T1B

Mace wrote:

King Crimson wrote:you do realize that NU was against "sharing" revenue when they were good.

No, I did not know that (although it wouldn't surprise me in the least), but what I do know is that they're going to get an equal share in the Big 10 and that they're good with that.

Truman wrote:

M Club wrote:if whom you root for qualifies you to speak then you should have never registered in the first place.

Idiot. A semblance of intelligence and a token ability to express our common language qualify us to speak. Indy’s last post displayed neither. And yours is in question:

To suggest that perennial division titles were served up as some kind of birthright with the inception of the XII...

is patently arrogant.

And to assert that the “real” players in this conference all reside in the South - with the inference being that aTm somehow belongs in this discussion - is downright condescending.

TheJON wrote:

Killian wrote:

TheJON wrote:My point is this......

Iowa proved we can play with any team in the country.

And they proved that they would probably lose to the good ones.

JON, you make these claims about Iowa, yet dismiss anyone else who brings up other teams who had similar situations. Off the top of my head, I can think of 4 or 5 Notre Dame teams that were very similar. mclub brought up Michigan in 2005, yet that’s not the same thing. I would wager that Michigan 2005 was closer to going to the MNC game than Iowa 2010, based on UofM’s play and record in 2006. If Iowa rips off an 11-1 season in 2011, maybe I’ll change my tune.

I didn't dismiss 2005 Michigan. I remember that team. They would have been better if not for injuries. But there are a lot of differences between 2005 Michigan and 2010 Iowa. Iowa did not win games they shouldn't have. Instead, they lost games they shouldn't have. The Penn State and Iowa games were games they needed the other team to completely screw up to win. Iowa had like 13 points in the 4th quarter and had about 6 possessions inside the Michigan 30. We fumbled snaps, we muffed a punt, dropped some easy passes, etc..... It was an epic meltdown by a mediocre team. And that was a fluke ending to the Penn State game. Plus, they needed OT to beat an average Michigan State team.

Their 1 good win was Penn State in a fluke. Iowa's 1 good win was a blowout of a Top 10 team. Michigan did not lead with a few minutes to play in their games.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that 2005 Michigan isn't a good comparison. It actually is. But that team got quite a few breaks and 2010 Iowa did not. The main comparison is both of those teams SHOULD have been better than their record indicated. Both teams greatly underachieved.

As for Notre Dame, I really can't recall one year of great comparisons. I know you've lost some tough games (ie last year) in certain years, but name me a year where you lost a bunch of close games but didn't also win a bunch of close games. You did have 6 close losses last year, but you had 4 games that you won that could have gone another way. The previous 3 years, the majority of your losses were by double digits. 2005 you had the heartbreaking MSU and USC losses, but then you got rolled in the bowl game and did end up 9-3 (much better than 7-5). 2004.....a few blowouts. 2003....ditto. 2002.....2 of the 3 losses were blowouts. 2001.....a couple blowouts. 2000......9-3 with a bowl blowout loss. 1999.....3 double digit losses. 1998.....2 double digit losses. I'm not going back further.

11 losses over a 3 year period by a combined 40 points is a tough pill to swallow and I think you would be hard pressed to find another team over the last 20 years or so that's had a string of 11 losses (regardless of the time period) where they lost by that few of points. 11 losses by LESS THAN 4 points a game..........damn man. Fucking brutal!!

M Club wrote:
hardly. mizzou, kansas, kansas state, iowa state, colorado? fucking gauntlet there.