The book that might end every discussion on Volnation.

[daj2576]

If you are just looking for great books about the Vols (no analysis required), I highly suggest "Neyland: the Gridiron General" by Gilbert or "The Big Orange" by Bebb.

 

[daj2576]

I am into Mathletics now. Chapter 39 titled "Freakonomics Meets the Bookmaker" is an interesting and eye opening discussion that tends to relate to many conversations had on this board.

Basically, betting is like this: If bookmakers "set a line so that half the money is bet on each side, than the bookmaker is guaranteed to make a riskless 4.5% profit." However, due to bias by the bettors "When the home team was favored, 56.1% bet on the favorite" and "when the visiting team was favored, 68.2% of the bets were on the favorite."

Here is where it gets interesting. "[H]ome favorites win 49.1% of the time and visiting favorites win 47.8% of the time. Thus favorites are not a good bet." Importantly "[t]hese data indicate that the line on favorites is inflated to take advantage of the bias of betters toward favorites."

So, if the oddsmakers feel that team A is a 7 point favorite, they will set the line at 8 points to assure that betting the -8 will have a less than 50% chance of winning. Why? Because "on average the bookies will do better than the sure profit rate of 4.5% that they would be guaranteed if an equal amount of money were bet on each side of the line."

In other words don't bet on the favorite to beat the spread.

Fascinating. Part IV of the book titled "Playing With Money, and Other Topics for Serious Sports Fans" is a must read for anyone wanting to understand what Vegas is really saying when they come out with a moneyline, an over-under, or a point spread. It showed me how little I really know about this part of the world.

 

[LouderVol]

Not knocking you or the numbers, but doesn't this kill games for you? Are you really watching the game or are you sitting there analyzing how often someone meets the % or doesn't? At the point where you are analyzing games like this what is the point of cheering for the Vols, you could cheer for anyone because they also fall under the big grey blob of averages? The problem I have with any averaging or statistics is it takes the color right out of the game, and washes everything together in a big grey blob, and I definitely cheer for the big orange. It removes any peaks and valleys of our team an averages the performances with teams better and worse than us, and some that we will never play against. So when you say we should always go for the onside kick, maybe Jones wants to do that but in practice they never recover it. I believe the coaches have outside information that can't be factored in. And going further on the onside kick, but it applies to most things in here, if the coach knows he is going to do the onside kick everytime, his team will practice it more and more, and get better at it over the course of the year, not just the week an opponent has to get ready for it, therefore improving his odds of recovery. Statistics taken over such a large number of information points ignores any potentials of a team because when averaged football teams perform at X while the team we care about is probably X-- in some places and X++ in other areas. So it is easy for you to say well we should have done Y there because the odds are that would work, when those odds ignore the variables of different teams.

The one part of these statements I did have a problem with is the test method of just taking the guaranteed 70% (I know that number varies case to case) it devalues the person taking the test to a statistic. Lets say I know the subject matter really well, I should just take the 70 and be happy(settle)? Or I could apply myself and go for (much) higher grades, therefore bettering myself in the process, even if I get the same grade as the average. But if just getting by, or performing on some applied curve is your thing oh well, different strokes for different folks, I will maintain my own uniqueness.

 

[BeattieFeathers]

the key to the whole argument is "on average". the book seems to state what many football fans know intuitively, and runs counter to other things common sense would tell you. teams should go for it on fourth more, but not 90% of the time. just because a book says so does not make it so. kelley's reasoning for going for it on fourth, ( the hs coach from ark) is that it is a way of limiting the opposing offense's possessions, a form a defense. the onside kick is one of his specialties and his teams have multiple types that are called.

the fact that the cubs can fill a 41,072 stadium in a city with a population of 2.715 million (0.0151) would be more logically attributed to population density rather than an extreme outlier, which would question the point about adverse effects of fans. it is safe to deduce that it has provided a disincentive for owners to improve the team tho, seeing as how its so easy to fill with a subpar team. it would also tell you they are throwing money away by not building a bigger stadium

fans know that home field advantage is not a huge deal. "on average" tho, it is worth about 3 points, as vegas continually tells us. some of it is due to crowd enthusiasm and support, while some is the pressure on referees affected by their own psyche.

