Brian/Nate's Objective Performance

I don't believe BF will automatically be given the HC reigns contrary to what some believe (or want to believe). His appointment to OC made sense on several fronts for the program longer term but only if he is successful in his current appointment. To be considered for HC at the Iowa level I would hope all future candidates can also exhibit other degrees of success with hiring, recruiting, player development, people skills, managing others, details on how you plan to get us from point A to point B, etc.

Brian has been given a head start over others but he needs to show more than he has to date. I don't pretend to know where he stands on other above mentioned traits.
 
uihawk82 said:
There have been a lot of ideas and info in replies to this thread.

One was about goals. Some lady named Sally called WHO Soundoff after last Saturday's game. She really read everyone the riot act about being so mad about not scoring much, about being boring, about not winning titles, etc. Well she was really clobbered by most callers after that.

As far as goals, every P5 team sets goals and they are usually win every game, win your division and Conf Title, play for and win a Natty Champ. Those are the basic goals. Most teams do not play for or win a Natty Title EVER anymore. A lot of teams dont win their conference over a few decades. A smaller %age dont win their division if they are in one.

I think this coaching staff should be winning a Division Title once every 3-4 years, maybe even every two to three years as most years they have main competition from one team, Wisky. I cant remember when they went to divisions but the hawks have won one in maybe ten, that is 1 for 10. That is not good especially with Illinois, Minny, NW, Purdue, and even Nebby pretty down in their abilities over this time.

The record against winning or .500 teams in the Big 10 the last 2.5 years is bad especially when the offense can do the job sometimes like the whooping on OSU and hanging 50+ at Nebby. Statiscally with Iowa as a 8 win avg team they should win once every 3 times against a winning team

AND they shouldnt get beat so many times by the sub-.500 teams.

So say it, not enough big wins in conference and too many losses to poorer teams in conf.

That is not a good record and the hawks should be winning on avg 1.5 more games a year.

BF is not doing that great a job as OC and I do not see any qualifications to be an HC.
Click to expand...
When Caddy met Sally?

Just sayin'.
 
deanvogs said:
Dude I follow recruiting closely, and yeah top 25 finishes to matter coaches say as much all the time.

You live in bizzaro world @Fryowa and only in your bizzaro do 11 wins not matter at all. I will give you that conference games are more important than non conference games, but to call them "pre season" or "scrimmages" just means you no longer live in reality with the college football landscape these days.
Click to expand...
All I've said from the start is that the ultimate goal is winning the Big Ten, and to do that you have to beat good teams in your conference. Brian has two and a half years of losing to any team in the conference that finishes with a winning record (91% loss rate). ISU, BC, North Texas, and Miss State can't help you do that in any way.

If you are shooting for an AP popularity contest and a trip to Tampa for a homer fest by all means knock yourself out. That wasn't good enough for Barry Alvarez and I'd take what they have any day.
 
Fryowa said:
All I've said from the start is that the ultimate goal is winning the Big Ten, and to do that you have to beat good teams in your conference. Brian has two and a half years of losing to any team in the conference that finishes with a losing record (91% loss rate).

If you are shooting for an AP popularity contest and a trip to Tampa for a homer fest by all means knock yourself out. That wasn't good enough for Barry Alvarez and I'd take what they have any day.
Click to expand...

So now not only do non conference games not count, but games vs teams who aren't above .500 don't count either? Yet you aren't setting parameters to try to bolster up a hate Ferentz narrative? LOL, nice try.

I will say that I am living in the current times so I do enjoy non conference wins, bowl wins, and top 25 seasons. You can try to color that as weird all you want, but I think 99% of college fans would find your position the weird one here.
 
Fryowa said:
Not 10 out of 11 times.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to know what Hayden's record was against Big Ten teams with a winning record over his 20 years. It would also be interesting to know what Kirk's record is over his tenure to date.

I think your analysis gets a little tricky. Good teams DO beat teams with losing records or .500 records, regardless of whether they are in the conference or out of the conference. You also can't argue that beating Georgia Tech in the Orange Bowl was meaningless, or beating a ranked Miss. State was meaningless. That is bullshit.

I do agree with your premise that GREAT teams beat other conference teams with winning records, and those are the seasons to remember. I agree with that premise 100%.

Using your analysis, there have not been a bunch of GREAT Iowa teams over the past 41 years, but there have been some. Those are the teams that have won conference or division championships or came close to doing so. There have been 6 of those in 41 seasons. There have been several "near miss" seasons. 1983, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1991, 2003, 2009 and 2016 come to mind.

I don't have the time to do the analysis, but it would be interesting to do. I'm guessing Hayden did a little better than Kirk, but I wouldn't bet the farm on that.

I think your analysis actually applies during the past 41 years: Iowa has been very good but not great because we don't beat the conference's best teams consistently.
 
deanvogs said:
So now not only do non conference games not count, but games vs teams who aren't above .500 don't count either? Yet you aren't setting parameters to try to bolster up a hate Ferentz narrative? LOL, nice try.

I will say that I am living in the current times so I do enjoy non conference wins, bowl wins, and top 25 seasons. You can try to color that as weird all you want, but I think 99% of college fans would find your position the weird one here.
Click to expand...

yeah, just look at everything. Don't omit anything, just look at all. Period. Like any normal person who looks at anything and then comes to a conclusion.
 
