CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: Cincydawg on January 30, 2020, 09:18:07 AM
-
If a conference does poorly in the CFP does it impact future close decisions? Should it?
Is the SEC champ a virtual lock as a result of this? Imagine one is 11-2 with an OOC loss versus a 12-1 alternative?
Does this hurt the B12 and Pac teams in a close decision?
-
It shouldn’t and when I rank teams I really discipline myself that I am just ranking these teams on this year. Past doesn’t matter. That being said, the people on the committee are human and humans have emotions and memories and hang ups. So, yeah the past and reputation could factor in.
-
First, I want to second everything that @Kris60 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=79) said. I agree entirely except that I am a little more open to it being a valid criteria than he is.
Is the SEC champ a virtual lock as a result of this?
I think this comment is too narrowly focused on the SEC Champion. No, I don't think that the SEC Champion is a virtual lock. There is, of course, a possibility that a relatively weak SEC-E Champion with multiple losses could upset a relatively strong SEC-W Champion in the SECCG. In that case I do NOT think that the SEC Champion would be a "virtual lock".
Instead, I think the issue is that there is a near certainty that at least one SEC team will get in regardless of whether that team is the SEC Champion or not.
Does this hurt the B12 and Pac teams in a close decision?
I think it does, but only in a close call effectively as a tie-breaker. I do NOT think that a 1-loss non-Champion Ohio State would get in ahead of an undefeated or one-loss B12 or P12 Champion but I absolutely think that a 1-loss B1G Champion Ohio State would get in ahead of a 1-loss B12 or P12 Champion.
-
I suspect we all agree. Maybe.
-
If Conference A gets whacked in the playoff five years in a row, should that be a factor in year six?
-
If Conference A gets whacked in the playoff five years in a row, should that be a factor in year six?
As discussed, in terms of a tie-breaker with everything else being equal, then it's likely to be used.
Should it be? Not sure. Some people like BOTD as a factor. Others don't.
-
It shouldn't buut it will, and it won't necessarily be deliberate.
-
It shouldn't buut it will, and it won't necessarily be deliberate.
Makes sense to me.
-
If Conference A gets whacked in the playoff five years in a row, should that be a factor in year six?
the answer to the original question is, "Yes"
the answer to this question is, NO it shouldn't be, but it will be a factor in year 6
I don't think either are big factors, but when everything else is equal and the committee is looking for a tiebreaker, it is a slight factor.
A "slighter" factor than politics and TV ratings
-
If Conference A gets whacked in the playoff five years in a row, should that be a factor in year six?
Shouldn’t. It’ll be mentioned a lot as an idea, but ultimately I think in-season factors will mostly weigh more heavily.
Some of it owes to the sort of musical chairs nature of the last 1-2 spots. Like if OSU went for Oklahoma in 2018 it would likely have a 50-burger on the Ole playoff resume.
-
If Conference A gets whacked in the playoff five years in a row, should that be a factor in year six?
No.
.
The only thing that should happen, and it would take a lot more than simply their champion losing every year in the playoff, is if a conference is deemed too weak to even be included as a P5 conference.
Otherwise, absolutely not.
.
Look at Nebraska from 87-93. If someone magically said the Big 8 champ gets left out if it's Nebraska again, their 3 NCs in 94, 95, and 97 don't happen. But as I said, if it was deemed that the Big 8 at that time was too weak, and a new deal was being put into place, then you'd exclude that whole conference, not just the one team. The Big 8 was never that weak. You could make the argument that the Southwest Conference was, during its last 5-6 years. It had NOTHING but A&M at that time.
-
If a conference does poorly in the CFP does it impact future close decisions? Should it?
It shouldn't, but recent conference reputation does play into playoff qualifications, and sometime for good reason. Oklahoma is a good reason why.
Let's say Oklahoma is 13-0 next season. Do they deserve a playoff bid. Probably. But is it fine for fans, media, and the committee member to voice a reluctance given just how awful the Sooners and their Mountain West defense play in CFP? Absolutley - Oklahoma plays like crap year after year.
