Reading the “Ferentz era is over” thread and Gasser’s rebuttal, I thought I would share a few numbers that provide some context to each side’s view. The intent is not to change anyone’s mind but to have a respective discussion on the merits of each view. Sorry for the length of the post, but thanks to my high school daughter I’m quarantining right now so I have some extra time on my hands.😀
Full disclosure: I am a Ferentz fan and I am proud to call him our coach. Although I have only met him briefly, I know some folks that know him well and I believe he is a first-class representative of the University of Iowa and the state of Iowa and a damn good football coach. However, there is no doubt the racially insensitive claims that came to light this summer have stained the program and will take work to overcome. While I believe he is the right person to lead us forward, it will take a lot of work from everyone to successfully overcome this.
That said, the point of this post is not to argue the merits of Kirk Ferentz “the person” or concerns around the racial issues. While I know in some people’s mind the two are inseparable, the point of this post is to lay out the facts and records of Ferentz “the coach”, as well as what has happened to other winning B1G schools when they’ve made a coaching change. I believe the combo of these will help to understand why some fervently back Ferentz and are concerned about a coaching change…and why some say we don’t win the games that matter and are willing to move on. In reality, both sides have merit.
Okay, on to the numbers. I have looked at the numbers from two angles: 2015 to today (updated through this weekend’s games) and 2003 to today. Why 2003? Because I could pull that data easily and it was easier for me!
For starters, as we know, the last 5+ years for Iowa have been quite successful. The highlights include:
So what does this all mean? In the last 5+ years we have won the games that we are supposed to win and ranking 14th in the country in total wins is quite impressive. But it also means we have struggled to win the games that are a step up for us. And while we lose 73% of our underdog games, we are generally competitive. This is underscored by the fact that we have not had a two-score loss in 32 games. I think this adds to the frustration of some that we are close but cannot seem not to ‘get over the hump’ on some of the big games.
For further support, If I go back to 2003, the numbers are somewhat similar.
In looking at the results, of those 9 schools, only two (Ohio State and Wisconsin) improved on their results after the above coaches left. Ohio State wins an average of 0.64 more games per year since Tressel left and Wisconsin a whopping 1.71 more games per year since Alvarez left. Yes, I get Alvarez had to ramp up winning, but again, I’m looking at the unadjusted data picture.
The flip side is that 7 of 9 schools are winning at a lower rate, ranging from Minnesota at -0.60 games per year to Purdue who is -2.69 per year (meaning they are winning nearly 3 games LESS per year). 5 of the schools (Maryland, Michigan, Nebraska, Purdue and Rutgers) are winning -1.73 games less per year or worse.
On average, each of these 9 schools have had 3 coaches follow the person listed above, and the head coach turns over 3.9 years.
So, is the risk of a coaching change at a winning program real? Yes, these numbers would support that. In nearly 80% of the BIG schools, when a tenured head coach leaves, the program regresses. If you DO find the right fit and transition (see Ohio State and Wisconsin) it can and does work.
Do these points change anyone’s mind? Likely not. Those who are Ferentz supporters (including yours truly) would say we have had a great 5 year run and a change could fall under the ‘be careful what you wish for’ mantra. On the flip side, others might say Wisconsin and Ohio State have improved their fortunes after transitions and therefore we can too.
Okay, back to bickering.
Go Hawks!
Full disclosure: I am a Ferentz fan and I am proud to call him our coach. Although I have only met him briefly, I know some folks that know him well and I believe he is a first-class representative of the University of Iowa and the state of Iowa and a damn good football coach. However, there is no doubt the racially insensitive claims that came to light this summer have stained the program and will take work to overcome. While I believe he is the right person to lead us forward, it will take a lot of work from everyone to successfully overcome this.
That said, the point of this post is not to argue the merits of Kirk Ferentz “the person” or concerns around the racial issues. While I know in some people’s mind the two are inseparable, the point of this post is to lay out the facts and records of Ferentz “the coach”, as well as what has happened to other winning B1G schools when they’ve made a coaching change. I believe the combo of these will help to understand why some fervently back Ferentz and are concerned about a coaching change…and why some say we don’t win the games that matter and are willing to move on. In reality, both sides have merit.
