What is the model to follow?

[CP87]

Instead of sitting around sniping at one another, let's actually accomplish something useful in this forum. How about we lay out a plan to move Iowa from its current level to the level that everyone wants it to be. A plan so ingenious that the powers-that-be cannot ignore it, and in all likelihood will compensate us handsomely for thinking of it.

First of all, let's define Iowa's current level. Iowa has been remarkably consistent for the last 3.5 decades. They have won 60.4% of their games, and they have been ranked in the AP top 25 about half the time. Here is a breakdown by decade:

• 80's
  • 66% win%
  • 6 years ranked at end of year
  • 8 seasons above 0.500
  • 0 major bowl wins
• 90's
  • 54% win%
  • 4 years ranked at end of year
  • 5 seasons above 0.500
  • 0 major bowl wins
• 00's
  • 64% win%
  • 5 years ranked at end of year
  • 7 seasons above 0.500
  • 1 major bowl wins
• 10's
  • 54% win%
  • 0 years ranked at end of year
  • 4 (out of 5) seasons above 0.500
  • 0 major bowl wins

Thinking more historically (i.e. all-time history of CFB), there are a lot of lists out there of all-time great programs, and Iowa usually comes in somewhere around the 30's or 40's on those lists. The teams that are usually near the top of those lists:

• USC
• Oklahoma
• Michigan
• Alabama
• Notre Dame
• Ohio State
• Nebraska
• Texas
• Tennessee
• Florida State
• Penn State
• LSU
• Auburn
• Georgia
• Miami

So Iowa is not a historically great program, but they have had over 3 decades of consistent, winning football, with occasional forays into the top 10 ('85, '90, '02, '03, '04, '09). They are from a very talent-poor area of the country. They have a very loyal fan-base, and there are no professional teams in the state to compete for attention/entertainment dollars.

Everyone has a different idea of what is reasonable for Iowa to shoot for, so let me set a target that is reasonable yet clearly above their current level of achievement. It is reasonable to think that Iowa could become a team that is ranked nearly every year (at least 8 out of 10), and regularly appears in the top 10 (at least 3 out of 10 years). Assuming that the CFB playoffs expand to 8 eventually, this would theoretically put Iowa in contention for a national title a couple of times per decade.

So what program has raised itself from Iowa's level (or below) to the level I have described? How did they do it? What aspects of their situation are similar to Iowa's, and what aspects are different? Do your homework and give us some good facts, otherwise we will never get rich.

 

[BILLBUCKNER]

Look no further than Wisconsin. That is the program level of success that Iowa could and should attain. We had a great run in Ferentz early years. He has become a fat cat. We can do better.

 

[CP87]

I will start with one model: Oregon. Their recent history:

• 80's
  • 46% win%
  • 0 years ranked at end of year
  • 4 seasons above 0.500
  • 0 major bowl wins
• 90's
  • 59% win%
  • 3 years ranked at end of year
  • 7 seasons above 0.500
  • 0 major bowl wins
• 00's
  • 70% win%
  • 7 years ranked at end of year
  • 9 seasons above 0.500
  • 1 major bowl wins
• 10's
  • 89% win%
  • 5 years ranked at end of year, counting this year (out of 5)
  • 5 (out of 5) seasons above 0.500
  • 2 major bowl wins (perhaps more this year)

They have been remarkably patient. They have not fired a coach since 1976, and they are on their 4th coach since then (Brooks, Belloti, Kelly, and now Helfrich). Along the way they have established a family atmosphere where it really means something to be part of Oregon FB.

They have had the advantage of huge Nike money and marketing, which Iowa clearly does not have. They also brought in fresh blood (most notably Kelly as OC) to keep the program on the rise. And as much as the Nike thing helped their brand, I think their style of offensive FB was nearly as important. They do not have great in-state recruiting, but they are close enough to California to be able to make hay in that area (especially when USC and UCLA are down).

So how does Iowa follow this? We have already achieved the stability; we can really keep it going if Ferentz can step away on his own as opposed to being fired, as long as things do not drop too far in the meanwhile.

