515southside
Well-Known Member
Damn big ten really sucks if iowa is secound and kirk is only wining about 7 and a half games a year.
Let's get real here
- Thread starter DuffMan
- Start date
For the winning percentage comparison to be valid, given that you're excluding the first two years of Kirk's tenure, you'd have to give the same consideration to all programs. Exclude the first two years of coaching tenure for any head coaching change that occurred during that period. That might not make any appreciable difference in the relative results, but it's really not a valid comparison without doing so.
Dear lord we are getting lazy. If that's the arguement you want to makem, I'm sure you can get the numbers to support your position. Not his responsibility to make your arguement. Wisky's numbers might actually be worse if you subtract the first Bielema's first two years as he was riding the Alaverez's coat tails (I know they had around 20 wins or more...not sure what their Big Ten records were). If you throw out Michigan's first two years they don't even register as this is years one of the Hoke campaign.
I think we can all argee that we should go ahead and put the astrick by OSU.
storminspank
Justin VanLaere
Another poster did, check out the replies.
Not much changed.
Let me get real. I went to the Iowa/PSU game and we were terrible. Gosh, I hope we play better next week.
Now on the great debate...the historical significance of wins and losses and their relationship to the quality of the coaching staff. Wow. There is a brand new topic to consider!
I think someone should come up with a statistically sound analysis to compare the relative financial worth of each of the Big Ten (or is it 12?) coaches over the past...you pick the number of years, since I can't think of any reason to give a s... Let me know when you get this done so I won't bother to read it.
Here is why: Some folks think KF is not a particularly good coach and that we should get someone new to take us to the next level...whatever the hell that is. (Hey, maybe another statistical analysis for this one!) Conversely, some folks think KF is doing a pretty darn good job and should be retained for the forseeable future. The liklihood of either group changing their mind is pretty slim. That is fine with me.
In the meantime, how do we beat NW? Indiana? Any other team on the schedule? In short, my fascination is not with what Iowa (or Michigan or Indiana, for that matter) has done in the past. My interest is with this team, this year, this time, these players, these coaches. And, how are we doing with recruiting, since that is pretty much the name of the game.
By the way Duffman...I thought your post was both interesting and quite logical. The protracted arguments that came later from a number of others, not so much.
Go Hawks.
Now on the great debate...the historical significance of wins and losses and their relationship to the quality of the coaching staff. Wow. There is a brand new topic to consider!
I think someone should come up with a statistically sound analysis to compare the relative financial worth of each of the Big Ten (or is it 12?) coaches over the past...you pick the number of years, since I can't think of any reason to give a s... Let me know when you get this done so I won't bother to read it.
Here is why: Some folks think KF is not a particularly good coach and that we should get someone new to take us to the next level...whatever the hell that is. (Hey, maybe another statistical analysis for this one!) Conversely, some folks think KF is doing a pretty darn good job and should be retained for the forseeable future. The liklihood of either group changing their mind is pretty slim. That is fine with me.
In the meantime, how do we beat NW? Indiana? Any other team on the schedule? In short, my fascination is not with what Iowa (or Michigan or Indiana, for that matter) has done in the past. My interest is with this team, this year, this time, these players, these coaches. And, how are we doing with recruiting, since that is pretty much the name of the game.
By the way Duffman...I thought your post was both interesting and quite logical. The protracted arguments that came later from a number of others, not so much.
Go Hawks.
hawkeyescott
Well-Known Member
You should read my post then, I already did this and went back to 2001 if we are throwing out the 1st two years of a new coaching staff. Since 2001 the only two schools without a coaching change are Iowa and PSU, therefore their winning percentage is based off 80 games while the other 9 teams is based off 64 games:
Now after the records of each school the last 10 years with the 1st two years taken out except for Iowa and PSU.
OSU 53-11 82.8%
Michigan 47-17 73.4%
Iowa 50-30 62.5 %
PSU 45-35 56.3%
Wisconsin 35-29 54.7%
Purdue 31-33 48.4%
NW 30-34 46.9%
Mich St 28-36 43.8%
Illinois 27-37 42.2%
Minnesota 25-39 39%
Indiana 13-51 20.3%
OUTofTOWNHAWK
Well-Known Member
Hey you should read all my posts also. Iam not stating a side. I am stating that what he used to start this thread is not valid.
