Brian/Nate's Objective Performance

homes said:
Except for the Wisconsin loss in 2017 (and the cheapo TD Wisconsin had in 2018), everyone of those losses in yellow were by a TD or less.

Penn State - Lost last play of the game. Defense couldn't stop McSorley and Barkley.
MSU - Poor game by the offense. Not excusing that one.
NW - Poor game by the offense, Fant drops a fourth down pass in OT to end the game.
Wisconsin - A rump roasting.
Wisconsin - Beyer playing hackysack with the football, Wisconsin goes 85 yards to score a TD, missed passes to open receivers.
Penn State - Blown TD to Hockenson and failure at the goal line.
Purdue - Defense couldn't stop Purdue all day. Two holding calls in a row stifled any chance to burn the clock.
NW - No excuses on this one. Hello coaches, Fant is on the sidelines.
Michigan - No excuses, just not good enough on offense.
Penn State - No excuses, just not good enough on offense.

It's a combination of factors, it's not one thing. Not sold on BF being the head coach, unless it's 5 years from now, and Iowa's offense starts clicking in the meantime, then I'd be in favor of it. We'll see.

One other thing - he needs to comport himself better on the sidelines. Kirk can get away with it, he's earned it. Brian hasn't earned it (and he's the OC, not the head coach).
Click to expand...


They are all still losses. One can argue that at least a team should go .500 in those contests as a starting point for a debate.
 
InGoodCo said:
except it's only 10 out of 11 when you cherry pick the numbers. I recall them beating an above average ISU team all 3 seasons, Boston College, Mississippi State.... look, it's not great, but you're leaving out games against quality opponents that they've won during this time and it's not really a full picture.
Click to expand...

Those aren't conference and Fryowa explicitly stated the importance of conference games. That is the real measure.
 
deanvogs said:
Because then the picture doesn't look the way Da Haters want. It is very typical, and they do this all the time. Certain things don't matter, certain wins don't count, blah, blah, blah.
Click to expand...

Ya gotta agree that it gives you a pretty damn good idea of what's going on though. This in conference play, which is the most important measure to most coaches. I don't have a problem with that.

It a team has to add in meaningless games to bloat the numbers up to one's bar, then the team's got issues. That's my take.
 
MelroseHawkins said:
Ya gotta agree that it gives you a pretty damn good idea of what's going on though. This in conference play, which is the most important measure to most coaches. I don't have a problem with that.

It a team has to add in meaningless games to bloat the numbers up to one's bar, then the team's got issues. That's my take.
Click to expand...

Meaningless games? So playing an above .500 team for a trophy game is meaningless? So playing an above .500 teams in a bowl game is meaningless? All we heard about for a long time was about Iowa's bowl winning draught, seemed pretty important to "Da Haters" then. Iowa plays way less non conference cupcakes than 95% of the rest of college football.
 
MelroseHawkins said:
Those aren't conference and Fryowa explicitly stated the importance of conference games. That is the real measure.
Click to expand...
Northwestern last year would be a great data point for this discussion. 0-3 in the non conf, 8-1 in the B1G regular season allowed them the exposure to play on the first Saturday in December in the B1G CCG. Held their own for about 3 quarters against OSU before succumbing to a superior team, then back to obscurity in the Holiday Bowl.
 
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...

Actually, I think it is very objective to set parameters as just looking at ALL conference results. Just because you set a parameter does not mean you are cherry picking. There are certain factors why one may not want to look at non-conference games. Most have 2-3 sure wins (many lower division) that a team ALWAYS gets to play at home. Those extra 2-3 wins every year can skew data. Actually, limiting a range that can be measured objectively can tell you a lot more than throwing all in a pot. I work in research. This is why you have specific controlled parameters to measure. In my eyes, a 7-5 season for a team in college football is really a .500 season secondary to the 2 bunny wins. More than likely that said team went around .500 in conference play. So, as research goes, cut out the noisy data that might end up skewing the objective data and don't even look at that. Define the parameters and measure between them. Now if you chose only certain games within the parameters, that would be cherry picking.

Taking only conference results is a great approach as teams should get up for all conference games, and all teams should be striving for the same goal, to win the division or conference. They are the games that usually define a teams seasons, the schedules are more fair with equal road vs home games.



Oh, and ....................drop mic.
 
