T1B

Haven't heard much talk about it this year...

Who's the Cam Newton in this mofo this year??

Toejam wised up and quit posting as much lately.

That pretty much concedes it to jonsense.

pretty much agree with Indy. though, NOJ has uncorked a few, esp his "I am not a Big Ten homer" post from a while back.

I would have gone with Neb fan and the Beebe conspiracy, but Noj tickled my funny bone with his five plays from playing for a MNC.

Noj by a nose.

FLW Buckeye wrote:I would have gone with Neb fan and the Beebe conspiracy, but Noj tickled my funny bone with his five plays from playing for a MNC.

Noj by a nose.

there's also the "Iowa outscored Wiscy, tOSU, and MSU" take, based entirely on the lop-sided score of the MSU game. an utterly meaningless, one-sided comparison that he posted more than once.

i guess almost losing to Indiana or actually losing to Minny (two teams that fired their coaches)...and NW....don't factor in except as "choking". maybe scoring less than 20 points in 3 of their last 4 had something to do with it.

MTool did enough last year to win this year.

NOJ.

If he hadn't gone with the "Iowa was 5 plays away from the national championship" line, so often and so fruitlessly, I might have given it either to Schmick or to Huskers Fan.

I didn't consider Toejam due to the bitterness that even the most unbiased of us would have if the USC shitstorm hit their school...

there's also the "Iowa outscored Wiscy, tOSU, and MSU" take, based entirely on the lop-sided score of the MSU game. an utterly meaningless, one-sided comparison that he posted more than once.

My point is this......

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

Would you disagree? If so, what evidence do you have to suggest they cannot?

Look, I get that 5 losses is still 5 losses. Lose by 50 in all 5 games or by 1......it doesn't matter. You still end up in the same shit bowl game. My point is that this team is as good of a 7-5 team as you will ever find and was so god damn close to being a great football team. What's wrong with that? You're criticizing me for making factual statements. We lost a few coinflips. You guys are just criticizing to criticize. I've said nothing at all ridiculous. Everything I've said is dead on, but you think it's silly. We lost 5 games by a total of 18 points and had a lead in all 5 games with less than 3 minutes to play (except 1 because of a missed PAT).

Just goes to show you how sometimes when the ball doesn't bounce your way you look like a mediocre team but if you get those lucky bounces, people think you're a great team. Seriously, Iowa could have done absolutely nothing different and gotten a couple of lucky bounces (say a couple fumbles or bad throws in big spots) and instead of being thought of as a crappy team, they're calling us one of the best teams in the country. It's true.

I'm telling you, this team could beat anyone. That's not me being a homer, that's based on PROOF we saw on the field. While you laugh at my stat about outscoring Top 10 opponents based on 1 blowout, what you don't realize is we lost in the last couple of minutes to 2 other Top 10 teams by a combined 4 points. The slimmest of margins. We just could not finish games out. The difference between 7-5 and 12-0 is almost never THIS close.

You disagree that a few breaks and Iowa is in the BCS? While I would agree with you that it doesn't matter, is there something untrue about that?????

Carson wrote:Toejam wised up and quit posting as much lately.

That pretty much concedes it to jonsense.

Maybe. But since I'm not you, I have scoreboard regardless.

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.

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!!

Yes, I will agree that Iowa proved they could play with any of the good teams on their schedule, but Minnesota proved Iowa could also lose to a very bad team, and Indiana proved they were one play away from making Iowa a 6-6 team.
Btw, the Cubs were only 200 plays away from winning the World Series.

Mace wrote:Yes, I will agree that Iowa proved they could play with any of the good teams on their schedule, but Minnesota proved Iowa could also lose to a very bad team, and Indiana proved they were one play away from making Iowa a 6-6 team.
Btw, the Cubs were only 200 plays away from winning the World Series.

I'm not a math major and I don't play one on TV, but I'm fairly certain there's quite a bit of difference between 5 and 200.

