Iowa @ Michigan, Saturday, October 5th, Noon, FOX/Fox Video.

[WingsFan]

To be fair, the O'Korn game was just an incredibly weird insane strategy in which a team constantly guilty of criminial neglect of its WRs suddenly decided to pass to them in a rainstorm and with a backup QB who just couldn't throw at all. That was an earned loss.

Yes, I was going to point that out, but was lazy . Any power 5 QB other than JOK and that's a win. Really only one game Harbaugh has not won or been in to the last play at home (that includes good teams). Again its his road record.

Iowa is tough game though even in 97 Michigan was losing at half - if I remember (at home). Look for a close game, M pulls out a close win.

[hack]

I think your home/road point is a very good point.

I think it was in the Spath piece of anon program-alumni quotes in which someone said that the road record is because he sucks at pre-game speeches. At home, you get the crowd and touching the banner and the other bits of ritual to fire up the players, but on the road that's why this player believes they come out flat.

[Jeff Buchanan]

talent in one of his posts on this game thought my idea of a shootout v. Iowa was "way off" is the term I think he used.

Maybe. Maybe not.

I'm not sure M has a run game that is sustainable to the extent Gattis probably wants it to be in his offense. So, to my eye, that offense is a bit shaded to the pass and the numbers support that. I don't think those numbers, however, are what Gattis, and more probably, Harbaugh wants.

So, yeah, in a perfect world, this wouldn't be a shootout. But given what I think, and think is an important word here, is a less than functional run game in terms of the Gattis ZR/RPO offense, he and Harbaugh may take a much more pass heavy approach to the Iowa contest.

So shootout might have been a poor choice of words given it's traditional Air-Raid connotation. I used the term Hybrid-Air Raid in assigning what I thought might be a good approach for M to take v. Iowa. What I mean by that is pass-heavy with attempts to score a good deal of points early on with the passing game to get Ferentz to play from behind - a circumstance that a team built like Iowa is going to be out of their comfort zone.

As an aside, I have seen Harbaugh try to do this a lot even before this season. Pep would have whoever come out firing and fail at it because from under center and using the PA scheme, those opening plays were obvious by formation and took a long time to develop. Patterson was particularly not good at that. It may be a bit more productive approach with Gattis who seems to be scheming to optimize what Patterson does well - roll out and throw on the move. Patterson has improved some with his pocket presence but his happy feet are still a risk on the long ball.

[Jeff Buchanan]

OddsShark doesn't think too much of an "over-hyped" Michigan but also points out Iowa's toughest competition to date has been against 2-2 Iowa State, a game they won by one point. How the betting line has moved is kinda interesting.

https://www.oddsshark.com/ncaaf/iowa-michigan-betting-2019-10-05-1115647

[iam416]

College Football Nerds, f/k/a SECFans Podcast, is one of my favorite CFB podcasts. I rather enjoy their analysis and their model. They've done a "model only" preview of M-Iowa. Their model says Iowa wins 26-22, but the guy who is discussing the model leans slightly toward M. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJbh...o&pbjreload=10

On the same channel they did one for OSU-Sparty. Their model calls for 27-19, but they reiterate that it's just a starting point and they both predict a far more comfortable OSU win. The really key point in their OSU-MSU discussion -- and it's the one I'm concerned about -- is whether OSU's offense can "scale up" to handle Sparty's defense. Good discussion (also hits on crazy ass stats from Tulsa-Sparty game).

In any event, those guys think Iowa-M is a pretty even game. I'm very of that mind. I'm extremely concerned by how non-impactful M's running game has been. I think that puts a bunch of pressure of Shea and their WRs. And I'm still very concerned about how M defends a team committed to running the ball.

[Hannibal]

The faith that people put into these mathematical models is comical.

[WingsFan]

over analyzing

[iam416]

The faith that people put into these mathematical models is comical.

Two comments. First, for this particular podcast, the model is a starting point. Sometimes they agree, sometimes they disagree. Second, Vegas uses models to set its lines. They aren't set by some grifter from Steubenville calling himself "The Greek." And Vegas adheres relatively tightly to the model.

So, for the particular link I offered up, the model isn't dispositive. I do like they way they look at stats, but that's a data point. Further, Vegas has a vested interest in good lines and commits quite a bit of faith to models. My guess is they don't do it for kicks and hilarity. They know they're accurate at scale.

Obviously, for a single game, they can be wildly off. No shit. Maybe that's the case with this game. As the season progresses and the data points accumulate, though, the accuracy improves.

[Hannibal]

It's a millennial thing. Trying to reduce every phenomenon into something that can be modeled with a handful of equations and a few thousand trials.

Garbage in = Garbage out.

[hack]

All models are flawed, but some are useful.

[Cody_Russell]

[Jeff Buchanan]

M can beat Iowa if they can get their shit together. With respect to the running game, something they need to have v. Iowa, M clearly went back to some of the stuff that worked in 2018 when Patterson was at QB, There was some ZR/RPO but it was limited and there was more PA. Rutgers could afford to ignore a run threat from Patterson and could scheme to produce an unblocked defender in the run game. That showed.

When Milton played Gattis went all in with the ZR and RPO. Haskins was killing it because that unblocked defender had to honor Milton's run threat instead of plugging holes at the LoS. What all that tells me is that the coaches don't want to run Patterson and may think Patterson needs a more limited play-book right now that will expand as he demonstrates he can deliver with the extra options available to him. Obviously, Patterson's performance is key to how well the mix of runs and passes work. Beyond those observation about Patterson I'm not willing to speculate because we don't know.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Some fun facts:

Iowa has played the 113th, 97th, 24th, and 115th team in SP+. #24, Iowa State, sits at 2-2 and Iowa was outgained nearly 2:1 on a per-play basis in that game, and needed some El Assico magic to prevent ISU from a potential game-winning FG kick. The advanced box score following that game predicts an Iowa victory 3% of the time.

[AlabamAlum]

M 36, Iowa 18.

[iam416]

and needed some El Assico magic to prevent ISU from a potential game-winning FG kick.

The botched punt was at the fucking 25. Iowa State had a long way to go to get into field goal range. Conversely, one could fairly and accurately say that M needed magic to see the mighty Army actual game winning FG kick slide to the right. Big difference.

This is also what I love about MGO -- and this is exactly where you're getting this line because I've seen it and heard it. In the Iowa-ISU game, Iowa State hit two big plays for TDs. They had one other scoring drive. If they did that against the Genius of Don Brown then MGO would, sure as motherfucking shit, say "if you take out the 2 plays for 125 yards M completely throttled Team X." Well...

It's also worth noting that Iowa State is rated higher than M in the S&P+ -- heh. And the S&P+ pretty much thinks Army is trash. Because, well, they are.