Unbelievable statistic regarding our performance as double digit favorites

[Makavelihawk]

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.

That's because you're not a blathering moron.

 

[SpiderRico]

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, should change from Iowa finds a way to win to finds a way to lose?

Finally, has the OP lost some money betting on Iowa??

Believe it or not, I've never bet on a football game (or any other game) in my life.

Like I said earlier, I'm simply a stat/number geek. And as such, I was looking for data that would help put the last 7 or so years into a comparative light. We all know that Ferentz has had trouble since 2006 with beating teams that everyone and their dog knows we should beat. The questions was, "What is the best way to show that?". After thinking about it, it made sense to me to use point spreads as they SHOULD be an indicator of the favorite....especially if you're talking about a spread as large as 10 points or greater. I honestly didn't know what the data would show, which is why, once I found it, I titled the thread "unbelievable" because I couldn't believe how far off the norm our results were from virtually every other team in the country. I mean, we're talking something like 3 standard deviations from the norm. Honestly, that's incredible. And it has nothing to do with Vegas undervaluing us. It's one thing to lose straight up to a team that is, say, a 3 point underdog. It's something entirely different to lose to one, straight up, that's a 19.5pt underdog like Indiana was in 2006, or a 17.5pt underdog like ISU was in 2007 or a 15.5pt underdog like Minnesota was in 2010.

 

[tm3308]

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.

Maybe because the defense has always been the backbone of Iowa football under Ferentz? The offense consistently is average at best. The math is pretty simple here.

 

[HomerChampless]

I would agree with this to a point. In the trenches, we have typically been able to match up with anyone....

However, where we have seemingly fallen short is in the skill position spots, on both offense and defense...

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.

Yeah, I'm probably guilty of hijacking here, as well. Anyway, IMO, Iowa has a real problem recruiting skill postion players because Iowa doesn't use the skills of these players. DBs, for example, become part of a 'prevent pass defense' that's played the entire game.

 

[SpiderRico]

Maybe because the defense has always been the backbone of Iowa football under Ferentz? The offense consistently is average at best. The math is pretty simple here.

I agree to a certain extent....but also disagree with it.

Sure, Iowa has, for the most part, done a fantastic job keeping the opposition out of the endzone. And you always give yourself a chance if you can keep the opponent from scoring or holding them to a field goal instead of a touchdown. But what's the cost? The cost has been offensive production. Our defense has typically NOT done a good job keeping the opposition from 3 and outs or long drives. The end result is 2 things. First, a lack of rhythm. Offenses HAVE to have rhythm to be successful and it's difficult to do that when your defense allows 4, 5, 6, etc minute drives....regardless if they end up in a touchdown. Second, it limits possessions. Statistics prove out that the more possessions a team can have, the more points they typically score. When looking at why KF offenses have been near the 40's and 50's in scoring offense over the years, I hold the defense and it's inability to get off the field just as accountable as I do the offense for not scoring. The final nail in that coffin is our offensive philosophy. It's one thing if we were a quick strike offense and could put together scoring drives in 2 minutes or less, but we typically can't. So in order for us to have an offense that scores more points, one of two things has to give. Either, one, we change our defensive philosophy to put more pressure on the opposing offense and give ourselves a chance to get off the field faster or, two, change our offensive philosophy from one of "run first" to one of "pass first" in order to try to score more quickly.

 

[HomerChampless]

Maybe because the defense has always been the backbone of Iowa football under Ferentz? The offense consistently is average at best. The math is pretty simple here.

Look, the last time Iowa's defense was 'sort of' the backbone of the team was in 2010 - 2 seasons ago.
In 2010, Iowa's offense was asked to win the game against Wisky with less than 2 minutes left. Iowa's offense was asked to win the game against Arizona with little time on the clock. Iowa's offense was asked to win the game at Michigan State with almost no time left on the clock the previous season.

Continue living in the past.. Shouldn't you be putting on Iowa's highlights for the 2010 season, again?

Done hijacking.

 

[tm3308]

Look, the last time Iowa's defense was 'sort of' the backbone of the team was in 2010 - 2 seasons ago.
In 2010, Iowa's offense was asked to win the game against Wisky with less than 2 minutes left. Iowa's offense was asked to win the game against Arizona with little time on the clock. Iowa's offense was asked to win the game at Michigan State with almost no time left on the clock the previous season.

Continue living in the past.. Shouldn't you be putting on Iowa's highlights for the 2010 season, again?

Done hijacking.

That has little to do with the premise of this thread, since Iowa didn't play many games in the last two years in which they were double-digit favorites. The majority of those were played when the defense WAS the strength of the team.

 

[PCHawk]

I agree to a certain extent....but also disagree with it.