coaches know that icing the kicker doesnt work.... most of the time, but youre calling a timeout for that one instance where the moment may get to a young man, youre in a situation where thats all you can do... so you should try it

as for the point about defense, that is where averaging all teams together would get you in trouble. it seems logical to deduce that a good d would limit an offenses posessions. if that offense scores 70% of the time "on average" that would include the stats generated against crappy defenses. i think why you see great defenses matched up with good running games is a way of eating the clock and limiting the opposing offenses chances to score. so the point about great offenses being as important as d's seems counterintuitive to common sense... on average. combining a great offense with a propensity to go for it on fourth is a nice combination tho, as we saw last year with auburn, and yet they lost to a team with a very good defense. and no you cant use a one game result to extrapolate a conclusion anymore than you can average all teams together to tell a coach what he should do in every instance. A good d is superior to a good o.. "on average" because General Neyland said so.

Ive read dubner and leavitts works and am interested in reading the book tho, because there are certain instances where knowledge of the laws of averages and a certain team's proclivities can work to your advantage.

The Cubs play in Wrigley which like Fenway has become a tourist attraction. Also, the cub fans embrace the lovable loser attitude. Neyland is not a tourist attraction in a tourist city and the fan base will never be beat down to the point of becoming lovable losers. It's not about attendance by local fans.

 

[BeattieFeathers]

Here is another area where this sort of evaluation applies. We are going on a run of almost ten years of losing to the gators. The simple fact is that I cannot find a time that UT has a four-year trailing average that is higher than the Gators. As a baseline that means that every year UF comes into the game with a 70% chance of winning.

Fans create this mind-set where UF has some sort of psychological hold on UT. No, it is just that most people truly do not understand the likelihood of a 9 run series, especially when the "coin toss" of each event is weighed 70/30 and is totally independent of the previous. There have been times that UT could have won, to be sure. In fact, Florida (at least in relation to their talent) is a woefully under-performing program, even with 2 national championships in the past decade. Until Florida plays a yearly series against the top recruiting team from the west (it is rarely LSU), they shouldn't lose a SEC game. But, they do.

This means that while people cite Florida and Foley as being the paradigm of a well oiled athletics machine, they are actually missing how Florida tends to turn a Ferrari into a Ford more often than not. In my view, with Florida's resources, and an AD that understands how to use them, UF could create a juggernaut that would be truly terrifying.

Similar with Saban. Saban's strength is his recruiting, his weakness is his ability to adjust to coaching schemes (see also Fulmer). Again, the BCS titles tend to blind the observer from the fact that with the talent that Bama accumulates, much more should be expected. Forgive the hyperbolic example, but if the Patriots played in C-USA, should anyone really be impressed that they have three titles? I would hope not, but Saban has the reputation of being the best coach in the land. He is an adequate coach, but a master of accumulating talent. That does have an enormous amount of value, but not for the reasons most think.

For instance, it was rumored Texas was willing to spend 10 million dollars a year to buy Saban. Why?! Texas doesn't need a recruiter, almost any coach could grab a bull horn and step outside his front porch in Austin and yell "Hook 'Em" and fill up a top 5 class of recruits. Texas needs a coach that can coach top talent without hindering those results. You could almost pay a high school coach to do that. Personally, I think their recent hire indicates this sort of backwards, institutionalized, thinking.

I have long thought that at a school like UT, who is digging its way out of a financial hole, that the paradigm should shift. The head recruiter should be a much more well paid position, and should attract big name buzz. What if Jones could bring back a guy like Fulmer whose only job is to recruit? Pay Fulmer a million a year, but he never actually coaches. Imagine the team of Jones/Fulmer/Thigpen and others out there selling the UT brand. Allow Fulmer, or this recruiting position person, to be the family liason, the sort of quality control assuring that the kids are taken care of, and performing in the class as well. I think there is much value in ideas like that, instead of trying to buy a "big name" coach who is likely over-valued (see the basketball coaching search if you want an example of the fan perception that I am discussing).

