Section136
Well-Known Member
Or he has lost more often than the other coaches against teams under .500
Big Game Kirk? What do the Stats Say?
- Thread starter JonDMiller
- Start date
Or he has lost more often than the other coaches against teams under .500
Jon's original post still captures the reason why many (including me) are KF fans despite your factoid (assuming it is true.) I am okay with having to pucker up for games against sisters of the poor if it also means that we play powerhouses straight up and often beat them.
Obviously, I would rather that we beat everybody but if I had to choose, I choose KF's approach that produces wins against top-25s (even if the wins come with bad losses) over an approach that produces thrashing of inferior teams (combined with certain losses against top-10/25s).
Yes you are right, i read that wrong.
Man there is some cranky people on this site. My god
hawkfan2679
Well-Known Member
I think Jon backed into the numbers against under .500 teams, so I did a little leg work to present against KF's number.
Against Teams under .500 (End of Season):
Ferentz: 46-12, 79.3%
Bielema: 36-2, 94.7%
Stoops: 56-4, 93.3%
Pelini: 23-2, 92.0%
Dantonio: 33-9, 78.6%
Fitzgerald: 30-9, 76.9%
Against Teams under .500 (End of Season):
Ferentz: 46-12, 79.3%
Bielema: 36-2, 94.7%
Stoops: 56-4, 93.3%
Pelini: 23-2, 92.0%
Dantonio: 33-9, 78.6%
Fitzgerald: 30-9, 76.9%
How many of those Ferentz losses came in the first two/three seasons? Biels had a big advantage in that since he didn't have to rebuild when he took over.
I think Biels coaching philosophy does lend itself to losing fewer "should wins" but the giant discrepency between him and Ferentz is due more to the rebuild process for Ferentz than anything.
hawkfan2679
Well-Known Member
Per the note in the OP, this data is from 2001 through 2011.
HawkinGoferLand
Well-Known Member
Quick making up stuff to defend KF you dang apologists. He believes 4-4 is the best we can do but his insubordinate team keeps overachieving. /sarcasm 
JonDMiller
Publisher/Founder
Thank you..yes, I did back in Kirk's numbers...those were not listed and I just threw that in there for him and didn't do the math for the others as I was already running percentages and what not and my head started to hurt. I can only be in math mode for 30 minutes, max
oh well nevermind then.
Billso
Well-Known Member
No, just anal-retentive engineering and accounting types
Thanks for doing this. Iowaboy is partially vindicated. It basically says Ferentz, Dantonio and Fitz have "bad losses" 20% of the time they play poor teams, which isn't great but arguably not horrible either. By contrast Biels takes care of business 95% of the time... but he's also markedly less successful than Kirk against great teams.
No, just anal-retentive engineering and accounting types
Thanks for doing this. Iowaboy is partially vindicated. It basically says Ferentz, Dantonio and Fitz have "bad losses" 20% of the time they play poor teams, which isn't great but arguably not horrible either. By contrast Biels takes care of business 95% of the time... but he's also markedly less successful than Kirk against great teams.
Lol. I am an Accountant.
No, just anal-retentive engineering and accounting types
Thanks for doing this. Iowaboy is partially vindicated. It basically says Ferentz, Dantonio and Fitz have "bad losses" 20% of the time they play poor teams, which isn't great but arguably not horrible either. By contrast Biels takes care of business 95% of the time... but he's also markedly less successful than Kirk against great teams.
So which would you prefer? I, for one, am tired of letdown losses to NW and ISU. The peaks and valleys and inconsistency of the program is what drives fans nuts.
WindyCityHawkI
Well-Known Member
Did you leave out the record for all other coaches except Kirk for "records vs teams under .500 end of season" because they were all closer to 90-95% vs Kirk's 79%? That is what is keeping us from consistently going 9-3 instead of 7-5. With the way schedules are setup these days with so many preseason guaranteed (or should be) wins, all you have to do to get to 9-3 is beat the Northern Illinois's and UNI's of the world, go 3-3 vs ranked Big 10 competition, and then go 2-0 against Ind/Minn etc.
Billso
Well-Known Member
Hey, I'm with you.
What's cool about this thread is learning that the facts back up our instincts: that we've had more trouble putting away "gimmes" than our rival teams have.
Much like the thread awhile back confirming we really DO have an unusually high attrition rate relative to other BCS teams.
Doesn't mean I hate Kirk or want someone else. Does mean these are legitimate areas for improvement. Along with sideline management and special teams. Happily I see Kirk making concrete steps to address at least some of these.
HaydenHawk56
Well-Known Member
The data shows me we play down and up to our competition. It will be hard, if not impossible, to win a National Title doing that.
Iowa's competitive under Kirk, but not consistent enough to be being a title contender year in and year out (in conference and nationally) because we don't take care of the ISU's and Indiana's of the world.
Iowa's competitive under Kirk, but not consistent enough to be being a title contender year in and year out (in conference and nationally) because we don't take care of the ISU's and Indiana's of the world.
SmokeTownHawk
Well-Known Member
DwayneTwill
Well-Known Member
Agreed.
StatelineHawk
Well-Known Member
KF and Ron Zook vs Minny last 2 years 0-4.
Rest of Big 10 vs Minny 12-0.
Rest of Big 10 vs Minny 12-0.
MoseSchrute
Well-Known Member
Depressing. Yet we are 3-0 versus Shoelace. Does not compute.
Last edited:
