Not attempting an argument with you because I know we're on different sides of the fence, but what most people are getting at isn't that we're not happy with 12-2 and beating ranked teams sometimes, but if you look at the sustained, average performance of Ferentz-coached teams, it's poor as a whole.
Have there been some good years? Yep. Have there been horrible ones? also Yes.
What burns people here is the sustained mediocrity, especially when there are so many flashes of potential that are never followed up. If you've watched these teams for the past 19 years what you see is the same, predictable, just barely above average football year after year because it's safe. Flashes of greatness which are quickly cancelled out by flashes of ineptitude. What's left? Vanilla averageness which people (whether you agree with it or not) aren't satisfied with. Ferentz has no accountability whatsoever, and it shows in his coaching style, in my opinion. I know you don't like it when I say that stuff with nothing to back it up, so here are some simple stats...
Under Ferentz, Iowa is .559 all time in conference play. A 5-4 record (one game above .500) is .556. That's three thousandths of a point. You want to take out his first year? We can do that. His conference record then changes to .590...still 5-4
His teams finished .500 or below in conference play 9 times in the last 18 years. And before you start talking about me being biased by including his earlier teams, 5 of those years were from 2007 till now.
Ferentz averaged 4.2 conference wins per season his first nine years, and 4.8 the last nine years. That is sustained mediocrity. If it isn't, what is??
You always use the argument where we compare the Hawks to other teams and disregard the team's individual performance. Well, 18 years of conference W/L records is in fact comparing the Hawks to other teams. It's comparing them to the most relevant subset, the Big Ten Conference.
It isn't that everyone here says the Hawks completely suck, which is how you tend to portray it. What people here are getting at is that there's constant plateau at being mundane and statistically average. Like I said before, there are rare periods of greatness, but there are just as many years like 2006 and 2012. What's left is a .500 record which (most) fans aren't content with. And we also aren't concerned with the whole "tell me who's better than Iowa, there aren't very many" argument because frankly it's a bush league cop out that people use when they can't bring stats to the table. It's the debate equivalent to "I know you are but what am I." When you want to prove a point don't tell your opponent to go find your answer for you, you find it on your own and bring it back to the argument. If you do that and have a valid point I'll darn sure admit it.
I know you love the Hawks and KF, and you think they're one of the mid to upper echelon programs historically. No one's trying to change your mind on that. But when objective numbers are staring you in the face saying otherwise, it's hard for people here to take your point to heart. And like always, I'll leave off with the disclaimer that I don't think getting rid of Ferentz, as much as I don't care for his coaching, is the right answer. We will become Nebraska. What I do wish is that he'd slam some Fireball before the game and at half and loosen up a little bit.
