I'll throw in my 2 cents that if you're going to "go by the numbers" it makes a lot more sense to look at the last 5 years or so then to make sure you factor in the 1 win season that happened 20 years ago. That season has less than nothing to do with this year and is only useful in the "Kirk only wins 7 games" argument.
!*****Official Record Prediction Thread*****!
- Thread starter tksirius
- Start date
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
No kidding. I love how the same people that were calling for KF head in '12-'14 who said 5 years ago doesn't matter, now all of a sudden want to talk about 5+ years ago.
The program is obviously trending upward over the last 5 years, some people don't like this.
Kinda like in basketball where people use Fran's 4 tournaments in 9 years against him. When a program is in God awful shape when you take over, your career statistics will forever suffer for it.
Motigerhawk
Well-Known Member
Im an optimist. I prefer to think we are an 8-4 school and not a 7-5 school. Either way its a bittersweet number.
HawkGold
Well-Known Member
7.5?
AreWeThereYet
Well-Known Member
A narrow range there. For the most part; 9-3 optimists, 7-5 pessimists, 8-4 default vote. Biggest argument on here seems to be the 8-4 guys getting mad at the 7-5 guys for being a bunch of Debbie downers. We generally excuse the 10-2 guys as the "It could happen" crowd.
I am pretty surprised at how many 7-5 people there are on here. I get it, there are 8 losable games on the schedule (ISU, Mich, PSU, Wisc, Minn, NW, Purdue, Neb), and Iowa did not have a good record in close games last year. But I think Iowa has objectively more talent than all of those teams but Mich and PSU (though Purdue and Nebbie are quickly gaining in the talent department), and I just don't seem them losing a majority of those tightly contested games.
Iowa was more talented than Purdue, NW, Wisconsin, and pretty much everyone else of the schedule last year except for PSU and Iowa's starting 22 where probably better than PSU's. Yet Iowa lost all four of those games.
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
Certainly in 2016. That team was awful, and Iowa's 42-3 win was fool's gold for the season's prospects.
2017? He had us right where he wanted us--in Ames, two-score lead after being DOWN two scores. 2018? In Iowa City, but he only gets a half-pass because of that.
The whole senior QB regression at Iowa is always at play. However the black and gold sunglasses I wear want me to believe that wasn’t a Ken okeefe thing, that was a gerp derpvis thing.
But performance in close games does not seem to be a consistent thing from year to year (in any sport). Typically, a team that had a horrible record in close games (e.g. 2018 Iowa) is no more likely to lose a close game in the next year than a team that had a great record in close games the prior year. Most teams come out at about 0.500 in close games over a long enough time span. There are exceptions (I think NW has been exceptional in close games for most of the Fitzgerald era), but they are rare.
Just look at recent Hawkeye history in one-score games:
2015: 5-1
2016: 3-3
2017: 3-3
2018: 2-4 (counting Wisc as one-score game due to meaningless late TD; Iowa started 0-4 in one-score games, ended 2-0 in their last 2 one-score games)
So there is nothing in that history that suggests that recent-vintage KF Iowa is likely to be worse than average in close games (this article from prior to the 2015 season suggests that older KF Iowa may have been deficient in this area).
What is notable is that they had a great point-differential last year (17th best in the nation), as well as a great points/drive differential (22nd best in nation). They got hurt by horrendous punting, some terribly-timed blunders (Wisc punt return unit twice coughing up unforced turnovers; the PSU goal-line interception), some instances of getting outschemed (goalline vs. Wisc; NW, again; Purdue), and some bad luck (90th out of 130 in nation in fumble recovery % last year; this is a stat that seems pretty random from year to year, Iowa was 1st in the nation in 2016, 128th in 2017).
The punting has to improve (it can't get any worse). Odds are the fumble recovery % will be better. Blunders will happen, but the odds of them happening at the worst potential times again are low. We might be outschemed again, but hopefully the talent difference will be enough to make up for it.
I would be absolutely shocked if the Hawks were 7-5. That would be 2010-level collapse (okay, I shouldn't be that shocked, it has happened before). I just don't see it going down that way this year. Then again, my glasses are fully-tinted (black and gold), so perhaps I am just missing the obvious weaknesses.
JoeyLabasForPresident
Well-Known Member
I’ll be betting the over, assuming Prairie Meadows is open for business in time. Also will probably put a couple hundred on MSU winning the title, they’re a darn good bet.
And by the 3rd game you will know whether it is more likely or not. The first two games are gimmes or we got big problems. We win at Iowa State the over is damn near a sure thing barring lots of key injuries.
JoeyLabasForPresident
Well-Known Member
I think we are capable of being a 1 loss team at the end of the regular schedule.
You can argue that in the past we were a avg of 7 win or 8 win team. But I think what you are missing is the accomplishment of that. Years of recruiting classes that were nothing to write home about. Still steady.
Years when we were down to the 3rd rb. Still steady. Years when basically our whole OL went down. Still steady.
Everyone agrees recruiting has gone up.
The staff has figured out how to maintain 7-8 wins (a task many schools can't do).
I think they know as well as anyone and are pushing to raise the bar.
But in the end we all say Nebraska is crazy for firing a 9win avg coach. We aren't far off that with no where near the ranking of recruiting classes.
So Nebraska can f.o. because we are the better program, with better coaches (pick any number of their many to choose from).
Because Bo was winning 9 with top 25 classes and we were avg 7, 7.5, or 8, whatever with what 60th ranked classes? We do it consistently and a horrible year is an anomaly.
I'm going to say that once you can do something consistently, then it's a matter of tweaking, adjusting. A lucky person can hit the bulls eye 2 out of 10 times. A person with skill can do it 7 or 8 times. From there it's just minor adjustments to start hitting 9. The 10th? That's just pretty much luck, as even OSU, Alabama, Clemson and everyone else has figured out.
You can argue that in the past we were a avg of 7 win or 8 win team. But I think what you are missing is the accomplishment of that. Years of recruiting classes that were nothing to write home about. Still steady.
Years when we were down to the 3rd rb. Still steady. Years when basically our whole OL went down. Still steady.
Everyone agrees recruiting has gone up.
The staff has figured out how to maintain 7-8 wins (a task many schools can't do).
I think they know as well as anyone and are pushing to raise the bar.
But in the end we all say Nebraska is crazy for firing a 9win avg coach. We aren't far off that with no where near the ranking of recruiting classes.
So Nebraska can f.o. because we are the better program, with better coaches (pick any number of their many to choose from).
Because Bo was winning 9 with top 25 classes and we were avg 7, 7.5, or 8, whatever with what 60th ranked classes? We do it consistently and a horrible year is an anomaly.
I'm going to say that once you can do something consistently, then it's a matter of tweaking, adjusting. A lucky person can hit the bulls eye 2 out of 10 times. A person with skill can do it 7 or 8 times. From there it's just minor adjustments to start hitting 9. The 10th? That's just pretty much luck, as even OSU, Alabama, Clemson and everyone else has figured out.
Last edited:
