I think it's been shown that the outcome of the Iowa game is a poor predictor for the rest of the season.
How so? I think it's actually been relatively accurate for ISU (and often times for Iowa, as well).
I won't dive into the pre-2000 games, as I didn't see them, and neither team was very good at the time. And I'm not including the 2001 game, since it was played at the end of the season.
2000: ISU wins (don't know the score, but I don't figure it was too close), finishes 9-3
2002: ISU wins against a very good Iowa team, finishes 7-5 (could very easily have been better)
2003: Iowa wins handily, ISU finishes 2-10
2004: very competitive game, ISU finishes 7-5
2005: ISU wins handily, goes 7-5
2006: ISU competitive in a loss against a 6-6 Iowa team, finishes 4-8
2007: ISU wins an ugly game between two bad teams, goes 3-9
2008: ISU loses just an ugly game on both sides (thanks to the weather), goes 2-10
2009: ISU runs into a buzzsaw, but goes 6-6
2010: Another buzzsaw, 5-7
I think that Ferentz has indeed put more emphasis on the ISU game since Rhoads was brought in. He lost the first 5 against Mac, and the first game against Chizik. We've put the pedal to the metal in each of the last two years, as if to try and prove a point.
But for the better part of the last decade, the game was an accurate barometer for ISU (and in many cases, Iowa as well).
To be quite honest, I'm expecting this year's game to be a little more like the 2004 matchup. Obviously I think Iowa will win, but I think it's going to be competitive. This year it may not indicate that ISU will have a good record, as the schedule is brutal. But I think they could have a pretty solid team regardless of record.