POLL regarding new regime

[LaQuintaHawkeye]

As Ferentz fatigue sets in and Kirk inches closer to retirement, the time for change approaches whether some of you want it or not.

Right now this program is consistently at right above .500 (7-5/8-4), and many times it finishes a game or two better than that, not including bowl games.

I think it's fair to assume that the Iowa program has come far enough over the past 30+ yrs that it will not regress back to the Lauterbur/Commings days, or has an extremely small chance of doing so.

I truly believe the worst that would happen once change is made (that means to someone not named Ferentz) is the program possibly slipping to a consistent at or just below .500 (6-6/5-7)

I'm curious if you would be okay with that trade-off, if it meant an exciting, up-tempo type of offense with a mobile QB and predicated on eating up chunks of yardage quickly. Perhaps our defense wouldn't be as stout after PP is gone, although we shouldn't automatically assume it wouldn't be.

Would you be willing to sacrifice ~2 wins a year on average finishing 5-7/6-6, with some years doing as well as 8-4/9-3, if it means having a much more exciting offensive scheme to watch?

I get that it means we wouldn't make a bowl game every year, but other than that it isn't much of a change to what we have now.

 

[nu2u]

That's a loaded poll question designed to attract No votes.

I doubt many fans are "good" with a consistent .500 finish. Top40 offense is a weird arbitrary benchmark unrelated to wins. Linking the two is odd.

 

[LaQuintaHawkeye]

90% of the criticisms directed at the team, not only this year but the previous decade, have been about our unimaginative, simple-to-defend, low scoring offense. The same one that gets us to 8 wins and a bowl game on a regular basis.

Just thought it would be interesting to see how many folks would trade in a consistent 7-9 wins and a bowl game almost every year for a way more exciting offense and slightly less success.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

I think what you are asking is:

If what we have is an "8-4" product won with a top 5 defense and a 100+ ranked offense. Would I be willing to trade that for an "8-4" product with better offense and worse defense?







Hell yes. We don't even fan at the idea of being a national contender, its all entertainment at that point, give me the more entertaining product.

 

[LaQuintaHawkeye]

I think what you are asking is:

If what we have is an "8-4" product won with a top 5 defense and a 100+ ranked offense. Would I be willing to trade that for an "8-4" product with better offense and worse defense?







Hell yes. We don't even fan at the idea of being a national contender, its all entertainment at that point, give me the more entertaining product.

I’m stating we would have a much higher octane offense, but possibly a not as strong defensive unit, and with slightly less success. Perhaps averaging 6-6/7-5 instead of 7-5/8-4.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

I’m stating we would have a much higher octane offense, and possibly a not as strong defensive unit, but with slightly less success. Perhaps averaging 6-6/7-5 instead of 7-5/8-4.

So we would be a worse team but more entertaining offensively?

(Consistently bowl eligible with new regime?)
I would take it. The bowls rotate anyway. Give me 12 games of better entertainment

 

[TheTruthTheWholeTruth]

Am I willing to trade wins for an exciting offense? Nah, I’ll just watch other CFB games to get my fix. There are plenty of mediocre to bad teams that put up tons of points.

 

[Cincy_Hawk]

90% of the criticisms directed at the team, not only this year but the previous decade, have been about our unimaginative, simple-to-defend, low scoring offense. The same one that gets us to 8 wins and a bowl game on a regular basis.

Just thought it would be interesting to see how many folks would trade in a consistent 7-9 wins and a bowl game almost every year for a way more exciting offense and slightly less success.

We get to 8 wins despite our offense. And we win the big game upsets the same way we win small close games - with elite defense and turnovers. Adding an offense that scores more often to a defense that elite increases the chance of winning games.

Iowa fans are like battered women with a narcissistic abusive husband. Who you gonna get that's better? You were shit before me, I protect you from all the other bad men. You'd be on the street if it weren't for me (literally said by members of the coaching staff).

You're right. We never won a Big Ten Championship before Kirk. Nobody else averaged 7 - 5 here but Kirk. You know 2hat you have to do to get 7 wins at Iowa?

Beat ISU, a historically bad football team every year. Beat two Mac schools. Win against Illinois, Nebraska, and and win two of Purdue/Minnesota/Wisconsin or two of your east opponents, which only ever includes one of PSU/OSU/Mich except every 8 years.

That is, by and large a really soft schedule, other than 1 in 8 years when ISU, WI, Purdue, and NW are decent.

7 - 5 should be the floor, not the average. If we beat NW and WI like we used to and kept them from rebuilding their programs by beating them, it would be.

But we don't coach half a team, and haven't since the "Fat Cats" highly recruited class pissed Ferentz off in 2007.

