So everything was going along just fine in Iowa State’s dream year, with the Cyclones cruising at a performance rating equivalent of a top five team. Then comes along UCF with the Cyclones being double digit favorites…and we squeaked out a miracle win in the final seconds of the game.
Now we’re left to question what that means.
Is Iowa State so good that we can spot the opponent 28 points via two pick-sixes (essentially) and two hugely long touchdown runs?
Or is this a sign of the start of a second-half season slump? Which has often happened to Campbell teams in the past, probably due to wear and tear to a thinned-out roster when Iowa State has rarely had the depth to overcome it.
Another possibility is that that it is simply the Big-12 condition this year…anybody can beat anybody on any given day, and last Saturday was almost UCF’s Day.
Or lastly, last week was a textbook example of what probability looks like. Even though the Cyclones were solidly favored to win the game…not matter how small, there is aways a chance of the other outcome. (Insert Jim Cary's voice here.) Four touchdowns on (essentially) just four plays can do that.
Let’s take a look at what the numbers suggest….
IOWA STATE:
Iowa State’s power ranking dropped a little this week with the Cyclone coming in at 15th.
But don’t confuse that with the “rating” itself, which hasn’t really dropped that much. It’s just that teams are so bunched together that a fraction of a rating point change among teams can rearrange everyone around you. But it doesn’t mean that a team’s competitive ability has been altered much, if any.
Largely, Iowa State’s power rating has been stable, with the exception of the last game, and no one should be surprised that the UCF performance tweaked things down just a skosh.
Overall, the UCF win was the first time since North Dakota that Iowa State played below their current power rating. It was also the first time that they performed ten points below their recent performance level since Iowa. Since Iowa and until UCF, the Cyclones were cruising along at a level a lofty full touchdown above their rating.
Against UCF, the final margin was about seven below their rating, or a drop-off of 14 points from where they have been playing recently, or a performance equivalent of about 35th.
Until Campbell came along, a year where Iowa State was power ranked 35th for the season was a pretty darned good season. (The year we beat Minnesota in the bowl game, we never beat a single top-60 team except Nebraska…including Minnesota.)
There is no way to know if this is the start of a downward trend. But considering the consistency prior to UCF, including an excellent performance against a respectable WVU team the week before, I don’t think there is much indication of the Cyclones are faltering just yet. Just an off game.
All of us are rightfully concerned about our linebacker situation, and I think most of us agree that that was the leading cause for two major scoring runs by UCF. If we don’t get our more experienced backers healthier, that could be a problem going forward against better teams that remain on our schedule.
But it is the pick-sixes that stand out in my mind from a margin perspective. Those are extremely unusual for Rocco, and directly resulted in a 14-point performance deficit
No one knows for sure what would have happened without the two pick-sixes. But when we have the ball…and are moving the ball…it’s entirely possible that the scoring flipped by more than just the 14 points that UCF scored on these two plays, so I highly doubt those are going to be handicaps that have to be dialed into every game going forward.
The long touchdown runs may be an ongoing a concern in the future if our linebackers don’t get healthier, but even with those and without the two pick-sixes Iowa State would have fulfilled it expected double-digit margin of victory for at least this game.
In the big picture if things, Iowa State still played “only” seven points below their rating, and that was our worst outing of the year so far, excluding North Dakota. That is well within the normal range of performance for any team, and every team can be expected to have a few of those. We were just fortunate that it still resulted in a win.
That the Cyclones were able to spot UCF 28 points on just four plays…suggests to me that other than that, this team is still hitting on all cylinders, albeit with a little compression loss in the linebacker cylinders.
At least until proven otherwise, I’m going with this was just an off game, and I still think Iowa State is in a good position to make a run for the CCG. At least as good as anybody else has…but there is a lot of competition for only two spots.
So to wrap up, I think Iowa State’s power rating at 15th is good for this week. We almost have to be that good to spot UCF 28 points and still win. I also think that playing seven points above that level may still be good, but time is going to have to bear that out.
TEXAS TECH:
The Red Raiders are currently power rated 42nd which puts them right in the middle of the pack of the Big-12. Indeed they share a nearly identical power rating to UCF and have had similar success in the Big-12 compared to UCF strength-wise as well.
TTU has found their wins in the middle range of the conference strength of schedule, with Tech’s best win being a road victory against Arizona State, which represents a 25th power ranking equivalent. That’s respectable enough to appreciate that the Red Raiders have some punch in them.