Okay, on to the numbers. I have looked at the numbers from two angles: 2015 to today (updated through this weekend’s games) and 2003 to today. Why 2003? Because I could pull that data easily and it was easier for me!
For starters, as we know, the last 5+ years for Iowa have been quite successful. The highlights include:
- 70.0% winning percentage (49-21) and 3 straight bowl wins
- Tied for 14th best winning percentage nationally (with Florida and Penn State) and 3rd best in the B1G (again tied with Penn State)
- 89.6% (43-5) winning percentage as a favorite, ranking 2nd in the B1G during that time only to Ohio State (91.3%)
- Iowa is 6-16 (27.3%) since 2015 as an underdog which is 6th in the B1G.
- Our Margin of Victory (MOV) is -4.3 which is tied for 2nd with Wisconsin. This means while we lose 73% of our games an an underdog, generally competitive in those games.
- Interesting stat: since 2015 the worst B1G team as an underdog? Michigan at 0-11. Hard to believe.
So what does this all mean? In the last 5+ years we have won the games that we are supposed to win and ranking 14th in the country in total wins is quite impressive. But it also means we have struggled to win the games that are a step up for us. And while we lose 73% of our underdog games, we are generally competitive. This is underscored by the fact that we have not had a two-score loss in 32 games. I think this adds to the frustration of some that we are close but cannot seem not to ‘get over the hump’ on some of the big games.
For further support, If I go back to 2003, the numbers are somewhat similar.
- 64.0% winning percentage (142-80)
- 24th best winning percentage nationally and 4th best in the B1G (only 3 games behind Penn State for 3rd). Not surprisingly, Ohio State and Wisconsin are by far and away #1 and 2.
- As an underdog, Iowa is 27-48 (36.0%) since 2015 as an underdog which is 5th in the B1G.
- Our MOV as an underdog is -3.5 which is second best during that time. Again, this means while we lose 64% of our underdog games, we are very competitive.
- Maryland (Ralph Friedgen left in 2010)
- Michigan (Lloyd Carr left in 2007)
- Minnesota (Glen Mason left in 2006)
- Nebraska (Frank Solich left in 2003)
- Ohio State (Jim Tressel left in 2010)
- Penn State (Joe Paterno left in 2011)
- Purdue (Joe Tiller left in 2008)
- Rutgers (Greg Schiano left in 2011)
- Wisconsin: (Barry Alvarez left in 2005)
In looking at the results, of those 9 schools, only two (Ohio State and Wisconsin) improved on their results after the above coaches left. Ohio State wins an average of 0.64 more games per year since Tressel left and Wisconsin a whopping 1.71 more games per year since Alvarez left. Yes, I get Alvarez had to ramp up winning, but again, I’m looking at the unadjusted data picture.
The flip side is that 7 of 9 schools are winning at a lower rate, ranging from Minnesota at -0.60 games per year to Purdue who is -2.69 per year (meaning they are winning nearly 3 games LESS per year). 5 of the schools (Maryland, Michigan, Nebraska, Purdue and Rutgers) are winning -1.73 games less per year or worse.
On average, each of these 9 schools have had 3 coaches follow the person listed above, and the head coach turns over 3.9 years.
So, is the risk of a coaching change at a winning program real? Yes, these numbers would support that. In nearly 80% of the BIG schools, when a tenured head coach leaves, the program regresses. If you DO find the right fit and transition (see Ohio State and Wisconsin) it can and does work.
Do these points change anyone’s mind? Likely not. Those who are Ferentz supporters (including yours truly) would say we have had a great 5 year run and a change could fall under the ‘be careful what you wish for’ mantra. On the flip side, others might say Wisconsin and Ohio State have improved their fortunes after transitions and therefore we can too.
Okay, back to bickering.
Go Hawks!
