KF admits to taking the ball on coin flip

[QChawks]

I can’t say that has worked well against good teams

 

[Palmerhawk]

This really has bugged me for years with KF.
Glad he acknowledged that he is going against conventional wisdom anyway and that they did study it.
Now, his take is the the vast majority of college and NFL coaches are stupid.
Really, how can they study this after the fact and conclude taking ball is best?

I can see it when a big wind is in play and you want it in 4th qtr....otherwise no.
Just because you end up winning a close game does not prove the theory...maybe you win comfortably if you defer.
I think it does go back to 2002 when we were overpowering on offense and it made sense.
It makes sense to put your best unit in the field immediately...how often has our offense been our best unit?

 

[83Hawk]

This really has bugged me for years with KF.
Glad he acknowledged that he is going against conventional wisdom anyway and that they did study it.
Now, his take is the the vast majority of college and NFL coaches are stupid.
Really, how can they study this after the fact and conclude taking ball is best?

I can see it when a big wind is in play and you want it in 4th qtr....otherwise no.
Just because you end up winning a close game does not prove the theory...maybe you win comfortably if you defer.
I think it does go back to 2002 when we were overpowering on offense and it made sense.
It makes sense to put your best unit in the field immediately...how often has our offense been our best unit?

My sentiments exactly.

 

[52317Hawk]

I'd like to see a couple of things when you defer to the 2nd half-
1. Scoring when you have the ball the last possession of the first half and beginning of the second half
2. Win percentage when you defer.

 

[BunchofAholes]

I'd like to see a couple of things when you defer to the 2nd half-
1. Scoring when you have the ball the last possession of the first half and beginning of the second half
2. Win percentage when you defer.

The myth of the "extra possession".

 

[52317Hawk]

The myth of the "extra possession".

I'm not suggesting there is an extra possession, merely what percentage of when you defer and have the ball at the end of the first half.

 

[uihawk82]

This really has bugged me for years with KF.
Glad he acknowledged that he is going against conventional wisdom anyway and that they did study it.
Now, his take is the the vast majority of college and NFL coaches are stupid.
Really, how can they study this after the fact and conclude taking ball is best?

I can see it when a big wind is in play and you want it in 4th qtr....otherwise no.
Just because you end up winning a close game does not prove the theory...maybe you win comfortably if you defer.
I think it does go back to 2002 when we were overpowering on offense and it made sense.
It makes sense to put your best unit in the field immediately...how often has our offense been our best unit?

I agree with you overall. The point of deferring is then the opponent has 3 choices which are receive, kick off, or defend a goal. most every time unless there is a huge wind the team that does not defer takes the ball.

And if you defer and your defense is your strength you are trying to stop the other team on the kickoff at the 25 or shorter and then get a 3 and out. If you get the 3 and out and they punt from the 28 then a 43 yard punt gives you the ball at your 29 yard line. That is pretty much a wash in field position.

I think KF wants the ball no matter what so they can score first. It super backfired on Kirk in 2005 at Ames when the huge wind tunnel effect was in play. You may remember Iowa took the ball and ISU had a 30 mph wind. ISU crowded the LOS the whole first qtr, Iowa couldnt run against 11 in the box or throw it, the hawk punts went about 20 yards, and the hawks were behind 10-0 before you knew it. And Drew Tate got knocked silly.

 

[Hawk-A-Doodle-Doo]

As Mark Twain popularized, there are three kinds of lies: Lies. Damned lies. And then there's statistics.

Okay, so based on their analysis, Iowa taking the ball first is largely proven to be a positive thing over time. That's all well and good....but now do the exact same analysis except minus the Northern Iowas, Arkansas States, Kent States and Nebraskas of the world. #seewhatDoodledidthere

 

[HawksRule73]

The case for taking is that you pretty much always know you're getting the ball regardless of whether you win the toss or not, so from a consistency sake, it's a positive.

 

[MeetTheFerentzes]

Each of the past two seasons we got the ball first and turned the ball over on the opening drive against our toughest opponent, leading to a TD, and the team was unable to recover.

