If Neuville and Van Ginkle cannot play, I can't see any possibility of a UW win. Their absence after the first quarter was noticeable on Saturday.Both are listed as questionable.
This will be an interesting test for Iowa's defense. I could be wrong, but I believe Iowa first string defense has only given up 3 points in 3 games. All other scores were garbage time scores against 2nd string.Agreed. A great defensive line can often make life a lot easier for young linebackers/secondary.
Still, Iowa is still figuring out who are the 3 best LB's to play, especially at MLB, which has had some issues. Wisconsin's RB could maybe exploit this.
Iowa has been compensating with possibly the best defensive line in its history. Well, if not the best, then at least it is without a doubt the deepest line with 8 different players that could start on most Big Ten squads. The secondary is young but so far has been shutting down opposing passers, again with the help of a defensive line that has been getting a bunch of sacks.
If Iowa's defense can shut down Wisconsin the same way it shut down Iowa State, then Iowa has chance to pull the upset.
Having gone to the Iowa-Wisconsin game last season, and seeing the worst offensive coordinator work in recent memory from Iowa, I hope they learned a lesson. Wisconsin would stack 8 men in the box on 1st and 2nd down. Iowa would run 1st and 2nd down -- every time. Iowa would be nowhere near the 1st down marker. Wisconsin would drop back into pass coverage on 3rd down, and every time they didn't run they'd try to pass a short lame one on 3rd down. The result: 25 yards rushing; 8/24 passing for 41 yards. Total offense 66-yards, and 32 yards of penalties. Iowa's defense scored twice on interceptions. It was the dumbest damned game plan in history, if there was a plan.I think the offenses are closer than you think. I do think Wisconsin has the edge in the running game, but the passing game (especially sans Cephus) isn't much better than Iowa's. Hornibrook hasn't exactly impressed this year so far. If the Iowa D-line can establish some pressure, look for lots of Badger 3-and-outs (and yes, I fully expect plenty of Hawkeye 3-and-outs too).
A week earlier against Ohio State, Stanley threw the ball vertically, and well, and on 1st down. Mixed in the run and scored 55 against Ohio State. The play at Wisconsin against a good team, was imbecilic. It was the same old stuff Iowa tries that doesn't work against a good defense.
Ferentz has talked since after the bowl game about how if you are in the Western Division you have to beat Wisconsin to get to the championship game. They put the O-Line coach on the video screen studying Wisconsin video this summer. I know they have put some effort into this game. I just hope the Iowa O-Coordinator has put some thought into the game.
I can't predict. Wisconsin is a good team, has good personnel, a very good O-Line from what I have seen. Mixes it up pretty good on offense. And has a good defense too. They play a lot like Iowa. I think Wisconsin is better on offense by a long shot, and not quite as good defensively.
Home field in this series means nothing.
Kinnick is where top teams go to get beat.yeah it's a tough ass place to win a football game. We saw what they did to M in 2016 and to OSU last year.
I think the offenses are closer than you think. I do think Wisconsin has the edge in the running game, but the passing game (especially sans Cephus) isn't much better than Iowa's. Hornibrook hasn't exactly impressed this year so far. If the Iowa D-line can establish some pressure, look for lots of Badger 3-and-outs (and yes, I fully expect plenty of Hawkeye 3-and-outs too).Stanley had over 80% completions vs. FCS competition last week. We cannot draw many conclusions from that performance. I thought the receivers played well against UNI. Many passes were thrown behind them and receivers reached back and got them, and were clobbered. If Stanley had been on target, you would have seen more scoring. In past weeks the receivers dropped balls. Iowa has issues offensively.
It might come down to penalties, turnovers, and short fields. Iowa needs Recinos to be sharp because they'll likely need every point they can get. 20 points probably would be enough to win this.
I look forward to this matchup every year. Knockdown dragout football!
I picked Wisky in the pool, but I just flipped a coin. That’s my game of the weekend.
Looking forward to it
I agree with you. Hayden Fry brought passing back into the Big Ten, and I miss it.Exactly. Both of these teams are extremely well coached, play great defense and special teams, run hard right at you to establish a TE based passing game, and are always extremely physical. Big Ten football defined. Love this matchup.