-
Well that's a key point - the idea isn't to exclude them because of the interlocking O-U, but because of their lack of quality defense. If a P5 conference champions, whoever it is, happens to play an especially weak schedule AND has a sieve for a defense, THAT would warrant some consideration for exclusion.
.
But no, not x-consecutive losses in the playoff.
-
Absolutley - Oklahoma plays like crap year after year.
Sure they've had some clinkers but they're hardly a crap program.That Big 12 CCG was exciting.The Sooners pull in as much NFL talent as the next program most years.Took Clemson a while to poke thru and Gawja could be on deck
-
First, I want to second everything that @Kris60 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=79) said. I agree entirely except that I am a little more open to it being a valid criteria than he is. I think this comment is too narrowly focused on the SEC Champion. No, I don't think that the SEC Champion is a virtual lock. There is, of course, a possibility that a relatively weak SEC-E Champion with multiple losses could upset a relatively strong SEC-W Champion in the SECCG. In that case I do NOT think that the SEC Champion would be a "virtual lock".
Instead, I think the issue is that there is a near certainty that at least one SEC team will get in regardless of whether that team is the SEC Champion or not. I think it does, but only in a close call effectively as a tie-breaker. I do NOT think that a 1-loss non-Champion Ohio State would get in ahead of an undefeated or one-loss B12 or P12 Champion but I absolutely think that a 1-loss B1G Champion Ohio State would get in ahead of a 1-loss B12 or P12 Champion.
So, we all agree the SEC team with the best SEC resume is a virtual lock to make the CFP.
And Ohio State isn't in the SEC. If Alabama didn't lose to Auburn (1 loss non-champ) would they have bumped Oklahoma (1 loss champ) from the playoff?
-
It shouldn't, but recent conference reputation does play into playoff qualifications, and sometime for good reason. Oklahoma is a good reason why.
Let's say Oklahoma is 13-0 next season. Do they deserve a playoff bid. Probably. But is it fine for fans, media, and the committee member to voice a reluctance given just how awful the Sooners and their Mountain West defense play in CFP? Absolutley - Oklahoma plays like crap year after year.
This happened twice.
There's a case it should've happend once (replace them with OSU in 2018), then OSU likely plays like crap in consecutive years. This year, Oklahoma wasn't a good option, but was also kind of the best option based on how things go.
And the beauty is, no matter who goes, someone will always be there to voice reluctance as we live in a world not short on voices.
-
So, we all agree the SEC team with the best SEC resume is a virtual lock to make the CFP.
And Ohio State isn't in the SEC. If Alabama didn't lose to Auburn (1 loss non-champ) would they have bumped Oklahoma (1 loss champ) from the playoff?
While nearly everyone here sees "conference champ" and sees it as a pass into the CFP, someone who actually takes its team on its merits would actually have this argument between 1-loss non-champ Alabama vs 1-loss XII champ OU.
An argument should in no way involve Bama's 'shinier' recent helmetness, but should very much include the Tide's superior defense, turnovers forced, and perhaps conference strength.
.
People simply must understand that sometimes the helmet-ier team also wins the blind taste test as well, and the latter has nothing to do with the former.
-
While nearly everyone here sees "conference champ" and sees it as a pass into the CFP, someone who actually takes its team on its merits would actually have this argument between 1-loss non-champ Alabama vs 1-loss XII champ OU.
An argument should in no way involve Bama's 'shinier' recent helmetness, but should very much include the Tide's superior defense, turnovers forced, and perhaps conference strength.
.
People simply must understand that sometimes the helmet-ier team also wins the blind taste test as well, and the latter has nothing to do with the former.
A small not that this is not a great metric of things. Maybe a good looking back metric to explain why a resume looks the way it does, but not a terribly useful one if we're looking for predictors of playoff competence.
-
Yeah, I view TOs are largely random, not predictive, except in reverse.
-
many are unforced errors
-
I included TO margin, because between the 2 teams in question, there's a wide gap.
.
From season to season, TO differential does vary greatly. But within a season, a defense (ie - a scheme and its particular players) tends to either create turnovers or not. I haven't data mined this, but statistical logic can hold true (regression to the mean, etc) AND my point can both be true.
