My take on Ferentz

simohawk

Well-Known Member
I think he's a great person and a great representative of the University.

As a recruiter with an eye for undeveloped talent, he's the tops in all of football.

As a head coach, keeping his assistants happy and content, he's also tops.

In fact, as far as running a football operation, there aren't many people I would want instead of him.

He's also perhaps the best business man in the state of Iowa, signing lucrative deals at exactly the right time (peaked expectations). More on this later.

He has his flaws, like all of us, and here is where I see them showing up:


  1. He's very stubborn to change
  2. It took him almost a decade before he was willing to replace starters based on game performance
  3. It took him almost a decade to start running QB sneak on 3rd and 4th and short instead of handing the ball off 7 yards deep
  4. It took way too many years for him to take ISU serious (by that I mean running aggressive down-field plays instead of coming out throwing the fullback)
  5. He does a lousy job of managing a player's eligibility (wasting their red-shirt freshman year, only to see them use up their eligibility when hitting full stride)
  6. Clock management is...well, Kirk should be sending Les Miles a Christmas card every year
But worst of all, he has bought into his own "coach-speak" on Iowa's ability to be successful. By this I mean he really, truly believes that it's a daunting task to beat every team in the Big 10 regardless of the talent he possesses.

It's in Kirk's personal interest to down-sell Iowa's chances to the fans and then "over-deliver", which some on this site fall for each and every time (ie. "We're Iowa", "We're not sexy", etc). But that mentality has lead him to coach the games today the same way he did in 1999 when the talent gap was reversed.

My best friend calls him Captain Coinflip because regardless of opponent, the game comes down to the end. Granted, we've made some progress: early on it use to come down to our ability to connect on a hail mary, then it progressed to hinging on our ability to execute an on-side kick, and now we're firmly in the category of needing to make the last-second field goal to secure wins.

The problem is that Kirk is not as good of a gameday coach with the superior talent as he was with inferior talent. This is something that is changeable, but I'm not optimistic that we'll see it change. The evidence for this is the standard "Hawks go up by 14 points and regardless of the quarter, the Hawks start running out the clock." Kirk is still in the mindset that the other team is better and the fewer plays are run the higher the chances of Iowa "stealing" a victory.

Why didn't we use time outs when Wisky was running down our throats and there were still 3 minutes left? We were also moving at will against them and clearly, whoever had the ball last was going to win. He was hoping the clock would run out before they could score a touchdown.

I'm as tired of all the flaws as the rest of Hawkeyenation, but I recognize that having Kirk with his flaws is better than not having him. We don't ever get blown out anymore like we regularly did with Hayden. We have a chance to win every game we're in, but unfortunately, we have a chance to lose every game we're in, too.

If Kirk would just accept the fact that he's been so successful at building up the PROGRAM that he doesn't need COACH like he's got a 1-10 team he can take us to the next level. If you believe, as Kirk does, that there's only a 50-50% chance of winning each game, whether it's Northwestern or Ohio State, we'll continue to see the upset and shocking loss in the same seasons.

He's getting paid $3 million dollars a year and there are frustrated people writing the checks. They like him and appreciate all that he and his family have done, but it's reasonable for the fans to EXPECT him to continue improving on his weaknesses, when they are the only things keeping the program from reaching the next level.

Go Hawks!
 
We're going to really be loving that $3 million a year when we drop back down to 7-8 win seasons the next couple of years.
 
Interesting post. I liked it. Not disrespectful but some hard truths were spoken of. My response is the same as I put in another KF thread.

Basically, he's the best Iowa can get and keep. Like it or not.

I'm glad he is here but I truely believe that 5-10 years from now many people will correctly look at 2008-2010 as lost opportunities, not January bowl wins. Too much NFL talent not to walk away with at least one B10 championship.
 
We're going to really be loving that $3 million a year when we drop back down to 7-8 win seasons the next couple of years.


Newsflash for you: Iowa isn't a program that will win 10 or 11 games every year so the sooner you realize that the better you will be. In the last 10 years Iowa is an average of 8-4 (82-37) and that includes 4 seasons of 10+ wins.

You people act like 10 or 11 win seasons should happen every year and IT WON'T.
 
We're going to really be loving that $3 million a year when we drop back down to 7-8 win seasons the next couple of years.

If that happens I won't mind the $3M. In the grand scheme of things $3M isn't that much money compared the the value Iowa Football adds to the University and the sales tax revenues generated on football Saturdays across the state. $3M is actually peanuts compared to the ROI Ferentz provides.

7-8 wins seasons should be the norm for a school like Iowa. We've been lucky to have such a successful run that 7-8 win seasons are disapointing.

If I could lock in that half our seasons over the next 10 years are 7 or 8 win seasons I'd sign up for it. 8-4 and 7-5 every few years isn't that bad of a gig. Especially if that's the worst type of seasons we have to endure. 7-5 gets you bowling. 8-4 gets you to a January 1 bowl in most cases.
 
Well, there's no reason this team or the next two or three teams have to be 7-8 win teams.

Since 2002, when Kirk established everything we've had the more talented team on the field in almost every occasion except a few.

2002--more talented than ISU, but less than USC
2003--more talented than MSU, Purdue, less than OSU
2004--more talented than ASU, less than Mich
2005--more talented than ISU, Mich, NW, Florida, and less than OSU (the Mich and Florida refereeing were atrocious, but the Mich game should not have been close enough to let refs determine the outcome)
2006--more talented than Indiana, NW, Wisky, MN, less than OSU and Mich
2007--more talented than ISU, Indiana, Purdue, and Western Michigan, Wisky is a push, less talented than PSU
2008--more talented than Pitt, Illinois, NW, and MSU, less talented than PSU
2009--more talented than NW, less than OSU
2010--more talented than Arizona and Wisky (especially given their injury situation).

