HomerChampless
Well-Known Member
My ID is HomerChampless for a reason.
Schwartz: Iowa Athletic Department Worst in B1G
- Thread starter JonDMiller
- Start date
HawkIMalaise
Banned
Clearly he doesn't care. Frankly he should just ignore Title 9, it's Orwellian. One could argue Kirk should have been shown the door after the 2007 season. In hindsight this probably would have bee a bad idea. I watched the hour plus video of all the best Iowa highlights. Kirk had way more pep in his step in 2002 than he does now. Clearly winning makes everyone happier and of course there is age. Barta is a real ****** bag. With his crackdown on tailgating. He's a total stiff.
I'll scan and upload my current issue of Texas Monthly and their article about the University of Texas and their new AD. I know we are jazzed about the new football complex but after reading that article we simply are not keeping up with the big boys. This falls on Barta. I believe Texas leads the nation in athletic revenue and makes OSU, Wisconsin and Michigan look like Northwestern in comparison. Same goes for athletic championships won.
I'll scan and upload my current issue of Texas Monthly and their article about the University of Texas and their new AD. I know we are jazzed about the new football complex but after reading that article we simply are not keeping up with the big boys. This falls on Barta. I believe Texas leads the nation in athletic revenue and makes OSU, Wisconsin and Michigan look like Northwestern in comparison. Same goes for athletic championships won.
ICHawk24
Well-Known Member
You think the arrival of a new Athletic Director should provide immediate dividends in conference titles?
IMNSHO, the earliest an AD could result in conference titles is 5 years away, if not 10. The AD's can hire coaches, increase facilities investment, and provide a high expectation level. None of those can be expected to provide immediate dividends.
The basketball program made the NCAA Tourney last year and the football team is poised to challenge for a B1G title this year. Revenue is very high for the athletic department That is all I really care about.
Maybe this Schwartz character should go pen an article on CyFan about the Directors Cup, they would actually care about it.
Maybe this Schwartz character should go pen an article on CyFan about the Directors Cup, they would actually care about it.
HawkeyeHypnosis
Well-Known Member
Of course not. No AD can make miracles immediately. GarBar is on year 9 now, so well see how things go overall.
tm3308
Well-Known Member
1. He specifically said in terms of ON-FIELD performance, Iowa is the worst athletic department in the B1G. So all of the popularity/exposure/revenue go out the window, and he never tried to hide that fact.
2. Even if you don't take the overly simplistic championship/no championship approach to assessing the on-field performance and give more credit for an 8-4 season than an 0-12 one, Iowa is pretty bad. Among the 11 men's sports that Iowa offered over the past three years, Iowa ranks in the bottom half of the conference in seven of them. Going by average finish in the standings/conference championship meets, here's how Iowa stacked up in each of its sports.
Football: Average finish, 6.33 (7th best average out of 12 teams)
Men's basketball: Average finish, 6.33 (6th best average out of 12 teams)
Wrestling: Average finish, 1.67 (3rd best average out of 12 teams)
Baseball: Average finish, 8.0 (9th best average out of 11 teams)
Men's indoor track: Average finish, 8.33 (8th best out of 11 teams)
Men's outdoor track: Average finish, 5.67 (5th best out of 11 teams)
Men's golf: Average finish, 4.0 (3rd best finish out of 12 teams)
Men's XC: Average finish, 10.0 (10th best out of 11 teams)
Men's swimming: Average finish, 6.67 (7th best out of 10 teams)
Men's gymnastics: Average finish, 6.3 (6th best out of 7 teams)
Men's tennis: Average finish, 11.67 (Worst out of 12 teams)
Now, using those rankings for each sport and looking at schools that finished in the top 3 (top 2 for gymnastics, since there are only 7 teams), Iowa doesn't look good. Ohio State and Michigan had top-3 average finishes in 5 sports apiece. Nebraska, Penn State, Wisconsin and Illinois all had four each. Minnesota and Indiana had three, while Iowa and Michigan State both had a pair. Northwestern and Purdue didn't have any.
Those numbers are pretty bad. Outside of wrestling and golf, we've been mediocre (at best) in everything else; we also have zero men's championships since Nebraska joined the conference. I haven't had time to crunch the numbers on the women's sports yet, but I'd be willing to bet they're even worse. Volleyball, rowing, golf, swimming and track are all terrible. Softball is just okay. Women's basketball and field hockey have been pretty good.
