Someone explain this to me......

[Rawkhawk73]

According to the most recent US Dept of Education rankings the University of Iowa had the 15th largest athletic department revenue in the country at just over $81,000,000 (more than Oklahoma, USC, and Nebraska and on par with LSU).

According to the latest NFL rosters, the University of Iowa had the 10th most players on NFL rosters of any college in the country at 32 (more than Oklahoma, Auburn, Florida St., Nebraska, and Alabama and only 1 less than Florida).

This means we've got the funding (Top 15 in the country) and we've got the players (10th most players in the NFL). In addition, we know we've got the exposure.....we're in the greatest conference in the country and the last 126 games in a row have been televised (last one not was Minnesota in 2000). Finally, we know we've got the facilities.

With all of those advantages in place, we've still managed only 2 shared Big Ten titles in 12 years and have 7 seasons out of 12 with 5 losses or more.

Given all of that, there is only one more place to look and that's the coaching staff. We know that in the 12 years that KF has been head coach, not a single member of his staff has left to become a head coach at any level of football. In addition, no member of his staff has been hired at even a coordinator position at any level of football (Joe Philbin was initially hired as OL coach before being promoted).

I understand that someone had to turn the "average" recruits into NFL caliber players, and they've done a great job of that. However, the results on the field still have to be explained and it can't be said that the results are a lack of quality players, a lack of adequate funding, a lack of facilities, or a lack of exposure.

In my opinion, with all the advantages currently in place, the underperformance on the field can only be explained by a lack of game preparation/in-game coaching.

 

[hwks1]

Eye opening. Starting to turn into we do less with more, than anyone else?

 

[ElleHawks]

Anyone think there is a possibility the players Iowa recruits and develops are of a slightly different character than the 4 and 5 star recruits top tier teams recruit? I would argue the inner drive and will to work for success (making an NFL team) burns much hotter in kids at Iowa than many top level schools. Obviously there are exceptions, but I think as a whole this plays a large factor in the amount of hawks in the league.

I'm not disagreeing necessarily, however there are many factors I think should be considered.

 

[AHawk1]

Maybe we could start by hiring someone different to coach the most important position on the team, and the only position this staff has not put someone into the NFL in. QUARTERBACKS COACH. Look how many all Big 10 QBs Synder produced for us. He was amazing.

 

[JonDMiller]

According to the most recent US Dept of Education rankings the University of Iowa had the 15th largest athletic department revenue in the country at just over $81,000,000 (more than Oklahoma, USC, and Nebraska and on par with LSU).

According to the latest NFL rosters, the University of Iowa had the 10th most players on NFL rosters of any college in the country at 32 (more than Oklahoma, Auburn, Florida St., Nebraska, and Alabama and only 1 less than Florida).

This means we've got the funding (Top 15 in the country) and we've got the players (10th most players in the NFL). In addition, we know we've got the exposure.....we're in the greatest conference in the country and the last 126 games in a row have been televised (last one not was Minnesota in 2000). Finally, we know we've got the facilities.

It sounds like a program that should be in the midst of a really good run. You know, one of those best decade ever type spans...one of those Top 15 winning percentage in the nation over a decade type runs...one of those top two most wins in the Big Ten over that time frame type runs.

OH WAIT

They are.

Isn't it amazing how two people can look at the same data and draw such different conclusions? I mean, chicken or the egg bro.

To get that much talent to the league, you either recruit elite players or you develop raw talent into elite talent. With this staff, its the latter.

I just keep reading things like this over and over where it sounds like people expect what we have experienced during the last 10 years or so to be the new baseline minimum performance level. I think that's grossly unrealistic.

 

[JonDMiller]

Eye opening. Starting to turn into we do less with more, than anyone else?

W.O.W.

Or, Iowa is the best staff in college football at identifying diamonds in the rough, players that nobody of importance wanted, and turning them into NFL millionaires.

Having followed recruiting rankings for the entire Ferentz era, I can assure you its not because they have been landing Top 20 recruiting class after Top 20 recruiting class.

More like an average in the mid to upper 30's, maybe even low 40's.

