the "21-19" Crowd needs to read this:

hawkfaninTX

hawkfaninTX

Well-Known Member
I'm really sick of these people who thinks it is only Iowa who has had a down year. yes we underachieved.

Here is the totals since people love to "cherry-pick" stats..... Iowa gets the Tie Breaker here for going 3-1 versus MSU in the 5 year span. Bowl record in parenthesis()

OSU........36-4 (1-3)
UW.........27-13 (2-2)
PSU........26-14 (3-1)
IOWA......21-19 (2-1)
MSU.......21-19 (0-3)
MICH......19-21 (1-1)
NU.........18-22 (0-2)
ILL.........16-24 (0-1)
PU.........16-24 (1-1)
MINNY....11-29 (0-3)
IU...........9-31 (0-1)

What you should really consider is what KF Record is from '01-'10 to be completely fair. i was just using what the OP in the thread linked below listed for a time frame (last 5 years).
http://www.hawkeyenation.com/forum/football/21404-21-19-a.html

Pretty cool to say that we are one of two Big 10 teams to claim a winning bowl record during this span. The ONLY Big 10 Team to claim Back-2-Back bowl wins and will pursue a third this year!

The last teams to have won 3 bowls in a row are as follows:

Iowa: 2008, 2009, & 2010?
PSU: 2005, 2006, & 2007
OSU: 2002, 2003, 2004, & 2005
Minny: 2002, 2003, & 2004
UM: 1998, 1999, 2000, & 2001
UW: 1998, 1999, & 2000

^ These are the most recent teams to have won 3 in a row (some may have more instances, but these are the most recent)
-----------------------------------------------------

So i took it a step further for the whole "7 wins in last 24 games decided by 7 points or less" crowd.

Here are the records of all the big ten teams in games decided by 7 points or less since '06 (including non-conference): *in order of most wins

team......W/L........%........#games...%-rank...
NU........19-7.......(.704)-(26 games) 1
UW........15-7......(.682)-(22 games) 2
Iowa......11-16.....(.407)-(27 games) 8
UM........10-9.......(.526)-(19 games) 5
MSU......10-16......(.385)-(26 games) 9
IU..........9-11......(.450)-(20 games) 6
ILL.........9-12.......(.429)-(21 games) 7
Minny.....9-16.......(.360)-(25 games) 11
OSU.......7-4.........(.636)-(11 games) 3
PSU.......7-6..........(.538)-(13 games) 4
Purdue...7-12.........(.368)-(19 games) 10

Other notable College Teams covering the same time frame (5 years)

team.......W/L........%.......#games......% in Big 10
Florida....8-6.......(.571)-(14 games) would be 4th
LSU.......18-9......(.666)-(27 games) would be 3rd
OU.........8-9.......(.471)-(17 games) would be 6th
Texas.....11-9......(.550)-(20 games) would be 4th
USC.......11-7......(.611)-(18 games) would be 4th
Oregon...11-6......(.647)-(17 games) would be 3rd
Miami.....12-15....(.444)-(27 games) would be 7th

winning percentage aside, we have just as many/more close wins as 6 of these 8 "elite" teams.

what these figures tells you is that aside from LSU/NU/Wisky -- many of the teams are as competitive in close games.

and lastly, preseason rankings (in bold is teams that have "underachieved" or done worse than Iowa!