 

[dirtypool]

Just thought it would be interesting to see how many folks would trade in a consistent 7-9 wins and a bowl game almost every year for a way more exciting offense and slightly less success.

why would a more exciting offense = less success?

 

[Hawkfan_08]

The criticism to the offense is because the defense saves us year in and year out! If we had an average offense that would be the difference between top 10 and top 25.

 

[Frosty7130]

We get to 8 wins despite our offense. And we win the big game upsets the same way we win small close games - with elite defense and turnovers. Adding an offense that scores more often to a defense that elite increases the chance of winning games.

Iowa fans are like battered women with a narcissistic abusive husband. Who you gonna get that's better? You were shit before me, I protect you from all the other bad men. You'd be on the street if it weren't for me (literally said by members of the coaching staff).

You're right. We never won a Big Ten Championship before Kirk. Nobody else averaged 7 - 5 here but Kirk. You know 2hat you have to do to get 7 wins at Iowa?

Beat ISU, a historically bad football team every year. Beat two Mac schools. Win against Illinois, Nebraska, and and win two of Purdue/Minnesota/Wisconsin or two of your east opponents, which only ever includes one of PSU/OSU/Mich except every 8 years.

That is, by and large a really soft schedule, other than 1 in 8 years when ISU, WI, Purdue, and NW are decent.

7 - 5 should be the floor, not the average. If we beat NW and WI like we used to and kept them from rebuilding their programs by beating them, it would be.

But we don't coach half a team, and haven't since the "Fat Cats" highly recruited class pissed Ferentz off in 2007.

This might be the worst post I've ever seen on an Iowa website. Comparing Iowa fans to domestic abuse victims? That's not only incredibly stupid, but also incredibly ****ed.

 

[jamesvanderwulf]

I think it's fair to assume that the Iowa program has come far enough over the past 30+ yrs that it will not regress back to the Burns/Nagel/ Lauterbur/Commings days, or has an extremely small chance of doing so.

FIFY. 4 coaches over 20 seasons and 0 years above .500. I'll stick with what we have and the 50/50 shot at winning a bowl game...

 

[nu2u]

So we would be a worse team but more entertaining offensively?

(Consistently bowl eligible with new regime?)
I would take it. The bowls rotate anyway. Give me 12 games of better entertainment

More entertaining losses don't do it for me.

I'll take less entertaining wins all day long. I'd rather be a "boring" 9-3 Big Ten West champs than 6-6 4th place finish with the most highlight clips on ESPN plays of the week. Winning the B10W is the goal. Nebraska is going to win the Highlight Bowl this year and they are in last place.

 

[Suterman]

THERE...IS...NO...NEW...REGIME...NOT EVEN CLOSE!! What the **** is wrong with you?

 

[ClarindaA's]

I’m stating we would have a much higher octane offense, but possibly a not as strong defensive unit, and with slightly less success. Perhaps averaging 6-6/7-5 instead of 7-5/8-4.

why can’t we have both, in fact, a better offense would give our defense a break

 

[LaQuintaHawkeye]

why would a more exciting offense = less success?

It’s a theoretical question on whether if that was the trade-off would you take it?

 

[nbanflfactory]

As Ferentz fatigue sets in and Kirk inches closer to retirement, the time for change approaches whether some of you want it or not.

Right now this program is consistently at right above .500 (7-5/8-4), and many times it finishes a game or two better than that, not including bowl games.

I think it's fair to assume that the Iowa program has come far enough over the past 30+ yrs that it will not regress back to the Lauterbur/Commings days, or has an extremely small chance of doing so.

I truly believe the worst that would happen once change is made (that means to someone not named Ferentz) is the program possibly slipping to a consistent at or just below .500 (6-6/5-7)

I'm curious if you would be okay with that trade-off, if it meant an exciting, up-tempo type of offense with a mobile QB and predicated on eating up chunks of yardage quickly. Perhaps our defense wouldn't be as stout after PP is gone, although we shouldn't automatically assume it wouldn't be.

Would you be willing to sacrifice ~2 wins a year on average finishing 5-7/6-6, with some years doing as well as 8-4/9-3, if it means having a much more exciting offensive scheme to watch?

I get that it means we wouldn't make a bowl game every year, but other than that it isn't much of a change to what we have now.

the past 12 years we've finished 7-5 or worse 3 times out of 12
we've had a losing record once the past 12 years and missed one bowl game invite the last 12 years

im ok with not becoming a big 12 team

 

[dirtypool]

It’s a theoretical question on whether if that was the trade-off would you take it?

