Unbelievable statistic regarding our performance as double digit favorites

uihawk82 said:
I dont think KF has the gamesmanship anymore because there is no surprise in his approach.
Click to expand...

I believe that the second seven years the reason for the double digit favored losses is a direct result of us being so easy to game plan for. KF has changed virtually nothing on offense until this year. We are so predictable that I can call the next play virtually 80% of the time. The first seven years the teams were still figuring things out. Well, they've all figured us out. Fitz has mastered it.
 
SpiderRico said:
Ask and you shall receive......

I took the last 7 years of data since those are the 7 years that KF's tenure has seemed to have taken a fall.

In the last 7 years, there have been a total of 2289 college football games where the favorite was favored by 10 or more points. 604 of them were road favorites by more than 10 points and the remaining 1685 were home favorites by more than 10 points.

Of those 2289 games, the favorite won straight up a total of 2030 times, or 89% of the time (the win% is virtually the same regardless if it's a road or home favorite).

ATS, the 10 point favorites covered 1173 of the 2290 games, or 52% of the time.

Here are some other stats related to that:

1. Over the last 7 years, Iowa is tied for 25th in terms of the number of times favored by 10 or more points. Iowa's actual straight up win % is actually 65.5% because I included 5 games against FCS teams that they would be favored by more than 10 points but there's actually no line. The next worst straight up win% is Florida State at 82.4%.

2. Of all 120 FBS teams, there are only 7 teams that have a worse straight up win % against teams they were favored by 10 or more points than Iowa: Army, UAB, Tulane, Western Kentucky, Minnesota, New Mexico State and Ball State. The total number of times those 7 teams combined were favored by more than 10 was 30 times. Iowa, by itself, was favored 29 times.

3. Here are some other B1G records over the last 7 years against teams they were favored by 10 or more points:
Wisconsin: 36-0
Penn State: 30-0
Indiana: 7-0
Michigan: 28-1
OSU: 50-2
Nebraska: 34-3
Northwestern: 11-1
MSU: 22-3
Illinois: 12-2
Purdue: 16-2
Minnesota: 2-2
Iowa: 19-10

Others:
Iowa State: 4-0
LSU: 45-1
Alabama: 46-3
Notre Dame: 27-3
Oregon: 43-5
Oklahoma: 49-6
Click to expand...

I would also be curious to know the number of times the other teams hilighted above have actually been 10+ point favorites. For Minnesota, they are 2-2, in only 4 opportunities. Iowa has 29 opportunities, a much larger sample.

If a team was only a 10+ favorite twice, and lost one, that could be called a fluke because upsets happen, or maybe they were just simply overrated on that one occasion. Yet it would give them just a 50% winning percentage. Iowa has a large sample, so the trend seems pretty well established in this case.

And I would say that none of the teams below Iowa appear to be football powerhouses.
 
1977Hawkeye said:
I would also be curious to know the number of times the other teams hilighted above have actually been 10+ point favorites. For Minnesota, they are 2-2, in only 4 opportunities. Iowa has 29 opportunities, a much larger sample.

If a team was only a 10+ favorite twice, and lost one, that could be called a fluke because upsets happen, or maybe they were just simply overrated on that one occasion. Yet it would give them just a 50% winning percentage. Iowa has a large sample, so the trend seems pretty well established in this case.

And I would say that none of the teams below Iowa appear to be football powerhouses.
Click to expand...

Here you go:

Army - 1 time favored by 10 or more; Lost the game
UAB - 6 times favored by 10 or more; Lost all but 1
Tulane - 3 times favored by 10 or more; Lost all but 1
Western Kentucky - 3 times favored by 10 or more; Lost all but 1
Minnesota - 4 times favored by 10 or more; Lost 2 of them
New Mexico State - 2 times favored by 10 or more; Lost 1 and won 1
Ball State - 11 times favored by 10 or more; Lost 4 of them and won 7 of them
Iowa - 29 times favored by 10 or more; Lost 10 of them and won 19 of them
 
SpiderRico said:
Here you go:

Army - 1 time favored by 10 or more; Lost the game
UAB - 6 times favored by 10 or more; Lost all but 1
Tulane - 3 times favored by 10 or more; Lost all but 1
Western Kentucky - 3 times favored by 10 or more; Lost all but 1
Minnesota - 4 times favored by 10 or more; Lost 2 of them
New Mexico State - 2 times favored by 10 or more; Lost 1 and won 1
Ball State - 11 times favored by 10 or more; Lost 4 of them and won 7 of them
Iowa - 29 times favored by 10 or more; Lost 10 of them and won 19 of them
Click to expand...

That is some elite company there. You figure Iowa has probably had what, 30 guys drafted in this perod? How many NFL players would you guess all of those teams combined had? Maybe 3?
 
Makavelihawk said:
Yours is folly because Vegas has been right at a mid 90's % clip and you're arguing about their skills at picking winners. That's why it's folly.
Click to expand...

Given enough money, I could move the lines to whatever I want...and it would have absolutely no impact on how good or bad Iowa is.
 
KnightHawk9 said:
Given enough money, I could move the lines to whatever I want...and it would have absolutely no impact on how good or bad Iowa is.
Click to expand...

Looking back, I think the argument of this thread rests on using point spreads as a proxy for whether a team "should" win a game. My point was that I disagree, but I suppose it's reasonable enough.

You may proceed.
 
KnightHawk9 said:
Looking back, I think the argument of this thread rests on using point spreads as a proxy for whether a team "should" win a game. My point was that I disagree, but I suppose it's reasonable enough.

You may proceed.
Click to expand...

