You're grossly overstating the article. It was a sports journalist type likely joined with a undergraduate statistics major ... and they pushed out a quick article on success as it related to the number of NFL draft picks. It was far from a serious research article that would have to withstand the scrutiny of peer review. The quality of the quantitative side of the article would be far less than a days work on my side. The article was pushing out quick content - with an attempt to appear quantitative and objective - but the truth fell far short of appearances.
Rivals: Iowa one of the worst P5 programs at turning talent into wins.
- Thread starter Wasnt-drunk-didnt-troll
- Start date
What you're mentioning is exactly what happened on the roster when the Hawks had Coach Campbell as the WR coach. I conversed with parents of a number of the guys on the roster at that time ... and the fact that the WRs received "special treatment" and were held to a different standard than other players on the squad caused some rifts within the squad.
A guy can still be a "gamer" and still do some "freelance" work if the QB gets in trouble ... however, there is still nothing wrong with a WR being smart, tough, and knowledgeable about the game. Furthermore, as I've highlighted in a different thread ... WR is a position where a WR who isn't fundamentally sound is going to have much more trouble gaining separation than a guy who is both an excellent athlete AND who is a technician.
WDDT - The formula they used is very subjective, weighing heavily toward Conference and Nat'l titles, and actually dividing the wins on Saturday by a factor of three. I don't know why rivals chose this formula for their article, but it's absurd to make claims like the data is the data when you can't explain why they divided the number of wins by three.
Maybe that formula is a great way evaluate 'talent efficiency', but as other as suggested maybe looking at the total number of wins divided by [ (average recruit ranking) + total draft picks] might be better.
Last edited:
They are going to do a follow up segment each day. Here is what they had to say about the ACC.
https://n.rivals.com/news/overachiever-or-underachiever-ranking-all-power-five-teams-3
https://n.rivals.com/news/overachiever-or-underachiever-ranking-all-power-five-teams-3
I like 538 as a 'sports stats geek' website. I've linked an article that approaches basically the same exact topic with different criteria. The author only looks at 2 years of data, but Iowa ended up ranked 20th, and ISU was 66th (iirc).
https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...he-most-with-the-least-talent-and-vice-versa/
On a slightly different note, I find the thread title
Iowa one of the worst P5 programs at turning talent into wins
to be confusing/ambiguous. Why use 'NFL draft selections' as the measure of "talent" when so much time on this board is dedicated to discussing recruiting 'stars'?
https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...he-most-with-the-least-talent-and-vice-versa/
On a slightly different note, I find the thread title
Iowa one of the worst P5 programs at turning talent into wins
to be confusing/ambiguous. Why use 'NFL draft selections' as the measure of "talent" when so much time on this board is dedicated to discussing recruiting 'stars'?
[Why use 'NFL draft selections' as the measure of "talent" when so much time on this board is dedicated to discussing recruiting 'stars'?[/QUOTE]
It would certainly be interesting if they re-ran the data using average star ranking, rather than draft picks, as the measure of talent.
It would certainly be interesting if they re-ran the data using average star ranking, rather than draft picks, as the measure of talent.
Have brought this up for years to no avail. The status quo crowd and soft iowa media keep the dream rolling
You have a point on ISU, but Oklahoma St, Oregon, Michigan St, TCU and Auburn are all in the top 10 and have had high level teams.
You definitely want an over achieving team.
You definitely want an over achieving team.
To highlight what a stupid metric this is check out this alumni tracking website from CBS. It lists 11 players from Duke, so if you replaced the 'number of players drafted' with 'players in the NFL' Duke's "efficiency rating" would be 1/3 of their value (or possibly lower as they looked at multiple years. I don't often agree with JR, but stupid stats are stupid.
https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/alumni-tracker/school/5156
That is one way to spin their lack of NFL draft picks.
taking low/high ranked classes and over/under achieving, yeah I understand this thought....the thought of most guys drafted with the least wins, it just sounds to me like this is a slow period and someone needed a new story idea.
That formula is ridiculous. Iowa is in the Big Ten where everyone has a respectful recruiting class every year, save Rutgers.
If they applied the same formula for just the Big Ten, the result would be drastically different.
If they applied the same formula for just the Big Ten, the result would be drastically different.
One could argue that if the non P5 teams were added to the list Iowas numbers would look worse. There are alot of 9 and 10 win mac, sun belt, mountain west, etc. Teams that win a ton of games that dont have many draft picks.
The article is not saying ISU has been great team. The data suggests ISU has had shitty talent and done relatively well compared to talent level. Iowa on other hand has done relatively poorly record wise compared to talent. KF decent at developing individual players for NFL but not that great at getting the wins he should get. I think this is fair...the offenses have often been shitty under KF and it starts with predictability/lack of past focus on getting receiving talent/inconsistent running game year to year. The defense while much better fails to embrace the idea of blitzing/putting pressure as a priority.
Wisconsin and MSU passed Iowa in B1G relevance awhile ago and show up much higher on the list. Wisconsin clearly better than KF at producing a consistent run game year in and year out and their move to 3-4 defense obviously has given Iowa some problems--especially last year. MSU clearly has been better on defense and their scheme much better at blitzing and using pressure.
I haven't read the whole thread but I don't think this has been mentioned.
Iowa is just so dang thin. O-line being a great example. It just kills me every year some ESPN clown talks up "the vaunted Iowa rushing attack" typically in a pre-con game in which we're going three-and-out routinely. Missing pieces folks ...
So Iowa has future NFLers playing alongside greenhorns. Hard to win.
