The Amazing Consistency of Kirk Ferentz at Iowa

[Ranger620]

I had a chance to go back and look at the historical football record for Iowa. Since 1960, the Hawks have won 5.75 games per year on average. Since the Fry era, that number has increased to about 7.2 games per year. Both Fry and Ferentz have averaged right at 7.2 wins per year. In fact, I think Ferentz's average wins per year is slightly better than coach Fry's. So, there has been an amazing consistency when you look at the football program over the last 35 years. While the Hawks have had some tremendous years in the past 35, they are by no means an elite program or a football powerhouse. At best they can be considered a good solid program with a few exception years and a few poor years.

 

[Sparky]

And you think P&G is #1 because of their CEO? LOL!

I don't think you really understand what BoP was saying. Your dislike of Ferentz is preventing you from thinking logically.

I understand exactly what he's saying. Iowa is good at a lot of things and we should be happy about that and to expect them to be the best at anything is illogical and pointless. Iowa fans need to remember that because we're Iowa then we shouldn't expect huge things on the field in terms of performance because we should be happy with where we are.

 

[HawkeyeTech]

I understand exactly what he's saying. Iowa is good at a lot of things and we should be happy about that and to expect them to be the best at anything is illogical and pointless. Iowa fans need to remember that because we're Iowa then we shouldn't expect huge things on the field in terms of performance because we should be happy with where we are.

So enlighten me. To your original point, do you believe P&G is #1 due to their astute hiring of the perfect CEO, or is it due to their tradition and position in the market? I think you know the answer to that question.

 

[Xerxes]

Kirk has done fantastic things for Iowa, nobody can deny that. You're also right about saying that he will never win a National Championship and that's unfortunate since that's what every team strives for.

In that same space let me ask you a question. You would never see a corporation hire a person to run their company that couldn't take them were they want to go, so why is it ok when it comes to Iowa football to keep a man around that can't take them to the top?

This may be true in the NFL where owners, GMs, coaches, and players are judged mostly on championships. However college football is a different animal entirely. Its all about money. Iowa football has made an incredible amount of money with KF leading the program. Does Iowa's "corporation" make as much as some others across the country? No, but they're consistently in the top 20 in annual revenue generated from their program.

Certainly KF has advantages that others don't: loyal fan base that likes to spend money and conference that has a fantastic TV deal, bowl revenue sharing, but he has put out a winning product that keeps fans coming to games for nearly 15 years.

If you're on the Executive Board of a corporation and your company is consistently making more money than 80% of the competition, knowing full well that it is an impossible goal to overtake financial heavyweights of Texas, Michigan, Ohio St, Alabama, Florida, USC, & Notre Dame, would you suggest to replace the CEO?

 

[Billso]

If you're on the Executive Board of a corporation and your company is consistently making more money than 80% of the competition, knowing full well that it is an impossible goal to overtake financial heavyweights of Texas, Michigan, Ohio St, Alabama, Florida, USC, & Notre Dame, would you suggest to replace the CEO?

Well, I don't know, but... but... somebody big-time that'll take us to the next level!

 

[BirdsOfPrey]

"Can you tell me where Proctor & Gamble sets in relation to the rest of their industry? I'll help you out, they sit #1. You just proved my point entirely."

I'm clueless to your point.?? Proctor & Gamble, GM etc. are #1. They are so big, so powerful, so entrenched, they swallow anything good that comes along. No corporation is going to just decide we're going to unseat them, it doesn't work that way. I don't think it's possible in the real world. Do you have a successful plan, any strategy at all or just wishes & dreams? We are successful and consistent. Factor our position in the new Big Ten, upcoming schedules, and the fact that the Hawks have proven they can reach the elite level once every 3 or 4 years - now consider the new playoff system set to take effect. There's a chance the Hawks may get a fair shot at things. The coaching staff knows where they're going. Set your unrealistic dreams aside and become a Hawk fan again!

 

[hawkeyebob62]

Kirk has done fantastic things for Iowa, nobody can deny that. You're also right about saying that he will never win a National Championship and that's unfortunate since that's what every team strives for.

In that same space let me ask you a question. You would never see a corporation hire a person to run their company that couldn't take them were they want to go, so why is it ok when it comes to Iowa football to keep a man around that can't take them to the top?

MANY people claimed Lute Olson was great, but, "We'll never win a national championship with him".

It could be symptomatic of the resources we have, coupled with the administration, the fan base, big donorship, etc.

Not saying Kirk "can't" win a national championship. Just don't think he can do it at Iowa.

EDIT: Something else to consider--media and voters.

In 2009, after game NINE--yes, game NINE (vs. Indiana)--ESPN in-studio crew was remarking on Iowa comeback against Indiana, the computers having us number one, Kirk's comment that it was "only because the computers haven't seen us play", etc., and Lou Holtzscchscchscchhh was babbling on about, "I jussshhh can't get that game againsssshhhht NO-vern AH-ha-wah out of my head. Theyneeded to bwock twooo fee-ode goe-ssshhh to win!"

A team/program like Iowa will NEVER get the benefit of the doubt with some of those folks (media/voters), while an Oregon can lose two games and still be BCS Top Ten. An 8-4 Georgia will almost ALWAYS land in Top 25. An 8-4 Iowa team has to beat an $EC team by 53 points in a bowl game to get there.

Guys like Trev Alberts at E$ECPN that like an Iowa become...guys that USED to be at E$ECPN.

 

[homes]

Yes, the big bowl people sort of screwed up with the 2003 Jan 1 Rose and Orange Bowl matchups.

Iowa-Wash St (i think it was) would have been a really good matchup and probably better for the hawks in hindsight.

And USC-Oklahoma would have been great in the Orange Bowl. But what I think they wanted was USC and Oklahoma going to two bowl games they had never been to before. And the same with Iowa.

I think that's the only time the Rose Bowl didn't get a Big Ten team. I recall it had to do with the BCS bowls at that time getting the next best available, and that year it was the Orange Bowl's turn so they took Iowa away from the Rose Bowl. The Rose Bowl folks, traditionalists that they are, and with the most influence, put an end to that deal. Since then, I don't think the Rose Bowl has been without a Big Ten team. It was a one year blip - Iowa had no control over their fate that year.

 

[hawkinn3]

I am not sure why you chose to overlap so much and take 15 years of Ferentz and divide it into eleven 5 year cycles. Unless we are comparing some parallel dimension Kirk Ferentzs. There have been three 5 year cycles, the winning % has been 52%, 61%, and 60% in those 3 periods.

 

[Xerxes]

MANY people claimed Lute Olson was great, but, "We'll never win a national championship with him".

It could be symptomatic of the resources we have, coupled with the administration, the fan base, big donorship, etc.

Not saying Kirk "can't" win a national championship. Just don't think he can do it at Iowa.

EDIT: Something else to consider--media and voters.

In 2009, after game NINE--yes, game NINE (vs. Indiana)--ESPN in-studio crew was remarking on Iowa comeback against Indiana, the computers having us number one, Kirk's comment that it was "only because the computers haven't seen us play", etc., and Lou Holtzscchscchscchhh was babbling on about, "I jussshhh can't get that game againsssshhhht NO-vern AH-ha-wah out of my head. Theyneeded to bwock twooo fee-ode goe-ssshhh to win!"

A team/program like Iowa will NEVER get the benefit of the doubt with some of those folks (media/voters), while an Oregon can lose two games and still be BCS Top Ten. An 8-4 Georgia will almost ALWAYS land in Top 25. An 8-4 Iowa team has to beat an $EC team by 53 points in a bowl game to get there.

Guys like Trev Alberts at E$ECPN that like an Iowa become...guys that USED to be at E$ECPN.

Does this count for BB too? And I suppose Ed Cunningham better get his resume ready too. He was giving Iowa some love on the bowl preview show last week. Sorry Ed.

 

[LG210]

interesting. however anytime you drop one year and add another to the average repeatedly, you inherently take out a great deal of variability.

This is correct. The OP has credited KF's performance with consistency which, in actuality, is derived nearly exclusively from the methodology of measurement employed.

 

[LG210]

I had a chance to go back and look at the historical football record for Iowa. Since 1960, the Hawks have won 5.75 games per year on average. Since the Fry era, that number has increased to about 7.2 games per year. Both Fry and Ferentz have averaged right at 7.2 wins per year. In fact, I think Ferentz's average wins per year is slightly better than coach Fry's. So, there has been an amazing consistency when you look at the football program over the last 35 years. While the Hawks have had some tremendous years in the past 35, they are by no means an elite program or a football powerhouse. At best they can be considered a good solid program with a few exception years and a few poor years.

Isn't there an issue with consistency regarding both the number of regular-season games and proliferation of bowl games (6-6 didn't get you to a bowl in 1960)?

