[winflop]

It's no consolation prize.  Winning the deepest conference title in the league is nothing to be ashamed of.  Could our boys have beaten Oregon and might we be talking about playing 'Bama in the Cotton Bowl?  Absolutely.  Did they deserve to be there anyway?  The argument could be made given Oklahoma's patsy OOC schedule and Big 12 weakness.

But the opportunity to go out and play a one-loss team from the other top-rated conference this year (pretty clear that top to bottom Pac-12 & B1G were the best) should not be talked down.  I'm looking forward to it, and I'm looking equally forward to talking smack with by B1G-loving brother for the next 4 weeks and then continuing to do so after Stanford wins.

Saturday night on my way home (wife was driving) I told my brother I feel a little like Forrest Gump: "So then I had to go to the Rose Bowl - AGAIN"

[winflop]

It's no consolation prize.  Winning the deepest conference title in the league is nothing to be ashamed of.  Could our boys have beaten Oregon and might we be talking about playing 'Bama in the Cotton Bowl?  Absolutely.  Did they deserve to be there anyway?  The argument could be made given Oklahoma's patsy OOC schedule and Big 12 weakness.

But the opportunity to go out and play a one-loss team from the other top-rated conference this year (pretty clear that top to bottom Pac-12 & B1G were the best) should not be talked down.  I'm looking forward to it, and I'm looking equally forward to talking smack with by B1G-loving brother for the next 4 weeks and then continuing to do so after Stanford wins.

Saturday night on my way home (wife was driving) I told my brother I feel a little like Forrest Gump: "So then I had to go to the Rose Bowl - AGAIN"

[ChicagoCard]

The folks in the open football forum at http://iowa.forums.rivals.com/ found the comments in this thread about the Stanford players who purportedly were keyed up about the prospect of playing Ohio St. Means nothing of course, just sayin'.

[ChicagoCard]

The folks in the open football forum at http://iowa.forums.rivals.com/ found the comments in this thread about the Stanford players who purportedly were keyed up about the prospect of playing Ohio St. Means nothing of course, just sayin'.

[ColoradoTree]

The folks in the open football forum at http://iowa.forums.rivals.com/ found the comments in this thread about the Stanford players who purportedly were keyed up about the prospect of playing Ohio St. Means nothing of course, just sayin'.

The folks in that forum seem awfully confident--far more confident than I think is reasonable given how explosive our offense is.  One commenter even said that Stanford's offense would be the second-best they faced this year, behind Indiana.  I'm sorry, but that's bonkers.  Iowa hasn't played an offense as explosive as ours all year.  In fairness, Iowa might have the best run defense we've faced all year, but Stanford gained 478 yards and scored 31 points against Washington, who is the #1 defense in the country according to Football Outsider's FEI rankings.  (And ND, SC, and UCLA weren't exactly slouches either.)  Also important to consider is that we run differently than Michigan State does.  Much is made of our short-yardage personnel groupings, but that's hardly all we do.  Indeed, for most of our rushing yards, we're not running into the teeth of the defense--we're using an extra OL on a LB and running off-tackle or doing something else to get McCaffrey in space. 

Another commenter noted that if they neutralize McCaffrey, "the game is won."  But the ND game shows why that way of thinking is a mistake.  If you commit 8 guys to the box to "stop" McCaffrey (meaning to hold him to around 100 rushing yards on the day), you're just inviting Hogan to take advantage of the middle of the field on play action. 

I absolutely think Iowa could gain 250 rushing yards against us.  But that's not going to be enough, assuming our defense continues its strong run of holding opposing offenses to field goals in the red zone.  Iowa will need some big plays from Beathard to win, particularly if we can get an early lead and force Iowa to get away from its bread and butter. 

All in all, it seems like Iowa fans are focusing on our loss to Northwestern and concluding that we can't hack it against Big Ten defenses, and that we'll therefore be unable to gain yards against Iowa.  We can only hope the Iowa coaching staff has similar tunnel vision. 

[ColoradoTree]

The folks in the open football forum at http://iowa.forums.rivals.com/ found the comments in this thread about the Stanford players who purportedly were keyed up about the prospect of playing Ohio St. Means nothing of course, just sayin'.