Yep, the Indiana and Minnesota games just go to show how heartless this football team was. It's actually quite said. Our 2002-2004 football teams that won 31 games would have given their left testicles to have half the talent of our 2010 squad. If the 2010 team was motivated, they would have beaten any of those teams by 20. The 2003 squad- they could have won 56-0 and I'm not kidding. One of my best friends was a starter on those teams and he says the talent gap between the 2010 team and his teams isn't even close, but they had guys like Matt Roth and Bob Sanders that absolutely refused to allow them to lose. You didn't slack off with Roth and Sanders on the team. They would fuck you up. We didn't have anyone that would do that this year. Maybe somebody should have pretended to be a cabbie on the coaching staff and call Clayborn the n-word. That's the only time he's shown any fight since the Orange Bowl.....

This team gave no effort. That's not my take- that's straight from Adrian Clayborn after the Wisconsin game. He said guys don't practice hard and their play showed up on the field. Then, after the Minnesota game- "we lost our will to win". How do you lose your will to win? That's just stupid. Just goes to show what a heartless bunch this was. They couldn't even play for pride? Of course not........they have none.

At Large has my vote. Total Bitch.

IndyFrisco wrote:

i'd thought the big xii ccg locked up the award for husker fan, but then john dropped the same johnsense in a thread discussing whether his johnsense was enough to earn him the title. there's something meta going on here that i just can't wrap my head around.

TheJON wrote:Just goes to show you how sometimes when the ball doesn't bounce your way you look like a mediocre team but if you get those lucky bounces, people think you're a great team.

You shouldn't need the ball to bounce your way to beat Minnesota. That game should be over by halftime. You could say you were 5 plays away from undefeated, and the teams who beat you could say they were x amount of plays away from beating you by a larger margin. Indiana can say they were a dropped pass from making you 6-6. This game is endless. Only Iowa has bad breaks and missed opportunities. Every other team brings their A game and plays to perfection.

And I don't care if you lost to Minny because your guys had bruised vaginas. Mental toughness is one of the characteristics of a good football team.



.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:This game is endless.

no doubt. imagine exporting the same jonsense to baseball with all the countless games that come down to giving up a big hit with two outs or failing to get one yourself. if KC ever finishes within four games of the division lead jon will no doubt be littering message boards with claims the royals were only five pitches from the playoffs.

and yes, while iowa was technically five plays from undefeated, everyone who beat them was one play from blowing the game open. the only reasonable claim you can make about iowa is that they were good enough to keep games close enough that had a break gone they're way they could have won. the tone of your argument is that they should have been undefeated, but losing to minnesota and nearly losing to indiana suggests that things shook out the way they should have.

everyone who beat them was one play from blowing the game open.

Ummm......no, dude. No they weren't. Only Arizona was. You couldn't be further from the truth.

Fine, Iowa was terrible and would lose by 87 to ANY team that had a 5-7 record or better, and they proved that with their pathetic performances against Wisconsin, Michigan State, and Ohio State. Losing by a combined 4 points to 2 Top 10 teams is unacceptable. I would suggest the Big-10 gets rid of Iowa because they proved they just can't compete with these teams.

imagine exporting the same jonsense to baseball with all the countless games that come down to giving up a big hit with two outs or failing to get one yourself. if KC ever finishes within four games of the division lead jon will no doubt be littering message boards with claims the royals were only five pitches from the playoffs

No way. If the Royals come within 4 games of the playoffs I will bust open a bottle of MD 20/20 (kidding) and go absolutely fucking nuts. Hell, I might party like it's 1985 if we just finish .500.

TheJON wrote: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.

How about this year? We were literally 3 plays away from a 10-2 season.

As far as the close calls we won, there was, basically, USC -- and that's about it. Yeah, we did beat Pitt by only 6, but they had a late score to pull within a single score. They never threatened on their last drive, in fact, IIRC, they never advanced the ball past their own 30. I remember thinking that even after they turned the ball over on downs, maybe Kelly should've sent the FG unit onto the field just to put the game out of reach. I'm never comfortable with a single-score lead for ND, I've seen us blow far too many of them in recent years.

10-2 is not 12-0. You're right, ND could have done better than their record and they improved a ton at the end of the season. They showed mental toughness by not just laying down and quitting on the season.

10-2 is not 12-0, but most years 10-2 is good enough to get us a BCS at-large bid, particularly with a strong finish. This year might have been the exception to the rule, though, in that: (a) there were a lot of 1-loss teams, so 10-2 might not have gotten us a Top 8 finish; and (b) this was an unusually strong year for at-large bids -- no one got an at-large bid with lower than a #8 finish, and the lowest-ranked team to get an at-large bid was replacing the SEC champ in the Sugar Bowl.

