We’ve written in years past about the Cy-Hawk Series, but there’s only so much you can say about it, in part because it’s something so many other states know in their own way. If you are a fan of Washington State, Oregon State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Michigan State, Virginia Tech, Louisville, NC State, or Montana State, you know this rivalry intimately. It’s the same rivalry as your own. One school in the state thinks it’s of a higher class of people, and that’s the way it acts. Is it true? In this case, there is less objective merit to the claim than the others.
I think this is part of what pushes the rivalry so far under Iowa State people’s skin. Iowa’s still only Iowa, a school primarily for suburban Midwestern kids who couldn’t get into any of the twelve Big Ten universities which outrank Iowa academically (soon to be 16). Iowa’s most iconic student in the last twenty years is still Vodka Sam. In most states with rivalries like this one, one of the schools in question is a highly thought-of institution. In Iowa, Iowa’s only Iowa.
This, though, doesn’t reflect particularly well on Iowa State. Because the clear solution to upending the power structure within an in-state rivalry is to beat your opponent repeatedly, to earn superiority and assert it on objective fields of play. Iowa State, throughout its history, has been unable to pull that off. In football, Iowa State trails the all-time series 46–23. In men’s basketball, Iowa leads 48–28. In women’s basketball, Iowa leads 28–20. In wrestling, Iowa leads 68–16. Academically, Iowa might not enjoy much of a reputation, but Iowa State’s reputation is similar, and in objective rankings, it usually lines up a little worse. The frustrating thing about the Cy-Hawk Rivalry for Iowa State, in football and more broadly, is not that Iowa State is losing. It’s that it’s losing to a beatable foe. (Also, it’s a cute sticker for a helmet, and I suppose it’s better than nothing, but Iowa’s hardly ever done a thing for farmers.)
The nice thing about this, of course, is that Iowa is beatable, and that’s self-evident this year. Iowa’s offense is so bad, so riddled with nepotism-induced incompetence, that Iowa gave Brian Ferentz (yes, son of Kirk) a formal ultimatum saying that if his team doesn’t average 25.0 points per game (this would have ranked 78th in the FBS last year), he’s gone. How did Ferentz respond? He retooled the offensive line, brought in Cade McNamara from Michigan through the transfer portal, and scored 24 points in his opener against a Utah State team our model ranks 93rd in the FBS. On defense, Iowa is admittedly ferocious, Iowa’s defense deserves a lot of credit, even more because they routinely have so little margin for error, but Iowa’s offense is so bad that in every single game, a shutout is a legitimate fear for Hawkeye fans.
There’s an online trend in the college football blogosphere to refer to this game as El Assico, a riff on El Clásico, the rivalry in Spanish soccer between FC Barcelona and Real Madrid. This is, of course, very embarrassing, and not necessarily something for either school to embrace. One of the major storylines entering tomorrow is the matchup between punters Tyler Perkins and Tory Taylor. This is also embarrassing, but I suppose it’s better than if we were wondering which punter would punt worse. Ultimately, this game has recently come down to which team makes fewer mistakes. Last year, the teams tied in turnovers, but Iowa missed its field goal attempt. In 2021, Iowa avoided turning the ball over while Brock Purdy threw three interceptions. In 2019, Iowa State again lost the turnover battle and lost the game. The history goes back further. There is something to be said in this matchup for setting a goal of picking up one first down per drive, avoiding all turnovers, and executing each of your punts without a shank. If either team does those three things, they will probably win. If Iowa State does it, the Cyclones can continue to chip away at a rivalry Iowa State has let go far too lopsided for far too long.
Brock Purdy, Joe Burrow, and Jordan Love
In other lopsided rivalry news, the Packers open their 2023 season against the Bears on Sunday, resuming a series in which the Bears haven’t swept a season since 2007, Brett Favre’s final year in Green Bay. Expectations are low for the Packers this year, and they’re even lower this weekend, with Jordan Love taking over for Aaron Rodgers full-time for the first time and throwing to an already young receiving corps that will additionally be missing Christian Watson, and possibly Romeo Doubs. It’s an interesting matchup. The Bears have a lot of justified excitement around Justin Fields, but it’s hard to find other bright spots, and Fields has thrown six interceptions while only passing and running for a combined five in previous meetings with the Packers (his yards per carry are solid—7.2—but his total yardage on the ground in those matchups is only 52 yards per game). The Packers are a narrow underdog on the road, but even that implies that betting markets expect the Packers to be the better team this year. So long as Green Bay can win in Green Bay, there isn’t going to be much to complain about on the Packers side.