USA Today Poll
1. Alabama 9-3
2. Ohio State 11-1
3. Florida 7-5???
4. Texas 5-7???
5. Boise State 11-1
6. Virginia Tech10-2
7. TCU 12-0
8. Oklahoma 10-2
9. Nebraska 9-3???
10. Iowa 7-5????
11. Oregon 11-0
12. Wisconsin 11-1
13. Miami (FL) 7-5???
14. Penn State 7-5???
15. Pitt 7-5???
16. LSU 10-2
17. Georgia Tech 6-6???
18. North Carolina 7-5???
19. Arkansas 10-2
20. Florida State 9-3
21. Georgia 6-6???
22. Oregon State 5-7???
23. Auburn 12-0
24. Utah 10-2 UR
25. West Virginia 9-3

Today:

1 Auburn 12-0
2 Oregon 11-0
3 TCU 12-0
4 Stanford 11-1 UR
5 Wisconsin 11-1
6 Ohio State 11-1
7 Arkansas 10-2
8 Michigan State 11-1 UR
9 Oklahoma 10-2
10 LSU 10-2
11 Boise State 10-1
12 Missouri 10-2
13 Nebraska 10-2
14 Oklahoma State 10-2
15 Virginia Tech 10-2
16 Alabama 9-3
17 Nevada 11-1
18 Texas A&M 9-3
19 South Carolina 9-3
20 Utah 10-2
21 Florida State 9-3
22 Mississippi State 8-4 UR
23 Arizona 7-4 UR
24 West Virginia 8-3
25 Northern Illinois 10-2 UR

*UR= unranked
 
Last edited:
We might have as many or more total wins in games decided by 7 points or less (compared to those elite teams) over the past 5 years. But the winning percentage is what's important. 5 of those teams have 11 or more wins by 7 points or less. 3 of those 5 teams have played at least 7 fewer games decided by that margin than we have, and two played 9 and 10 fewer games. That's a pretty significant difference.
 
agreed, that much i knew when laying out the stats, but what is not shown is just total losses, while games decided by 7 or less is easy to pick on because Iowa has not lost by more than that margain since '07. While accumulating these stats i noticed some of these "elite" schools lost by more than a TD with more regularity than Iowa (even back to '06).
 
So you're bragging up a nearly .500 record? And bowl game wins are very suspect depending on which ones you win. The win against G. Tech was big cause it was a BCS, but the others would be considered and "average" bowl win.

Not to be glass half empty, but these stats can go both ways. With the recruiting we've had and the talent we have had (see DJK, Clayborn, and McNutt especially) a record just over .500 is horrible in my opinion and more of an underachievement when compared to MSU or whoever.

And since you brought up MSU's comparable record, just for fun, recruiting rankings for Iowa in 2008: 44th. MSU: 56th

In 2007, Iowa: 37, MSU: 51

Personally I expect more out of Iowa and this should not have just been a "down year".
 
That's true that some of those schools have lost by larger margins, with more regularity than we lose by large margins. Then again, if you're going to, for all intents and purposes, purposely play close games, you probably should have a better record in such games than we've had over the past 5 years. Which is my only concern.
 
Look, I personally have little doubt that the body of work this staff has compiled is great- and especially comparing it to some "darker times" in the program it is exceptional. I applaud them for what they've done, and hopefully will continue to do.

But for whatever reason- this team, this year, did not meet the on-field expectations (however fair or unfair). There's nothing wrong with people pointing that out, arguing, debating, complaining or what have you and I hope people continue to do so. It shows the passion and the diversity of our fan base.
 
To suggest that we should be happy or satisfied with averaging a tied for 4th place finish in the Big 10 annually is preposterous.

This is a we're just little ole Iowa attitude. Little old Wisconsin looks a whole lot better.

I bet you that if you go back and look at those losses you will see we lost in one or more of the following ways.

1) We had the lead and failed to step on the gas with some really stupid offensive playcalling.

2) The opposing team spreads us out knowing we will continue to put LB's on their fastest WR's. This might be ok for the 1st 3 qtrs but not during the 4th.

I blame the offensive production way more than I do the defensive scheme, but it can not b ignored that the coaching staff refuses to adjust in the game.

The Sun-Fri preparation of this staff is pretty awesome, but the Saturday game management is mediocre at best and probably a whole lot worse than that.
 
I'm not sure those stats "prove" much of anything

I especially like how you said "we have just as many wins in close games at the elite teams" but if you look we have a worse winning percentage them all of them - that state clearly shows us to be worse in close games - not sure what you were trying to go for there.

