Jon Miller's Instant Reaction of ISU

[hawkeyebob62]

I'd also say that if our OL isn't as good as we think, that a change in QB or scheme is indeed what we need. I saw Rudock run the option yesterday for a key 1st down. Will we ever see it again? Will we ever see the jet-fly sweep again?

Isn't CJ the more mobile QB? If the OL sucks, wouldn't we want the mobile gunslinger in there, as opposed to the NFL-style pocket passer? If the OL is bad, why are we trying to run the ball with predictable plays? Don't you mask a talent gap by going to more misdirection schemes and less predictability?

If the OL is subpar, we are definitely not running the kind of offense we need to.

All true. And wasn't JRs TD an option, as well?

If he can run the option that effectively, why are we not running it more?

I'm not ready to give up on Jake. I'm just ready to see CJ. I know all the evils of using 2 QBs...but if 1 isn't working out...and, God forbid, the other isn't any better, team-wise...then 2 QBs it'll have to be.

I still think CJ gets the start next week. Color me shocked if he doesn't.

 

[You]

The buyout is a sunk cost. Continuing this nonsense is throwing good money after bad.

 

[eveningnewsteam]

All true. And wasn't JRs TD an option, as well?

If he can run the option that effectively, why are we not running it more?

I'm not ready to give up on Jake. I'm just ready to see CJ. I know all the evils of using 2 QBs...but if 1 isn't working out...and, God forbid, the other isn't any better, team-wise...then 2 QBs it'll have to be.

I still think CJ gets the start next week. Color me shocked if he doesn't.

I've seen enough of Rudock. Time for Beathard to get a shot. Sure Iowa scored, but everyone forgets about the dropped probable pick 6 by the ISU corner 2 plays earlier. Just a terrible throw/decision by Rudock that should've gone the other way.

 

[chuff26]

I'd be shocked if we see CJ for more than a series or 2, if for no other reason than Kirk knows that's what his critics want. Don't you guys remember 2012 James V?

 

[ArvadaHawk]

The buyout is a sunk cost. Continuing this nonsense is throwing good money after bad.

Can you provide a description of what a "sunk cost" is? I am not fully sure what that means.

Thank you.

 

[You]

From http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Sunk_costs.html

Sunk costs are retrospective (past) costs that have already been incurred and cannot be recovered. . . .

In traditional microeconomic theory, only prospective (future) costs are relevant to an investment decision. Traditional economics proposes that an economic actor not let sunk costs influence one's decisions, because doing so would not be rationally assessing a decision exclusively on its own merits. The decision-maker may make rational decisions according to their own incentives; these incentives may dictate different decisions than would be dictated by efficiency or profitability, and this is considered an incentive problem and distinct from a sunk cost problem.


Evidence from behavioral economics suggests this theory fails to predict real-world behavior. Sunk costs greatly affect actors' decisions, because many humans are loss-averse and thus normally act irrationally when making economic decisions.

From http://www.accountingtools.com/questions-and-answers/what-is-a-sunk-cost.html

Examples of Sunk Costs
Here are several examples of sunk costs:

• Marketing study. A company spends $50,000 on a marketing study to see if its new auburn widget will succeed in the marketplace. The study concludes that the widget will not be profitable. At this point, the $50,000 is a sunk cost. The company should not continue with further investments in the widget project, despite the size of the earlier investment.
• Research and development. A company invests $2,000,000 over several years to develop a left-handed smoke shifter. Once created, the market is indifferent, and buys no units. The $2,000,000 development cost is a sunk cost, and so should not be considered in any decision to continue or terminate the product.
• Training. A company spends $20,000 to train its sales staff in the use of new tablet computers, which they will use to take customer orders. The computers prove to be unreliable, and the sales manager wants to discontinue their use. The training is a sunk cost, and so should not be considered in any decision regarding the computers.
• Hiring bonus. A company pays a new recruit $10,000 to joint the organization. If the person proves to be unreliable, the $10,000 payment should be considered a sunk cost when deciding whether the individual's employment should be terminated.

 

[Hawke]

Thanks, You.

 

[You]

Can you provide a description of what a "sunk cost" is? I am not fully sure what that means.

Thank you.

For Hawkeye football, the example would go something like this:

We have to pay KF a lot of money (either in salary or buyout), regardless of whether he continues to coach or he gets fired.

The product on the field is unacceptable.

At this point, the money is a sunk cost, and should not be considered when deciding whether a new coach should be hired.

 

[PCHawk]

From http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Sunk_costs.html





From http://www.accountingtools.com/questions-and-answers/what-is-a-sunk-cost.html

Interesting point. Firing Kirk won't cost us what his buy out is... it will cost us the money we pay a new coach until the buyout is done, which woukd be way less than 4 mil a year.

 

[You]

Interesting point. Firing Kirk won't cost us what his buy out is... it will cost us the money we pay a new coach until the buyout is done, which woukd be way less than 4 mil a year.

Correct.

 

[ArvadaHawk]

Correct.

Then from a total money expenditure perspective, we could actually "save" 25% of the remaining KF salary (put it towards the new cost of a new coach) if Iowa fires KF? Is that right? In other words, say Iowa owes KF $10 mil if he completes the entire term of his contract. So, if Iowa fired him, then, with his buyout at 75%, he would get $7.5 mil and not the full $10 mil; saving $2.5 mil?

 

[hawktalk]

THANKS JON. Wow. I kept wondering why we aren't throwing play action passes any more. It's not in the Davis' system. Get rid of this nonsense.

If you haven't listened, take the time to go to the main page and have a listen. He just nailed it. Best editorial written or spoken from him. No overreact. No nonsense. Just told it how it is on all counts.

 

[PCHawk]

Then from a total money expenditure perspective, we could actually "save" 25% of the remaining KF salary (put it towards the new cost of a new coach) if Iowa fires KF? Is that right? In other words, say Iowa owes KF $10 mil if he completes the entire term of his contract. So, if Iowa fired him, then, with his buyout at 75%, he would get $7.5 mil and not the full $10 mil; saving $2.5 mil?

Kirks buyout is only 75% of his salery? So we could pay a new coach almost 1 mil per year before we were in the red?

 

[RocknRollface]

I like your post and I respect your passion. But in hindsight, I don't think anyone really thought Iowa would win the West (maybe people on this board did, which is what you said, so that's totally fair). And maybe somebody picked us as an outsider for the playoff with our easy schedule. But really? Did anyone really think Iowa could find a way into the 4 team playoff?

I've thought about the game and this team a lot since the game yesterday, as we all have. Ultimately, I think that football is really a simple game and amidst all kinds of analysis and emotional reactions, Iowa's performance can be broken down in a less depressing way.

For Iowa to be as good as we all want, they need a great tailback. Regardless of how we think the OL is playing, this Iowa regime will give us anywhere from a solid to a great offensive line. And for an Iowa offensive scheme that never has and never will throw the football with any proficiency, we need a great running back or set of backs (2) to carry the offense. Shonn Greene could certainly do it. Albert Young was really pretty darn good. Fred Russell and Jermelle Lewis had some great years (on great teams). I honestly think Leshun Daniels could be that type of guy. But call it AIRBHG or whatever, call it recruiting, call it depth chart decisions, but we don't have that guy. If we're going to be a predictable power offense we better have a beast carrying the rock. Mark Weisman isn't that guy, not to bash him though, because he's not that bad and he plays hard.

Look around the country and you see some impressive looking back carrying the ball. Iowa doesn't have it. We could of had Melvin Gordon, Greg Garmon, or Mika'il McCall. But we don't. And say whatever you want about passing tactics, play calling... none of us really know what the coaches are thinking or how they're game planning so that's not going to lead anywhere.

Under ferentz and his OCs, when we can't run the ball, our offense isn't going anywhere (in fairness, that's true for a ton of teams at most levels of football). And right now we can't run the ball. I think that if the hawks had an elite RB, we'd all be praising Rudock and our play action game, how good the OL looked...

Why should we just accept the fact that we can't throw the ball with proficiency?

Especially when the problem is largely schematic?

why should we accept an offensive design like this when it is totally unnecessary?

 

[Seth53]

As I logged on here, I saw, as all of you did, the post-game interview with KF.

Seriously, and for the first time I can remember, I skipped reading it.

And not only that, I felt both pity and non-caring. Nothing I could read would really mean anything of substance.

 

[lightning1]

It's hard to quantify what replacing KF might mean in terms of dollars spent/dollars saved. If we keep KF and 10K unsold season ticket packages are the result, that's about a million in lost revenue at a minimum. A new coaching hire (the right coaching hire) could eliminate that expected loss. I say "expected loss" because if the team tanks this year, that's a reasonable expectation for next season.

 

[FRANAMANIAC]

It's hard to quantify what replacing KF might mean in terms of dollars spent/dollars saved. If we keep KF and 10K unsold season ticket packages are the result, that's about a million in lost revenue at a minimum. A new coaching hire (the right coaching hire) could eliminate that expected loss. I say "expected loss" because if the team tanks this year, that's a reasonable expectation for next season.

If only logic played into the Iowa administration'a decisions. Our president is a woman that said rape is human nature.

 

[MoseSchrute]

If only logic played into the Iowa administration'a decisions. Our president is a woman that said rape is human nature.

Obvious man-hater.

 

[JonDMiller]

Jon, honestly what do you think happens from here?

I'll believe in big changes when I see them.

The only times I recall major changes was when there were no other options or the head had been slammed into the fence post too many times....2004 when Iowa lost all its running backs and 2008 when Kirk went with the gut feeling and played Jake in the second half of the Pitt game...and that was it.

The problem right now is there are so many issues on offense, it's not a make one change at quarterback and problem is solved kind of thing, and there is also no Shonn Greene at running back. The issues on offense are big picture...and I don't have much confidence any more that those things will be dealt with. Hope I'm wrong...really hope I am wrong...but if KF keeps playing this hand, he's done. Or rather, Iowa's ability to compete is done.

 

[HawkeyeDenis]

There are no face saving facets to this game. Iowa got beat on the field and on the sidelines. By a team that overall has the makeup of a Junior College team. Wholesale changes are needed.