ADVERTISEMENT

The State of the Program

If you only count the seasons in which he played 12 regular season games, there are 15 of them and his record is 113-67 in those regular season games. That comes out to 4.46 losses per year. I'll be interested to see what data you come up with.

I was incorrect with the 5.1 that is the number when we included the bowl. Homer ran a impressive test the last time we had this conversation. It went as follows.

When you sample from your original data - you should pull the data at random. Myself, I used random numbers from random.org because unlike computer-generated random numbers - they're pulled from atmospheric data that is though to be truly random (due to turbulence). Computer generated random numbers are just pseudo-random numbers (although their periodicity is extremely large).

Anyhow, before I even did the analysis, my intuition was that we only had 19 data points. All things considered, that's not a lot of data. Furthermore, there is definitely a bit of spread in the data - thus, my intuition was that the reliability of our results would have some definite error.

This is what I found (using the naïve choice of 12 sample values - and creating an ensemble of 10 data sub-sampled data sets). People can fairly attack these choices - because they're far from optimized for the given data-set ... but they seem adequately reasonable.

Anyhow, here is what I found:

For the original data set of 19 data points: mean = 0.5887 standard dev = 0.2065
sub-sample 1: mean = 0.5926 stdev = 0.2400
sub-sample 2: mean = 0.6206 stdev = 0.2576
sub-sample 3: mean = 0.7319 stdev = 0.1283
sub-sample 4: mean = 0.5479 stdev = 0.2310
sub-sample 5: mean = 0.6550 stdev = 0.2330
sub-sample 6: mean = 0.5810 stdev = 0.1403
sub-sample 7: mean = 0.6101 stdev = 0.2345
sub-sample 8: mean = 0.5880 stdev = 0.0878
sub-sample 9: mean = 0.6333 stdev = 0.1757
sub-sample 10: mean = 0.5985 stdev = 0.1818

Combining everything together: We can take the mean of the means now - and that will give us another "measure" of the mean. However, the standard deviation in these means can then conceptually be viewed as a measure of the ERROR in the mean.

mean (of the mean values) = 0.615879
Ironically, this win percentage, for a 13 game season ends up landing right at 8 wins.

standard deviation in the sub-sampled mean-values = 0.050349
The first thing to notice is that this measure is telling us something DIFFERENT than the standard deviation of the original full data set. The original standard deviation is telling us about the spread in the distribution. This standard deviation is more explicitly addressing the reliability of our calculated mean value. The implication of this is rather important.

We could expect a mean value to be drawn from the underlying distribution to be as high as 0.66228. This would correspond (in a 13 game season) to an expectation value of 8.66 wins. We could also expect a mean value to be drawn from the underlying distribution to be as low as 0.56553. This would correspond (in a 13 game season) to an expectation value of 7.35 wins.

Notice how the calculated mean from the full data set nicely fits within the "error bars" supplied above. The value of 0.5887 falls within accepted limits. However, it is interesting to note that it certainly is much closer to the LOWER limit than the HIGHER limit.

Mind you, the above supplies us with a spread in MEAN values. This isn't saying anything (yet) about the variability in the spread of the distribution itself.

mean of the standard deviations = 0.190988 (this is rather close to the value drawn from the full data set)

standard deviation of the standard deviations = 0.057315 (as in the case of the mean, this tells supplies us with information about the ERROR in the spread of the empirical distribution)

Relative to the calculated value of 0.057315 ... this is telling us that we have around 30% error in our measure of how spread out the distribution is. Again, given 19 data points and the variability in the data, this shouldn't really surprise us.

Given the quality of this data (or lack thereof) - on first blush, I'd likely conclude that we wouldn't have to look much beyond the conceptual statistics here to draw conclusions.

What the data tells us is that in any given year, the Hawks are likely to average anywhere around 7 wins to 9 wins when they play 13 games. The spread in the data isn't terribly helpful ... but it indicates the obvious that sometimes we can do much better ... and sometimes much worse (kind of a "duh" statement - but one that must be uttered).