I think they need to improve "the brand" somehow. Can they do that with a pro-style offense? That led to a pretty exciting brand of FB at USC, but I don't think Reggie Bush, Matt Leinart, or Mike Williams will be coming to Iowa anytime soon. I don't really want Iowa to become just another spread team. What coordinator out there could make Iowa unique and exciting? Could Iowa's brand be established by their defense instead of their offense, and still attract national attention? How would you feel about the next Paul Johnson (he is not coming to Iowa, but an up-and-coming triple option coordinator)? Help me complete this plan.

 

[CP87]

Look no further than Wisconsin. That is the program level of success that Iowa could and should attain. We had a great run in Ferentz early years. He has become a fat cat. We can do better.

Okay, what have they done differently than us? What steps would Iowa need to take to duplicate their success?

 

[MoseSchrute]

They have larger O-lines and have recruited better running backs, and have had very little to none of Iowa's horrendous bad luck with RB injuries, transfers, etc. Someone smarter than me might say they have better blocking schemes than we do, which lead to the success of their RB's.

 

[mysteron]

I will start with one model: Oregon. Their recent history:

• 80's
  • 46% win%
  • 0 years ranked at end of year
  • 4 seasons above 0.500
  • 0 major bowl wins
• 90's
  • 59% win%
  • 3 years ranked at end of year
  • 7 seasons above 0.500
  • 0 major bowl wins
• 00's
  • 70% win%
  • 7 years ranked at end of year
  • 9 seasons above 0.500
  • 1 major bowl wins
• 10's
  • 89% win%
  • 5 years ranked at end of year, counting this year (out of 5)
  • 5 (out of 5) seasons above 0.500
  • 2 major bowl wins (perhaps more this year)

They have been remarkably patient. They have not fired a coach since 1976, and they are on their 4th coach since then (Brooks, Belloti, Kelly, and now Helfrich). Along the way they have established a family atmosphere where it really means something to be part of Oregon FB.

They have had the advantage of huge Nike money and marketing, which Iowa clearly does not have. They also brought in fresh blood (most notably Kelly as OC) to keep the program on the rise. And as much as the Nike thing helped their brand, I think their style of offensive FB was nearly as important. They do not have great in-state recruiting, but they are close enough to California to be able to make hay in that area (especially when USC and UCLA are down).

So how does Iowa follow this? We have already achieved the stability; we can really keep it going if Ferentz can step away on his own as opposed to being fired, as long as things do not drop too far in the meanwhile.

I think they need to improve "the brand" somehow. Can they do that with a pro-style offense? That led to a pretty exciting brand of FB at USC, but I don't think Reggie Bush, Matt Leinart, or Mike Williams will be coming to Iowa anytime soon. I don't really want Iowa to become just another spread team. What coordinator out there could make Iowa unique and exciting? Could Iowa's brand be established by their defense instead of their offense, and still attract national attention? How would you feel about the next Paul Johnson (he is not coming to Iowa, but an up-and-coming triple option coordinator)? Help me complete this plan.

I think Oregon is a perfect example. Like us, limited in-state talent. In state Big5 sister school to deal with. Tropical beaches = zero. An athletic department with a huge war chest.

The difference between us and them? Not being huge fans of excuses and wanting/demanding a certain level of excellence.

How often does their AD/Coach say, "That's football"? I'll say never.

 

[HawkPrdatr40]

Instead of sitting around sniping at one another, let's actually accomplish something useful in this forum. How about we lay out a plan to move Iowa from its current level to the level that everyone wants it to be. A plan so ingenious that the powers-that-be cannot ignore it, and in all likelihood will compensate us handsomely for thinking of it.

First of all, let's define Iowa's current level. Iowa has been remarkably consistent for the last 3.5 decades. They have won 60.4% of their games, and they have been ranked in the AP top 25 about half the time. Here is a breakdown by decade:

• 80's
  • 66% win%
  • 6 years ranked at end of year
  • 8 seasons above 0.500
  • 0 major bowl wins
• 90's
  • 54% win%
  • 4 years ranked at end of year
  • 5 seasons above 0.500
  • 0 major bowl wins
• 00's
  • 64% win%
  • 5 years ranked at end of year
  • 7 seasons above 0.500
  • 1 major bowl wins
• 10's
  • 54% win%
  • 0 years ranked at end of year
  • 4 (out of 5) seasons above 0.500
  • 0 major bowl wins