.
And while there are certainly unforced turnovers, it would be very difficult to accurately identify them. How many of those perceived unforced turnovers were due to scheme? How many were due to pressure and not actual physical touch? How many were due to in-game adjustments?
-
If Oklahoma had beaten Georgia in the 2017 (season) Rose Bowl, instead of losing in double-OT, about 95% of this "Oklahoma has a crap defense" and "Oklahoma plays in a crap conference" talk would disappear.
And Oklahoma should have beaten Georgia in that game. It took some unforced OU errors, Georgia refusing to fold when seemingly beaten and instead launching a great comeback, some fortune smiling on Georgia, and Lincoln Riley puckering up late in regulation and then again in the 1st OT for that game to end up the way it did.
Then the narrative about OU is significantly different, and we don't see any speculation about whether a 13-0 Sooner team should be omitted from the CFP.
Much difference on the basis of one different data point.
And nobody seems to have noticed Mike Stoops has left the building and that the Sooners made a huge improvement in defense from the 2018 season to 2019.
To the question in the OP, yes, the Committee will be influenced by past-year results. It shouldn't be, and the members will try not to be, but they are human beings, not computers.
-
TO margin for a season is a fine stat, but ya never know how a single future game is going to play out with TOs
-
TO margin for a season is a fine stat, but ya never know how a single future game is going to play out with TOs
Who is claiming to KNOW?
We have the facts and we make predictions based on likelihoods and probabilities. A team creating 3 turnovers per game over 12 games will tend to create more turnovers than one averaging 1 caused per game over a season when they play. No, it won't always go that way, but it will more often than not. Even understanding the 3-turnovers defense will regress and the 1-turnover defense is likely to improve.
.
Think of LSU's Tyrann Mathieu....several of his big plays on defense were simply a fumble bouncing right into his hands. But he was the one who was there and he was the one making the play. If you replayed the season, he'd not likely cause/recover as many, but he'd still likely cause/recover more than the average. Call it scheme or luck or whatever you want, a defense that tends to cause turnovers is likely to cause more (in one game) than a defense that tends not to cause turnovers.
.
Some of the time, the 1-turnover defense will cause more in that one game sample, but more often not. And that's all we can state with any certainty. And that's all I've stated.
.
Each defense is different from year to year. Each player does his job to differing degrees and each DC varies his system, etc. That's why there's such variety year to year. But a one-year sample is in of itself a data set. We can glean from it what's most likely to happen in a one-game scenario.
-
If Oklahoma had beaten Georgia in the 2017 (season) Rose Bowl, instead of losing in double-OT, about 95% of this "Oklahoma has a crap defense" and "Oklahoma plays in a crap conference" talk would disappear.
And nobody seems to have noticed Mike Stoops has left the building and that the Sooners made a huge improvement in defense from the 2018 season to 2019.
To the question in the OP, yes, the Committee will be influenced by past-year results. It shouldn't be, and the members will try not to be, but they are human beings, not computers.
a - even if OU won, they still gave up 45 points in regulation. Yes, that's still crap defense.
b - OU's defense has improved a lot...and STILL isn't among the defenses of the NC-level teams....which speaks to how bad it was before.
.
Big comebacks are less impressive and more predictable vs a crap defense.
.
Anyway, in 2019, LSU's defense was much worse than in previous championship incarnations, but was still appreciably better than OU's. LSU's worsening AND OU's improvement and still there is a void between them. That's the point.
-
But a one-year sample is in of itself a data set. We can glean from it what's most likely to happen in a one-game scenario.
I agree, but I also point out that turnovers for or against are more random than other stats in a one-year sample, such as rushing avg or QB rating or sack avg
-
A team can excel in a year in part due to key and random TOs in key games and be 12-1 and possibly not be a great team, just lucky, and then they don't get TOs in a playoff and get smoked.
-
yea, like the Sooners
-
A team can excel in a year in part due to key and random TOs in key games and be 12-1 and possibly not be a great team, just lucky, and then they don't get TOs in a playoff and get smoked.