These teams feature the 1970s Big Ten football Michigan and Ohio State featured, with less talent, but with fair proficiency. I suspect this aspect appeals to an HonestBuckeye to a degree.
Iowa-Wisconsin has been my favorite Big Ten rivalry since the 1970s. The schools are geographically close. The fanbases travel. I think I have been to Madison for games 5x. And as many times in Iowa City. Fans have fun with this rivalry.
When the Wisconsin band travels to Iowa City, on the Friday before the game they stop at a high school football field in Iowa and play.
Kinnick is where top teams go to get beat.So, Wisconsin has nothing to worry about.
Very interesting game. WIsconsin losing last week was a shock, so I would assume they come into this week with something to prove. That being said, Kinnick at night? Yikes. THat's never an easy trip for any team. Really looking forward to this game.Yeah, that's the really crappy thing about being the BTN night game. It's rarely a big game, but when it's your team, you gotta watch...and usually miss other actually big games.
Yeah, that's the really crappy thing about being the BTN night game. It's rarely a big game, but when it's your team, you gotta watch...and usually miss other actually big games.It's on Fox, not BTN.
It's on Fox, not BTN.I mean MSU. USed to be if you were on in prime time it was a big game. It sucks when you are the BTN prime time game, because you end up missing all of the good games because your game, which should be at noon, is now prime time just to fill a BTN slot.
Example A of why I think the CFP has diminished the regular season even farther, and why I think "best regular season" is sort of a farce now. ESPNU radio was discussing most important games this weekend, and one of the co-hosts brought up this one saying it was a de facto West title game because the winner would essentially be 2 games ahead of the loser with tiebreaker, and they didn't see anyone else in the division posing a threat. That was totally poo pooed by the other co-host, who basically said "so what, neither team is going to the Playoff." When a Week 4 game between the best two teams in a Power 5 division is irrelevant because they aren't currently in the CFP race, I have a hard time saying that's the "best" regular season. Maybe the regular season where a loss most greatly impacts you, but it to me seems like the sport with the greatest number of totally irrelevant regular season games, if the narrative is singularly focused on the CFP...which I think it has become. My their logic, until proven otherwise, any game not involving Alabama, Clemson, Georgia, OSU or Oklahoma is irrelevant.Amen
| ***BIG TEN GAME OF THE WEEK*** |
| #18 Wisconsin Badgers (2-1) at Iowa Hawkeyes (3-0) |
| 8:30 - Iowa City, IA - FOX |
| This was a game I had pegged as an Iowa upset win in the preseason. That was before the Iowa defense looked otherworldly, and Wisconsin's trench play looked as down to Earth as we've seen. While Wisconsin's style of attack has sometimes come up short in the biggest stage, it has been nearly foolproof in grinding inferior teams into the ground. That changed last week as not only did BYU win, they beat Bucky at their own game, getting tons of pressure on the outside against the Wisconsin tackles. They were successful in bottling up Jonathan Taylor, who still got 117 yards on the ground, but needed 26 carries to do so, resulting in the second lowest ypc game of his career, ahead of only the Big Ten Championship Game loss to Ohio State last year. That has to give hope to an Iowa defense which is playing with its hair on fire, leading the nation in S&P+. Their 3.5 yards per play allowed is best in the Big Ten. Iowa has developed a reputation on defense under Kirk Ferentz, but after losing 7 starters, including two unanimous first team All-Americans, from a defense that finished in the bottom half of the Big Ten a year ago has been a shocking start. None of that matters if Iowa can't get a little bit more offensively, meaning a lot more offensively than they got in this game a year ago. Coming off their 55-24 drubbing of Ohio State, the Hawkeyes looked to keep their momentum rolling into Madison. Instead, they put up one of the worst offensive performances I've ever seen, getting outgained 382-66, and having nearly as many turnovers (3) as first downs (5). The game was only a mildly respectable 38-14 due to a pair of long pick sixes for Joshua Jackson. Bucky racked up 4 sacks in the game, which was not out of the usual for them. This year, the play up front defensively has been concerning, something we never say about Wisconsin. This year? Their adjusted sack rate is 90th in the nation. The secondary is playing better than I would have expected, but they need to find a way to get more pressure. If Nate Stanley gets a clean pocket, it looks like he has shaken the rust from the beginning of the season, when Iowa took care of Northern Illinois in spite of his play. Last week he threw for over 300 yards on 82% passing. Kinnick Stadium at night is always unpleasant, but when Iowa is really good, it can become nearly impossible. I think that and their defense, and a slightly declined Wisconsin defensive line is enough to give the Hawkeyes control of the division. |
| IOWA 22, WISCONSIN 17 |
Responding to @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) and @Honestbuckeye (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=37) :Even if they don't though, I hate what the casual dismissal of any non CFP impactful game means for why I love college football.
