3-4 more points in the Ferentz era (Deace comment)

You could also make the argument that going for more points means taking more risks. more risks means more turnovers. more turnovers probably means additional losses. So yeah you might win some games you lost, but you probably also lose some games you would have won.

Also, I've felt lately that KF hasn't been scared to go for it on 4th down and he's also faked quite a few FG's the past few years. Doesn't mean he's not risk averse...he definitely is.
 
Interesting subject. I realize in your OP you stated "it doesn't really matter", but it kind of does with Iowa and Ferentz. This for the mere fact that Ferentz plays so conservative and plays to the the level of the opponents, even if a lesser opponent. They always seem to play close games and Ferentz DOES NOT have a lead foot when it comes to putting a team away, if you know what I mean. So, it does matter with Iowa probably more than most teams.

Yes, any team would love to have an additional 4 pts and could look at all the extra wins they could have, but many of those the score just ends up that way, and not so much because the coach is ultra conservative and analytical. Iowa State, for instance, flings the ball around and is more loose on offense.

So, one could summarize that if Iowa wasn't so damn conservative and/or continually play to the level of the opponent, that if they were more aggressive could have scored more pts and come up with the extra 4 pts a game, turning around many L to W's, and season records.
 
Last edited:
homes said:
Their most successful seasons have featured a QB who is mobile, outside of Nathan Chandler in 2005.
Click to expand...


You have to look at the Iowa defenses those seasons as well. I suppose you could look at the average pts scored per game to see if it truly was the mobile QB.
 
guffus said:
You seem to be a keg is half empty type of person. You should do reverse analysis of what if Iowa scored 4 points less in each game. Just think how the 2004 or 2009 seasons would be different if you took away all those 1 to 3 point victories.

Of course
Click to expand...

I think it is a legitimate point with the way Iowa is coached and plays their games.
 
uihawk82 said:
You are correct but Chandler was in 2003 and he could run.

Watch some YouTube videos of those games and Nathan makes some good runs, scrambles and gets completiions, and had a nice TD run against Florida
Click to expand...
Correction acknowledged - I can't believe I missed that.
upload_2018-10-2_10-50-57.jpeg
 
OK, I did the analysis since I ended up with everything in Excel.

Games where the final margin was Iowa -1 to -4, 33

Games where the final margin was Iowa +1 to +4 24

So objectively we tend to lose more close games than win.
 
NoBeer said:
OK, I did the analysis since I ended up with everything in Excel.

Games where the final margin was Iowa -1 to -4, 33

Games where the final margin was Iowa +1 to +4 24

So objectively we tend to lose more close games than win.
Click to expand...
Some call this style, "playing not to lose". I can't fully disagree with that, but it is a matter of perspective, too.

It's not the prettiest way to play football, but Iowa has had success doing so with Ferentz, not as much as we'd like, but still, success. He knows what he knows. In the next 5 years or so he will likely retire. So those that want a new style of football for Iowa, you may just get your chance to see it. In the meantime, there will be 500 or more similar conversations that will begin and end, not necessarily satisfactorily for anyone.
 
homes said:
Some call this style, "playing not to lose". I can't fully disagree with that, but it is a matter of perspective, too.

It's not the prettiest way to play football, but Iowa has had success doing so with Ferentz, not as much as we'd like, but still, success. He knows what he knows. In the next 5 years or so he will likely retire. So those that want a new style of football for Iowa, you may just get your chance to see it. In the meantime, there will be 500 or more similar conversations that will begin and end, not necessarily satisfactorily for anyone.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see the "line" on these games. My guess would be that there are more games where we were favored significantly than where we were dogs...meaning not only do we lose more close ones...but we have more "close" games than we should against lesser opponents.

Anybody who's more of a stat guru than me have those numbers?
 
mopkins said:
You could also make the argument that going for more points means taking more risks. more risks means more turnovers. more turnovers probably means additional losses. So yeah you might win some games you lost, but you probably also lose some games you would have won.
Click to expand...

Spoken like Kirk himself.
 
If someone can link to a site that has historical point spreads I can do it pretty easily.
 
mopkins said:
You could also make the argument that going for more points means taking more risks. more risks means more turnovers. more turnovers probably means additional losses. So yeah you might win some games you lost, but you probably also lose some games you would have won.

Also, I've felt lately that KF hasn't been scared to go for it on 4th down and he's also faked quite a few FG's the past few years. Doesn't mean he's not risk averse...he definitely is.
Click to expand...
I thought I made it very clear I wasn't claiming Iowa would have won all of those games just by bumping up the score like that. Its purely a mental exercise but it makes you realize how razor thin the margin is when FOUR points plays into account in 33 games.
 
Kind of makes me think KF likes the old Hear Action or Talking Footballl games. There were only a couple of choices of plays. Below, KF and Brian father and son good times.
pic66007.jpg

m45326996187_1.jpg
 
NoBeer said:
I thought I made it very clear I wasn't claiming Iowa would have won all of those games just by bumping up the score like that. Its purely a mental exercise but it makes you realize how razor thin the margin is when FOUR points plays into account in 33 games.
Click to expand...

It's the maddening state of KF football. We're probably gonna win or lose every game by 1 score. KFs coaching career at Iowa perfectly lines up with my receding hairline
 
NoBeer said:
OK, I did the analysis since I ended up with everything in Excel.

Games where the final margin was Iowa -1 to -4, 33

Games where the final margin was Iowa +1 to +4 24

So objectively we tend to lose more close games than win.
Click to expand...

Kirk really made us competitive in games we really had no business winning anyway I bet.
 
mopkins said:
You could also make the argument that going for more points means taking more risks. more risks means more turnovers. more turnovers probably means additional losses. So yeah you might win some games you lost, but you probably also lose some games you would have won.

Also, I've felt lately that KF hasn't been scared to go for it on 4th down and he's also faked quite a few FG's the past few years. Doesn't mean he's not risk averse...he definitely is.
Click to expand...

The fake FGs ended when Koehn graduated. Recinos < Koehn in terms of "run threat". Now, if Rastetter becomes designated "polecat" twice per game, the whole scenario changes. Rastetter, he of the 1.000 completion percentage.
 
NoBeer said:
By that same logic Kirk cost us games we had no business losing.
Click to expand...

And that's the issue... We all know the affect has been in both directions. The ultimate question is... has it hurt us more against "weaker" opponents or helped more against "stronger" ones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top