Be careful who you call little, data analyst. I still call BS. No one with any respect for numbers would do what your attempting to do with this information.
Kirk was on 670 The Score here in Chicago today
- Thread starter LaQuintaHawkeye
- Start date
"Senior data analyst" and you want to make .596 "8/13". We play 12 regular season games. This is mind boggling. Just to put that into perspective KF would need to win more than 42 of the next 60 games REGULAR SEASON, that's real life 2 8's and 3 9's, to be an 8 win coach. What in KF's body of work makes you think that is possible? Again regular season 12 games. KF is a 7-5 coach for life, I would love to be wrong but that is basically "perfect".
Last edited:
I hate to do this because I’m not a math guy at all, and this post is ridiculous, but wddt is making more sense than you roger, and the name calling is less than becoming! Simply put, you are wrong roger but just too stubborn to admit it! I agree with wddt, until that 7 becomes an 8, Ferentz is a 7-5 coach!
Thank you for your input , but I am afraid there are quit a few people on here who do not understand what is goin on.
What’s going on is I just added three posters to my ignore list. 
Another guy that only watches the news for 70 and sunny and the local car wash fundraiser. When they turn to report on the boogeyman, they deem it too negative and shut it offWhat’s going on is I just added three posters to my ignore list.
I read the first page and then jumped to #6. To guess that Iowa will go 7-5 this next season is following history. We may go 8-4 or even 9-3, but traditionally Kirk is a 7-5 coach and I love Kirk.
Id be curious to see his winning percentage before the conference realignment and after. Im not sure what it would say other than when he had to play everyone in the league every year, how did he fair vs not having to play the perennial powers every year?
For the KF bashers, honest question, who would you want as a coach. And realistically speaking, no "Nick Saban, Urban Myer" etc.
Id think a coach like Neal Brown or Blake Anderson would be solid hires.
Would you want to stay in the Iowa family or would you be ok taking on someone whos never been at Iowa?
For the KF bashers, honest question, who would you want as a coach. And realistically speaking, no "Nick Saban, Urban Myer" etc.
Id think a coach like Neal Brown or Blake Anderson would be solid hires.
Would you want to stay in the Iowa family or would you be ok taking on someone whos never been at Iowa?
I'm hoping the answer ends up being Brian Ferentz after 3-4 years of consistent improvement on the offensive side of the ball and we can keep phil around. Tim P to O cord.
If not,
Justin Fuente and give him a blank check.
Jim Leonard
Kyle whittingham
David cutcliffe
If not,
Justin Fuente and give him a blank check.
Jim Leonard
Kyle whittingham
David cutcliffe
I agree. Would be a very solid hire. Not sure hed get a look at a school like Iowa though. Maybe if he goes to a G5 school, has success then maybe.
There are probably some schools that would turn thier nose up at the idea but I think Iowa would consider it.
Chris Klieman from NDSU? Yes, Iowa should seriously consider him when the time comes. The guy is a winner and has a program instilled with a winning culture.
I skipped to page 6 after perusing page 1. KF could do a better job at selling Iowa. Instead of saying "we're not sexy" just say we run a pro-style system. He should be selling that Iowa runs a pro-style and touting all the NFLers Iowa has produced and how NFL people rave about how well prepared for the NFL Iowa players are. He just needs to sell more. His teams are so close, if he needs to hire somebody to recruit and deal with offensive talent at WR & RB then that is what he should do. But he does need to sell Iowa more and drop the aw shucks attitude.
Jim Rome had 2 interviews today from Iowa guys, Micah Hyde and Josh Jackson. Iowa is DB University right now, that story needs to be shouted from the highest rooftop. Offensive lineman, defensive backs, tights ends, linebackers, defensive lineman, Iowa produces some great ones. We're just missing on WR & RB. I won't say anything about QB, very hard to churn out NFL QB's and I think Iowa has done a fair job at developing good college level QB's.
I skipped to page 6 after perusing page 1. KF could do a better job at selling Iowa. Instead of saying "we're not sexy" just say we run a pro-style system. He should be selling that Iowa runs a pro-style and touting all the NFLers Iowa has produced and how NFL people rave about how well prepared for the NFL Iowa players are. He just needs to sell more. His teams are so close, if he needs to hire somebody to recruit and deal with offensive talent at WR & RB then that is what he should do. But he does need to sell Iowa more and drop the aw shucks attitude.
Jim Rome had 2 interviews today from Iowa guys, Micah Hyde and Josh Jackson. Iowa is DB University right now, that story needs to be shouted from the highest rooftop. Offensive lineman, defensive backs, tights ends, linebackers, defensive lineman, Iowa produces some great ones. We're just missing on WR & RB. I won't say anything about QB, very hard to churn out NFL QB's and I think Iowa has done a fair job at developing good college level QB's.
