Schwartz: The Son Reflects the Father

I am not sure how much "pressure" BF will feel...but here are a couple of observations...

This isn't a situation where Brian is "chosen" out of the blue and all of the sudden here he is, staring in the headlights, with that lost look...this is a decade (or more) long plan that is following a script.

This isn't a situation where Brian has a reputation of being "kept afloat" or employed by his dad. He seems to have other experiences where he did well. His prior experiences didn't include time on the Salvation Army crew but with BB at the Patriots.

Perhaps best of all, GD (whether it was his responsibility or not) ran an offense that was painfully inept, especially in bowl games. It was trending down to the bottom. Anything will be better...anything. Dad and son both know this, and this too is part of the script for the legacy.

A new and talented QB is ready to go. This too was part of the script for BF. Get his feet wet, get him in place to launch in 2017...not for stale GD but for the son, also part of the script being played out.

I sure hope it works...BF seems ready to go and the cards are stacked in his favor.

My two cents...
 
Kirk Ferentz' legacy is not tied to Brian. If anything he should be judged on Greg Davis and his loyalty to him. You'll notice, however, that his loyalty goes only so far. One coach "retires" and two aren't invited back. He saw a regression from a 12-0 regular season and was concerned so he made changes. That's effective management.

If anyone thinks that KF and BF are going to sit around and wait until August to see if this might work, you are sadly mistaken. With the resources and connections to coaches and programs, they will do the work. Brian Ferentz is a different kind of dynamic coach than the others mentioned. Changes have been implemented as a result of BF ideas and coaching. If anything he should be recognized for significantly affecting 20 wins in the past 2 seasons.

Final note. KF is a different animal. He does the right thing ALWAYS. Now, if there was a question as to whether BF was capable that would be one thing. He is certainly capable, qualified. He has a better pedigree than his father did with playing experience and coaching experience at this point in his life. It makes for interesting reading because everyone wants to say big things. A coach is ALWAYS going to be judged on results. His legacy is not based on his son
 
Really good article, Mr Schwartz. That's a lot of pressure for Brian, and Kirk. I really hop really hope they can pull it off. They're good people, for sure, and if Brian turns out to be good enough, then I think it's great for Iowas long term future.
 
My comment here has nothing to do with Mr. Schwartz, but everything to do with the quotations from the media with regard to father/son coaching teams. In every case, the media jumped when the horse was out of the barn. And, then they discovered that the horse was lame. Of course, sports media and hindsight are incest oriented. I have little time for them. Full disclosure: I do NOT feel that way about the local media in Iowa City and Cedar Rapids. I think they go out of their way to be introspective about the University's athletic programs. Would say the same about Jon, Rob and Dave.
 
A few things left out of the story. The coaches mentioned were very successful coaches. KF is so hard to analyze and detractors don't want the same blood. That was a huge miss in the article.

If a coach, say Steve Alford hired his sons, that is another subject. Tom Davis was a top line coach for the Drake situation and did well. Not the same thing, the the Lick stuff crosses one's mind.

If HF had hired a son, few would have balked at it. If Oklahoma hired Bobby Stoop's son there would be a lot of detractors. One could point out Rick/Richard Pitino and how that could have led to a lack of transparency. Leaving out comments about the Paterno's and what happened there....
 
HuckFinn said:
Full disclosure: I do NOT feel that way about the local media in Iowa City and Cedar Rapids. I think they go out of their way to be introspective about the University's athletic programs. Would say the same about Jon, Rob and Dave.
Click to expand...

Shocker: You luv the local media! (especially HN lol) I can't imagine why.

BTW, you can't be introspective about something outside yourself.
 
Bottom line it's all about getting better, playing good football and winning as many games as possible. If Kirk wants to do that with his entire family on staff so be it. I could care less as long as it works. If he hired all outsiders I'd say the same thing. Not sure what all the fuss is about? Ride or die.
 
Joshbrown said:
Shocker: You luv the local media! (especially HN lol) I can't imagine why.

BTW, you can't be introspective about something outside yourself.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you are shocked. I find the media I referenced to be very thorough. I just don't believe it is their job to rip into coaches and players; I am convinced that they address the tough questions to the coaches when needed. The consistent attacks from some posters that local media is afraid of the coaches is silly. Good propaganda technique, though: Attack the messenger. I listen to and read media approaches to coaches in a variety of markets and find Iowa's to be about normal in a college market...pro's are another matter. I even hear coaches, football and basketball, talk about how "execution" is a key to victory, or defeat.

BTW, yes, I know what introspective means. I think they are self analytical about how they manage their job as they report on various topics, i.e., am I being fair? Am I being accurate? Many media need to take a serious look at themselves and their own biases when they report.
 
If he didn't have the last name Ferentz people would be going nuts over this hire. Promoting from within someone that has no experience as an OC, never developed a QB, called a play, designed an offense, nothing, and he can't recruit any better than his dad. Just ridiculous. Most qualified candidate? Total crap. There were no other candidates.
 
Caddy said:
If he didn't have the last name Ferentz people would be going nuts over this hire. Promoting from within someone that has no experience as an OC, never developed a QB, called a play, designed an offense, nothing, and he can't recruit any better than his dad. Just ridiculous. Most qualified candidate? Total crap. There were no other candidates.
Click to expand...

One could contend that the folks most upset about the hire wouldn't be nearly as upset if the name wasn't Ferentz. With a blind resume, while not mind blowing, its really not that much different than many first time OC's, outside of the blue bloods.

There very well might not have been any other candidates, but I'm not sure how anyone didn't know this was the plan for about 5 years now.

No idea how it will turn out and I see both the potential positives as well as the concerns. It's interesting.
 
"This doesn’t mean that we – Hawkeye fans – should take it easy on Brian Ferentz. He deserves to be held to the same high standard that we held Davis or Ken O’Keefe."

Brian? When will Kirk himself be held to the same high standard that we held Davis or Ken O'OKeefe? What exactly is the standard if any that Kirk is being held to?

Seriously question, what is the standard the Kirk has been held to? This ought to be good since there doesn't appear to be a clear cut one.
 
HuckFinn said:
My comment here has nothing to do with Mr. Schwartz, but everything to do with the quotations from the media with regard to father/son coaching teams. In every case, the media jumped when the horse was out of the barn. And, then they discovered that the horse was lame. Of course, sports media and hindsight are incest oriented. I have little time for them. Full disclosure: I do NOT feel that way about the local media in Iowa City and Cedar Rapids. I think they go out of their way to be introspective about the University's athletic programs. Would say the same about Jon, Rob and Dave.
Click to expand...

Finn, the traditional role of media is to be a watchdog. Overtime as advertising took over the main role over profits than subscriber fees, the role has changed. I know this is extreme, but if it weren't for the media, Nixon would not have resigned. Gulf of Tonkin would never have been brought to light. MyLaii is another. Of course there are countless small town politics that are discovered and issues at universities. Having done extensive work in eastern Europe it is easy to see the impact that media has on swaying public opinion. Compare Pravda and RT on various subjects today and compare those subjects to US main media outlets. The change in US media occurred rapidly in about 2005 when revenues of papers really fell apart and blogs grew rapidly.

In our own nation all you really have to do is look at the last election. The bias was immense. Now every blogger is called "fake news" if it disagrees with the main idea of mainstream media. Fact is that all news has bias to some degree. Current "true" news vilifies anything that upsets revenue streams. Another example is in agriculture where 20 years ago, people bringing up destroying earth worm populations in fields was vilified. Eventually it became mainstream as problems persisted. In spite of what you read, gmo crops can and do impact the human body. The main advertisers (those with money) control what is put out on mainstream. Laugh if you want, but in 20 years thought will change, but big business will move on to the next technology.

How does that impact this topic on football? Media great sways public thought. Coaches do punish media. Look how giddy this site was over the interview with KF. When was the last such interview? Maybe the timing had nothing to do with anything. However, who else but media is a watch dog with a voice? It's just silly to call those questioning things silly. It isn't that common to hire a relatively inexperienced coach who hasn't worked with QB's and RBs to run an offense. His age is a bit young (but not terribly). We can get excited over the Patriot connection. Then again certainly one could argue that his recent mentor wasn't very good.

Why was GD all the sudden a bad OC in the eyes of KF? Hiring a 30 yo OC is probably a problem. 33 is more acceptable. If KF had hired a good one a couple of years ago, how easy would it be to commit nepotism now?

