My brother's take on why IOWA gets little respect
.........and you guys that I was sick.
1) Iowa is not flashy or innovative - people like to see teams that are "cutting edge" even if that team isn't as good. We have a run-first philosophy with an emphasis on play execution not trickery (this is what we're doing, try and beat us). Our defensive schemes are vanilla (4-3) and put the same emphasis on execution over trickery. Obviously a successful team is going to involve some combination of the two. I haven’t heard any reasons (in principle) that convince me that one is better than the other. The worry about a lot of innovative schemes is that they depend either on confusing/tricking teams or playing a defense that isn’t good enough or fast enough to stop the plays (often quoted as the reason NFL teams don’t use many of these plays). Regarding the first one, the longer a scheme hangs around the more teams will be able to defend it (teams will be tricked less). In terms of the second one, it seems awfully risky to have a scheme that depends on playing an inferior defenses. While the risks are often outweighed by the benefits in college, they require constant change. All of this weighs heavily on a team’s ability to execute (especially in college). So it seems fair to say that the more emphasis a team puts on good execution, the less that team will depend on innovation/trickery. Again, there will always have to be a combination of the two. An innovative coach with a team that doesn’t always execute the plays well may trick the defense into mistakes but is likely to have a fair amount of their own (limiting usefulness). The reverse applies as well of course. The more vanilla a team’s scheme/playcalling is, the easier it is for teams to prevent execution. A lot of this ties closely into the second argument used against Iowa which is that…
2) Iowa isn't a high scoring team - When people describe teams as "flashy" they usually mean explosive on offense. They can put points on the board, and they can do it quickly. Iowa would much prefer to run the ball down your throat and grind the clock out to get a victory. And as I stated earlier, past teams have still be able to put up points at least when playing inferior competition; this year’s team, not so much. None of this has been helped by injuries or the lack of continuity on offense. While I don’t think polls should punish conservative/defensive philosophies (which often result in smaller margins of victory) I do think that this gets at the issue of needing more consistency.
3) Iowa doesn't have the talent ? These arguments are usually pretty straight forward. Iowa gets lower ranked recruits so they won’t be able to compete with teams that recruit better. It is important to realize that a lower ranked recruit doesn’t necessarily mean a recruit with less potential or talent as these things also indicate readiness and likelihood of success. The talent argument is always problematic anyway as it treats football far too individualistically. As Herby recently said (in reference to Oregon beating USC), football is a team sport. Talent is only one of many factors that go into a win. And while it is true that Iowa doesn't get many of the top recruits out of high school, there is a good reason why Iowa’s approach differs from many top schools. Iowa isn’t a very populated state and so the team has to put a greater deal of emphasis on things like player development. This often means we are recruiting athletes who do have high potential but will require some time to develop (perhaps because their likelihood of success is seen as more risky then other, higher rated recruits) . It would explain why we have had good teams with lower ranked recruits out of high school, as well as the fact that we have a considerable amount of players in the NFL.
4) Iowa plays to the level of its competition - Yeah, we've won against some good teams but opponents argue that we've barely won against inferior competition. While people may tie this into the first three points, I'm not so sure that is the case. Iowa's managed to blow inferior competition out of the water in the past (while using the same philosophy). I think a lot of it has to do with consistency, but it may also be closely related to mind-set and preparation. I have a hard time seeing a Ferentz coached team not prepare properly but most of what good players have to do happens on their own time. In recent years, getting recognition for playing well (or being a "good" team) has seemed to hurt our level of play. We always perform better as underdogs, or when people aren't telling us we're very good. While this is true of most teams, it seems especially true for the hawks. In many ways, the negative media attention is a blessing.
On the other hand, it is important not to make the mistake of devaluing Iowa’s better wins against good competition for their poor play in other games (at least not without a very thought out analysis). To a very large extent, our performance in those games can be analyzed by looking just at those games. We judge a team’s overall quality by looking at all the individual evaluations (as separate entities) and make relevant conclusions based on those reports (by looking for constants, notable events, etc.). The reason I bring this up is because people seem to think that since Iowa has struggled against bad teams, it somehow undermines Iowa’s more solid performances against quality competition. This is usually just because people are confused. Judging competitive quality will often require that we look at each of the teams on a holistic basis, but the individual analysis of the performances in each game should not be affected. If this hasn’t seemed clear let me illustrate the point. After a game like Iowa-Penn State, there is often a lot of analysis and re-evaluation of the two teams. These judgments will be adjusted as the teams continue to play others. But unless Penn State goes on to do something that devalues their perceived overall quality, Iowa’s performance against that level of competition should not be devalued because of Iowa’s following performances; as a matter of logic it just doesn’t follow (at all). Of course, this requires that adequate evaluations of Penn State’s quality be possible outside our game (same goes for Iowa). This gets easier to do as the season goes on, but towards the beginning of the season there often isn’t much else to base teams on. But that really isn’t a good criticism ? most people recognize that early in a season, adequate evaluations are difficult (if they can be done at all). Even so, people treat the issue as if the two logically follow one another. For them, if Iowa performs in ways that seem to decrease their perceived overall quality, the logical consequence is that their performance against Penn State (which resulted in a win) lowers Penn State’s overall quality because the “win/loss looks worse.” Practically speaking this kind of phrase is useful and is thrown around all the time. But it is important to note that saying a “win/loss looks worse now because of more recent events” is not the same as saying the “win/loss is worse because of recent events.” While one or both may in fact be true, the latter claim requires a very thorough analysis if it wants to avoid being logically flawed or semantically confused. One of the reasons this is so relevant here is because people haven’t been accounting for Iowa’s inconsistent levels of play (which has probably been the most important thing to consider when evaluating Iowa’s overall performance).