Okay, but it doesn't just happen. If they play a team especially good at not turning it over, that matters, and if it's in a playoff, it's an elite team overall.
You're going to cause fewer turnovers vs an elite team than vs the average of a 12-game schedule - and it works that way for both teams, so the one that causes more turnovers still has that advantage.
-
yea, like the Sooners
We sure as hell weren't living off takeaways. More like "despite the lack" of them.
-
a - even if OU won, they still gave up 45 points in regulation. Yes, that's still crap defense.
b - OU's defense has improved a lot...and STILL isn't among the defenses of the NC-level teams....which speaks to how bad it was before.
.
Big comebacks are less impressive and more predictable vs a crap defense.
.
Anyway, in 2019, LSU's defense was much worse than in previous championship incarnations, but was still appreciably better than OU's. LSU's worsening AND OU's improvement and still there is a void between them. That's the point.
Then I guess Georgia had a crap WAC defense too.
-
Right, because a 13 game sample = a 1 game sample. :67:
-
Okay, but it doesn't just happen. If they play a team especially good at not turning it over, that matters, and if it's in a playoff, it's an elite team overall.
You're going to cause fewer turnovers vs an elite team than vs the average of a 12-game schedule - and it works that way for both teams, so the one that causes more turnovers still has that advantage.
Turnovers are just kinda noisy. They tend to fluctuate a good bit, especially fumbles. Basically, fumbling/not fumbling are skills, as are batting balls in the secondary. But catching those batted balls tends to go up and down a good bit, and recovering fumbles tends to be a complete crapshoot. Usually when folks look year-over-year, a team that forces a bunch of turnovers tends to be a great regression candidate. (Turnover returns tend to be even more weird)
Again, turnovers are great for saying, this is what happened. They're mostly middling for saying "will this team be good in the next game." They're kind of blocky pieces of data, kinda like raw win-loss numbers. If nothing else, use something more nuanced like YPP, points per drive or something more advanced like FEI or S&P.
I mean, you're arguing as a factor for what carries over. If that's the case, you want to strip out the stuff with less predictive value.
-
I used the term random turnovers. A team might benefit from them during the season and then not benefit in a single game.
Statistics.
-
Both of you are right, but it's not regression to the overall mean, it's regression to that team-season's mean. Turnovers are not predictive season to season, but within a season, I'm still going to argue it's a different case.
Yes, fumble recoveries tend to be 50/50 in the long run. But an individual team-season may have players and/or scheme that causes more fumbles, resulting in a larger quantity of net recoveries. Same with interceptions. Yes, the random errant pass can hit your DB in the numbers, but there'a baseline of that for everyone. But due to players and/or scheme, more INT opporutnities may come a team's way and thus - more net interceptions.
I guess what I'm saying is everything you said is right AND what I'm saying is right. I'm the king of deferring to the rules of statistics, and I don't believe I'm resisting them in what I'm saying.
-
I used the term random turnovers. A team might benefit from them during the season and then not benefit in a single game.
Statistics.
Yes, a 1-game sample means almost anything can happen. However, good teams tend to beat bad teams in any one-game sample...good RBs tend to run for a lot of yards in any one game sample and teams that create a lot of turnovers are more likely to cause more than their opponent in any one game sample.
-
Random turnovers are by definition random, period. They fluctuate unpredictably, and no past performance can possibly suggest future probability, ever.
-
Then what's an example of a "random turnover"? It would have to be one you're certain was not caused or created by scheme or players.
-
Forced or unforced they are still random.Situation,circumstance,chance and opportunity are unpredictable.
-
Who recovers fumbles tends to be random, but no, turnovers themselves (or the number of them) are certainly not random.
Utah State is a good example - they've been among the national leaders in turnovers the past 3 years. Syracuse, UCF, among others seem to emphasize causing turnovers.
.
The idea that all turnovers are simply random makes you wonder why coaches spend time on tip drills and stripping ball-carriers or even bother with zone blitzes and disguised coverages.
.
-
Who recovers fumbles tends to be random, but no, turnovers themselves (or the number of them) are certainly not random.
