Iowa's passing game: a hypothetical

[10001110101]

Please give me your opinion on the following hypothetical:

Let's say Iowa's passing game went from worst in the Big Ten, to right in the middle: 9th in the Big Ten.

BUT, Iowa averages 1 more turnover per game than they're currently averaging.

Everything else (running game, defense, special teams...) remains the same.


Is that scenario likely to get more, less, or the same total wins in a season, than our current sad and pathetic passing game reality?

 

[Jonesy5960]

More. They are so far statistically from the 9th best passing team that it's almost beyond belief. They would have to more than triple their output to get to that level.

 

[10001110101]

More. They are so far statistically from the 9th best passing team that it's almost beyond belief. They would have to more than triple their output to get to that level.

So, same scenario but Iowa averages 2 more turnovers per game than they're currently averaging...

Still more wins?

 

[BunchofAholes]

So, same scenario but Iowa averages 2 more turnovers per game than they're currently averaging...

Still more wins?

You're implying that passing the ball leads to more turnovers (risk) but may not lead to more wins (reward). Very KFz. Avoid risk rather than go after the reward.

If the TD/INT ratio is good you'll get more wins. We're currently 1/1. That ain't good. FYI 97 teams have a positive TD/INT ratio. 37 are 1/1 or worse. If your coach can't get you in the top 100 out off 134 teams something is wrong.

https://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/25/p3

 

[UIAlumFireFighter]

As things stand right now, 9th in the Big Ten in passing yards/game puts us around 250 per…

That results in way more field goals and more wins, certainly, even if we have to add a turnover in there somewhere.

This, without question, is a much better scenario than our current reality.

 

[Jpr95x]

With your defensive play along with special teams, you can certainly afford to give up on average, 1 turnover per game for the potential scoring opportunities that it creates. Being one dimensional week after week is an insurmountable climb to sustain.

 

[BunchofAholes]

With your defensive play along with special teams, you can certainly afford to give up on average 1 turnover per game for the potential scoring opportunities that it creates. Being one dimensional week after week is an insurmountable climb to sustain.

TD/INT ratio baby. If you're getting more TDs passing than you are giving up turnovers you're in the plus column.

 

[DukeSlater]

Please give me your opinion on the following hypothetical:

Let's say Iowa's passing game went from worst in the Big Ten, to right in the middle: 9th in the Big Ten.

BUT, Iowa averages 1 more turnover per game than they're currently averaging.

Everything else (running game, defense, special teams...) remains the same.


Is that scenario likely to get more, less, or the same total wins in a season, than our current sad and pathetic passing game reality?

Here are some historical facts to consider:

In 2009 under QB Ricky Stanzi (and James Vandenberg), Iowa threw for 17 touchdowns and 15 INTs in going 11-2 and winning the Orange Bowl.

In 2010 under Stanzi, Iowa threw for 25 TDs and only 6 INTs, but they went 8-5, including an Outback Bowl loss to LSU.

So Iowa threw more than twice as many INTs in 2009 as in 20010, but had a much better season in 2009. It's no secret that turnovers are an important factor in football, but it's also true that, sometimes, the sheer numbers don't tell the whole story. As a junior in 2009, Stanzi took far more chances than he did as a senior in 2010. Playing it safe in 2010 brought the turnovers down significantly, but it also resulted in a much worse win-loss record. Because victory favors the bold. Because playing it safe, in many cases, is actually very risky. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Make of it what you will, but to me those two seasons are clear evidence that turnovers must be considered in context, because they alone do not tell the whole story.

 

[10001110101]

You're implying that passing the ball leads to more turnovers (risk) but may not lead to more wins (reward). Very KFz. Avoid risk rather than go after the reward.

Why would you assume that I'm implying that, and that that's the side I'm taking?

Your assumption is incorrect.

 

[MFinn]

One three-and-out punt turns into an interception? I’ll take that 100 times out of 100 if it means our offense isn’t a national joke.

 

[uihawk82]

Please give me your opinion on the following hypothetical:

Let's say Iowa's passing game went from worst in the Big Ten, to right in the middle: 9th in the Big Ten.

BUT, Iowa averages 1 more turnover per game than they're currently averaging.

Everything else (running game, defense, special teams...) remains the same.


Is that scenario likely to get more, less, or the same total wins in a season, than our current sad and pathetic passing game reality?

Probably 1 more win a year because the hawks usually win 8-10 games a year and hard to squeak out more than one win

 

[Jonesy5960]

Probably 1 more win a year because the hawks usually win 8-10 games a year and hard to squeak out more than one win

Yup. 1- 2 games are lost each year because Iowa has a very poor offense. It would be higher were it not for the elite defenses Iowa has fielded over the years. It has also prevented Iowa from being competitive vs better teams, even with those elite defenses.