T1B

You're right, it does fall flat. Then again, both Iowa and UofM have trophies from that year, and only LSU has the crystal football.

Mace wrote:So, Van, what about '02 when Iowa and OSU were both 8-0 in the conference. Do you now consider Iowa to be the legitimate co-champion since they didn't go head to head?

Yeah, he already back tracked on that one.

Killian wrote:You're right, it does fall flat. Then again, both Iowa and UofM have trophies from that year, and only LSU has the crystal football.

Yep, but they don't have the other half of the title, or the peace of mind that comes from knowing they were ranked #1 by both voting entities.

Pretty clever though, how ND fan is inexplicably trying to turn this into a dig against USC.

Mace, I already conceded that of course Iowa is technically co-champs in '02. They didn't have the opportunity to lose to Ohio St head to head that year. Being co-champs though means very little, not when the other co-champ ran the table and you didn't, and they went to the higher bowl game than you. The real champion was clearly delineated there, and it wasn't some bullshit contractually mandated garbage such as what the coaches were faced with in being forced to choose LSU over USC, against their publicly stated wishes.

In '04 you can call it co-champs all you want, and of course you get to keep your silly trophy and your little gold star in the record books, same as Cal no doubt cherishes their joke of a Pac 10 trophy for the '06 season. Doesn't matter. It's equally hollow in both instances. You know full well you weren't co-champs that year. You're just Juice Box League co-champs, where the technicality means everybody gets a trophy. The '02 one is semi-legit, but your trophy for '04 is nothing but a 'feel good' joke, and you know it is.

The Rose Bowl took Michigan, because of the obvious criteria: The head to head meeting, which was a clear tie-breaker. The Rose Bowl awards one of their bids to the Big 10 champ, whenever possible. That season, it was possible. They awarded it to Michigan, who were clearly the Big 10 champs. EOS.

No, its a dig on a stupid fucking argument. Iowa has two co-Big 10 championships. You arguing other wise is stupid.

Mace wrote:

Van wrote:

Killian wrote:You're right, it does fall flat. Then again, both Iowa and UofM have trophies from that year, and only LSU has the crystal football.

Yep, but they don't have the other half of the title, or the peace of mind that comes from knowing they were ranked #1 by both voting entities.

Pretty clever though, how ND fan is inexplicably trying to turn this into a dig against USC.

Which is no different than you turning this into a dig against Iowa. The Big 10 recognizes Iowa as co-champions in both '02 and '04 but, for whatever reason...trolling or otherwise....you don't. Doubtful that Ferentz is going to lose any sleep over it though.

Mace, this thread is specifically about Kirk Ferentz and Iowa. It was stated in this thread that Ferentz has 'won' two Big 10 titles.

Ergo, I didn't "turn this" into anything. I responded to the main thrust of the thread.

Killian, on the other hand, is trying to pull a Jsc. Rather than sticking to the topic he's simply going off on a transparent non sequitur. Despite the topic being about Iowa and this absurd notion of being co-champion in a two-way tie despite losing the head to head meeting, he's trying to take a poorly disguised and even more poorly executed and completely non-analogous dig at USC, with lame "crystall football" smack.

Should I just post a link to the Big 10 website that lists Iowa as a co-Big 10 champion? Based on all of the criteria the Big 10 set forth, Iowa was a league champion. The bowl selection process is completely seperate from crowning the champion of the league.

Killian wrote:No, its a dig on a stupid fucking argument. Iowa has two co-Big 10 championships. You arguing other wise is stupid.

Yeah, and Cal has a Pac 10 title too.

Funny, how I don't hear you championing their cause. Funny, and telling.

What a pathetic thing, having to boast about bullshit technicality clauses as if they're real championships.

At best, Ferentz has one Big-10 co-championship, and even that one is a bit shaky. He doesn't have two legitimate co-championships, since the one for '04 is a complete joke, and he's never truly won the Big 10.

I don't give a rat fuck what the Feel Good-ers of the Big 10 Rules Committee say. Juice Box league technicalities are nothing upon which grown men ought to proudly hang their hats. Iowa being '04 co-champs is every bit as pathetic a claim as Cal being '06 co-champs...little gold stars in the official record books be damned.

