Latest Podcast (Iowa's Revenue Ranking)

tksirius

tksirius

HN's Love Doctor
Last edited:
Steve Deace: "You're getting, at the very least, one of if not the worst bang for the buck considering the tenure of the AD, the stabilities largely had, and the resources he is bringing in."

Jon Miller: "Alright, that's a lot to chew on."
 
tk, your last two posts are pretty sobering. Holy shit. I gave up on that directors cup thing a long time ago and I agree somewhat with guffus, football matters most.

But when you rarely finish in the top 25 over the course of a decade plus, really how good is your football program?
 
Xerxes said:
tk, your last two posts are pretty sobering. Holy shit. I gave up on that directors cup thing a long time ago and I agree somewhat with guffus, football matters most.

But when you rarely finish in the top 25 over the course of a decade plus, really how good is your football program?
Click to expand...
It's average. Below average when you consider the resources available and the stability of the coaching staff. In my opinion of course.
 
I'm not making any excuses. We are two years removed from an undefeated regular season. There have been three games in the last 26 that we were beaten soundly (Penn State, Florida, & Wisconsin). So 23 of the last 26 we competed and had very good opportunities to win those games. We won 16. We have beaten Iowa State and we have beaten Nebraska the past three years...the two foes that beating will lessen the sting of losing close games.

You can point to the three top 25s under Barta, but it's not like the program isn't close to breaking through to better records. If you look at the team coming back, the recruiting improvements, and the staff changes...well, I think things are pointing to better times.

I think a better place to start in recent football history would be when the facilities were finished...that put us on par with the best of the B10 and country...and is a part of the recent recruiting improvements. When did they move in 2015? The program is 28-12 with 9 of the 12 losses one score games, I believe.
 
WinOneThisCentury said:
I'm not making any excuses. We are two years removed from an undefeated regular season. There have been three games in the last 26 that we were beaten soundly (Penn State, Florida, & Wisconsin). So 23 of the last 26 we competed and had very good opportunities to win those games. We won 16. We have beaten Iowa State and we have beaten Nebraska the past three years...the two foes that beating will lessen the sting of losing close games.

You can point to the three top 25s under Barta, but it's not like the program isn't close to breaking through to better records. If you look at the team coming back, the recruiting improvements, and the staff changes...well, I think things are pointing to better times.

I think a better place to start in recent football history would be when the facilities were finished...that put us on par with the best of the B10 and country...and is a part of the recent recruiting improvements. When did they move in 2015? The program is 28-12 with 9 of the 12 losses one score games, I believe.
Click to expand...
Good point about recent improvements in recruiting. If the arguement is we should be better because of the money, then it looks like a good rebuttal to say we seem to be getting better because of the money.
 
WinOneThisCentury said:
I'm not making any excuses.
Click to expand...
bdmcUrz.gif
 
So how does the directors cup work? It seems like it's hard to compare apples to apples when not all schools offer the same sports. For instance, there is a 0% chance we will win a championship in hockey this year. That's a disadvantage against all the schools that provide hockey .
 
I'm pretty sure Sirius is the only one who cares about the Director's Cup. He goes to all the events, although you can mostly find him at the men's diving events checking out bulges. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
 
Last edited:
If there is a fairly direct relationship to AD dept revenue ranking and Football success and rankings and if you give a plus or minus range of 7 ranking spots as 1 standard deviation on your revenue ranking then the hawks should almost always be the in top 25. So this bit of If-if-then logic must be faulty because the hawks have not been in the top 25 but 30% of the time since 2006 from what others posted previously.

I do think and many of you will agree that the first statement is true that revenue is directly linked to football success and therefore rankings, at least over the long time period. so the second statement must be wrong at least for Iowa that they have a much wider plus or minus window of their revenue vs ranking relationships. let us say it is 10 games and now you are talking about being ranked between 8th in the nation and 28th. that seems more plausible as the hawks are many time just outside the top 25 towards and at the end of the year.

so what causes this 10 or so ranking spread while maybe other teams have a more narrow spread (disclaimer Texas #1 in revenue but struggling the last 5 years or so and it can happen)? Alabama has probably a spread of 2-3 games although I didnt see where they finished in the revenue standing.

I say one reason as we have talked about many times is KF's propensity to 'keep games close', 'not go for the klll shot, etc etc which leads him and the hawks to lose probably two games a year they should win.

So over 20 years, let's say 18 years throwing out the first two years, the hawks would have won most of these games with a razzle dazzle play calling, super aggressive end of game coach and the hawks would have been averaging a record of 9-3 per year vs 7-5 per year. Then this tightens up that revenue-ranking relationship. That is my theory and it has been since 2005-6 when the hawks somewhat lost their kinnick mojo and bullies of the big 10 mojo. To me it is mainly KF coaching not to lose and too conservative which has dragged down the record where they could have been top 15 over the last 18 years.

Thoughts?
 
Iowa’s football program is slightly above average. Their other sports leave a lot to be desired. Barta is doing a pretty shitty job considering our revenues. Anyone can fundraise so I don’t give him much credit for that. He sucks at coach hiring and firing, and doesn’t seem to give a shit about how poorly the sports are doing.
 
uihawk82 said:
If there is a fairly direct relationship to AD dept revenue ranking and Football success and rankings and if you give a plus or minus range of 7 ranking spots as 1 standard deviation on your revenue ranking then the hawks should almost always be the in top 25. So this bit of If-if-then logic must be faulty because the hawks have not been in the top 25 but 30% of the time since 2006 from what others posted previously.

I do think and many of you will agree that the first statement is true that revenue is directly linked to football success and therefore rankings, at least over the long time period. so the second statement must be wrong at least for Iowa that they have a much wider plus or minus window of their revenue vs ranking relationships. let us say it is 10 games and now you are talking about being ranked between 8th in the nation and 28th. that seems more plausible as the hawks are many time just outside the top 25 towards and at the end of the year.

so what causes this 10 or so ranking spread while maybe other teams have a more narrow spread (disclaimer Texas #1 in revenue but struggling the last 5 years or so and it can happen)? Alabama has probably a spread of 2-3 games although I didnt see where they finished in the revenue standing.

I say one reason as we have talked about many times is KF's propensity to 'keep games close', 'not go for the klll shot, etc etc which leads him and the hawks to lose probably two games a year they should win.

So over 20 years, let's say 18 years throwing out the first two years, the hawks would have won most of these games with a razzle dazzle play calling, super aggressive end of game coach and the hawks would have been averaging a record of 9-3 per year vs 7-5 per year. Then this tightens up that revenue-ranking relationship. That is my theory and it has been since 2005-6 when the hawks somewhat lost their kinnick mojo and bullies of the big 10 mojo. To me it is mainly KF coaching not to lose and too conservative which has dragged down the record where they could have been top 15 over the last 18 years.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

LSU, OSU for OT, Wsky 17, UNI, NDSU, Brad Banks 1st year. The issue in Not playibg not to lose. Its playing not to win that is the issue.
 
Last edited:
tksirius said:
I already saw them, but why does it matter?
Click to expand...

Notre Dame is not a primary member of the Big Ten...so their title is in a sport where the entire conference doesn't participate;Hockey. Less than half the conference fields a team so they get added in as a "member". Technically a "Big Ten" Championship...yeah. But also not so much. Same with Johns Hopkins, my wild guess would be lacrosse which has even fewer B1G participants.

I agree that Iowa should do better, but when a sport is so marginal that less than half of the conference participate, it doesn't move the needle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top