Utah State is a good example - they've been among the national leaders in turnovers the past 3 years. Syracuse, UCF, among others seem to emphasize causing turnovers.
.
The idea that all turnovers are simply random makes you wonder why coaches spend time on tip drills and stripping ball-carriers or even bother with zone blitzes and disguised coverages.
.
Yeah, but even though Utah St may have been among the nation’s leaders the last 3 years would you feel comfortable predicting they will be this season? The next 3 seasons?
I’d feel pretty confident laying money Alabama will finish in the AP top 25 next season. I’d feel pretty confident betting Navy will be among the nation’s rushing leaders. Pretty confident Oklahoma will be among the highest scoring teams in the nation. I wouldn’t feel confident at all predicting what team is going to be in the top 10 in forcing turnovers.
-
Well of course, you're more confident in predicting the overall quality of a team more than it's turnover ability because you've been predicting and paying attention to the former since you were a kid and you haven't really studied the latter at all.
.
Both have numerous aspects - almost too many to count.
When it comes to turnovers, it would be no more difficult to become confident in it than it has been ranking teams overall.
.
You predict Alabama will be good because you're well-versed in many of the major aspects that determine that outcome. You know their perceived talent level is elite. You know their HC is great. You know they can afford all the things elite programs want/need. You know their record going back a few years. Blah blah blah. Any one of us is an expert in the things that comprise a very good team.
.
When it comes to turnovers, are any of us an expert? Is the DC the same as last year? How many starters returning? Good pass rush? Great CB or Safety? Is the CB good enough to play really well but not so elite that QBs avoid him? Do the players go for big hits or wrap up? Do they have unique blitz packages? Are the 4 new starters influencing what the DC feels he should call in certain downs and distances? Do the DBs tend to get their head around? How's their cardio - do they trail plays full-go or barely jogging?
.
Just because these specific aspects aren't in all the preseason mags, I'm not going to shrug and say we can't know these things. And to be honest, we don't have to know them, just acknowledge they exist and have some confidence that these aspects add up to something tangible and quite the opposite of random.
-
There may be an element of truth to that but I also think there’s an element of truth to the randomness of turnovers. If there’s a way to coach it even arguably the greatest coach in CFB history seemingly hasn’t found the secret to be consistently successful doing it. Since 2009, this is Bama’s ranking in turnovers caused:
2009- 10th
2010- 30th
2011- 77th
2012- 20th
2013- 81st
2014- 65th
2015- 13th
2016- 5th
2017- 29th
2018- 45th
2019- 4th
If I had the time to do it for all schools my guess is we would see very similar results in turnovers. Since Saban has been there Bama has been much more consistent in where they finish in the polls, in total offense, and in total defense. Turnovers has been all over the board.
-
Sure, possibly. But you've, I assume, inadvertently chosen the team with the most year-to-year turnover in defensive players. It's easy to see your list and just chalk it up to randomness, but I'm simply saying "not so fast, my friend".
.
Shouldn't we study something before we give up on it?
.
That being said, 'turnovers' is too vague. There's fumbles and interceptions. Those could (and should, but aren't) be further broken down into forced fumbles (on a tackle), unforced fumbles (guy just goofs the ball out of his own hands), tipped INTs, wayward throw INTs, miscommunication-on-the-route INTs, and then traditional INTs.
.
If we had those stats handy and have for decades that we bandied about, then the turnovers idea becomes a lot less likely to be random. Or if it was random, we'd know. But we simply don't have the stats breakdown like we do for yards and points and completion %, etc.
.
If early fans and stat-keepers were obsessed with turnovers from the start, we'd have a handle on it.
-
And it's important to keep in mind that statistically, if something truly is random, then there's a sort of universal baseline for it and it can be set aside. We can then focus on what isn't random and study that. Teams and coaches could try to improve on the portions that weren't random.
.
This all reminds me of the problem of quantifying defense in baseball. You start with x% of baseball defense being pitching and y% being fielding. Then you break it down further to catcher pitch framing, double plays, and range factor. Many throw their hands up and give up on that task as well, but I don't.
-
But there’s even a randomness to something like a forced fumble. I see ball carriers get rocked all the time and not fumble the ball. Then they are running through a crowd and a defender just happens to throw his hand out and inadvertently punch the ball at the exact split second the ball carrier doesn’t have it tucked away just right.
You couldn’t replicate that happening again if you tried 100 times. So even if you had statistics on something like which teams actually “force” more fumbles I’m not sure what you could take away from it.
-
Well of course, you're more confident in predicting the overall quality of a team more than it's turnover ability because you've been predicting and paying attention to the former since you were a kid and you haven't really studied the latter at all.
.
When it comes to turnovers, are any of us an expert? Is the DC the same as last year? How many starters returning? Good pass rush? Great CB or Safety? Is the CB good enough to play really well but not so elite that QBs avoid him? Do the players go for big hits or wrap up? Do they have unique blitz packages? Are the 4 new starters influencing what the DC feels he should call in certain downs and distances? Do the DBs tend to get their head around? How's their cardio - do they trail plays full-go or barely jogging?
.
Just because these specific aspects aren't in all the preseason mags, I'm not going to shrug and say we can't know these things. And to be honest, we don't have to know them, just acknowledge they exist and have some confidence that these aspects add up to something tangible and quite the opposite of random.
I've made up for this by reading other people who actually study it. And generally they say teams with high turnover numbers struggle to maintain and all those number tend to regress.
I don't know what the middle graph is. It's basically an explanation that the minutia of football is random, which it is. But we're trying to look past stacking up teams by loss just a little, so we can't let the hyper-subjective details (and very possibly meaningless ones) get in the way.
-
Sure, possibly. But you've, I assume, inadvertently chosen the team with the most year-to-year turnover in defensive players. It's easy to see your list and just chalk it up to randomness, but I'm simply saying "not so fast, my friend".
.
If "year-to-year turnover in defensive players" is a factor ... this is college football, and thus the the year-to-year turnover is by nature high everywhere. And most places don't have the same defensive architect in place throughout.
-
Who recovers fumbles tends to be random, but no, turnovers themselves (or the number of them) are certainly not random.
Utah State is a good example - they've been among the national leaders in turnovers the past 3 years. Syracuse, UCF, among others seem to emphasize causing turnovers.
.
The idea that all turnovers are simply random makes you wonder why coaches spend time on tip drills and stripping ball-carriers or even bother with zone blitzes and disguised coverages.
.
I like this site because we're good at all syncing into asides and we generally enjoy doing it.
But to get back to the start for a moment. If something is important on defense, so important it should factor into playoff choice, and the best examples are defenses from Utah State, Syracuse and UCF (natty champs!!) then I think we can safely say it doesn't need to be in there.
-
There are random turnovers, and caused turnovers. The random kind occur out of the blue and are not caused intentionally and any trend cannot be predicted.
-
There are random turnovers, and caused turnovers. The random kind occur out of the blue and are not caused intentionally and any trend cannot be predicted.
Well, and like I mentioned in another post, I think even “caused” turnovers have an aspect of randomness about them.
-
If "year-to-year turnover in defensive players" is a factor ... this is college football, and thus the the year-to-year turnover is by nature high everywhere. And most places don't have the same defensive architect in place throughout.
Yes, there is a baseline of player turnover, but programs that have an inordinate number of players leaving early are going to have the highest turnover.
-
But there’s even a randomness to something like a forced fumble. I see ball carriers get rocked all the time and not fumble the ball. Then they are running through a crowd and a defender just happens to throw his hand out and inadvertently punch the ball at the exact split second the ball carrier doesn’t have it tucked away just right.
This is absolutely correct, but you need to look at the process in order to gain anything from the outcome.
.
Teams that "rock the ball-carrier" more often are going to cause more fumbles, even with your post being accurate. If an outcome only happens 3% of the time and that's a set number, when is it more likely to happen more times - when you do the action 15 times or 50?
Now, the 3% chance thing that occurs MIGHT happen more times in the sample of 15 tries, but it's far more likely to happen more times in the sample of 50 tries.
-
I like this site because we're good at all syncing into asides and we generally enjoy doing it.
But to get back to the start for a moment. If something is important on defense, so important it should factor into playoff choice, and the best examples are defenses from Utah State, Syracuse and UCF (natty champs!!) then I think we can safely say it doesn't need to be in there.
I never claimed it was a major thing, but yeah, if I'm picking between 2 teams and one causes 3 turnovers per game and the other causes 1 per game, it's simply a check in a box of the 3 turnover team. Not a deciding factor, but one of many items that comprise the percieved quality of a team.
-
I'm jumping into this discussion only randomly because of the Huskers in ability to cause/force turnovers has been statistically poor through Pelini, Rielly, and now Frost.
and obviously there have been many more Defensive coordinators over this span
randomly a statistical anomaly to be statistically poor this long
-
This is absolutely correct, but you need to look at the process in order to gain anything from the outcome.
.
Teams that "rock the ball-carrier" more often are going to cause more fumbles, even with your post being accurate. If an outcome only happens 3% of the time and that's a set number, when is it more likely to happen more times - when you do the action 15 times or 50?
Now, the 3% chance thing that occurs MIGHT happen more times in the sample of 15 tries, but it's far more likely to happen more times in the sample of 50 tries.
Lol. Fair enough. I’ll roll over a little. Turnovers may not be quite as random as I’ve always perceived...
...but they are still pretty random.
-
It's certainly worth study before we can proclaim anything with any confidence.
.
We're definitely hand-cuffed by the limited statistics available. Turnovers per possession would be a useful defensive stat. As would the type-of-turnover breakdown I posted previously.
-
Random turnovers are random, by definition. And they do happen, randomly.
-
So do random posts....thanks for contributing.
-
Yes, there is a baseline of player turnover, but programs that have an inordinate number of players leaving early are going to have the highest turnover.
Why would that affect turnovers so much more than other things?
-
Because we don't know what % of forced turnovers might be personnel and what % might be scheme. It's obviously both, but if you have certain players who have an inclination for popping that ball out or undercutting routes or something, you'd have the same scheme the following year, but a player that lacks that inclination.
-
Because we don't know what % of forced turnovers might be personnel and what % might be scheme. It's obviously both, but if you have certain players who have an inclination for popping that ball out or undercutting routes or something, you'd have the same scheme the following year, but a player that lacks that inclination.
So the hypothesis is that turnover forcing is either a developed skill or something innate that fluctuates with turnover in a way that other elements of defense do not?
Seems like an idea, but very much a guess.
Interestingly Bama’s defense slipped in points per drive from last season, but had a very nice jump in percentage of drives on which it forced turnovers.
-
Other elements of defense are going to fluctuate with player turnover as well. But that's why DCs get paid, isn't it? We lose a top-notch CB early to the draft, but our pass D remains strong because we funnel things towards our talented safety while our new CB gets his feet wet, etc.
.
-
Other elements of defense are going to fluctuate with player turnover as well. But that's why DCs get paid, isn't it? We lose a top-notch CB early to the draft, but our pass D remains strong because we funnel things towards our talented safety while our new CB gets his feet wet, etc.
.
But that wouldn't impact turnovers?
Again, this all seems like a somewhat interesting idea, but not one with much grounding, I think.
-
some DCs spend more time on creating turnovers than others
doesn't necessarily improve the number of turnovers
-
Right, but what if it could? With all the statisitcal inefficiencies out there in sports, this has got to be a major one of them. If a team were to carefully maintain records on this and make it a priority, I'll bet you a dollar it would make a difference.
-
Riley and Frost and their multiple D coordinators have told the press that it is a high priority and they will get it done
no results
-
I doubt they have the level of player needed to yield the few that 'just happen' to cause turnovers.
-
I doubt they have the level of player needed to yield the few that 'just happen' to cause turnovers.
Yes they do/did. They recruited well. Still do.
-
someday, hopefully soon, the Huskers will get a bunch of turnovers
some coaches and/or players will take some level of credit
I'm not sure it won't be more luck and randomness than anything
-
Yes they do/did. They recruited well. Still do.
Nebraska??