The dude is a 7-5 regular season coach with a good chance at winning 8 games when he plays 13. Fwiw he is more likely to win 9 games than 6 when he plays a 13th game. He is the rest of the thread if you want to read all about it.

https://iowa.forums.rivals.com/threads/kirk-was-on-670-the-score-here-in-chicago-today.229914/page-8

Ps. Bloodredd you might want to skip that one, it wasnt a good convo for you.
 
Well why stop there, if you get rid of '99, '00, '06, '07, '12 and '14 he is damn near a 9-3 coach.

Yeah, but it makes sense to not hang the first couple seasons on him when he inherited an empty cupboard. Any marginal seasons after that are all on him and his recruits. But as a KF hater, I know you'll come back and say it's just the facts...those teams are part of his record. I'm fine with haters like you wanting so desperately to think those seasons are representative of his career...it gives me more people to laugh at.
 
How is it 5 losses, that is the question. Your own rules of no rounding dictate that it is 4. We've heard you blather on for hours about how you can't round up. How do you justify this?
I was incorrect with the 5.1 that is the number when we included the bowl. Homer ran a impressive test the last time we had this conversation. It went as follows.

Then why are you still calling him a 5 loss coach? Maybe you can answer the question now?
 
I'm not sure where the 127 and 132 variance is coming from but yes we are saying the same thing. KF, over the course of his career, wins 7 games for every 12 he plays. If you wanted to use the last 5 years as a talking point for him trending towards 8 that would be understandable but, the numbers play out like this, For every 12 games KF coaches he wins 7.

How many does he lose for every 12 games?
 
I was incorrect with the 5.1 that is the number when we included the bowl. Homer ran a impressive test the last time we had this conversation. It went as follows.



The dude is a 7-5 regular season coach with a good chance at winning 8 games when he plays 13. Fwiw he is more likely to win 9 games than 6 when he plays a 13th game. He is the rest of the thread if you want to read all about it.

https://iowa.forums.rivals.com/threads/kirk-was-on-670-the-score-here-in-chicago-today.229914/page-8

Ps. Bloodredd you might want to skip that one, it wasnt a good convo for you.

Owned again, fool. And after you've called so many posters dumb and even tried to fight them. If it makes you feel any better, I don't think anyone who has been paying attention is a bit surprised.
 
My weird obsession on this board, even though I know better, is to engage Nebraska trolls.

Your obsession is repeating over and over that KF is a 7-5 coach. Here's hoping the average moves to 8 wins.

Exactly... get to 9-3 or 10-2 more consistently and be in the same conversation as MSU and Wisky
 
Reaching for the stars vs spending the time recruiting kids who we actually have a chance with. They're only so many hours in a day and if we spend time recruiting people we have a slim chance to get, we spend less time recruiting players we should be getting. It's a balance act. I think you let a high star kid know your interested and offer him, but realistically he is not going to go to Iowa when he has tOSU, Penn State, Clemson, Alabama or any of the blue dog schools on his heals. Take Ross Pierschbacher for example. A Cedar Falls boy whom I think grew up a Hawkeye fan, yet when Bama came calling he quickly decommitted and was gone. So, if a Hawkeye fan in state kid bolts for Bama, why would an out of state 4 or 5 star kid choose Iowa over Bama or a blue blood? We're recruiting right beside Wisconsin in yearly rankings, and I just don't see that spending a ton of time trying to sway kids away from Bama, tOSU, Clemson is going to be fruitful, IMO. Now, we did get a bump after 2015, and could get another bump with a 10 win season this year.

I agree scotthawk there is a fine line but I think there are still several kids out there we could work harder on. Its Kirk's conservative approach to everything
 
I met a football fan last summer that is a West Point graduate. His comment to me was "Ferentz is a good coach but not a great coach." I think that is the way the Hawkeyes are perceived nationally. I had to agree with him but proud to be a Hawkeye fan and KF supporter.
 
Owned again, fool. And after you've called so many posters dumb and even tried to fight them. If it makes you feel any better, I don't think anyone who has been paying attention is a bit surprised.
Dude you are so full of fail. Just like I did the first time here is an exact timestamp.of how that conversation went ya beta.



