The SEC Forum at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

It'll be interesting to see what they do with Bama and OU.  ND is "in the barn" in effect.  Does A&M slip at all?  I doubt it.  Does the loser of the B1G CG slide at all if it's OSU/UI?

CFB is weird.

The other major factor in the OU-Bama game was turnovers.  Any game against a pretty decent opponent is going to be tough to win with a 0-3 TO magin against.  I view TOs mostly as random variables and often the simple basis for upsets.

The other major factor in the OU-Bama game was turnovers.  Any game against a pretty decent opponent is going to be tough to win with a 0-3 TO magin against.  I view TOs mostly as random variables and often the simple basis for upsets.

Through the first 8 games, OU got 4 takeways. It would have been about 8, but at least 4 passes hit LBs or DBs in the hands, but were dropped. Meanwhile, the OU offense was turning the ball over too often. We lost the turnover battle with Texas 3-0 in a 24-3 loss. A muffed punt (in losing the turnover battle 1-0) was the critical error in the loss of the lead and the game against Ole Miss in Norman.

Tennessee was a turning point. We won the turnover battle 2-3. Then we won it against Bama 0-3. (We also stopped Bama on downs on its last possession, which effectively a turnover, if not an official one.) Going into the Bama game, OU was still 100-and-somethingth in TO margin, while Bama was among the leaders (top 20 at least). And in each of those games, the defense scored a TD. If you watched the OU-Bama game you might remember about 3 other plays where OU punched the ball out of a Bama player's hands but nobody corralled it before it got out of bounds, or the takeaway was negated because of a flag on the play, or the Bama player's knee hit the turf a millisecond before the ball came out. There has been increased effort to create turnovers, and it seems to be working.

So, yes, I agree that turnovers are (somewhat) random, but not completely. Some teams are good at ball security, other teams are good at taking the ball away. Or both.

I'll add that special teams mattered in the OU-Bama game. Bama was 0-1 in FGs, while OU was 3-3, one of them a 40+-yarder. OU had better field position. Bama did not start a possession outside its 30. OU's average possession (thanks to 2 of the turnovers) was 20+ yards better than Bama's. OU was also more efficient in the Red Zone. I think I saw that OU was 3-3 in Red Zone scoring while Bama was 2-3.

So a lot of things added up to negate Bama's big superiorities in passing offense, total offense, time of possession. I've witnessed OU lose games where it had big advantages in the stats that normally determine games. Most OU losses back in the Wishbone era were like that. It's incredibly frustrating. I'm sure that Bama fans are incredibly frustrated.

Q: Are there any Bama fans on this board anymore? I can remember several who were at one time.

Through the first 8 games, OU got 4 takeways.

I noticed this, too. 

Usually, when you consider a good defense, you're imagining what?  Probably shutting down the run - making that a priority.  Why?  So that the opponent is one-dimensional and then you can get after them on pass plays - a big pass rush when you know they're passing, yielding some sacks.  And with that pash-rush pressure, yielding some INTs - turnovers.  
That's the tendency of really great defenses, right?

Except not necessarily.

In the past 5 years at least, Georgia has had great defenses under Smart.  But something unique about them is the lack of sacks.  Not in a one or two-year sample, but getting a bunch of sacks doesn't seem to be a priority for Smart and his defenses.

Maybe under Venables, a bunch of turnovers isn't a priority.  Maybe these two HCs have some sort of non-traditional keys or priorities that most of us aren't privy to.
I'd have to look at Venables' numbers more closely.  

I just find it even more impressive to have a very strong defense without a lot of sacks or interceptions.  

Maybe it's just a Smart thing.