The folks in that forum seem awfully confident--far more confident than I think is reasonable given how explosive our offense is.  One commenter even said that Stanford's offense would be the second-best they faced this year, behind Indiana.  I'm sorry, but that's bonkers.  Iowa hasn't played an offense as explosive as ours all year.  In fairness, Iowa might have the best run defense we've faced all year, but Stanford gained 478 yards and scored 31 points against Washington, who is the #1 defense in the country according to Football Outsider's FEI rankings.  (And ND, SC, and UCLA weren't exactly slouches either.)  Also important to consider is that we run differently than Michigan State does.  Much is made of our short-yardage personnel groupings, but that's hardly all we do.  Indeed, for most of our rushing yards, we're not running into the teeth of the defense--we're using an extra OL on a LB and running off-tackle or doing something else to get McCaffrey in space. 

Another commenter noted that if they neutralize McCaffrey, "the game is won."  But the ND game shows why that way of thinking is a mistake.  If you commit 8 guys to the box to "stop" McCaffrey (meaning to hold him to around 100 rushing yards on the day), you're just inviting Hogan to take advantage of the middle of the field on play action. 

I absolutely think Iowa could gain 250 rushing yards against us.  But that's not going to be enough, assuming our defense continues its strong run of holding opposing offenses to field goals in the red zone.  Iowa will need some big plays from Beathard to win, particularly if we can get an early lead and force Iowa to get away from its bread and butter. 

All in all, it seems like Iowa fans are focusing on our loss to Northwestern and concluding that we can't hack it against Big Ten defenses, and that we'll therefore be unable to gain yards against Iowa.  We can only hope the Iowa coaching staff has similar tunnel vision. 

[CTcard]

The folks in that forum seem awfully confident--far more confident than I think is reasonable given how explosive our offense is.  One commenter even said that Stanford's offense would be the second-best they faced this year, behind Indiana.  I'm sorry, but that's bonkers.

... We can only hope the Iowa coaching staff has similar tunnel vision.

Yeah, I am shocked that there is something bonkers posted on a fan message board.

And coaching staffs always agree with fan over-optimism.

[CTcard]

The folks in that forum seem awfully confident--far more confident than I think is reasonable given how explosive our offense is.  One commenter even said that Stanford's offense would be the second-best they faced this year, behind Indiana.  I'm sorry, but that's bonkers.

... We can only hope the Iowa coaching staff has similar tunnel vision.

Yeah, I am shocked that there is something bonkers posted on a fan message board.

And coaching staffs always agree with fan over-optimism.

[ColoradoTree]

Yeah, I am shocked that there is something bonkers posted on a fan message board.

And coaching staffs always agree with fan over-optimism.

Just trying to summarize the opposing perspective on the matchup.  Obviously I don't actually think Kirk Ferentz et al. are woofing about the matchup inside Kinnick. 

[ColoradoTree]

Yeah, I am shocked that there is something bonkers posted on a fan message board.

And coaching staffs always agree with fan over-optimism.

Just trying to summarize the opposing perspective on the matchup.  Obviously I don't actually think Kirk Ferentz et al. are woofing about the matchup inside Kinnick. 

[Rally]

I spent some time perusing that Iowa board.  My impression is that it is very similar to ours.  Some very knowledgeable folks, some borderline (like me?) and a very few kooks.  The one thing that made me laugh was the comment by a couple on the lone Stanford fan's explanation of what our team is, etc.  whoever he is he did a good job, balanced, much like the Notre Dame fan who visits us each year.  The comment had to do with how smart Stanford people are, how many words they use, etc.  one asked for the Cliff Notes.  Another said he would need a dictionary, thesaurus and encyclopedia to understand it . . . And I don't think he was being sarcastic.  Interesting perception of our brand, athletic and otherwise.  Sure, they love their team and are optimistic.  The gist is they generally expect a close game, and so do I.

[Rally]

I spent some time perusing that Iowa board.  My impression is that it is very similar to ours.  Some very knowledgeable folks, some borderline (like me?) and a very few kooks.  The one thing that made me laugh was the comment by a couple on the lone Stanford fan's explanation of what our team is, etc.  whoever he is he did a good job, balanced, much like the Notre Dame fan who visits us each year.  The comment had to do with how smart Stanford people are, how many words they use, etc.  one asked for the Cliff Notes.  Another said he would need a dictionary, thesaurus and encyclopedia to understand it . . . And I don't think he was being sarcastic.  Interesting perception of our brand, athletic and otherwise.  Sure, they love their team and are optimistic.  The gist is they generally expect a close game, and so do I.

