I think what we determined last year was it loved margin of victory (heavily rewarding Hawkeyes for running up scores with starters remaining in games for example). This aligns with the above.
I still don't think this is generally the case for any model based around net margin.
In theory, if Iowa State and Iowa play the same schedule (so there would be no worries about strength of schedule adjustments) and the same number of possessions (nor for pace) --
Iowa wins every game 90-80
Iowa State wins every game 60-50
They should both be +10 net per 100. The model would see them as equally-good teams.
There are two factors that might complicate this --
(1.) making strength of schedule adjustments
(2.) making (or not making) garbage-time adjustments for lopsided games
I don't think it would be the first. Doing that is pretty simple and is usually done the same way across these models of adjusting net margins such that the net margin of their opponents is net zero so that, in theory, every team is being treated like it played the same strength of schedule in the end.
The other one is more complicated to analyze. Some models don't try to do this. Others either have some sort of log function to induce diminishing returns to margins (e.g., going from winning by one to winning by nine is a big deal, but going from winning by 20 to winning by 30 doesn't do much for you) with some conditions (e.g., do make adjustments for OOC home games against non-P6 opponents, do not for conference games), and others might just have a "hard" cutoff of a certain margin where winning by more means nothing. Some even try to have some statistical definition of "garbage time" at the end of games depending on the margin and who was playing and discount or eliminate those possessions from the net margin calculations.
Most of these models document these sorts of things only in conceptual terms (if that). It is hard to know exactly what impact those kinds of adjustments would have without seeing the actual code.
I don't think this biases the models towards Iowa, though. Sure, Iowa likes to run up the score against overmatched opponents in Carver early in the season. But TJ didn't call the dogs off against IUPUI and North Carolina A&T until *very* late in those games, and the Cyclone defensive intensity didn't take a break even as they were up 20+ on some bad teams. That is the "culture" and TJ and the team take pride in that. You can "run up the score" on defense if you keep scoring at a modest pace and completely shut the other team down as much as you can on offense by simply scoring a ton in garbage time and kinda sorta slow them down from scoring.
I'd need something more solid to believe that Torvik and its peers enjoy Iowa's offense more than it enjoys Iowa State's defense. In theory, they should be equal -- it is all about the margin of victory.