Iowa is just so dang thin. O-line being a great example. It just kills me every year some ESPN clown talks up "the vaunted Iowa rushing attack" typically in a pre-con game in which we're going three-and-out routinely. Missing pieces folks ...
So Iowa has future NFLers playing alongside greenhorns. Hard to win.
Are you suggesting they should have favored .500 record against ISU and wins over northern Illinois (most yrs) & .500 against the feeble b10 west?
I just think their "formula" is absurd click-bait. Duke, who is touted as the "best team" actually has (maybe had) abut 12 players in the NFL. If one were to use that number instead of the 'players drafted', Duke's ranking would drop significantly. IMO it's idiotic to use the 'binary analysis' that every undrafted players counts as zero talent. It elevates crappy teams with a low number of NFL draft selections (looking at you Iowa State) in the overall rankings.
I linked a 538 analysis above which claimed Iowa/KF was in the top 20 for wins compared to recruit rankings. I feel their formula is much better. Your mileage may vary.
It would certainly be interesting if they re-ran the data using average star ranking, rather than draft picks, as the measure of talent.[/QUOTE]
SportSource Analytics did basically that, they looked at winning compared to recruiting rankings. Not surprisingly, Iowa does much better there.
People getting upset at this study that says Iowa does less with more, just understand the criteria. My own interpretation of it is that Iowa is pretty good at churning out draft picks at every place other than running back, QB and WR, which is where difference-makers in college can make quite a difference in terms of winning and losing. The QB thing is changing with Beathard drafted and potentially Stanley in a couple of years, but no RB has been drafted since Shonn Greene and the WR's drafted in KF's tenure are Kevin Kasper, Kahlill Hill and Marvin McNutt.
In many cases, the guys Iowa turns into draft-able players aren't making huge impacts until their last year or two or campus. The recruiting rankings would seem to bear that out, as Iowa churns out more NFL players than their recruiting rankings would think possible. Iowa does more developing guys into NFL players once they get here than other places do.
Hopefully we'll see the wins trend up here in the next few years as recruiting has generally got better the last few years.
Oh yeah, we're all getting duped here all right. Kirk is actually a cleverly disguised Manchurian Candidate planted by the NFL to do nothing but develop NFL talent while deliberately sabotaging Iowa winning games.
Dadgummit, you figured it out all by yourself!
Iowa12 does not like Iowa. He hates the relative success they've had. It's unfortunate people quote him so I have to continue to see his drivel.
That is the sports fan view. If you buy into the student athlete concept, isn't Kirk's job to prepare his "students" for their professional careers (much like any college professor)?
Very good point, and IMO he does a pretty good job of that, both with the players who can play professionally as well as those who will have other career paths.
As a coach part of his responsibility is instilling attitudes and beliefs that will make his players productive society members. His number 1 job is winning football games. A coach that graduates 10 doctoral program candidates a year but wins 4 games is not a good football coach. A coach that wins 4 games a year but puts 3 people a year in the NFL every year is not a good football coach. A coach that wins 10+ games a year, carries an "average" graduation rate, and Carries an below average to average percentage into the NFL, is in fact a good football coach.
It's like when your buddy says he is talking to a new bird and he starts it by saying "she is super nice"... if you lead with "nice" she isnt "hot". Winners talk about wins.
It's like when your buddy says he is talking to a new bird and he starts it by saying "she is super nice"... if you lead with "nice" she isnt "hot". Winners talk about wins.
Last edited:
A new bird? Are you getting ready to get shipped out to WW2?
...and the relative priorities of the various aspects of his job (winning, preparing players for life, recruiting, doing appearances, fundraising, maintaining a clean program etc.) will vary from fan to fan. There are certainly fans here who are fine with cheating and blowing off education to win, others who will tolerate pretty low winning percentages for a clean program with great people on the field.
Contrary to popular belief winning and being a good person can happen at the same time. Patty Fitz has won a lot of games, so you have concerns with the ethics of that program? Wiscy? TCU? Boise state? Utah? SDSu? Running a clean program is a baseline in 2018. Kirk himself has said his number 1 job is to win football games.
Last edited:
If campbell or anyone was giving that WR group at the time any slack they should have been fired immediately. People that produce get a pass not the other way around. Obviously hindsight is 20/20.
If you're talking to me, I never said they didn't. I merely pointed out that some people are willing to sacrifice one or the other to ensure their high priority objectives are met. Do I think there are very high level programs that are willing to sacrifice a clean program to facilitate wins...the answer is pretty obviously yes.
Do I think cheating enhances your chances of success? Again...the answer is pretty obvious. Same if you ask me if playing it straight makes it harder.
Finally, the less natural advantages you have as a program (recruiting territory, blue blood program status, admission standards, etc.), the more it makes it hard to succeed at the highest levels without cutting corners. There's a reason the same programs are at the top year after year.
This isn't rocket science, but some people seem to struggle to grasp the landscape of college football. Not all programs are created equal. Not all programs follow the same rules. History suggests those programs who aren't "rich" and who don't cut corners are unlikely to reach the pinnacle of the sport, much less likely to remain there for a significant time.
Ferentz held Lloyd Carr in high esteem and he knew Campbell was a good fit for our pro-set O. Further, there is no dispute that Campbell's guys produced. Furthermore, part of why Kirk is typically so well-liked by his coaching staff is because he gives them a lot of autonomy ... he's definitely not a micromanager. I suspect that a number of those considerations factored into Campbell's long leash. However, ultimately, you have to remember that he wasn't retained after the '12 season .... and Ferentz has rarely been a guy who is quick to fire somebody out of hand (he's very deliberate and detail-oriented).