[teejers1]

My folks both grew up in Iowa and we still have a ton of relatives there.
Have nothing but good thoughts about the Hawkeye state - Midwestern stock at its best!

Still, will be pulling for a Cardinal W (fanatically) in Pasadena.

[teejers1]

My folks both grew up in Iowa and we still have a ton of relatives there.
Have nothing but good thoughts about the Hawkeye state - Midwestern stock at its best!

Still, will be pulling for a Cardinal W (fanatically) in Pasadena.

[French Rage]

It seems to me that we also worried if the team wasn't going to be motivated for the Cal, ND, and CCG games, and that was unwarranted.

[French Rage]

It seems to me that we also worried if the team wasn't going to be motivated for the Cal, ND, and CCG games, and that was unwarranted.

[AlbanyCardinal]

[quote author=ChicagoVisitor link=topic=13928.msg147064#msg147064 date=1449695109]
The folks in the open football forum at http://iowa.forums.rivals.com/ found the comments in this thread about the Stanford players who purportedly were keyed up about the prospect of playing Ohio St. Means nothing of course, just sayin'.

The folks in that forum seem awfully confident--far more confident than I think is reasonable given how explosive our offense is.  One commenter even said that Stanford's offense would be the second-best they faced this year, behind Indiana.  I'm sorry, but that's bonkers.  Iowa hasn't played an offense as explosive as ours all year.  In fairness, Iowa might have the best run defense we've faced all year, but Stanford gained 478 yards and scored 31 points against Washington, who is the #1 defense in the country according to Football Outsider's FEI rankings.  (And ND, SC, and UCLA weren't exactly slouches either.)  Also important to consider is that we run differently than Michigan State does.  Much is made of our short-yardage personnel groupings, but that's hardly all we do.  Indeed, for most of our rushing yards, we're not running into the teeth of the defense--we're using an extra OL on a LB and running off-tackle or doing something else to get McCaffrey in space. 
[/quote]

I'll agree, but I'd also note that most Stanford fans I read on this board and on the Bootleg seem even more confident. I like this Stanford team as much as anybody, I'm pretty sure, but our record agst. the Big-10 in the last few years sucks. Not just the two losses to MSU and NW, respectively, but also our performance agst. a pretty mediocre Wisconsin in the '13 Rose Bowl. Something about those corn-fed Midwestern teams that are used to defending the run and dealing with a good offensive line and fullback/blocking tight ends. I recognize that this offense is now more versatile and explosive than any that appeared in the three games I mentioned, but I do not expect a blowout, either way, and will delight in any kind of Stanford win.

[AlbanyCardinal]

[quote author=ChicagoVisitor link=topic=13928.msg147064#msg147064 date=1449695109]
The folks in the open football forum at http://iowa.forums.rivals.com/ found the comments in this thread about the Stanford players who purportedly were keyed up about the prospect of playing Ohio St. Means nothing of course, just sayin'.

The folks in that forum seem awfully confident--far more confident than I think is reasonable given how explosive our offense is.  One commenter even said that Stanford's offense would be the second-best they faced this year, behind Indiana.  I'm sorry, but that's bonkers.  Iowa hasn't played an offense as explosive as ours all year.  In fairness, Iowa might have the best run defense we've faced all year, but Stanford gained 478 yards and scored 31 points against Washington, who is the #1 defense in the country according to Football Outsider's FEI rankings.  (And ND, SC, and UCLA weren't exactly slouches either.)  Also important to consider is that we run differently than Michigan State does.  Much is made of our short-yardage personnel groupings, but that's hardly all we do.  Indeed, for most of our rushing yards, we're not running into the teeth of the defense--we're using an extra OL on a LB and running off-tackle or doing something else to get McCaffrey in space. 
[/quote]

I'll agree, but I'd also note that most Stanford fans I read on this board and on the Bootleg seem even more confident. I like this Stanford team as much as anybody, I'm pretty sure, but our record agst. the Big-10 in the last few years sucks. Not just the two losses to MSU and NW, respectively, but also our performance agst. a pretty mediocre Wisconsin in the '13 Rose Bowl. Something about those corn-fed Midwestern teams that are used to defending the run and dealing with a good offensive line and fullback/blocking tight ends. I recognize that this offense is now more versatile and explosive than any that appeared in the three games I mentioned, but I do not expect a blowout, either way, and will delight in any kind of Stanford win.

[stupac2]

but also our performance agst. a pretty mediocre Wisconsin in the '13 Rose Bowl.

