Does it matter how we win?

[Millhouse]

Again, people have some weird hang-up where they think that scoring more points automatically means playing worse defense.

The top half of scoring teams averaged 35.0 PPG and gave up 26.7 PPG. The bottom half of scoring teams averaged 23.3 PPG gave up 28.7 PPG.

So in other words, teams in the top half of scoring had a positive scoring margin of 8.2 while teams in the bottom half of scoring had a negative scoring margin of -5.4.

Or looking at it another way, just 7 of the 64 teams in the top half of scoring teams had a negative per game point differential, while just 18 of the 64 teams in the bottom half of scoring teams had a positive per game point differential.

All of this means that it is better to score more points!

lots of people don't want to hear about scoring margin. winning 17-10 is much better than winning 48-35 to them. people think of scoring margin in percentages without realizing it

you have to watch way too many games to have the intuition about how much scoring there is college football. i try showing the numbers but it can't overcome decades of NFL game memories

last year correlation between points per game and wins was 78%

 

[GoSU96]

Again, people have some weird hang-up where they think that scoring more points automatically means playing worse defense.

The top half of scoring teams averaged 35.0 PPG and gave up 26.7 PPG. The bottom half of scoring teams averaged 23.3 PPG gave up 28.7 PPG.

So in other words, teams in the top half of scoring had a positive scoring margin of 8.2 while teams in the bottom half of scoring had a negative scoring margin of -5.4.

Or looking at it another way, just 7 of the 64 teams in the top half of scoring teams had a negative per game point differential, while just 18 of the 64 teams in the bottom half of scoring teams had a positive per game point differential.

All of this means that it is better to score more points!

The issue I have is the premise that it's better to lose pretty than win ugly.

You play to your strengths that you have at the time you are playing a particular game/season. You develop the program to fit what you want do over a much more extended period.

That's what some people don't get.

 

[Millhouse]

The issue I have is the premise that it's better to lose pretty than win ugly.

You play to your strengths that you have at the time you are playing a particular game/season. You develop the program to fit what you want do over a much more extended period.

That's what some people don't get.

whose premise is that?

besides, we are not good at winning ugly.

what do we want to do over a much more extended period? does shafer have any idea?

 

[GoSU96]

lots of people don't want to hear about scoring margin. winning 17-10 is much better than winning 48-35 to them. people think of scoring margin in percentages without realizing it

you have to watch way too many games to have the intuition about how much scoring there is college football. i try showing the numbers but it can't overcome decades of NFL game memories

last year correlation between points per game and wins was 78%

I'd rather win 48-10, but so what, it counts the same as 17-10 or 48-35. What I take issue with the idea that losing 48-49 is better than winning 17-16.

 

[Scooch]

The issue I have is the premise that it's better to lose pretty than win ugly.

You play to your strengths that you have at the time you are playing a particular game/season. You develop the program to fit what you want do over a much more extended period.

That's what some people don't get.

I have an issue with that premise too.

But at the same time, we're about to enter our 7th year post-GRob. Where is this program's development offensively? I don't see it. And I see people arguing that white-knuckled defense-first football is not just the way to win right now, but the way to win in general.

"Run and stop the run", right? How'd that work out in the Super Bowl, since a certain someone likes to use one NFL game to prove that unassailable football truism?

We had a good 2/3rds of a season in 2012 with a senior QB, senior starting WRs, and 1st round NFL OLman. Outside of catching that lightning in a bottle our O has sucked.

 

[Scooch]

I'd rather win 48-10, but so what, it counts the same as 17-10 or 48-35. What I take issue with the idea that losing 48-49 is better than winning 17-16.

I will say, personally, having experienced both... winning by 7 while scoring 40+ points is better than winning by 7 and scoring 17. And if you're going to lose, I'd rather score 40+ as well in doing so. Why? Because, long term, there are games where you can't hold a team to 10. A good offense always gives a fan hope. There's value in that, IMHO.

 

[Millhouse]

I have an issue with that premise too.

But at the same time, we're about to enter our 7th year post-GRob. Where is this program's development offensively? I don't see it. And I see people arguing that white-knuckle,d defense-first football is not just the way to win right now, but the way win in general.

"Run and stop the run", right? How'd that work out in the Super Bowl, since a certain someone likes to use one NFL game to prove that unassailable football truism?

We had a good 2/3rds of a season in 2012 with a senior QB, senior starting WRs, and 1st round NFL OLman. Outside of catching that lightning in a bottle our O has sucked.

good programs know what they want to do on offense and recruit those players. short term playing for strengths just doesn't matter that much. if it means you have a crappy year, so be it. we have plenty of those as it is.

 

[TheCusian]

I don't know why this is a thing. Winning with offense is more advantageous in CFB right now. There is no debate. That's just true.

If you want to be elite, you've always had to be good at both. Which I assume is the goal of every program in CFB?

 

[Millhouse]

I don't know why this is a thing. Winning with offense is more advantageous in CFB right now. There is no debate. That's just true.

If you want to be elite, you've always had to be good at both. Which I assume is the goal of every program in CFB?

how do you define elite? if you define it, we can test whether that's true

national champions are usually great at both but i assume you think elite covers more teams than that

i want to spend the money on offense and hope we get lucky here and there being good at both.

 

[TheCusian]

how do you define elite? if you define it, we can test whether that's true national champions are usually great at both but i assume you think elite covers more teams than that i want to spend the money on offense and hope we get lucky here and there being good at both.

If you're bad or mediocre at defense then you're not an elite football program.

I agree with you on where the money should be spent - though I don't think that means you should low ball your DC.