5) Weak Schedule - Iowa plays in the Big Ten, which many claim is down right now. While that would be a fair enough statement on its own, the argument has requires further assumptions to gain relevance (to establish the desired conclusion). The argument has to be based on premises along the lines of (1) the big ten is down right now (2) all (or at least enough) of the teams in the big ten are of low quality (weak competition), (3) for teams to have a strong schedule in the Big Ten they would need to play against top levels of competition in order to have a good schedule. If the claims are adjusted as such, it seems like a bad argument to be trying to make (as those premises seem difficult to satisfy). While weak versions of this argument have had some relevance in discussions about the NCG, its relevance is pretty limited. A better/more complete version of the argument might look something like this: While Iowa played their toughest games on the road and had a decent OOC schedule (at least as good as most of the other top teams), they have a lot more to prove then other top teams do. Essentially, the argument is that yeah, we’ve had a decent schedule, but we needed a really good one to justify our position (nationally) right now. Obviously a lot of this depends on the other arguments I’ve mentioned in order to gain speed. In any case, without some major additional claims made in conjunction, this kind of argument has almost all its relevance confined to discussions about team-hopping (like whether or not an SEC/Big12/Pac10 school should be able to jump a Big10 school of better or at least similar standing). Obviously there are a lot of problems with judging teams based on perceived strength of conference (one of the stronger arguments for a playoff system); or upon the performances of past conference teams.
6) Iowa doesn’t have the speed to compete with many good teams ? A lot of this is motivated by the third argument I discussed (that Iowa lacks talent). When articulated intelligently, these arguments aren’t directed at skill positions but rather at things like line play. Just like the arguments that motivate it, I don’t think the basis of the argument is strong enough to make the claims people usually want to make. There are a couple reasons I say this. The first is that it doesn’t have much grounding in reality. Many of the times this argument has been used (not including the discussion of hypotheticals) Iowa has been able to compete well with the teams in question. People have argued this part of the question dead, usually by referencing Iowa’s games against SEC, Pac10 or Big12 teams in the Ferentz era. Another reason why we might wonder about the accuracy of this claim involves questioning whether or not Iowa’s players are actually much slower. A hawk-critic might say, “Yeah maybe you’ve been able to deal/compete with the superior speed, but that doesn’t mean your players are actually fast or speedy.” While this is possible, it would undermine their own argument (that speed is required for competitive play or dominance) and it is easily satisfied. As FloridaHawk has posted many times, if you look at the CFB players in the NFL, Iowa players are well represented and not just at skill positions (in fact, they are represented less at the skill positions). Since speed is a much greater requirement in the NFL (part of the reason the speed arguments have gained so much credence in college), it certainly seems like speed has not been the issue for the hawks (especially when considering all the above).
7) Iowa is too inconsistent right now ? Almost all the arguments leveled at this Iowa team have touched on this. I think it is one of the stronger arguments against Iowa right now. The Hawks haven’t put together a complete game this entire season. Coupled with all the other issues (presented in the above arguments), there is significant justification for some amount of skepticism. The plus side for Iowa is that the times they have looked good, have indicated that they have the potential to play at a high level; they just need to make the change from doing it some-times to doing it most-times. The down side (and the reason for skepticism) is that there isn’t strong evidence to suggest that Iowa will actually make that change. Yes, under Ferentz Iowa usually peaks at the right time of year; they start slow and finish hot but always show development throughout the season (Don’t be confused, I am speaking generally about the big picture and I am not saying there aren’t times where we regress). Also, I am mainly talking about our offense. But has there been evidence of that this season? Not really. This year Iowa has seemed to remain remarkably consistent. When certain areas look like they are improving, other areas seem to become more problematic. A lot of this may have to do with injuries/problems of continuity. In any event, until Iowa puts together at least one complete game (preferably more than that), this will remain a significant worry about Iowa.