That Wisconsin team was not mediocre. Per advanced rankings they were actually better than this Iowa team. The difference? Wisconsin went 2-5 in close games (2-6 if you count the Rose Bowl), Iowa is 5-1. So while Wisconsin was 8-5 going into the Rose Bowl, they had the talent of a 9- or 10-win team, and while Iowa is 12-1 they have the talent of 10-win team.

It's actually kind of funny, because while the 2012 Stanford team was almost certainly a worse team than the 2015 team, the 2012 Wisconsin team is about as certainly a better team than this Iowa team. But people have a really hard time looking past records in CFB for some reason. You'd think that as much as Stanford fans talk about SOS we'd actually look at this stuff.

Oh, and I don't see anyone being more confident than external indicators merit. We're a 7-point favorite, which translates to winning something like 75% of the time. So it's not just Stanford fans that are pretty confident, the wider world is too.

[stupac2]

but also our performance agst. a pretty mediocre Wisconsin in the '13 Rose Bowl.

That Wisconsin team was not mediocre. Per advanced rankings they were actually better than this Iowa team. The difference? Wisconsin went 2-5 in close games (2-6 if you count the Rose Bowl), Iowa is 5-1. So while Wisconsin was 8-5 going into the Rose Bowl, they had the talent of a 9- or 10-win team, and while Iowa is 12-1 they have the talent of 10-win team.

It's actually kind of funny, because while the 2012 Stanford team was almost certainly a worse team than the 2015 team, the 2012 Wisconsin team is about as certainly a better team than this Iowa team. But people have a really hard time looking past records in CFB for some reason. You'd think that as much as Stanford fans talk about SOS we'd actually look at this stuff.

Oh, and I don't see anyone being more confident than external indicators merit. We're a 7-point favorite, which translates to winning something like 75% of the time. So it's not just Stanford fans that are pretty confident, the wider world is too.

[AlbanyCardinal]

[quote author=AlbanyCardinal link=topic=13928.msg147785#msg147785 date=1449949875]but also our performance agst. a pretty mediocre Wisconsin in the '13 Rose Bowl.

That Wisconsin team was not mediocre. Per advanced rankings they were actually better than this Iowa team. The difference? Wisconsin went 2-5 in close games (2-6 if you count the Rose Bowl), Iowa is 5-1. So while Wisconsin was 8-5 going into the Rose Bowl, they had the talent of a 9- or 10-win team, and while Iowa is 12-1 they have the talent of 10-win team.

It's actually kind of funny, because while the 2012 Stanford team was almost certainly a worse team than the 2015 team, the 2012 Wisconsin team is about as certainly a better team than this Iowa team. But people have a really hard time looking past records in CFB for some reason. You'd think that as much as Stanford fans talk about SOS we'd actually look at this stuff.

Oh, and I don't see anyone being more confident than external indicators merit. We're a 7-point favorite, which translates to winning something like 75% of the time. So it's not just Stanford fans that are pretty confident, the wider world is too.
[/quote]

Because Wisconsin in '12/'13 went 2-6 in close games, whereas Iowa went 5-1 this season, Wiscy's the better team? That makes no sense, you do see that, right? Does losing close games count as two wins or what am I missing? Also, do you really believe the B10 conference was stronger in '12 than in '15?

[AlbanyCardinal]

[quote author=AlbanyCardinal link=topic=13928.msg147785#msg147785 date=1449949875]but also our performance agst. a pretty mediocre Wisconsin in the '13 Rose Bowl.

That Wisconsin team was not mediocre. Per advanced rankings they were actually better than this Iowa team. The difference? Wisconsin went 2-5 in close games (2-6 if you count the Rose Bowl), Iowa is 5-1. So while Wisconsin was 8-5 going into the Rose Bowl, they had the talent of a 9- or 10-win team, and while Iowa is 12-1 they have the talent of 10-win team.

It's actually kind of funny, because while the 2012 Stanford team was almost certainly a worse team than the 2015 team, the 2012 Wisconsin team is about as certainly a better team than this Iowa team. But people have a really hard time looking past records in CFB for some reason. You'd think that as much as Stanford fans talk about SOS we'd actually look at this stuff.