You are the one being silly.
 
HawkGold said:
Finn, the traditional role of media is to be a watchdog. Overtime as advertising took over the main role over profits than subscriber fees, the role has changed. I know this is extreme, but if it weren't for the media, Nixon would not have resigned. Gulf of Tonkin would never have been brought to light. MyLaii is another. Of course there are countless small town politics that are discovered and issues at universities. Having done extensive work in eastern Europe it is easy to see the impact that media has on swaying public opinion. Compare Pravda and RT on various subjects today and compare those subjects to US main media outlets. The change in US media occurred rapidly in about 2005 when revenues of papers really fell apart and blogs grew rapidly.

In our own nation all you really have to do is look at the last election. The bias was immense. Now every blogger is called "fake news" if it disagrees with the main idea of mainstream media. Fact is that all news has bias to some degree. Current "true" news vilifies anything that upsets revenue streams. Another example is in agriculture where 20 years ago, people bringing up destroying earth worm populations in fields was vilified. Eventually it became mainstream as problems persisted. In spite of what you read, gmo crops can and do impact the human body. The main advertisers (those with money) control what is put out on mainstream. Laugh if you want, but in 20 years thought will change, but big business will move on to the next technology.

How does that impact this topic on football? Media great sways public thought. Coaches do punish media. Look how giddy this site was over the interview with KF. When was the last such interview? Maybe the timing had nothing to do with anything. However, who else but media is a watch dog with a voice? It's just silly to call those questioning things silly. It isn't that common to hire a relatively inexperienced coach who hasn't worked with QB's and RBs to run an offense. His age is a bit young (but not terribly). We can get excited over the Patriot connection. Then again certainly one could argue that his recent mentor wasn't very good.

Why was GD all the sudden a bad OC in the eyes of KF? Hiring a 30 yo OC is probably a problem. 33 is more acceptable. If KF had hired a good one a couple of years ago, how easy would it be to commit nepotism now?

You are the one being silly.
Click to expand...

Fake post.

A pretty damn well thought out one though.

That said, media hasn't changed that much since it's inception, it's always been slanted and controlled to a degree by those with power, money. Go back as far as you want in "organized" civilization....always an angle, many times influenced.

There is simply more of it, consumed millions of times an hour, all over the world. The internet changed news.

There are still great journalists out there, exposing wrong doing, corruption. There just happens to be millions of others now simply with a keyboard, an opinion, and agenda.

One thing has never changed, don't believe everything you hear and read.

The angst over this particular topic...Iowa Hawkeye sports reporting, is hilarious to me.
 
Last edited:
HawkeyeWalker said:
Fake post.

A pretty damn well thought out one though.

That said, media hasn't changed that much since it's inception, it's always been slanted and controlled to a degree by those with power, money. Go back as far as you want in "organized" civilization....always an angle, many times influenced.

There is simply more of it, consumed millions of times an hour, all over the world. The internet changed news.

There are still great journalists out there, exposing wrong doing, corruption. There just happens to be millions of others now simply with a keyboard, an opinion, and agenda.

One thing has never changed, don't believe everything you hear and read.

The angst over this particular topic...Iowa Hawkeye sports reporting, is hilarious to me.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with you entirely. Always a problem...yes. However, it has snowballed.

I don't understand why consumers here have to think that those tiring of fluff are in the camp of just blasting the program. There is such a thing as actual investigation on sore subjects.

Btw, the fake post comment...terrific. Hi 5.

On a side note, I do find it sad that Al Jazeera is one of the most unbiased news sources out there. Before actually blasting me, check it out over a period of time. Anyone who missed media bias in the last election....Al Jazeera It is a terrific source for international news not slanted left or right, anti or pro about anything. They cover stories not reported else where. Watching CNN, Fox, other US major outlets, the so called "fake news", RT, Pravda.... are about like watching SN (not pumping aljazeera, just down on media).
 
Last edited:
Interesting stuff, Gold. Just so we are clear, my remarks about the media were directed solely at the sports media. I am going to continue to hold my position on them and if I am being silly so be it. Controversy sells big time, and these guys are experts in recognition of that simple fact. For me, end of story.

