Why does Iowa play in so many close games?

[SayHawkKid]

Thanks for one of the better posts I have ever read on a message board.

Any chance you could look into why Iowa lost so many close games in 2010? And how that may affect the next 3 years? And why KF era first year starting QB's seem to have great W/L records in their first year as a starter but then have progressively less success in following years?

That should keep you busy for a while. I will have more later.

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

Thanks for one of the better posts I have ever read on a message board.

Any chance you could look into why Iowa lost so many close games in 2010? And how that may affect the next 3 years? And why KF era first year starting QB's seem to have great W/L records in their first year as a starter but then have progressively less success in following years?

That should keep you busy for a while. I will have more later.

I think that the answer to your question is actually a rather easy one. Here are some points that hopefully appropriately address the solution ...

- Iowa's multi-year starting QBs actually had PROGRESSIVELY BETTER production through their careers. On the surface, Drew Tate's SR campaign serves as a partial counterexample, however, when you account for his many injuries that year and the youth surrounding him at WR ... that explains A LOT when it comes to the turnovers. As for Stanzi, his production/performance on the field was definite progression.

The above point then undermines the superficial possibility that maybe the "declines" we observed were due to QB performance. That was not really the case. So what likely WERE the main reasons for the declines?

1. Having a returning QB ups external EXPECTATION!
2. Adversity, such as injuries and/or inexperience on the depth chart, lead to occasional defeats
3. Poor and/or insufficient leadership undermines the ability to handle adversity and the squad is less likely to pull themselves out of tough situations (i.e. less likely to win close games AND less likely to bounce back well from defeat)
4. Unmet expectations undermines the motivation/morale of a team and losses compile to the point where the squad loses to teams they have no business losing to

I think that the above scenario is PRECISELY what we observed in '06 and '10. The '05 season was a bit different insofar that the D had too much inexperience AND the O didn't have enough depth at WR.

What I'd love to see is the Hawks having BOTH a really talented QB and a really vocal leader who is an "enforcer" like Bob Sanders or Pat Angerer.

 

[FML]

we play close games because we have a very conservative coaching staff. Lets face it, if Iowa has the ball and the lead, you know KF can't wait to punt it

 

[trj]

Very good thoughts on Wisconsin. I follow the Badgers pretty closely since I live in Wisconsin. (For what it's worth) I posted these thoughts on HN earlier this summer.

Preseason rankings could spell trouble for Wisconsin
Count me in as one of those who was very disappointed to see Iowa and Wisconsin split up when the Big 10 announced its divisional format.

As a Hawk fan living in the Badger state, I have enjoyed this rivalry a great deal and followed Wisconsin football closely. It's too bad the two teams won't play again until 2013. The programs are so close and mirror each other in many ways... but there's one area, in particular, in which the two schools have differed in recent years and that should have Wisconsin fans nervous for the upcoming campaign.

Here's a deeper look at the rivalry.

Since 2002, Iowa is 78-36 overall with a 5-3 record in bowl games and two BCS appearances.

Since 2002, Wisconsin is 83-34 overall with a 4-5 record in bowl games and one BCS appearance.

Over the course of those 9 seasons, Iowa is 6-3 head-to-head with an impressive 3-1 record at Camp Randall. It's a safe bet that no one else has fared better on Wisconsin's home field in that time. (Ohio State is 2-2.) The average score in those 9 games is 24-15 Iowa.

Over the past 9 years, Iowa has had 39 draft picks; Wisconsin has had 35. Iowa has had 5 1st round picks in that time (two OL, two defensive players and one skill position); Wisconsin has had 4 1st round picks (two OL, one on defense and one skill position.)

The programs are close and have experienced a lot of success since 2002. However, it's been rare to see the analysts predict that both will be very good in the same year --- and that has led to an interesting statistic.

Let me explain.

Since 2002, Iowa and Wisconsin have BOTH been ranked in the AP Preseason Top 25 twice. (2004 & 2010)

In four of the past nine seasons, Iowa has been unranked going into the year with Wisconsin in the AP Preseason Top 25. (2002, 2003, 2007, 2008) In three of those four campaigns, (2002, 2003, 2008) Iowa has finished the year in the AP Top 25 with Wisconsin nowhere to be found.

Conversely, Iowa has started ranked/Wisconsin unranked in three years since 2002. In two of those three, Iowa has finished unranked while Wisconsin made the final AP Top 25.

Since the 2011 Preseason AP poll won't be out for several weeks, we don't know for sure where the teams will fall, but many publications are out with their predictions and they have Iowa off the radar and Wisconsin anywhere from 10th to 23rd. If that rings true and we see the Badgers in the mix and Iowa out of the Preseason AP poll... I sure hope the aforementioned trend continues to play itself out for at least one more season.

For whatever reason, both schools seem to excel when expectations are lower and a lot of experts are high on the Badgers this year. Many think --- with Ohio State's troubles and Russell Wilson moving to Madison --- that Wisconsin is in the driver's seat in the Big 10.

I disagree based on what history shows.

They struggle when expectations are greatest.

I wouldn't be surprised if Wisconsin's season mirrors Iowa from a year ago with an early-season loss to a Pac 10 team (Oregon State) and some close, bitter losses in conference play to teams they should beat (Nebraska at home and either Illinois or Minnesota on the road.) They also have tough games on the road at Michigan State and Ohio State in successive weeks.

Don't be surprised if they finish 8-5 and out of the rankings at the end of the year.

If that happens, and Iowa ends up surprising the experts... we can revisit this trend once again next summer.

Maybe its the Steve/Jon basketball theory: When you have two like programs in the same conference with the similar styles it is difficult for both to be highly successful at the same time. Their reasoning: One will inevitablely(sp?) lose the head to head recruiting battles because they are both going after the same type of player. B)It takes away from the uniqueness in terms of style of play that other teams have to prepare for.

I do not necessarily subscribe to this theory, but it is a thought.

 

[RocknRollface]

A few quick hitters:

1. Good post ... an enjoyable read. Thanks!

2. The argument contending that the talent-level at Iowa is better due to placement in the NFL ... that is a weak argument. 2 of the 3 schools mentioned are more spread oriented and thus produce guys who fit those schemes. Pro-scouts realize that and place more emphasis on checking out schools that produce talent that can transition more easily over to NFL systems. Consequently, teams like Indiana and Northwestern have traditionally been hurt when it comes to NFL consideration because of their schemes. As for Minnesota, they've been hit by coaching continuity issues ... and that has counted quite a bit against them. Furthermore, under Mason they were a bit heavy on cut-blocking ... and that automatically placed their linemen a bit at a disadvantage when it came to NFL placement. Furthermore, Brewster's guys at Minny were hurt because he never had a clear vision of what he wanted his guys to do on O.

3. The third quarter is obviously big. However, a bigger reason why Iowa has struggled is because Iowa's O has had troubles when it has come to being BALANCED on O ... and, in large part more recently, that has been due to inexperience and injuries at RB. The third quarter is HUGE for a team that likes to run the ball because it's the quarter where you want to really start grounding your opposition into the ground ... that way you can then really control things in the 4th. If you fail to have success running the ball in the 3rd ... then the opposing D will be more fresh in the 4th. Furthermore, if you fail to have success running the ball in the 3rd ... then that gives your opponent more opportunities to score in the 2nd half. Thus, given Iowa's style of play ... I'd say that the observation concerning the 3rd quarter is pretty closely related to the success of the O on the ground.

IMO you take on #2. is silly. Iowa clearly has more talent. Playing in a pro system vs a spread is an insignificant factor comparing overall teams, its only relevant to the QB and to a much lesser extent offensive line. Teams like Oklahoma and Florida ect put plenty of Oline man in the NFL as well as plenty of skill position players let alone defense. They play spreads.

Teams like NW and Indiana simply don't have the talent often.

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

IMO you take on #2. is silly. Iowa clearly has more talent. Playing in a pro system vs a spread is an insignificant factor comparing overall teams, its only relevant to the QB and to a much lesser extent offensive line. Teams like Oklahoma and Florida ect put plenty of Oline man in the NFL as well as plenty of skill position players let alone defense. They play spreads.

Teams like NW and Indiana simply don't have the talent often.

Florida and Oklahoma are poor examples because both of their implementations of the spread still implemented plenty of balance ... thereby creating blockers who were more "balanced."

You have to dig deeper than just the scheme itself ... but rather the philosophy of WHY coaches do what they do. Many coaches place more emphasis on scheme and the use of "gimmicks" ... and they do so in order to try to gain an advantage. However, in so doing, they often place LESS emphasis than they should on FUNDAMENTALS. In many respects, coaches often unknowingly implement schemes simply because they're not good at coaching some of the fundamentals ... and thus, their choice of scheme compensates for their own coaching deficiencies.

This goes back to why Iowa has so many guys in the NFL. The Iowa coaches are REALLY GOOD teachers. They emphasize fundamentals and they teach a brand of football that translates really well to the NFL. Some of the other teams have had less luck placing guys in the pros NOT because of a lack of talent as much as the fact that players simply aren't as well-rounded or as sound fundamentally.

I think that is part of the reason why Indiana was better under Hoepner and why Northwestern has been better under Fitz. Hoepner was an excellent coach who was more than just a "scheme"-guy. Similarly, Fitz was pretty strongly influenced by Barnett and Okruch (if memory serves) ... and both of those guys were pretty good at emphasizing fundamentals.

 

[olddude]

Homer, you were doing really well until you said, "NOT because of a lack of talent ".
That is exactly why the spread or option was even thought of. If you are a HC and you know your job depends on winning games, but you feel you do not have talent thruout the whole O to do so, you run some sort of spread to try and help.
Some teams never went full blown spread and some are slowly trying to back out of it by becoming more balanced again.

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

Homer, you were doing really well until you said, "NOT because of a lack of talent ".
That is exactly why the spread or option was even thought of. If you are a HC and you know your job depends on winning games, but you feel you do not have talent thruout the whole O to do so, you run some sort of spread to try and help.
Some teams never went full blown spread and some are slowly trying to back out of it by becoming more balanced again.

I would say that it's NOT NECESSARILY due to lack of talent.

Yes, I agree that the reason for the development of some of those schemes was to compensate for personnel deficiences. That was HISTORICALLY one of the reasons.

However, in this day and age of college football ... parity is much more the norm. The PRIMARY talent difference between squads these days tends to be more closely related to the talent of the DEPTH.

Thus, when you see the likes of Indiana, Northwestern, and Minnesota running the schemes that they do ... they still typically have very good starters. For instance, Persa is simply insane-good. However, the problem is when injuries strike those teams ... a few years back injuries struck Northwestern's secondary ... and their D was simply atrocious during that time.

My bigger point for saying that it's NOT due to lack of talent is because I think that if Chris Doyle were cloned .... then we'd see more teams being able to DEVELOP better talent on their rosters. Thus, the INHERENT talent in the players is already there at most programs ... however, the coaches and strength-and-conditioning folks ARE NOT.

If you look over the past 3 decades ... Indiana, Northwestern, and Minnesota have been hurting at the coaching spots more than many of the other programs in the Big 10 .... and their collective records have reflected that.

 

[olddude]

I would say that it's NOT NECESSARILY due to lack of talent.

Yes, I agree that the reason for the development of some of those schemes was to compensate for personnel deficiences. That was HISTORICALLY one of the reasons.

However, in this day and age of college football ... parity is much more the norm. The PRIMARY talent difference between squads these days tends to be more closely related to the talent of the DEPTH.

Thus, when you see the likes of Indiana, Northwestern, and Minnesota running the schemes that they do ... they still typically have very good starters. For instance, Persa is simply insane-good. However, the problem is when injuries strike those teams ... a few years back injuries struck Northwestern's secondary ... and their D was simply atrocious during that time.

My bigger point for saying that it's NOT due to lack of talent is because I think that if Chris Doyle were cloned .... then we'd see more teams being able to DEVELOP better talent on their rosters. Thus, the INHERENT talent in the players is already there at most programs ... however, the coaches and strength-and-conditioning folks ARE NOT.

If you look over the past 3 decades ... Indiana, Northwestern, and Minnesota have been hurting at the coaching spots more than many of the other programs in the Big 10 .... and their collective records have reflected that.

Running the spread absolutly affects talent. Not only what talent you need to try and run it, but what talent you dont. In the 40 time thread, we are talking about speed. How does that relate? The spread was a good idea for a lesser talented O to run against a bigger, more talented D. But as Troy Aikman says the gap has closed up. D's are much faster than they used to be, and that "edge" you used to get running the spread is all but gone.
Like I said you can mix in some of those plays (like OK) and do well. But the main reason to run it is for an inferior team to have a shot at BCS. Like you said, this carries alot of risk due to injuries that can will derail a season. More importantly I think it shows a lack of caring for the kids. Some QB has his heart set on the pros and ends up running the ball and takes enough hard hits in his career, that by the time he is ready, his arm (shoulder) and legs are half shot. Or a LB who is undersized because he has to cover very fast Wr's all the time. Yes he might go pro to a S or something, but you get the idea.

 

[ShockRerun]

Because Texas, Oregon, auburn and Florida, don't have talent?

 

[olddude]

Because Texas, Oregon, auburn and Florida, don't have talent?

TX,FL, Mich, Nebby, are reaping the rewards for the systems they ran. Oregon is up now but will find out real fast what that system does to a program. How many sec teams get NC's? How many repeat? How many lose 5-6 games within a year or two of those NC's?
Thats the worst part about the whole thing, TX, FL, Mich, Nebby, none of them have the excuse Oregon does. All of those others could have recruited and trained for whatever system they wanted, they chose the spread. So we see how "the spread" time after time takes a national brand team and turns it into a meh so so team. It was basiclly taking a whole O and turning it into a "fake punt play".

 

[ShockRerun]

TX,FL, Mich, Nebby, are reaping the rewards for the systems they ran. Oregon is up now but will find out real fast what that system does to a program. How many sec teams get NC's? How many repeat? How many lose 5-6 games within a year or two of those NC's?
Thats the worst part about the whole thing, TX, FL, Mich, Nebby, none of them have the excuse Oregon does. All of those others could have recruited and trained for whatever system they wanted, they chose the spread. So we see how "the spread" time after time takes a national brand team and turns it into a meh so so team. It was basiclly taking a whole O and turning it into a "fake punt play".

7 NC's between them in those systems. Worth it for most people/programs

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

7 NC's between them in those systems. Worth it for most people/programs

And only Texas and Florida won them while running the spread .... and one of Florida's NCs was when they used a more traditional attack with Leak at the helm. Besides, one of the bigger drivers for both Florida and Texas those years is that they had great Ds (definitely NFL friendly D-schemes).

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

I frankly don't have the beef with the "spread" that olddude appears to have ... however, I do agree with him that the spread tends to NOT help their players when it comes to preparation for play in the NFL.

 

[ShockRerun]

I frankly don't have the beef with the "spread" that olddude appears to have ... however, I do agree with him that the spread tends to NOT help their players when it comes to preparation for play in the NFL.

I agree, but ncaa is not the nfl so it is a completely valid system that produces results.

 

[olddude]

7 NC's between them in those systems. Worth it for most people/programs

Yes it is, if you are a coach trying to ride that for job security, because you cant do well every year, or to get national attention, to up your recruiting ability. Then when you do play a "bad D" your numbers sky rocket and you can use those to "verify" your sucess, even thou you keep losing 4,5 or more games a year.

I would rather go to more BCS bowls in a decade, then lay claim to 1 NC. I am not a Nebby fan running around going but we have _ NC's, I am an Iowa fan running around saying we can play with just about anyone almost any given year. I think by the way we support what KF and company do, most Iowa fans feel this way. By the time you try it (the spread), mabey even get a NC and then fix what has been done takes a very long time. Ask Mich or Nebby. It was almost like the plague in football, I dont know how many teams it took down, but it is alot. I am glad we didnt "catch" it

 

[whammer33024]

remember when dennis dixon ran the spread for oregon. man that team was scary. really is too bad he got hurt and derailed any chances they had at a national title

 

[ShockRerun]

Yes it is, if you are a coach trying to ride that for job security, because you cant do well every year, or to get national attention, to up your recruiting ability. Then when you do play a "bad D" your numbers sky rocket and you can use those to "verify" your sucess, even thou you keep losing 4,5 or more games a year.