Oh, and I don't see anyone being more confident than external indicators merit. We're a 7-point favorite, which translates to winning something like 75% of the time. So it's not just Stanford fans that are pretty confident, the wider world is too.
[/quote]

Because Wisconsin in '12/'13 went 2-6 in close games, whereas Iowa went 5-1 this season, Wiscy's the better team? That makes no sense, you do see that, right? Does losing close games count as two wins or what am I missing? Also, do you really believe the B10 conference was stronger in '12 than in '15?

[washingtonismoney]

To be fair, the 2013 Rose Bowl betting line was -5.5 -- not dissimilar to the -6.5/-7 line of the 2016 Rose Bowl: http://www.gambling911.com/football-news...23112.html

(This earlier article has Stanford as a -7 favorite over Wisconsin -- http://www.docsports.com/2012/rose-bowl-...s-702.html.)

[washingtonismoney]

To be fair, the 2013 Rose Bowl betting line was -5.5 -- not dissimilar to the -6.5/-7 line of the 2016 Rose Bowl: http://www.gambling911.com/football-news...23112.html

(This earlier article has Stanford as a -7 favorite over Wisconsin -- http://www.docsports.com/2012/rose-bowl-...s-702.html.)

[washingtonismoney]

Because Wisconsin in '12/'13 went 2-6 in close games, whereas Iowa went 5-1 this season, Wiscy's the better team? That makes no sense, you do see that, right? Does losing close games count as two wins or what am I missing? Also, do you really believe the B10 conference was stronger in '12 than in '15?

IN BEFORE STUPAC.

Over the long run, teams go .500 in close games. So overperforming in close games often isn't a sign of skill, or grit, or whatever; it's often a sign of getting lucky bounces or favorable calls. So for instance stupac was very confident (and I somewhat less so) by SC's incredible run of close-game luck under the Helton regime. And sure enough we handled SC rather well.

And you can often predict regression to the mean based on close game luck. So I'd be happy to bet Iowa doesn't do as well next year in close games. Check the difference in close games between Stanford 2012 and Stanford 2013 and 2014. What happened? Did the same personnel somehow become gutless chokers? Or, more likely, is it just kind of random?

[washingtonismoney]

Because Wisconsin in '12/'13 went 2-6 in close games, whereas Iowa went 5-1 this season, Wiscy's the better team? That makes no sense, you do see that, right? Does losing close games count as two wins or what am I missing? Also, do you really believe the B10 conference was stronger in '12 than in '15?

IN BEFORE STUPAC.

Over the long run, teams go .500 in close games. So overperforming in close games often isn't a sign of skill, or grit, or whatever; it's often a sign of getting lucky bounces or favorable calls. So for instance stupac was very confident (and I somewhat less so) by SC's incredible run of close-game luck under the Helton regime. And sure enough we handled SC rather well.

And you can often predict regression to the mean based on close game luck. So I'd be happy to bet Iowa doesn't do as well next year in close games. Check the difference in close games between Stanford 2012 and Stanford 2013 and 2014. What happened? Did the same personnel somehow become gutless chokers? Or, more likely, is it just kind of random?

[AlbanyCardinal]

[quote author=AlbanyCardinal link=topic=13928.msg147793#msg147793 date=1449952304]
Because Wisconsin in '12/'13 went 2-6 in close games, whereas Iowa went 5-1 this season, Wiscy's the better team? That makes no sense, you do see that, right? Does losing close games count as two wins or what am I missing? Also, do you really believe the B10 conference was stronger in '12 than in '15?

IN BEFORE STUPAC.

Over the long run, teams go .500 in close games. So overperforming in close games often isn't a sign of skill, or grit, or whatever; it's often a sign of getting lucky bounces or favorable calls. So for instance stupac was very confident (and I somewhat less so) by SC's incredible run of close-game luck under the Helton regime. And sure enough we handled SC rather well.

And you can often predict regression to the mean based on close game luck. So I'd be happy to bet Iowa doesn't do as well next year in close games. Check the difference in close games between Stanford 2012 and Stanford 2013 and 2014. What happened? Did the same personnel somehow become gutless chokers? Or, more likely, is it just kind of random?
[/quote]

I'm okay with that line of thinking, but I did laugh at the confidence he showed in claiming that 2012/13 Wiscy was absolutely the better team than 2015/16 Iowa, just based on their record in close games and nothing else. I also think that winning close games can be a sign of a good team. More than anything, though, my memory tells me that we gave Wisconsin chances to win that game and played not to lose, hanging on for dear life. My gut tells me that wouldn't work agst. this Iowa team.