1) Iowa is not flashy or innovative - people like to see teams that are "cutting edge" even if that team isn't as good. We have a run-first philosophy with an emphasis on play execution not trickery (this is what we're doing, try and beat us). Our defensive schemes are vanilla (4-3) and put the same emphasis on execution over trickery. Obviously a successful team is going to involve some combination of the two. I haven’t heard any reasons (in principle) that convince me that one is better than the other. The worry about a lot of innovative schemes is that they depend either on confusing/tricking teams or playing a defense that isn’t good enough or fast enough to stop the plays (often quoted as the reason NFL teams don’t use many of these plays). Regarding the first one, the longer a scheme hangs around the more teams will be able to defend it (teams will be tricked less). In terms of the second one, it seems awfully risky to have a scheme that depends on playing an inferior defenses. While the risks are often outweighed by the benefits in college, they require constant change. All of this weighs heavily on a team’s ability to execute (especially in college). So it seems fair to say that the more emphasis a team puts on good execution, the less that team will depend on innovation/trickery. Again, there will always have to be a combination of the two. An innovative coach with a team that doesn’t always execute the plays well may trick the defense into mistakes but is likely to have a fair amount of their own (limiting usefulness). The reverse applies as well of course. The more vanilla a team’s scheme/playcalling is, the easier it is for teams to prevent execution. A lot of this ties closely into the second argument used against Iowa which is that…
2) Iowa isn't a high scoring team - When people describe teams as "flashy" they usually mean explosive on offense. They can put points on the board, and they can do it quickly. Iowa would much prefer to run the ball down your throat and grind the clock out to get a victory. And as I stated earlier, past teams have still be able to put up points at least when playing inferior competition; this year’s team, not so much. None of this has been helped by injuries or the lack of continuity on offense. While I don’t think polls should punish conservative/defensive philosophies (which often result in smaller margins of victory) I do think that this gets at the issue of needing more consistency.
3) Iowa doesn't have the talent ? These arguments are usually pretty straight forward. Iowa gets lower ranked recruits so they won’t be able to compete with teams that recruit better. It is important to realize that a lower ranked recruit doesn’t necessarily mean a recruit with less potential or talent as these things also indicate readiness and likelihood of success. The talent argument is always problematic anyway as it treats football far too individualistically. As Herby recently said (in reference to Oregon beating USC), football is a team sport. Talent is only one of many factors that go into a win. And while it is true that Iowa doesn't get many of the top recruits out of high school, there is a good reason why Iowa’s approach differs from many top schools. Iowa isn’t a very populated state and so the team has to put a greater deal of emphasis on things like player development. This often means we are recruiting athletes who do have high potential but will require some time to develop (perhaps because their likelihood of success is seen as more risky then other, higher rated recruits) . It would explain why we have had good teams with lower ranked recruits out of high school, as well as the fact that we have a considerable amount of players in the NFL.
4) Iowa plays to the level of its competition - Yeah, we've won against some good teams but opponents argue that we've barely won against inferior competition. While people may tie this into the first three points, I'm not so sure that is the case. Iowa's managed to blow inferior competition out of the water in the past (while using the same philosophy). I think a lot of it has to do with consistency, but it may also be closely related to mind-set and preparation. I have a hard time seeing a Ferentz coached team not prepare properly but most of what good players have to do happens on their own time. In recent years, getting recognition for playing well (or being a "good" team) has seemed to hurt our level of play. We always perform better as underdogs, or when people aren't telling us we're very good. While this is true of most teams, it seems especially true for the hawks. In many ways, the negative media attention is a blessing.
On the other hand, it is important not to make the mistake of devaluing Iowa’s better wins against good competition for their poor play in other games (at least not without a very thought out analysis). To a very large extent, our performance in those games can be analyzed by looking just at those games. We judge a team’s overall quality by looking at all the individual evaluations (as separate entities) and make relevant conclusions based on those reports (by looking for constants, notable events, etc.). The reason I bring this up is because people seem to think that since Iowa has struggled against bad teams, it somehow undermines Iowa’s more solid performances against quality competition. This is usually just because people are confused. Judging competitive quality will often require that we look at each of the teams on a holistic basis, but the individual analysis of the performances in each game should not be affected. If this hasn’t seemed clear let me illustrate the point. After a game like Iowa-Penn State, there is often a lot of analysis and re-evaluation of the two teams. These judgments will be adjusted as the teams continue to play others. But unless Penn State goes on to do something that devalues their perceived overall quality, Iowa’s performance against that level of competition should not be devalued because of Iowa’s following performances; as a matter of logic it just doesn’t follow (at all). Of course, this requires that adequate evaluations of Penn State’s quality be possible outside our game (same goes for Iowa). This gets easier to do as the season goes on, but towards the beginning of the season there often isn’t much else to base teams on. But that really isn’t a good criticism ? most people recognize that early in a season, adequate evaluations are difficult (if they can be done at all). Even so, people treat the issue as if the two logically follow one another. For them, if Iowa performs in ways that seem to decrease their perceived overall quality, the logical consequence is that their performance against Penn State (which resulted in a win) lowers Penn State’s overall quality because the “win/loss looks worse.” Practically speaking this kind of phrase is useful and is thrown around all the time. But it is important to note that saying a “win/loss looks worse now because of more recent events” is not the same as saying the “win/loss is worse because of recent events.” While one or both may in fact be true, the latter claim requires a very thorough analysis if it wants to avoid being logically flawed or semantically confused. One of the reasons this is so relevant here is because people haven’t been accounting for Iowa’s inconsistent levels of play (which has probably been the most important thing to consider when evaluating Iowa’s overall performance).
