Why Barta Signed Ferentz Long Term

right, but those programs are also paying buyouts and 2 or 3 coaching staffs at a time.... so in hindsight, who's bad at contracts?

Most programs are horrible with contracts. Iowa is a leader of that group. But the point of my post wasn't contracts. It was Iowa's win totals of the Ferentz era have coincided with down periods of football for Nebraska, Michigan, & Penn St. Nebraska last 3 years are off the charts bad for them.
 


Most programs are horrible with contracts. Iowa is a leader of that group. But the point of my post wasn't contracts. It was Iowa's win totals of the Ferentz era have coincided with down periods of football for Nebraska, Michigan, & Penn St. Nebraska last 3 years are off the charts bad for them.

100% - no arguing that, those programs are going through some of the worst stretches in school history and Iowa has only been just a little better or equal. But, is Iowa really the leader in the clubhouse at negotiating contracts when their peers are obviously way more wasteful with their money to get worse or similar results? What has firing and bringing in new coaches done for them? At history rich blue blood programs that can attract recruits and big name coaches? Example Nebraska - Nebraska fan can NEVER talk down to an Iowa fan about coaching contracts. Nebraska is playing Pelini, Riley, Frost, 2 AD's and that was just after paying Solich, Callahan and Pelini and 2 AD's.
 


What really gets me is the OP eliminates Kirk's first 2 years because it was "rebuilding" yet he doesn't factor that in when adding up other B1G teams' win totals as if no other B1G teams went thru "rebuilding" phases during that stint. Then he later claims that we have agendas for calling him out on his BS lol. Who's the one with the agenda, @ChosenChildren?
 




What really gets me is the OP eliminates Kirk's first 2 years because it was "rebuilding" yet he doesn't factor that in when adding up other B1G teams' win totals as if no other B1G teams went thru "rebuilding" phases during that stint. Then he later claims that we have agendas for calling him out on his BS lol. Who's the one with the agenda, @ChosenChildren?

When Kirk took over, there was almost no talent in the cupboard. When many of these other teams have to rebuild, they have more to work with, a better recruiting history and base, etc. Rebuilding for Iowa is different than "rebuilding" at other schools.
 




Excuse me. But if we're simply comparing BigTen teams, why aren't we just looking at BigTen wins? There's WAY too many variables in non-conference scheduling for this to mean anything.
Because you should win all of your OOC games. And Ferentz loses way more than OSU, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Which is relevant.
 


I wonder what the SoS looks like for these teams the last 10 or 17 years...
Most big ten teams have basically the same schedule. They each play nine big ten opponents ( it used to be eight), two cupcakes, and maybe one P5 school. Some years you might have a tougher schedule depending on who your crossover opponents are, but over the course of ten or more years that will average out. So my guess is if you took each big ten teams SOS over the last ten years, they would be very similar.
 


What really gets me is the OP eliminates Kirk's first 2 years because it was "rebuilding" yet he doesn't factor that in when adding up other B1G teams' win totals as if no other B1G teams went thru "rebuilding" phases during that stint. Then he later claims that we have agendas for calling him out on his BS lol. Who's the one with the agenda, @ChosenChildren?
Because you should win all of your OOC games. And Ferentz loses way more than OSU, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Which is relevant.

I get what you're saying. He should be accountable to OOC record... but when he does get 1 win against NIU, that counts the same as MSU getting 1 win vs Notre Dame. That is why, to me, it doesn't make sense to compare schedules with huge differences in SOS. Looking only at Bigten games would cut back on some of SOS differences.
 




Ferentz started his successful run at Iowa in 2001 after two rebuilding years. In the last 17 years, Ferentz has won 139 games at Iowa. How have the other Big Ten powers done during the same time period (the last 17 years)? The results may surprise you:

1. Ohio State 173 wins
2. Wisconsin 150
3. IOWA 139
4. Penn St 139
5. Nebraska 139
6. Michigan 138
7. Sparty 133
8. NW 113***

***Based on data found at Winnsipedia Website

Bottom line, Ferentz has gone toe-to-toe with Penn State, Nebraska and Michigan during the 17 year stretch, and exceeded Michigan State and Northwestern. Only Ohio State and Wisconsin have exceeded Iowa. Please note that Michigan, Penn State and Nebraska are 3 of the top programs in all-time wins and national championships, but have been equaled or eclipsed by Ferentz during his 17 year run.

Ferentz has done a remarkable job at Iowa.
Good stats. Good post.