The Fields vs. Love matchup is interesting. Earlier this summer, a friend asked how I thought the Bears would be, and I joked that I’d take Love over Fields. (I was being facetious, unless Love wins the MVP this year, in which case I am a genius and you should always listen to me.) What I do think, though—something I thought then and stand by now—is that I feel better about Love with the Packers than I feel about Fields with the Bears. Jordan Love will likely have a better Packers career than Justin Fields will have a Bears career, because the Packers will set Jordan Love up for more success than the Bears will set up Fields.
This juxtaposition—that Justin Fields might be the better quarterback but Love is likely to enjoy more success as a starter—points towards two philosophies in the NFL. Teams like the Bears are trying to find the best quarterback and build around him. Teams like the Packers are trying to put the right quarterback in the right system. Ironically, this is a thought process which stems in part from the Packers’ success with Favre and Rodgers, but what the Bears and teams like them seem to hope is that if they have a good enough quarterback, they will win, no matter what they do around him. They aren’t making it this simple, most likely—their fans are, but I doubt this is the front office thought process—but it’s the general line of thinking. It’s the same line of thinking which has Kyler Murray making the sixth-most money in the NFL this season.
In some instances, paying a quarterback all the money in the world is smart. It’s hard to argue with the Bengals handing Joe Burrow a record-setting extension. Joe Burrow is a spectacular quarterback, an excellent face of the franchise, and seemingly a strong leader. He is a superstar in whom to invest. In contrast, though, the 49ers—who enjoy comparable expectations to Cincinnati—are rolling confidently with Brock Purdy. I love Brock Purdy, but Brock Purdy is not Joe Burrow.
A lot of this boils down to Kyle Shanahan’s general philosophy of football, which places scheme above everything and seems to take advantage of an undervaluing of positions other than quarterback. It’s different from the prevailing wisdom, but it’s picking up steam, and in hindsight it’s not much different from how the Patriots built their dynasty in the early Tom Brady years, while he was improving so rapidly, or how Kansas City fostered such a favorable environment for Patrick Mahomes. Brady and Mahomes are more similar to Burrow than Purdy, but the approach from the 49ers more closely echoes the Belichick Patriots and the Andy Reid Chiefs, whereas this Bengals approach echoes the Mike McCarthy Packers.
In short? Matt LaFleur, very much of the Shanahan side of thinking, has his quarterback. He isn’t as good as the quarterback LaFleur used to have. But LaFleur’s philosophy seems to be that in a few years, this will work out better. Meanwhile, the Bears seem to believe that if Justin Fields can become a top-ten QB, the Bears can become a top-1 team. That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
It’s Only Week 1 (Even More than Before)
Without their best receiver (a tight end) and without one of the best defensive players in football, Kansas City lost 21–20 to the Lions last night, Detroit’s second touchdown coming on a fluky interception that bounced off a receiver’s hands. It was a great win for the Lions, it was a fun win for the Lions, it was a very Dan Campbell victory. That team is a ton of fun. If you are a Lions fan reading this, you should be so happy and so excited and make so much from this game. If you’re anybody else?
It doesn’t matter at all.
It might matter a little eventually, but even the bad things—the dropped passes, having that loss in the standings—are only going to be bad if they continue to happen. If Kadarius Toney catches a few passes next week and doesn’t drop any, and if the Chiefs take back the lead in the AFC West before the end of September, there isn’t going to be a whole lot of talk about what happened Week 1. It’s just one game, and it’s now part of a 17-game season, and even when the season was 16 games this wouldn’t have been the biggest deal in the world. This is not a game that highlighted Chiefs shortcomings. This was a game that showed the Chiefs can lose two of the fifteen best players in the NFL and still play another division favorite within a point.
They’re good, you idiots. (You know who you are.)
The Cubs Could Use an Ace, Pt. II
A not-uncommon argument lately in and around the Cubs blogosphere has gone like so:
National MLB Media Personality: Justin Steele’s having a great year, but historically, his numbers are weak for a Cy Young winner.
Cubs Fans: You motherfucker.
This is fair. This is understandable. Nobody is wrong here. Everyone is doing the right thing. We should have Justin Steele’s back. But Zac Gallen’s outing today at Wrigley Field was an example of what aces do, and what Steele doesn’t do. Justin Steele has only recorded an out in the 8th inning one time as a starting pitcher. It happened on Monday. Zac Gallen is going to hit 200 innings at some point in the next two weeks, barring disaster. Steele has a better xERA and FIP, but Gallen has amassed more value because he’s eaten so many more innings, and if you’re looking for one dominant outing, the kind of game you look for in October, you’re likelier to get that from Gallen than from Steele. Using the FanGraphs choice for Game Score, Gallen has thrown games scored an 80 or better 15 separate times in his career. Steele has done it once. Again, on Monday. Gallen is 23 days younger than Steele.
