that is nice bonus change
- Member for
- 5 years 40 weeks
|6 days 12 hours ago||Coaching v. recruiting?||
Very interesting. It seems like your model values recruiting very highly, and coaching not as much (which I understand is supported by the data). Some of the teams that have bucked your predictions have the reputation of being coached very well or very poorly. Arguably Michigan State has benefited from good coaching, while Texas has suffered from bad coaching. Maybe exceptional or putrid coaching is real, but rare, and has a huge impact on a few teams?
|19 weeks 3 days ago||Fan v. Consumer||
It seems to me this all comes down to fan vs. consumers. Fans support the team unquestioningly, consumers make rational decisions. By exploiting fans' loyalty with continuously rising prices and a declining product, the AD is forcing more fans to think like consumers.
|26 weeks 6 days ago||How about a foul on a player||
How about a foul on a player shooting from behind the 4-point line results in one free (uncontested) 4-point shot? That way they get a fair shot at the points, but they still have to make that thing, as opposed to 4 normal foul shots which would suck.
|34 weeks 6 days ago||Man this O-line situation is bleak||
We're losing the only two competent players and they were both great players. I know there's a theory in circulation that great tackles don't help without a solid interior, but it's silly to think losing two great players won't make any difference. Great tackles alone don't make a good offensive line, but they certainly help. Losing those guys is going to hurt. Meanwhile, our staff has shown no ability to teach these guys how to play. In the bowl game they were so pessimistic about the line's ability to run block that they just never ran behind them. I just can't find anything in our O-line situation to feel good about. This is college football though, so sometimes unpredictable things happen for no apparent reason. Basically, we're hoping for a miracle.
|34 weeks 6 days ago||Come on guys. Gardner is||
Come on guys. Gardner is coming off one of the greatest performances of all time in the UM-OSU rivarly. Morris is coming off a so-so performance against KSU (which was a pleasant surprise). Yeah, Gardner is inconsistent, but pretty much everything positive the offense did in 2013 was him singe-handedly playing his ass off. He's our best chance for 2014, not even close.
|34 weeks 6 days ago||The problem is this staff||
The problem is this staff might not know how to teach guys to play O-line effectively, no matter how talented or numerous they are.
|39 weeks 12 hours ago||Not so easy||
I've been making a living at poker for three years and I'm still often not sure of the best play. Basic probabilities are easy to memorize -- like you're about 2-1 against to hit a flush draw with two cards to come -- but what to do with that information isn't obvious. Do you call, hoping to hit and get paid off? Do you raise as a semi-bluff, expecting your opponent to fold often enough to make it profitable? Etc.
Likewise, these football decisions are unique and often difficult. Look at Brian's analysis of Michigan's decision to go for it on fourth down rather than kick a field goal late in the fourth quarter. The numbers swing in unexpected ways based on whether there are 7 minutes, 5 minutes, or 3 minutes left. There are a lot of weird quirks to the numbers. And the specific strengths and weaknesses of each team matter too. These are very difficult decisions that have to be made in a few seconds.
|39 weeks 12 hours ago||Fine decision, bad process||
I was fine with the decision to go for two. BUT, it was widely reported that Brady Hoke made the decision by asking his seniors what they wanted to do. This was generally applauded, but if you ask me that's bad coaching. It's the players' job to be hyped up and play their asses off. It's the coach's job to keep a level head and make decisions that give the team the best possible chance of winning. A decision like going for two at the end of the game is on the coach and he shouldn't pass it off on guys who aren't in a position to think clearly.
|40 weeks 1 day ago||Nothing's a guarantee for||
Nothing's a guarantee for success, of course, but the idea seems sensible.
|40 weeks 2 days ago||Yeah, it's hard to know for||
Yeah, it's hard to know for sure without being an actual expert on football, but I think that makes a lot of sense.
"I think we can all agree now that they should have just installed A-E, gotten good at them, and then maybe learned P and Q during the bye weeks."
Yup, definitely. It seems you can actually have a a very small, simple offensive package that is still unexploitable as long as it's well-balanced. Adding more stuff beyond that just increases the amount of things BOTH teams have to prepare for, which doesn't make much sense if you're the team that's young and inexperienced.
Dana Holgorsen installs his basic offense in three days:
"Simplicity means that the offensive package — often thought of as the playbook, which for NFL teams could run to hundreds of pages — gets reduced to the bare essentials. For Holgorsen and the rest of the Air Raid spawn, there is no written playbook. Throwing the ball against a variety of coverages and fronts is hard enough, but overloading your players with sight reads, multiple protection schemes, and shifting assignments makes the whole endeavor nearly impossible for 18- to 22-year-old players. This simplicity makes repetition possible. Indeed, Holgorsen installed his core offensive package at West Virginia in ameasly three days; the rest of spring practice and fall camp was spent repeating those three days over and over to perfect the scheme, with additional wrinkles judiciously added."
Seems pretty smart to me.
|40 weeks 2 days ago||Lack of coherence||
re: the difficult-to-define lack of coherence, to me most of Borges' "surprise" plays feel gimmicky. You can almost sense the gleeful, "They'll never see THIS coming!" I get the feeling he sees counters, deception, and constraints as "tricks"...one-off ruses, not to be confused with the regular offense. Thus, surprise plays often feature different personel, different formations, or are weirder than they really need to be. But for coherent offenses these plays aren't tricks, they're baked into the offense itself and the whole package prevents defenses from selling out to stop one thing and punishes them if they do.
|40 weeks 5 days ago||I'm not sure why you're||
I'm not sure why you're attacking this point so hard, Delhi. It was just a minor observation at the end of the post where he noted a playcalling tendency that might push the numbers slightly in M's favor. It wasn't really crucial to the overall analysis.
|40 weeks 6 days ago||Biggest takeaway for the||
Biggest takeaway for the non-math-inclined: you don't have to get the first down very often to make going for it the right play.
|40 weeks 6 days ago||A lot of numbers are being||
A lot of numbers are being thrown around out of context.The 70% in OP didn't refer to Michigan's chance of scoring a touchdown, and 30% isn't an average, it's how often M would have to convert to make going for it the best decision. Guys, read the post before responding!
|40 weeks 6 days ago||I just flipped a coin and it||
I just flipped a coin and it came up heads. Based on experience, the tails % is zero and the heads % is 100%.
|41 weeks 1 hour ago||Double-checked the||
Double-checked the calculations myself and they're right...of course.
