(06-16-2013 11:52 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(06-16-2013 10:49 PM)7 Wrote:  

(06-16-2013 06:54 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  If we beat Iowa and run through the MAC before losing in the MACC, we'll be in the same level bowl as if we lose to Iowa and win the MACC, almost certainly. The sad thing is, we'd get more credit for beating Iowa and Purdue and losing to, say, Ohio, in the MACC than we would get for running through the MAC again and winning the MACC but losing to both of them.

I'll take 2011 over 2003 10 times out of 10.

Honestly though, I dont think 2011 even happens if not for 2003. 2003 shaped things to what they are today. From a fan perspective I can understand trophies meaning more, but for the profile and wider national recognition of your program it is hard for me to dismiss the importance of 2003. It acts as such a building block in so many ways to increase fanbase, financial donations that come from beating bigger opponents, and attracting better recruits. MAC championships just dont do that.

To me though the problem all lies in how the postseason is setup. MAC championships are seen as meaningless because they dont offer any better postseason experience. If there was a correlation between the two, it would get fans much much much more excited. As it stands now the MAC champ often gets the least desirable matchup of 3 lackluster bowls.

2011, 2003 literally meant nothing. The attendance swell we got from it had died down, any of the recruits we got were long gone, the two season have nothing connected other than both being at NIU.

Unless you want to say the Yordon Center was because of 2003 and one of the reasons NIU is so strong right now is partly do to the Yordon (and you might be right on both), but other than that they have nothing to do with each other.

(06-16-2013 11:52 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(06-16-2013 06:54 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Honestly though, I dont think 2011 even happens if not for 2003. 2003 shaped things to what they are today.

2011, 2003 literally meant nothing. The attendance swell we got from it had died down, any of the recruits we got were long gone, the two season have nothing connected other than both being at NIU.
Unless you want to say the Yordon Center was because of 2003 and one of the reasons NIU is so strong right now is partly do to the Yordon (and you might be right on both), but other than that they have nothing to do with each other.

IF we're voting on this, I've got to vote with MaddDawgz2. The whole story of Novak rebuilding from the nation's worst losing streak to wins over Maryland, Iowa State, Alabama, etc. is what launched NIU football to another level.
Being a Huskie optimist, I'm hoping the national conversation on NIU and being in the Orange Bowl, even despite the fourth quarter, enables a higher quality of recruit to consider becoming Huskies for years to come. Somewhere, success has to take root -- Boise State beating Oklahoma meant the Broncos had to be taken seriously and that school has been fortunate / wise enough to keep things growing rather than withering. I agree with MaddDawgz2 that 2003 is the root from which what we've got today got started.
I'm old enough to remember Jane Albright passing out bamboo during a preseason media day and explaining that after planting bamboo, for two or three years there's hardly any visible growth, and then in the fourth year it takes off and just keeps going higher and thicker. When she left, she also privately told some media "off the record" that it can all get chopped down with just one cut. Little did anyone know how prophetic her words would become relative to NIU's women's basketball NCAA appearances. It's an analogy that keeps me worrying if a coach or AD hire turns out to be the wrong one. Like him or not, Kill at least continued the growth if not help it, same for Doreen; same for men's soccer with Luzzi taking over for Simmons.

(06-16-2013 11:52 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(06-16-2013 10:49 PM)7 Wrote:  

(06-16-2013 06:54 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  If we beat Iowa and run through the MAC before losing in the MACC, we'll be in the same level bowl as if we lose to Iowa and win the MACC, almost certainly. The sad thing is, we'd get more credit for beating Iowa and Purdue and losing to, say, Ohio, in the MACC than we would get for running through the MAC again and winning the MACC but losing to both of them.

I'll take 2011 over 2003 10 times out of 10.

Honestly though, I dont think 2011 even happens if not for 2003. 2003 shaped things to what they are today. From a fan perspective I can understand trophies meaning more, but for the profile and wider national recognition of your program it is hard for me to dismiss the importance of 2003. It acts as such a building block in so many ways to increase fanbase, financial donations that come from beating bigger opponents, and attracting better recruits. MAC championships just dont do that.

To me though the problem all lies in how the postseason is setup. MAC championships are seen as meaningless because they dont offer any better postseason experience. If there was a correlation between the two, it would get fans much much much more excited. As it stands now the MAC champ often gets the least desirable matchup of 3 lackluster bowls.

MAC Championships are not meaningless. They determine the best team in the MAC, out of 13 contestants. That's nothing to sneeze at.

I also remember what a great victory it was when the Huskies finally made it to one of those "lackluster" bowls and won the SVFC. The previous year (2003) we all felt gyped when the Huskies were not selected for even a "lackluster" bowl.

(06-17-2013 03:54 PM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  

(06-16-2013 11:52 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(06-16-2013 10:49 PM)7 Wrote:  

(06-16-2013 06:54 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  If we beat Iowa and run through the MAC before losing in the MACC, we'll be in the same level bowl as if we lose to Iowa and win the MACC, almost certainly. The sad thing is, we'd get more credit for beating Iowa and Purdue and losing to, say, Ohio, in the MACC than we would get for running through the MAC again and winning the MACC but losing to both of them.

I'll take 2011 over 2003 10 times out of 10.

Honestly though, I dont think 2011 even happens if not for 2003. 2003 shaped things to what they are today. From a fan perspective I can understand trophies meaning more, but for the profile and wider national recognition of your program it is hard for me to dismiss the importance of 2003. It acts as such a building block in so many ways to increase fanbase, financial donations that come from beating bigger opponents, and attracting better recruits. MAC championships just dont do that.

To me though the problem all lies in how the postseason is setup. MAC championships are seen as meaningless because they dont offer any better postseason experience. If there was a correlation between the two, it would get fans much much much more excited. As it stands now the MAC champ often gets the least desirable matchup of 3 lackluster bowls.

MAC Championships are not meaningless. They determine the best team in the MAC, out of 13 contestants. That's nothing to sneeze at.

I also remember what a great victory it was when the Huskies finally made it to one of those "lackluster" bowls and won the SVFC. The previous year (2003) we all felt gyped when the Huskies were not selected for even a "lackluster" bowl.

Meaningless was the wrong choice of words, I was trying to convey how little the college football world outside of us thinks of MAC championships. They just aren't something that keeps the momentum of your program going as CMU found out. At least back in 2003 the number of bowls hadn't grown to the ridiculous level of today. Bowls would mean a whole lot more to me if there was any relationship, any kind of relationship at all between the quality of teams and matchups and the quality of season. In hindsight that was what one of the most refreshing and funnest things about the Orange Bowl run to me was, you actually had a way to measure success of your team vs another team and actually equate it to quality of bowl opportunity. What a concept eh!?

Beat Iowa & win the MACC. If that means 1-4 losses then fine. If its 0 losses then great.

Go out and beat Iowa and Purdue, don't treat E. Illinois as a "cakewalk" and take care of biz in the MAC......post a 12-0 record and the nation screams for more HUSKIE football

Actually, I think we'll go 10-2......don't ask me to pick the 2 losing games.