I love Justin Steele, I’m so happy he’s a Cub, I don’t even need to say that Gallen is better than Steele. Rather, what I’m trying to say—and what I tried to say the other day on this same topic, but articulated in a way that made it seem like a slight towards Steele—is:
Imagine a rotation with Justin Steele and a Zac Gallen.
When we say the Cubs need an ace, that’s what we mean. They need Justin Steele, and they need an ace, and if you want to say Justin Steele’s an ace, then they need two aces. Hopefully Jordan Wicks becomes that guy. In case he doesn’t, though, I would really like the Cubs to pursue Aaron Nola this offseason.
What’s Going on With the Nationals?
I will admit: I saw headlines this week about the Nationals laying off scouts and thought little of those headlines. It seemed weird, but I moved on rather quickly. Then, they canceled Stephen Strasburg’s retirement ceremony because of a contract dispute. They now have our attention.
What seems to be going on is that the Lerner family is still trying to sell the team, but they’re slashing costs while doing it? Also, the sale is kind of paused right now because the Nats and Orioles are fighting over MASN money? I will say: Fighting the Angelos family sounds miserable. Not grueling in a challenging way, just miserable. There’s honor in fighting a tiger. Fighting the Angelos family sounds like fighting a skunk.
Anyway, the Strasburg thing could point towards the Lerners being in a tight financial spot, or it could point towards the Lerners deciding to really cut ties before they sell, or it could simply be that Strasburg has a gigantic contract and most people take millions and millions of dollars seriously. Whatever the case, it’s messy, and it’s ugly, and Mike Rizzo still hasn’t been extended either.
Chris Chelios’s Number Retirement
Chris Chelios will see his Number 7 jersey retired by the Blackhawks. He found out last night at the United Center. From Eddie Vedder. On stage, at the Pearl Jam concert.
I’ll leave the Chelios sentimentals to those who watched him play, but I love that Eddie Vedder has become the go-to celebrity for White Chicago Sports. It’s a funny benefit to becoming a celebrity: You get to try to hang out with your own favorite celebrities. Perhaps you might become friends. Theo Epstein, Eddie Vedder, Chris Chelios…all your favorite Chicagoans, hanging out together. It’s like when the football players and basketball players are buddies in college.
There’s a Lot of Money in the Banana Stand
Oregon State and Washington State made a little wave today when they filed a legal complaint against the Pac-12, asking for a temporary restraining order. What’s happening? Well, the Pac-12 still has assets, and the Pac-12 still is owed some payouts from NCAA Tournament appearances and bowl contracts and things of that nature, and my understanding is that Oregon State and Washington State saw those and said, “Hey, wait a second, we want those.”
I have no idea what the legal precedent is here, but the facts of the matter are that ten schools left the Pac-12, and Washington State and Oregon State did not. Another reported thing which makes a lot of sense is that Washington State and Oregon State are working on a reverse merger with the Mountain West, importing Mountain West teams into the Pac-12 while keeping the Pac-12 name and assets. My understanding with that is that the Pac-12’s assets and payouts would then belong to the New Mountain Pac-12 West, but I really, really, really am not an expert on this piece of things. Basically, the Pac-12 has money, and while USC and UCLA and Colorado and Washington and Oregon and Arizona and Arizona State and Utah knew they were leaving that money as they took the Big Ten and Big 12 money, now that the conference is really dead, they might want it themselves, in some uniform dissolution payment.
The kind thing to do, of course, would be to let Washington State and Oregon State have the money, or maybe those two plus Stanford and Cal. But it could be a lot of money, and there’s an incentive for the departing Pac-12 schools to make any reverse merger as difficult on their old league-mates as they can. It’s harsh, but Utah’s still competing with Washington State, even if the directness of that competition is much lesser. It is good for the former Pac-12 schools if there are only four power conferences, and it is good if Washington State and Oregon State are that much weaker for recruiting and whatnot, and so it will be competitively advantageous for the eight schools that got out with good media deals to ensure that whatever shape the New Mountain Pac-2 West takes, it is not considered a power league. If schools back down from that, it will either be because 1) they see a big benefit to generating any semblance of goodwill, 2) they think they’d lose in court, or 3) they are fundamentally misunderstanding the situation, which would not be without precedent.
Notably, George Kliavkoff is included in the restraining order request, as Washington State and Oregon State evidently fear that he’d side with the outgoing members. What’s in Kliavkoff’s best interests? I don’t know, but I bet he’d like to get bought out, and I kind of think that’d have to happen if the Pac-2 and Mountain West did merge in the Pac-12’s old shell.
