EauClaireHawk
Member
October 20, 2007
The Cubs were still stinging from a first-round sweep in the playoffs.
The frontrunners in the 2008 presidential race were Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani.
And no one outside of Alaska had ever heard of Sarah Palin.
That was a long time ago.
It was also the last time Iowa was overmatched by an opponent. Purdue blasted the Hawks that day, 31-6.
In each of the 43 games since, Iowa has been in every one down the final two minutes. In fact, the only game in that stretch in which they didn't have a chance to win or tie on their final possession was the last game of the 2007 season when Western Michigan beat the Hawks 28-19.
That is quite a streak of stability.
Sure, there have been games in that stretch in which Iowa has blown out the opponent, but for the most part they play in close games --- which is incredibly exciting, but can also be frustrating depending on the opponent.
Many Hawkeye fans have wondered why Iowa is good enough to play with anybody, but cannot blow out the lesser teams on a more consistent basis (Indiana, Minnesota) or at the very least, consistently beat the teams they should (Northwestern).
We've all heard the following explanations:
1) Iowa's ability to be in every game is a direct result of their style of play. They don't beat themselves. They're conservative on offense and don't take chances on defense. That shortens the number of possessions and as a direct result, shortens the game.
2) There's not a great separation in talent between Iowa and the likes of Indiana, Minnesota, Northwestern... I've heard some fans say that we should be happy if we're at least beating these schools more than not.
There's definitely merit to #1. Fewer possessions puts a premium on play calling when you have the ball. Turnovers, three and outs are magnified... no doubt.
To me, there's no merit to #2. Iowa's program is lapping those three in talent.
Here is how they stack up against some of the top national programs in the draft since '03:
USC 67 players drafted
Ohio State 58
Oklahoma 47
Florida 46
Texas 43
Iowa 39
Alabama 37
Michigan 36
Penn St. 36
Wisconsin 35
Auburn 32
Indiana (11 picks), Minnesota (11) and Northwestern (10) are nowhere close.
And yet Iowa is 7-8 against those three schools since 2006.
It doesn't make sense.
But the stats don't lie: Because Iowa is in so many close games --- they're bound to lose some. You can't win them all.
So let's dig deeper on why the Hawks cannot separate themselves from more teams...
I went back and evaluated the numbers from the last 10 games vs. BCS opponents decided by three points or less (win or lose) compared to the last 10 games Iowa has won by at least 10 points vs. BCS schools.
I wanted to see if there were any trends we could point to.
There were some obvious things:
Turnovers --- In close games, Iowa was dead even with their opponents (16-16) while they had far more takeaways in contests they won somewhat handily (26-15).
Third down conversions --- This was a big sticking point with Iowa fans last year. The offense's inability to remain on the field in the fourth quarter. However, the stats don't tell us a lot. In the past 10 games decided by a FG or less, Iowa and their opponents have converted 44% of third downs. In games Iowa has won by 10 points or more, they've converted only 38%, but their defense has been far stingier (30%).
Penalties --- Nothing sticks out there. In both cases, Iowa has fewer penalties than their opponents.
Now to what I think may be the most revealing statistic:
3rd Quarter/4th Quarter points
Despite what some may think, there's been little difference in Iowa's performance in the 4th quarter of close games vs. those they won by 10 or more. (Iowa has outscored their opponents, 96-62 in the past 10 games decided by a FG or less --- win or lose -- while the differential is 88-48 in their favor in games they won by 10 or more.)
The 3rd quarter is a different story.
In the past 10 games decided by a FG or less, Iowa has been outscored 65-36 in the 3rd. In the past 10 games the Hawks have won by 10 points or more, they have outscored their opponents 44-3 in the 3rd.
Three points allowed in one quarter over a stretch of 10 games??? Wow!!
I felt it was worth digging deeper on that statistic.
If you go back 20 games, they've been outscored 109-63 in the 3rd quarter of close games while they've pounded their opponents to the tune of 138-29 in contests they've won by at least 10.
Why the disparity?
As strange as it may sound, it could be as simple as the coin toss.
Iowa's strength in this most recent run of success has been its defense. How many times has Iowa been near the top in scoring defense in recent years? Since Iowa plays a style that limits the number of possessions in a game, it only makes sense that you would want your best unit on the field to start the second half to set the tone and possibly gain an edge in field position.
And it has worked.
Big time.
As I mentioned earlier, Iowa has outscored its opponents 44-3 in the 3rd quarter in a recent stretch of games they've won somewhat handily. In those 10 games, the only time they started the second half on offense --- they threw a pick.
Well, you might say... Iowa almost ALWAYS starts the second half on defense because Coach Ferentz is unlike most other college football coaches who defer if they win the coin toss.
Not necessarily.
In the past 10 games decided by a FG or less, Iowa has started the second half on offense four times. In those four games, they punted twice, missed a FG and threw an INT. And they lost three of those four. That is not a strength of this team.
In conclusion, while it's safe to say there are multiple things that go into deciding the outcome of a football game (with turnovers at or near the top) --- I cannot help but think our 3rd quarter performance is becoming a bigger factor at Iowa than it is at other schools based on our style of play. Iowa separates itself from the pack based on its performance coming out after halftime.
Because of that, I'll hustle back to the stands or the recliner after halftime a little faster this season. I won't want to miss a thing.
Perhaps I'll even raise three fingers to signify the start of the most important quarter of the game.