[AlbanyCardinal]

[quote author=AlbanyCardinal link=topic=13928.msg147793#msg147793 date=1449952304]
Because Wisconsin in '12/'13 went 2-6 in close games, whereas Iowa went 5-1 this season, Wiscy's the better team? That makes no sense, you do see that, right? Does losing close games count as two wins or what am I missing? Also, do you really believe the B10 conference was stronger in '12 than in '15?

IN BEFORE STUPAC.

Over the long run, teams go .500 in close games. So overperforming in close games often isn't a sign of skill, or grit, or whatever; it's often a sign of getting lucky bounces or favorable calls. So for instance stupac was very confident (and I somewhat less so) by SC's incredible run of close-game luck under the Helton regime. And sure enough we handled SC rather well.

And you can often predict regression to the mean based on close game luck. So I'd be happy to bet Iowa doesn't do as well next year in close games. Check the difference in close games between Stanford 2012 and Stanford 2013 and 2014. What happened? Did the same personnel somehow become gutless chokers? Or, more likely, is it just kind of random?
[/quote]

I'm okay with that line of thinking, but I did laugh at the confidence he showed in claiming that 2012/13 Wiscy was absolutely the better team than 2015/16 Iowa, just based on their record in close games and nothing else. I also think that winning close games can be a sign of a good team. More than anything, though, my memory tells me that we gave Wisconsin chances to win that game and played not to lose, hanging on for dear life. My gut tells me that wouldn't work agst. this Iowa team.

[washingtonismoney]

... I did laugh at the confidence he showed in claiming that 2012/13 Wiscy was absolutely the better team than 2015/16 Iowa, just based on their record in close games and nothing else. I also think that winning close games can be a sign of a good team. More than anything, though, my memory tells me that we gave Wisconsin chances to win that game and played not to lose, hanging on for dear life. My gut tells me that wouldn't work agst. this Iowa team.

Sure, allowing a team chances to come back is never a good idea. And I wouldn't say there's absolutely *zero* skill to winning close games (I imagine teams with great quarterbacks tend to do better in such games). But the record is pretty consistent.

Also have to disagree with your point w/r/t the Big Ten, made earlier: it may or may not have been a good conference this year, but aside from Michigan State Iowa avoided the cream of the crop.

Anyway, it's hard to be definitive when comparing across years, but let's take a look at how the major rating systems rank the two:

ESPN FPI:
Iowa 2015: #27
Wisconsin 2012: #21

Football Outsiders' F/+:
Iowa 2015: #25
Wisconsin 2012: #15

Sagarin:
Iowa 2015: #13
Wisconsin 2012: #23

Let's eyeball this and call it a draw, then? They're about equally as good.

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure *Stanford* is much better than the 2012 version. Stanford's 2015 offense and 2012 defense are about even. With Hogan at the helm, I'd actually give a slight edge to the 2012 offense over the 2015 defense. But I'd also give a nice edge to the 2015 special teams -- more reliable kicking, more reliable returners (remember Montgomery was injured), though less reliable kickoff coverage teams.

[washingtonismoney]

... I did laugh at the confidence he showed in claiming that 2012/13 Wiscy was absolutely the better team than 2015/16 Iowa, just based on their record in close games and nothing else. I also think that winning close games can be a sign of a good team. More than anything, though, my memory tells me that we gave Wisconsin chances to win that game and played not to lose, hanging on for dear life. My gut tells me that wouldn't work agst. this Iowa team.

Sure, allowing a team chances to come back is never a good idea. And I wouldn't say there's absolutely *zero* skill to winning close games (I imagine teams with great quarterbacks tend to do better in such games). But the record is pretty consistent.

Also have to disagree with your point w/r/t the Big Ten, made earlier: it may or may not have been a good conference this year, but aside from Michigan State Iowa avoided the cream of the crop.

Anyway, it's hard to be definitive when comparing across years, but let's take a look at how the major rating systems rank the two:

ESPN FPI:
Iowa 2015: #27
Wisconsin 2012: #21

Football Outsiders' F/+:
Iowa 2015: #25
Wisconsin 2012: #15

Sagarin:
Iowa 2015: #13
Wisconsin 2012: #23

Let's eyeball this and call it a draw, then? They're about equally as good.

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure *Stanford* is much better than the 2012 version. Stanford's 2015 offense and 2012 defense are about even. With Hogan at the helm, I'd actually give a slight edge to the 2012 offense over the 2015 defense. But I'd also give a nice edge to the 2015 special teams -- more reliable kicking, more reliable returners (remember Montgomery was injured), though less reliable kickoff coverage teams.

