Iowa Traditionally an Underrated Program

[JonDMiller]

The Iowa football program is traditionally and underrated football program. You might have guessed that, just like you might say when Iowa has lofty preseason expectations, they haven’t lived up to the hype.

The stats at this link shows the most underrated football programs since 1989.

To make this list, you had to show up on their overrated/underrated matrix at least seven times since 1989…that’s 21 football seasons.

Iowa is tied for 19th on this list, out of roughly 70 teams met the qualifications.

Last year, Iowa had a -15 rating, meaning they were picked roughly 10th in the preseason and finished outside of the top 25, for a difference of -15.

Other years where Iowa had a negative rating: 2006 (-11), 2005 (-14), 1997(-5), 1992 (-12) and 1989 (-9). Thankfully this matrix didn’t include 1988, as Iowa would have had a big time negative number for that season, too. Sport Magazine ranked them #1 in the preseason that year and they finished 6-4-3, decimated by injuries.

In 1992, Iowa was coming off of a 10-1-1 1991 season. In 1997, the Hawks were coming off a 9-3 1996 season where they had a dominant running game and rolled in the Alamo Bowl. They had Heisman candidates in Tim Dwight and Tavian banks and the 1997 Iowa football season still ranks as the most disappointing season of my life.

The 2005 Iowa season followed three straight 10 or more win seasons where Iowa was underrated each year:

2002: +18
2003: +18
2004: +11

Iowa also rated a +12.5 number in 2009, after they came off a 2008 season where they finished 9-4, each loss coming by a touchdown or less.

Like in the stock market, past performance does not guarantee future results, but the Hawks are going to come into the 2011 season well off the national radar after last season’s disappointment. Their historical trend says this is when they have been at their best. As much as I tried to dismiss this notion last year, it’s tough to argue with the data.

By the way, if you scroll down to the bottom of the list at the link above, you find the teams that have not met expectations more than most. Michigan and Nebraska are in this list, but then again USC is as well…so it can be a bit misleading if a team is picked in the preseason Top 5 and finishes 8th to 10th consistently…it’s a cumulative negative ranking, but it’s not exactly a linear measure of successful or unsuccessful programs.

 

[Cyclones17]

How can you be underrated when you are picked to go 12-0 every year? I kid, I kid.

Agree that Iowa is typically underrated and if I were an Iowa fan I would be ok with being outside the top 25 to start the season. Seems like KF and co do a better job when there aren't high expectations. Having a target on the back is never easy

 

[LG210]

It is difficult to make comparisons of college football teams even within a particular season given the small sample size of games and differing degrees of schedule difficulty, but if I were to draw any conclusion from that data it would be that preseason rankings are based too heavily on overall program reputation and not heavily enough on more appropriate factors.

 

[cmhawks99]

It is difficult to make comparisons of college football teams even within a particular season given the small sample size of games and differing degrees of schedule difficulty, but if I were to draw any conclusion from that data it would be that preseason rankings are based too heavily on overall program reputation and not heavily enough on more appropriate factors.

I agree 100%.....I personally feel like there should be certain guidelines followed when ranking a team.

No team should be ranked until after the 4th game of the season…..

No one loss team should be ranked in front of a no-loss team regardless of schedule strength. I am supremely confident this will always work itself out, eventually.

No team should ever jump more than 5 spots in the rankings in a given week. This will alleviate number 20 SEC team replacing number 10 SEC team after they beat them. This happens constantly in the SEC. No wonder they always have a team that high.

After a loss every team has to drop at least 8 spots or below the last ranked no-loss team, whichever is lesser. If these teams are good enuff they will find their way back up into the top 10.

It’s debatable whether a 2 loss team should still be above a 1 loss team…..Now I’m not an idiot, I realize some teams losses are less or more significant than others. But over time its funny when you look back, Iowa was still a very competitive, talented team, yet by the end of the year those close “good†losses turned into close “bad†losses. Yet then they beat Mizzou….now to be fair maybe Mizzou shouldn’t have been a top 12 team but that’s kind of what I’m saying.

Now at the end of the year if you want to reevaluate everyone’s schedule and place teams with 3 losses ahead of 2 loss or one loss teams be my guest. I even get that. But during the year it greatly affects who ends up in the top 3 or 4 spots and it isn’t right.

Just my opinion and I’m sure there are holes in my logic, but there needs to be SOME rules, and not just a willy, nilly system.

Chad.