Until I've looked at all the numbers, I can't definitively say Iowa's the WORST athletic department in the Big Ten. But I've seen enough and know enough about the rest of our sports to know that we're certainly not one of the best when it comes to on-field performance.
Last edited:
DP5555
Well-Known Member
This doesn't surprise me in the least bit. I haven't been a fan of Gar-Bar for quite some time. He's a stiff. Clearly the only reason he's still in his position is $$ because results aren't in his favor. He's lucky most people only care about football and basketball because the rest has been pathetic (aside from wrestling, but that's slowly dwindling in importance as well). Then when I take into consideration the mess he's created with the women's field hockey program and it just puts me over the top with him. I wouldn't be upset at all if he left or was let go.
HawkeyeHypnosis
Well-Known Member
Sally Mason loves her some GarBar.
DodgerHawki
Well-Known Member
Good job of putting things in context. Winning at Iowa is generally more difficult than most of the other schools in the conference, for the simple fact that very few of the sports can have Iowa as its major recruiting base and field a team in the upper half of the conference (perhaps wrestling excepted). The overall performance should be better, but if you are coaching a sport at Iowa you have to be better than your job than the coaches at many of the other schools (especially the likes of Michigan, MSU, Ohio State, Penn State). Yes, our revenues are good, which is a fantastic testament to the way that Iowa fans support the school. But revenues don't consider a great athlete from Ohio or Pennsylvania to travel 1,000 miles to go to school in Iowa when that kid has an offer from Ohio State or PSU, where their family can see them play every game.
It appears the hires in the last couple of years may get the ship headed in the right direction. Heller should have been hired last time, and he had an instant impact in his first year. The golf coach who just resigned (Hankins) was fantastic, happy for him that he is in administration if that's what he wanted to do, but overall a blow to the golf program. Hopefully the guy he just hired was good. Shymansky in volleyball also should have been hired the last time, but at least Iowa got him this time around. Woody as the track coach seems like a great fit.
okeefe4prez
Well-Known Member
Oh noes. I'd take that 2009 season where we finished second in football and won the Orange Bowl over 100 women's lacrosse national titles and I'm sure everyone in Evanston (save for a militant feminist faction whose opinion is irrelevant) would agree. Heck, Ron Guenther managed to absolutely destroy what had been a decent Illinois football program dating back to the '80's and early '90's because his supporters pointed to stupid crap like tennis and gymnastics titles while overlooking the incompetence of hiring Ron Turner and Ron Zook (and arguably Bruce Weber in basketball). A good football program is a big chunk of the difference between the $79 mil of revenue Illinois generates and the $107 mil Iowa generates.
MoseSchrute
Well-Known Member
The answer to this guy's second question is a resounding NO. Why even play if you don't care about winning?
Here is a Barta quote from about three years ago. I think this says a lot about his expectations. To me you have to set higher expectations with your coaches if you want to win championships. It basically communicates that as long as you compete in the middle of the pack your job is safe.
If we can consistently be in the middle of the pack or higher, in any given year we have a chance to win a championship," Iowa Athletics Director Gary Barta said. "So that's our goal for every program, to get them to that point where every year they're in the middle or higher in the Big Ten."
If we can consistently be in the middle of the pack or higher, in any given year we have a chance to win a championship," Iowa Athletics Director Gary Barta said. "So that's our goal for every program, to get them to that point where every year they're in the middle or higher in the Big Ten."
tm3308
Well-Known Member
Who says a school that generates the kind of revenue we do can't have both? Of the schools with top-3 average finishes, most of them claim success in football and/or basketball, plus other non-revenue sports.
Ohio State: Football, MBB, swimming & diving, outdoor track, tennis
Michigan: MBB, swimming & diving, gymnastics, tennis, cross country
Nebraska: Football, baseball, tennis, indoor track
Wisconsin: Football, indoor track, outdoor track, cross country
Penn State: Football, gymnastics, indoor track, wrestling
Illinois: Baseball, outdoor track, golf, tennis
Minnesota: Wrestling, golf, baseball
Indiana: MBB, baseball, swimming & diving
Michigan State: Basketball, football
Iowa: Golf, wrestling
Of that group, only Illinois has a resume I wouldn't consider trading for. We've definitely sucked it up in the non-revenue sports, but we haven't had that much success in football or basketball lately, either. You can suck at one or the other, but you definitely can't suck at one and be mediocre at the other.
Couple things, you don't Wisky has had success in basketball? There goes your credibility, at least the little you had left.
And you would trade Iowa's athletic department for Indiana's because of moderate success in basketball the last 3-4 years and a crummy football program?
