This board is nuts

[Eric15]

Who is going bat snit?

No one that I've seen. I think this board is actually pretty even-keeled after us giving up 845 yards.

 

[Eric15]

We all knew this type of loss was coming, not a shock.

That wasn't reflected in the Louisville prediction thread. At least 90% of posters had us winning.

 

[KaiserUEO]

That wasn't reflected in the Louisville prediction thread. At least 90% of posters had us winning.

Which one??

I did like 50 on here.

And it was clear by game week, we had zero shot.

 

[Orijinal]

The problem that I have, like most everyone else has, is the defense. The secondary is not even close to covering downfield receivers. Thank God, literally, that multiple balls clunked off the hands of wide open Louisville receivers AND that Jackson isn't NEARLY an elite passer or else Syracuse may have come close to giving up 1,000 yards ...or more

The other thing is that the defense looked particularly small compared to the Louisville offense. I know, I know. It's Louisville. Of course they are bigger. But the difference is noticeably drastic. I don't get this. Is the new strength and conditioning regimen shedding much needed bulk?

And then the loss of Cordy and Dowels. A horribly, horribly coached secondary has lost its best player for who knows how long. Now it's on Scissum, Hudson and company to hold the fort for most of the season? Wow. Hard to buy it

 

[Eric15]

Which one??

I did like 50 on here.

And it was clear by game week, we had zero shot.

Where are the other 49 besides this one?

Louisville Prediction Thread...

 

[Deano]

The problem that I have, like most everyone else has, is the defense. The secondary is not even close to covering downfield receivers. Thank God, literally, that multiple balls clunked off the hands of wide open Louisville receivers AND that Jackson isn't NEARLY an elite passer or else Syracuse may have come close to giving up 1,000 yards ...or more

The other thing is that the defense looked particularly small compared to the Louisville offense. I know, I know. It's Louisville. Of course they are bigger. But the difference is noticeably drastic. I don't get this. Is the new strength and conditioning regimen shedding much needed bulk?

And then the loss of Cordy and Dowels. A horribly, horribly coached secondary has lost its best player for who knows how long. Now it's on Scissum, Hudson and company to hold the fort for most of the season? Wow. Hard to buy it

Quick question, but how many games did the secondary get torched last year in games...a lot. Like a lot of people have said this is a talent issue and it's going to take a little time for Dino and company to get their players in along with hopefully some of the current guys on the roster going in the right direction. I'm not a big fan of the Tampa 2 but got see how this plays out first.

 

[Chip]

That wasn't reflected in the Louisville prediction thread. At least 90% of posters had us winning.

I wouldn't use that as a barometer of anything. I often pick us to win when I'd bet actual $ that we lose.

It's a bulletproof chance for everyone to combine optimism with creativity. And brag if you get it right.

 

[KaiserUEO]

Where are the other 49 besides this one?

Louisville Prediction Thread...

Don't people pick Cuse to win in that one every week??

The whole season ones that pop up 2x a week once the schedule was released I mean.

Or the the 10000 posts game week leading up to that loss.


Shhhh...

I'll let u in on a little secret...

notre dame, fla st, and clemson are gonna roll Syracuse.

 

[orangepassion]

I've seen 10x more posts of people complaining about other people complaining about Babers than people actually complaining about Babers. I believe 99% of posters have great confidence in him.

 

[nzm136]

Never said anything about O, no worries on O with Babers...

I agree, but so far it's worse :/

It's just faster.

 

[TheCusian]

I agree, but so far it's worse :/ It's just faster.

What? Worse?

Less effecient? Yes.
Worse? No.

 

[nzm136]

What? Worse?

Less effecient? Yes.
Worse? No.

No, it's worse (on a YTD basis). Look at points per possession stats.

(Net offensive points per possession - net defensive points per possession + net special teams points per punt/kick) * possession = the game spread (i.e. whether you won or lost)

However, if you look at the above equation, whether you win or lose is entirely determined by the net points per possession, not the pace.

This year's offense is worse (so far on a YTD basis). The pace of the game is just faster.

The key words/letters are "YTD," though. It's too early for stats to have any real meaning. But to say that the offense is better is 1) equally premature and 2) arguably not based in relevant facts (unless you try to compare last year's UL + fcs games vs. this year's <-- then I don't know how it turns out because I didn't run the numbers).

 

[HRE Otto IV]

No, it's worse (on a YTD basis). Look at points per possession stats.

(Net offensive points per possession - net defensive points per possession + net special teams points per punt/kick) * possession = the game spread (i.e. whether you won or lost)

However, if you look at the above equation, whether you win or lose is entirely determined by the net points per possession, not the pace.

This year's offense is worse (so far on a YTD basis). The pace of the game is just faster.

The key words/letters are "YTD," though. It's too early for stats to have any real meaning. But to say that the offense is better is 1) equally premature and 2) arguably not based in relevant facts (unless you try to compare last year's UL + fcs games vs. this year's <-- then I don't know how it turns out because I didn't run the numbers).

If you are going with a simple stat then sure. If you look at an adjusted ppg which takes into account more factors such as pace, opponent, garbage time, etc.
we then have:

2015
O 28.8 ppg
D 28.3 ppg

2016
O 34.1 ppg
D 30.3 ppg

So on O we are scoring 5.3 more ppg but are giving up on D 2.0 more ppg. But like you said it is very early in the year and these stats aren't as meaningful.

 

[nzm136]

If you are going with a simple stat then sure. If you look at an adjusted ppg which takes into account more factors such as pace, opponent, garbage time, etc.
we then have:

2015
O 28.8 ppg
D 28.3 ppg

2016
O 34.1 ppg
D 30.3 ppg

So on O we are scoring 5.3 more ppg but are giving up on D 2.0 more ppg. But like you said it is very early in the year and these stats aren't as meaningful.

How specifically are you/they adjusting? Adjusted points per game football and adj ppg football aren't coming up on google. I'll buy factoring out garbage time (but I can't reasonably do it), and obviously I'll buy adjusting for pace, and factoring for opponents would be nice - but that sounds complex.

I'm highly skeptical of complex regressions (see google flu debacle)