Cal has a co-championship, too. That wasn't the main point you brought up, seeing as how Kirk Ferentz does not coach Cal. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. Until a league has a championship game, co-champions can exist, based on their own rules. Just like with the national championship. Until a playoff is established, the possibility of a co-champion exists. You stomping your feet and crying that it's not fair isn't going to change anything.

I'm not saying it's not fair, and I'm not expecting anything to change either. I'm simply stating the obvious: Co-champions don't truly exist in the cases of two-way ties where the teams played head to head, not unless that head to head meeting also ended in a tie.

I don't give a fuck what the league rule says. We all know who the champion is there, and who the second place finisher is there. The trophy and the little note in the league record book are completely hollow and meaningless. Nobody at Cal in '06 or Iowa in '04 felt like they'd won their league those years, while fans of USC and Michigan certainly did, as they watched their teams playing in the bowl game which is committed to their league's champions.

The rest is just 'feel good' pablum.

Well I'm glad Notre Dame can start claiming the 1993 national championship. After all, they did beat FSU head-to-head. And I bet those Iowa and Cal players "feel" like they won a league championship when they wear their league championship ring. Or why don't we flip the script and say that it's "just 'feel good' pablum" to award USC and Michigan co-league title that year, seeing as how they lost to an inferior team compared to the other league champ.

Obviously, you do.

Besides, you seem to be under some weird, mistaken impression that I'm speaking in terms of the official record books, as if I'm lobbying to have Iowa's co-championships expunged from the records.

I'm not. Iowa and the Big 10 - and the Pac 10 - can claim that nonsense all they want. It's all perfectly hopey and changey, and everyone gets pie.

Fine by me. I don't give a rat's ass what it says in the official record books, not when the rules are set up to give everyone cute gold stars.

My point is that Ferentz has never truly won the Big 10, and he only has one semi-legit co-championship. All the rest is just orange slices at halftime.

You remain a river in Egypt. EOS.

Link me up to where I ever said Iowa doesn't have their two trophies, and their little gold stars in the Big 10 record books.

That has never been my contention, and you know it.

Since you're intentionally playing stupid here, Mace, let me break it down for you, nice and simple...

-Iowa officially has two co-championships under Ferentz. Nobody can take them away.

-Iowa gets to keep both trophies but they only deserve one of the two, and they were the lesser team during the year they won their only semi-legit one.

-If the Big 10 used any logic at all and weren't so concerned with making everybody feel special about themselves Iowa would only have one co-championship.

-Yes, I will unequivocally state that USC beats Stanford if USC's O-Lineman, all their CBs and JDB don't get hurt during that game.

You gotta give props for one thing.

Van trying to convince people that two things that DID happen didn't (Iowa's co-champs) and one thing that didn't happen would've under different circumstances (Stanford loses)...all in one post.

:golf clap:

Mace wrote:

Van wrote:Since you're intentionally playing stupid here, Mace, let me break it down for you, nice and simple...

Like Ferentz, I guess, I'm just playing to the level of competition.

IKYABWAI, from Iowa fan?



What, did you move to K.C.?

-Iowa officially has two co-championships under Ferentz. Nobody can take them away.

Exactly, Van, that's what folks have been trying to get through your thick fucking skull. Thankfully, you now seem to get it.

Never said otherwise, Mace. I never claimed they weren't in possession of the trophies and the little gold stars in the official Big 10 record book.

That has never been my point, no matter how much you try to make it so.

-Iowa gets to keep both trophies but they only deserve one of the two, and they were the lesser team during the year they won their only semi-legit one.

Oh....maybe you don't get it afterall. You claim that Iowa was the lesser team even though they didn't fact OSU that season. Hmmm. Interesting. You're entitled to an opinion.....even if you have nothing to support it.

Nothing to support it?? What about that other trophy Ohio St has in their trophy case from that same year? You know, the one they got for having a perfect season and winning the MNC?

Iowa lost multiple games that season, and they got thoroughly raped in their bowl game. Ohio St was perfect, and they beat one of the most highly regarded teams of all time in their bowl game.

