some years there were 3 games others as many as six games.
In the 19 years of “BCS” games the percentage of these games ending in blowout losses (20+ pts) ranges from 0-100%. The total # of games played is 82 and 29 of those games ended in a blowout, this is roughly 35% of the BCS games in the BCS era.
This can be interpreted many different ways. With AQ conference ties to BCS games the best teams are not always in BCS bowls however if you look through history even the “good-elite” teams sometimes get blownout when matched against a superior opponent or a team that they just don’t match up with.
I am not defending the losses that we have had the past three weeks, if you have seen my posts I am as frustrated as anyone. The frustration stems from the fact that I feel that we have the potential to compete to a certain extent with the three teams that we have played in the conference thus far, and also knowing that we have at least 3 other teams yet to play that are as good or better than the ones that we have been steamrolled by.
Just wanted to put into perspective the fact that even some of the best teams each year can run into the same issue that we are facing (blowouts) when faced with tough competition.
There are blowouts every weekend, and inevitably they leave the team on the losing end wondering what happened and “Are we really that much worse than the other team?” I began to wonder just how common blowouts occur even when the two teams are supposedly among the elite in CFB. This led me to look at the history of BCS games and the outcomes of said games.
Since the inception of the BCS in 1992 there have been various number of games each year deemed BCS bowls.
Some years there were 3 games others as many as six games.
In the 19 years of “BCS” games the percentage of these games ending in blowout losses (20+ pts) ranges from 0-100%. The total # of games played is 82 and 29 of those games ended in a blowout, this is roughly 35% of the BCS games in the BCS era.
This can be interpreted many different ways. With AQ conference ties to BCS games the best teams are not always in BCS bowls however if you look through history even the “good-elite” teams sometimes get blownout when matched against a superior opponent or a team that they just don’t match up with.
I am not defending the losses that we have had the past three weeks, if you have seen my posts I am as frustrated as anyone. The frustration stems from the fact that I feel that we have the potential to compete to a certain extent with the three teams that we have played in the conference thus far, and also knowing that we have at least 3 other teams yet to play that are as good or better than the ones that we have been steamrolled by.
Just wanted to put into perspective the fact that even some of the best teams each year can run into the same issue that we are facing (blowouts) when faced with tough competition.
So we have a chance to "blowout" our old record of 4 blowout losses with 6+ chances this season? OSU, OU, and A&M might just make that happen.
I figured out what the Missouri game reminds me of. In 2001 we were 5-2 and played a 3-4 Kansas State team at home. People forgot how good K-State was because they lost a few games to really good teams. They came to Ames and beat us like a drum 42-3. This Missouri team is better than that K-State team was, IMO.
Enjoyable to read your analysis, as always.
I don't think your article addressed it (although I may have missed it): In any of those seasons with 3 blowouts, did all of them come in three straight games?
(I could check archive scores myself but I'm in short for time today! :smile
As long as ISU is going to run the hurry up offense so miserably the chances to get blown out are going to be high. The Clones can be 3 and out in under a minute in the hurry up, giving the other team the ball extra possessions. Not saying that the hurry up is a bad scheme, it just is bad if you team can't get first downs. Of course playing a little defense might help too. Look at Iowa. They never get blown out. They take care of the ball, they use the time clock, they don't kill themselves with stupid very often, and they play pretty sound basic defense.
Minus the part where Iowa State doesn't use the hurry up offense.
No huddle =/= Hurry Up.
And look at Iowa? Why? The offense in the Big 10 doesn't even compare to the offense in the Big 12.
Enjoyable to read your analysis, as always.
I don't think your article addressed it (although I may have missed it): In any of those seasons with 3 blowouts, did all of them come in three straight games?
(I could check archive scores myself but I'm in short for time today! :smile
Thanks....and, doubtful.
I'll see if there's any easy way to find out if I have the time, though.
The really, really sad part of that commentary?
That in 52 years, you can only find 27 years when we were within one game of 500. I think there are only 15 or 16 years where we had winning records. Having been a Cyclone fan every one of those years, I think I may have to drink - more.
No the offense of the Big 10 are not as prolific, but look what Iowa did to MU in the bowl game last year. The played a fairly vanilla defense and offense and waited for MU to mess up. Of course Iowa does not have the defenders that it had last year, but in general, they find a way to keep the games close and short and hope to find a way to win in the end. The Hawks have probably not been blown out in 3 years, so whatever they are doing, it is working.
I would like to address a few things in response to this article.
2005, This team that we have today would be in a dogfight with that 2005 team IMO. Remember the Army game??? That team should have had a great record, won the weak North handily by beating at least Baylor and KU, that wasnt too much to ask at the time. In fact if this team had that schedule, confidence would have been high enough to beat anyone on it. The offense was good enough to keep the D off the field all day and the D was good enough to keep those teams close. ISU didnt play Oklahoma, Tech or Texas (who was a juggernaut and would have likely hung 60 on us in the North Title game).
The Big 12 with all of the spread offenses is better overall than it was when ISU was winning games, especially this year since we dont get a break except for KU. Things will get better the B12 will lose aTm, and possibly Mizzou, in the mean time CPR and staff will cont to try and build a winner. Hang in there guys and when you hit that line HIT IT HARD, Every yard for ISUuuuuuU!!!!!
2005, This team that we have today would be in a dogfight with that 2005 team IMO. Remember the Army game??? That team should have had a great record, won the weak North handily by beating at least Baylor and KU, that wasnt too much to ask at the time. In fact if this team had that schedule, confidence would have been high enough to beat anyone on it. The offense was good enough to keep the D off the field all day and the D was good enough to keep those teams close. ISU didnt play Oklahoma, Tech or Texas (who was a juggernaut and would have likely hung 60 on us in the North Title game).
The Big 12 with all of the spread offenses is better overall than it was when ISU was winning games, especially this year since we dont get a break except for KU. Things will get better the B12 will lose aTm, and possibly Mizzou, in the mean time CPR and staff will cont to try and build a winner. Hang in there guys and when you hit that line HIT IT HARD, Every yard for ISUuuuuuU!!!!!
The Hawks have trouble with their 1 true spread opponent and that is NW. They had a month to prepare for Mizzou and got cut to pieces defensively, save for a pick 6 which was a pretty good individual play.
That is true. But on the other side of that coin, Iowa's style also generally allows teams that they should blow out to hang around. It allows for upsets to happen easier. Iowa has lost plenty of games that they should not have lost by the style that they play.
So pick your poison.