But two weeks later they got pounded by Baylor 35-59 for their worst game of the season, and last week they blew a 34-14 lead against TCU late in the third quarter by allowing the Frogs to score 21 points late to win the game. So TTU seems to have some defensive issues, especially in the latter part of the games. Offense though, looks solid.
That is the problem with analyzing Texas Tech, they seem to be all over the board with performance, and their performance trends indicate that. Sometimes they play a solid four quarters, and sometimes they fail to carry through to the final whistle. Stamina seems to be their problem.
Though their performance has been up and down, overall the season trend has been sloping down somewhat, but it appears that their current power rating has adjusted for most of that. But is it still going down?
There is room to detune Tech perhaps three to five points, and their last two games suggest that. But their inconsistency suggests it is too soon to depend on it. Thia week their performance may be back up.
Their performance against the strength of schedule is a bit more stable trend-wise, but it too shows the wild fluctuations no matter how weak or strong the opponent is. And it too suggests there is a slight downward trend against stronger opponents, but again it’s to inconsistent to depend on.
Overall, TTU’s inconsistency is the storyline this week. The Red Raiders are power ranked correctly based on their average performance to date. But the issue is they don’t play an average performance.
That means that on any given Saturday…actually half of them…Tech can play at a lower top-25 level. And that comes dangerously close to being able to beat an Iowa State team. Especially if Iowa State has a below average performance like they did last week.
So…Texas Tech stands as a formidable opponent against anybody they may play.
IOWA STATE VS. TEXAS TECH:
The Cygarin Ratings suggest a ten-point spread and a 75% chance of winning the game.
From a comparison standpoint they are nearly identical to UCF. However, the difference between UCF and Texas Tech is that the Red Raiders have shown a larger performance fluctuation, and that means that Tech has more capability of playing at a higher level than UCF indicated on any given Saturday.
Considering that UCF almost got Iowa State last week, that means that the Cyclones can ill afford to spot UCF two pick-sixes, and two long touchdown runs. Perhaps one or the other, but not both.
One the other hand, if Iowa State comes in hot…and/or…Texas Tech has a late game slide…a larger win is possible.
I suggested that was possible last week, so I don’t think I’ll put much emphasis on that this week.
So I’ll suggest that the 10-point spread be ignored, and stick with the 75% chance of just winning.
(In my opinion.)
Now we’re left to question what that means.
Is Iowa State so good that we can spot the opponent 28 points via two pick-sixes (essentially) and two hugely long touchdown runs?
Or is this a sign of the start of a second-half season slump? Which has often happened to Campbell teams in the past, probably due to wear and tear to a thinned-out roster when Iowa State has rarely had the depth to overcome it.
Another possibility is that that it is simply the Big-12 condition this year…anybody can beat anybody on any given day, and last Saturday was almost UCF’s Day.
Or lastly, last week was a textbook example of what probability looks like. Even though the Cyclones were solidly favored to win the game…not matter how small, there is aways a chance of the other outcome. (Insert Jim Cary's voice here.) Four touchdowns on (essentially) just four plays can do that.
Let’s take a look at what the numbers suggest….
IOWA STATE:
Iowa State’s power ranking dropped a little this week with the Cyclone coming in at 15th.
But don’t confuse that with the “rating” itself, which hasn’t really dropped that much. It’s just that teams are so bunched together that a fraction of a rating point change among teams can rearrange everyone around you. But it doesn’t mean that a team’s competitive ability has been altered much, if any.
Largely, Iowa State’s power rating has been stable, with the exception of the last game, and no one should be surprised that the UCF performance tweaked things down just a skosh.
Overall, the UCF win was the first time since North Dakota that Iowa State played below their current power rating. It was also the first time that they performed ten points below their recent performance level since Iowa. Since Iowa and until UCF, the Cyclones were cruising along at a level a lofty full touchdown above their rating.
Against UCF, the final margin was about seven below their rating, or a drop-off of 14 points from where they have been playing recently, or a performance equivalent of about 35th.
Until Campbell came along, a year where Iowa State was power ranked 35th for the season was a pretty darned good season. (The year we beat Minnesota in the bowl game, we never beat a single top-60 team except Nebraska…including Minnesota.)
There is no way to know if this is the start of a downward trend. But considering the consistency prior to UCF, including an excellent performance against a respectable WVU team the week before, I don’t think there is much indication of the Cyclones are faltering just yet. Just an off game.
