clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Ferentz: Would You Like to Play on Onside Kick Coverage?

New, comments

Well, we had a pretty good idea that today's press conference would get chippy (not "Hawkeye Insider accusing Ferentz of blackballing DJK" chippy, but chippy nonetheless), and it did not disappoint.

An unidentified reporter asked a relatively innocuous question: Would there be any change in personnel for onside kick coverage? Seeing as how Minnesota has used an onside kick against Iowa each of the last two years, to say nothing for the fact that Ferentz's team lost to Central Michigan three days ago on another onside kick that it failed to recover, it would appear to be a rather important, fact-specific question.

Kirk didn't take it that way:

Q. Are you going to have the same personnel on onside kick coverage this week as last week?

COACH FERENTZ: We haven't had a long discussion on it yet this week, but I guess we are. Got any ideas? Are you eligible? He's not eligible.

Good one, Kirk. Loved the way you asked the reporter if he was eligible. You should have just asked him if he ever work a jock strap.

I will say this in Ferentz's defense: His response to the follow-up question was completely warranted, because it had to be one of the dumbest questions ever asked of anyone ever:

Q. What's it like the last three years against Minnesota in this past game to give up an onside kick?

COACH FERENTZ: What would you guess? We haven't celebrated, if that's what you're asking.

As for actual news, nothing much happened. Kirk went into a soliloquy of why the college punt rule is stupid (unlike the NFL, which allows only eligible receivers to move downfield until the ball is kicked except for when its refs are too busy eating a sandwich, college allows all players to let loose downfield as soon as the ball is snapped). He also de facto redshirted Michael Malloy, which might come as news to Michael Malloy but is unsurprising.