This is KF stubbornness at its zenith.

 

[ChicagoHawk2020]

Everyone else is stupid and I’m never wrong- KF

 

[theiacowtipper]

I’m curious but if you don’t receive the ball at the 1st and 2nd half kickoffs you choose direction. It seems to me that you’d choose to go against any wind because then you’d have the wind when maybe attempting a last second field goal in the 2nd or 4th quarters. I’ve always thought that

 

[DuddyB]

I think he just likes the predictability.

 

[UIAlumFireFighter]

"It's an attitude setter."

Yeah, when you take the ball and the offense sh*ts the bed in its first possession...this "sets" the other team up with a confident attitude.

Kirk, Kirk, Kirk........

 

[BunchofAholes]

Much ado over nothing. Data shows there is no statistically significant advantage to either strategy.

 

[Hawkangler]

Oh Great! Something else for posters to harangue Kirk about. I wish I was as perfect as many of you purport to be.

218-130 at Iowa because I don't agree with the NCAA vacating four wins. Darn good considering the challenges to be a consistent winner at Iowa.

 

[Titanhawk]

This really has bugged me for years with KF.
Glad he acknowledged that he is going against conventional wisdom anyway and that they did study it.
Now, his take is the the vast majority of college and NFL coaches are stupid.
Really, how can they study this after the fact and conclude taking ball is best?

I can see it when a big wind is in play and you want it in 4th qtr....otherwise no.
Just because you end up winning a close game does not prove the theory...maybe you win comfortably if you defer.
I think it does go back to 2002 when we were overpowering on offense and it made sense.
It makes sense to put your best unit in the field immediately...how often has our offense been our best unit?

What does the wind or the 4th quarter have to do with getting the fall first or not? Seriously it is NOT like making the decision in OT

 

[83Hawk]

The myth of the "extra possession".

I don’t think it’s about any kind of “extra possession”, but more of a momentum thing. If you can score at the end of the first half and to start the second half…essentially on 2 straight possessions without the other team having the ball…that can be a huge momentum swing in your favor.

 

[UIAlumFireFighter]

I just think you should take the field with your strongest unit. Punch them in the mouth and intimidate from the 1st play.

 

[Palmerhawk]

What does the wind or the 4th quarter have to do with getting the fall first or not? Seriously it is NOT like making the decision in OT

If a coach takes the ball to start the game the opposing coach will take ball to start 2nd half allowing KF to decide which quarter ( 3rd or 4th) he wants the wind .

 

[7and5baby]

I feel the way most coaches do, deferring to the second half is better. ESPECIALLY for Iowa, since, traditionally, we are heavy on the defense, and light on offense--would rather have my better unit on field first to set the tone. It seems, when playing P4 teams, we rarely if ever score on the opening drive anyway.

Emotions (and energy) seem highest at kickoff. Defense is reactionary, which I think 'energy' is helpful. Offense is based a little more on precision, which maybe emotions can effect negatively more, especially at QB. I remember, on the first series, DTate's first throws were always into the 5th row.

 

[DukeSlater]

I can’t say that has worked well against good teams

Taking the ball in most cases is wrong, which is why almost every team defers. Taking the ball vs. OSU wasn't a bad idea in theory because you want to keep OSU's offense off the field. But when you start the wrong QB, and he fumbles the ball away on the first series, well, that's a HUGE problem. When Iowa beat OSU 55-24 in 2017, OSU took the opening kickoff and, on the first play from scrimmage, Iowa nabbed a pick 6. THAT set the tone.

Start with the defense because:
* It's the strength of Iowa football
* You should get good field position for your offense
* You get the second half kickoff after having time to make adjustments at halftime
* Defense can be more emotional than the offense, and that sets the tone

Barring weird weather, there is almost never a good case for Iowa receiving the opening kickoff. KF doing it anyway is just another example of his classic stubbornness.