Last edited:
deanvogs said:
Meaningless games? So playing an above .500 team for a trophy game is meaningless? So playing an above .500 teams in a bowl game is meaningless? All we heard about for a long time was about Iowa's bowl winning draught, seemed pretty important to "Da Haters" then. Iowa plays way less non conference cupcakes than 95% of the rest of college football.
Click to expand...

Yea, kinda is.
 
deanvogs said:
Really? I wonder if the teams that have made the playoffs without even winning their divisions think nothing matters but conference record.
Click to expand...


This is cherry picking because this doesn't happen with most teams. You are cherry picking the Alabama's of the world which are blue bloods. The Alabamas who will have a Wofford State scheduled the week prior to the playoff selection show just to get a blow out fresh in the minds of the committee.
 
deanvogs said:
Really? I wonder if the teams that have made the playoffs without even winning their divisions think nothing matters but conference record.
Click to expand...


Really, Miss St. last year was a nice win for Iowa, but what does it really do in the end. Nothing. Maybe help recruiting a little bit but this debate is not about recruiting, it's about a teams record.
 
MelroseHawkins said:
They are all still losses. One can argue that at least a team should go .500 in those contests as a starting point for a debate.
Click to expand...
Completely agree. But these aren't Brian Ferentz-only related losses. That is my only point.
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...
I went back and looked at the first 3 years of Greg Davis as OC. It's not the same, because no one was ever making the case that Greg Davis was ever going to be the HC, but I wondered if the results were much different. They weren't.

The Hawks were 11-13 in conference play from 2012-2014. They were 4-11 against teams with winning records. They were 7-2 against teams with losing records.

Even though these losses are not just on him, as the son of the HC, he takes on a greater responsibility in the minds of everyone for those losses. At the current pace, it will be hard to make the case for Brian to be the next HC. Kirk and Brian aren't stupid, they know that. So, if that is the plan, they clearly understand that this needs to improve dramatically. Starting with Wisconsin and winning out this year will be a start. Nate needs a signature road win that doesn't include our little bro, too.
 
MelroseHawkins said:
This is cherry picking because this doesn't happen with most teams. You are cherry picking the Alabama's of the world which are blue bloods. The Alabamas who will have a Wofford State scheduled the week prior to the playoff selection show just to get a blow out fresh in the minds of the committee.
Click to expand...

i'm not cherry picking anything, I have said the entire time that ALL WINS MATTER. So how is pointing out that wins matter cherry picking? I could also point out that winning 6 games instead of 5 makes teams bowl eligible and give them all sorts of extra practice time. There is no situation at all in which a win is not preferable over a loss. You guys have lost your ****ing minds on this. If Ferentz was routinely losing to non con opponents and losing bowl games, you would be screaming at the top of your lungs that Ferentz suckz even more ballz
 
I agree that evaluating how Iowa has done in Big Ten play is a relevant evaluation. Winning the Big Ten is a stated goal of Kirk every year, so it's quite fair for his program to be judged on how they do in the Big Ten.
 
deanvogs said:
i'm not cherry picking anything, I have said the entire time that ALL WINS MATTER. So how is pointing out that wins matter cherry picking? I could also point out that winning 6 games instead of 5 makes teams bowl eligible and give them all sorts of extra practice time. There is no situation at all in which a win is not preferable over a loss. You guys have lost your ****ing minds on this. If Ferentz was routinely losing to non con opponents and losing bowl games, you would be screaming at the top of your lungs that Ferentz suckz even more ballz
Click to expand...

This entire debate is NOT about winning 6 games (really 4 quality games) to make a meaningless bowl (way too many now) and/or getting extra practice time. Yes, that is good but you are rewriting the story to help sell your point. This entire thread is merely about Iowa's success or lack of in conference play. You are going down different roads.
 
homes said:
I agree that evaluating how Iowa has done in Big Ten play is a relevant evaluation. Winning the Big Ten is a stated goal of Kirk every year, so it's quite fair for his program to be judged on how they do in the Big Ten.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's a fairly simple thing to understand. You are measuring your PEER/Conference teams. Nothing wrong with that.
 
MelroseHawkins said:
This entire debate is NOT about winning 6 games (really 4 quality games) to make a meaningless bowl (way too many now) and/or getting extra practice time. Yes, that is good but you are rewriting the story to help sell your point. This entire thread is merely about Iowa's success or lack of in conference play. You are going down different roads.
Click to expand...

I'll have to remember that, next time we lose a non conference game, nobody should care, they don't matter at all I guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top