Yet, they have a Top 15 winning percentage in the sport over the past decade (taking away Boise, Utah and TCU, they are 13th)

 

[Hellboy76]

I am leaning towards we do more with less. Most of these Iowa players in the pros were not even recruited by the powerhouses, and if they had made those teams would probably never get a shot to showcase. It's complimentary to Iowa that they can do these things. And having pro players does not equal a title, USC has not won in a while they always have pro players.

 

[Hawkchop]

Seriously, Iowa had a bad year, get over it.

 

[Rawkhawk73]

It sounds like a program that should be in the midst of a really good run. You know, one of those best decade ever type spans...one of those Top 15 winning percentage in the nation over a decade type runs...one of those top two most wins in the Big Ten over that time frame type runs.

OH WAIT

They are.

Isn't it amazing how two people can look at the same data and draw such different conclusions? I mean, chicken or the egg bro.

To get that much talent to the league, you either recruit elite players or you develop raw talent into elite talent. With this staff, its the latter.

I just keep reading things like this over and over where it sounds like people expect what we have experienced during the last 10 years or so to be the new baseline minimum performance level. I think that's grossly unrealistic.

Jon,

Allow me to address a few things.....

First, I fully acknowledged that this coaching staff has done a "great job" (my words) of turning what looked like average players into NFL talent. I don't dispute that in the least and made a point of mentioning it.

Second, why are you comparing "Iowa Now" to "Iowa Before"? "Iowa Before" didn't have an $80M budget, 30 players sent to the NFL, every game on TV, or a new $80M stadium. "Iowa Now" needs to be compared to institutions it is on par with in terms of dollars available and quality players produced. Of the top 10 college teams with the most players currently in the NFL (of which Iowa is a part of), Iowa is one of only 3 schools that have not won a National Championship in the last 10 years (Georgia and Cal are the others). That means that there is a 70% success rate when comparing players in the NFL with National Championships.

This "woe is us, we're just little ol' Iowa" doesn't hold water any longer. We have elite level money, elite level players, elite level facilities and elite level exposure. But only 2 shared conference titles, no National Championship appearances, and seven 5 loss teams (with two of those teams that flat out quit on the season). So if it's not money, not players, not facilities and not exposure.....what is it?

 

[Rawkhawk73]

W.O.W.

Or, Iowa is the best staff in college football at identifying diamonds in the rough, players that nobody of importance wanted, and turning them into NFL millionaires.

Having followed recruiting rankings for the entire Ferentz era, I can assure you its not because they have been landing Top 20 recruiting class after Top 20 recruiting class.

More like an average in the mid to upper 30's, maybe even low 40's.

Yet, they have a Top 15 winning percentage in the sport over the past decade (taking away Boise, Utah and TCU, they are 13th)

By the way, what will you start doing once the 3 year run of 2002-2004 starts falling off in your "past decade" statistics. Start using last 11 years? Last 12 years? Etc?

 

[hawkfaninTX]

By the way, what will you start doing once the 3 year run of 2002-2004 starts falling off in your "past decade" statistics. Start using last 11 years? Last 12 years? Etc?

no because we will have another 2/3 year run where we go 9-3 or 10-2 both years and another BCS bowl game. patience my friend.

 

[hwks1]

...Having followed recruiting rankings for the entire Ferentz era, I can assure you its not because they have been landing Top 20 recruiting class after Top 20 recruiting class.

More like an average in the mid to upper 30's, maybe even low 40's.

Yet, they have a Top 15 winning percentage in the sport over the past decade (taking away Boise, Utah and TCU, they are 13th)

However; given the money spent, the facilities, the exposure, positive media and 'success'...we can't manage top 20 recruiting classes now?

I have had this nagging feeling that even our '10 win seasons' have been more luck than anything else - see last year. I would argue that ALL of our success has been predicated on how the Defense performed and that Defense is entirely based on letting the opponent beat itself. For me, this is getting old now.

I'm not calling for change and all that but I do feel like we have reached the end of this run. The new Big10 with Nebr coming in could dramatically change our fortune, bowl selections etc.

This staff will not understand the stakes. If this staff doesn't worry about losing to NW and Ind year after year then they wont be able to recognize the likely hood of becoming Nebraska's new 'Iowa State'...

 

[racerhawk]

However; given the money spent, the facilities, the exposure, positive media and 'success'...we can't manage top 20 recruiting classes now?

I have had this nagging feeling that even our '10 win seasons' have been more luck than anything else - see last year. I would argue that ALL of our success has been predicated on how the Defense performed and that Defense is entirely based on letting the opponent beat itself. For me, this is getting old now.

I'm not calling for change and all that but I do feel like we have reached the end of this run. The new Big10 with Nebr coming in could dramatically change our fortune, bowl selections etc.

This staff will not understand the stakes. If this staff doesn't worry about losing to NW and Ind year after year then they wont be able to recognize the likely hood of becoming Nebraska's new 'Iowa State'...

An 11 win season isn't "luck."

We will be back, starting next year. Iowa will be good the next two years. Have some faith.

 

[racerhawk]

PS--Iowa has a large athletic dept revenue BECAUSE they've been successful, don't you think?

 

[Rawkhawk73]

PS--Iowa has a large athletic dept revenue BECAUSE they've been successful, don't you think?

Partially. However, conference affiliation which means evenly shared revenues (bowls, gates, tv, etc) and some high quality donors are what really drives that number.

 

[HawkPhreek]

It sounds like a program that should be in the midst of a really good run. You know, one of those best decade ever type spans...one of those Top 15 winning percentage in the nation over a decade type runs...one of those top two most wins in the Big Ten over that time frame type runs.

OH WAIT

They are.

Isn't it amazing how two people can look at the same data and draw such different conclusions? I mean, chicken or the egg bro.

To get that much talent to the league, you either recruit elite players or you develop raw talent into elite talent. With this staff, its the latter.

I just keep reading things like this over and over where it sounds like people expect what we have experienced during the last 10 years or so to be the new baseline minimum performance level. I think that's grossly unrealistic.

As far as this goes does it matter that Iowa had its best decade ever? Being less sucky isn't exactly eye popping. Top 15 winning percentage in the country I love how people use stats like its important. How many fbs schools ? 119(?) So you mean Iowa is the top 18 the last years. Is that good enough ? What's our division record? How many titles ?

 

[HawkPhreek]

How many FBS school have a 11 year staff at the three main spots and zero flat out titles?

 

[Rawkhawk73]

This is the other part I don't understand.....

Kirk Ferentz has long been compared to Bill Belichek. They worked together, they have the same type of personality, the same "nose" for under-the-radar type players, the same desire to have high football IQ type players, etc.

However, the one thing I've always admired about Belichek is that he has never been afraid to change his schemes to fit the personnel. When he had a young Tom Brady, a dominant defense and an efficient running game, he played to his strengths by grinding out games and won a Super Bowl. Then he has an experienced Tom Brady, a motivated Randy Moss and a decent running game and that team goes out and wins 19 consecutive games while also setting the NFL scoring record.

With Ferentz, we did pretty much the same stuff on offense with an experienced Rick Stanzi, a great set of receivers and a good running back that we've always done.

So like I've said, I really put the onus on the coaching staff for how things have gone. Sure we had injuries on defense, but we had a healthy QB and wide receivers all year and 4 out of 5 offensive linemen played all year. In a year where the defense was down significant starters, the smart move was to play to your offensive strengths and outscore people.....but not our staff.

 

[JonDMiller]

As far as this goes does it matter that Iowa had its best decade ever? Being less sucky isn't exactly eye popping. Top 15 winning percentage in the country I love how people use stats like its important. How many fbs schools ? 119(?) So you mean Iowa is the top 18 the last years. Is that good enough ? What's our division record? How many titles ?

That's the top 13% of all programs that play. Hey, if you dont want to acknowledge things have been pretty dang good, borderline with the elite in the nation during the last decade, that's fine. the pity party train will probably be around a while longer.

But as for being 'less sucky'? Come on man. Look at the numbers, look at the teams and look at the results. Some want to just sit in a fetal position and go nancy kerrigan WHYYYYYYYYY.

It's not anywhere near that bad.

 

[JonDMiller]

How many FBS school have a 11 year staff at the three main spots and zero flat out titles?

I realize that Iowa and OSU were both 8-0, but you can't do any better than 8-0 when you play 8 games.

People are really going to complain about shared Big Ten titles?