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

You should have stopped there.

IfOnlyWeWonWeWould'tHaveLost

IOWWWWHL

Screw deserves an invite. Like always, he'll get his ass kicked by someone else.

IndyFrisco wrote:IfOnlyWeWonWeWould'tHaveLost

IOWWWWHL

I liked you a lot better back in the day when you would respond to my posts with pictures of Ryan Hansen or that chick sucking Ronald McDonald off.

It's been like 7 years since you have done that, and I'm not gonna lie..........I kinda miss it. Once you became IndyFrisco instead of FriscoAggie, you became a different person. Have you become too good for Photoshop now that you live in Indiana???

TheJON wrote:

IndyFrisco wrote:IfOnlyWeWonWeWould'tHaveLost

IOWWWWHL

I liked you a lot better back in the day when you would respond to my posts with pictures of Ryan Hansen

Shocking.

TheJON wrote:

IndyFrisco wrote:IfOnlyWeWonWeWould'tHaveLost

IOWWWWHL

I liked you a lot better back in the day when you would respond to my posts with pictures of Ryan Hansen or that chick sucking Ronald McDonald off.

It's been like 7 years since you have done that, and I'm not gonna lie..........I kinda miss it. Once you became IndyFrisco instead of FriscoAggie, you became a different person. Have you become too good for Photoshop now that you live in Indiana???

I like you a lot better when you don't like me.

Honestly, I don't photoshop (actually, I always used paint shop pro) at all right now because my version of Windows is not compatible with my PSP software, and I haven't dropped the $150 on a new suite of software. Add that to my workload at home and on the job, and I just don't have the time. However, I'm planning on purchasing the software soon with the birth of my 3rd kid last week (to Dr. up pictures) so I'll be back to kicking your ass with my crayons rather than my keyboard posthaste.

Thanks. 5 days old and she's more mature than jonboy.

TheJON wrote:Have you ever considered either doing some research or realize when I'm obviously just running smack??

then...

TheJON wrote:Without looking, I'm pretty confident no one could beat that.

I've never seen anyone pull comments (notice I didn't say facts) out of their ass quite like jonboy. Just scan through damn near any sports-related blabber of his, and you'll find a laundry list of bullshit stats he just pulls out of thin air to which he usually qualifies with an "I'm pretty sure that..." or a "I'd be willing to bet that..." or something else along those lines.

-

IndyFrisco wrote:I've never seen anyone pull comments (notice I didn't say facts) out of their ass quite like jonboy. Just scan through damn near any sports-related blabber of his, and you'll find a laundry list of bullshit stats he just pulls out of thin air to which he usually qualifies with an "I'm pretty sure that..." or a "I'd be willing to bet that..." or something else along those lines.

JON's entire M.O. is to argue based on hypotheticals and homer-laced opinions he perceives as facts. Of course the best is when he wants you to "prove him wrong" as to why a 7-5 football team wouldn't beat every team it actually lost to at least 7 times out of 10. When your argument is based on a fantasy, I suppose you're never *technically* wrong. What actually happened on the football field is always trumped by what if, what could've, or what should've. Teams are always 3 or 4 games better or worse than their record actually indicates.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Of course the best is when he wants you to "prove him wrong"

Yeah, my current favorite is "Show me one one other team who lost 11 games by a total of 40 points" rather than researching his damn self.

Well, shit, I figured I'd go ahead and do it for him. I knew U$C had a stretch where the games they lost were by just a few points on average. The telling thing is this...it happened over a MUCH longer period of time.

(#,#) = (game point differential, rolling point differential)

2009
Washington 16 - U$C 13 (3,3)
2008
Oregon St. 27 - U$C 21 (6, 9)
2007
Oregon 24 - U$C 17 (7,16)
Stanford 24 - U$C 23 (1,17)
2006
UCLA 13 - U$C 9 (4,21)
Oregon St. 33 - U$C 31 (2,23)
2005
Texas 41 - U$C 38 (3,26)
2003
Cal 34 - U$C 31 (3,29)
2002
Washington St. 30 - U$C 27 (3,32)
Kansas St. 27 - U$C 20 (7,39)
2001
Utah 10 - U$C 6 (4,43)

So, jonboy, you said name ONE instance where a team has lost that many games in the last 20 years by 40 points. U$C lost 11 games by a total of 43 points per game (3.91/game) and Iowa lost 11 games by a total of 40 points (3.63/game). Of course, they did it over 8 years and not 3. Oh, and I guess 43 is so much greater than 40. Must mean Iowa has had a much better program than U$C since 2001 save for 11 plays or so that were the difference in the games.

