Can Iowa go 12-0 again?
- Thread starter Fools_Rush_In
- Start date
first big game is wisconsin, i think they can make it there unscathed, beat Sconnie and each game becomes bigger and bigger just like last season.
If they have issues getting past ISU and NDSU....there is no way they go through the b1g undefeated.
As for the edge this year.....getting laughed out of Pasadena should be plenty motivating for them.
You might want to go back and watch the ISU game from last year when we were down 17-3. It was hardly a walk-in-the-park and we have lost the previous 2 meetings at home. A trend I hope to see stopped.
NDSU will be no slouch and is already relishing the chance to knock us off. This is the kind of game that brings their program noterierty.
We had a lot of games last year that were 1 score games hanging in the balance. The ball bounced our way for once in some of those contests and it was an amazing season. We do not have off the charts talent to just show up and beat people. Over-looking opponents is not something I expect though from KF and his players,,, only from the fan base.
Probabilities have nothing to do with math? When presenting probabilities of mutually exclusive outcomes, it makes no sense for the aggregate percentages to be greater than 100%.
Highly improbable that Iowa goes 12-0 again. This Iowa team is very good, but there still is a small margin for error in virtually all of our games. Even when you think about last year's run, it is easy to see where we could have easily lost 3 or 4 more games if you were to change just a play or two in each game.
For example, the Iowa State game was close for the first 55 minutes and we were down by two touchdowns at one point. Pittsburgh gave us all we could handle at Kinnick. Let's say Desmond King doesn't make the amazing interception he had in the endzone early in the game. If he merely bats that ball down, Koehn's 57 yard field goal is just to force overtime. If Wisconsin doesn't fumble inside our 10 yard line, we may have lost. If Canzeri doesn't have the game of his life against Illinois, we might have gone down as our offensive line couldn't protect CJB for more than 2 seconds. Indiana gave us some fits and was only 1 TD and 2 point conversion from tying the game. Minnesota hung with us all game at Kinnick. Nebraska out-gained us by nearly 200 yards and if Armstrong merely had a bad game rather than a terrible game, we may not have won.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think Iowa was "lucky" to win any of these games. We were clearly the better team against ISU and dominated the second half. We led virtually the entire game against Pitt. We missed out on many redzone opportunities of our own against Wisconsin. We were better than Illinois, Indiana, and Minnesota. We seemed to be comfortable just running the ball and limiting mistakes against Nebraska, so Armstrong didn't give us as many gifts as he did, I'm sure our offense would have been more aggressive. However, when you add up all the possibilities of what could have gone wrong in any of these games, it is fortunate that nothing more did go wrong in any game. The 2002 team is a great example - we were easily better than any team we played in the regular season, but we still slipped up against Iowa State and were fortunate to win some other games as well (e.g., Penn State, Purdue).
For example, the Iowa State game was close for the first 55 minutes and we were down by two touchdowns at one point. Pittsburgh gave us all we could handle at Kinnick. Let's say Desmond King doesn't make the amazing interception he had in the endzone early in the game. If he merely bats that ball down, Koehn's 57 yard field goal is just to force overtime. If Wisconsin doesn't fumble inside our 10 yard line, we may have lost. If Canzeri doesn't have the game of his life against Illinois, we might have gone down as our offensive line couldn't protect CJB for more than 2 seconds. Indiana gave us some fits and was only 1 TD and 2 point conversion from tying the game. Minnesota hung with us all game at Kinnick. Nebraska out-gained us by nearly 200 yards and if Armstrong merely had a bad game rather than a terrible game, we may not have won.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think Iowa was "lucky" to win any of these games. We were clearly the better team against ISU and dominated the second half. We led virtually the entire game against Pitt. We missed out on many redzone opportunities of our own against Wisconsin. We were better than Illinois, Indiana, and Minnesota. We seemed to be comfortable just running the ball and limiting mistakes against Nebraska, so Armstrong didn't give us as many gifts as he did, I'm sure our offense would have been more aggressive. However, when you add up all the possibilities of what could have gone wrong in any of these games, it is fortunate that nothing more did go wrong in any game. The 2002 team is a great example - we were easily better than any team we played in the regular season, but we still slipped up against Iowa State and were fortunate to win some other games as well (e.g., Penn State, Purdue).
I agree with this. Whether people want to admit this or not, Iowa State, although their record is usually awful at the end of the season, can be a dangerous opponent. People forget Iowa State was a team that could have easily beaten Oklahoma State last season and shut out Texas after Texas had upset Oklahoma. I emphasize "can be," because clearly there are games Iowa State looks down right terrible in. However, they can also play up to their level of competition--especially when it's an intrastate rivalry.
I would also add that Iowa traditionally starts out slow in September and improves dramatically as the season wears on. And, as I believe it was LoneClone who pointed out, a point I agree with, Iowa's struggles at the beginning of the season have more to do with Iowa State's modest success against Iowa head-to-head than the favorite "Iowa State is playing their Super Bowl" mantra.
So yes, Iowa better come ready for a dog fight, or they will get upset. The fact Iowa State has won two in a row in Kinnick, however, methinks will be a motivating factor, and Iowa should come out strong and win.
Iowa was never down 17-3 in that game. They were tied 10-10 when ISU went up 17-10...then Iowa scored two TD's to finish them.
Going 12-0 is something special. I don't think the people predicting it to happen 2 years in a row recognize just how special. Teams with far more talent fail to accomplish it.
Iowa should be solid. They will be the favorite of most to win the B1G west and return to the title game. If they can get to the conference title game that would be a very good season.
The odds are just not in favor of them going 12-0 again. They will almost surely be the underdog in at least 1 game(scUM). Even if they are favored in all the others, the probability is against them winning them all.
Iowa should be solid. They will be the favorite of most to win the B1G west and return to the title game. If they can get to the conference title game that would be a very good season.
The odds are just not in favor of them going 12-0 again. They will almost surely be the underdog in at least 1 game(scUM). Even if they are favored in all the others, the probability is against them winning them all.
Iowa state was not that far from being a avg. team last year and will be tough this year.If Cj and Jewell stay healthy Iowa will be very good
Just the opposite. Since we are considering the possibility of 12 separate and mutually exclusive outcomes, it makes no sense to rate the probability of each possible outcome against all of the others. Each W-L possible outcome, weather 12-0, 0-12, or any other outcome in between has its own probability, by itself, irrespective and exclusive of the other possible outcomes.
I feel like those probabilities add up to a bit more than 100, but that's my math
It is not a distribution ( sum =100%). it is a probability chart!
Here is my understanding, and feel free to let me know where you believe I am misinterpreting the situation:
First, there are 13 possible outcomes (i.e., Iowa could win 0, 1, 2, .... or 12 games). Your prediction of our end-of-season record is a snapshot in time at the end of the season. Thus, if we go 8-4, that necessarily means we did not go 9-3, 10-2, 7-5, etc. In other words, the 13 possible end-of-season records are mutually exclusive. This means that the probability of each possible outcome affects the probability of the other outcomes because each event is mutually exclusive. If one outcome happens, that means all the other outcomes did not happen.
In such a situation as I described, the aggregate percentage of probabilities should add to 100% and no more. We see this math play out on RPIforecast.com during college basketball season where the site runs algorithms to predict the end-of-season record for college basketball teams. The site will provide probability percentages of a team finishing the season with specific records (e.g., 35-0, 34-1, 33-2, etc) and these percentages aggregate to 100% because each outcome is mutually exclusive of the others.
There are alternative ways of forecasting which would aggregate to over 100%. For example, if you were to predict the probability that we win "at least" 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, or 12 games, then the aggregate percentages should be over 100% because the outcomes are not mutually exclusive. For example, if you win 9 games, that means that it is also true that you won at least 6, 7, and 8 games too. However, I do not believe this is what you were predicting in your original post.
You're right. Another poster above had said we were down 17-3 and I took that for granted even though it didn't seem right.
Completely agree. This is a very good team with a schedule that sets up for 12-0. Sounds crazy, but it's not.
What also sounds crazy is if CJ goes down 7-5 is a distinct possibility. Wiegers is not the answer. Very concerned with him at the helm in 2017. I hate saying it, at best 7-5 in 2017.
Iowa should have won that Wisc game 31-13. I remember telling my buddy during Wiscy's last drive that Iowa should be up 3 TDs right now.
Similar threads