I disagree with the quoted ESPN guy's position.
Well, actually not entirely. I agree in that I do not think that either the Hawkeyes or the Badgers WILL go to the playoffs. However, I disagree with his casual dismissal of them because I absolutely do not think that is a done deal yet.
In four years of the CFP no undefeated or 1-loss P5 CG winner has EVER missed the CFP. The closest we ever came was 2014 when the B12 had two 1-loss teams. If they had been arranged then as they are now then one of them would have joined the ACC, SEC, B1G, and Pac CG winners to make five one-loss or undefeated P5 CG winners.
Iowa controls their own destiny to get to 13-0. Wisconsin controls their own destiny to get to 12-1. 13-0 would almost certainly net a CFP berth for Iowa. I would guess that 12-1 would be very likely to get Wisconsin in.
Even if they don't though, I hate what the casual dismissal of any non CFP impactful game means for why I love college football.As a practitioner of the church of the pre-BCS postseason, I really hate the question I'm about to ask, but what outcome do you think is most likely to re-up regular season meaning: growing the CFP to 8 or 16, or reducing it back to 2?
Yeah, if Iowa wins this, they'll probably be a 90+% bet to get to the BTCG. And perhaps a 30+% bet to get there undefeated with only @PSU as a legit remaining challenge for a contender.Iowa has three currently undefeated teams on its schedule, Indiana, Minnesota, and Penn State. Iowa may have a 30% chance of defeating Penn State, if Iowa wins Saturday, but I don't think the odds of an undefeated regular season would approach 30%. We'd have to ask Medina who knows more about probability than just about anyone.
Iowa has three currently undefeated teams on its schedule, Indiana, Minnesota, and Penn State. Iowa may have a 30% chance of defeating Penn State, if Iowa wins Saturday, but I don't think the odds of an undefeated regular season would approach 30%. We'd have to ask Medina who knows more about probability than just about anyone.I honestly think that the worldwide leader's FPI does a pretty good job at this sort of thing.
As a practitioner of the church of the pre-BCS postseason, I really hate the question I'm about to ask, but what outcome do you think is most likely to re-up regular season meaning: growing the CFP to 8 or 16, or reducing it back to 2?Heh, well see a 64 team playoff before we go back 2
Heh, well see a 64 team playoff before we go back 2Oh I know. My question was about whether it's necessarily all downhill for the sport from here. That is, the current system diminishes the regular season more than the BCS, which was worse at this than the pre-BCS bowl system. But is there a chance that we aren't on a forever downslope but in a trough between two peaks and that an 8- or 16-team tourney could be better for the regular season than this (in terms of more games mattering because more teams can get in)?
Example A of why I think the CFP has diminished the regular season even farther, and why I think "best regular season" is sort of a farce now. ESPNU radio was discussing most important games this weekend, and one of the co-hosts brought up this one saying it was a de facto West title game because the winner would essentially be 2 games ahead of the loser with tiebreaker, and they didn't see anyone else in the division posing a threat. That was totally poo pooed by the other co-host, who basically said "so what, neither team is going to the Playoff." When a Week 4 game between the best two teams in a Power 5 division is irrelevant because they aren't currently in the CFP race, I have a hard time saying that's the "best" regular season. Maybe the regular season where a loss most greatly impacts you, but it to me seems like the sport with the greatest number of totally irrelevant regular season games, if the narrative is singularly focused on the CFP...which I think it has become. My their logic, until proven otherwise, any game not involving Alabama, Clemson, Georgia, OSU or Oklahoma is irrelevant.It always strikes me that in the world of CFB, we often work hard to be, for lack of a better word, dismissive. It’s hardwired into a lot of people to look more for the reasons someone or something is bad than is good. To a degree the playoff just becomes another way to talk about that, though perhaps it’s more a vehicle than a cause.