"bloodredd, post: 5370984, member: 73014"]Let's review......I said bullsh*t after you falsely accused me of starting a thread about you."
(False That was a question )

See how that works?

Here is said question:
"Wasnt-drunk-didnt-troll, post: 5367956, member: 88956"]You love labels. I'm not a hater, its data. Arnt you the dude that created a thread trying to call me out and got told to F off?


"I called you a blowhard and a dipshit AFTER you referred to me as a dunce"
(man that must have been tough after you had already tried Hater and accused me of "bullshit" AKA lying)
"and questioned my intelligence repeatedly"
( the irony of this is I tried helping you and you accused me of being mentally challenged) .


I called you a Bitch AFTER you suggested I hit myself in the head with a hammer. (Let me know maybe like a cafe or maybe a bar for a beer?)

Direct qoutes:


[QUOTE"Wasnt-drunk-didnt-troll, post: 5367956, member: 88956"]You love labels. I'm not a hater, its data. Arnt you the dude that created a thread trying to call me out and got told to F off?[/QUOTE]





The best part is at the end of the day your still wrong about the math.[/QUOTE]
 
bloodredd, post: 5370984, member: 73014"]Let's review......I said bullsh*t after you falsely accused me of starting a thread about you."
(False That was a question )

See how that works?

Here is said question:
"Wasnt-drunk-didnt-troll, post: 5367956, member: 88956"]You love labels. I'm not a hater, its data. Arnt you the dude that created a thread trying to call me out and got told to F off?[/QUOTE]


"I called you a blowhard and a dipshit AFTER you referred to me as a dunce"
(man that must have been tough after you had already tried Hater and accused me of "bullshit" AKA lying)
"and questioned my intelligence repeatedly"
( the irony of this is I tried helping you and you accused me of being mentally challenged) .


I called you a Bitch AFTER you suggested I hit myself in the head with a hammer. (Let me know maybe like a cafe or maybe a bar for a beer?)

Direct qoutes:


[QUOTE"Wasnt-drunk-didnt-troll, post: 5367956, member: 88956"]You love labels. I'm not a hater, its data. Arnt you the dude that created a thread trying to call me out and got told to F off?[/QUOTE]
 
I agree scotthawk there is a fine line but I think there are still several kids out there we could work harder on. Its Kirk's conservative approach to everything
I think we make the offer to every good 4 and 5 star kid, then keep in touch with those who seem to be really interested, but we need to keep on the bread and butter kids that we have a better chance with. If a high star kid shows a lot of interest, then we camp in his yard, but the majority of them will have so many offers that were going to get lost in the mix and he will be going to a big name school.
 
[QUOTE"Wasnt-drunk-didnt-troll, post: 5367956, member: 88956"]You love labels. I'm not a hater, its data. Arnt you the dude that created a thread trying to call me out and got told to F off?[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Glad I'm still in you head. Why won't you answer the man's question? You're conveniently avoiding it. Pretty sure we all know why. Blowhard.
 
[QUOTE"Wasnt-drunk-didnt-troll, post: 5367956, member: 88956"]You love labels. I'm not a hater, its data. Arnt you the dude that created a thread trying to call me out and got told to F off?
[/QUOTE]

Glad I'm still in you head. Why won't you answer the man's question? You're conveniently avoiding it. Pretty sure we all know why. Blowhard.[/QUOTE]
The exact math and numbers were provided in the quoted homer post you dunce. In a 12 game season the most likely outcome is 7-5 the second most likely outcome is 8-4 the third most is 9-3 then 6-6. All of this has half a game std deviation and 30% error in the numbers themself.
 

Glad I'm still in you head. Why won't you answer the man's question? You're conveniently avoiding it. Pretty sure we all know why. Blowhard.[/QUOTE]
The exact math and numbers were provided in the quoted homer post you dunce.[/QUOTE]

You're using an old thread that no one agreed with you on the first time as proof of something? Is this the twilight zone? Just answer the man's question if you can. Stop trying to divert attention elsewhere.
 