Don't get me wrong, I love what Butch is doing, and his history of over-performance is very likely to translate to big things here (find another coach that has averaged winning more than 3 games a year over his talent predictions for 7 years, and who also has a history of increasing talent averages every year at a school).

I simply think there are ways to use the data that we have about what actually drives success, and capitalize off of that in a way that no one else is doing. Some bash Hart, but when I hear him say that the key to success at UT is recruiting, that recruiting is UT's "lifeblood", I think that he at least understands some of this data. His hires tend to support his own theory. Most fans just don't "get it" though...

Or, maybe I just think about all of this too abstractly from a position of only academic understanding?

So both Florida and Bama are under achieving? Where do we and Uga fit in? Who is over achieving?

 

[daj2576]

Not knocking you or the numbers, but doesn't this kill games for you? Are you really watching the game or are you sitting there analyzing how often someone meets the % or doesn't? At the point where you are analyzing games like this what is the point of cheering for the Vols, you could cheer for anyone because they also fall under the big grey blob of averages? The problem I have with any averaging or statistics is it takes the color right out of the game, and washes everything together in a big grey blob, and I definitely cheer for the big orange. It removes any peaks and valleys of our team an averages the performances with teams better and worse than us, and some that we will never play against. So when you say we should always go for the onside kick, maybe Jones wants to do that but in practice they never recover it. I believe the coaches have outside information that can't be factored in. And going further on the onside kick, but it applies to most things in here, if the coach knows he is going to do the onside kick everytime, his team will practice it more and more, and get better at it over the course of the year, not just the week an opponent has to get ready for it, therefore improving his odds of recovery. Statistics taken over such a large number of information points ignores any potentials of a team because when averaged football teams perform at X while the team we care about is probably X-- in some places and X++ in other areas. So it is easy for you to say well we should have done Y there because the odds are that would work, when those odds ignore the variables of different teams.

The one part of these statements I did have a problem with is the test method of just taking the guaranteed 70% (I know that number varies case to case) it devalues the person taking the test to a statistic. Lets say I know the subject matter really well, I should just take the 70 and be happy(settle)? Or I could apply myself and go for (much) higher grades, therefore bettering myself in the process, even if I get the same grade as the average. But if just getting by, or performing on some applied curve is your thing oh well, different strokes for different folks, I will maintain my own uniqueness.

You raise an interesting question, one that I have pondered frequently.

First, I should say that my allegiance to UT isn't arbitrary. I came to love the school as a student and have carried that with me as a graduate and a Tennesseean. I could show no passion or interest for any other school.

Second, it took me awhile to come to terms with the implications of this evaluation. It should be noted that we live in a world where Vegas's spreads are published and discussed. Anyone paying attention to those already has forewarning of the outcome of most games (in terms of likely winners and losers).

That being said, "my" evaluation tends to illustrate why the games are won and lost at an introductory level. Vegas, on the other hand, generally just informs us of who should win.

The majesty, therefore, lies in the exceptions and then building on that foundation to understanding the next step, then the next.

To use a flowery example, it made the universe no less beautiful when it was discovered that the earth was round or when we discovered the earth revolves around the sun. Those observations, intuitive as they are to us, were the baseline for giant leaps in understanding our world.

Understanding football is minute in comparison, but when I came to grasp what drives most performances (talent), I have then become free to enjoy and be dumbfounded by the exceptions. Those exceptions are what interest me on any given Saturday especially when our Vols play. We have been a study of being exceptional of late, and understanding why has provided me much comfort.

 

[daj2576]

So both Florida and Bama are under achieving? Where do we and Uga fit in? Who is over achieving?

Florida and Tennessee have been battling for the title of largest under-achiever in the SEC for years. Florida's talent means they should be a title contender almost yearly. They aren't. Even winning titles under Meyer, they tended to lose games they shouldn't have. The difference in records between UT and UF is a testimony to recruiting at UF, and UTs downward trend in relation to our key components, coupled with coaches who have been very bad at utilizing talent.