In a sense it is a biased stat, however.

If we’re going to give a mulligan on Ferentz’s first two years because they weren’t his players, then another stat to balance KF’s success against other B1G programs is to remove the first two years of new coaches and look at win %.
 


Comparing the last 17 years seems kind of arbitrary. KF signed his last contract after the 2015 season. It would be interesting to compare the last 10 years before that contract from 2006-2015. That seems like a fair comparison.
Not arbitrary as much as Just different qualifiers. You can come up with with your own.
 


Keep in mind those 3 programs have all gone through some rough periods since 2001. Nebraska has fallen so far since 2001 that they've dropped from the elite/blue blood level to a just above average Power 5 program.

Michigan has gone through 4 coaches in the last 11 years.

From 2001-2015, Penn State was very good in 2002, 2005, 2008 & 2009 and was pretty meh the rest of those years until 2016 when they took off again.
Sounds like a reason to keep a good coach when you have him rather than hope to find a lottery coach
 


Excuse me. But if we're simply comparing BigTen teams, why aren't we just looking at BigTen wins? There's WAY too many variables in non-conference scheduling for this to mean anything.
Just a different qualifier of stats is all. Besides, you’d still have haters say Iowa doesn’t play in the east so....

big ten teams play the same type of schedule Iowa does. Most enter season 3-0 or 2-1 as Iowa does. Not all end the season 7-5 or better. Iowa usually does.
 


Here's the last 10 years 2008-2017:

Total Wins

Ohio State 112
Wisky 101
Sparty 93
Penn St 89
Nebby 85
Iowa 82
NW 77
Michigan 74

B1G Wins

Ohio St 71
Wisky 60
Sparty 57
Penn St 54
Iowa/Nebby 48 (Since Nebraska didn't play 08-10, I averaged their wins out.
NW 43
Michigan 42
I didn't have time to go through them all, but it's interesting what Dantonio has been able to do at Mich St. His strength of schedule the last 10 years is at 37.5. People might think he's a dirtbag, but he gets it done.
 


Michigan is at 138. All of my numbers were accurate except Wisconsin's, which I missed (but I already conceded that they had surpassed Iowa).

You guys just can't admit that Ferentz is a great coach. You have an agenda. I get it.


.

I dont see how you can call him a great coach with his overall record and some very bad losses. As you read I think he is above average, almost there as a great coach but he averages less than 9 wins a season. You cant be called a great coach when you win less than 75% of your games.

Now historically Iowa is a program that before Fry and Ferentz barely won over 50% of their games, maybe 55%. That is the definition of average, while KF is above average at 70% + or - a few percent. Great coaches win about 90% year in and year out. There are not many great coaches, right now Meyer, Saban at Bama and LSU but not at MSU. Pete Carroll at USC, just a few others in the last 20 years.
 


I dont see how you can call him a great coach with his overall record and some very bad losses. As you read I think he is above average, almost there as a great coach but he averages less than 9 wins a season. You cant be called a great coach when you win less than 75% of your games.

Now historically Iowa is a program that before Fry and Ferentz barely won over 50% of their games, maybe 55%. That is the definition of average, while KF is above average at 70% + or - a few percent. Great coaches win about 90% year in and year out. There are not many great coaches, right now Meyer, Saban at Bama and LSU but not at MSU. Pete Carroll at USC, just a few others in the last 20 years.
Kirk Ferentz doesn't win 70% of his games.
 


Because you should win all of your OOC games. And Ferentz loses way more than OSU, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Which is relevant.
Wisconsin has played LSU twice and my Crimson Tide (Roll Tide) once in the past 5 years. OSU has scheduled Oklahoma, VA Tech, The U, and they scheduled Cal back when they were good but they fell off a cliff - to compare their OOC schedules to Iowa's in most years is laughable.
 


Kirk Ferentz doesn't win 70% of his games.
I don't want to go back through and run the numbers here, but I think he's pretty damned close to a combined winning percentage of 70% against the MAC. He's gotta be over 50% against Northwestern and Iowa State, too, right? Let's not get too pedantic here.
 


Wisconsin has played LSU twice and my Crimson Tide (Roll Tide) once in the past 5 years. OSU has scheduled Oklahoma, VA Tech, The U, and they scheduled Cal back when they were good but they fell off a cliff - to compare their OOC schedules to Iowa's in most years is laughable.
No it’s not. It shows that Ferentz schedules cupcakes and still loses more games. So it’s actually giving KF a huge benefit of the doubt.
 




Top