Obviously, you have much more experience with the non-sports media than I, although I have long been a careful consumer. I read and listen to multiple sources and then make up my mind, or in some cases, just simply give up on a topic when it gets too esoteric for me to follow. I recognize through research the propaganda methodology used by many media sources; in fact, I used to teach kids at the high school level about recognition of the strategies used by those sources.

I am a fervent believer in freedom of the press and the first amendment. I applaud the take down of Nixon and others. I am grateful that the Vietnam War was ended largely on the strength of the press. (I was a grad student at Iowa in the late 60's) I am pleased to see that some of the stalwarts in the right wing radio community have begun to change their tune now that the press is under attack. Charlie Sykes, a Milwaukee talk show guy who has been very influential, has actually resigned from his position, indicating that his type of work has undermined the legitimate press. Unintended consequences? Maybe.

I am very worried about the attacks on the "mainstream" media that are being leveled by the incoming political powers. I do not believe the "liberal bias" charge made against the so called mainstream media. If someone can show me clear data, I will be happy to change my views. We have become a society that listens to and believes only what reinforces our own beliefs. Respect for the views of others is critically ill, or maybe dead.

The first thing dictators go after when they take over a country is the media. Rarely are the ideas from the media under attack, specifically. Rather, the source is called unreliable over and over again, until people believe. Propaganda styled attacks are clearly being implemented by the president elect and his surrogates. Before I get jumped as another crazy liberal, I have been around the barn enough times to recognize that media manipulation has been used by a wide variety of politicians. If a democrat was utilizing this method to gain power, I would be just as critical. So, give me the benefit of the doubt as to my political views, which are of no importance on this website, anyway.

Appreciated your thoughts and respect you views. But, as Dr. Lou says, "I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong."
 
Don't agree with this article at all. His legacy of his entire career is not tied to one OC hire at the end of it. You could say the legacy of the end of his career is tied to BF but the rest of the career at Iowa and the successes he has had won't be wiped away because of BF and if he does great it doesn't make what he did previously any better either.
 
HuckFinn said:
Interesting stuff, Gold. Just so we are clear, my remarks about the media were directed solely at the sports media. I am going to continue to hold my position on them and if I am being silly so be it. Controversy sells big time, and these guys are experts in recognition of that simple fact. For me, end of story.

Obviously, you have much more experience with the non-sports media than I, although I have long been a careful consumer. I read and listen to multiple sources and then make up my mind, or in some cases, just simply give up on a topic when it gets too esoteric for me to follow. I recognize through research the propaganda methodology used by many media sources; in fact, I used to teach kids at the high school level about recognition of the strategies used by those sources.

I am a fervent believer in freedom of the press and the first amendment. I applaud the take down of Nixon and others. I am grateful that the Vietnam War was ended largely on the strength of the press. (I was a grad student at Iowa in the late 60's) I am pleased to see that some of the stalwarts in the right wing radio community have begun to change their tune now that the press is under attack. Charlie Sykes, a Milwaukee talk show guy who has been very influential, has actually resigned from his position, indicating that his type of work has undermined the legitimate press. Unintended consequences? Maybe.

I am very worried about the attacks on the "mainstream" media that are being leveled by the incoming political powers. I do not believe the "liberal bias" charge made against the so called mainstream media. If someone can show me clear data, I will be happy to change my views. We have become a society that listens to and believes only what reinforces our own beliefs. Respect for the views of others is critically ill, or maybe dead.

The first thing dictators go after when they take over a country is the media. Rarely are the ideas from the media under attack, specifically. Rather, the source is called unreliable over and over again, until people believe. Propaganda styled attacks are clearly being implemented by the president elect and his surrogates. Before I get jumped as another crazy liberal, I have been around the barn enough times to recognize that media manipulation has been used by a wide variety of politicians. If a democrat was utilizing this method to gain power, I would be just as critical. So, give me the benefit of the doubt as to my political views, which are of no importance on this website, anyway.

Appreciated your thoughts and respect you views. But, as Dr. Lou says, "I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong."
Click to expand...

Nice post. Off my soap box. And the liberal bias thing though real has been replaced by corporate bias which gets back to my post. And yes in some markets the anti sports rhetoric goes to unbelievable levels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top