What amazes me is how Phil Parker can remain composed enough on the sideline so as not to get a penalty but Brian has already racked up some.
 
Hey let us at least breath a little. We beat Purdue and Northwestern. So we beat who we should so far and lost to teams we were predicted to lose to. At least going in right direction there.
 
deanvogs said:
So now not only do non conference games not count, but games vs teams who aren't above .500 don't count either? Yet you aren't setting parameters to try to bolster up a hate Ferentz narrative? LOL, nice try.
Click to expand...
Uhhh wut?

I'm fairly certain that games against sub par opponents are won most of the time by better teams.

So...what that leaves are good teams with winning records. Those--by definition--are the ones you need to win to make it to the top of the division. We've won one game vs a team with a winning conference record in over two and a half years (you seem to keep trying to hide that for some reason), and it shows that the Hawks choke against bigger opponents in high-pressure games.

You seem to be content with beating the Indianas and Illinois and North Texases and making a garbage bowl every year, and that's fine. It would definitely be easier as a fan if you didn't care about winning a division. Maybe you have it figured out...
 
InGoodCo said:
yeah, just look at everything. Don't omit anything, just look at all. Period. Like any normal person who looks at anything and then comes to a conclusion.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but he doesn't think he is putting up parameters to his arguments. I mean non conference games don't count. Games vs sub .500 teams don't count. So yeah he actually thinks that over a 2 1/2 to 3 year span only 10 or so of 36 games played count. LOLOL, you can't make this stuff up.
 
ChosenChildren said:
You also can't argue that beating Georgia Tech in the Orange Bowl was meaningless, or beating a ranked Miss. State was meaningless. That is bullshit.
Click to expand...
It might be bullshit when it comes to your pride in your team, but it means nothing to winning the West.

I enjoy beating ISU and I enjoy decent bowl games like anyone else. But they don't have any bearing on the greater cause.
 
Fryowa said:
I said that where?

My post highlighted that Brian is a choke artist. Wins against Rutgers should be expected, no?
Click to expand...

Ask Wisconsin or Georgia if wins should be expected over teams with sub .500 conference records.

Quit parsing things, you have an argument without doing all the stupid ass parsing. Under Brain we are 12-11 in B1G play, that AINT GREAT!!!!!!!!! That is all that ****ING matters. Quit trying to act like going 10-0 vs teams with winning records matters more or less, all that matters is your overall record. You want to win every ****ing game you play, not just ones vs X or Y.

Plus quit trying to act like non conference games don't matter. It really makes me think I am talking to a crazy person who doesn't understand the current landscape of college football.
 
Fryowa said:
It might be bullshit when it comes to your pride in your team, but it means nothing to winning the West.

I enjoy beating ISU and I enjoy decent bowl games like anyone else. But they don't have any bearing on the greater cause.
Click to expand...

Using your reasoning, wins against good non-conference teams or bowl teams mean more than defeating conference teams with losing records. Just sayin'
 
Fryowa said:
A lot of folks here have offered the opinion that (assumedly because of his stats) Nateski should be considered one of the greats at least as far as Hawkeye QBs go.

Others have said that Kirk Jr. has started to "turn things around" and that he should be given a bunch more time to try to produce results.

I saw some stats on twitter lately that have made me step back and try to look at this as objectively as possible.

BF has been the OC for two and a half years, and Nate has been the starter that entire time. In that span we've played 23 conference games. Conference games, no matter what anyone says, are the only thing that matter to Iowa football, because it's the conference record that determines whether you play in the Big Ten title game, and subsequently whether you get into the CFP (lol). Games against Miami (OH), North Texas, etc. are ridiculous to consider; bowl games are strictly for funsies and don't mean dick except to players, which I understand.

So what would be considered a "good win" in conference? For argument's sake, let's say a win against a team with a record greater than .500 in conference. That obviously indicates a team that wins more conference games than it loses, and is a team that should be tough to beat.

Since BF took over in 2017, we are 1 for 11 against teams that finished the season with an above .500 conference record. We have won exactly ONE big game in the last two and a half years. I included this year's games against Michigan and PSU because it looks like Michigan will be above .500 and PSU already is. And before anyone goes and says the defense is part of it too...that's a ridiculous thing to even consider. Iowa was 17th in the country in points allowed in '17, 11th in 2018, and they sit at 3rd in the nation right now.

That's one game in the last two and a half years against a good conference opponent. The teams the Hawks have beat since September of '17 have a combined record of 32-73.

Brian has had a pretty good period of time to start winning games that count and he's completely flopped just about every chance he's had. Stanley also shares part of that (although I'd say a smaller part), and he's likewise had tons of chances to make big games happen but didn't pull it out. Bad OLs are part of the equation, but guys like CJ have had equally bad lines at different times and had no where near the WR talent that Stanley has. Regardless of where his yards and TDs turn out, I don't think anyone should go rushing to put him up there with Long, Banks, Tate, or Stanzi. How long will it take before people can admit that these two choke in every single meaningful game?

Is this seriously the guy you want running the show for the next 25 years?

Capture.jpg
Click to expand...


Great analysis and points.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top