Iowa is 18-30 in games decided by 4 points or less

[PCHawk]

Another good question. A quick review reflects that maybe in just 1 of the 18 "close wins" did Iowa have a big lead and give up a meaningless score to make it closer than it looked - Arkansas State in 2009. The Hawks were ahead 24-7 at the end of the 3rd Quarter and won 24-21. In other words, these games were almost always close. Those 18 wins are:

2000 - Penn State 26-23 (OT)
2002 - Purdue 31-28
2003 - Michigan 30-27
2004 - Penn State 6-4, Purdue 23-21, Minnesota 29-27
2007 - Illinois 10-6
2009 - UNI 17-16, Ark. State 24-21, Michigan 30-28, MSU 15-13
2010 - Missouri 27-24
2011 - Pitt 31-27
2012 - NIU 18-17, MSU 19-16
2013 - Michigan 24-21
2014 - Ball State 17-13, Pitt 24-20

There was also Michigan in '09. I figured there were more than that but it doesn't look like there were.

 

[PCHawk]

Nw 2005, Minnesota a couple times I think. Some directional michigan a couple years ago. It's happened more than twice and it's been close to a loss a few others.

I can't remember if 1 of the Minnesota games had a late onside kick or not but i think it did. The 2 i remembered were Northwestern and Directional Michigan. Arkansas State in '09 didn't have an onside kick but shutting it down when we could have killed them almost cost us. If there were 30 more seconds of game time we probably lose that game.

 

[HawkPrdatr40]

One unmentioned factor that I have noticed is that starting in 2005 Iowa started to get mostly terrible calls. The quality or impartiality of the referees has decreased dramatically in the past decade. This did not seem to be as much of a problem in the early 2000s. With all else being equal several of these games would have had a different result and Iowa's percentage of close wins would be higher like it was about 12-13 years ago when the officiating was generally better.

~lol seriously~

 

[CPHAWK82]

Cool, I know that the changes in the coaching staff will help. I also hope that the quality of officiating improves dramatically.

Your troll tail is showing....Stay in character or just give it up. Posts like this just give it away too easily.

 

[MoseSchrute]

During the Ferentz era. That's a 43% winning percentage. From 2010-2014, it's dropped to 7-14, a 33% winning percentage. There have been some particularly frustrating ones along the way. 2005 - losing to NW 28-27. In 2009 - losing to OSU 27-24. In 2010 - losing to Wisconsin 31-30, to NW 21-17 and to OSU 20-17. And, the 5 times the Hawks have lost to ISU by 4 or less.

To be fair, there have been some good ones, too. 2000 - beating PSU 26-23 in OT. 2003 - beating Michigan 30-27. 2007 - Beating ranked Illinois 10-6. 2009- beating MSU 15-13. 2013 - Beating Michigan 24-21. But, overall, as the record reflects, there have been too many disappointments.

Each year is different, obviously, but you can draw your own conclusions as to whether Iowa has played well enough to be in this many ball games, or they have underperformed and not won games they should have put away.

Gott damn that is just so, so pathetic.

 

[Biggusblockus]

One unmentioned factor that I have noticed is that starting in 2005 Iowa started to get mostly terrible calls. The quality or impartiality of the referees has decreased dramatically in the past decade. This did not seem to be as much of a problem in the early 2000s. With all else being equal several of these games would have had a different result and Iowa's percentage of close wins would be higher like it was about 12-13 years ago when the officiating was generally better.

I seriuosly hope this is some sort of sarcasm that I am just not able to detect right now.

 

[Hawknick]

It is, just watch recordings of some of the Iowa games from 12-15 years ago. The amount of bad calls that went against Iowa were far fewer. Take for example the 2003 Iowa Wisconsin game vs the 2014 game. In 2014 the refs stopped the clock giving the bad-gers a free time out on the critical last drive. Junk like that did not happen in 2003, but let us say it did. What if the refs had stopped the clock before the final play? Stuff like that had really been getting on my nerves since about 2005.