UGA, like LSU, Auburn (last year) and others, tends to travel right around where talent predicts. As a rule, they are very stable.

Bama isn't in the mix for biggest under-performer, but Saban loses games he shouldn't with consistency. Ultimately it didn't matter because he won championships. With the playoff system approaching his propensity to drop games against lessor teams could be a fatal flaw though his talent will continue to take him further than most.

As far as teams with a history of over achieving, that record would got to Arkansas under Petrino, Spurrier until recently, and Vandy under Franklin. Mizzou was a huge over performer last year but that is rare for them and came with mitigating circumstances, in my view.

 

[BeattieFeathers]

Florida and Tennessee have been battling for the title of largest under-achiever in the SEC for years. Florida's talent means they should be a title contender almost yearly. They aren't. Even winning titles under Meyer, they tended to lose games they shouldn't have. The difference in records between UT and UF is a testimony to recruiting at UF, and UTs downward trend in relation to our key components, coupled with coaches who have been very bad at utilizing talent.

UGA, like LSU, Auburn (last year) and others, tends to travel right around where talent predicts. As a rule, they are very stable.

Bama isn't in the mix for biggest under-performer, but Saban loses games he shouldn't with consistency. Ultimately it didn't matter because he won championships. With the playoff system approaching his propensity to drop games against lessor teams could be a fatal flaw though his talent will continue to take him further than most.

As far as teams with a history of over achieving, that record would got to Arkansas under Petrino, Spurrier until recently, and Vandy under Franklin. Mizzou was a huge over performer last year but that is rare for them and came with mitigating circumstances, in my view.

Interesting that Bama should perform better. It appears that an unbeaten season should be par for them? That's a pretty high bar, don't you think? As for saban's record, only spurrier at Florida and Fulmer in the 90's would compare.

 

[Boca Vol]

Interesting that Bama should perform better. It appears that an unbeaten season should be par for them? That's a pretty high bar, don't you think? As for saban's record, only spurrier at Florida and Fulmer in the 90's would compare.

We all love UT, but Spurrier owned Fulmer as well as Saban owned Fulmer.

Fulmer was a great coach but when it came to Spurrier and Saban he didn't match up well.

 

[daj2576]

Interesting that Bama should perform better. It appears that an unbeaten season should be par for them? That's a pretty high bar, don't you think? As for saban's record, only spurrier at Florida and Fulmer in the 90's would compare.

It's a very high bar, but when you recruit much better than your competition, much should be expected. Saban has had the best roster in college football for years. Ironically, while Saban owned our Fulmer, they share that similar quality. I don't want to overstate Bama here. Saban loses games that he should win (he should never lose) but that also means he doesn't have the ability to cancel that out by beating a better team: every other team can hypothetically over-achieve except Bama. Conversely, Saban doesn't actually have a history of over-performing when he had the opportunity.

 

[Boca Vol]

It's a very high bar, but when you recruit much better than your competition, much should be expected. Saban has had the best roster in college football for years. Ironically, while Saban owned our Fulmer, they share that similar quality. I don't want to overstate Bama here. Saban loses games that he should win (he should never lose) but that also means he doesn't have the ability to cancel that out by beating a better team: every other team can hypothetically over-achieve except Bama. Conversely, Saban doesn't actually have a history of over-performing when he had the opportunity.

Agree...and I'm glad you wrote this regarding Saban. When you're at the top the only place to go is down. He will constantly be viewed as under-achieving even though he's filling up the trophy case.

 

[Volosaurus rex]

It's a very high bar, but when you recruit much better than your competition, much should be expected. Saban has had the best roster in college football for years. Ironically, while Saban owned our Fulmer, they share that similar quality. I don't want to overstate Bama here. Saban loses games that he should win (he should never lose) but that also means he doesn't have the ability to cancel that out by beating a better team: every other team can hypothetically over-achieve except Bama. Conversely, Saban doesn't actually have a history of over-performing when he had the opportunity.