A 5 year span of 21-19 and avg tie for 4th is hardly anything I'd be excited about

I want to contend for big ten titles sorry if thats never going to happen I guess I'll never be satisfied.
 
Kirk is 53-43 in the B10 over his career as head coach at Iowa. (.552)

Kirk is 21-19 over the last five years. (.525)

This isn't a case of cherry picking. Kirk is a slightly above .500 coach in the B10. 12 years worth of data is hard to argue with.
 
Xerxes said:
Kirk is 53-43 in the B10 over his career as head coach at Iowa. (.552)

Kirk is 21-19 over the last five years. (.525)

This isn't a case of cherry picking. Kirk is a slightly above .500 coach in the B10. 12 years worth of data is hard to argue with.
Click to expand...

Is that including the rebuilding years? Can you argue how that would be fair?
 
How's this for you then. If you don't like the 5 year span, we will look at the whole body of work.

Kirk is 53-43 in conference play in his 12 season. In Hayden's first 12 years, he was 63-31-4 in conference play. In that span, Iowa had two nine win seasons and two ten win seasons. Now keep in mind that they only played 11 games back then, and almost always all of those games were against BCS teams, if not at least against other Division 1 teams (Tulsa, N. Illinois, Hawaii, etc. But also a lot of Penn State, Miami, Colorado, etc).

If we factor in an extra victory against an FCS patsy every year like we get now, in Hayden's first 12 years he would have had two 11 win seasons, two 10 win seasons, and four 9 win seasons. ( I did not factor in ties as a half win-half loss).

In Hayden's first 12 seasons, he lost 5 games or more only 3 times (79, 80, and 89). In Kirk's first 12 seasons, he has lost 5 games or more 7 times (99,00,01,05, 06, 07 and 10), including 4 of the last 6 years.

I am not a crazy extremest that thinks Kirk needs to go. I just don't understand why everyone thinks we have reached a place that no other coach brought us to, or ever could again. Or that Kirk does no wrong and to question the way the program seems headed at times means you are not a true fan. Our track record just doesn't show it. And I personally do not see the next two years being much more than 8-4 or 7-5 seasons again (although I hope I am wrong).
 
hawkfaninTX said:
Is that including the rebuilding years? Can you argue how that would be fair?
Click to expand...

You serious, Clark?

I think I'll use that excuse in my job. I'm going to go into my boss today and tell him that my first year or two of work shouldn't count because I was managing people I didn't hire and the guy who came before me really stunk up the joint at the end. I'm sure that'll go over real well.

As far as I'm concerned, those were regulation football games, he got paid for coaching them, so he has to own them.....good or bad.
 
bighawkeyedaddy said:
How's this for you then. If you don't like the 5 year span, we will look at the whole body of work.

Kirk is 53-43 in conference play in his 12 season. In Hayden's first 12 years, he was 63-31-4 in conference play. In that span, Iowa had two nine win seasons and two ten win seasons. Now keep in mind that they only played 11 games back then, and almost always all of those games were against BCS teams, if not at least against other Division 1 teams (Tulsa, N. Illinois, Hawaii, etc. But also a lot of Penn State, Miami, Colorado, etc).

If we factor in an extra victory against an FCS patsy every year like we get now, in Hayden's first 12 years he would have had two 11 win seasons, two 10 win seasons, and four 9 win seasons. ( I did not factor in ties as a half win-half loss).

In Hayden's first 12 seasons, he lost 5 games or more only 3 times (79, 80, and 89). In Kirk's first 12 seasons, he has lost 5 games or more 7 times (99,00,01,05, 06, 07 and 10), including 4 of the last 6 years.