If Kirk just wins the games he's suppose to win (based on having better talent) and loses the games to the superior talent here are our regular season records:

2002: 12-0
2003: 11-1
2004: 10-1
2005: 10-1
2006: 10-2
2007: 10-1-1
2008: 11-1
2009: 11-1
2010: 7-0

This is not pie-in-the-sky, it's what SHOULD have happened based on comparative talent. The discrepancy between what should be the record and what is the record is due to the deficiencies of the coaching staff.

It's my hope they take a look at this and accept the reality for what it is, and not try to down-sell the program to lower expectations for contract renewals and fan demands.
 
Newsflash for you: Iowa isn't a program that will win 10 or 11 games every year so the sooner you realize that the better you will be. In the last 10 years Iowa is an average of 8-4 (82-37) and that includes 4 seasons of 10+ wins.

You people act like 10 or 11 win seasons should happen every year and IT WON'T.

When did I ever say I expected 10-11 win seasons? I fully realize Kirk averages around 8 wins a year. My issue is we pay the guy a comparable salary to the coaches that average 9-10 wins.
 
You people act like 10 or 11 win seasons should happen every year and IT WON'T.

Why shouldn't Iowa get to that point? Why *can't* Iowa get to that point?

You act like because Iowa was a lesser program in the past, it must remain that way in the future. I call BS.
 
Why shouldn't Iowa get to that point? Why *can't* Iowa get to that point?

You act like because Iowa was a lesser program in the past, it must remain that way in the future. I call BS.

Why, because of scholarships being at 85 for every school will make it harder. Just look at the teams that dominated in the 70's, 80's before the scholarship issues. It is harder and harder for schools to maintain that type of success in college football and not just Iowa.
 
Newsflash for you: Iowa isn't a program that will win 10 or 11 games every year so the sooner you realize that the better you will be. In the last 10 years Iowa is an average of 8-4 (82-37) and that includes 4 seasons of 10+ wins.

You people act like 10 or 11 win seasons should happen every year and IT WON'T.

There is a WORLD of difference between expecting 10-11 wins every year, and expecting 10-11 wins when we have a team with the talent to do so. THOSE kinds of teams don't come around that often for us, and it gets under people's skins when we spoil the opportunity.
 
There is a WORLD of difference between expecting 10-11 wins every year, and expecting 10-11 wins when we have a team with the talent to do so. THOSE kinds of teams don't come around that often for us, and it gets under people's skins when we spoil the opportunity.

This is a very quality post. We should not expect 10 win seasons every year but there are certain years where we have the talent and 10 wins should be the goal, like last year and this year. When you **** wins down your leg when you have the talent that is what makes people angry and that is why people today are questioning the team and coaches.
 
This is a very quality post. We should not expect 10 win seasons every year but there are certain years where we have the talent and 10 wins should be the goal, like last year and this year. When you **** wins down your leg when you have the talent that is what makes people angry and that is why people today are questioning the team and coaches.

Well, we won 11 games last year, and that was without our starting quarterback for 1 3/4 games.

There is no reason to think that we can't still win 10 or 11 games this year. Everybody seems to think this is going to be 2007 all over again. I don't.

Simohawk, that chart of "expected" wins and losses "based on talent" that puts as THE winningest program of the decade leaves me flabbergasted. Sometimes I feel like I'm not even watching the same sport as some of the fans out there...
 
I agree with everything you said except the cheap shot at Fry. In addition I get frustrated that he gets zero blame for 1999/2000 and 100% of the credit for 2001/2002. I don't have a problem with him learning his craft those first few years, but people need to stop pretending he didn't work through a learning curve.

Man, yesterdays loss still has me down.
 
With the current staff/system....we're usually going to be a.) respected, b.) competitive and c.) very good.

I can live with that. Lord knows, I grew up watching/listening to Iowa FB in the 60s and 70s....a 4-7 season was a reason for celebration.

However, I allowed myself, this one time, to be swept up in the "we're going to be elite this year" thinking in the preseason.

And I define elite as a zero or one loss team, # 1 - 3 in the BCS standings....NC caliber....while we roll people week after week. Being feared and all of that.

I've learned my lesson.

Very good is OK with me. Being elite just isn't where Iowa is ever going to be.

I can be just as happy getting 'lucky' with "Sally Jones" as I can with the prom queen....I guess.
 
Don't like him find another team to root for. I finally stopped reading at Captain coinflip. Dribble, dribble and more dribble.

The bottomline is this: KF has spoiled many fans with his success. I'm very grounded and happy with everything KF has done at Iowa and he deserves every penny. I don't get carried away with expectations. It makes me sick to read stupid posts like this (Well half posts like this):) and others than agreeing with the OP. Ignorance is what I see in stuff like this.
 
Last edited:
Is this statement not true? If we're going to be brutally honest about Ferentz, why doesn't Fry get the same treatment?

no, its not true. Fry lost by more than 20 points 31 times during his stint at Iowa. Most of those occurred in real bad years, and still its less than twice a year. I guess if you consider once or twice a year over 20 years "regular", then you are correct.
 
Very good is OK with me. Being elite just isn't where Iowa is ever going to be.

Just because it didn't happen this year doesn't mean it's never going to happen. If someone gave me even odds on Iowa reaching a national championship game during Ferentz's tenure, I'd bet a couple hundred bucks and feel darn good about it.
 

Latest posts

Top