 

[ChosenChildren]

This is correct. The OP has credited KF's performance with consistency which, in actuality, is derived nearly exclusively from the methodology of measurement employed.

No, the consistency is derived from his actual consistent performance.

If you have 4 winning seasons followed by 4 losing seasons, not only does the methodology of measurement not work, but the coach gets fired...

Ferentz HAS BEEN amazingly consistent and, by Iowa's standards, has been very successful. Let's compare him to Fry, clearly the most successful coach in Iowa history:

Winning percentage:

Fry (20 seasons): .61
Ferentz (15 seasons): .58 Slight Edge to Fry

Big Ten titles:

Fry: 3
Ferentz: 2 Edge to Fry

Bowl records:

Fry: 6-7-1
Ferentz: 6-4-0 Edge to Ferentz

BCS bowl records:

Fry: 0-3
Ferentz: 1-1 Edge to Ferentz

I know that a lot of posters on this board do not want to hear it, but Ferentz has to be on the Mount Rushmore of Iowa coaches during the modern era: Fry, Ferentz and Evashevski, in no particular order.

 

[LG210]

No, the consistency is derived from his actual consistent performance.

If you have 4 winning seasons followed by 4 losing seasons, not only does the methodology of measurement not work, but the coach gets fired...

Ferentz HAS BEEN amazingly consistent and, by Iowa's standards, has been very successful. Let's compare him to Fry, clearly the most successful coach in Iowa history:

Winning percentage:

Fry (20 seasons): .61
Ferentz (15 seasons): .58 Slight Edge to Fry

Big Ten titles:

Fry: 3
Ferentz: 2 Edge to Fry

Bowl records:

Fry: 6-7-1
Ferentz: 6-4-0 Edge to Ferentz

BCS bowl records:

Fry: 0-3
Ferentz: 1-1 Edge to Ferentz

I know that a lot of posters on this board do not want to hear it, but Ferentz has to be on the Mount Rushmore of Iowa coaches during the modern era: Fry, Ferentz and Evashevski, in no particular order.

If 80% of two samples are identical, the 20% of data points which are non-common would require extreme variation to significantly throw off the comparative averages of the two samples.

 

[Caven]

If 80% of two samples are identical, the 20% of data points which are non-common would require extreme variation to significantly throw off the comparative averages of the two samples.

Yes and no. If you compare one 5 year sample to the adjacent one then you are correct - but if you look at the first and last over the last 10 years the you get the same thing - lower 60s. So while comparing a 5 year average on a rolling basis will not lead to any significant change for adjacent data points, it will give you an overall view of the direction when taken over several data points and in this case the direction is straight line consistency.
2003-2007 39-23 63% 4
2004-2008 38-24 61% 4
2005-2009 39-24 62% 4
2006-2010 40-24 63% 4
2007-2011 41-23 64% 4
2008-2012 39-25 61% 4
2009-2013 38-25 60% 4

 

[seepig]

Winning 60% of your games in college football today is nothing spectacular. You play 7 home games every year. Our biggest OOC game is against the clowns from Ames.

When you are a top 25 program for the last 30+ years...more than 7-5 should be expected.

Ditto and oh WAIT...I see UNI and ISU on our schedule again next year. I would be much more in the camp if we were to play somebody meaningful OOC on a home and home rotation

 

[NCHawker]

Two people will inevitably see different things from this graph. - Like an ink blot.

I see variability I infer an average of about 7 wins. I calculate a mode (most frequent) of about 7.

I could calculate and present the standard deviation ( square root of the sum of the squared differences of each year - average) however that is worthless unless compared to other teams.

 

[ChosenChildren]

Two people will inevitably see different things from this graph. - Like an ink blot.

I see variability I infer an average of about 7 wins. I calculate a mode (most frequent) of about 7.

I could calculate and present the standard deviation ( square root of the sum of the squared differences of each year - average) however that is worthless unless compared to other teams.

You had me at "hello" with this graph.

Actually, I don't have a clue what you are talking about.

The whole point of the exercise was to show that the Ferentz teams always bounce back from poor seasons over his 15 year career. I give him a lot of credit for that. He is a very tenacious coach who has given consistent effort, resulting in consistent results over his coaching tenure.

 

[NCHawker]

yes, the teams have bounced back.

the point was lost though with rolling 5 year averages and a lead in about consistency. oh well.

 

[ssckelley]

I am still waiting for a statistical analysis of offense and defense in every season between Fry and Ferentz. Please use both bar graphs and pie charts.