But no, there's nothing to support the notion that Ohio St was better than Iowa that season. Nothing at all. Such an opinion is baseless and completely arbitrary.

Jesus, Mace, you have got to be fucking kidding me. Being a loyal fan is one thing. Being a stupid homer is another. You've never been a stupid homer. Don't start now.

Go ahead, you can safely admit that Ohio St was better than Iowa that season. You'll be perfectly okay, if you do. Nothing bad will happen. Nobody will come and confiscate Iowa's little trophy, and their little gold star in the Big 10 record book will still remain intact.

The fact that OSU won the national title that year doesn't mean shit. Had they played and lost to Iowa, they would not have even been in the title game....since we're playing what ifs.

Yeah, except for the fact that we KNOW OSU ran the table that season, and Iowa didn't. We also know Iowa got rolled in their one truly tough game that season, whereas OSU found a way to win theirs.

Ohio St was ranked higher. They had a better record. They finished with the same conference record. They won a national title.

Iowa was just...Iowa. They lost at home that season to Iowa freaking St!

Yeah, it's safe to say that OSU was better than Iowa that season.

-If the Big 10 used any logic at all and weren't so concerned with making everybody feel special about themselves Iowa would only have one co-championship.

By your own admission, the Big 10 is not the only conference to have co-champions and, in reality, it has nothing to do with "feeling special" but, in reality, it has everything to do with the won-loss record. If Michigan had gone 8-0, they would have won the league outright and there would not have been co-champions.

Pure spin.

The point is that those conferences which do that do so only for the purpose of awarding as many 'feel good' championships as possible. They consider it a good thing for Cal and Iowa to also be able to claim "conference champion" status, despite very clear evidence to the contrary.

The more the merrier, is their feeling.

Clearly they're avoiding crowning a single champion, by design. Any common sense at all says that the head to head result is the first tie-breaker in a two-way tie. That is, assuming the goal is to determine a real champion, which clearly isn't the case in those leagues such as the Big 10 and Pac 10, where the goal is to give as many teams as possible a wonderful little pat on the back.

Put it this way: If there were a playoffs, and it was set up in such a way that only one team per conference could be invited - meaning, the stakes dictated that a winner of the conference had to be determined - then Iowa would have zero championships. They clearly would've finished second to Michigan in '04, and based on overall record or the higher ranking as the second tie-breaker they would've finished second to OSU in '02.

The Pac 10 and Big 10 can afford not to do such a thing. They can afford to treat their championship like little league soccer, awarding everyone possible a trophy. Because they can, and for no other reason, Iowa can 'boast' two Big 10 co-championships.

-Yes, I will unequivocally state that USC beats Stanford if USC's O-Lineman, all their CBs and JDB don't get hurt during that game.

Yes, I know that's your claim but, again, it's only your opinion.....

:handjob:

and let's not forget the coaching blunders excuse too.

...which were the result of those very injuries.

Remove the injuries, and the coaching decisions and subsequent mistakes by the coach don't occur.

USC had there opportunity but lost it on the field, and all of your m2 excuses won't change that fact. It's fine for you to believe they would have won....and they probably WOULD HAVE won.....but they LOST. Same goes for your opinions about Iowa's Big Ten co-championships. They've got them whether you think it's right, or not.

Is anybody disputing that?

I'm not.

Doesn't really matter what you think....and really, why the hell would you care anyway? I don't recall Michigan or Ohio State fan whining about either of those championships being shared, do you? Personally, I think the Iowa-OSU game in '02 would have been a classic Big Ten battle that we were robbed of seeing due to the Big Ten's scheduling bullshit. I could make a much more legitimate case for Iowa beating OSU in '02, simply based on the comparative scores with common conference opponents but, like your argument, it would just be bullshit opinion. EOS.

You can't keep saying "EOS," only to continue with the story.



Hey, I wish Iowa would've played OSU that year, and I wish they would've beaten OSU too. I doubt that's what would've happened, since OSU always found ways to win that season, but it's what I would've rooted for.