 

[DBAHawkFan]

Does the Iowa coaching staff know how to stop the clock?

seems only when it backfires (ISU)

 

[HawkPrdatr40]

Your troll tail is showing....Stay in character or just give it up. Posts like this just give it away too easily.

I agree and yes it's so over the top obvious.

 

[Hawknick]

Wrong, I am completely serious about this as I have been upset about this situation for many years now.

 

[STILLBUSTER]

I just cannot figure out what makes some people think Ferentz is a good coach.

Not that it's mattered in ways to help my Hawkeyes but I wondered aloud going back to 2006. I've known he was NOT a good coach since Pitt, 2008.

I'm at a point where, "I told you so!" is about the only solace left for me regarding Iowa football.

 

[CP87]

Over the last decade, it is hard to argue he has been anything better than mediocre. I do not agree with the rhetoric some spew suggesting he is moronic or the worst coach ever; but even his staunchest supporters cannot argue that he has been any better than average recently.

He was, without question, a good coach during his early tenure. Finishing in the top 10 in the country 4 times does not happen by accident (3 in a row in years 3-5, and then the outlier in year 11). It could happen once due to lucky breaks or happening upon a transcendent player or two (see Gene Chizik), but it does not happen 4 times, even for coaches who have been around for 16 years.

He has always had flaws, and he certainly has not evolved in the way that elite coaches do. But looking at the balance of his tenure, I would say that he has been a good coach, but has probably been retained a little too long.

 

[PCHawk]

Over the last decade, it is hard to argue he has been anything better than mediocre. I do not agree with the rhetoric some spew suggesting he is moronic or the worst coach ever; but even his staunchest supporters cannot argue that he has been any better than average recently.

He was, without question, a good coach during his early tenure. Finishing in the top 10 in the country 4 times does not happen by accident (3 in a row in years 3-5, and then the outlier in year 11). It could happen once due to lucky breaks or happening upon a transcendent player or two (see Gene Chizik), but it does not happen 4 times, even for coaches who have been around for 16 years.

He has always had flaws, and he certainly has not evolved in the way that elite coaches do. But looking at the balance of his tenure, I would say that he has been a good coach, but has probably been retained a little too long.

He did luck his way to a few of them. Finishing 5-3 in your conference and ending up in the top 10 is lucky. Having all of your runningbacks get hurt forcing you to abandon your ridiculous game plan is lucky. "09 was lucky, even though we had such a good team that we shouldn't have needed luck.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

I think there was a 3 yr stretch early on where we were very good with this, not in the later years though.

 

[CP87]

He did luck his way to a few of them. Finishing 5-3 in your conference and ending up in the top 10 is lucky. Having all of your runningbacks get hurt forcing you to abandon your ridiculous game plan is lucky. "09 was lucky, even though we had such a good team that we shouldn't have needed luck.

In '09 they caught a ton of lucky breaks.

I don't get how a top 10 ranking with a 5-3 conference record denotes luck. They lost 3 conference games on the road (Mich St., Purdue, and OSU), and 2 of those were to ranked teams (Purdue #16 at time of game, #18 at end of season; OSU #8 at time of game, #4 at end of season). There were no Power 5 schools with fewer than 3 losses below them, so it is hard to make a convincing arguments that they jumped any schools that were more deserving of that spot. They beat 4 top 25 teams (ASU, Michigan, Minnesota, and Florida; ASU top 15 at time of game, but unranked at end of season). Where does the luck come in?

I also have a hard time understanding how losing your top 4 or 5 RBs to injury equates to luck. Do you honestly think the team would have been worse with healthy RBs? What makes you think that?

• With healthy RBs in 2002 and 2003, they ranked 7th (37.2 pts/gm) and 41st (28.7 pts/gm) nationally in scoring offense.
• In 2004 with a slew of RB injuries, they ranked 68th (24.3 pts/gm).
• Their rushing game dropped from 39th nationally in 2003 to 116th nationally in 2004.

Do you really think that helped? Perhaps the coaches should be commended for keeping the ship afloat that season, as opposed to suggesting that they only had success because they lucked into injuries for their entire backfield.

 

[RocknRollface]

Your troll tail is showing....Stay in character or just give it up. Posts like this just give it away too easily.

The schtick was not terrible conceptually but he really needs to clean some things up and execute better.

 

[docholihawk]

It would be interesting to see what the spread was in each game.

Prior to 2010 Iowa atleast used to play favored opponents close.

Iowa hasn't faced but a handful of good opponents since 2010 which makes their record that much worse.

Id guess that post 2010 Iowa was probably favored in around %60+ of those 4pt games. Which would make them not a coin flip and even more improbable to lose that many.

I just cannot figure out what makes some people think Ferentz is a good coach.

I think it's more Kirk was a good coach and they expect him to turn it around still They don't realize Kirk can't turn it around because he didn't keep up with the changing of the game.

 

[docholihawk]

Not that it's mattered in ways to help my Hawkeyes but I wondered aloud going back to 2006. I've known he was NOT a good coach since Pitt, 2008.

I'm at a point where, "I told you so!" is about the only solace left for me regarding Iowa football.

Better tell that to Barta as most on here are in agreement with you.

 

[PCHawk]

In '09 they caught a ton of lucky breaks.

I don't get how a top 10 ranking with a 5-3 conference record denotes luck. They lost 3 conference games on the road (Mich St., Purdue, and OSU), and 2 of those were to ranked teams (Purdue #16 at time of game, #18 at end of season; OSU #8 at time of game, #4 at end of season). There were no Power 5 schools with fewer than 3 losses below them, so it is hard to make a convincing arguments that they jumped any schools that were more deserving of that spot. They beat 4 top 25 teams (ASU, Michigan, Minnesota, and Florida; ASU top 15 at time of game, but unranked at end of season). Where does the luck come in?

I also have a hard time understanding how losing your top 4 or 5 RBs to injury equates to luck. Do you honestly think the team would have been worse with healthy RBs? What makes you think that?

• With healthy RBs in 2002 and 2003, they ranked 7th (37.2 pts/gm) and 41st (28.7 pts/gm) nationally in scoring offense.
• In 2004 with a slew of RB injuries, they ranked 68th (24.3 pts/gm).
• Their rushing game dropped from 39th nationally in 2003 to 116th nationally in 2004.

Do you really think that helped? Perhaps the coaches should be commended for keeping the ship afloat that season, as opposed to suggesting that they only had success because they lucked into injuries for their entire backfield.

Iowa was lucky to get a top 10 finish in '03 because most years the top 10 is a lot better than it was that year. Normally that type of year would buy us a 12-15 ranking. I know it's splitting hairs but a 5-3 record 12 years ago would not still be brought up if we finished ranked 15th like we probably deserved.

As far as '04 goes, i absolutely believe we would have finished worse with healthy runningbacks. We put the offense on the shoulders of our best player and we won games because of it.

 

[homes]

Iowa was lucky to get a top 10 finish in '03 because most years the top 10 is a lot better than it was that year. Normally that type of year would buy us a 12-15 ranking. I know it's splitting hairs but a 5-3 record 12 years ago would not still be brought up if we finished ranked 15th like we probably deserved.

As far as '04 goes, i absolutely believe we would have finished worse with healthy runningbacks. We put the offense on the shoulders of our best player and we won games because of it.

It's hard to know what would have been the case with a healthy Big Ten caliber running back, it's guesswork, but there is no denying that Tate carried the team that year, because he had to. And, to the credit of the coaches, they recognized it that year, and built the offense around him. Maybe, just maybe, they can repeat that this year with Beathard.