Read the whole thread next time clonebag, you are the lazy one.
OUTofTOWNHAWK
Well-Known Member
DuffMan
Well-Known Member
what I used to start the thread is perfectly valid. I used the last ten years results to evaluate our hc and program. that doesn't take into account his first two years which in my opinion is logical because they aren't relevant in who we are as a program right now. I don't care this includes other teams rebuilding years because playing rebuilding teams is a perk of the job you get to enjoy when you stay in one place over ten plus years.
of course you can make the argument to include those teams, but imo that argument is not logical and quite frankly stupid.
of course you can make the argument to include those teams, but imo that argument is not logical and quite frankly stupid.
OUTofTOWNHAWK
Well-Known Member
Well your thread is quite frankly stupid. You give Kirk a two year break but refuse to do so to any other other coach. Maybe you throw out games you think we should have won. Or seasons where we have had injuries at Rb.
HawkeyeMHA
Well-Known Member
+100. How can you argue with our conference record the last decade?
ASk the 8 teams below us if they want to win more.
okeefe4prez
Well-Known Member
Selecting the most optimistic timeframe is what fans of crappy teams do to try to justify something. Remember the long, really bad stretch against ISU? Timeframe clownfan used whenever talking about Iowa was something like "we've won 4 of 6 against you guys" or whatever. Northwesternfan does the same "we've won 5 of 6" or "3 in a row." Watch the timeframe expand over time, too. Every year, another year is added so as to piggyback off of the stellar 2002-2004 run, which inflates the numbers (go back and look - period has expanded every year, a few years ago, it was "look at the past 8 years" then "look at the past 9 years" and now "look at the past 10 years" etc.). The fact remains, bince Fitz took over at NU, Iowa is on average, a half a game a year better than NU. And the Kurtpologists leave out this year, because if they included this year, we would be behind Michigan again and no longer able to claim second.
Here's what you can expect of Kurt Ferentz. You can expect him to lose at Purdue. You can expect him to lose to Northwestern. You can expect him to, barring a miracle or two, lose to one of Indiana or Minnesota or come damn close to it. You can expect him to lose at MSU, barring a miracle. You can expect him to crap the bed at least once darn near every September unless (a) ISU is REALLY bad and (b) our non-con BCS game is at home (or is at Syracuse when they are really bad). You can expect him to lose to OSU. You can expect him to win one or two games a year no one gave us a snowball's chance in hell of winning, such as PSU or Michigan (during the Lloydball era). You can expect him to have the troops ready for a bowl game. And maybe, maybe you can expect a miracle season once every blue moon where he manages to break the trends and win 2 tough B10 road games in the same season (but that one's really rare). If you expect anything more than that, your expectations are too high.
HawkeyeMHA
Well-Known Member
The last 10 years, that's what he selected....I think that's a good time frame. Three years isn't long enough, maybe 5 years, 10 is a good time frame. Tied for 2nd in that time-frame. works for me
okeefe4prez
Well-Known Member
But let's toss out this year or else Michigan passes us and Wisconsin will too in a few weeks.
Agree with you 100%. I would simply like to see Iowa play one solid game in the Big 10 with enthusiasm and aggression. The Hawks have not played a solid Big 10 game since they beat Mich St last year.
HawkeyeMHA
Well-Known Member
Michigan is the wiinningest program in the country. If you want to talk about any fan base that has been going nuts the past decade it is them. Every one of them wants and thinks they should be better. Point is.... it is not easy to be a top 10 team every year. They think they should win the national title every single year, and we held our own against them the past 10. And you are complaining about our program?
HawkeyeMHA
Well-Known Member
Yeah, and just maybe we pass them back....or you can get off the boss now and join their fan base. I'll stay with iowa because i always will, you are so down on our program, join another.
HawkeyeMHA
Well-Known Member
No ****. move on homeboy. The clowns need fans, if our program is so bad, join them, or NWU, or Indiana, or Purdue, since never beat them.
okeefe4prez
Well-Known Member
Look guy, we're a middle of the pack B10 program that had 3 good years in a row nearly a decade ago and we had a 6-2 season 2 years ago. Back those out and we're a very pedestrian program, half a game a year better than Northwestern, to be exact. I'm tempering expectations here.