The above post is one of the early ones that stirred up a bit of ire in this thread. I finally got around to listening to Kirk's interview and I can say that iowa12's comments definitely mischaracterizes some of what Kirk spoke about. Below is a more direct link to the interview:
https://670thescore.radio.com/artic...s-daniels-should-face-smooth-transition-bears
To be more specific, here are some remarks:
- Kirk never made any "we aren't sexy" comments. He simply said that the Hawks are built a particular way - and suggested we were built a particular way because it's something that he feels is sustainable given the quality of their coaches and given their recruiting base.
- Kirk DIDN'T say that the Hawks can't get southern players ... rather, he said that Iowa isn't in the south, so we simply don't have access to as many small, speedy football players. He said that if the Hawks were in the south and were in a position to CONSISTENTLY get more small, speedy guys ... then they'd be more interested in implementing spread concepts in their O.
- Kirk did do a bit of "name dropping" ... mentioning guys like Bulaga, Richardson, and Moeaki who were all out of the greater Chicago area and all did quite well early in their careers for the Hawks (he was putting it in the context of speaking about the sort of high-caliber talent that Daniels possesses). His comments struck me as pretty good Chicago-area advertising if you ask me.
- Kirk DID link Iowa's geography to how we recruit - but as much as that might infuriate some fans, isn't it a no-brainer that we'll have the best luck recruiting guys who are within a drivable radius of our program? It's also true that guys who are more nearby geographically are also a little less likely to suffer from "homesickness" ... and that impacts our bottom line in terms of attrition.
There is a reason why many players refer to the NFL as the "not for long" league. Most guys who even get the NFL opportunity ... not that great of a percentage stick. At some positions, isn't the average career length something like just a few years. Now, with more knowledge coming out about concussion issues ... perhaps that will impact career length even more.
So yeah ... it's a great point to emphasize the importance of getting a college degree. Even more importantly, encouraging a guy to get a degree in something that excites him and that might be marketable downstream. A lot of former Hawks have had success as entrepreneurs, engineers, and medical professionals ... so kudos to the Iowa coaches for encouraging the players academically too!
NFL careers are short, and getting shorter. This piece is 2 years old, but has some interesting notes.
https://www.si.com/nfl/2016/03/01/nfl-careers-shortened-two-years-data-analysis
https://www.si.com/nfl/2016/03/01/nfl-careers-shortened-two-years-data-analysis
As suspected and tracking with the whole thread can be summarized in saying the bar is way too low
The bar for what? Ferentz regularly mentions how the "bar" for the team is always to win the B1G. Obviously, if we win the B1G ... then we could potentially be in the picture for more too.
How is that a low bar?
Compared to what? Do fans all want undefeated seasons every year, who wouldn’t. Is that achievable and sustainable at Iowa, not a high probability.
So do the non con teams know their supposed to be losses? As for the lowly Big west he's hiding in, first he doesn't pick which division he's in or which east teams he plays. Second, (and I've pointed this out before), since the league was split into east and west, I believe the west has at least a 50% winning percentage against the east. People with your mindset like to skim around this, but it is what it is. With the exception of OSU in the east the two sides are pretty even, and the east has not dominated the west top to bottom. As for the conference championship, I'm aware that the east has won most all of those games, but your just talking about three teams. The only east teams to play for the title are OSU, MSU, and PSU. So what we're saying is those teams have been better then Wisconsin and Iowa, but only marginally in a few of those games. The top couple of teams in the east usually OSU, and either MSU or PSU feast on the lesser teams in the east. OSU is the tilting point of the two divisions.
A few thoughts:
First, the whole 8-5 or 7-5 battle is pretty stupid when you really look at Kirk's career at Iowa. The obvious thing looking at his record is that the first couple seasons don't fit. There's certainly a precedent in statistical analysis for throwing out "flyers". The first two season don't really fit with the rest of his career and, further, there's a painfully obvious reason why....he inherited a program in disrepair. The fact that he showed the year over year improvement over the first three years supports the idea that he inherited a crappy team and quickly rebuilt it. For that reason, throwing out the first two seasons makes perfect sense. Anyone who refuses to do so is clearly driven to make his record as bad as possible. Were thay literally part of his career at Iowa? sure. Do they even come close to representing his performance here? Not in the least.
Second, Kirk should be selling the program. I don't think he needs to spin to do it and I wouldn't want him to. But, in the context of creating NFL draft picks, it's perfectly reasonable to say that's not his job because it isn't. But that statement should be followed up by saying something like "but we do produce a lot of NFL players because we play a style that's conducive and we are very good and developing players with respect to physical abilities and mental knowledge of the game. We expect our players to work harder than others and the results speak for themselves."