Math doesn't tell us the right decision, but it does inform our opinion. In particular, the breakeven point being only 30% is extremely important and non-intuitive (I think most people would have guessed a much higher number). If you're the coach here and, based on your team's performance so far, think you have a 40% chance of converting, you might not go for it...but you'd be absolutely wrong. We can debate whether Michigan actually had a 30% chance of converting in that moment, but the math tells us what we're shooting for.
|41 weeks 5 days ago||Really a no-brainer for the||
Really a no-brainer for the kid. Play for the dominant team that's stacking up championships, or the tire fire?
|42 weeks 9 hours ago||Great thread. To build on the||
Great thread. To build on the questions about Michigan tipping their plays (or not), what do our resident coaches think about the suggestion that Michigan's offense isn't built in a way to punish defenses for selling out to stop likely plays? So maybe we don't tip our specific play every time, but we aren't prepared to exploit defenses for attacking our tendencies in unsound ways.
I'm a poker player by trade. A key concept in poker is that every bet needs to have the possibility of being a strong hand or a bluff. So a bet with a certain hand might not be bad in itself, but if you're not capable of making the same bet with a balanced range of hands, a good opponent can exploit your strategy.
Is something similar happening with our offensive strategy? That is, our individual plays are not bad, but our overall strategy allows the opponent to attack us in an effective way a high % of the time?
|42 weeks 9 hours ago||"That is the great thing||
"That is the great thing about football. You can be anything you want. You can be a spread team, I-formation team, power team, wing-T team, option team, or wishbone team. You can be anything you want, but you have to define it." -Chip Kelly
|42 weeks 3 days ago||Well said, that's exactly how||
Well said, that's exactly how I felt.
|42 weeks 3 days ago||Without Devin we'd have zero||
Without Devin we'd have zero yards of offense.
|42 weeks 3 days ago||Does it seem like Hoke is||
Does it seem like Hoke is losing this team? Maybe I'm just projecting my own emotions, but...blecccchhhhhh.
|42 weeks 4 days ago||You're not my buddy, and you||
You're not my buddy, and you don't know.
|43 weeks 4 hours ago||Brian's been saying that the||
Brian's been saying that the whole coaching staff will almost certainly stay after year. I assume that's true, and I think it could be a bad sign for the program going forward.
We know Hoke's not an Xs and Os mastermind like Saban, Kelly, or Rodriguez. That's okay. There are more important parts to being a head coach, as RR proved. Recruting probably being the most important, which Hoke is doing great at. He's a head coach as recruiter/manager/delegator, which is fine. Some have maligned not wearing a headset during games, but I think it speaks to humility and prioritization, good qualities in a manager.
But isn't a key characteristic of being a manager the ability to evaluate and, if necessary, fire people? If Hoke isn't willing to at least consider sending people out the door when they're not getting the job done, I don't see how he can succeed with his coaching style.
|43 weeks 1 day ago||Does "didn't execute" mean||
Does "didn't execute" mean anything besides "didn't play well"?
|43 weeks 2 days ago||I guess because the defense||
I guess because the defense as a whole seems more functional than the offense. But you're right that our pass rush from the D line is terrible.
|43 weeks 2 days ago||One way to see sports fandom||
One way to see sports fandom is as a way of increasing the emotional variance of your life. If things are too flat otherwise, sports can help. But if the lows are too low and the highs aren't worth it, maybe it's time to step back.
|43 weeks 2 days ago||I think too much attention is||
I think too much attention is being given to the playcalling. There's no magical play that erases terrible blocking. The problem is that our O-line is historically bad. Yeah, we're young on the interior, but we also have two proven veterans at the tackles. Youth explains why we're not great, it doesn't explain why we're terrible. At this point you gotta think something's wrong with the coaching.
The transition from RichRod to Hoke is an interesting little case study in coaching. In one year, the defense went from terrible to above-average (with mostly the same players), and the offense went from very good to average-ish. Our gameplans on offense have been headscratch-y for awhile, and while I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt at first, consistently weird decisions plus consistently bad results has to add up to bad coaching. If we continue to recruit as well as we have been, we're going to win a lot of football games eventually, but the offensive brain trust just does not seem that bright.
You know who's looking pretty good right now? Lloyd Carr.
|46 weeks 1 day ago||It seems likely that our||
It seems likely that our refusal to change and our poor results are closely linked. Part of the reason our first down runs are so ineffective is that the opposition knows they're coming. If they had to fear the possibility we might pass, they couldn't devote as many resources to stopping the run.
|47 weeks 3 days ago||Heiko, that's the strangest||
Heiko, that's the strangest argument I've ever heard for amateurism. Kids not being paid for their services isn't an issue because they can keep not getting paid even if they suck? The solution you suggest isn't realistic -- a kid who's devoted much of his life to football isn't going to stop trying, and if he did, there would be repercussions: players do lose scholarships sometimes, or are pressured to leave the program -- but even if it was, it doesn't address the issue.