[stupac2]

I'm okay with that line of thinking, but I did laugh at the confidence he showed in claiming that 2012/13 Wiscy was absolutely the better team than 2015/16 Iowa, just based on their record in close games and nothing else. I also think that winning close games can be a sign of a good team. More than anything, though, my memory tells me that we gave Wisconsin chances to win that game and played not to lose, hanging on for dear life. My gut tells me that wouldn't work agst. this Iowa team.

As WiM noted I wasn't only basing that on record in close games, I just wanted to elaborate that point because "the advanced stats rate them similarly" is a point that doesn't need much elaboration (although he did say it). Also, remember that Hogan probably played most of the Rose Bowl slightly concussed, he never looked right after that one vicious hit. Maybe I'm reading too much into that, but I recall it being a pretty common take on that game. We looked unstoppable until that hit, and after that it was a struggle. Might be coincidence, might not.

Also, WiM, I don't think our teams are evenly matched. Maybe you're right that the 2012 offense with Hogan evens things out, but I'm inclined to think that this team is better.

[stupac2]

I'm okay with that line of thinking, but I did laugh at the confidence he showed in claiming that 2012/13 Wiscy was absolutely the better team than 2015/16 Iowa, just based on their record in close games and nothing else. I also think that winning close games can be a sign of a good team. More than anything, though, my memory tells me that we gave Wisconsin chances to win that game and played not to lose, hanging on for dear life. My gut tells me that wouldn't work agst. this Iowa team.

As WiM noted I wasn't only basing that on record in close games, I just wanted to elaborate that point because "the advanced stats rate them similarly" is a point that doesn't need much elaboration (although he did say it). Also, remember that Hogan probably played most of the Rose Bowl slightly concussed, he never looked right after that one vicious hit. Maybe I'm reading too much into that, but I recall it being a pretty common take on that game. We looked unstoppable until that hit, and after that it was a struggle. Might be coincidence, might not.

Also, WiM, I don't think our teams are evenly matched. Maybe you're right that the 2012 offense with Hogan evens things out, but I'm inclined to think that this team is better.

[CTcard]

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure *Stanford* is much better than the 2012 version.

Interesting question.

My general impression is that 2012 would be in a close race with 2014 for the inherently least able team of Shaw's - or since 2009 for that matter.
My other impression is that the 2015 team is probably a pretty close second to 2011 for Shaw's best, with 2010 the best of the recent run.
Thus putting 2015 pretty far ahead of 2012.

At the bad end, the issues were on offense. 2012 was generally poor - though not necessarily a lot worse versus the better teams on the schedule. 2014 offense was overall less bad, but faltered against better teams (at least prior to UCLA). Both defenses were pretty good, 2014 better, leading to an overall roughly even team evaluation by me.
[And that is one reason I really loved the 2012 team. It accomplished the most (RB win) with a team that didn't seem as inherently capable.]

On the plus side, clearly 2011 and 2015 were Shaw's best offenses, but happen to have been coupled to the weakest defenses. I might give a nod to 2015 offense (3.52 pts/drive, 3rd in the country versus 3.47 pts/drive, 4th), but the 2011 defense was quite a bit better. Overall, even including the D's troubles this year, we have seen greater variation in the offense's performance than the defense.


The various power ratings don't quite reflect this appraisal, one of many reasons one might disagree.

[CTcard]

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure *Stanford* is much better than the 2012 version.

Interesting question.

My general impression is that 2012 would be in a close race with 2014 for the inherently least able team of Shaw's - or since 2009 for that matter.
My other impression is that the 2015 team is probably a pretty close second to 2011 for Shaw's best, with 2010 the best of the recent run.
Thus putting 2015 pretty far ahead of 2012.

At the bad end, the issues were on offense. 2012 was generally poor - though not necessarily a lot worse versus the better teams on the schedule. 2014 offense was overall less bad, but faltered against better teams (at least prior to UCLA). Both defenses were pretty good, 2014 better, leading to an overall roughly even team evaluation by me.
[And that is one reason I really loved the 2012 team. It accomplished the most (RB win) with a team that didn't seem as inherently capable.]