Now fuck off for making me puke in my mouth for using U$C to shit on your shitty Iowa take.

IndyFrisco wrote:

TheJON wrote:Have you ever considered either doing some research or realize when I'm obviously just running smack??

then...

TheJON wrote:Without looking, I'm pretty confident no one could beat that.

I've never seen anyone pull comments (notice I didn't say facts) out of their ass quite like jonboy. Just scan through damn near any sports-related blabber of his, and you'll find a laundry list of bullshit stats he just pulls out of thin air to which he usually qualifies with an "I'm pretty sure that..." or a "I'd be willing to bet that..." or something else along those lines.

-

You can make anything seem different than it really is if you take quotes out of context. Nicely done.

It's amazing how literally you guys take everything I say.

IndyFrisco wrote:Yeah, my current favorite is "Show me one one other team who lost 11 games by a total of 40 points" rather than researching his damn self.

Or just the idea that I'm supposed to have a cache of facts at my disposal to prove a hypothetical scenario dead wrong.

IndyFrisco wrote:Well, shit, I figured I'd go ahead and do it for him. I knew U$C had a stretch where the games they lost were by just a few points on average. The telling thing is this...it happened over a MUCH longer period of time.

(#,#) = (game point differential, rolling point differential)

2009
Washington 16 - U$C 13 (3,3)
2008
Oregon St. 27 - U$C 21 (6, 9)
2007
Oregon 24 - U$C 17 (7,16)
Stanford 24 - U$C 23 (1,17)
2006
UCLA 13 - U$C 9 (4,21)
Oregon St. 33 - U$C 31 (2,23)
2005
Texas 41 - U$C 38 (3,26)
2003
Cal 34 - U$C 31 (3,29)
2002
Washington St. 30 - U$C 27 (3,32)
Kansas St. 27 - U$C 20 (7,39)
2001
Utah 10 - U$C 6 (4,43)

So, jonboy, you said name ONE instance where a team has lost that many games in the last 20 years by 40 points. U$C lost 11 games by a total of 43 points per game (3.91/game) and Iowa lost 11 games by a total of 40 points (3.63/game). Of course, they did it over 8 years and not 3. Oh, and I guess 43 is so much greater than 40. Must mean Iowa has had a much better program than U$C since 2001 save for 11 plays or so that were the difference in the games.

Now fuck off for making me puke in my mouth for using U$C to shit on your shitty Iowa take.

Ya know, I'm actually not surprised by who the team is that came close to matching Iowa's 11 losses by 40 combined points.

Why? Because Petey is an NFL coach. While obviously USC has a better, more successful program than Iowa- you can see some similarities between Ferentz and Carroll- they both really were not that great in close games, both have NFL mentalities, and both had at least 1 game every year where they laid an egg against a much inferior opponent. Ferentz has lost more games against inferior teams, but that's due to not having as much talent as Pete.

I was actually thinking USC would be a likely comparison with this stat. Still, it's 1 team. I bet there aren't any others. I've looked a bit through a college football historical results site and couldn't find any. Granted, I spent 10-15 minutes doing so but I got through quite a few teams.

Oh, and gee........I'm sorry I don't put in enough research to get every single stat on a god damn message board exactly correct. Sue me.

Urban Meyer stealing the crown this year

Melting after the beat down last year versus Alabama, Crawling back and scamming recruits, calling out cam for cheating while in gainesville yet the gaytors never suspended him for it and now making Brett Farve look normal with today's actions.....

He is the poster boy of Board Bitch

calling out cam for cheating while in gainesville

Link???

He could go to jail for doing that. So I'm guessing this probably isn't true.

TheJON wrote:Still, it's 1 team. I bet there aren't any others. I've looked a bit through a college football historical results site and couldn't find any.

You should look harder. From 1979 through the first two games of 1982, UofM lost 11 games by 39 points. And that was in about 5 minutes of looking.