Iowa has now underachieved 6 of the last 7 seasons

silvanthalas said:
I am, and people like you are having a fit about it.



Now you are going to do some math to back up that statement, or you're going to retract it.
Click to expand...

Our Wins in true road games & the opponents season ending record:

2011:
Purdue 5-6 (season not finished)

2010:
Michigan 7-6
Indiana 5-7

2009:
ISU 7-6
PSU 11-2
Wisconsin 10-3

2008:
Indiana 3-9
Minnesota 7-6

2007:
Northwestern: 6-6

2006:
Syracuse 4-8
Illinois 2-10

2005:
Purdue 5-6
Wisconsin 10-3

2004:
PSU 4-7
Illinois 3-8
Minnesota 7-5

2003:
ISU 2-10
Wisconsin 7-6

2002:
Miami (OH) 7-5
PSU 9-4
Indiana 3-9
Michigan 10-3
Minnesota 8-5

Opponents Avg Record in wins on the Road since 2002:
Avg wins: 6.17
Avg losses: 6.08

Last road win against a team that finished a year with a winning record was Michigan last year.

Last time we won on the road vs a team that had 8+ wins to Finish a year was PSU & Wisconsin in 2009. Prior to that was Nov 12, 2005 vs Wisconsin.

Outside of 2009, we have only had 5 wins versus teams that finish with winning records while playing on the road, 1 of which that finished with a win total greater than 8; ('05 Wisconsin).

Wired thing is, the 2005 season greatly resembles this season. And we ended that season with 2 wins- and an Outback Bowl! Could History be repeating itself?*

^ I posted this just after the purdue game.
 
Last edited:
CAARHawk said:
IOWA IS NOT trending downwards. Iowa is trending exactly as Iowa has trended in the KF era. 3 years 7 or fewer wins, 3 years 8 or more wins.

That is the ONLY actual trend. NOW KF can actually break this trend with a bowl game victory. Which at 8 wins would mean Iowa was still in their up pattern.

But, depending on who Iowa pulls in the Meineke Bowl, it could be a VERY long day.
Click to expand...

Iowa is certainly trending downward, to say otherwise is just ignorant.
 
hawkfan33 said:
Iowa is certainly trending downward, to say otherwise is just ignorant.
Click to expand...

It's hard to argue with you since you provided so much backup documentation to support your thoughts. Throwing in "ignorant" doesn't do much to help either.
 
Iowa is performing as forecasted for the year. We're bowl eligible again (12 straight years). I sure hope you have to eat crow over the next 4-5 years when we win another BCS. Game. Iowa is not trending downward.
 
cibula11 said:
RocknRollface said:
Thats the truth.Outside of one crazy season where we should have lost to UNI and Indiana we have underachieved every year since 04.Think about that.Im done supporting this staff. They won't do what it takes to win, and they can't keep a team focused or motivated.
Click to expand...
Step away from the ledge fairweather fan......underachieve is something that happens every few years. Iowa is no different than other programs who 'under achieve' every 3 or 4 years. Get over yourself.
Click to expand...
The more I read your posts, the more I think you might be mentally challenged. In that case I apologize for ever arguing with you. It's not your fault.
 
hawkfaninTX said:
Last road win against a team that finished a year with a winning record was Michigan last year.

Last time we won on the road vs a team that had 8+ wins to Finish a year was PSU & Wisconsin in 2009. Prior to that was Nov 12, 2005 vs Wisconsin.
Click to expand...

And both of the above tell you that Iowa can compete on the road just fine, but too often they find a way to lose instead, such as with Minnesota this year and last year.

Considering the success Iowa has had in the last 10 years against Michigan and PSU, whether home or away, there's no reason it cannot be duplicated against programs like Minnesota, Purdue, and Indiana.
 
silvanthalas said:
Facts: In the Big Ten this season, Iowa averaged 24.125 points/game scoring, and 23 points/game allowed. (Not to mention, we didn't have a QB throwing several pick-6's.)

The offense is comparable to seasons past, including some of Iowa's best seasons (21.75 pts/game in the Big Ten in 2009, 24.88 in 2004), whereas the defense was probably the worst in a decade.

So, you know what these numbers tell me? The offense did enough, but the defense didn't hold up its end.
Click to expand...

You have to take into account what the offense and defense has to work with in a given year.

Iowa had a good not great offensive line, two very good recievers, a productive running back and a QB who has the ability to be very good. We also had a huge tightend/receiver and a very quick scat back who were totally underutilized.

The defense had walkons all over the two deeps. The D probably played about as good as it could.

The offense did not play up to its potential and allot of that is on the coaches for being too conservative when they should have know the defense was not a strength.

There is also plenty of blame to go on Vandenburg and the receivers for being innacurate and having the most drops in the conference.
 
Iowa is 54-34 during the 7 seasons you mentioned. That is a 61% winning percentage.

Hayden Fry (the greatest Iowa coach in our history) won 61% of his games during his tenure at Iowa.

Your argument doesn't hold any water.
 
Time, way past time, to quit using "bowl games", or worse, "bowl game eligible" as a measuring stick of success.

It's not. It's, in fact, laughable.

League winning-percentage is, as is being ranked in the top 25 at season's end.
 
Last edited:
SDK46 said:
Time, way past time, to quit using "bowl games", or worse, "bowl game eligible" as a measuring stick of success.

It's not. It's, in fact, laughable.

League winning-percentage is, as is being ranked in the top 25 at season's end.
Click to expand...