5) Weak Schedule - Iowa plays in the Big Ten, which many claim is down right now. While that would be a fair enough statement on its own, the argument has requires further assumptions to gain relevance (to establish the desired conclusion). The argument has to be based on premises along the lines of (1) the big ten is down right now (2) all (or at least enough) of the teams in the big ten are of low quality (weak competition), (3) for teams to have a strong schedule in the Big Ten they would need to play against top levels of competition in order to have a good schedule. If the claims are adjusted as such, it seems like a bad argument to be trying to make (as those premises seem difficult to satisfy). While weak versions of this argument have had some relevance in discussions about the NCG, its relevance is pretty limited. A better/more complete version of the argument might look something like this: While Iowa played their toughest games on the road and had a decent OOC schedule (at least as good as most of the other top teams), they have a lot more to prove then other top teams do. Essentially, the argument is that yeah, we’ve had a decent schedule, but we needed a really good one to justify our position (nationally) right now. Obviously a lot of this depends on the other arguments I’ve mentioned in order to gain speed. In any case, without some major additional claims made in conjunction, this kind of argument has almost all its relevance confined to discussions about team-hopping (like whether or not an SEC/Big12/Pac10 school should be able to jump a Big10 school of better or at least similar standing). Obviously there are a lot of problems with judging teams based on perceived strength of conference (one of the stronger arguments for a playoff system); or upon the performances of past conference teams.
6) Iowa doesn’t have the speed to compete with many good teams ? A lot of this is motivated by the third argument I discussed (that Iowa lacks talent). When articulated intelligently, these arguments aren’t directed at skill positions but rather at things like line play. Just like the arguments that motivate it, I don’t think the basis of the argument is strong enough to make the claims people usually want to make. There are a couple reasons I say this. The first is that it doesn’t have much grounding in reality. Many of the times this argument has been used (not including the discussion of hypotheticals) Iowa has been able to compete well with the teams in question. People have argued this part of the question dead, usually by referencing Iowa’s games against SEC, Pac10 or Big12 teams in the Ferentz era. Another reason why we might wonder about the accuracy of this claim involves questioning whether or not Iowa’s players are actually much slower. A hawk-critic might say, “Yeah maybe you’ve been able to deal/compete with the superior speed, but that doesn’t mean your players are actually fast or speedy.” While this is possible, it would undermine their own argument (that speed is required for competitive play or dominance) and it is easily satisfied. As FloridaHawk has posted many times, if you look at the CFB players in the NFL, Iowa players are well represented and not just at skill positions (in fact, they are represented less at the skill positions). Since speed is a much greater requirement in the NFL (part of the reason the speed arguments have gained so much credence in college), it certainly seems like speed has not been the issue for the hawks (especially when considering all the above).
7) Iowa is too inconsistent right now ? Almost all the arguments leveled at this Iowa team have touched on this. I think it is one of the stronger arguments against Iowa right now. The Hawks haven’t put together a complete game this entire season. Coupled with all the other issues (presented in the above arguments), there is significant justification for some amount of skepticism. The plus side for Iowa is that the times they have looked good, have indicated that they have the potential to play at a high level; they just need to make the change from doing it some-times to doing it most-times. The down side (and the reason for skepticism) is that there isn’t strong evidence to suggest that Iowa will actually make that change. Yes, under Ferentz Iowa usually peaks at the right time of year; they start slow and finish hot but always show development throughout the season (Don’t be confused, I am speaking generally about the big picture and I am not saying there aren’t times where we regress). Also, I am mainly talking about our offense. But has there been evidence of that this season? Not really. This year Iowa has seemed to remain remarkably consistent. When certain areas look like they are improving, other areas seem to become more problematic. A lot of this may have to do with injuries/problems of continuity. In any event, until Iowa puts together at least one complete game (preferably more than that), this will remain a significant worry about Iowa.