Kirk Ferentz does not pack Kinnick, the Iowa Football team packs Kinnick. This is aided by the loyalty and excitement of the fan base coupled with the fact that Iowa does not have a professional football team to share the spotlight with. ISU sucks so fans span the state and are not located solely in Eastern Iowa.
The average attendance at Kinnick in 1950 was 44,584. The average attendance (lowest point under Kirk) was 61,123 with the high mark being in 2004 (i couldn't find any more recent stats than 2004). The seating capacity at Kinnick has changed over the past 60 years and was expanded again in 1990 to 70,397.
Capacity in 1956 was 53,000.
In 1983 it was expanded to 70,397.
In 1990 it was expanded to 70,585.
Since 1975 the average attendance has been at least 53,000 (100% capacity) and was 60,00+ after the first renovations in the early 80s going to today.
My point is that Kirk Ferentz doesn't pack the seats. The seats would fill up regardless of the coach. I really like Ferentz but we could be better.[/QUOTE]
This type of thinking scares me because it's how a lot of Iowa basketball fans felt about Tom Davis right before he left. "Well, Sweet 16's are nice, but we could be better". Sure, we could be better in football, but what is the likelihood that we can become a national power year in and year out? I love Iowa, but it's highly unlikely. Michigan and Ohio State are the only national powers above the Mason-Dixie line.
I don't want Iowa to make the same mistake with Ferentz that they did with Mr. Davis. I am perfectly happy having solid 8-10 win seasons most of the time with the occasional great year where we go to a BCS game. I don't expect Iowa to compete for national championships year in and year out, and the day that a lot of fans expect this is the day Iowa football is in for a world of hurt.
In all honesty KF isn't being paid to win MNC's. This isn't at a traditional power or a school that's in the midst of a super-rich recruiting area(eg. TCU in Dallas) that's playing in a weak conference. He's being paid 3.8 million because he overachieves at a place that has a significant recruiting disadvantage over most of his peers, and because he's a great representative of the university. Mike Leach, another overachieving coach, put up similar winning percentages had a rising salary and embarrassed the university. The value he brings to the University isn't simply in revenue consider the revenue that Iowa is producing.
When "underpaid" according to the Bleacher Report article by a Alabama fan(really?The "Bleacher Report" has only slightly more credibility than a teen magazine does on college football, and the Alabama fan author of the article put(*feigning shock*)Saban as 5th underpaid coach making over 5.2 million a year. In terms of the football budget and the football revenue brought in the difference between paying a "under paid" coach 2.5 million and "over paid" Ferentz is 3.8 is negligible. We're talking about a small fraction of the football program's budget and Iowa finished 4th in the Big Ten in 2010(15th in country) behind only guess who; OSU, UM, and PSU in football revenue. All three top 15 traditional powers with three of the five biggest stadiums in college football, mammoth national fan followings, and state populations between three and four times the size of Iowa's. Iowa, has the smallest population of any school in the conference and unlike Wisconsin and Minnesota it has another BCS conference school in-state. Iowa has a historic winning percentage of approx. 53%(that's including Fry and Ferentz's reigns over the past 40 years plus). What is the great selling point of Iowa over Purdue, UW, MSU, and illinois? Illinois, a school that is they had a good coach, that they could keep would like have top 25 recruiting classes annually. What impact would that have on their 25 million dollars in football revenue? Opposed to Iowa's current 55 million. You think they don't pray to bring in some coach they get at a bargain coach that's so successful that they pay him millions more to keep him and inspite of comparable offers or better...he stays? There's a huge difference between buying something because it's "cheap" and buying something that costs more but, you get your money's worth. I'll take the added value.
http://www.kristidosh.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Big-Ten-Adjusted-Financial-Data1.pdf