Glad I'm still in you head. Why won't you answer the man's question? You're conveniently avoiding it. Pretty sure we all know why. Blowhard.
The exact math and numbers were provided in the quoted homer post you dunce.[/QUOTE]

You're using an old thread that no one agreed with you on the first time as proof of something? Is this the twilight zone? Just answer the man's question if you can. Stop trying to divert attention elsewhere.[/QUOTE]
I did answer it ya beta. Read.
 
[QUOTE="Wasnt-drunk-didnt-troll, post
I did answer it ya beta. Read.[/QUOTE]

No, you avoided it. Pretty clear to see that. I'm done here. Words and air are wasted on you.
 
I agree scotthawk there is a fine line but I think there are still several kids out there we could work harder on. Its Kirk's conservative approach to everything

How do you know that? Everyone says KF is an average to poor recruiter, but how do we actually know that? If you want to look a national ranking based on stars, Iowa is usually in the Top 40, with very few in-state recruits to raise the bar - that is at least average. But, I'm not convinced that is the best way to evaluate a recruiter.

And, why do you call it conservative? Because they don't take enough chances on risky players? Because they don't camp out in the yard of a good player? KF could possibly land someone with great talent, but if he isn't a hard worker or a team player, does Iowa actually win more games?

Iowa has an identity. Blue-collar, hard work, play for each other, defense first, low risk offense. Now some don't like that and it's fine. But, once you have adopted that image and you are trying to build a program, wouldn't it make sense to recruit guys that fit that mold?

Steve Alford used to recruit the most talented guys he could find, but had no idea how to build a team, and identity or a program. KF has taken a different approach - one designed to sustain a program, rather than just throw darts and hope to have a good team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ichawk24
How do you know that? Everyone says KF is an average to poor recruiter, but how do we actually know that? If you want to look a national ranking based on stars, Iowa is usually in the Top 40, with very few in-state recruits to raise the bar - that is at least average. But, I'm not convinced that is the best way to evaluate a recruiter.

And, why do you call it conservative? Because they don't take enough chances on risky players? Because they don't camp out in the yard of a good player? KF could possibly land someone with great talent, but if he isn't a hard worker or a team player, does Iowa actually win more games?

Iowa has an identity. Blue-collar, hard work, play for each other, defense first, low risk offense. Now some don't like that and it's fine. But, once you have adopted that image and you are trying to build a program, wouldn't it make sense to recruit guys that fit that mold?

Steve Alford used to recruit the most talented guys he could find, but had no idea how to build a team, and identity or a program. KF has taken a different approach - one designed to sustain a program, rather than just throw darts and hope to have a good team.

I agree with what you said here. I just believe the staff needs to bring in a little bit more playmaking talent at WR
 
I agree with what you said here. I just believe the staff needs to bring in a little bit more playmaking talent at WR
Sure. It's obvious that Iowa has struggled at that position. And, it has been a part of the limitations we have seen on offense. But, if I had to guess, it has more to do with the style of play and the "block first" mentality. It doesn't necessarily mean that this staff is poor at recruiting.

For a kid that wants to be a prolific WR in college and maybe the pros, the "Blue-collar, hard work, play for each other, defense first, low risk offense" doesn't really fit with very many highly touted WR's. They want to play for an offense that slings the ball around and makes big plays in the passing game.

But, for example, I haven't figured out why Iowa State has been able to attract some dam good talent at WR. Maybe it's the recruiting pitch, maybe it's the identity. IDK. But Iowa recruits pretty well at every other position on the field IMO.
 
"Even when we throw out data, WHICH SHOULD NEVER BE DONE" The expert has told us this, yet people want to throw out 11 game seasons, bowl games, rebuilding years.....the list goes on. Statistics don't lie but statisticians do. If you want to manipulate statistics they can tell you whatever you want them to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HawkinK.C.1
The exact math and numbers were provided in the quoted homer post you dunce.

