2-15 since 2005
- Thread starter vince56
- Start date
1977Hawkeye
Well-Known Member
Ouch. And in 2009 (to include it):
17-16 at home against UNI - took TWO blocked FG's to preserve the win
24-21 at home against Arkansas St. - Just like UNI, I question if this game should have been close
30-28 at home against a 5-7 Michigan team
15-13 @MSU
17-16 at home against UNI - took TWO blocked FG's to preserve the win
24-21 at home against Arkansas St. - Just like UNI, I question if this game should have been close
30-28 at home against a 5-7 Michigan team
15-13 @MSU
Those "quality" wins in 2009 aren't exactly reassuring.
hawkfan340
Well-Known Member
I agree, but 8-17 is a pretty bad number on it's own right.
BlackHawk
Well-Known Member
Agreed, but if we are talking about wins and losses within a 4 point difference of the opposition, there is no reason to exclude the wins in 2009. It is akin to saying "we lost all of the close games (except for the close games we won)".
Why not exclude the JC years if we are going to exclude 2009?
BlackHawk
Well-Known Member
Agreed, which is why it is baffling to exclude one season. Why was he trying to make it look worse when the statistics were already bad?
whammer33024
Well-Known Member
we are 5-0 this year; excluding games played on the road because its not fair to play on the road
hawkfan340
Well-Known Member
Very much agree. Let the data speak for itself. It's ugly enough on its own. No need to ugly it up more by skewing it more negatively.
He simply provided different perspectives on how to view the myth that KF wins the close ones. KF gets way too much credit for something that does not exist in reality. Unless Arkansas State and UNI float your boat.
HaydenHawk56
Well-Known Member
I think the point he is trying to make is outside of a very good 2009, Iowa consistently loses games year to year when a close game is on the line. That is the norm.
tweeterhawk
Well-Known Member
Any bets whether the choir asks Ferentz about this at his presser today?
hawkfan340
Well-Known Member
Actually, this does make me think that we should exclude the games where we don't have a home and home. It's already a joke that we play these FCS schools and non-BCS team where it's not a fair fight in money, recruiting, or facilities. But the fact that Iowa always plays at home gives us even more of an advantage in these games.
In this case it'd be correcting for a way in which the non-level playing field skews things in our favor.
Edit: Just looked it up and it only takes away the 2 wins in 2009. I think a fair evaluation would say we're 6-17 in 4 point games against BCS competittion since 2005. Not good.
Last edited:
SteveGarvey
Well-Known Member
Maybe Ferentz coached us to close losses when otherwise the losses would have been by more points. Hey you gotta look at every angle of this thing.
hawkfan340
Well-Known Member
This may be true as well.
BALDIES7980
Well-Known Member
It is a point thats needs to be added but as Kirk himself says "we are just trying to get the win" and the results of wins in those games is pathetic.
Pretty hard to argue from any angle that it is a good mentality to have by the results!
Which brings us right back to the salary issue. Are we really going to pay this much to still lose but make it closer? I have no illusions of grandeur but some level of accountability for the performance of the program is due. At this level, not everything can be a pass because of previous success or speculation it will be worse if change occurs. I'm not advocating KF moving on but I am looking at the demonstrated need to refresh the organization in some fairly significant ways. Including coaching changes and some aggressive schematic evolution. If KF can't or won't then it's HIS choice and I have no problem moving on.
hawkfan340
Well-Known Member
Here's the full data set:
8 Wins (Record; 2+ games better than Iowa in black, worse than Iowa in red)
2007 Illinois (9-4)
2008 Penn. St. (11-2)
*2009 UNI (7-4)
*2009 Ark. St. (4-8)
2009 Mich. (5-7)
2009 Mich. St. (6-7)
2010 Missouri (10-3)
2011 Pitt. (4-4)
17 Losses (Record; 2+ games better than Iowa in black, worse than Iowa in red)
2005 Mich. (7-5)
2005 jNW (7-5)
2006 Indiana (5-7)
2006 Wisconsin (12-1)
2006 Texas (10-3)
2007 Wisconsin (9-4)
2007 ISU (3-9)
2008 Pitt (9-4)
2008 Mich. St. (9-4)
2008 Illinois (5-7)
2009 Ohio St. (11-2)
2010 Wisconsin (11-2)
2010 jNW (7-6)
**2010 Ohio St. (12-1)
2010 Minnesota (3-9)
2011 ISU (4-4)
2011 Minnesota (2-6)
* No home-and-home series
** Will be voided due to violations
Iowa Records
2005 - (7-5)
2006 - (6-7)
2007 - (6-6)
2008 - (9-4)
2009 - (11-2)
2010 - (8-5) (8-4 if we throw out OSU, which I didn't for my analysis)
2011 - (5-3)
So there's 5 games that Iowa kept it close against a arguably a significantly superior team. Conversely, 4 of the close wins were against competition to which Iowa was significantly superior, by the same definition.
Going further, there were also 3 terrific wins against teams that were 2+ games better than us (2007 Ill., 2008 PSU, 2010 Missouri), and there were 4 terrible losses against teams that were 2+ games worse than us (2007 ISU, 2008 Ill., 2010 & 2011 Minnesota).
So since 2005, Iowa has played close games against teams with significantly different records 16 times. In those games Iowa is 7-9 in those games. In games where Iowa was a heavy favorite, they were 4-4. In games where Iowa was a heavy underdog, they were 3-5.
In games with teams of relatively close record, however, Iowa is just 1-8. That's the real problem. Just 1 win (Pitt this year) against 8 losses when playing closely with teams that have records fairly comparative with ours.
**Here's an extremely weird way to see thing too:
Since 2005, Iowa has played 25 close games. In games were the teams are fairly unevenly matched, the results have been a fairly even 7-9 record for Iowa. In games were the teams are fairly evenly matched, the results have been decidedly uneven against Iowa in the form of a 1-8 record.
The only thing I can say, is that this is extreme bizarre and I have no idea why close games with Iowa work out this way. Pretty amazing stats though.
Last edited:
