20 Year Comparison - Hayden and Kirk

homes

homes

Well-Known Member
Overall Winning Percentage - Hayden (60.08%) Kirk (60.07%)
Big Ten Winning Percentage - Hayden (59.25%) Kirk (55.8%)
Big Ten Championships - Hayden 3 Kirk 2
10 Win Seasons - Hayden 3 Kirk 5
9 Win Seasons - Hayden 3 Kirk 2
8 Win Seasons - Hayden 5 Kirk 4
Winning Seasons - Hayden 13 Kirk 15
Losing Record Big Ten - Hayden 4 Kirk 5

Objectively, in many years (but not every year), Iowa's non-conference schedule under Hayden was tougher than Iowa's schedule under Kirk. Adjusting for the tougher non-conference schedules in some years (meaning Iowa would have had softer opponents and win those games as opposed to losing to the tougher opponent), Hayden would have 9 more wins, giving him 152 total.*

The first 10 years of each, Hayden was more successful than Kirk, both overall record and Big Ten record (notably, Hayden never had a losing record in the Big Ten his first 10 years, winning 66% of his Big Ten games). The second 10 years of each, Kirk has been more successful than Hayden, both overall and in the Big Ten, even adjusting for the tougher non-conference opponents in favor of Hayden.

152 wins would put Hayden's winning percentage at 63.86%. He would have 16 winning seasons (1979, 1992, and 1994), he would have 2 more 9 win seasons (1982 and 1990), 1 more 8 win season (1992) offset by 2 less given the 2 extra 9 win years. To match Hayden's adjusted overall record, Kirk would need to average 10 wins a season for the next 5 years.

So, there's a little bit for everyone here.

*I adjusted by giving Hayden 1 more win in 1979, 1982, 1987, 1990, 1994 (3), 1994 and 1998. For example in 1979, Iowa played both Nebraska and Oklahoma; however in Kirk's first year, Iowa also played Nebraska, so I gave Hayden 1 extra win, substituting Oklahoma out for someone easier, as the Nebraska games canceled each other out.
 
Last edited:
No matter what anyone says, and no matter how much people love or hate Ferentz, what Hayden Fry did to the the Iowa football program as a whole can't be left out of the comparison. He took the program from a long-standing, total embarrassment and after thought, to one that was a contender nationally in just a few short years. Even though Kirk didn't inherit a winning team, he didn't inherit anything close to the tire fire that Fry did. In other words, there is zero chance that KF takes the same program Fry did and turns it into a winning squad.

Hayden Fry took losers (players, staff, fans, and administrators) with an ingrained defeatist attitude and turned them into winners who took pride in what they had, which is the hardest thing in the world to do. He turned it on it’s head down to the fine details.

Threw out the loser era uniforms and emulated the best team in the world at that time (if you look like a winner you feel like a winner). Commissioned the Tigerhawk as a symbol people would associate with the program and become connected with. Everyone of us has hundreds of Tigerhawks scattered throughout our closets, houses, and vehicles. He drew a line in the sand, and said enough of sucking, this is a new program and it’s going to transform, starting now.

Fry demanded toughness instead of being ok with losing. He said he wasn't going to tolerate the status quo of being a doormat and he walked the walk. Ferentz doesn't have half the intestinal fortitude that it takes to do something like that.
 
Last edited:
Fryowa said:
No matter what anyone says, and no matter how much people love or hate Ferentz, what Hayden Fry did to the the Iowa football program as a whole can't be left out of the comparison. He took the program from a long-standing, total embarrassment and after thought, to one that was a contender nationally in just a few short years. Even though Kirk didn't inherit a winning team, he didn't inherit anything close to the tire fire that Fry did. In other words, there is zero chance that KF takes the same program Fry did and turns it into a winning squad.

Hayden Fry took losers (players, staff, fans, and administrators) with an ingrained defeatist attitude and turned them into winners who took pride in what they had, which is the hardest thing in the world to do. He turned it on it’s head down to the fine details.

Threw out the loser era uniforms and emulated the best team in the world at that time (if you look like a winner you feel like a winner). Commissioned the Tigerhawk as a symbol people would associate with the program and become connected with. Everyone of us has hundreds of Tigerhawks scattered throughout our closets, houses, and vehicles. He drew a line in the sand, and said enough of sucking, this is a new program and it’s going to transform, starting now.

Fry demanded toughness instead of wing ok with losing. He said he wasn't going to tolerate the status quo of being a doormat and he walked the walk. Ferentz doesn't have half the intestinal fortitude that it takes to do something like that.
Click to expand...
I agree with everything you've written except the last sentences of the first and last paragraphs. Fry took a program that wasn't heading nowhere, it was already at nowhere, and made it a program to be reckoned with. That can never be taken away from him. I think Kirk came in with a fire in his belly, and after those '02-'04 years, who didn't think Iowa was on the cusp of going to the next level up - it just didn't happen. Who knows why - poor recruiting, too conservative play calling, unwillingness to innovate, other programs getting better around Iowa. It's my sense that there is a renewed spirit, could be wishful thinking.
 
