rschneider
Well-Known Member
A lot of good points in here. If you take away the goal of achieving conference championships, Iowa football has been rather enjoyable over Kirk's tenure.
^^^ Is this real? 19 in a row? You can picture it now, 40,000 people in the stands, a cloudy/dreary day, Stevens misses a field goal late...Iowa loses 17-16.It would be just like Iowa to be a streak buster. Rutgers has lost 19 B1G games at home in a row
I want to zig when everyone is zagging, but I can't do it. The o-line can't compensate for Petras and Petras can't compensate for the o-line. Translation: 7-5/6-6. It feels like a Iowa v. South Carolina, Music City bowl to me.
A lot of good points in here. If you take away the goal of achieving conference championships, Iowa football has been rather enjoyable over Kirk's tenure.
It's a subtle difference.Not really.
If you look at his entire career (23 seasons of B1G play, including his initial 0-8), his average is 4.8 - 3.5 (win% of 57.9%, slightly better than the 55.6% that 5-4 reflects).
If you look at the last decade, his average is 5.3 - 3.3 (61.6%).
If you look at the last 7 years (the most favorable because it includes the 8-0 from 2015), his average is 6 - 2.9 (67.7%).
If you look at the most recent 5 years, his average is 5.6 - 3.4 (62.2%).
If you look at the last 3 years, his average is 6.3 - 2.7 (70.4%).
There is no reasonable way to slice his career to reflect his recent or overall performance that results in a conference win% equivalent to 5-4.
You might quibble that his last decade win% (62%) is not distinguishable from your claim (56%). Basically, that is one extra conference win every 2 years. I would argue that it does matter over time, but concede that it is not enough to jump us from above-average to great. And I would also add that the most recent history (last 3 seasons) are substantially better.