OK... I won't go that far, but you get the point.
The Cubs were still stinging from a first-round sweep in the playoffs.
The frontrunners in the 2008 presidential race were Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani.
And no one outside of Alaska had ever heard of Sarah Palin.
That was a long time ago.
It was also the last time Iowa was overmatched by an opponent. Purdue blasted the Hawks that day, 31-6.
In each of the 43 games since, Iowa has been in every one down the final two minutes. In fact, the only game in that stretch in which they didn't have a chance to win or tie on their final possession was the last game of the 2007 season when Western Michigan beat the Hawks 28-19.
That is quite a streak of stability.
Sure, there have been games in that stretch in which Iowa has blown out the opponent, but for the most part they play in close games --- which is incredibly exciting, but can also be frustrating depending on the opponent.
Many Hawkeye fans have wondered why Iowa is good enough to play with anybody, but cannot blow out the lesser teams on a more consistent basis (Indiana, Minnesota) or at the very least, consistently beat the teams they should (Northwestern).
We've all heard the following explanations:
1) Iowa's ability to be in every game is a direct result of their style of play. They don't beat themselves. They're conservative on offense and don't take chances on defense. That shortens the number of possessions and as a direct result, shortens the game.
2) There's not a great separation in talent between Iowa and the likes of Indiana, Minnesota, Northwestern... I've heard some fans say that we should be happy if we're at least beating these schools more than not.
There's definitely merit to #1. Fewer possessions puts a premium on play calling when you have the ball. Turnovers, three and outs are magnified... no doubt.
To me, there's no merit to #2. Iowa's program is lapping those three in talent.
Here is how they stack up against some of the top national programs in the draft since '03:
USC 67 players drafted
Ohio State 58
Oklahoma 47
Florida 46
Texas 43
Iowa 39
Alabama 37
Michigan 36
Penn St. 36
Wisconsin 35
Auburn 32
Indiana (11 picks), Minnesota (11) and Northwestern (10) are nowhere close.
And yet Iowa is 7-8 against those three schools since 2006.
It doesn't make sense.
But the stats don't lie: Because Iowa is in so many close games --- they're bound to lose some. You can't win them all.
So let's dig deeper on why the Hawks cannot separate themselves from more teams...
I went back and evaluated the numbers from the last 10 games vs. BCS opponents decided by three points or less (win or lose) compared to the last 10 games Iowa has won by at least 10 points vs. BCS schools.
I wanted to see if there were any trends we could point to.
There were some obvious things:
Turnovers --- In close games, Iowa was dead even with their opponents (16-16) while they had far more takeaways in contests they won somewhat handily (26-15).
Third down conversions --- This was a big sticking point with Iowa fans last year. The offense's inability to remain on the field in the fourth quarter. However, the stats don't tell us a lot. In the past 10 games decided by a FG or less, Iowa and their opponents have converted 44% of third downs. In games Iowa has won by 10 points or more, they've converted only 38%, but their defense has been far stingier (30%).
Penalties --- Nothing sticks out there. In both cases, Iowa has fewer penalties than their opponents.
Now to what I think may be the most revealing statistic:
3rd Quarter/4th Quarter points
Despite what some may think, there's been little difference in Iowa's performance in the 4th quarter of close games vs. those they won by 10 or more. (Iowa has outscored their opponents, 96-62 in the past 10 games decided by a FG or less --- win or lose -- while the differential is 88-48 in their favor in games they won by 10 or more.)
The 3rd quarter is a different story.
In the past 10 games decided by a FG or less, Iowa has been outscored 65-36 in the 3rd. In the past 10 games the Hawks have won by 10 points or more, they have outscored their opponents 44-3 in the 3rd.
Three points allowed in one quarter over a stretch of 10 games??? Wow!!
I felt it was worth digging deeper on that statistic.
If you go back 20 games, they've been outscored 109-63 in the 3rd quarter of close games while they've pounded their opponents to the tune of 138-29 in contests they've won by at least 10.
Why the disparity?
As strange as it may sound, it could be as simple as the coin toss.
Iowa's strength in this most recent run of success has been its defense. How many times has Iowa been near the top in scoring defense in recent years? Since Iowa plays a style that limits the number of possessions in a game, it only makes sense that you would want your best unit on the field to start the second half to set the tone and possibly gain an edge in field position.
And it has worked.
Big time.
As I mentioned earlier, Iowa has outscored its opponents 44-3 in the 3rd quarter in a recent stretch of games they've won somewhat handily. In those 10 games, the only time they started the second half on offense --- they threw a pick.
Well, you might say... Iowa almost ALWAYS starts the second half on defense because Coach Ferentz is unlike most other college football coaches who defer if they win the coin toss.
Not necessarily.
In the past 10 games decided by a FG or less, Iowa has started the second half on offense four times. In those four games, they punted twice, missed a FG and threw an INT. And they lost three of those four. That is not a strength of this team.
In conclusion, while it's safe to say there are multiple things that go into deciding the outcome of a football game (with turnovers at or near the top) --- I cannot help but think our 3rd quarter performance is becoming a bigger factor at Iowa than it is at other schools based on our style of play. Iowa separates itself from the pack based on its performance coming out after halftime.
Because of that, I'll hustle back to the stands or the recliner after halftime a little faster this season. I won't want to miss a thing.
Perhaps I'll even raise three fingers to signify the start of the most important quarter of the game.
OK... I won't go that far, but you get the point.