All of us are rightfully concerned about our linebacker situation, and I think most of us agree that that was the leading cause for two major scoring runs by UCF. If we don’t get our more experienced backers healthier, that could be a problem going forward against better teams that remain on our schedule.
But it is the pick-sixes that stand out in my mind from a margin perspective. Those are extremely unusual for Rocco, and directly resulted in a 14-point performance deficit
No one knows for sure what would have happened without the two pick-sixes. But when we have the ball…and are moving the ball…it’s entirely possible that the scoring flipped by more than just the 14 points that UCF scored on these two plays, so I highly doubt those are going to be handicaps that have to be dialed into every game going forward.
The long touchdown runs may be an ongoing a concern in the future if our linebackers don’t get healthier, but even with those and without the two pick-sixes Iowa State would have fulfilled it expected double-digit margin of victory for at least this game.
In the big picture if things, Iowa State still played “only” seven points below their rating, and that was our worst outing of the year so far, excluding North Dakota. That is well within the normal range of performance for any team, and every team can be expected to have a few of those. We were just fortunate that it still resulted in a win.
That the Cyclones were able to spot UCF 28 points on just four plays…suggests to me that other than that, this team is still hitting on all cylinders, albeit with a little compression loss in the linebacker cylinders.
At least until proven otherwise, I’m going with this was just an off game, and I still think Iowa State is in a good position to make a run for the CCG. At least as good as anybody else has…but there is a lot of competition for only two spots.
So to wrap up, I think Iowa State’s power rating at 15th is good for this week. We almost have to be that good to spot UCF 28 points and still win. I also think that playing seven points above that level may still be good, but time is going to have to bear that out.
TEXAS TECH:
The Red Raiders are currently power rated 42nd which puts them right in the middle of the pack of the Big-12. Indeed they share a nearly identical power rating to UCF and have had similar success in the Big-12 compared to UCF strength-wise as well.
TTU has found their wins in the middle range of the conference strength of schedule, with Tech’s best win being a road victory against Arizona State, which represents a 25th power ranking equivalent. That’s respectable enough to appreciate that the Red Raiders have some punch in them.
But two weeks later they got pounded by Baylor 35-59 for their worst game of the season, and last week they blew a 34-14 lead against TCU late in the third quarter by allowing the Frogs to score 21 points late to win the game. So TTU seems to have some defensive issues, especially in the latter part of the games. Offense though, looks solid.
That is the problem with analyzing Texas Tech, they seem to be all over the board with performance, and their performance trends indicate that. Sometimes they play a solid four quarters, and sometimes they fail to carry through to the final whistle. Stamina seems to be their problem.
Though their performance has been up and down, overall the season trend has been sloping down somewhat, but it appears that their current power rating has adjusted for most of that. But is it still going down?
There is room to detune Tech perhaps three to five points, and their last two games suggest that. But their inconsistency suggests it is too soon to depend on it. Thia week their performance may be back up.
Their performance against the strength of schedule is a bit more stable trend-wise, but it too shows the wild fluctuations no matter how weak or strong the opponent is. And it too suggests there is a slight downward trend against stronger opponents, but again it’s to inconsistent to depend on.
Overall, TTU’s inconsistency is the storyline this week. The Red Raiders are power ranked correctly based on their average performance to date. But the issue is they don’t play an average performance.
That means that on any given Saturday…actually half of them…Tech can play at a lower top-25 level. And that comes dangerously close to being able to beat an Iowa State team. Especially if Iowa State has a below average performance like they did last week.
So…Texas Tech stands as a formidable opponent against anybody they may play.
IOWA STATE VS. TEXAS TECH:
The Cygarin Ratings suggest a ten-point spread and a 75% chance of winning the game.
From a comparison standpoint they are nearly identical to UCF. However, the difference between UCF and Texas Tech is that the Red Raiders have shown a larger performance fluctuation, and that means that Tech has more capability of playing at a higher level than UCF indicated on any given Saturday.
Considering that UCF almost got Iowa State last week, that means that the Cyclones can ill afford to spot UCF two pick-sixes, and two long touchdown runs. Perhaps one or the other, but not both.
One the other hand, if Iowa State comes in hot…and/or…Texas Tech has a late game slide…a larger win is possible.
I suggested that was possible last week, so I don’t think I’ll put much emphasis on that this week.
So I’ll suggest that the 10-point spread be ignored, and stick with the 75% chance of just winning.
(In my opinion.)