That's neither here nor there. The fact is, OSU went 12-0, then they won their bowl game. Iowa went 11-1, then they got destroyed in their bowl game.

Those are facts. It's also a fact that Ohio St would've won any normal tie-breaker used to determine a conference champion, if only the Big 10 would've had any in place.

Okay, so we're all happy now. Cool.

I still wanna know why PSU is rooting for Iowa this week, when it would seem he needs Iowa to lose two games somewhere if Penn St is to win the conference.

Okay, they need to lose at least one game.

Mace, is there really such a thing as a tigerhawk?

Also, here's a hypothetical question...

Let's say Iowa loses somewhere late in the season, and they lose big, looking truly ugly in the process.

Meanwhile, PSU runs the table from here on out.

Both teams end up 7-1 and 11-1. Iowa owns the head to head, but PSU ends up with the higher ranking. Everybody else in the conference has at least two conference losses.

Who goes to the Rose Bowl then?

Next...

PSU beats OSU, and runs the table.

OSU beats Iowa, and otherwise runs the table.

Iowa loses no other games, except that OSU game.

They all end up 7-1 in conference, in a three-way tie, all having beat each other.

Who goes to the Rose Bowl then? Are they still doing the "longest Rose Bowl" drought deal in the case of a three-way tie, or do they have some other method now?

Mace, is there really such a thing as a tigerhawk?

Also, here's a hypothetical question...

Let's say Iowa loses somewhere late in the season, and they lose big, looking truly ugly in the process.

Meanwhile, PSU runs the table from here on out.

Both teams end up 7-1 and 11-1. Iowa owns the head to head, but PSU ends up with the higher ranking. Everybody else in the conference has at least two conference losses.

Who goes to the Rose Bowl then?

If Iowa and PSU end up 7-1 in conference Iowa should go to the Rose Bowl because of head-to-head and Iowa will be ranked higher in the BCS. Plus, we have a quality OOC win.

They will be Co-Champs and I would have no problem with it.

Next...

PSU beats OSU, and runs the table.

OSU beats Iowa, and otherwise runs the table.

Iowa loses no other games, except that OSU game.

They all end up 7-1 in conference, in a three-way tie, all having beat each other.

Who goes to the Rose Bowl then? Are they still doing the "longest Rose Bowl" drought deal in the case of a three-way tie, or do they have some other method now?

I think Iowa would go to the Rose Bowl because tOSU would be eliminated due to overall record most likely. This is kinda tough. It would probably come down to Iowa and tOSU, with Iowa most likely getting a slight edge. It would all depend on BCS ranking. PSU would be ranked behind Iowa and tOSU, so the question would be who would be ranked higher- Iowa or tOSU?

Doesn't actually matter, Iowa is going to lose 2 games so this is pointless.

TheJON wrote:

Mace, is there really such a thing as a tigerhawk?

Also, here's a hypothetical question...

Let's say Iowa loses somewhere late in the season, and they lose big, looking truly ugly in the process.

Meanwhile, PSU runs the table from here on out.

Both teams end up 7-1 and 11-1. Iowa owns the head to head, but PSU ends up with the higher ranking. Everybody else in the conference has at least two conference losses.

Who goes to the Rose Bowl then?

If Iowa and PSU end up 7-1 in conference Iowa should go to the Rose Bowl because of head-to-head and Iowa will be ranked higher in the BCS. Plus, we have a quality OOC win.

They will be Co-Champs and I would have no problem with it.

In the hypothetical I posed PSU was the higher ranked team, due to a late season, horrible loss by Iowa. That's why I specified it that way. Iowa owns the head to head, but PSU is ranked higher.

What then?

TheJON wrote:

Next...

PSU beats OSU, and runs the table.

OSU beats Iowa, and otherwise runs the table.

Iowa loses no other games, except that OSU game.

They all end up 7-1 in conference, in a three-way tie, all having beat each other.

Who goes to the Rose Bowl then? Are they still doing the "longest Rose Bowl" drought deal in the case of a three-way tie, or do they have some other method now?

I think Iowa would go to the Rose Bowl because tOSU would be eliminated due to overall record most likely. This is kinda tough. It would probably come down to Iowa and tOSU, with Iowa most likely getting a slight edge. It would all depend on BCS ranking. PSU would be ranked behind Iowa and tOSU, so the question would be who would be ranked higher- Iowa or tOSU?

Doesn't actually matter, Iowa is going to lose 2 games so this is pointless.

PSU would own a late season win over OSU, head to head, and they'd be 11-1 while OSU would be 10-2. In that hypothetical PSU would absolutely be ranked above OSU.

I'm pretty certain that if there's a 3-way tie it all comes down to BCS ranking. And if it's a 2-way tie, isn't it heads-to-head that determines who goes to the Rose Bowl?

Mace wrote:

TheJON wrote:I'm pretty certain that if there's a 3-way tie it all comes down to BCS ranking. And if it's a 2-way tie, isn't it heads-to-head that determines who goes to the Rose Bowl?

I think it's left to the Rose Bowl committee to decide.....and my guess would be that they would select the higher ranked team.

In either instance...a two-way or a three-way tie, you think it'd just come down to the higher ranked team? In the two-way tie situation you think the higher ranking would trump the head to head result?

I would imagine then that PSU would be the choice, if it'll strictly be about the most attractive team to the Rose Bowl committee.

OSU and Iowa would both have late season losses, OSU would have two losses overall - plus a loss already to USC this season - and PSU would be the highest ranked team of the three. Then there's the JoePa Factor.

I'm sure all three teams 'travel' equally well, so that wouldn't really be much of a factor.

If it came down to a two-way tie between Iowa and PSU, and they were ranked fairly evenly, I'd guess they'd go with Iowa. PSU was just there last year, and they could easily justify Iowa with the head to head result.

I was just wondering if there's actually a bird called a tigerhawk.

The Tigerhawk is actually just our name for the logo. If you're really observant, you can stand that puppy straight up and it looks like Fred Flintstone!

Hawkeye = character in James Fenimore Cooper's "Last of the Mohicans"

I'm pretty certain Hayden's homies actually invented the "Tigerhawk" logo. I don't think it really mattered what they wore on the helmets before Hayden came because they were going to get their ass kicked regardless. Got relatives that went to Iowa in the 1970's that have told me they would see Iowa come onto the field and then once the opponent came onto the field they'd take a look at them and go "oh shit, time to drink!". Fortunately I was not alive for those days.

Van wrote:Iowa owns the head to head, but PSU is ranked higher.

What then?

Ask TexasFan.

IndyFrisco wrote:

Van wrote:Iowa owns the head to head, but PSU is ranked higher.

What then?

Ask TexasFan.

Or Taco Tech fan.

Funny how everyone only mentioned OU and Tejas last year but completely forgot to mention Taco Tech was also a 1 loss team.

That's because Taco got destroyed in their loss, while their win against Texas came at home in the middle of a really tough stretch for Texas. Texas and OU's losses were reasonable losses. Taco's was an outting.

Van wrote:That's because Taco got destroyed in their loss, while their win against Texas came at home in the middle of a really tough stretch for Texas.

Poor Texas. Why must those "elite" teams be treated so unfairly?

It's simply a matter of measuring each loss. By far, Taco's loss was the most damaging. They were completely destroyed. OU's loss came on a neutral field, in a relatively close game. The Texas loss occured on the road, and it was a nail-biter.

Screw_Michigan wrote:Is Iowa still suing high schools for using their logo?

weird, since Iowa purposely modeled their unis after the Steelers.

I think they purposely modeled their pink visiting locker rooom after JON's bedroom.

PSUFAN wrote:I think they purposely modeled their pink visiting locker rooom after JON's bedroom.

see, that's the thing. i remember seeing "features" on the national network games on that just like i saw the one about Iowa trying to install a winning attitude by copying the Steelers unis. I remember seeing the pink lockerroom thing.

and seeing, in conference, Kansas do the same thing with the NY Giants. which they would go away from and return to....probably 3 or 4 times. most recently, maybe 3 years ago?

PSUFAN wrote:I think they purposely modeled their pink visiting locker rooom after JON's bedroom.

j

ha ha!!! rack it!