However, his teams do have a bit of a history of underachieving when they do not have the opportunity of winning the national championship outright (e.g. 2009 and 2014 Sugar Bowls).

 

[daj2576]

Agree...and I'm glad you wrote this regarding Saban. When you're at the top the only place to go is down. He will constantly be viewed as under-achieving even though he's filling up the trophy case.

I'm trying to be fair to Saban and even handed in the conclusions drawn from the data. However, he does tend to lose games he shouldn't going way way back. But, he recruits well enough to win, and win, and win.

 

[daj2576]

However, his teams do have a bit of a history of underachieving when they do not have the opportunity of winning the national championship outright (e.g. 2009 and 2014 Sugar Bowls).

While that is very true, it is also an indictment that smacks me as reminiscent of Fulmer.

He also tends to be baffled by certain offensive systems, and covering short field goals.

 

[Volosaurus rex]

While that is very true, it is also an indictment that smacks me as reminiscent of Fulmer.

He also tends to be baffled by certain offensive systems, and covering short field goals.

There were a few years during Fulmer's tenure when we wound up in bowl games that, based on our final ranking, were beneath our collective dignity and, unfortunately, we played like it. Perhaps you are referring to those instances. To me, however, that kind of gets lost in the shuffle in comparison to the frequency with which Fulmer struggled in matchups with certain coaches and/or their specific systems. On the other hand, Alabama's success under Saban has been such that they seem to exude an "If-we're-not-playing-for-the-national-championship-it-just-doesn't-matter" attitude. To manifest that kind of attitude about the Sugar Bowl, given its longstanding status as the destination of SEC champions, is disgusting to me. If you perceive the Sugar Bowl as beneath your collective dignity in non-national championship years, just don't accept the bid.

 

[Boca Vol]

There were a few years during Fulmer's tenure when we wound up in bowl games that, based on our final ranking, were beneath our collective dignity and, unfortunately, we played like it. Perhaps you are referring to those instances. To me, however, that kind of gets lost in the shuffle in comparison to the frequency with which Fulmer struggled in matchups with certain coaches and/or their specific systems. On the other hand, Alabama's success under Saban has been such that they seem to exude an "If-we're-not-playing-for-the-national-championship-it-just-doesn't-matter" attitude. To manifest that kind of attitude about the Sugar Bowl, given its longstanding status as the destination of SEC champions, is disgusting to me. If you perceive the Sugar Bowl as beneath your collective dignity in non-national championship years, just don't accept the bid.

The Sugar Bowl may hold a special place to us old-timers but the kids today probably don't see it that way. It's just another bowl game.

Back in the day, the Sugar Bowl meant your team won the SEC. That was the destination. It's not anymore.

 

[daj2576]

There were a few years during Fulmer's tenure when we wound up in bowl games that, based on our final ranking, were beneath our collective dignity and, unfortunately, we played like it. Perhaps you are referring to those instances. To me, however, that kind of gets lost in the shuffle in comparison to the frequency with which Fulmer struggled in matchups with certain coaches and/or their specific systems. On the other hand, Alabama's success under Saban has been such that they seem to exude an "If-we're-not-playing-for-the-national-championship-it-just-doesn't-matter" attitude. To manifest that kind of attitude about the Sugar Bowl, given its longstanding status as the destination of SEC champions, is disgusting to me. If you perceive the Sugar Bowl as beneath your collective dignity in non-national championship years, just don't accept the bid.

I would totally respect a coach who was gutsy enough to turn down a bowl bid and say "we only play for championships here." It would be stupid, but I would admire it.

 

[Boca Vol]

I would totally respect a coach who was gutsy enough to turn down a bowl bid and say "we only play for championships here." It would be stupid, but I would admire it.

I think Notre Dame did turn down a bowl bid a few years ago.

 

[daj2576]

I think Notre Dame did turn down a bowl bid a few years ago.

If in recent history, it wasn't because they only play for championships.

They play "like" a champion...which is similar to saying I look "like" a football player if I put on pads.