On the plus side, clearly 2011 and 2015 were Shaw's best offenses, but happen to have been coupled to the weakest defenses. I might give a nod to 2015 offense (3.52 pts/drive, 3rd in the country versus 3.47 pts/drive, 4th), but the 2011 defense was quite a bit better. Overall, even including the D's troubles this year, we have seen greater variation in the offense's performance than the defense.


The various power ratings don't quite reflect this appraisal, one of many reasons one might disagree.

[washingtonismoney]

I rank the Shaw teams thusly:

2013
2011
*gap*
2012/15
*big gap*
2014

So I suppose we completely disagree!

[washingtonismoney]

I rank the Shaw teams thusly:

2013
2011
*gap*
2012/15
*big gap*
2014

So I suppose we completely disagree!

[CTcard]

I rank the Shaw teams thusly:

2013
2011
*gap*
2012/15
*big gap*
2014

So I suppose we completely disagree!

Clearly.

I'd rank the Shaw teams as:

Inherent Ability                Accomplishment/Resume
      2011                                        2012
      2015                                        2015 (but incomplete)
      2013                                        2013
      2012                                        2011
      2014                                        2014

[CTcard]

I rank the Shaw teams thusly:

2013
2011
*gap*
2012/15
*big gap*
2014

So I suppose we completely disagree!

Clearly.

I'd rank the Shaw teams as:

Inherent Ability                Accomplishment/Resume
      2011                                        2012
      2015                                        2015 (but incomplete)
      2013                                        2013
      2012                                        2011
      2014                                        2014

[AlbanyCardinal]

[quote author=AlbanyCardinal link=topic=13928.msg147796#msg147796 date=1449953091]
... I did laugh at the confidence he showed in claiming that 2012/13 Wiscy was absolutely the better team than 2015/16 Iowa, just based on their record in close games and nothing else. I also think that winning close games can be a sign of a good team. More than anything, though, my memory tells me that we gave Wisconsin chances to win that game and played not to lose, hanging on for dear life. My gut tells me that wouldn't work agst. this Iowa team.

Sure, allowing a team chances to come back is never a good idea. And I wouldn't say there's absolutely *zero* skill to winning close games (I imagine teams with great quarterbacks tend to do better in such games). But the record is pretty consistent.

Also have to disagree with your point w/r/t the Big Ten, made earlier: it may or may not have been a good conference this year, but aside from Michigan State Iowa avoided the cream of the crop.
[/quote]

My point about allowing Wiscy back in was that they were just mediocre enough that it didn't really matter, we won anyway. That's how that game felt to me, anyway.

I agree that Iowa hasn't been tested much, but they did stomp NW, the same team that held us to 6 points. I don't really get into comparing teams by common opponent, b/c teams match up in any number of ways and on any given day as many compelling factors play into how a team will do agst. any given team.

As to Iowa having a light schedule, without OSU or Michigan, that in and of itself does not prove that they're not up to the task. I'm done taking the Big 10 lightly, not that you are. I expect a tough game and will gladly take any win, even the 1-point variety.

[AlbanyCardinal]

[quote author=AlbanyCardinal link=topic=13928.msg147796#msg147796 date=1449953091]
... I did laugh at the confidence he showed in claiming that 2012/13 Wiscy was absolutely the better team than 2015/16 Iowa, just based on their record in close games and nothing else. I also think that winning close games can be a sign of a good team. More than anything, though, my memory tells me that we gave Wisconsin chances to win that game and played not to lose, hanging on for dear life. My gut tells me that wouldn't work agst. this Iowa team.

Sure, allowing a team chances to come back is never a good idea. And I wouldn't say there's absolutely *zero* skill to winning close games (I imagine teams with great quarterbacks tend to do better in such games). But the record is pretty consistent.

Also have to disagree with your point w/r/t the Big Ten, made earlier: it may or may not have been a good conference this year, but aside from Michigan State Iowa avoided the cream of the crop.
[/quote]

My point about allowing Wiscy back in was that they were just mediocre enough that it didn't really matter, we won anyway. That's how that game felt to me, anyway.

I agree that Iowa hasn't been tested much, but they did stomp NW, the same team that held us to 6 points. I don't really get into comparing teams by common opponent, b/c teams match up in any number of ways and on any given day as many compelling factors play into how a team will do agst. any given team.

As to Iowa having a light schedule, without OSU or Michigan, that in and of itself does not prove that they're not up to the task. I'm done taking the Big 10 lightly, not that you are. I expect a tough game and will gladly take any win, even the 1-point variety.