Recruiting Forum Football Talk [RIP 9.3.2019]

Status
Not open for further replies.
We will start cheating with the big boys once we get into the 9-10 win range and it doesn’t look too suspicious
With all the FBI stuff coming out, now is the perfect time to let the bag men loose. The NCAA is not gonna go after all these programs because it will kill their golden goose.
 
giphy.gif
 
I went back to check to see if Seth Davis, in The Athletic article in question, had answered my and another poster's questions relating to whether he had confirmed the statements he made. Shocker - he never answered either of them. So no confirmation on mine about who contacted who first, and no confirmation for the poster who called him out on how UCLA did not ante up to cover the buy out, so Barnes stopped the negotiations. Seth said UCLA stopped it and went after Cronin. Seth has now been outed and Barnes skewered him today.

Barring an apology and retraction, Seth has entered Wolken territory. Vol twitter now has another easy target. I admit I never liked the pompous loser in the first place.
I've done some pretty stupid things in my life. I'm eternally grateful that Vol Twitter either doesn't know or doesn't care.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vols4us
Was thinking more about last year and why we were so unpredictable - 2 unwarranted ranked upsets, but 6 losses of 25+ points.

I think we intentionally played a style of high variance. This would be the right approach, according to game theory, for a team that had less talent in most matchups. There are basically a few ways to increase variance in football that I'm aware of:

1) Number of plays - you want fewer plays ran during a game in order to increase the variance. The better you are, the more plays you want ran overall, AOTBE, but we were the opposite. We certainly did intentionally run fewer play, with a pace ranking of 122nd nationally. On top of this, we had a run play rate that ranked 44th.

2) Boom or bust schemes - while our offensive success rate stunk in every way, we ranked 11th in explosiveness. We could rarely run for more than a couple of yards, got sacked too often, etc, so we really stood no chance unless we could make long plays downfield. It seems, for a team that wasn't very good, we at least did fairly well in accomplishing this. In fact, the longer the "play from scrimmage" we look at (10+ yard plays, 20+, 30+, etc), the better we ranked. And this is based on gross numbers, not rates. We ran the fewest plays in all of CFB last year, so our ratio of long plays would rank us even higher.

Total long plays from scrimmage ranking
10+ Yard Plays 123rd
20+ 96th
30+ 50th
40+ 36th
50+ 39th

As percentage of total plays
10+ 85th
20+ 49th
30+ 15th
40+ 27th
50+ 27th


3) Gamble. 4th downs, onside kicks, going for TDs over FGs. All of these increase the typical amount of variance in a game.

4th downs - we only went for 11 all season, 126th in the nation. But I think this was more a function of 2 things - limited opportunities because we rarely "stayed ahead of the chains' and piss poor short yardage rushing. In fact, we rushed 4 times on 4th down and only succeeded once. It was on the very last play of the game vs WVU. The other 3 attempts netted us 0 yards...can't blame anyone for not going for it more with this bunch.

Onside kicks - we led the nation in attempts.
 
Last edited:
I honestly think college football may be the worst sports product going at the moment, at least at the collegiate level. Way too top heavy. Pretty much the same cast of characters in contention for the playoffs each year, with a token Midwest team in there for a blowout first round loss each year. If recurring trends hold, we will see much of the same for the foreseeable future. I wonder if the playoff system perpetuates the top heaviness...
I think it does.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

VN Store



Back
Top