Football and video games (another OitG must read)

[OttoinGrotto]

I super appreciate it when posters refute my claims that we need better offense and are lagging behind 99 other programs in college football in producing offense by telling me that real football ain't video games. Please, keep reminding me of this. I'm a forgetful sort, so the constant reminders that offense is different in the real world from offense in video game simulations is really needed.

ANYWAY, just for kicks I decided to see how offense in college football from 1994 compares to offense in 2010. I selected 1994 because that was the year when the Madden video game franchise really exploded. I used full season data in order to draw the comparison.

In 1994, 2 teams averaged over 500 yards of total offense per game, and 31 teams averaged over 400 yards per game. The ten most inept offenses averaged 253.8 yards per contest.

In 2010, 6 teams averaged over 500 yards of total offense per game, and 42 teams averaged over 400 yards per game. The ten most inept offenses averaged 285.91 yards per contest.

So what can we conclude from this?

I think it's pretty clear - the proliferation of video games have directly ushered in a new era of high powered offense.

OF COURSE THAT'S NOT THE CONCLUSION TO DRAW, YOU STOOGE.

This is what I would conclude though - as compared to an arbitrary point selected some 15+ years ago, we're seeing more offense in college football. Not just at the top either - there are more ultra explosive offenses, and more offense in general. Even the bad teams seem to be moving the ball better as compared to teams from 1994.

So, can we agree that if a poster (I'm a likely suspect) is troubled by the lack of offensive performance demonstrated by Syracuse and voices said troubles, and says that given the current landscape of college football it doesn't seem like it's too much to ask to have better offensive performance overall, that maybe, just maybe, that argument is based on things actually happening on the football field and not on video games? And that reminding them that real college football is not video games is extremely unnecessary?

Can we agree to that?

 

[texascpa]

Front Page Sports Football > Madden football. Alas, Sierra Sports Online disbanded 10+ years ago.

 

[bevosu]

I'm not a math genius by a long shot, but how does the number 25+ years ago enter into your analysis when 1994 was the year that you used as a comparison?

Some kinda quantum physics variable?

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I'm not a math genius by a long shot, but how does the number 25+ years ago enter into your analysis when 1994 was the year that you used as a comparison?

Some kinda quantum physics variable?

I explain it as a typo variable, which has since been addressed.

Thank you good sir, you are a gentleman and a scholar.

 

[qdawgg]

I super appreciate posters who create threads pretending that everyone likes the offense except the OP even though every thread on the board has been about the offense sucking.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I super appreciate posters who create threads pretending that everyone likes the offense except the OP even though every thread on the board has been about the offense sucking.

Maybe I misread things, but there were all kinds of posts about people being happy with the offensive production we had been getting.

 

[qdawgg]

Maybe I misread things, but there were all kinds of posts about people being happy with the offensive production we had been getting.

I don't know, I took it the opposite way. It has seemed like a b!tch fest on here lately especially with a couple posters who post the exact same things with different wording every day. I don't think I've read anyone that is specifically happy with the offensive production.

 

[lincolncuse]

Front Page Sports Football > Madden football. Alas, Sierra Sports Online disbanded 10+ years ago.

i loved that computer game...was definitely the best football game of its time

 

[AZOrange]

I super appreciate it when posters refute my claims that we need better offense and are lagging behind 99 other programs in college football in producing offense by telling me that real football ain't video games. Please, keep reminding me of this. I'm a forgetful sort, so the constant reminders that offense is different in the real world from offense in video game simulations is really needed.

ANYWAY, just for kicks I decided to see how offense in college football from 1994 compares to offense in 2010. I selected 1994 because that was the year when the Madden video game franchise really exploded. I used full season data in order to draw the comparison.

In 1994, 2 teams averaged over 500 yards of total offense per game, and 31 teams averaged over 400 yards per game. The ten most inept offenses averaged 253.8 yards per contest.

In 2010, 6 teams averaged over 500 yards of total offense per game, and 42 teams averaged over 400 yards per game. The ten most inept offenses averaged 285.91 yards per contest.

So what can we conclude from this?

I think it's pretty clear - the proliferation of video games have directly ushered in a new era of high powered offense.

OF COURSE THAT'S NOT THE CONCLUSION TO DRAW, YOU STOOGE.

This is what I would conclude though - as compared to an arbitrary point selected some 15+ years ago, we're seeing more offense in college football. Not just at the top either - there are more ultra explosive offenses, and more offense in general. Even the bad teams seem to be moving the ball better as compared to teams from 1994.

