I was going to call whoever wrote that article an idiot, but then I looked at a similar thread that was done prior to 2018 and they had 2 games wrong with the overall record at 8-4, so I will refrain from making such a statement.
https://www.hawkeyenation.com/forum...-predictions-for-hawkeye-football-2018.83676/
No one really nails it because turnovers which have a huge impact on the final outcomes are in no way predictable. How many games in 2018 were turnovers a key in losses or wins?
Miami(OH) - 45-10. Senior QB, experienced Oline and receivers, leads to a fast start on offense. Defense gives up early FG then clamps down with scrubs giving up late TD.
Rutgers - 34-13. Rutgers hasn't been totally beat down yet, since it's only Week 2, so they come out fired up. Game is close at half (17-13), but defense pitches a shutout in the 2nd half.
Iowa State - 31-23. Their defense is good, but ours is just a little bit better. Couple that with the loss of their 2 biggest playmakers on O and our Senior QB vs their young QB, and we escape with a hard-hitting, hard fought win.
MTSU - 52-13. MTSU has been good in the past, but they lost everyone. Our players refuse to get caught up in a trap game. We hit them early and often.
Michigan - 24-26. Michigan's O moves the ball on our D, but we buckle down in the redzone and hold them to 4 field goals after an early TD. Up 24-19 late, we can't hold on at the Big House and Michigan comes out on top.
Penn State - 24-21. Game 1 of the midseason revenge tour. We return the favor from 2017. Down 21-17 late, we rally in the closing minutes to pull out a thriller.
Purdue - 42-28. Game 2 of the midseason revenge tour. They've had our number, but we finally get it figured out. Old school shootout.
Northwestern - 27-19. Game 3 of the revenge tour sees us exorcise another demon. We turn a late Northwestern drive away, finally.
Wisconsin - 34-21. Final game of the midseason revenge tour sees us put together our most complete game to date. They expect us to come out going all short side zone run and we come out in shotgun firing away, ala against Pitt in 2015.
Minnesota - 20-24. Here it is folks. The "gag" game. After dispatching of our 4 main antagonists over the past 3 years, we finally run out of mental juice and give this one away late.
Illinois - 56-13. What better team to have to break out a one-game duldrum. Not even as close as the score indicates.
Nebraska - 38-34. You'll never get KF to admit it, but this is the one team that he cherishes beating more than any other on the schedule. With a division title on the line, it's a game for the ages, but Nebraska just doesn't have enough yet in the trenches.
10-2; 7-2 Division Champs.
I don't disagree with your record prediction, I think anywhere from 12-0 to 5-7 is possible with this schedule. But I'd be absolutely shocked if they score 35 points a game over an entire season.
The Hawkeyes had an adjusted turnover margin of 16 last season, which was second nationally. That likely will be hard to repeat so they will need to make up for it in other areas.
12-0. BT Champ game against OSU (sorry Harbaugh) - win. Iowa to the Playoffs. Probably won't win the National Championship, because I'm being realistic.
Where did you find this data (I looked, but couldn't find a site that provided it)?
Certain aspects of turnovers (forcing interceptions, not throwing interceptions, forcing fumbles, not fumbling) seem to be repeatable. Other aspects (like recovering a fumble once it hits the ground), seem to be fairly random.
An Adjusted turnover margin stat typically tries to take the randomness out of turnovers by, for instance, assuming that that a team would recover 50% of the fumbles that hit the ground during the game.
Iowa had a turnover margin of +9 last year (gained 27, coughed up 18). Of the 25 fumbles that hit the ground during their games, they recovered 12. So how do they get from the actual turnover margin of +9 to an adjusted margin of +16? Furthermore, if the actual margin is LESS THAN the adjusted margin, that means they were unlucky in a given season, so we could very well believe the next season would be better (a regression to the mean). Please correct me if I am misunderstanding something here.
If we just look at raw TO margin, the Hawks are good more often than not:
2018: +9 (16th in nation)
2017: +7 (26th in nation)
2016: +6 (28th in nation)
2015: +11 (11th in nation)
2014: -6 (105th in nation)
2013: -1 (69th in nation)
2012: +12 (14th in nation)
2011: +1 (49th in nation)
2010: +13 (7th in nation)
2009: +2 (51st in nation)
'13/'14 are the Ruddock years, both of which were characterized by a high # of TOs lost (interceptions in '13, fumbles in '14), and relatively low number generated (especially in '14).
2011 is JVB's first season, and the issue was primarily with low # of takeaways generated.
2009 of course had Pick-6 Rick (99th worst in the country at giving the ball away).
Of the least 10 seasons, the Hawks have been in the top 20% in raw TO margin 6 times (3 times in the middle of the pack, once really bad; top 20% in the nation for the last 4 years in a row).
When they have had a senior QB (2010, 2012, 2016), they have been 7th, 14th, and 28th in the nation.
The Hawks have a fearsome pass rush, Phil Parker and his talented defensive backfield, and good pass protection.
I doubt the Hawks fall way short of that +9 raw number.
Sign me up for that season.If the o-line is really, really good, this team could go 12-0 and have a date to lose by 30+ to Clemson in the 1-4 game. Sadly, I don't think the o-line is really, really good.
A couple additions here.Where did you find this data (I looked, but couldn't find a site that provided it)?
Certain aspects of turnovers (forcing interceptions, not throwing interceptions, forcing fumbles, not fumbling) seem to be repeatable. Other aspects (like recovering a fumble once it hits the ground), seem to be fairly random.
An Adjusted turnover margin stat typically tries to take the randomness out of turnovers by, for instance, assuming that that a team would recover 50% of the fumbles that hit the ground during the game.
Iowa had a turnover margin of +9 last year (gained 27, coughed up 18). Of the 25 fumbles that hit the ground during their games, they recovered 12. So how do they get from the actual turnover margin of +9 to an adjusted margin of +16? Furthermore, if the actual margin is LESS THAN the adjusted margin, that means they were unlucky in a given season, so we could very well believe the next season would be better (a regression to the mean). Please correct me if I am misunderstanding something here.
If we just look at raw TO margin, the Hawks are good more often than not:
2018: +9 (16th in nation)
2017: +7 (26th in nation)
2016: +6 (28th in nation)
2015: +11 (11th in nation)
2014: -6 (105th in nation)
2013: -1 (69th in nation)
2012: +12 (14th in nation)
2011: +1 (49th in nation)
2010: +13 (7th in nation)
2009: +2 (51st in nation)
'13/'14 are the Ruddock years, both of which were characterized by a high # of TOs lost (interceptions in '13, fumbles in '14), and relatively low number generated (especially in '14).
2011 is JVB's first season, and the issue was primarily with low # of takeaways generated.
2009 of course had Pick-6 Rick (99th worst in the country at giving the ball away).
Of the least 10 seasons, the Hawks have been in the top 20% in raw TO margin 6 times (3 times in the middle of the pack, once really bad; top 20% in the nation for the last 4 years in a row).
When they have had a senior QB (2010, 2012, 2016), they have been 7th, 14th, and 28th in the nation.
The Hawks have a fearsome pass rush, Phil Parker and his talented defensive backfield, and good pass protection.
I doubt the Hawks fall way short of that +9 raw number.
I saw it on a few gambling websites, where they tend to pay close attention to those numbers. I’ll see if I can find them.