You're using an old thread that no one agreed with you on the first time as proof of something? Is this the twilight zone? Just answer the man's question if you can. Stop trying to divert attention elsewhere.[/QUOTE]
I did answer it ya beta. Read.[/QUOTE]

So how many losses on average per season? By your math it's 4 right?
 
How do you know that? Everyone says KF is an average to poor recruiter, but how do we actually know that? If you want to look a national ranking based on stars, Iowa is usually in the Top 40, with very few in-state recruits to raise the bar - that is at least average. But, I'm not convinced that is the best way to evaluate a recruiter.

And, why do you call it conservative? Because they don't take enough chances on risky players? Because they don't camp out in the yard of a good player? KF could possibly land someone with great talent, but if he isn't a hard worker or a team player, does Iowa actually win more games?

Iowa has an identity. Blue-collar, hard work, play for each other, defense first, low risk offense. Now some don't like that and it's fine. But, once you have adopted that image and you are trying to build a program, wouldn't it make sense to recruit guys that fit that mold?

Steve Alford used to recruit the most talented guys he could find, but had no idea how to build a team, and identity or a program. KF has taken a different approach - one designed to sustain a program, rather than just throw darts and hope to have a good team.

All I can tell you for sure is we get very few 4 star recruits for whatever reason. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of 4 star recruits who are hard working, tough nosed kids. You can target 4 star recruits and still get your type of kid. KF is conservative when he sits down to dinner.
 
I think we make the offer to every good 4 and 5 star kid, then keep in touch with those who seem to be really interested, but we need to keep on the bread and butter kids that we have a better chance with. If a high star kid shows a lot of interest, then we camp in his yard, but the majority of them will have so many offers that were going to get lost in the mix and he will be going to a big name school.

A lot of that makes sense, not denying it. It also screams I don't stand a chance, and you never will if you don't try. Kirk has a huge selling point, look at all the guys he sends to the NFL.
 
The problem is can you name an Iowa WR to ever make it in the pros? I can only think of TEs
 
But, for example, I haven't figured out why Iowa State has been able to attract some dam good talent at WR.

I think terrible programs get some good skill guys because they're always losing, and always throwing. ISU, Indiana, and Illinois always seem to be some good skill guys, even though they're ****ing terrible. Their terribleness is the draw.
 
To be frank, winning 7-8 games a year is a very low threshold in the West Division.
While I don't necessarily agree with the statement "very low threshold" I do take the point. Having isu and 2 low rent opponents in the non con hurts. Wisky is pretty clearly the only team of any quality in the west the Hawks will face this year. And the recent history has been pretty similar, other than nw.
So, yes, I would say that 7 win regular seasons looks rather mediocre with the recent schedules.
 
While I don't necessarily agree with the statement "very low threshold" I do take the point. Having isu and 2 low rent opponents in the non con hurts. Wisky is pretty clearly the only team of any quality in the west the Hawks will face this year. And the recent history has been pretty similar, other than nw.
So, yes, I would say that 7 win regular seasons looks rather mediocre with the recent schedules.

Like last years?
 
The problem is can you name an Iowa WR to ever make it in the pros? I can only think of TEs
Quinn Early had a nice career, 12 seasons.
Tim Dwight hung around for a while, but mostly as a return specialist.
Kevin Kasper had a few years on a regular roster.
But the point is valid. Iowa very rarely produces offensive skill position players, outside of TE, that make an impact in the NFL. That includes RB as well. Ladell Betts was the longest lasting in the NFL of late, followed by Shonn Greene I think. After that not much.
 
Quinn Early had a nice career, 12 seasons.
Tim Dwight hung around for a while, but mostly as a return specialist.
Kevin Kasper had a few years on a regular roster.
But the point is valid. Iowa very rarely produces offensive skill position players, outside of TE, that make an impact in the NFL. That includes RB as well. Ladell Betts was the longest lasting in the NFL of late, followed by Shonn Greene I think. After that not much.

