Heads rolling today....

Fryowa

Administrator
I seat my Beer down. Win Saturday and .... Hawk Players Tough. Seat beer down? ?Gotta drink. H.Hour lasts not Long. Big "d" game. Coach Parker and his Men will be firing Out. Roberts I hope and Moss big Help... Keep feeding Tracy. All will be Well.
Of was for To.The. mix tre if going Typrewriter!! Hwaks are Sureif.can.BeNot of whent Over Not.This? ? way??>? Players.If.wHEN. Kirk TUFF!!! No?? Can be.Regard.Of Road if never, YEs!!
 

kicker22

Well-Known Member
Iowa isn't tied for anything. They lost both of their conference losses in division, which puts them behind Purdue, Minnesota, and Wisconsin in terms of tiebreakers.

This is a 4-way tie. Winning percentage against the 4 tied teams is the first step.

Let's say Iowa and Wisconsin win and Purdue win out and MN loses to Iowa and WI.

Iowa gets third.

If the tie gets to three-loss West teams there's a possibility Iowa would win it... but with 2 losses in division Iowa needs Purdue and WI to drop one more.

You start with Iowa "Iowa isn't tied for anything", yet I see the words "tiebreaker" and "tie" used through out this post. We are tied. The tiebreaker isn't in our favor, but at this point were absolutely tied. We may no longer be in the driver seat, but were still along for the ride at this point. Who knows what can happen.
 

earlkoppelman

Well-Known Member
Of was for To.The. mix tre if going Typrewriter!! Hwaks are Sureif.can.BeNot of whent Over Not.This? ? way??>? Players.If.wHEN. Kirk TUFF!!! No?? Can be.Regard.Of Road if never, YEs!!
Well with my 'Creative Posts' do you think my Mindset I could be of assistance in Offensive Gameplan meetings? Distance??? Zoom me in.a legendary Bar! McCarthy's in Slo town...10am sharp pleese. I volunteer to be Offensive with Offensive people. We do have a few Offensive types hanging around. Nuff..WIN Saturday and solid Step forward. Defense Rocks Saturday. Players Hawk Tough...
 

cincyhawk

Well-Known Member
You start with Iowa "Iowa isn't tied for anything", yet I see the words "tiebreaker" and "tie" used through out this post. We are tied. The tiebreaker isn't in our favor, but at this point were absolutely tied. We may no longer be in the driver seat, but were still along for the ride at this point. Who knows what can happen.
The records are even. The results of those records are not. There aren't any ties in FBS (though I think there should be for situations like this, where Iowa beat Penn State and Wisconsin didn't, yet still holds the tiebreaker advantage if Iowa beats Minnesota).
 

cincyhawk

Well-Known Member
There's zero way to answer that question. Every situation is completely different in every way.

I do know that even though I'd be ok with an OC change if we lose the next few games, this Iowa staff is .714 since Brian took over, never missed a bowl game, and never lost a bowl game.

And remember this, rubes...

Brian isn't leaving until Kirk does, and when Kirk leaves we lose Phil Parker, Levar woods, Raimond Braithwaite, and Kelvin Bell. Careful what you wish for.
I'm not wishing for anything, just trying to get you to put forth where you draw the line.

So for you it's overall winning percentage, since that's what you posted. Not season winning percentage, overall, because Iowa is .777 on the season.

It would take 4 straight 0-12 seasons for Brian to approach. 500. At that point I assume you'd be willing to call for a change? I don't know if the program would be recoverable if we reached that point. Personally, I think the administration would have have to step in before that happened.
 

Fryowa

Administrator
So for you it's overall winning percentage, since that's what you posted. Not season winning percentage, overall, because Iowa is .777 on the season.
Not at all. I was just showing that the Hawkeyes aren't as shitty a team as a lot of folks around here like to portray, and the talk of getting rid of coaches right now is madness.

If you actually read through this thread you'd see I answered that question a couple days ago.
 

Fryowa

Administrator
There aren't any ties in FBS (though I think there should be for situations like this, where Iowa beat Penn State and Wisconsin didn't, yet still holds the tiebreaker advantage if Iowa beats Minnesota).
Why in god's name would you consider non-divisional victories or losses when deciding divisional championships? That's absurd.
 

BigD

Well-Known Member
Time for the post I type every football season and every baskettball season.

If Iowa hires the right destination coach, and it seems to have two at the present time, there is probably going to be a ceiling on what our programs can accomplish. And to some consistency can look like complacency, even mediocrity, and it can make the coach of the team look as they are comfortable, content with said consistency.

For Iowa to break through the glass ceiling history shows that they have to get a Forrest Evy, Ralph Miller, Lute Olson type who may be doing something else in five years, but who can produce spectacular results while they are here. It would work if you hit the correct hire, but would the alumni and boosters go along with it?
No, because they don’t want someone who could become bigger than they are. If that happened said coach would then be calling the shots. The fan base would pull behind that coach.

Also the Big Ten Channel has nullified the boosters somewhat unless you have one or more of them donating seventy millions dollars a year.

The big ten channel did a huge favor for all of the big ten coaches. Back in the day to get any TV time your team had to be better than average. TV time led to revenue. If you weren’t any good you seldom got on TV and it really did matter what the boosters were doing.