So you ignore non-conference records that could, and have featured good teams and opinions of dumb journalists as measuring sticks for success instead?

EDIT: And actually, since the AP poll doesn't count towards much, you're really relying upon the opinions of college football coaches (or their interns) who never really follow much outside of their own teams and conferences opinions as measuring sticks for success.
 
RocknRollface said:
2005, terrible losses to NW, ISU and Michigan

2006 was not JC, it was Tates last year. Iowa totally imploded on itself. Again a bunch of terrible losses to the likes of NW and Indiana.

2007 loss to western michigan at home

2008 was one of the most talented teams Iowa will ever field and they found a way to lose 4 games that they had absolutely no buissnes losing.

2009 the aberration, and even then we had the b10 championship in our grasp and politely handed it back to OSU

2010 biggest underachievement in Iowa history.

2011 offense has lost of weapons and the potential to be very good and yet we can't do anything on the road. Loss to a team that lost a to a d2 team.

Words to characterize Iowa in this time period would be, talented, uptight, unnecessarily conservative, generally emotionless and consistently out of sync on offense. Underachieving.
Click to expand...

Why is everyone so irrational all the time? Last year's team was and still is the issue for most people IMO. This year's team is just not that good folks. If last year's team had won 10 games (and I agree they should have), this year's team would be less of an issue.
The talent is not that great folks and we do well with what we have. If we want to criticize, let's stay on the talent idea and work to recruit better players. This is the issue. Better talent means better execution means more wins.
last year's issues seem to be clouding my own judgment as well. I expect to win every week and then realize the Hawks will not and have never won every week. Hayden tanked against poor teams all the time in the 80's while I was in school at Iowa and sat and every game home and away for 3 years. Minnesota kicked Hayden's tail all the time. Even Rose Bowl teams lost in Minnehaha- which doesn' make it okay today. It's just the truth.
 
bcl20 said:
#1--So you ignore non-conference records that could, and have featured good teams and opinions of dumb journalists as measuring sticks for success instead?

EDIT: #2--And actually, since the AP poll doesn't count towards much, you're really relying upon the opinions of college football coaches (or their interns) who never really follow much outside of their own teams and conferences opinions as measuring sticks for success.
Click to expand...


#1--I ignore the 2 (usually) or 3 (sometimes) cupcakes all big-time football machine programs play pre-league. Those "wins" in a total at the end of the year are irrelevent IMO.

#2--By being ranked, you've a.) caught somebody's (somebodies) eye, and b.) are above the crowd, cupcakes included.

I do not endorse using the polls as a means to determine BCS champions. Read any of my posts regarding the BCS and I'm pro-playoff. Determine it on the field.

I also do not endorse the upper-non-BCS bowls as a measuring stick like I once did since they come down to nothing more than who travels better and who's kissing whom's @ss.

League winning percentage, being noteable/noticed enough to be ranked at season's end and BCS bowls are the true measuring sticks IMO. And if I had my way, being named to the 8 or 16-teams in a playoff would certainly qualify as a legitimate succcess-measuring stick.
 
SDK46 said:
#1--I ignore the 2 (usually) or 3 (sometimes) cupcakes all big-time football machine programs play pre-league. Those "wins" in a total at the end of the year are irrelevent IMO.

#2--By being ranked, you've a.) caught somebody's (somebodies) eye, and b.) are above the crowd, cupcakes included.

I do not endorse using the polls as a means to determine BCS champions. Read any of my posts regarding the BCS and I'm pro-playoff. Determine it on the field.

I also do not endorse the upper-non-BCS bowls as a measuring stick like I once did since they come down to nothing more than who travels better and who's kissing whom's @ss.

League winning percentage, being noteable/noticed enough to be ranked at season's end and BCS bowls are the true measuring sticks IMO. And if I had my way, being named to the 8 or 16-teams in a playoff would certainly qualify as a legitimate succcess-measuring stick.
Click to expand...

That sounds fair. I would just flat out say winning percentage, strength of schedule and BCS ranking (mainly because it's done by computers, therefore it's objective as can be) my self.
 
bcl20 said:
That sounds fair. I would just flat out say #1--winning percentage, #2--strength of schedule and #3--BCS ranking (mainly because it's done by computers, therefore it's objective as can be) my self.
Click to expand...

#1 is sorta fine, since again, I think the cupcake-playing-field is balanced out, but #2 is really the important issue. #2 would put real numbers to #1. #2 should be used with abandon at season's end to determine who really played the good teams, etc. NCAA BB couldn't live without it. The NCAA tourney committee uses SOS unabashedly, and for good reason.

#3, unfortunately, is not true. Computers account for only 33% of the final "score." And if you read Wentzel's book, you'll see how the computer integers (input) have been dumbed down. Bottom line is the coaches and writers determine the majority of who gets the nod to the wonderful world of the BCS champ game, and, the BCS-games consolation prize. Most bowls after that are merely chamber of commerce booby prizes.
 
RocknRollface said:
You have to take into account what the offense and defense has to work with in a given year.
Click to expand...

And that all varies from year to year. For example, our TE's haven't been that good the last couple of seasons, where as it was far and away the best strength of the offense for years and years. However, the receivers simply made up for the tight ends, with two of the best Iowa's had at the position at DJK and McNutt.

Did the offense under-perform? Probably, but I lay that at the feet of Ferentz, who refuses to recognize that the offense would have to be our strength, and the defense would again be a liability. Who refuses to let the offense simply go out and win the damn game, instead of playing not to lose with the defense.

In short, the offense did what Ferentz allowed them to do, and nothing more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top