Iowa is a great program for anyone with NFL aspirations and any player willing to work hard will emerge a better player, better person and equipped for a successful life no matter what career they pursue after college. That's a program I can admire. The fact that Kirk also has achieved a high level of success on the field while also maintaining a clean program that builds kids into men makes him one of the best coaches in the country IMO.
Some here would be fine with Iowa having a higher win percentage with players that say "We ain't come here to play school", but I'm not one. I hope Iowa never stoops to that level.
First, the whole 8-5 or 7-5 battle is pretty stupid when you really look at Kirk's career at Iowa. The obvious thing looking at his record is that the first couple seasons don't fit. There's certainly a precedent in statistical analysis for throwing out "flyers". The first two season don't really fit with the rest of his career and, further, there's a painfully obvious reason why....he inherited a program in disrepair. The fact that he showed the year over year improvement over the first three years supports the idea that he inherited a crappy team and quickly rebuilt it. For that reason, throwing out the first two seasons makes perfect sense. Anyone who refuses to do so is clearly driven to make his record as bad as possible. Were thay literally part of his career at Iowa? sure. Do they even come close to representing his performance here? Not in the least.
Second, Kirk should be selling the program. I don't think he needs to spin to do it and I wouldn't want him to. But, in the context of creating NFL draft picks, it's perfectly reasonable to say that's not his job because it isn't. But that statement should be followed up by saying something like "but we do produce a lot of NFL players because we play a style that's conducive and we are very good and developing players with respect to physical abilities and mental knowledge of the game. We expect our players to work harder than others and the results speak for themselves."
Iowa is a great program for anyone with NFL aspirations and any player willing to work hard will emerge a better player, better person and equipped for a successful life no matter what career they pursue after college. That's a program I can admire. The fact that Kirk also has achieved a high level of success on the field while also maintaining a clean program that builds kids into men makes him one of the best coaches in the country IMO.
Some here would be fine with Iowa having a higher win percentage with players that say "We ain't come here to play school", but I'm not one. I hope Iowa never stoops to that level.
I have a more relevant question for you. Who is Nebraska going to turn their dumpster fire over too if Frost is not the genius your all betting on?????? Sorry guys, I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming......
I think there are two ways to consider the Ferentz era record.
The first would be to simply disregard YEAR 1 (some say years 1 & 2, but at least year 1 would be fair since any new coach shouldn't be held 100% accountable for what was left in the cupboard to start his tenure. This also counts if he was left with a full cupboard, he shouldn't get 100% credit for that either). Throw that YEAR 1 out and he's at 142-87, .620 ...7.8 wins per season, 4.8 losses. That sure looks like 8-5 to me.
The other way to dissect Kirk's record at Iowa is to break it into halves, the first 8 years (minus YEAR 1) vs the past 10 years. This breaks it up thru the Jake Christensen era 2007, then starting with the Ricky Stanzi era.
00-07: 60-39, .606 ...7.5 wins, 4.9 losses
08-17: 82-48, .631 ...8.2 wins, 4.8 losses
Pretty safe to say that if you correctly round it, you have Kirk at 8-5 either way.
The first would be to simply disregard YEAR 1 (some say years 1 & 2, but at least year 1 would be fair since any new coach shouldn't be held 100% accountable for what was left in the cupboard to start his tenure. This also counts if he was left with a full cupboard, he shouldn't get 100% credit for that either). Throw that YEAR 1 out and he's at 142-87, .620 ...7.8 wins per season, 4.8 losses. That sure looks like 8-5 to me.
The other way to dissect Kirk's record at Iowa is to break it into halves, the first 8 years (minus YEAR 1) vs the past 10 years. This breaks it up thru the Jake Christensen era 2007, then starting with the Ricky Stanzi era.
00-07: 60-39, .606 ...7.5 wins, 4.9 losses
08-17: 82-48, .631 ...8.2 wins, 4.8 losses
Pretty safe to say that if you correctly round it, you have Kirk at 8-5 either way.
So in essence, forget year 1 no matter how you look at it. Of course that changes the %.
So your saying
1. If we skew the data by taking out the first year.
2. And break it into halves thus taking away some of the validity of the numbers.
Kirk ferentz is an 8-4 coach since 2008. Ok. (There is no way to be an 8-5 coach when you play 12 regular season games a year.)
Whatever keeps you warm at night.
For the love of good can we please acknowledge that when discussing statistics you do not round.
1. If we skew the data by taking out the first year.
2. And break it into halves thus taking away some of the validity of the numbers.
Kirk ferentz is an 8-4 coach since 2008. Ok. (There is no way to be an 8-5 coach when you play 12 regular season games a year.)
