judzeehawk
Well-Known Member
I believe we've tried this in basketball.
D-Line Loaded
- Thread starter HawkleberryFinn
- Start date
tksirius
HN's Love Doctor
We started off ok, then came Bowlsby & Barta.I believe we've tried this in basketball.
judzeehawk
Well-Known Member
The killer Bees!
I believe we've tried this in basketball.
And we should try again.
You know what would help? A coaching staff that can actually recruit, and a top flight OC that can get our offense out of the stone age. We are irrelevant, and will continue to be until we get a new staff in here. We are 7-5. Win 3 easy non con games and have a losing 4-5 record in conference play. Many, many coaches could come in here and do that. Not saying we are going to be a national championship contender, but is asking to be a B1G championship contender too much? Our division sucks. We should be contending every year for the championship game along with Wisconsin.
trj
Well-Known Member
So a Mike Leach 7-5 is better than a KF 7-5? It is all 7-5 to me. I just want a guy that can get that extra win or 2 a season that KF can’t get. I look at NW and MSU this year they are not better than Iowa, but MSU has 10 wins and NW is playing for 10 wins in their bowl game. It is not about being a blue blood, it is about maximizing your opportunities when they present themselves.
After almost 20 years of the same exact thing it is. At least for awhile. We all want more wins. The only difference is people's opinions on the chances of it actually happening. Some people think we can do better easily so of course they want a change. Some people think it's very unlikely we can do better so of course they don't want a change. I'm somewhere in the middle.
trj
Well-Known Member
I am in the middle as well. I have KF fatigue also,but it has nothing to do with his style of football being boring(and it is boring). Imo, it is about capitalizing on your opportunities. Capitalizing on those opportunities will not make Iowa a blue blood, but given Iowa’s inherent disadvantages you would be maximizing out everything you possibly could.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
Why don't people understand that is is 38 years of the exact same thing? Fry averaged 7.15 Wins per year, and KF has averaged 7.47 wins per year. If you take out the first two years for both of them to establish their programs Fry averaged 7.5 wins per year and Ferentz has averaged 8.1 Wins per year.
tksirius
HN's Love Doctor
Hayden Fry's winning percentage at Iowa= 61.6%
HF B1G winning percentage at Iowa= 61.1%
Kirk Ferentz's winning percentage at Iowa= 59.4%
KF B1G winning percentage at Iowa= 55.%
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
Yep, some more interesting comparisons.
Haydens winning % his last 10 years: 57.3%
Kirks winning % the last 10 years: 63.0%
Haydens last 10 years, 1 BSC bowl, 6 Bowl appearances with 2 Bowl wins
Ferentz last 10 years, 2 BCS bowl games, 9 bowl appearances with 3 Bowl wins (maybe 4 if they can in this year)
Haydens conference winning % last 10 years 53.1%
Ferentz conference winning % last 10 years 59.0%
Hayden's last 10 years he had 5 seasons being above .500
Ferentz last 10 years he has 9 seasons being above .500
I wonder how badly this board would have been ripping on Fry for his last 10 years if social media and the internet we
Denverhawk1
Well-Known Member
This is a link to a really interesting, similar page on another forum. (Hope that’s ok to do)
A lot of self researched stats from some members there.
https://iowa.forums.rivals.com/threads/did-a-case-study-on-hf-kf-scoring-40-plus.214717/
A lot of self researched stats from some members there.
https://iowa.forums.rivals.com/threads/did-a-case-study-on-hf-kf-scoring-40-plus.214717/
Denverhawk1
Well-Known Member
For what it’s worth, I can be on the Ferentz fatigue campaign. The offense and the defense just frustrate me to no end. And I think Hayden was cooler than cool. For me, he’s the king. BUT.... if I’m completely fair and intellectually honest... there’s very little difference between them. I know that’s sacrilegious to the pro Hayden group, and the fire Kirk camp. But it’s basically fair to say.
And it’s also hard to compare them fairly. Kirk plays an extra game every year, and chance for another win. The conference as a whole is more even than in Hayden’s day. Hayden had Ohio State and Michigan almost every year. Times have changed. But, again, from my perspective at least, there strikingly similar.
And it’s also hard to compare them fairly. Kirk plays an extra game every year, and chance for another win. The conference as a whole is more even than in Hayden’s day. Hayden had Ohio State and Michigan almost every year. Times have changed. But, again, from my perspective at least, there strikingly similar.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
How is that Cherry picking? I compared the last 10 years of each coach. I didn't take KF best 10 years, I took his last 10 and Hayden's last 10 years.
Would you prefer I compare the last 8 years of each, as that drops off 2 good years for KF? That would result in this:
Fry winning % his final 8 years 57.4%
Ferentz winning % his final 8 years 59.2%
The vast majority of Hayden's success came in his first 10 years. The vast majority of KF success came in his first 10 years.
Last edited:
MoseSchrute
Well-Known Member
Maybe, and it doesn't hurt that they have at least twice as many to chose from.
BigD
Well-Known Member
It all comes down to what you want from your sports teams.
*Be competitive but extremely seldom great.
*Be extremely competitive some years but struggle others (this is the risk taking coaches who aren’t afraid of gambling for big plays, see average sec teams),
*bottom feeder teams with fans who really don’t demand any form of excellence but enjoy the band at halftime and getting drunk (see Iowa fans during Commins years), As Hayden said when he got here, the fans had to learn and believe that we could be among the best in the Big Ten. For many years the top of the Big Ten was Ohio State, Michigan, and Iowa, 1, 2, and 3. We are not 3 anymore.
*be extremely competitive most of the time (these are called the blue blood teams but it is a total bullshit excuse by fans who don’t demand excellence even if their coach has been paid a salary that demands excellence. Proof of the pudding are USC and the current Alabama teams. Both these teams were down for almost twenty years until the right coach came along and changed everything. They would not be blue blood teams if they were located in Iowa City because the Iowa brain(dead) trust would never have taken the chance.
The second or last choices is what I prefer that we at least try to be. We are the first choice.
Last edited:
trj
Well-Known Member
This is fair..........like PCHawk I am somewhere in the middle. I am not a KF apologist or hater. I just feel KF has left some meat on the bone that’s all. Instead of 142 career victories the number feels like it should be 150-155.
Even that is a double edge sword. (Probably not the term I'm looking for but whatever). It feels like he should win more because of the product he puts on the field. He's way better at that part then what his average wins would suggest. But then he blows so many games because of his management.
We could be less skilled of a team, not blow so many games, and have a 7.5 win average. Or we can have a better team than you would expect an Iowa team to have most years, then blow some games to end up with a 7.5 win average. We are the latter and it's beyond frustrating. But when you really think about it, being the former might actually suck worse.