So, can we agree that if a poster (I'm a likely suspect) is troubled by the lack of offensive performance demonstrated by Syracuse and voices said troubles, and says that given the current landscape of college football it doesn't seem like it's too much to ask to have better offensive performance overall, that maybe, just maybe, that argument is based on things actually happening on the football field and not on video games? And that reminding them that real college football is not video games is extremely unnecessary?

Can we agree to that?

You slay me Thickburger...you really do. You Stooge!

I do agree with you though (although I am not sure on what point)...is anyone really disagreeing that offenses have exploded on the scene in college football and SU is woefully behind in that department? My God (or the Lied To Lord for mormons), just look at Oklahoma and how they run offense now compared to the mid 80s. Or ND, or Oregon, or any of the other prolific teams in CFB...even USC's pro-style became high octane based.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I don't know, I took it the opposite way. It has seemed like a b!tch fest on here lately especially with a couple posters who post the exact same things with different wording every day. I don't think I've read anyone that is specifically happy with the offensive production.

Mostly I just wanted to strike back against the "you think you have a better idea? why? 'cuz video games?!?!" line of rebuttal I faced recently (not from you) when discussing my view that we should be expecting a lot more from our offense.

 

[qdawgg]

Mostly I just wanted to strike back against the "you think you have a better idea? why? 'cuz video games?!?!" line of rebuttal I faced recently (not from you) when discussing my view that we should be expecting a lot more from our offense.

Gotcha. I do agree that the offense is nowhere near where it should be. I've defended certain things about the offense but more b/c I don't agree with someone's expectations or analysis of what's happening. Doesn't mean I think everything is okay.

 

[Cusefan95]

Mostly I just wanted to strike back against the "you think you have a better idea? why? 'cuz video games?!?!" line of rebuttal I faced recently (not from you) when discussing my view that we should be expecting a lot more from our offense.

I don't think anyone is overjoyed with the offensive production. The issue is that we've got a deep threat receiver that can't get off the LOS, a possession receiver that really isn't fit for the role, an every-down back that is really a change of pace back, an offensive line that's a sieve, and a QB that is erratic and struggles with accuracy.

The "video game" comment comes from the idea that you can take the island of misfit toys we have and somehow turn them into a high powered offense - just like in a video game. And the belief that the only reason we don't have a high-powered offense is because Marrone is stubborn.

Marrone is trying to make chicken salad here...and you're complaining that he's not even trying to make filet mignon. while ignoring that he doesn't have ANY of the ingredients to do so.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

The "video game" comment comes from the idea that you can take the island of misfit toys we have and somehow turn them into a high powered offense - just like in a video game. And the belief that the only reason we don't have a high-powered offense is because Marrone is stubborn.

Marrone is trying to make chicken salad here...and you're complaining that he's not even trying to make filet mignon. while ignoring that he doesn't have ANY of the ingredients to do so.

I basically disagree with all of that.

Other schools are able to produce more offense than we are with the same or greater deficiencies - Scooch did a nice job of recapping this. http://syracusefan.com/threads/weekly-ncaa-stat-rankings.4093/#post-38959

Take a look at those schools. You really want to argue that we have fewer ingredients than Wyoming? Bowling Green? Army? Middle Tennessee State? Northern Illinois? Arkansas State? You really want to make that case?

 

[Cusefan95]

I basically disagree with all of that.

Other schools are able to produce more offense than we are with the same or greater deficiencies - Scooch did a nice job of recapping this. http://syracusefan.com/threads/weekly-ncaa-stat-rankings.4093/#post-38959

it's a crying shame we didn't hire you as our offensive co-ordinator, and get to utilize your vast experience in a more productive format than a message board.

If you're point is that the offense isn't great, well no . Ohio State's is worse than ours and I doubt we'd beat them...but we'd be favored to beat very high-powered offense you listed. So it's pretty obvious there's more to this than raw stats.

Even focusing on the stats, we've got fans here convinced we've got no shot against UConn (23.3 ppg), Louisville (16.4 ppg), or Pitt (27.2 ppg) because we're scoring a lousy 26.7 ppg.

I really haven't seen any detailed plans by folks like you on what you'd do differently, which is why it's hard to believe you honestly think it's any harder than powering up a XBox to score 35 ppg. And I doubt Marrone is thrilled with the production so far, either - which seems to be another one of your beliefs as well.
Take a look at those schools. You really want to argue that we have fewer ingredients than Wyoming? Bowling Green? Army? Middle Tennessee State? Northern Illinois? Arkansas State? You really want to make that case?