Those are about the only positions that we don't have a solid pro history at. You could probably throw QB in there as well. Examples
TE- Clark, Chandler, Moeaki, etc..
OL- Yanda, Scheff, reiff, bulaga, the list goes on
DL- Daniels, Clayborn
LB- Greenway, Hitchens,Kirksey
DB- Sanders, Jackson, King, there are a lot more I just cant think of them right now
K- Kaeding

The tradition of putting players is really good at Iowa except the skill position offensive players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SDHawkDoc
All I can tell you for sure is we get very few 4 star recruits for whatever reason. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of 4 star recruits who are hard working, tough nosed kids. You can target 4 star recruits and still get your type of kid. KF is conservative when he sits down to dinner.

I think it's a rather simple reason Iowa doesn't get that many 4-star recruits -- it's that there aren't that many of them in the state of Iowa. I wholeheartedly agree that there are plenty of hard-working 4 and 5-star recruits. It's why Alabama and Ohio State and the like are consistently so good. They are talented and they work hard.

Iowa has gone all in with guys like Epenesa or a Wirfs or Kallenberger (all 4 stars I think) when there is an interest from the player in putting Iowa among their final schools. They were all in with guys like Brents, Waggoner, Petras and Craddieth (4 stars in the 2018 class). Getting 4 in that class was a coup, with just one of them in state. Iowa was able to make inroads in Indy where Purdue and Indiana have been down and get a guy like Brents (who was injured his senior year or probably would have got more offers) and with Craddieth (from St. Louis, pretty close). And then getting Petras when Oregon State had the coaching change.

Iowa is way more aggressive in recruiting than it was even 4 years ago. More offers out sooner, more special events, real social media presence, etc. I get it. We all want Iowa to recruit better, but it's not as easy as just trying harder. You have to have a message that will resonate with players and have a program/identity to recruit to.
 
Fire everyone associated with Iowa football and entomb them in the water tower. Make it punishable by death to mention any of those people again. Burn their houses. Cash out their bank accounts and party their savings away with the dregs of low society. Then wake up Monday morning and get busy hiring our national championship regime.
 
I think it's a rather simple reason Iowa doesn't get that many 4-star recruits -- it's that there aren't that many of them in the state of Iowa. I wholeheartedly agree that there are plenty of hard-working 4 and 5-star recruits. It's why Alabama and Ohio State and the like are consistently so good. They are talented and they work hard.

Iowa has gone all in with guys like Epenesa or a Wirfs or Kallenberger (all 4 stars I think) when there is an interest from the player in putting Iowa among their final schools. They were all in with guys like Brents, Waggoner, Petras and Craddieth (4 stars in the 2018 class). Getting 4 in that class was a coup, with just one of them in state. Iowa was able to make inroads in Indy where Purdue and Indiana have been down and get a guy like Brents (who was injured his senior year or probably would have got more offers) and with Craddieth (from St. Louis, pretty close). And then getting Petras when Oregon State had the coaching change.

Iowa is way more aggressive in recruiting than it was even 4 years ago. More offers out sooner, more special events, real social media presence, etc. I get it. We all want Iowa to recruit better, but it's not as easy as just trying harder. You have to have a message that will resonate with players and have a program/identity to recruit to.
In regards to skilled receivers it has come up many times previously that Iowa does not look like a great option to those guys.
In some ways a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy of late: they don't have good wrs > they don't throw much to the wrs > the wrs don't have many targets or catches > they don't get higher caliber wrs > circle back to the beginning.
Part of it, though, is philosophical for the offense. The goal seems to be longer possessions and running the ball more than throwing resulting in lower scoring games.
If you're an 18 yo wr and you have the chance to go to an offense that throws 40+ times a game all over the field or one that throws closer to 20 times a game and you will primarily be asked to block, which one do you choose?
 
All I can tell you for sure is we get very few 4 star recruits for whatever reason. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of 4 star recruits who are hard working, tough nosed kids. You can target 4 star recruits and still get your type of kid. KF is conservative when he sits down to dinner.

I think the only thing we can say for sure about Iowa's recruiting approach is that is has been unsuccessful at landing 4/5* WR's. So, I agree with your "for whatever reason" comment.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT