forums

Some names to watch before it’s deleted

Status
Not open for further replies.
DMoney said:
Analytics are part of the puzzle. Some are helpful, some are idiotic.

SP+ (which is incorporated into the F+ ranking) had two-loss Oklahoma 2008 as the greatest team of the modern era. That is stupid.

Here is a less-stupid opinion: a team that scores 34 ppg on an average amount of plays and wins 10 games is a good offense.
Click to expand...

S&P+ has Bama and LSU as the greatest of modern era.

And your option isn’t any less stupid. Did they play the 12 worst defenses in college football? That would be important to know. Did their defense put them on the + side of the 50 a lot of times? Tons of turnover luck? Etc., etc. etc.
 
Advertisement
We need some levity here before we have another Civil War


dallas.jpg
 
gcane44 said:
Off the bat, as we look at offensive coaches coming from a G5 level, I can't help but notice how few and far between the presence of G5 teams in the top 25 of F+ ranking is. I would be interested in better understanding why that is. For my understanding of a future OC/DC, I want to be able to reference a multitude of numbers, analytic rankings, raw data rankings, context (schedule, personnel), etc. to be able to form an opinion.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Candle (who I would've loved) ranked 76th in F+. Would you have supported the Candle hire, @mossmadness?
 
gcane44 said:
I think analytics are extremely valuable and need to be prioritized in our team's approach to the game and our program's approach to team construction.

I also think many in here are conflating "analytics" to be some sort of catch-all to defer to and making it seem as if all analytics should be taken equal.

Any mention comparing the value of F+ for our coaching hires to a baseball team's approach to playing the game or a football coach's in-game decisions based on down/distance/score/etc. seems like a silly conflation to me. Firstly, baseball is the most analytic driven sport by a mile because the data is the least noisy--every player is essentially functioning in a clearly isolated manner in most of their actions on the field.

I think F+ is a really strong analytic stat and we should reference it to assess how our team is doing, how other teams are doing, how good coaches are, etc. But, without a full understanding of the methodology of it and how it may skew results to favor the highest-end programs (more explosive players, more talented players, more games played against competition that doesn't stack up to them), then I think it could be used recklessly as the end-all be-all.

Off the bat, as we look at offensive coaches coming from a G5 level, I can't help but notice how few and far between the presence of G5 teams in the top 25 of F+ ranking is. I would be interested in better understanding why that is. For my understanding of a future OC/DC, I want to be able to reference a multitude of numbers, analytic rankings, raw data rankings, context (schedule, personnel), etc. to be able to form an opinion.
Click to expand...
Great post. All true. It's one piece of the puzzle, but it should be weighed more than unadjusted stats.

I'm lowest on any coach who has bad offensive reviews based on raw stats, advanced stats, and context (healthy team, returning Qb, etc.).

With Ponce, the picture seems a little less clear. The advanced stats don't like him as much, but the unadjusted stats do. And the QB progression is impressive. Very small sample size too, since he's only been an OC 1 season. Hard to draw a lot of inferences, which is why I wouldn't hire him.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
Advertisement
The thing about using “scoring offense” is that even though it’s skew-able, it’s an easy numbers dive to find out if the number is skewed or not.

If team X averages 35 points per game it’s easy to see if those numbers are legit or if they’re skewed. Did they have a ton of non-offensive touchdowns? Did their defense create turnovers at an abnormally high rate? Did they pad their numbers by blowing out lesser opponents but struggle to score against equal competition? If the answers are “no” than you know the offense was good.
 
Advertisement
I can’t man. I can’t start caping for Ponce. Whatever he turns into, there’s no way that we walked into a multi-month OC search with $2M or so per year to spend and walked out with Ponce as one of our remotely primary targets. You can’t slurp this away. I will Slurper gif bludgeon you for it.
 
R
DMoney said:
My issue is with Points (2)-(4). The Satterfield offense is good. Ponce finished 22nd in scoring this year, ahead of Matt Candle in Toledo.

If we look at the ACC, Satterfield was 31st in scoring this year at Louisville. That's ahead of Miami, Arkansas and right behind Ole Miss.

I agree that I want someone with a longer track record, especially at that money. But this is a good offense that scores points.
Click to expand...
36th for effiency in per possession, ranked
35th in per possession that ended in a TD
23rd in value drive in relation drive start to finish when it comes to field position
34th in offensive drive with at least 1 first down
26th for busted drives 0 or negative yards
98th for turnover rate drive that end with a turn over
Our offense last year
51, 50, 46, 60, 69, 89
Briles stupid ***
42, 47, 58, 83, 47, 9
 
Advertisement
gcane44 said:
I think analytics are extremely valuable and need to be prioritized in our team's approach to the game and our program's approach to team construction.

I also think many in here are conflating "analytics" to be some sort of catch-all to defer to and making it seem as if all analytics should be taken equal.

Any mention comparing the value of F+ for our coaching hires to a baseball team's approach to playing the game or a football coach's in-game decisions based on down/distance/score/etc. seems like a silly conflation to me. Firstly, baseball is the most analytic driven sport by a mile because the data is the least noisy--every player is essentially functioning in a clearly isolated manner in most of their actions on the field.

I think F+ is a really strong analytic stat and we should reference it to assess how our team is doing, how other teams are doing, how good coaches are, etc. But, without a full understanding of the methodology of it and how it may skew results to favor the highest-end programs (more explosive players, more talented players, more games played against competition that doesn't stack up to them), then I think it could be used recklessly as the end-all be-all.

Off the bat, as we look at offensive coaches coming from a G5 level, I can't help but notice how few and far between the presence of G5 teams in the top 25 of F+ ranking is. I would be interested in better understanding why that is. For my understanding of a future OC/DC, I want to be able to reference a multitude of numbers, analytic rankings, raw data rankings, context (schedule, personnel), etc. to be able to form an opinion.
Click to expand...
I would give this post 500 upvotes if I could
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement
Back
Top