Fryowa said:
No matter what anyone says, and no matter how much people love or hate Ferentz, what Hayden Fry did to the the Iowa football program as a whole can't be left out of the comparison. He took the program from a long-standing, total embarrassment and after thought, to one that was a contender nationally in just a few short years. Even though Kirk didn't inherit a winning team, he didn't inherit anything close to the tire fire that Fry did. In other words, there is zero chance that KF takes the same program Fry did and turns it into a winning squad.

Hayden Fry took losers (players, staff, fans, and administrators) with an ingrained defeatist attitude and turned them into winners who took pride in what they had, which is the hardest thing in the world to do. He turned it on it’s head down to the fine details.

Threw out the loser era uniforms and emulated the best team in the world at that time (if you look like a winner you feel like a winner). Commissioned the Tigerhawk as a symbol people would associate with the program and become connected with. Everyone of us has hundreds of Tigerhawks scattered throughout our closets, houses, and vehicles. He drew a line in the sand, and said enough of sucking, this is a new program and it’s going to transform, starting now.

Fry demanded toughness instead of wing ok with losing. He said he wasn't going to tolerate the status quo of being a doormat and he walked the walk. Ferentz doesn't have half the intestinal fortitude that it takes to do something like that.
Click to expand...
And two of Fry's assistant coaches inherited even bigger tire fires than the one Hayden inherited, and reversed losing programs and cultures. Barry Alvarez may have saved Wisconsin athletics and that's not hyperboly. The athletic department was at odds with the administration, and the university was at odds with state government which happened to reside in the same city. Madison was seen as socially outcast well after most of the rest of the nation and college campuses had moved past Viet Nam.

Bill Snyder took over the laughing stock of college football and had Kansas State nipping the heels of Oklahoma, Nebraska and Colorado in short order. And stayed relevant for decades.

Another assistant, Dan McCarney, made Iowa State respectable for the first time since the Earle Bruce years.

All used Hayden's blueprint for reversing losing cultures. They were going to rock the foundation to it's core, and the rattling wasn't going to stop until the winning started. Alvarez, before he even left on his first recruiting trip, ordered the office staff members to dress nicer, smoke outside in designated areas, and ordered the carpet ripped up and replaced and the walls repainted.
 
pythagoras said:
FYI if you have a 10 win season, you also have a 9 and 8 win season.

Change my mind.
Click to expand...
I’m not trying to change your mind, but number of wins is a stupid stat.

Because we're comparing seasons with differing numbers of games due to B1G games being added, bowl game/no bowl game, etc., the only thing that matters is winning percentage. Period.

Overall winning percentage and B1G winning percentage are the only things relevant to measure how often a coach actually won.
 
That's 40 years that a lot of programs would envy. Respect both coaches but Hayden will always get the slight edge because of the way he came in and turned everything around. That was no small feat.
 
homes said:
Overall Winning Percentage - Hayden (60.08%) Kirk (60.07%)
Big Ten Winning Percentage - Hayden (59.25%) Kirk (55.8%)
Big Ten Championships - Hayden 3 Kirk 2
10 Win Seasons - Hayden 3 Kirk 5
9 Win Seasons - Hayden 3 Kirk 2
8 Win Seasons - Hayden 5 Kirk 4
Winning Seasons - Hayden 13 Kirk 15
Losing Record Big Ten - Hayden 4 Kirk 5

Objectively, in many years (but not every year), Iowa's non-conference schedule under Hayden was tougher than Iowa's schedule under Kirk. Adjusting for the tougher non-conference schedules in some years (meaning Iowa would have had softer opponents and win those games as opposed to losing to the tougher opponent), Hayden would have 9 more wins, giving him 152 total.*

The first 10 years of each, Hayden was more successful than Kirk, both overall record and Big Ten record (notably, Hayden never had a losing record in the Big Ten his first 10 years, winning 66% of his Big Ten games). The second 10 years of each, Kirk has been more successful than Hayden, both overall and in the Big Ten, even adjusting for the tougher non-conference opponents in favor of Hayden.

152 wins would put Hayden's winning percentage at 63.86%. He would have 16 winning seasons (1979, 1992, and 1994), he would have 2 more 9 win seasons (1982 and 1990), 1 more 8 win season (1992) offset by 2 less given the 2 extra 9 win years. To match Hayden's adjusted overall record, Kirk would need to average 10 wins a season for the next 5 years.

So, there's a little bit for everyone here.

*I adjusted by giving Hayden 1 more win in 1979, 1982, 1987, 1990, 1994 (3), 1994 and 1998. For example in 1979, Iowa played both Nebraska and Oklahoma; however in Kirk's first year, Iowa also played Nebraska, so I gave Hayden 1 extra win, substituting Oklahoma out for someone easier, as the Nebraska games canceled each other out.
Click to expand...


Interesting to see actual numbers. Anybody else surprised that the winning percentage was almost identical? Anybody concerned with 60% considering the softness of the non-conference schedule?
 
Hawknigh said:
Interesting to see actual numbers. Anybody else surprised that the winning percentage was almost identical? Anybody concerned with 60% considering the softness of the non-conference schedule?
Click to expand...
The nonconference schedule has only gotten soft recently, and it balances out by the Big Ten being much weaker in Hayden's days.
 
BVHawk95 said:
The nonconference schedule has only gotten soft recently, and it balances out by the Big Ten being much weaker in Hayden's days.
Click to expand...

Not so sure about that. KFz has had 2 non P5 teams nearly every year. 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 (super creampuffs), 2009, 2010, 2011, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 ... 3 of them some years. 2002, 2012, 2013.
 
hawkdrummer1 said:
Not so sure about that. KFz has had 2 non P5 teams nearly every year. 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 (super creampuffs), 2009, 2010, 2011, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 ... 3 of them some years. 2002, 2012, 2013.
Click to expand...
People make too big of a deal about whether a team is P5 or not. Iowa has played some good non P5 teams and some bad P5 teams. N. Illinios finished in the top 25 several times when Iowa played them. (the Jordan Lynch years). Miami (Oh) was also very good in 02-03 when Big Ben was there. Those teams were better than Syracuse or some of the Iowa St teams Iowa's played over the last 40 years. Hell UNI has been better than Iowa St on numerous occasions.
 
Bob Comings left Hayden more talent than most people realize. Mark Bortz, Jay Hilgenberg,Reggie Roby, Andre Tippet,Bob Stoops,Mel Cole, Dennis Mosley, Gordy Bohannon and others were on the roster when Hayden arrived. I give Hayden credit for knowing what to do with that talent, but the cupboard wasn't as bare as some people think.
 
SamBrownlee48 said:
The big10 was also a lot softer in Hayden's day. No PSU. No Nebby. Wisky sucked. NW was terrible.
Click to expand...
These debates over who had the best B10 record are not really that subjective. But even if their records ARE essentially equal, which program would you rather WATCH as a fan?
 
SamBrownlee48 said:
The big10 was also a lot softer in Hayden's day. No PSU. No Nebby. Wisky sucked. NW was terrible.
Click to expand...

Purdue was stronger, Illinois was stronger, Indiana was a periodic bowl team (before there were 30+ bowls), there was no Rutgers or Maryland (recent as they are). Need I point out that Nebraska ain't what they used to be.(Hayden played them 4 times in non con when they were). Penn St was in the B1G for Hayden's last 6 years and in the early 2000s they took a significant dip with 5,5,3 & 4 win seasons. Even from 2010 on, they were only a 7 win team nearly 1/2 the time.

BTW, Iowa was pretty bad when he took over. That's more the point. It was a lot harder to build a lower end team into a winner then, than it is now...especially without TV money and facilities. Nobody else was able to crack the "Big 2 Little 8" thing...Hayden did.

But again, we've had two pretty great Head Coaches.
 
Last edited:
SCHawkeye2 said:
These debates over who had the best B10 record are not really that subjective. But even if their records ARE essentially equal, which program would you rather WATCH as a fan?
Click to expand...
It brings up the age old comparison of Arnold Palmer vs Jack Nicklaus. Palmer, who came on the scene first, was known for spectacular comebacks and equally spectacular flameouts. He was credited for making golf a watchable TV sport and for making the greatest in the world look human once in a while. He injected life into a sport at a time when players like Ben Hogan did anything but.

Nicklaus was the anti Palmer, a stoic, guarded course technician who had little of Palmer's charisma but had all the shots in the bag and could call on them when needed. He went about his business in a workmanlike manner and when he got the lead on Sunday he was hard to catch. He would play conservative, settle for par, and make you take risks to catch him. His 1986 Masters win was made even more spectacular because he won it more in the way Palmer would of then the way he usually played.
 
Last edited:
Fryowa said:
I’m not trying to change your mind, but number of wins is a stupid stat.

Because we're comparing seasons with differing numbers of games due to B1G games being added, bowl game/no bowl game, etc., the only thing that matters is winning percentage. Period.

Overall winning percentage and B1G winning percentage are the only things relevant to measure how often a coach actually won.
Click to expand...

I was mostly being facetious
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top