Last 5 years Iowa is 7-9 in games decided by less than 7 points

homes

homes

Well-Known Member
2014 - W - Pitt 24-20 and Ball State 17-14 (shouldn't have been that close, but it's within my parameters so it's included)
L - ISU 20-17, Wisconsin 26-24 and Nebraska 37-34 (OT)

2015 - W - Pitt 27-24, Wisconsin 10-6 and Minnesota 40-35 (but not really that close)
L - MSU 16-13

2016 - W - Michigan 14-13
L - NDSU 23-21

2017 - W - ISU 44-41 (OT)
L - Penn State 21-19

2018 - W - NONE
L - Penn State 30-24, Purdue 38-36 and NW 14-10

Only 3 of the 7 wins were against conference foes (again this includes Minnesota in 2015)
On the other hand 7 of the 9 losses were against conference foes (not even including Wisconsin this year).

I think that's why it seems even worse than it is (which isn't good to begin with).
 
homes said:
I think that's why it seems even worse than it is (which isn't good to begin with).
Click to expand...

I think it seems worse because the strategy seems to be to allow games to come down to the end (which is a sketchy "strategy"), rather than doing everything you can to build a good lead.
 
Any reason you chose less than 7 points instead of less than 8 points or less than 9 points?

Just curious
 
This is an area or stat that Iowa usually won in Ferentz's early tenure when they one like 31 games from 2002-2004. I think they had something like 18 home wins in a row as well. I think. Once teams caught on and realized how to play and defend Iowa, they caught up and switched this stat.

Teams have adjusted, Ferentz has not and fell behind the 8 ball.
 
MelroseHawkins said:
I'm guessing because 7 pts is representative of a TD and extra-point. The most of a typical one possession game.
Click to expand...

Yes, but by choosing only games LESS than 7 points, it does not include games decided BY 7 points. In other words, all those 17-10 games that Iowa likes to play are not on the list.

Not saying the OP has to include 7-point or 8-point games, but I was just curious why not.
 
guffus said:
Yes, but by choosing only games LESS than 7 points, it does not include games decided BY 7 points. In other words, all those 17-10 games that Iowa likes to play are not on the list.

Not saying the OP has to include 7-point or 8-point games, but I was just curious why not.
Click to expand...

I dunno. Ya got to pick a parameter somewhere. I think he showed the point and I don't think would differ that much a point more or a point less.
 
To win close games you need playmakers at key positions like QB, RB and WR. More often than not lately, Iowa has been missing that and you also can't make mistakes which Iowa has done repeatedly this year whether it is in the special teams, or turn overs or penalties or Stanley missing wide open players,
 
guffus said:
Any reason you chose less than 7 points instead of less than 8 points or less than 9 points?

Just curious
Click to expand...
You could, but my thinking was to include games in which a touchdown and extra point could win the game in regulation, not to just get to OT. If you were to add in 7 point games, they're 3-3. 17 - a win against BC, losses to MSU and NW (in OT); 16 - wins against Minnesota and Rutgers; 15 - none; 14 - loss to Maryland.
 
David79 said:
To win close games you need playmakers at key positions like QB, RB and WR. More often than not lately, Iowa has been missing that and you also can't make mistakes which Iowa has done repeatedly this year whether it is in the special teams, or turn overs or penalties or Stanley missing wide open players,
Click to expand...
How many slow white receivers started under Hayden? I’m curious . The recruiting at this position under Ferentz has been laughable
 
smitharooney said:
How many slow white receivers started under Hayden? I’m curious . The recruiting at this position under Ferentz has been laughable
Click to expand...
Well the #1 '85 team had 2- Happel and Halverson.

Happel was in my Marketing class. Pretty ordinary looking guy- wouldn't have guessed he was a player w/out his letter jacket.
 
homes said:
You could, but my thinking was to include games in which a touchdown and extra point could win the game in regulation, not to just get to OT. If you were to add in 7 point games, they're 3-3. 17 - a win against BC, losses to MSU and NW (in OT); 16 - wins against Minnesota and Rutgers; 15 - none; 14 - loss to Maryland.
Click to expand...

Also in 2017, Iowa had a 7 point win 17-10 over Minn. Making Iowa 4-3 in 7 point games.

So the most interesting thing about your analysis is that overall, Iowa has been around .500 in close games but in 2018 Iowa is 0-3 in close games. I guess you could count both ISU and Wisconsin as close games in 2018 too since they both were close until late in the game.

But either way, Iowa has sucked in close games this year. That could mean this team is very unlucky or they are chokers. Funny it never occurred to me until now that the 2018 team is simply unlucky. It just seemed like it was dumb mistakes cost Iowa those close games in 2018.
 
hawkeyes87 said:
Well the #1 '85 team had 2- Happel and Halverson.

Happel was in my Marketing class. Pretty ordinary looking guy- wouldn't have guessed he was a player w/out his letter jacket.
Click to expand...
Happel actually played mostly DBack in high school (Cedar Rapids Washington) .He didn't play full time offense until he arrived at Iowa.

Others who would fit this mold include Dave Moritz. Deven Harberts, Travis Watkins, Jon Filloon, Jeff Anttila, and Kevin Kasper. Some of these receivers were actually deep threats because they made up for lack of raw speed with precise route runnng
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top