Some thoughts .....

[Bullfn33]

-Get a fracking running game!  It doesn't have to be spectacular but you must run the fracking ball more than 10% of the time.

Why?

that's just stupid.  moving the ball was not a problem today.  You're just repeating what you hear idiot announcers who played in the 70's say.

Prince has said we need a running game and it's important we run.  I thought we did OK in the running game.  The sacks and trick play failures hurt our numbers.

And I agree, we could move the ball, we just couldn't get it into the endzone.

I don't think running the ball more (even at 5 yards/carry) makes a lick of difference in the game today.

People just assume that if you lose and have less than 100 yards rushing, it's because you didn't "establish the run".  That's the logic that's stupid.

If that's the only reason they use, then I'd agree.

However, this game running wasn't a problem.  It was turnovers and defense.

You're telling me we can't score more than 24 points against Iowa State?  The highest scoring offense in Big 12 play can't do that?  The defense in the second half gave up 3 points.  As bad as they blew in the first half, they actually gave us a chance to win.  Turnovers were the biggest reason we lost(mainly from a momentum standpoint), then red zone offense, then defense IMO.

We didn't. That's the point.   We should have been able to crack the goal line every time we go down the field, but we didn't.  Our fault?  ISU's fault?   

We should have not let them score three TD's in the first half.   Then it wouldn't matter how many points we put up.

We don't have KSU's 2002 lynch mob defense.  ISU is improving on offense drastically from the first half of the season and they were at home.  We weren't going to completely shut them down.  Sure, 24 points is more than we would have liked to give up but our offense should have been able to come up with more than that.  I think that is how this team sort of has to win games right now.  We won't be winning games 10-6 or 13-10 unless we force a bunch of turnovers like we did against Baylor.  That's not going to happen every game.  Clearly we were able to move the ball but the red zone offense didn't get the job done when the defense gave them every opportunity in the 2nd half to do so.

[Wildcat Jack]

-I'm officially off the play on ESPN against BCS studs at all costs in the non conference bandwagon.  All that matters is winning and then you will be on TV more in the end.  You won't have guys injured or emotionally bent by Week 8.  Plus you get rewarded for winning, not who you play, just look at where Kansas is ranked.  When we get some depth and can afford guys dropping like flies, then you can go play a BCS powerhouse.  Snyder knew what he was doing.  It's a long season and it's nearly impossible to get through it without let downs.  The more big games you have to get up for through the course of the season the more likely you are to fade at the end, UNLESS you are just a great fracking football team...we aren't. 

Yes, as with most media-driven things this is a fallacy.  There is NO, ZERO, advantage to playing a schedule such as this.  At KSU (or ku for that matter) you must go undefeated, that's zero losses, to have a chance in this system.  If you go undefeated you still may not get a chance....but we're never gonna get to the top using the "schedule 'em all philosophy."  Unfortunately, it appears Prince is gonna have to actually experience this lesson himself before he believes it.

[michigancat]

-I'm officially off the play on ESPN against BCS studs at all costs in the non conference bandwagon.  All that matters is winning and then you will be on TV more in the end.  You won't have guys injured or emotionally bent by Week 8.  Plus you get rewarded for winning, not who you play, just look at where Kansas is ranked.  When we get some depth and can afford guys dropping like flies, then you can go play a BCS powerhouse.  Snyder knew what he was doing.  It's a long season and it's nearly impossible to get through it without let downs.  The more big games you have to get up for through the course of the season the more likely you are to fade at the end, UNLESS you are just a great fracking football team...we aren't. 

Yes, as with most media-driven things this is a fallacy.  There is NO, ZERO, advantage to playing a schedule such as this.  At KSU (or ku for that matter) you must go undefeated, that's zero losses, to have a chance in this system.  If you go undefeated you still may not get a chance....but we're never gonna get to the top using the "schedule 'em all philosophy."  Unfortunately, it appears Prince is gonna have to actually experience this lesson himself before he believes it.

You guys are way off on this.  First of all, we're going to have 8 freaking games televised, including the last four.  Our record isn't keeping us off TV.

Secondly, using the ku analogy, if KSU was undefeated in conference right now, with the only loss being Auburn.

I'd rather play the tough schedules year in and year out until you know you're a legit consistent National Title contender.  Only then would there be an advantage with an easy schedule.

[Wildcat Jack]

Rusty
I don't think history and results suggests it's "way off"

I don't think you're going to be a "legit national title contender" until you are.  You aren't going to get there by playing a tough schedule and going 7-5 or 8-4.

As far as ku....if they win the rest of their games they have a great shot of being in the title game.....they'd have ZERO shot with a loss.

[catzacker]

The stupid game on our schedule is the Fresno game.  It has no point, although it is on TV.  We should not play games against teams like Fresno or Marshall ever, no matter if we are terrible or are a national contender.  One game against BCS level competition, the rest against terrible teams.  

It's obvious that the defense is the problem.  Couple that with turnovers and it makes the defense even more of a problem.  Whether it's the 3-4 or a 4-3, we have terrible players.  And unfortunately, it doesn't look like we've got a bunch of young guys ready to step in an contribute, so buckle up because our defense next year will be even worse.

