Kirk Ferentz on Hawkeyes Being Left Out of Coaches Poll

[hawkeyebob62]

I presume you've seen the documentary on the BTN about the vote? It was well done. I firmly believe it was Michigan State's AD that voted against Michigan, as retribution for Michigan trying to keep MSU out of the Big Ten.

The most interesting was the dinner with alums from both teams. I believe Bump voted for Michigan (duh), but some claim he voted for O$U because of Dennis Franklin's injury. From what I understand, there is no actual record of how each of the schools voted.

Poor Mike Lantry. That guy had multiple missed FGs and PATs in that series.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

I think what is missed is the phenomenon of "Ferentzing". It works for us Iowa fans. Others see it as a gimmick and a terror when it works against your own team.

The 2009 team and the 2002 team and a few others won without the Ferentzing Effect. Those teams got respect.

WTF does that even mean?

 

[HawkGold]

WTF does that even mean?

Not normal football.

 

[tweeterhawk]

Not normal football.

WTF F does that even mean?

 

[tweeterhawk]

I did. I was there.

Love the River Walk. Wish Big Ten still had partnership with Alamo Bowl.

I was there, too, with my two grown sons. We loved it. Even saw Mack Brown in our hotel lobby and said hello. Seemed like a nice enough fellow.

Damn near beat Texas. Should have save for a couple questionable calls near the end.

 

[Fryowa]

I like it too...but 6 bowls are enough not 40.

Fixed that.

 

[HawkGold]

WTF F does that even mean?

I think you know.

 

[oldhawk12]

Whether they stay at 4 teams or expand to 8 teams, non-playoff bowl games could take on significance if they reduced the number down to 10. Then, you'd need a good season to get in one and attendance would be better because your team might not be going every year - those games would have more meaning. However, that will not happen (at least anytime soon). 40 bowl games dilutes the significance of being in a bowl game. Being one of the top 80 teams in the country is pretty close to meaning nothing.

If you are a p5 team and finish outside the top 30-35, you are doing it wrong

 

[oldhawk12]

But when Iowa wins 6 games are we not watching those bowl games? This has happened 5 times dating all the way back to 1988 but they only won once in 2001 (Alamo Bowl over Texas Tech). But I remember that 2001 bowl win feeling like a huge accomplishment. The rest of them were all disappointments (obviously) but that didn't stop me from watching the game. Of course they are not considered "great seasons", I honestly don't consider this past one a "great season" (good, just not great) even though they won 9 games.

Now if you want to tell me some of those other 39 bowl games are meaningless, for me personally I'd agree. But I'm sure there were Wake Forest fans excited that they won the Birmingham Bowl over Memphis, they were a 6 win team going into that bowl game. I'm not watching those games but who cares, somebody is.

As far as the attendance of these games is concerned, that's not my worry. There were plenty of empty seats in the Outback Bowl, it didn't bother me one bit.

Like most of ferentz schedules, it only tells part of the story. Only one meaningful regular season win (over the clowns). And the defense rose to the occasion to give us a second meaningful win over miss st in the bowl. The rest were losing teams and Minnesota who was dreadful when we beat them but peaked at the end to finish one over .500. A classic ferentz bonused year

 

[oldhawk12]

A lot of good thoughts here and it has been discussed before but again 40 bowls might be close to the most. But I think some adjustments or rules need to be introduced or re-introduced. Like teams with losing records playing in bowl games. I think Nebby did a few years ago and they did play well and win but this is lame. A team needs to be at least 6-6 to get a bowl. I think the hawks got jobbed on their Freedom Bowl payout and maybe some others have also so are the Bowl Game organizers putting the payouts in escrow. Need to make sure schools/teams arent getting screwed.

This brings up another thought which is to get away from the 6-6 records going to bowls. How about going to a 13 game regular season. Teams would be either 7-6 or 6-7 at at the cutoff level. No teams with losing records go to bowls. If there are not enough teams to fill bowls that whittles down the number of bowls.

This is sort of like the NCAA D1 Bball tourney part that I hate is when a team that is 10-20, 7th in their league goes nuts and wins their Conf tourney. They get an auto bid and then other team(s) in their league get in the tourney effectively bumping a team out of the tourney who might be 2-10. Doesnt happen a lot but the fans of that decent 20-10 team that gets bumped are pissed. It may have happened to the Hawks in the past.

How about you have to have a winning record in your conference to make a bowl? That makes it meaningful. Use the non conference schedule for rpi purposes for the playoffs. Solved. That exposes coaches that are really interested in competing with the ones that are just pretending and trying to get their and to bonuses through weak schedules

 

[ssckelley]

Like most of ferentz schedules, it only tells part of the story. Only one meaningful regular season win (over the clowns). And the defense rose to the occasion to give us a second meaningful win over miss st in the bowl. The rest were losing teams and Minnesota who was dreadful when we beat them but peaked at the end to finish one over .500. A classic ferentz bonused year

I hear Clemson has room on their bandwagon.

 

[uihawk82]

How about you have to have a winning record in your conference to make a bowl? That makes it meaningful. Use the non conference schedule for rpi purposes for the playoffs. Solved. That exposes coaches that are really interested in competing with the ones that are just pretending and trying to get their and to bonuses through weak schedules

Looking at the conference record is ok depending on how many P5/ranked opponents you play in Non-conf. And the conference record has to take into account who you play in the conf in any year.