Sure, Iowa has, for the most part, done a fantastic job keepinug the opposition out of the endzone. And you always give yourself a chance if you can keep the opponent from scoring or holding them to a field goal instead of a touchdown. But what's the cost? The cost has been offensive production. Our defense has typically NOT done a good job keeping the opposition from 3 and outs or long drives. The end result is 2 things. First, a lack of rhythm. Offenses HAVE to have rhythm to be successful and it's difficult to do that when your defense allows 4, 5, 6, etc minute drives....regardless if they end up in a touchdown. Second, it limits possessions. Statistics prove out that the more possessions a team can have, the more points they typically score. When looking at why KF offenses have been near the 40's and 50's in scoring offense over the years, I hold the defense and it's inability to get off the field just as accountable as I do the offense for not scoring. The final nail in that coffin is our offensive philosophy. It's one thing if we were a quick strike offense and could put together scoring drives in 2 minutes or less, but we typically can't. So in order for us to have an offense that scores more points, one of two things has to give. Either, one, we change our defensive philosophy to put more pressure on the opposing offense and give ourselves a chance to get off the field faster or, two, change our offensive philosophy from one of "run first" to one of "pass first" in order to try to score more quickly.

This is so simple I'm surprised there are people that don't get it. Is there any way you could dig up some stats on how our offense and defense do per possession? I think our defense would be slightly better but I bet it would be close.

 

[PCHawk]

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.

I don't think our skill players are worse then lesser teams. I just think we are worse at utilizing them then lesser teams. They are definitely worse then the good teams tho. Also we are good at getting good running backs, we have just been bad at keeping them.

 

[HawkAttack]

We just need to execute better as double digit favorites.

 

[HawkPrdatr40]

LOL fire KF because he ain't covering enough spreads.... whats next? Fire coaches because they lie about player abilities in spring practice?

So that is what you took away from this thread.. lol.. okay.. Reading class must have been a real struggle for you growing up..

 

[koralakers]

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.

Thanks Spider for pulling that out.

 

[MrTHawk]

I was looking up statistics regarding how we have performed under KF when we were double digit favorites. The numbers just blow my mind....

From 1999-2005 (first 7 years), we played a total of 20 games in which we were a double digit favorite. They are as follows

1999: Northern Illinois
2000: No games as double digit favorites
2001: Kent State, Miami OH, Minnesota, Penn State
2002: @Indiana, @Minnesota, Akron, Northwestern, Utah State
2003: Buffalo, Illinois, Penn State
2004: @Illinois, Iowa State, Kent State
2005: Ball State, Illinois, Indiana, Northern Iowa (there was no line here, but we would conceivable be double digit favorites)

So in those first 7 years, we played 20 games in which we were favored by double digits. In those 20 games, we were a perfect 20-0 straight up. In fact, we covered the double digit spreads in every single game except for 3....Penn State in 2001 (line was 10.5 and we won by 6), @Illinois in 2003 (line was 13 and we won by 10), and Iowa State at home in 2004 (line was 25 and we won by 7). 17-3 against double digit spreads is great.

However, from 2006-2012 (the 2nd 7 years), the story is VASTLY different. We played a total of 34 games in which we were double digit favorites. They are as follows:

2006: @Syracuse, @Illinois, @Indiana, Iowa State, Montana, Northern Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue
2007: Nothern Illinois (neutral), @Iowa State, Indiana, Minnesota, Syracuse, Western Michigan
2008: Florida Int'l, Iowa State, Maine, Purdue
2009: Arkansas State, Indiana, Minnesota, Northern Iowa, Northwestern
2010: @Indiana, @Northwestern, @Minnesota, Ball State, Eastern Illinois, Iowa State
2011: @Minnesota, Indiana, Tennessee Tech, Louisiana Monroe
2012: Central Michigan

So the second 7 years saw us as double digit favorites 34 times. In those 34 games, we were a combined 24-10. That's horrendous. Ten losses against teams you were favored by more than 10 points against is unfathomable and SHOULD be a fireable offense. But it gets even worse. We were unable to cover the spread in an additional 12 games. So overall, we are 12-22 against the spread as double digit favorites in the last 7 years. We went from covering the spread as double digit favorites at an 85% clip to covering at a 35% clip, which also includes 10 losses straight up. And I don't want to hear the talent excuse because we had enough talent to be ranked in the Top 10 to start the 2006 season, to be ranked in the top 20 to end the 2008 season, to be ranked in the top 10 to end the 2009 season and to be ranked in the Top 10 to start the 2010 season.

In the last 7 years, our "peers" in the conference (at least they used to be) which include Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Nebraska and Penn State don't have 10 losses COMBINED as double digit favorites.

Had we won those games over the years, our regular season records would have been as follows:

2006 - 8-4
2007 - 9-3
2008 - 8-4
2009 - 11-1
2010 - 10-2
2011 - 8-4
2012 - 5-7

And 2012 probably wouldn't have happened that way because a run like the above from 2006 thru 2011 would have most likely netted us better recruits so that a losing record doesn't happen.

This isn't asking Kirk to perform miracles and upset teams on a regular basis that he has no business upsetting. It's about simply winning the games that everyone expect us to win by at least 10 points.

Wait, let me guess......that's football?