 

[Boca Vol]

If in recent history, it wasn't because they only play for championships.

They play "like" a champion...which is similar to saying I look "like" a football player if I put on pads.

:lolabove:

True. They were barely eligible and in a coaching search.

 

[BeattieFeathers]

which fits with my contention that, even with 6 secc and one NC in his time at UF, steve superior could be considered an under achiever. many say that fulmer's success was mainly because the rest of the sec (especially bama and uga) was going through a down period, and the only team he had to beat was UF. if this is true, then the only team that UF had to beat was UT, which they did regularly.

one could thus argue that CSS "should" have had 9 or 10 secc, and maybe 3 or 4 nc, while at UF.

I think that is a lot of nonsense. Why should the expectation of a particular coach be that he should win at a greater pace than anyone in the history of the game? So spurrier underachieved, Fulmer underachieved, who on gods green earth was over achieving and what were they winning?
In addition, the originator of this thread states that 70 percent of all games are won by the team with the better recruiting ratings. Do we know what percentage of conference games are won by the team with the higher rating? I suspect it's closer to 60 percent.:good!:

 

[tm3]

I think that is a lot of nonsense. Why should the expectation of a particular coach be that he should win at a greater pace than anyone in the history of the game?

because he is fielding more talented teams than the competition.

pay attention.

 

[BeattieFeathers]

because he is fielding more talented teams than the competition.

pay attention.

So? According to rivals?! Again, if Fulmer and spurrier both under achieved, who was over achieving and what did they win? Now we find that saban is under achieving. Do you understand why this is illogical?
More than recruiting ratings, there are several instances where a single player elevated that stature of a football program and contributed to big time winning. Her shell walker,tim tebow,Peyton manning, and cam newton quickly come to mind. Watch what happens to the Aggies this year.

 

[LouderVol]

I love the speculation side of it too. To me as an outsider it reads like you do this a lot maybe even when the season is going on, that's the part I couldn't understand. If its done afterwards its all fair game and fascinating, I would just have to put that aside near the season. I guess I am still 'naive' to believe in a coach>another coach, a scheme>scheme and other things, and not to the point where its 70% recruiting/30% everything else.

The other problem I have is there is no way to prove this but on a macro scale. It would be interesting to see just how much recruiting better than somebody actually matters, again no way to prove it at a local scale but it is done at a much larger scale in this book (apparently). We were ranked highly in every site, but does that mean we would beat the team one spot, two spots, below us 70% of the time?(even if we out recruited them for 4-5 years). I also think there is a weighted factor to how a team in the SEC should perform based on the fact that everybody's recruiting is amazing. Depending on the site we were 5-7 in the nation but 3-5 in the SEC. That concentration of talent has to dilute any given 'benefit' of out recruiting somebody else. Its basically a 1. Alabama, 2a 2b 2c 2d 2e 2f of Florida/LSU/UT/Georgia/A&M/Auburn situation. And when its that close I would say other factors beyond recruiting play a larger role than 30%

Anyway food for thought, may go pick up the book so I can argue/debate with it.

 

[daj2576]

I think that is a lot of nonsense. Why should the expectation of a particular coach be that he should win at a greater pace than anyone in the history of the game? So spurrier underachieved, Fulmer underachieved, who on gods green earth was over achieving and what were they winning?
In addition, the originator of this thread states that 70 percent of all games are won by the team with the better recruiting ratings. Do we know what percentage of conference games are won by the team with the higher rating? I suspect it's closer to 60 percent.:good!:

Last year was a bit of a down year in the SEC insofar as predictability. Talent averages still predicted 69.6% of the conference games played. So, you're right in a way. 69.6% is closer to 60% than 70% is.

Over the entire season only 4 of 14 teams (28.6%) won exactly the number of conference games that talent predicted, a total of 9 (64.3%) finished within 1 game of those predictions, and 11 (78.6%) finished within 2 games of those predictions. That is a pretty significant indicator, in my view.

Look at UT. UT'S season was predicted correctly in 10 of 12 games, or 83.3%.