But if he insists on taking the ball--or is forced to because the other team defers--then he should be aggressive as hell and use some trick plays, take some deep shots, use some unusual formations--do everything to KEEP the offense on the field. Three and out to start a game or, as previously noted, turning it over on the first series and setting up the opponent with an easy TD is a recipe for failure.

 

[BunchofAholes]

I don’t think it’s about any kind of “extra possession”, but more of a momentum thing. If you can score at the end of the first half and to start the second half…essentially on 2 straight possessions without the other team having the ball…that can be a huge momentum swing in your favor.

Momentum with a 20 minute break in the middle where teams regroup and make adjustments?

 

[MeetTheFerentzes]

Much ado over nothing. Data shows there is no statistically significant advantage to either strategy.

Link?

 

[BunchofAholes]

Link?

Google is your friend.

That said, the burden of proof falls on those claiming there IS an advantage, not the other way around.

 

[Hawksfor3]

As Mark Twain popularized, there are three kinds of lies: Lies. Damned lies. And then there's statistics.

Okay, so based on their analysis, Iowa taking the ball first is largely proven to be a positive thing over time. That's all well and good....but now do the exact same analysis except minus the Northern Iowas, Arkansas States, Kent States and Nebraskas of the world. #seewhatDoodledidthere

It's a lie! No, it's a damned lie! Here, let me give you some numbers. LOL. Thanks Ol' Doodle.

 

[83Hawk]

Momentum with a 20 minute break in the middle where teams regroup and make adjustments?

Yes. If you score a TD right before the half and another to start the second half, that is potentially 14 straight points without the other team having a possession. That can break a game wide open.

But if the other team is able to do that, then you could be behind the 8 ball right quickly.

Just my opinion. If you disagree, that's fine.

 

[Hawksfor3]

Each of the past two seasons we got the ball first and turned the ball over on the opening drive

 

[BunchofAholes]

Yes. If you score a TD right before the half and another to start the second half, that is potentially 14 straight points without the other team having a possession. That can break a game wide open.

But if the other team is able to do that, then you could be behind the 8 ball right quickly.

Just my opinion. If you disagree, that's fine.

I know what you're saying but the concept of "momentum" is contrary to something's progress being interrupted by a break or cessation of movement. If a ball rolling downhill and gaining momentum is stopped for 20 minutes it no longer has momentum.

 

[AFM22]

I can’t say that has worked well against good teams

Yeah but you also predict us to lose against everyone.

 

[83Hawk]

I know what you're saying but the concept of "momentum" is contrary to something's progress being interrupted by a break or cessation of movement. If a ball rolling downhill and gaining momentum is stopped for 20 minutes it no longer has momentum.

Picky picky picky! Momentum probably wasn’t the right word.

 

[QChawks]

Yeah but you also predict us to lose against everyone.

not true, I like the hawks to win this week

 

[AFM22]

not true, I like the hawks to win this week

 

[MeetTheFerentzes]

Google is your friend.

That said, the burden of proof falls on those claiming there IS an advantage, not the other way around.

Not the way it works. You brought up the data. Let’s see it.

 

[ChicagoHawk2020]

I know what you're saying but the concept of "momentum" is contrary to something's progress being interrupted by a break or cessation of movement. If a ball rolling downhill and gaining momentum is stopped for 20 minutes it no longer has momentum.

It’s not about the literal time, it’s about the time in the game where you have the opportunity to score on two consecutive possessions and take time off the game clock before the opponent even touches the ball. The move that gives your team the best chance to win is to defer, which is why literally every coach in major football defers besides KF.

 

[BunchofAholes]

Not the way it works. You brought up the data. Let’s see it.

False. If one asserts there's a causal relationship between two things. The burden is on them to prove it, not the other way around. That's pretty fundamental to anyone with basic logic or reasoning skills. Little things like the scientific method and our legal system are built around that principle.

 

[MeetTheFerentzes]

False. If one asserts there's a causal relationship between two things. The burden is on them to prove it, not the other way around. That's pretty fundamental to anyone with basic logic or reasoning skills. Little things like the scientific method and our legal system are built around that principle.

CSB. Now let’s see your data, since you brought up its existence.