CFN takes the over on 6.5

[ichawk24]

http://collegefootballnews.com/2017...lege-football-win-totals-where-are-they-wrong

The Las Vegas sportsbooks have made their call. CG Technology has come up with the 2017 college football regular season win totals for the major Vegas books.

How do they compare with the CFN early win totals – which will change in a few weeks when we release the full schedule predictions? If you want to pay the rent early, try to find the discrepancies.

Note: this is just for the regular season and doesn’t include the conference championships.

Vegas: Iowa 6.5
CFN: Iowa 8

One of the biggest discrepancies on this list.

 

[BirdistheWord]

I may be in the minority here but given how many injuries CJB had to deal with I dont think there will be that much of a dropoff at QB assuming we get even a hint of progress at the WR position.

 

[ichawk24]

Our QB play was so poor last year, it can only get better. Combined with O-Line, RB, and TE, we'll have a good enough offense. As usual, a good defense.

 

[ScoutRefugee]

Vegas is taking KF's historical avg and deducting a little due to the change in offensive staff and QB position to get to the 6.5 number. That's my guess anyway.

 

[TS568]

Our QB play was so poor last year, it can only get better. Combined with O-Line, RB, and TE, we'll have a good enough offense. As usual, a good defense.

I, for one, completely agree. Oddsmakers look at the difficulty of replacing a 3rd round draft pick QB- not a sitting duck of a QB that passed for about 150 yards per game and went crazy stretches without hitting a receiver.

 

[And1Hawk]

I am thinking 6.5 is about right given the schedule difficulties. Toughest in years even if we play well so I'll take the under.

 

[Herkmeister]

I would be happy at 8 wins. Very happy @ 9. Elated @ 10. And will father another child if we hit 11, cause Mamma will be happy too.

 

[mazda1]

If Kirk outperforms Vegas expectations and wins 7 games odds are we can expect 20% of the board to call for his head.

 

[N.Legend]

If Kirk outperforms Vegas expectations and wins 7 games odds are we can expect 20% of the board to call for his head.

And 80% call for an extended contract with another million added on.

 

[Hwk-I-St8]

Vegas is taking KF's historical avg and deducting a little due to the change in offensive staff and QB position to get to the 6.5 number. That's my guess anyway.

I think Vegas is thinking half the bettors will think we'll do worse that 6.5 wins and the other half will think we'll do better.

They don't want to have to care what really happens, they only care what the betters think will happen.

 

[ScoutRefugee]

I think Vegas is thinking half the bettors will think we'll do worse that 6.5 wins and the other half will think we'll do better.

They don't want to have to care what really happens, they only care what the betters think will happen.

Ultimately you are right but they have to use some analysis to put the original number out there. Unless you think they start every team at 6.5 and move the line accordingly? If that's the case, tell me which sports book does that because I'll take the OVER on Alabama and bet a million dollars. I'll take the UNDER on Iowa State and bet another million.
Genius.

 

[Hwk-I-St8]

Ultimately you are right but they have to use some analysis to put the original number out there. Unless you think they start every team at 6.5 and move the line accordingly? If that's the case, tell me which sports book does that because I'll take the OVER on Alabama and bet a million dollars. I'll take the UNDER on Iowa State and bet another million.
Genius.

Of course they do research. They research how people will likely bet. Part of that is understanding the teams, but if they think a team will go 10-2 but they think the betting public will go more around 8 wins, that's where the line will be. Genius. DB.

 

[ScoutRefugee]

Of course they do research. They research how people will likely bet. Part of that is understanding the teams, but if they think a team will go 10-2 but they think the betting public will go more around 8 wins, that's where the line will be. Genius. DB.

I know exactly why they set a line and what they expect the betting public to do. I offered an opinion on how they might get to the starting number. You jumped me with a lecture on the how's and why's, that had nothing to do with my comment.

 

[Hawkfan_08]

If Kirk outperforms Vegas expectations and wins 7 games odds are we can expect 20% of the board to call for his head.

Too low of a percent. I'd say 30-35%

 

[Ree4]

Too low of a percent. I'd say 30-35%

I'll take the over on that

 

[ghostOfHomer777]

Transitions on O at Iowa haven't always been pretty. In 1999 the passing yards was perhaps better than expected ... but the TDs were few and far between. In 2012, the passing yardage and number of TDs was nearly identical (to what it was in 1999).