Whatever keeps you warm at night.
For the love of good can we please acknowledge that when discussing statistics you do not round.
Last edited:
Yep, and I think that’s fair.
No coach has ever been fired after one year at the helm for their record. It simply doesn’t matter.
Starting with year two is where the AD begins their evaluation of where the program is going, and even then changes aren’t typically made until after year three at the earliest.
If you really think Kirk’s first year at Iowa is a true reflection of how he’s performed overall, and that it should be added to the following eighteen years, then you’re simply being obtuse.
At the end of the day he is going to end up as Iowa’s all-time winningest coach and most likely have a statue outside Kinnick, so many of you better start wrapping your minds around that now.
It does, because the facts don’t lie....unlike your new math. Why did they have to go and mess with math anyway??
Everything old is new again.
Whether or not Kirk's first year is indicative of his performance at IOWA is a reasonable question which is open to opinion.
The numbers are facts, not opinion....regardless of how you or I or anybody else may feel about them. Kirk has never been above 61.53%. (8-5). He may very well do it and I hope he does. But he hasn't yet. Stating that fact doesn't make one a "hater".
Last edited:
As a follow up when did we start referencing a 13 game schedule as the denominator? A coach is a 6-6 coach or 7-5 or 8-4 etc.
Last edited:
HoF Coach folks, 8-5 average record based on the math...looking forward to that statue in a few years.
You’re missing the point not surprisingly it’s not about whether Kirk is a Hall of Fame coach or not. no doubt he’ll be remembered as a legend In Iowa City. He’s built s solid program. it’s simply about the facts.
Speaking of facts, what was Iowa's record the past two years, and 4 of the last 8 where they've averaged a total of 13 games a season?
What ever the numbers say it is. Just like they did in 2012-2014 or any other cherry-picked group of years. JFC, man. Give it a rest.
I'm going to weigh in on this one more time just because I can't stop myself. I really wish I had more self control...
1) I don't understand why we need to call him an 8-5 or a 7-5 coach. In reality we have not averaged either of those. They are both skewed data. The good news is, we have the ACTUAL data. The actual data says that Kirk is a 7.53 and 5.11 loss coach. No disputing that, no rounding needed.
2) Let's say we wanted to round though and this was the question on our test........Kirk has averaged 7.53 wins and 5.11 loses during his career at Iowa. Please round his ACTUAL record to the closest whole numbers
A) 8-5
B)7-5
Only one answer is correct......
3) I get what the other side is saying...... If you break down his actual wins as a percentage, that percentage(.596) is closer to that of a 7-5(.583) coach than that of an 8-5 coach.(.615)
4) Therefore, both of these statements are true.
A) Kirk is closer to averaging 8 wins per year at Iowa than he is 7.
B) Kirk's win percentage at Iowa is closer to that of a 7-5 coach than it is to an 8-5 coach
5) In conclusion I would suggest that the folks arguing for
A) Like KF and think he deserves all the credit he is due
B) Are sh*tty crybaby whiny *ss bitches...
Ok, ok........... kidding about B........
1) I don't understand why we need to call him an 8-5 or a 7-5 coach. In reality we have not averaged either of those. They are both skewed data. The good news is, we have the ACTUAL data. The actual data says that Kirk is a 7.53 and 5.11 loss coach. No disputing that, no rounding needed.
2) Let's say we wanted to round though and this was the question on our test........Kirk has averaged 7.53 wins and 5.11 loses during his career at Iowa. Please round his ACTUAL record to the closest whole numbers
A) 8-5
B)7-5
Only one answer is correct......
3) I get what the other side is saying...... If you break down his actual wins as a percentage, that percentage(.596) is closer to that of a 7-5(.583) coach than that of an 8-5 coach.(.615)
4) Therefore, both of these statements are true.
A) Kirk is closer to averaging 8 wins per year at Iowa than he is 7.
B) Kirk's win percentage at Iowa is closer to that of a 7-5 coach than it is to an 8-5 coach
5) In conclusion I would suggest that the folks arguing for
A) Like KF and think he deserves all the credit he is due
B) Are sh*tty crybaby whiny *ss bitches...
Ok, ok........... kidding about B........
Last edited:
We have played a 13 games "regular season" 1 time in 19 years. U less you coach Hawaii, you dont get to have a denominator of 13.
For the love....
A 7.99 is not more likely to win 8 than he is 7 he is more likely to win 8 than 6 but his most likely is still 7.
A 7.99 is not more likely to win 8 than he is 7 he is more likely to win 8 than 6 but his most likely is still 7.
Similar threads