A two million dollar pay out for playing in a rose bowl was huge back then. Even if after all the expenses of the bowl trip you only took home a measly $700,000. That helped buy new equipment and other things.

EF Hutton’s old commercials would signify the way Hayden raised money “He earned it.”

Now the last place coach (program) in the Big Ten get their seventy million a year. That number is only going to continue to climb. Will be over one hundred million before long.

Can everyone say Merry Christmas!!!

If there is any hesitation in expanding the conference this is why. Big slice of pie for each kid but if momma adopts a dozen or so more kids the piece might get smaller over all. Yes you may add a couple more pies (west coast and east coast filling) but those pies may not be quite as desirable and could end up tasting more like cow pie.
 

Ree4

Well-Known Member
Iowa isn't tied for anything. They lost both of their conference losses in division, which puts them behind Purdue, Minnesota, and Wisconsin in terms of tiebreakers.

This is a 4-way tie. Winning percentage against the 4 tied teams is the first step.

Let's say Iowa and Wisconsin win and Purdue win out and MN loses to Iowa and WI.

Iowa gets third.

If the tie gets to three-loss West teams there's a possibility Iowa would win it... but with 2 losses in division Iowa needs Purdue and WI to drop one more.
We need Wisconsin to lose another game, we win out, Purdue loses to OSU. Tough for all of these to happen but not impossible.
 

cincyhawk

Well-Known Member
Why in god's name would you consider non-divisional victories or losses when deciding divisional championships? That's absurd.
To make sense, it should be by in-division record first, then the tiebreaker should go by overall conference record, then head to head. The Big Ten does overall conference record, the tie breaks by in division record. Not doing things this way muddies the divisional standings.

If it went by divisional standings, then conference standings, then H2H it would look like this right now in the West, and you'd have clear placement of everyone.

Wisconsin. 2 - 0 4 - 2
Minnesota 3 - 1 4 - 2
Purdue 3 - 2 4 - 2
Iowa 1 - 2 4 - 2
Illinois 1 - 2 3 - 4
Nebraska 1 - 3 1 - 6
NW 0 - 2 1 - 5

The way the calculate standings now just makes people feel better about where they are in the standings. When the reality is that by tiebreakers the above is the actual standings of the West by who's going to Indy. Iowa needs a lot of help.
 

Fryowa

Administrator
To make sense, it should be by in-division record first, then the tiebreaker should go by overall conference record, then head to head. The Big Ten does overall conference record, then tie breaks by in division record. Not doing things this way muddies the divisional standings.
No it doesn't.

In the case of a divisional tie (2 teams) it goes by head to head, game over.

In the case of a divisional tie (3 or more teams) it goes...

1) winning percentage in games between tied teams
2) records based on WP within the division
3) records compared again the next-highest placing team in their division, in order of finish
4) records based on WP against all common conference opponents regardless of division
5) records based on cumulative conference winning percentage of non- divisional opponents

The B1G doesn't even consider non-divisional games until step 4, and the odds of getting to that point with 3 or more tied teams are astronomical. Not sure where you're getting your information, but this is how they break ties:

https://bigten.org/news/2011/8/10/Big_Ten_Conference_Football_Divisional_Tiebreaker.aspx
 

Northside Hawk

Well-Known Member
No, because they don’t want someone who could become bigger than they are. If that happened said coach would then be calling the shots. The fan base would pull behind that coach.

Also the Big Ten Channel has nullified the boosters somewhat unless you have one or more of them donating seventy millions dollars a year.

The big ten channel did a huge favor for all of the big ten coaches. Back in the day to get any TV time your team had to be better than average. TV time led to revenue. If you weren’t any good you seldom got on TV and it really did matter what the boosters were doing.

A two million dollar pay out for playing in a rose bowl was huge back then. Even if after all the expenses of the bowl trip you only took home a measly $700,000. That helped buy new equipment and other things.

EF Hutton’s old commercials would signify the way Hayden raised money “He earned it.”

Now the last place coach (program) in the Big Ten get their seventy million a year. That number is only going to continue to climb. Will be over one hundred million before long.

Can everyone say Merry Christmas!!!

If there is any hesitation in expanding the conference this is why. Big slice of pie for each kid but if momma adopts a dozen or so more kids the piece might get smaller over all. Yes you may add a couple more pies (west coast and east coast filling) but those pies may not be quite as desirable and could end up tasting more like cow pie.
How can boosters be concerned about a coach becoming bigger than said boosters and in the next paragraph become nullified by B1G Network Benjamin's?

Are the boosters influential or aren't they? In the first paragraph you are insinuating that they are bigger than the coach, then in the next saying they are nullified by the network. Unless both are possible.
 

BigD

Well-Known Member
How can boosters be concerned about a coach becoming bigger than said boosters and in the next paragraph become nullified by B1G Network Benjamin's?

Are the boosters influential or aren't they? In the first paragraph you are insinuating that they are bigger than the coach, then in the next saying they are nullified by the network. Unless both are possible.
I am talking about the administration fearing how big a coach becomes.

The boosters are less influential than they used to be because of all the cash coming in by way of the Big Ten Network.

Sorry I guess I didn’t clarify that I was talking about the administration at first and then started talking about the boosters.
 

Latest posts

Top