Thinking more historically (i.e. all-time history of CFB), there are a lot of lists out there of all-time great programs, and Iowa usually comes in somewhere around the 30's or 40's on those lists. The teams that are usually near the top of those lists:

• USC
• Oklahoma
• Michigan
• Alabama
• Notre Dame
• Ohio State
• Nebraska
• Texas
• Tennessee
• Florida State
• Penn State
• LSU
• Auburn
• Georgia
• Miami

So Iowa is not a historically great program, but they have had over 3 decades of consistent, winning football, with occasional forays into the top 10 ('85, '90, '02, '03, '04, '09). They are from a very talent-poor area of the country. They have a very loyal fan-base, and there are no professional teams in the state to compete for attention/entertainment dollars.

Everyone has a different idea of what is reasonable for Iowa to shoot for, so let me set a target that is reasonable yet clearly above their current level of achievement. It is reasonable to think that Iowa could become a team that is ranked nearly every year (at least 8 out of 10), and regularly appears in the top 10 (at least 3 out of 10 years). Assuming that the CFB playoffs expand to 8 eventually, this would theoretically put Iowa in contention for a national title a couple of times per decade.

So what program has raised itself from Iowa's level (or below) to the level I have described? How did they do it? What aspects of their situation are similar to Iowa's, and what aspects are different? Do your homework and give us some good facts, otherwise we will never get rich.

All you created was more sniper material..

 

[BILLBUCKNER]

I think Oregon is a perfect example. Like us, limited in-state talent. In state Big5 sister school to deal with. Tropical beaches = zero. An athletic department with a huge war chest.

The difference between us and them? Not being huge fans of excuses and wanting/demanding a certain level of excellence.

How often does their AD/Coach say, "That's football"? I'll say never.

Oregon is a horrible expample. They have Phil Frickin Knight. That is who they answer to. If the coaching staff isn't getting it done,you can bet they won't last long. That could be a blessing and a curse because he could run the program into the ground like the former owner of the Oakland Raiders. But so far it has worked out great.

We can be IOWA..our identify built around tough huge olineman. Get stud RBS to run behind it and a dual threat QB to run the zone read.

 

[CP87]

Oregon is a horrible expample. They have Phil Frickin Knight. That is who they answer to. If the coaching staff isn't getting it done,you can bet they won't last long. That could be a blessing and a curse because he could run the program into the ground like the former owner of the Oakland Raiders. But so far it has worked out great.

We can be IOWA..our identify built around tough huge olineman. Get stud RBS to run behind it and a dual threat QB to run the zone read.

But they have never fired a coach since Phil Knight became Phil Knight. There were plenty of mediocre seasons in there, but staffs were always retained. It was a long, slow build to get to their current point.

 

[mysteron]

But they have never fired a coach since Phil Knight became Phil Knight. There were plenty of mediocre seasons in there, but staffs were always retained. It was a long, slow build to get to their current point.

Yep. There are two types of people in the world. People who think (change = bad things). And people who think (change leads to progress). Our fan-base has lots of Luddites. Sadly, those folks don't even know the definition of the word.

 

[Cory]

Oregon is a tough comparison as they have taken over for Colorado in bringing in the top skill position talent from the tough areas economic areas of the West Coast. They have become the University where kids think it's cool to play and parents get their kids away from the inner city.

Dont ever see Iowa becoming the "cool" place for top talent to play.


Iowa does need to find a pipeline for top talent but I don't think KF cared to even put in the work.

 

[NCHawker]

Hawkeyes passing Wisconsin during next 2 years.

 

[teachercoach]

Okay, what have they done differently than us? What steps would Iowa need to take to duplicate their success?

Wis is the model Iowa should be like.... One could argue they have replaced Hawks from 10 years. Look at 2003 defense - where did they come from - who were the lead recruiters? Staff turnover has affected Iowa like it does others who go in cycles.

Just looking at rosters.... current Wis roster = 12 from FLA, a few defensive from ILL... would be interesting if someone who follows closer than I, could tally how many players were offered both Iowa and Wis, then chose Wis. Think John Clay, Melvin Gordon in the backfield.... Definitely was a time where Iowa was doing the work finding O-Lineman and Wis would automatically offer whoever Iowa offered.