 

[Scooch]

FWIW, Cal is an interesting case study here...

In 2012 they went 3-9, scored 23.0 PPG and gave up 33.1

In 2013 they went 1-11, scored 23.0 PPG and gave up 45.9. Oof.

In 2014 they went 5-7, scored 38.3 PPG and gave up 39.8.

So they dramatically improved their scoring offense, made small gains to their D (although not even as "good" 2 years prior), and picked up 4 more wins.

Worth noting that the vaunted 2012 SU offense that so many are enamored with scored 30.0 PPG and gave up 24.8. Even if you isolate just the last 7 games of that season when things were really clicking, we scored 36.1 PPG.

Man, we SUCK at scoring.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

But at the same time, we're about to enter our 7th year post-GRob. Where is this program's development offensively? I don't see it. And I see people arguing that white-knuckled defense-first football is not just the way to win right now, but the way to win in general.

Go likes to take issue with my premise because he believes it gives him some kind of moral authority to be the guy that cares about "winning."

What people seem to either unintentionally neglect or purposefully ignore about my premise is that I've said repeatedly first that the context matters (decade plus of boring low offense football matters) and second we keep trying to win close and low (as if there really is a choice between that and losing high) and it just isn't actually working for us. Then again, add in the Dome. What are we doing?

 

[Millhouse]

If you're bad or mediocre at defense then you're not an elite football program.

I agree with you on where the money should be spent - though I don't think that means you should low ball your DC.

defensive ypg
baylor 51st
florida state 63rd
georgia tech 81st

 

[OttoinGrotto]

FWIW, Cal is an interesting case study here...

In 2012 they went 3-9, scored 23.0 PPG and gave up 33.1

In 2013 they went 1-11, scored 23.0 PPG and gave up 45.9. Oof.

In 2014 they went 5-7, scored 38.3 PPG and gave up 39.8.

So they dramatically improved their scoring offense, made small gains to their D (although not even as "good" 2 years prior), and picked up 4 more wins.

Worth noting that the vaunted 2012 SU offense that so many are enamored with scored 30.0 PPG and gave up 24.8. Even if you isolate just the last 7 games of that season when things were really clicking, we scored 36.1 PPG.

Man, we SUCK at scoring.

Would be fun to lurk on their message board and gauge how optimistic fans are end of this season compared to end of last.

Any idea if there was an attendance change?

 

[OttoinGrotto]

defensive ypg
baylor 51st
florida state 63rd
georgia tech 81st

Pfft. They aren't elite.

 

[Millhouse]

Pfft. They aren't elite.

it's also funny to look at teams in the middle or worse on offense trying to find a big winner last year. (spoiler alert: you won't find one)

 

[OttoinGrotto]

it's also funny to look at teams in the middle or worse on offense trying to find a big winner last year. (spoiler alert: you won't find one)

DOME DOME DOME

When he figure this out sports historians are going to look back on us and wonder what we were doing.

*** it, that's what.

 

[Scooch]

Would be fun to lurk on their message board and gauge how optimistic fans are end of this season compared to end of last.

Any idea if there was an attendance change?

Their attendance declined but I don't think that's determinive. They were coming off a 1-11 year where they didn't score. A perfect storm of apathy. Attendance dipped -3.4%, from 49.3K to 47.7K. But in 2013 they had Ohio State visit which alone makes up for the difference with 2014 (drew 62K).

Will be interesting to see how their attendance goes this season. Their home schedule isn't great (Grambling, SD State, Wazzu, USC, Oregon State, AZ State). I also know ZERO about Cal so I have no idea if their big surge in points is sustainable or a SU-in-2012-like season that was just static electricty in a bottle.

 

[javadoc]

DOME DOME DOME

When he figure this out sports historians are going to look back on us and wonder what we were doing.

*** it, that's what.

I'm going to ask again. I've got to the point where it has been stated that the Dome favors a "fast passing" game because it is easier to throw/catch when it isn't wet or windy, but the ultimate question remains. A controlled environment gives a boost to the defense as well. You are contending that the benefit to the offense outweighs the benefit to the (opposing) defense, or that there is no boost to the defense. I do not see this as a trivially obvious result. Do you have data to back your position?

 

[SU2NASA]

I'm going to ask again. I've got to the point where it has been stated that the Dome favors a "fast passing" game because it is easier to throw/catch when it isn't wet or windy, but the ultimate question remains. A controlled environment gives a boost to the defense as well. You are contending that the benefit to the offense outweighs the benefit to the (opposing) defense, or that there is no boost to the defense. I do not see this as a trivially obvious result. Do you have data to back your position?

 

[Millhouse]

I'm going to ask again. I've got to the point where it has been stated that the Dome favors a "fast passing" game because it is easier to throw/catch when it isn't wet or windy, but the ultimate question remains. A controlled environment gives a boost to the defense as well. You are contending that the benefit to the offense outweighs the benefit to the (opposing) defense, or that there is no boost to the defense. I do not see this as a trivially obvious result. Do you have data to back your position?

should i answer again?

why do you think NFL teams care about QBs hand size? cold and precipitation make it harder to throw the ball

 

[Millhouse]

domes
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=3461

in the nfl, y/a goes up .4. 6% better. not insignificant considering that nfl qbs are already the best of the best and might be better at dealing with weather.

 

[TheCusian]

defensive ypg baylor 51st florida state 63rd georgia tech 81st

I agree. Those programs are not elite.

 

[Millhouse]

A Quarterback's Cold Remedy: Huge Hands
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304856504579338703990998202

 

[Millhouse]

I agree. Those programs are not elite.

you're not elite