Houlik is being exposed with every passing week, Walker sucks as an ILB as much as he sucks as an OLB, Childs is LOL at LB, Chris Patterson still looks lost 9 games into the season, Abana has shown no real signs of improvement, Ian is ineffective without a DT to his inside, Watts taught Chandler how to be a FP and miss tackles, Balkom is marginal at best, and our best defensive player McKinney (he's the only non-FP we have on the defense) will be gone next year.  

[LimestoneOutcropping]

We need a new defense.  And entire new defense with entire new players and entire new Def Coordinator.  Less FP's on defense. 

There are at least 15 guys waking up hungover in the frats across campus who could do equal or better to what Watts is doing.

We need to get over him.  If Prince is too loyal or what the hell ever his excuse is then he just needs to come out and say it.  We have one people's-champ-fun-story-walk-on guy on the offense.  We don't need to keep trying to create another on D.

[michigancat]

Rusty
I don't think history and results suggests it's "way off"

I don't think you're going to be a "legit national title contender" until you are.  You aren't going to get there by playing a tough schedule and going 7-5 or 8-4.

As far as ku....if they win the rest of their games they have a great shot of being in the title game.....they'd have ZERO shot with a loss.

Ron is only scheduling one "tough" game a year.  Scheduling one tough game a year is not the difference between 7-5 and national title contender.

[catzacker]

Rusty
I don't think history and results suggests it's "way off"

I don't think you're going to be a "legit national title contender" until you are.  You aren't going to get there by playing a tough schedule and going 7-5 or 8-4.

As far as ku....if they win the rest of their games they have a great shot of being in the title game.....they'd have ZERO shot with a loss.

Ron is only scheduling one "tough" game a year.  Scheduling one tough game a year is not the difference between 7-5 and national title contender.

No, but it might be the difference between being a bowl team and a non-bowl team, which is what Ron should be worrying about. 

[Bullfn33]

-I'm officially off the play on ESPN against BCS studs at all costs in the non conference bandwagon.  All that matters is winning and then you will be on TV more in the end.  You won't have guys injured or emotionally bent by Week 8.  Plus you get rewarded for winning, not who you play, just look at where Kansas is ranked.  When we get some depth and can afford guys dropping like flies, then you can go play a BCS powerhouse.  Snyder knew what he was doing.  It's a long season and it's nearly impossible to get through it without let downs.  The more big games you have to get up for through the course of the season the more likely you are to fade at the end, UNLESS you are just a great fracking football team...we aren't. 

Yes, as with most media-driven things this is a fallacy.  There is NO, ZERO, advantage to playing a schedule such as this.  At KSU (or ku for that matter) you must go undefeated, that's zero losses, to have a chance in this system.  If you go undefeated you still may not get a chance....but we're never gonna get to the top using the "schedule 'em all philosophy."  Unfortunately, it appears Prince is gonna have to actually experience this lesson himself before he believes it.

I'm not saying we should never schedule a top level BCS team.  I just don't think we should do it right now when we are in a building process.  When we build up the depth and can play a ton of guys and not miss a beat with any of them or due to injuries, then I think we should play a great team in the non conference.  Right now we should play a mid level to lower level BCS team at the most, but get a win and move on.  We could even get one of those teams on TV with us.  You don't have to play Auburn to get on TV.

[kougar24]

Rusty
I don't think history and results suggests it's "way off"

I don't think you're going to be a "legit national title contender" until you are.  You aren't going to get there by playing a tough schedule and going 7-5 or 8-4.

As far as ku....if they win the rest of their games they have a great shot of being in the title game.....they'd have ZERO shot with a loss.

Ron is only scheduling one "tough" game a year.  Scheduling one tough game a year is not the difference between 7-5 and national title contender.

No, but it might be the difference between being a bowl team and a non-bowl team, which is what Ron should be worrying about. 

F*** "bowl berth" as a goal. It's too easy to go bowling nowadays. That's setting the bar too low.

[Bullfn33]

The stupid game on our schedule is the Fresno game.  It has no point, although it is on TV.  We should not play games against teams like Fresno or Marshall ever, no matter if we are terrible or are a national contender.  One game against BCS level competition, the rest against terrible teams. 

It's obvious that the defense is the problem.  Couple that with turnovers and it makes the defense even more of a problem.  Whether it's the 3-4 or a 4-3, we have terrible players.  And unfortunately, it doesn't look like we've got a bunch of young guys ready to step in an contribute, so buckle up because our defense next year will be even worse.

Houlik is being exposed with every passing week, Walker sucks as an ILB as much as he sucks as an OLB, Childs is LOL at LB, Chris Patterson still looks lost 9 games into the season, Abana has shown no real signs of improvement, Ian is ineffective without a DT to his inside, Watts taught Chandler how to be a FP and miss tackles, Balkom is marginal at best, and our best defensive player McKinney (he's the only non-FP we have on the defense) will be gone next year. 

I'd still take this year's defense over last year's.  We just need to give Prince more time and get the personnel and depth on the roster.  Antwon Moore was the biggest loss of the year.  We'll get him for two more years and J. Moore will fill in for McKinney just fine.  Anyone but Watts at safety will be an improvement at this point.  Patterson should improve by next year and don't forget Olu Hall at LB.  The biggest questions will be the Dline.  We need to be recruiting this area like we did Oline last year.  But I think we'll be fine, and not any worse.