Why did they choose Madison? What does Madison > Iowa City ?? that might be place to start...

 

[NCHawker]

2015 Hawks, quick turn around and breakout !!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

 

[hawkdrummer1]

Much of what KFz has in place is solid. The problem is...

1. He's horrible at game-day management (ie: outside of the controlled environment of a practice field)
2. He plays from a position of fear (avoid mistakes) instead of strength (make plays) This includes sticking with a lesser athlete to avoid PERCEiVED risk.

He could overcome both of those quite easily by hiring a savvy aggressive OC and allowing him to manage the game on the sidelines.

This year alone...for example...it would have been the diff between 7 wins and at least 9. And that's why it drives so many of his critics crazy...it's not a complicated fix.

 

[mysteron]

Wis is the model Iowa should be like.... One could argue they have replaced Hawks from 10 years. Look at 2003 defense - where did they come from - who were the lead recruiters? Staff turnover has affected Iowa like it does others who go in cycles.

Just looking at rosters.... current Wis roster = 12 from FLA, a few defensive from ILL... would be interesting if someone who follows closer than I, could tally how many players were offered both Iowa and Wis, then chose Wis. Think John Clay, Melvin Gordon in the backfield.... Definitely was a time where Iowa was doing the work finding O-Lineman and Wis would automatically offer whoever Iowa offered.

Why did they choose Madison? What does Madison > Iowa City ?? that might be place to start...

Agree that Wisconsin is the more realistic model. Oregon IMO is the fantasy model where Iowa wouldn't hire Sally Mason without her passing a litmus test. Since that likely could never happen, Wisky should be the acceptable standard with Oregon a hopeful dream. Another reason Wisky is good is because of their basketball program. Ironically, I think in the 80s Wisky looked at Iowa's FB/BB programs and said, "We wanna be like them."

In the 90s they started building towards that and then realized their goals in this century. Iowa is in a race to lower its standards and that's on Barta.

 

[Hawke]

Yep. There are two types of people in the world. People who think (change = bad things). And people who think (change leads to progress). Our fan-base has lots of Luddites. Sadly, those folks don't even know the definition of the word.

It doesn't help to have a coach that is not only a Luddite but is a stubborn dolt as well. Lose to what should have been a one win team? That's football. Blow a game against a team that's about to fire its coach? That's football. Play lesser talent because they are seniors that give the team the worst chance to win? That's football. That's getting old.

 

[CP87]

So it seems like the consensus is to be like Wisconsin, and they key is more success in recruiting and a better staff overall.

Regarding the recruiting, it seems to me that Iowa has not really been physically imposing since 2010. I wonder if picking up some bad character guys in the mid 2000's swung the staff's recruiting risk-tolerance too far in the "safe" direction.

As far as the staff goes, neither Wisconsin nor Oregon has fired a head coach in 25+ years, but I think both have done a better job bringing in fresh minds to their staff along the way. That is just a perception that I can't really back up with facts. I think one of Coach Ferentz's major failings has been staff decisions. Others have mentioned this before; I think there is a big benefit to having coaches who want to move up the ladder and become head coaches someday. When those coaches move on from your program, that gives an opportunity to bring in new blood. I think a combination of loyalty and love of familiarity has prevented this at Iowa.

 

[CP87]

Not necessarily great models to follow, but how did Baylor and TCU elevate their programs? Was it as simple as finding really good coaches? Would Baylor be what they are today without RGIII creating some buzz a few years ago?

 

[CP87]

It doesn't help to have a coach that is not only a Luddite but is a stubborn dolt as well. Lose to what should have been a one win team? That's football. Blow a game against a team that's about to fire its coach? That's football. Play lesser talent because they are seniors that give the team the worst chance to win? That's football. That's getting old.

No name-calling here, we need to stay on task if we are going to earn a 6-figure consulting fee. So you clearly think replacing the head coach is the first step. I think that could be justified at this point, but my Pollyannaish side hopes he can go out on a good year or two. If they replace, should they just throw the bank at Bielema? How big of a factor is having Alvarez at AD (you know he is heavily invested in FB success)?