Oh I know. My question was about whether it's necessarily all downhill for the sport from here. That is, the current system diminishes the regular season more than the BCS, which was worse at this than the pre-BCS bowl system. But is there a chance that we aren't on a forever downslope but in a trough between two peaks and that an 8- or 16-team tourney could be better for the regular season than this (in terms of more games mattering because more teams can get in)?When there are auto-bids for the Ccg winners, the regular season will be of the utmost importance.
Don't get me wrong, I severely dislike the CFP era and am biased to resist its expansion, but I'm also an optimist fishing for silver linings.
so.. the game...Yep, it's this simple.
As is almost always the case, the game will be decided up front. UW's young DL is going to have to hold its own against Iowa's OL. If it cannot keep blockers off the backers, UW is in for a long night. On the other side, UW's OL is going to be challenged by the Iowa DL, which looks to go 8 deep. That's some serious depth, but UW can counter with its own OL depth, which goes 8-9 deep itself.
Oh I know. My question was about whether it's necessarily all downhill for the sport from here. That is, the current system diminishes the regular season more than the BCS, which was worse at this than the pre-BCS bowl system. But is there a chance that we aren't on a forever downslope but in a trough between two peaks and that an 8- or 16-team tourney could be better for the regular season than this (in terms of more games mattering because more teams can get in)?Yeah, that's sort of where I am, that 4 is the worst case scenario. That 2 or 8 would be better. I wouldn't be opposed to 12 if it included all 10 conference champs. If that gave me a reason to care about the Sun Belt race, I could get on board with that. I'm not one who cares too much about who wins a national title, and if making all of the conference races important again means opening up the risk of having a fluky national champion, I think I'm good with that.
Don't get me wrong, I severely dislike the CFP era and am biased to resist its expansion, but I'm also an optimist fishing for silver linings.
Yeah, that's sort of where I am, that 4 is the worst case scenario. That 2 or 8 would be better. I wouldn't be opposed to 12 if it included all 10 conference champs. If that gave me a reason to care about the Sun Belt race, I could get on board with that. I'm not one who cares too much about who wins a national title, and if making all of the conference races important again means opening up the risk of having a fluky national champion, I think I'm good with that.I like 12 if it included the top 5 seeds automatically going to P5 conference champs, and the top 4 get byes.
so.. the game...yup, gotta remember that last season the Hawks lost to Purdue
Lots of football left to be played.
Yeah, that's sort of where I am, that 4 is the worst case scenario. That 2 or 8 would be better. I wouldn't be opposed to 12 if it included all 10 conference champs. If that gave me a reason to care about the Sun Belt race, I could get on board with that. I'm not one who cares too much about who wins a national title, and if making all of the conference races important again means opening up the risk of having a fluky national champion, I think I'm good with that.I didn't care for the 2 system. You lose a nonCon game, and your season was effectively over. Like 2008, when OSU lost to USC, and went directly into rebuild mode; benching the defending Big Ten champion for a freshman QB. Of course they wound up winning the Big Ten anyway, but it wasn't because they gave a crap about the 2008 season.
I didn't care for the 2 system. You lose a nonCon game, and your season was effectively over. Like 2008, when OSU lost to USC, and went directly into rebuild mode; benching the defending Big Ten champion for a freshman QB. Of course they wound up winning the Big Ten anyway, but it wasn't because they gave a crap about the 2008 season.:96:
If Wisconsin loses, it is a blow of significance obviously, but Iowa could lose two still.every game is a big game if you have a shot at the conference championship
It's a Big Game for both.
You and me both.The mentality being NC or bust. I know there's no putting the toothpaste back in the tube on that, so you've got to modify it to make more games matter. That includes the G5.
Auto-bids for Ccg winners would all but eliminate it. Or at least fend it off until the end of October.
When there are auto-bids for the Ccg winners, the regular season will be of the utmost importance.Much of what made the pre-BCS "best" at valuing the regular season is that the regular season wasn't chiefly about the future national champion but about the conference races. Those races have been diminished in several ways over the last 20 years. For one, rematches are now a semi-common feature of the sport's various (conference or national) championships. For another, some major conferences know by the beginning of November that they almost certainly will not have a representative in the NC-apalooza. And the psychology has changed to call those games insignificant.
