He put his name into the transfer portal, which isn’t a good sign. I suppose it’s possible that he stays, but I wouldn’t bet on it.
How sold is everyone on Michigan? Seems like they could be benefitted from playing the lighter side of their schedule first. Only B1G road games have been against Illinois and Northwestern.
JBo is just ice cold
Kriener is having a pretty good game
Well with Nixon leaving, this really did go from feast to famine.
I hear where you’re coming from and really, the only game we played this past year where I felt like Iowa was the less talented team was probably against Mississippi State. Unfortunately, Northwestern and Wisconsin beat us consistently and Purdue has pretty much solved our defense. Add Michigan in there and we are back at 8-4. I think we also drop at least one of either Nebraska, Iowa State or Penn State.
With next years schedule, I think it’s probably closer to 7-8 wins. I think Fant and TJ are going to be difficult to replace.
Outside of the stats, I think Iowa needs to win the West next year for Stanley to be picked in the top 4 rounds. He needs to show poise in games against Michigan, Wisconsin, Northwestern, and Penn State next year. The game film shows that he gets the yips or something against these bigger matchups in key situations. The statistics themselves are less important than the intangibles that seem to need improvement.
My guess would be that there’s a disparity in racial diversity amongst those that actually make money off of college football. As a mediocre white guy, it seems that my career choices have been quite mediocre.
First, they’d need to either be 7-2 or 8-1 at that point as their game vs Penn State is game ten. Next, it isn’t unlikely that they lose their last three either, so their 8-4 would be less than our 8-4. I do think think that 8-4 next season is enough to be top 25 with our schedule next year (7-5 is not). I think this is especially true if Nebraska - the new Texas - comes into the Iowa game 8-3 or better and we win. A lot can happen and it probably is predicated on Alabama not losing to five loss Ole Miss (or someone like that).
I think you meant that the hype train has been strong for 2 years (at that point). They’ve been hyping Nebraska since Frost was hired. Hell, they appear on multiple “too early top 25” lists after a 4-8 season. Rewarded for quality losses? That’s SEC treatment! I think you absolutely have a point about Nebraska and ratings. It sucks for Iowa fans, but it isn’t incorrect.
I see your points, but they appear a bit harsh. At least by my observation, the difference between #1-4 and 20-25 is drastic. So our 9-4 season with a meh schedule seems pretty in line with #25. Will we do that again next year? Probably. We average 8 wins a season and I think an 8-4 season with our schedule next year is a bit better than it is this season. Are we going to contend for the Big Ten Title? No, probably not. Are we going to win the West? Not if we keep losing three in-division games we’re not. Maybe it was just that the margin between elite and moderately good has grown, but being a top 25 team to me just means that you’re in the top 35% of the Power 5. In other words, are we a top 5 team in the Big Ten? 5 or 6 in the big ten sounds right to me.
It’s not sad to not remember those games. Trust me.
My point above was that the criteria seems to be that Alabama gets a spot and anyone that beats Alabama gets a spot. Additionally, if you play a close game against Alabama, you shall not fall below #5.
I actually don’t have a problem with being in the 16-20 range, even with the impending departures, but that schedule next year is a bit tougher than 2018. I mean, we replay our four losses from 2018 and add Michigan in Ann Arbor. I guess as long as we don’t call going to Purdue part of a revenge tour.
I don’t necessarily support expanding the playoff, but I absolutely think there should be consistency in their selection criteria.
Virtually? They’ve absolutely reserved a spot for Alabama (2017 for example). Yes, they won the invitational that year, but I’m not sure they deserved to be there in the first place. I think if they aren’t going to expand the playoff (they aren’t anytime soon), they could at least make it clear and consistent as to how they choose their four teams. You can’t knock UCF’s schedule and also not penalize the entire SEC for cupcake week.
Alright, I’m done now.
Yeah, but you’d sweat a bit annually until they played a decent team on the road...
So oddsmakers are now taking quality losses into account. That must be why Nebraska has 25/1 odds. They have A LOT of quality losses!
I think it would be more accurate to just call the playoff the “invitational to lose to either Bama or Clemson”.
Outside of just seeing more wins consistently, I would love to see Brian take advantage of having a better team than his opponent on a regular basis. I saw things shift in this direction this year, but there was still Purdue and Northwestern (yes, Iowa is a more talented team than both of these right now). I fear the way that Purdue is recruiting, we may fall behind them soon.
Yep, I would argue that it is because he plays every team the same way. Slowing the game down against a #3 Michigan is smart. Doing the same thing against a solid North Dakota State with fewer player on scholarship is not.
I agree. 25 seems right. My problem with this season, dovetailing off of your “should have been better” point, isn’t as much about our record as it’s about the overall weakness of the conference and the division. The Big Ten was very winnable this year and the West was essentially handed to us the week we lost to Purdue. And well, we lost to Purdue.
KF is 49-54 in one score games (8 points or fewer) over his career. This includes 99 and 2000, where he went 2-7. It’s definitely not good, but he’s better than I had originally thought in close games. On the other side of things, it includes games against a few directional MAC teams and a couple against FCS opponents, so...yeah.
I knew I should have gone to law school!