Wow.
tm3308
Well-Known Member
1. Wisconsin basketball's average finish in the B1G standings over the last three years was fourth-best in the league. I didn't say they weren't successful. I was looking at the best of the best in the conference over the last three years and chose to go with roughly the top 25% in each of the sports that Iowa offers (which roughly came out to the top 3 schools in terms of average finish for each sport). Wisconsin was just outside of that in basketball.
2. I said Illinois' was the only one I wouldn't CONSIDER trading for. Iowa hasn't had one above average year in football in the last three, and a couple okay basketball seasons. Indiana has been to a pair of Sweet Sixteens.
Interesting thread. I sort of knew that Iowa did not stack up when all sports are taken into consideration; but, the cold, hard facts are the cold hard facts: We don't look very good at all. That said, it is pretty obvious that Iowa fans, who support this program with NO help from public funds, focus on football, men's basketball, wrestling, with women's basketball and baseball coming in a distant second. I guess women's volleyball and track and field are considered by many as significant programs in the public eye. Barta has lead the charge to significantly improve the athletic facilities during his tenure at Iowa. Kinnick and Carver-Hawkeye have seen major renovation; the football center is, according to BTN's Howard Griffith, one of the most impressive in the conference. Also, he mentioned that improvement in the football recruiting staff as a major upgrade. Speaking of recruiting: Did you know that when Iowa recruits athletes from out of state, the athletic department has to pay out of state tuition for them? Interesting.
I am not one to heap criticism on Gary Barta. I know from personal experience, though certainly not at GB's level, that the person at the top is more often the subject of criticism than s/he is the recipient of praise. I do know that priorities and the establishment thereof, are not always the sole possession of the person charged with the responsibility of leading an organization. Also, the AD at any school has to focus his/her attention on areas with which s/he has significant knowledge and influence. I think Barta has certainly done that: He is very well respected by the "big donors" and his facility improvements have been wildly applauded.
Finally, the main reason AD's get asked to move on is most often connected to budget; the second reason for terminations typically comes in the area of personnel issues. Barta has kept the Iowa athletic budget in tremendous condition; overall, his personnel issues have been few and far between. Yes, KF's contract has been criticized, as was his hire of Todd Lickliter. The recent flash over the termination of the women's coach will die quickly...his hands are tied in terms of discussing personnel issues in public, so we will never hear the details in regard to his decision. But, he has, right or wrong, survived the long term contract for KF and has righted the ship through the hire of Fran Mc., as least at this point.
Would it not be great if the evaluation of the Athletic Director, the U. of I. President, the head Football Coach and lots of others in leadership positions was a simple matter of right and wrong, black and white. Good luck with that.
I am not one to heap criticism on Gary Barta. I know from personal experience, though certainly not at GB's level, that the person at the top is more often the subject of criticism than s/he is the recipient of praise. I do know that priorities and the establishment thereof, are not always the sole possession of the person charged with the responsibility of leading an organization. Also, the AD at any school has to focus his/her attention on areas with which s/he has significant knowledge and influence. I think Barta has certainly done that: He is very well respected by the "big donors" and his facility improvements have been wildly applauded.
Finally, the main reason AD's get asked to move on is most often connected to budget; the second reason for terminations typically comes in the area of personnel issues. Barta has kept the Iowa athletic budget in tremendous condition; overall, his personnel issues have been few and far between. Yes, KF's contract has been criticized, as was his hire of Todd Lickliter. The recent flash over the termination of the women's coach will die quickly...his hands are tied in terms of discussing personnel issues in public, so we will never hear the details in regard to his decision. But, he has, right or wrong, survived the long term contract for KF and has righted the ship through the hire of Fran Mc., as least at this point.
Would it not be great if the evaluation of the Athletic Director, the U. of I. President, the head Football Coach and lots of others in leadership positions was a simple matter of right and wrong, black and white. Good luck with that.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
With NCAA autonomy happening, all of these other sports should be going the way of club sport anyway. Not sure why the football/basketball program needs to pay for all of these other sports anyway. A sport should fund it's own way, and not ask other sports to fund them. If the government wants to fund them, be my guest, but one sport should never be required to fund others.
trj
Well-Known Member
So your solution is what exactly? You gonna fire Lisa Bluder she hasn't won a Big Ten title in the the 15 years she has been here at least not a regular season Big ten title. Fire Tom Brands? He ain't stopping that juggernaut going on at Penn. St. anytime soon. What do you want Barta to do?