I am not a crazy extremest that thinks Kirk needs to go. I just don't understand why everyone thinks we have reached a place that no other coach brought us to, or ever could again. Or that Kirk does no wrong and to question the way the program seems headed at times means you are not a true fan. Our track record just doesn't show it. And I personally do not see the next two years being much more than 8-4 or 7-5 seasons again (although I hope I am wrong).
Click to expand...

Amen brother.

Not to mention Hayden had none of the facilities that Kirk has....he had to threaten to leave to USC before the administration would finally get him some upgraded facilities. Finally, it was a heckuva lot harder trying to win when the last 20 years were full of losers, than it was to inherit a program that had been to 3 Rose Bowls and 15 bowl games overall in the last 20 years.

Don't get me wrong, that 3 year run in 2002-2004 was awesome and 2009 was a blast (until Stanzi got hurt). But in an honest assessment of Kirk's performance over the 12 years, there's been more mediocre/below-mediocre records than good ones.
 
bighawkeyedaddy said:
How's this for you then. If you don't like the 5 year span, we will look at the whole body of work.

Kirk is 53-43 in conference play in his 12 season. In Hayden's first 12 years, he was 63-31-4 in conference play. In that span, Iowa had two nine win seasons and two ten win seasons. Now keep in mind that they only played 11 games back then, and almost always all of those games were against BCS teams, if not at least against other Division 1 teams (Tulsa, N. Illinois, Hawaii, etc. But also a lot of Penn State, Miami, Colorado, etc).

If we factor in an extra victory against an FCS patsy every year like we get now, in Hayden's first 12 years he would have had two 11 win seasons, two 10 win seasons, and four 9 win seasons. ( I did not factor in ties as a half win-half loss).

In Hayden's first 12 seasons, he lost 5 games or more only 3 times (79, 80, and 89). In Kirk's first 12 seasons, he has lost 5 games or more 7 times (99,00,01,05, 06, 07 and 10), including 4 of the last 6 years.

I am not a crazy extremest that thinks Kirk needs to go. I just don't understand why everyone thinks we have reached a place that no other coach brought us to, or ever could again. Or that Kirk does no wrong and to question the way the program seems headed at times means you are not a true fan. Our track record just doesn't show it. And I personally do not see the next two years being much more than 8-4 or 7-5 seasons again (although I hope I am wrong).
Click to expand...


Great work, Great post!!! That sums up what I've been thinking for awhile.
 
hawkfaninTX said:
-
So i took it a step further for the whole "7 wins in last 24 games decided by 7 points or less" crowd.

Here are the records of all the big ten teams in games decided by 7 points or less since '06 (including non-conference): *in order of most wins

team......W/L........%........#games...%-rank...
NU........19-7.......(.704)-(26 games) 1
UW........15-7......(.682)-(22 games) 2
Iowa......11-16.....(.407)-(27 games) 8
UM........10-9.......(.526)-(19 games) 5
MSU......10-16......(.385)-(26 games) 9
IU..........9-11......(.450)-(20 games) 6
ILL.........9-12.......(.429)-(21 games) 7
Minny.....9-16.......(.360)-(25 games) 11
OSU.......7-4.........(.636)-(11 games) 3
PSU.......7-6..........(.538)-(13 games) 4
Purdue...7-12.........(.368)-(19 games) 10

Other notable College Teams covering the same time frame (5 years)

team.......W/L........%.......#games......% in Big 10
Florida....8-6.......(.571)-(14 games) would be 4th
LSU.......18-9......(.666)-(27 games) would be 3rd
OU.........8-9.......(.471)-(17 games) would be 6th
Texas.....11-9......(.550)-(20 games) would be 4th
USC.......11-7......(.611)-(18 games) would be 4th
Oregon...11-6......(.647)-(17 games) would be 3rd
Miami.....12-15....(.444)-(27 games) would be 7th

winning percentage aside, we have just as many/more close wins as 6 of these 8 "elite" teams.

what these figures tells you is that aside from LSU/NU/Wisky -- many of the teams are as competitive in close games.
>>>>>>>>>>.

What these figures tell me, is that you're familiar with the tactic of "squeezing a lie between two truths". Your first and last tables are legit. But "Winning percentage aside"? Nice try, but you can't slip that one through.

Winning percentage is the meaningful stat in the "close game" subset , not the number of close wins. The raw number is limited or inflated by the number of close games a team was in (opportunities)...which is different for every team. So PERCENTAGE is the valid comparrision.

We're 8th out of 11 using that stat, and below ALL of the "elite" teams you listed. That's a much more accurate representation of how Iowa does in close games.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Exactly Hawkdrummer, it would be like saying I am a better hitter in baseball than a guy that got 1 hit in 2 at bats because I got 2 hits in 20 at bats. Just because I had more hits doesn't mean I am better, I had 18 more chances.
 
Xerxes said:
Kirk is 53-43 in the B10 over his career as head coach at Iowa. (.552)

Kirk is 21-19 over the last five years. (.525)

This isn't a case of cherry picking. Kirk is a slightly above .500 coach in the B10. 12 years worth of data is hard to argue with.
Click to expand...

Kirk is 49-33 in 10 years (forgiving the 2 rebuilding years). The reason you forgive him these results is because he will never have these results again. And to respond to "the Hayden years" comment. Football, from a competitiveness standpoint, has been harder in the current exposure that football has all the way down to recruiting a junior in the HS level. I shouldn't have to make an argument to the exposure that TV has brought us, heck the Big Ten Network is here. Scholarship numbers have changed- too many variables have altered the football landscape.
 
bighawkeyedaddy said:
Exactly Hawkdrummer, it would be like saying I am a better hitter in baseball than a guy that got 1 hit in 2 at bats because I got 2 hits in 20 at bats. Just because I had more hits doesn't mean I am better, I had 18 more chances.
Click to expand...

The 1 for 2 guy could be cliff lee with a broken bat single, while the 2 for 20 is Albert pujols with 2 home runs. It's circumstantial evidence that could be twisted to favor any perspective is what my point is.
 
bighawkeyedaddy said:
How's this for you then. If you don't like the 5 year span, we will look at the whole body of work.

Kirk is 53-43 in conference play in his 12 season. In Hayden's first 12 years, he was 63-31-4 in conference play. In that span, Iowa had two nine win seasons and two ten win seasons. Now keep in mind that they only played 11 games back then, and almost always all of those games were against BCS teams, if not at least against other Division 1 teams (Tulsa, N. Illinois, Hawaii, etc. But also a lot of Penn State, Miami, Colorado, etc).

If we factor in an extra victory against an FCS patsy every year like we get now, in Hayden's first 12 years he would have had two 11 win seasons, two 10 win seasons, and four 9 win seasons. ( I did not factor in ties as a half win-half loss).

In Hayden's first 12 seasons, he lost 5 games or more only 3 times (79, 80, and 89). In Kirk's first 12 seasons, he has lost 5 games or more 7 times (99,00,01,05, 06, 07 and 10), including 4 of the last 6 years.

I am not a crazy extremest that thinks Kirk needs to go. I just don't understand why everyone thinks we have reached a place that no other coach brought us to, or ever could again. Or that Kirk does no wrong and to question the way the program seems headed at times means you are not a true fan. Our track record just doesn't show it. And I personally do not see the next two years being much more than 8-4 or 7-5 seasons again (although I hope I am wrong).
Click to expand...

Maybe you're not old enough to remember what the Big 10 was like in the 80's. It was called the Big 2 and the Little 10 for a reason. Besides OSU and UM the league was very weak. Contrast that to today where you have those two (well not Michigan so much right now) as well as Wisky, PSU, MSU and Northwestern all playing at a high level. Throw in the occasional good year from Illinois and Purdue and you have a lot tougher league than when Hayden was coach.

I'm not saying I'm not disappointed this year, but we are a few linebacker injuries/special teams plays from 11-1.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top