Its a dumb theoretical question

 

[LaQuintaHawkeye]

Its a dumb theoretical question

 

[TampaHawkfan]

It's all about the end result. How we get there doesn't particularly matter to me. Going 7-5 with a good offense is no better IMO.

Thing is, having a competent offense would go a long way towards winning at a higher level more consistently. Some people say "8-4 or 9-3 is good. The program is fine. No need to change anything". Well, a good offense might change 8-4/9-3 into 10-2/11-1 or better. I can't be the only one who feels that way.

When the offense consistently is 80's, 90's or worse nationally, it seems like insanity to keep going with the status quo on that side of the ball.

Why do offense and winning have to be mutually exclusive?

 

[ClarindaA's]

add a top 40! offense to our defense, you have a consistent top 15 team

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

More entertaining losses don't do it for me.

I'll take less entertaining wins all day long. I'd rather be a "boring" 9-3 Big Ten West champs than 6-6 4th place finish with the most highlight clips on ESPN plays of the week. Winning the B10W is the goal. Nebraska is going to win the Highlight Bowl this year and they are in last place.

Winning the b10w might be the goal but we don't do it. Give me an entertaining 3rd place in the division over the 23rd anniversary of death on a cracker 2nd in the division.

 

[kceasthawk]

We get to 8 wins despite our offense. And we win the big game upsets the same way we win small close games - with elite defense and turnovers. Adding an offense that scores more often to a defense that elite increases the chance of winning games.

Iowa fans are like battered women with a narcissistic abusive husband. Who you gonna get that's better? You were shit before me, I protect you from all the other bad men. You'd be on the street if it weren't for me (literally said by members of the coaching staff).

You're right. We never won a Big Ten Championship before Kirk. Nobody else averaged 7 - 5 here but Kirk. You know 2hat you have to do to get 7 wins at Iowa?

Beat ISU, a historically bad football team every year. Beat two Mac schools. Win against Illinois, Nebraska, and and win two of Purdue/Minnesota/Wisconsin or two of your east opponents, which only ever includes one of PSU/OSU/Mich except every 8 years.

That is, by and large a really soft schedule, other than 1 in 8 years when ISU, WI, Purdue, and NW are decent.

7 - 5 should be the floor, not the average. If we beat NW and WI like we used to and kept them from rebuilding their programs by beating them, it would be.

But we don't coach half a team, and haven't since the "Fat Cats" highly recruited class pissed Ferentz off in 2007.

The problem with your statement that if we'd kept beating Wisconsin and others then they'd have never gotten better is way off base. You do realize that one of the reasons they went out and got better coaches IS because we kept beating their asses right? NW kept changing coaches until they got it right. Wisconsin plucked Alverez and the rest is history.

 

[Hendy hawk]

why would a more exciting offense = less success?

Poor execution's

 

[83Hawk]

why can’t we have both, in fact, a better offense would give our defense a break

Exactly. Why can’t we have the same defense, but a better offense?

 

[FWIW4922463]

Would you be willing to sacrifice ~2 wins a year on average finishing 5-7/6-6, with some years doing as well as 8-4/9-3, if it means having a much more exciting offensive scheme to watch?

I appreciate your post and your point, OP, but there is absolutely no reason it has to be an either/or proposition. Good football teams are good at all three aspects of football: defense, special teams, and yes, even offense.

And that's why the pathetic offensive output KF has consistently produced is so maddening. With just an average offense . . . you know, 65th in the country instead of 124th . . . Iowa would be a consistent top ten team. But when you play a decent opponent--even Purdue--you can't rely on defense to win every damn game.

KF and his entire offensive staff need to head off into the sunset. It should have happened seven or eight years ago, so it's long overdue. Of course, there are those who believe getting ONE first down a half and ONE touchdown a game is pretty cool. LOL

 

[CAhawki]

I appreciate your post and your point, OP, but there is absolutely no reason it has to be an either/or proposition. Good football teams are good at all three aspects of football: defense, special teams, and yes, even offense.

And that's why the pathetic offensive output KF has consistently produced is so maddening. With just an average offense . . . you know, 65th in the country instead of 124th . . . Iowa would be a consistent top ten team. But when you play a decent opponent--even Purdue--you can't rely on defense to win every damn game.

KF and his entire offensive staff need to head off into the sunset. It should have happened seven or eight years ago, so it's long overdue. Of course, there are those who believe getting ONE first down a half and ONE touchdown a game is pretty cool. LOL

keep whomever coaches and recruits the WRs...

 

[SansSouci]

I want change, but Iowa is a developmental program because of recruiting. Kirk is good at coaching individual players up, but his gameday coaching sucks ass and that’s an understatement.

 

[Camhawk2012]

The 10 guys who voted yes are the reason why we will never be a legitimate national power.