 

[Sidecarcoach]

It seems to me that being 19th of 50 teams (38th percentile) isn't convincingly under-rated. If the 50 are broken into three segments - overrated, underrated, and neither over nor underrated - then the Hawks fall into that middle tercile. Not as compelling as I would have expected.

 

[smhawk]

It seems to me that being 19th of 50 teams (38th percentile) isn't convincingly under-rated. If the 50 are broken into three segments - overrated, underrated, and neither over nor underrated - then the Hawks fall into that middle tercile. Not as compelling as I would have expected.

I think you gotta compare those in the middle to those that are rated though. I believe they got PSU ranked with maybe seeing iowa around 35. Comparing those two you could say Iowa would be underrated.

 

[CharlestonHawkeye]

These stats reflect how poorly the national media does in predicting Iowa's season by season success. Iowa is either grossly over or underrated each year over the last decade.

If the media picks Iowa to be good, they won't be and if the media picks Iowa to be bad, they won't be.

I really thought last year was going to break that trend.

 

[STILLBUSTER]

This thing is majorly flawed.

First, the cumulative, +/- 1 scoring allows for misleading results. Iowa scored a cumulative +11-1/2 variance final ranking vs preseason ranking, leading you to conclude they are traditionally underrated. However, over the 22 seasons measured, let's say they were ranked 15th preseason and finished 14th, every year. That would give them a cumulative +22 and imply they were even more underrated. However, in reality, they were pegged pretty much spot-on.

Secondly, there's no "parity factor". Reality says there's not much difference between teams ranked 11 - 15 or 16 - 20, or, often, 11 - 25 but there is a potentially large cumulative score difference.

Tiers of poll rankings should be equated to final records. I.E. teams ranked 1 - 5th = 0 to 1 loss, 6 - 10th = 1 loss, 11 - 15th = 2 loss, 16 - 20th = 3 loss, 21 - 25th = 4 loss. Then compare final record vs projected record. If I thought Iowa would finish with 3 losses (16th - 20th) but they finished with 1, they get a +2. This "tiering" allows for the relative parity of teams and lessens the subjectivity of voter / poll rankings. (A ranking of 11th vs 15th could be the result of a couple voters' regional allegiance but the reality is there's probably not much difference on the field.)

The only valid conclusion I draw from this data is that Iowa is traditionally very inconsistent in meeting preseason expectations -- low, medium, or high. However, if I looked at it from the expected record vs final record I'd say that, traditionally, Iowa is nationally perceived / ranked right where they belong -- a #15 -#25 team that will always be competitive and, with the right bounces and good health, will sometimes hit 10+ wins. Mostly, though, they are a 7-5 to 9-3 team.

With regard to victories, rankings, postseason awards, etc, KF has always said, "you get what you deserve" and / or "those things take care of themselves". Well, that's pretty much been the case -- that's the reputation they've earned and deserve and pretty much exactly the range in which they fall in most preseason rankings (at least in the KF era).

KF is a smart man. He doesn't set the bar too high and keeps the expectations very gray. That's the natural by-product of his even-keel personality and hindsight evaluation. Not an indictment -- he is who he is and the team is who they are (and who he is). However, when you minimize expectations & have somewhat of a c'est la vie approach, that's what people (voters) see and hear. What's more, sans expectations, all your success hinges on talent and luck, which, again, Iowa is a 7-5 to 9-3 talented team, year-in / year-out.

KF keeps telling us the truth. Maybe it's time to simply accept it. You can't get a more concrete example than last year.

 

[okeefe4prez]

It seems to me that being 19th of 50 teams (38th percentile) isn't convincingly under-rated. If the 50 are broken into three segments - overrated, underrated, and neither over nor underrated - then the Hawks fall into that middle tercile. Not as compelling as I would have expected.

I need a ruling from the smartest guy on the board, Homer, to confirm this one, but I think 19th out of 50 is actually 62nd percentile, not 38th percentile. It's been a long time bince I took a math or stats class, so don't quote me on it, though.

 

[dchawk75]

I think last season took us from clearly underrated to not so much. We would be in the top ten of underrated had we met expectations. As it is, I don't see where we have much to crow about from the underrated standpoint.

 

[HaydensDad]

Iowa also rated a +12.5 number in 2009, after they came off a 2008 season where they finished 9-4, each loss coming by a touchdown or less.

For a total of only 12 points!
The largest margin of loss was 5 points (22-17 against NW) so they were all less than a touchdown. Don't sell them short.
Also, impressive wins that year over #3 PSU, and dominating performances against Wiscy(38-16), Minny (55-0), South Carolina (31-10).