I would think hawk fans would be disappointed if they went 3-0 in the Non-conf with a win over P5 ISU and then went 4-5 in the conf and got shut out of a bowl when they happened to lose 2 of those 5 games to let's say a #5 ranked OSU and a #11 ranked PSU or Mich. And even worse they could lose to 3 ranked teams in the Big Ten.

I think a 4-5 record in the Big 10 is good enough for a bowl invite. 3-6 (6-6 overall) maybe not

First thing though is no teams with overall losing records going to bowls just to fill out a Bowl matchup.

And as I said, take a hard look at 6-6 teams even going to bowls unless like a Northwestern or Purdue this year they have a crappy Non-conf record but a winning P5 conf record

 

[oldhawk12]

I hear Clemson has room on their bandwagon.

Way to ignore the issue

 

[oldhawk12]

Looking at the conference record is ok depending on how many P5/ranked opponents you play in Non-conf. And the conference record has to take into account who you play in the conf in any year.

I would think hawk fans would be disappointed if they went 3-0 in the Non-conf with a win over P5 ISU and then went 4-5 in the conf and got shut out of a bowl when they happened to lose 2 of those 5 games to let's say a #5 ranked OSU and a #11 ranked PSU or Mich. And even worse they could lose to 3 ranked teams in the Big Ten.

I think a 4-5 record in the Big 10 is good enough for a bowl invite. 3-6 (6-6 overall) maybe not

First thing though is no teams with overall losing records going to bowls just to fill out a Bowl matchup.

And as I said, take a hard look at 6-6 teams even going to bowls unless like a Northwestern or Purdue this year they have a crappy Non-conf record but a winning P5 conf record

Two completely separate issues. The way many teams water down schedules, the first issue is you have to be 500 in conference to qualify for a bowl. It needs to count for something. It is incredibly rare we ever play osu and mich in the same yr but we also have a tomato cans in conference plus bowls should be a reward. Not a birthright. Other conferences have heavyweights every bit as good as those two if not better anyway. In terms of playoffs, it should be off of some type of rpi like buckets used to be. That way, coaches would be exposed as to what their real agenda is. If they aren’t playing a challenging schedule to build rpi then they are exposed for what they really are

 

[4thngoal]

So when Iowa finished 6-6 in 2006 with wins over over Montana and Northern Illinois and finished 2-6 in conference you didn't watch the Alamo Bowl?

I watch football no matter what.
However, if you want regular good games and more even competition, you don't do that.
Because how do you structure a championship then?
Why wouldn't a 5 win team be as good as a 10 win team?
If you can't win 50% of your conference games, well then I guess we should add more bowls. Whoops did that.
And my premise still stands, if NIU or NDSU beats a b10 team and only drops 1 game, why shouldn't they play in the championship? Why, because they didn't have a full schedule of P5 opponents.
Just the same reason UCF didn't make it and had to self proclaim champions.
So conf games matter. You win enough, you might even be conf champs. That matters if you think all p5 conf champs should make the playoffs and that is the general consensus and logical thing to do.

 

[ssckelley]

Way to ignore the issue

Beating teams we are supposed to beat is not an issue for me. You have way too high of expectations, you would be better off rooting for Alabama or Clemson.

 

[ssckelley]

I watch football no matter what.
However, if you want regular good games and more even competition, you don't do that.
Because how do you structure a championship then?
Why wouldn't a 5 win team be as good as a 10 win team?
If you can't win 50% of your conference games, well then I guess we should add more bowls. Whoops did that.
And my premise still stands, if NIU or NDSU beats a b10 team and only drops 1 game, why shouldn't they play in the championship? Why, because they didn't have a full schedule of P5 opponents.
Just the same reason UCF didn't make it and had to self proclaim champions.
So conf games matter. You win enough, you might even be conf champs. That matters if you think all p5 conf champs should make the playoffs and that is the general consensus and logical thing to do.

The current playoff system has got it right, it has been crowning the best college football team in the world which is what it's supposed to do. Not all conference winners are among the top 4 teams in college football and they shouldn't be handed an opportunity to compete just to get some kind of participation ribbon. Instead allow those teams to play in those big bowl games like the Rose Bowl. It's not broke so don't fix it.

 

[oldhawk12]

Beating teams we are supposed to beat is not an issue for me. You have way too high of expectations, you would be better off rooting for Alabama or Clemson.

No thanks. I root for my alma mater. But I also don’t do it blindly. And there are expectations in the middle. Not just all the way to one side or the other...like every argument in today’s world. I’m also a college football fan so want a healthy sport. Not just what’s good for iowa. We’ll never compete for anything nationally and I’m fine with that, but to completely sidestep the competition in the non conference is complete bs on the part of ferentz and I’d say it right to his face if given the opportunity

 

[ChosenChildren]

Iowa's win over Miss. St. was the first bowl win over a ranked team since the 2019 Insight Bowl win over nationally ranked Missouri.

You really have to be jaded beyond belief not to appreciate a 9-4 season, in which we finished ranked by the vast majority of the pollsters (check out the Massey Composite Ratings).

I guarantee you that if Nebraska or Iowa State finish 9-4 next year, you will never hear the end of it.

We have a ton of spoiled Iowa fans now. Consistent winning by Ferentz has created that monster.

To declare a bowl victory meaningless is just plain ridiculous.

 

[tweeterhawk]

... To declare a bowl victory meaningless is just plain ridiculous.

Honestly, what does a non-playoff bowl victory mean? Enlighten us.