I would rather go to more BCS bowls in a decade, then lay claim to 1 NC. I am not a Nebby fan running around going but we have _ NC's, I am an Iowa fan running around saying we can play with just about anyone almost any given year. I think by the way we support what KF and company do, most Iowa fans feel this way. By the time you try it (the spread), mabey even get a NC and then fix what has been done takes a very long time. Ask Mich or Nebby. It was almost like the plague in football, I dont know how many teams it took down, but it is alot. I am glad we didnt "catch" it

isnt the point to be the be the best? Is that not what everyone strides for? The idea that you would rather be midrange-good team all the time than be the best even once is crazy. wt Also teams like nebraska, florida, michigan, and texas, may have dropped form championship levels for a while they never drop very far for very long. Iowa has had down years aswell in the perfect system.
Plus teams like michigans and nebraskas falls seem to stem more form bad coaching hires than systems.

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

Yes it is, if you are a coach trying to ride that for job security, because you cant do well every year, or to get national attention, to up your recruiting ability. Then when you do play a "bad D" your numbers sky rocket and you can use those to "verify" your sucess, even thou you keep losing 4,5 or more games a year.

I would rather go to more BCS bowls in a decade, then lay claim to 1 NC. I am not a Nebby fan running around going but we have _ NC's, I am an Iowa fan running around saying we can play with just about anyone almost any given year. I think by the way we support what KF and company do, most Iowa fans feel this way. By the time you try it (the spread), mabey even get a NC and then fix what has been done takes a very long time. Ask Mich or Nebby. It was almost like the plague in football, I dont know how many teams it took down, but it is alot. I am glad we didnt "catch" it

Nebraska actually didn't go to the "spread" under Cally ... in fact, they opted to a very NFL-friendly pro-set west-coast style O. The problem was that that was a huge deviation from the option-style hard-core running attack (out of the I-formation, no less) that they implemented under Osborn and Solich. It was considered pretty controversial, at the time, for them to actually transition to a more pass-happy O.

The Huskers got knocked down a peg or two NOT only because of the radical paridigm shift on O ... but also because of 3 other significant factors. One thing was that they just weren't as strong on D ... and that was arguably one of the biggest problems they had ... that is single-handedly the biggest reason why Osborn tapped a more D-mined coach like Pelini. Another factor was that Cally was an idiot and killed the very strong and successful walk-on program that the Huskers had. Lastly, Cally and the AD at the time were idiots and alienated the Husker family by making the program less accessible to Husker greats and alums.

Anyhow, the thing that I really love about the Hawkeye program is simply how it is run. I love the emphasis on development and teaching. I love the emphasis on a balanced O and a strong D. I love the emphasis on fundamentals. All those are factors that have helped the program to be so stable under Ferentz. In my mind, the program is being run the "right way" .... and I really wouldn't want it any other way.

 

[hawkfan2679]

I remember having a discussion about the spread with you a couple weeks back, where we were on two complete opposite sides of the spectrum. I certainly respect that you have an opinion that is diametrically opposite of mine...but the below paragraph is laughable.

More importantly I think it shows a lack of caring for the kids. Some QB has his heart set on the pros and ends up running the ball and takes enough hard hits in his career, that by the time he is ready, his arm (shoulder) and legs are half shot. Or a LB who is undersized because he has to cover very fast Wr's all the time. Yes he might go pro to a S or something, but you get the idea.

Just to make sure I'm understanding this correctly, running a spread offense demonstrates a lack of caring for the kids that play for you?

A coach is paid a boatload of money to win football games...his job is not to get players ready for the NFL. He recruits players that fit his system...these kids aren't assigned to the coaches. If he has a kid who is NFL material on his team, it's because that kid decided to come to that school, knowing full well what that entailed.