Now we're looking at a similar transition in '17. In both '99 and '12, it's fair to say that our WR situations weren't great those years either. The OL situation in '17 is FAR BETTER than it was in either of the aforementioned years. The RB situation is arguably better too ... considering that a healthy Wadley behind a veteran Hawk OL can be lethal. The TE situation in '12 was arguably the best in terms of experience and breadth of talent. I'd argue that the '17 TEs offer a bit more versatility - however, their overall experience level still pales in comparison. The QB situation was best in '12 ... because Vandenberg was a smart, talented passer. However, he suffered greatly from having a mediocre pass-blocking group around him ... and Soup did a pretty poor job of coaching the WRs with Greg's offensive framework. Thus, it's bad enough to be "hearing footsteps" because of protection issues ... it's even worse when you cannot trust your WRs to be on the same page as you. If we look at '17, the QB situation at least will feature good competition. Furthermore, the TEs and RBs may play important roles in the passing game too ... to compensate for deficiencies at WR.

The best thing going for the Hawks in '17 compared to the aforementioned years is that the D really could be pretty good. Both '99 and '12 marked transition years in terms of defensive coaches ... it marked Phil's first year as the DC. Furthermore, it marked the only year he didn't coach the DBs ... and we also had a newbie in LeVar Woods coaching the LBs that year. Now in '17, Phil has a much better idea of what he wants to do - and he has better personnel to execute that plan too.

The Iowa D should be able to be stingy against the run ... and they could be okay against the pass. If you combine that with potentially a very good running game and a mediocre (but competent) passing game ... that probably still adds up to AT LEAST 7 wins for the Hawks. Right now, I'd probably tentatively have Iowa penciled in at 8 wins.

 

[TKingpin]

Great post, Homer, but one thing nobody is talking about as a weakness is the DT depth. Bazata is coming off an injury, but will be a 3 year starter. Lattimer looks like he had the right stuff, but we don't have enough snaps to evaluate that.

Let's just say our starters are both really good. My point is: Then what? We all know you need at least 3 starter-caliber DTs to rotate and spread out the snaps. 4 is preferred. Injuries are a fact of life on the DLine. The DE depth is more than adequate, but who will be the DT back ups? Jake Hulett? I cannot say a bad word about his technique or motor, because I haven't seen it! Ever! Does anyone know anything about him other than he sat out last year with an injury? For the last couple of years we were counting on Slater. Hmmm. Newborg? Maybe. Matt Nelson? Possibly, but both of these last 2 seem like a little desperation move by the coaches to me. There were a couple of DEs that came in with Lattimer - can they be moved? Garrett Jansen from Pella?

I contend we are in worse shape with our DTs than at WR. At least we have MVB and several other non- WR options like TE and Wadley.

 

[downtown hawk redux]

And 80% call for an extended contract with another million added on.

Not really, but nice try.

 

[wwstormking]

If Kirk outperforms Vegas expectations and wins 7 games odds are we can expect 20% of the board to call for his head.

I do not know why he would be right on course for his average and we gave him a raise and extension for his average. He is what he is and not going to change now. O
ur bowl record could improve and that would keep fans happier. 3-7 over the last 10 bowl games.

 

[BondHawk]

Lattimer looks like he had the right stuff, but we don't have enough snaps to evaluate that.

He has a lot of potential, but tends to get trucked when teams line up in their goal line package. Plus I heard he has some off the field issues...

 

[TKingpin]

Uh oh. That doesn't sound good. Do you have a source, Bond?

Sometimes I wonder why such glaring and obvious needs aren't dealt with by going after a JUCO or grad transfer who could come in and be effective. They actually did that for our WR corps, but maybe we are lucky that Nash and Easley were willing to walk on. The coaches must think they have guys on the team that can do the job... I sure hope they are right.

Don't get me wrong - I want Hulett, Newborg and the rest to be the second coming of Tyler Leubke! But, is that realistic?

Games are won and lost in the trenches, and I really am worried about our DT depth. That could be our Achilles heel, even more so than WR.

 

[BondHawk]

Uh oh. That doesn't sound good. Do you have a source, Bond?