I look at it this way.....Over the last 7 years, double digit favorites win at a clip of 90% and, in most years, surpass that. And that's not using a sample size. That's using every single game played at the FBS level from 2006 thru 2012. It's as good a baromter as I've seen to predict the outcome. If someone told you that they could tell you anything with 90% certainty, you'd have no choice but to stop and listen.

Given this, it should stand to reason that Iowa should win games they are favored by double digits at AT LEAST a 90% clip. In fact, I would argue they should win them at a clip greater than 90% if they want to be better than "average".
 
SpiderRico said:
I look at it this way.....Over the last 7 years, double digit favorites win at a clip of 90% and, in most years, surpass that. And that's not using a sample size. That's using every single game played at the FBS level from 2006 thru 2012. It's as good a baromter as I've seen to predict the outcome. If someone told you that they could tell you anything with 90% certainty, you'd have no choice but to stop and listen.

Given this, it should stand to reason that Iowa should win games they are favored by double digits at AT LEAST a 90% clip. In fact, I would argue they should win them at a clip greater than 90% if they want to be better than "average".
Click to expand...

And to recap, our winning percentage is 70.5% in those games.
 
I'm sure Kirk would respond that he doesn't care about spreads or pay any attention to spreads. And, of course, that's football.
 
Iowa's bad record in these games is solely due to kirk's game plan to limit possessions. The fewer possessions in a game the easier it it to win as the underdog. The question is, is that a good game plan for Iowa?

In the games where there isn't a clear favorite, fewer possessions doesn't help or hurt us. I would say we play more teams that are considerably worse then us then we play teams considerably better so I think our plan to limit possessions hurts us more then helps. Not to mention its boring as he!!
 
PCHawk said:
Iowa's bad record in these games is solely due to kirk's game plan to limit possessions. The fewer possessions in a game the easier it it to win as the underdog. The question is, is that a good game plan for Iowa? In the games where there isn't a clear favorite, fewer possessions doesn't help or hurt us. I would say we play more teams that are considerably worse then us then we play teams considerably better so I think our plan to limit possessions hurts us more then helps. Not to mention its boring as he!!
Click to expand...
Good post, and this is really the key point when talking about Iowa football in the KF era. Lots of people erroneously believe that Iowa is routinely undermanned and playing with far inferior talent to their opponents, when in fact, unless we are lining up against Mich, OSU, Penn St, or Neb, we are almost universally the more talented team, or at least have "equal" talent against an MSU or Wisc. This whole idea of "poor us, we're just lil ol' Iowa" is a bunch of crap.
 
RenoHightower said:
Good post, and this is really the key point when talking about Iowa football in the KF era. Lots of people erroneously believe that Iowa is routinely undermanned and playing with far inferior talent to their opponents, when in fact, unless we are lining up against Mich, OSU, Penn St, or Neb, we are almost universally the more talented team, or at least have "equal" talent against an MSU or Wisc. This whole idea of "poor us, we're just lil ol' Iowa" is a bunch of crap.
Click to expand...

I would agree with this to a point. In the trenches, we have typically been able to match up with anyone. Just look at the number of offensive linement (including tight ends) and defensive linemen we've sent to the league. I don't care if you're talking about OSU, Michigan, Penn State, Nebby, etc. In the trenches, we've typically been able to hold our own against the best of the best.

However, where we have seemingly fallen short is in the skill position spots, on both offense and defense. On offense, save for Stanzi, we've never had a QB drafted. Jon has addressed the wide receiver spot. Save for Shonn Greene and Albert Young, the same for running backs. On defense, corner has almost always been a weak spot for us. Even against the "lesser" teams, we seem to almost always be at a disadvantage in the skill positions. Whether it's Northwestern, Indiana, Iowa State....you name the team and more often than not, their skill spots are better than ours.

That still doesn't account for the tremendous number of losses to double digit dogs over the last 7 years. But I think it's safe to say that over the last 7 years, our skill position talent has been lacking...to say the least.
 
Is any school even close to our 10 loses when favored by double-digits since 2006? What's the next highest? 5?
 
koralakers said:
Is any school even close to our 10 loses when favored by double-digits since 2006? What's the next highest? 5?
Click to expand...

Actually, the next highest total number of losses is 8. Southern Cal, believe it or not, has 8 straight up losses to double digit dogs since 2006. However, they've played a total of 55 games since 2006 as a double digit favorite, so their % is still north of 85%. After that, the next highest number is 6.....held by Miami-Fla, Florida State and Oklahoma.
 
trapperjon said:
I believe that the second seven years the reason for the double digit favored losses is a direct result of us being so easy to game plan for. KF has changed virtually nothing on offense until this year. We are so predictable that I can call the next play virtually 80% of the time. The first seven years the teams were still figuring things out. Well, they've all figured us out. Fitz has mastered it.
Click to expand...

Why do some posters automatically leap to it being the offense's fault? What has KF changed on defense in the last, let's say, 7 years?

EDIT: and Fitz runs a spread offense.
 
Last edited:
Evidently Iowa is overrated. 19-10 shows Vegas that Iowa shouldn't have been double digit favorites in some of those games. Should Vegas glean that the attitude towards Iowa, since Iowa can't deliver on the dd favorites, change from Iowa finds a way to win to finds a way to lose?

Finally, has the OP lost some money betting on Iowa??
 
Last edited:
KnightHawk9 said:
We're both just trying to come up with reasons why Vegas has done a poor job in predicting Iowa's results. I guess I don't see why your argument is holy ground and mine is "pure folly".
Click to expand...

Considering the fact that about 93% of the time (per another poster in this thread), the double-digit favorite wins, I'd say the problem lays somewhere within the program. I've got a hard time believing Vegas can get it right in double-digit spreads at such a high rate, but only fails miserably when it comes to Iowa.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top