Unless of course you are longing for the days when a singular loss effectively eliminated you from contention. But I don't believe that you meant that, since you consider pre-BCS to be better for the "regular" season than BCS.
Perfect place for a playoff conversation.It's not really a playoff discussion as much of a "why is this game not a bigger deal" discussion
Perfect place for a playoff conversation.But isn't it? This is all in support of UW/Iowa because a guy on ESPN expressed the game as irrelevant and that's a sad (and sadly pervasive) problem, albeit predictable given the state of the sport, hence the conversation.
If Iowa runs the table, they are in. Even from that vantage point, it is far from a meaningless game.Completely agree. But I think this conversation is less about that reality than the deterioration in mindset that would allow a talking head say this. Now, of course we shouldn't care what a talking head is saying. I don't think we are. I think this conversation is happening because that perspective has become PERVASIVE, which is a real drag, and if it's not just from a stray talking head but from a sizable chunk of people, the sport has a sickness that we can easily see and point to with a stick.
Meh. Talking heads gonna talking head.
The thing about THs is that they are nothing without an audience. I've stated many times how I get far better analysis around here.That's what I'm getting at. CFB is whatever you want it to be. You can't control the masses, but you can control yourself. If you'd rather zero in on the conference races or the rivalry games and tune out the rest of the noise, then that is still available. Of course my perspective is coming from the vantage point of someone who doesn't particularly feel the need to be part of a crowd. I'm perfectly content doing my own thing.
A TH can claim this or that but it doesn't change anything in the real world, it's just talk, from a head. On TV.
Fans should be independent enough to decide on their own what matters to them.
All the talk about who is in the lead for the Heisman these days is revolting to me, so I ignore it.
No different than "Rose Bowl or bust" really.It's entirely different. That's the archetype for respecting the regular season.
The Rose Bowl selection had it's warts. A worse team would go over a better one, simply because they hadn't been there in a long time.That was a flawed tiebreaker but at least the team was a conference champion.
I'm not certain the BCS lead to expansion and CCGs, but I suppose it's possible it was a major factor.
In 1998 the sport decided it detested tied NCs so much that it would risk rematches and a crumbling of its most storied bowls to instill the BCS, which catalyzed expansion and CCGs.
I'm not certain the BCS lead to expansion and CCGs, but I suppose it's possible it was a major factor.That's fair. The cause/effect tree here probably isn't a tree at all - it probably circles around rather than arrowing in a single direction. I suspect, however, that television dollars and the BCS fed off each other and conference expansion and CCGs off that.
I think I like Iowa in a game that has a weird ass score. 11-10. Night game in Kinnick- some weird shit is bound to happen on that field.I seem to remember Iowa taking that the lead against Michigan 11-10 in the 4th Qtr. in 2016. I thought then, "What a weird score." But weird scores although infrequent are part of the Iowa way.
That one didn't have a UW offer though. Iowa has kind of ramped up taking UW's leftovers in the state the last few years.
a decent running back from Wisconsin playing for the Hawks as well
I can understand being surprised by the jet sweep action to begin the game, but I can't believe a) they've never seen it before and b) they were unable to make adjustments.hah, I'll never be able to block the jet sweeps in that horrid Big Ten Champ game out of my memory
Interesting article. The Wisconsin score to win in the last minute brought a sea change to the Iowa defensive configuration that is probably here to stay for years to come. Iowa's defense performed well this season but not good enough to beat Wisconsin, Purdue, Northwestern, or Penn State. Hawkeyes can't keep playing second fiddle to Northwestern and Wisconsin. They've been 2nd fiddle to Wisconsin for a while and it hurts the rivalry.That's a very good article, but the main thing to get out of it is that Iowa has evolved past the idea of they pick one formation and will stick with it the entire game. Depending on the team and the situation, they may play a 4-3 or 4-2-5, it's just that the 4-2-5 is now considered the primary formation they play most often now.
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/sports/college/columnists/chad-leistikow/2018/12/13/iowa-hawkeyes-defense-philosophy-change-defense-seth-wallace-amani-hooker-geno-stone-phil-parker/2293595002/ (https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/sports/college/columnists/chad-leistikow/2018/12/13/iowa-hawkeyes-defense-philosophy-change-defense-seth-wallace-amani-hooker-geno-stone-phil-parker/2293595002/)