Mavric

That's an interesting way to look at it. Not sure it means as much early in the season but would be interesting as the season goes along.

Thought it might be interesting to see how the offense morphs throughout games and over the course of the year. I'd really like to do this by quarter but I think I'll stick with by half because it's easier to figure and the break point is more defined. Fresno First half: 23 runs, 115 yards, 5.0 ypc, 0 fumbles lost; 2 completions, 5 attempts, 40.0%, 34 yards, 6.8 ypa, 0 INTs; 82.1% runs, 5.3 ypp, 14:20 TOP, 14 points Fresno Second half: 28 runs, 177 yards, 6.3 ypc; 0 fumbles lost; 4 completions, 8 attempts, 50.0%, 80 yards, 10.0 ypa, 0 INTs, 77.8% runs, 7.1 ypp, 17:40 TOP, 29 points Wyoming First Half: 20 runs, 54 yards, 2.7 ypc, 0 fumbles lost; 11 completions, 18 attempts, 61.1%, 277 yards, 15.4 ypa, 1 INT; 52.6% runs, 8.7 ypp, 16:53 TOP, 17 points Wyoming Second Half: 23 runs, 84 yards, 3.7 ypc, 0 fumbles lost; 10 completions, 17 attempts, 58.8%, 135 yards, 7.9 ypa, 0 INTs; 57.5% runs, 5.5 ypp, 16:04 TOP, 35 points Oregon First Half*: 17 runs, 66 yards; 3.9 ypc, 0 turnovers; 12 completions, 25 attempts, 48.0%, 130 yards, 5.2 ypa, 1 turnover; 40.5% runs, 4.7 ypp, 16:30 TOP, 14 points Oregon Second Half: 30 runs, 162 yards, 5.4 ypc, 1 fumble lost; 5 completions, 10 attempts, 50.0%, 70 yards, 7.0 ypa, 0 INTs; 75.0% runs, 5.8 ypp, 19:19 TOP, 21 points Northwestern First Half: 21 runs, 138 yards, 6.6 ypc, 2 fumbles lost; 10 completions, 17 attempts, 58.8%, 147 yards, 8.6 ypa, 0 INTs; 55.3% runs, 7.5 ypp, 17:18 TOP, 10 points Northwestern Second Half: 26 runs, 172 yards, 6.6 ypc, 0 fumbles lost; 8 completions, 12 attempts, 66.7%, 99 yards, 8.3 ypa, 0 INTs; 68.4% runs, 7.1 ypp, 18:13 TOP, 14 points Illinois First Half: 19 runs, 71 yards, 3.7 ypc, 0 fumbles lost; 9 completions, 15 attempts, 60.0%, 152 yards, 10.1 ypa, 1 INT; 55.9% runs, 6.6 ypp, 16:56 TOP, 10 points Illinois Second Half: 30 runs, 132 yards, 4.4 ypc, 1 fumble lost; 7 completions, 8 attempts, 87.5%, 68 yards, 8.5 ypa, 0 INTs, 78.9% runs, 5.3 ypp, 21:03 TOP, 21 points -------------------------------- First Halves*: 100 runs, 444 yards, 4.4 ypc, 2 turnovers; 44 completions, 80 attempts, 55.0%, 740 yards, 9.3 ypa, 3 turnovers; 55.6% runs, 6.6 ypp, 16:23 avg. TOP, 13.0 avg. points Second Halves: 137 runs, 727 yards, 5.3 ypc, 1 fumble lost; 35 completions, 55 attempts, 63.3%, 452 yards, 8.2 ypa, 0 INTs; 71.4% runs, 6.1 ypp, 18:27 avg. TOP, 24.0 avg. points -------------------------------- Halves <50% runs (1)*: 17 runs, 66 yards; 3.9 ypc, 0 turnovers; 12 completions, 25 attempts, 48.0%, 130 yards, 5.2 ypa, 1 turnover; 40.5% runs, 4.7 ypp, 16:30 TOP, 14 points Halves 50%-60% runs (4): 83 runs, 347 yards, 4.2 ypc, 2 fumbles lost; 40 completions, 67 attempts, 59.7%, 711 yards, 10.6 ypa, 2 INTs; 55.3% runs, 7.1 ypp, 16:47 avg. TOP, 18.0 avg. points Halves >60% runs (5): 137 runs, 758 yards, 5.5 ypc, 2 fumbles lost; 26 completions, 43 attempts, 60.5%, 351 yards, 8.2 ypa, 0 INTs; 76.1% runs, 6.2 ypp, 18:07 avg. TOP, 19.8 avg. points *The turnover in the first half against Oregon technically goes as a fumble but it was a called pass play so I moved it to the passing stats. So we obviously didn't do very well the one half where we were pretty pass happy (obviously a small sample size). Poor completion percentage, low yards per play and the lowest Time of Possession and points scored. There isn't a huge disparity between halves where we run slight more and when we're run heavy but almost all the stats are better when we're run heavy: better ypc, fewer turnovers, better completion percentage, more TOP and more points. Slightly better yards per play when were more balanced but that is offset by better TOP (limiting opponents' opportunities) and fewer turnovers. We've also tended to run the ball more in the second half, lately decidedly so. And it's not all because we were ahead because we were trailing or barely winning most of that time.

I would have liked to see more actual results but there's a decent run-down in the article. Huskers.com

Before the season, I was trying to do a Mock Draft on ESPN but accidentally drafted for a real league. Didn't need any other leagues to play in so I kind of forgot about it. Happened to notice is today and I won my first three games before fielding half a team this past week due to injuries and byes. Maybe I'll see if I can make a run.

Apparently he is going to Florida after all, per his Twitter.

I mean .... my Mets could make it easy on you and just knock them out in the Divisional Series if that would help you out.

Saw this posted elsewhere and thought it was an interesting question to consider. Several teams viewed differently from when the year started. I'd rank the games as follows (toughest to easiest): Ohio State Wisconsin Maryland Indiana Iowa Minnesota Purdue I think the top two and bottom two are probably pretty set. The middle three could go different ways. Interesting to see how beat up Indiana is after playing tOSU this weekend.

Took in the Washington/Stanford game last weekend. Obviously impressed with Stanford. Has visits set to Stanford and Alabama yet this month. Will also officially visit Washington later in the season. Says he won't OV to Stanford until January and only if he's committed to them. Planning to commit in late November or December.

Switching my vote to Nebraska so I deleted my point for picking Iowa originally.

Done

The bigger talent disparity (by far) is not between the receivers he'll be throwing to but the DBs covering those receivers. But it's still pretty impressive.

https://twitter.com/kirbybennett45/status/783125217476358144

Player: Kirby Bennett Hometown: Las Vegas, Nevada School: Bishop Gorman Position: Running Back Height: 6-0 Weight: 195 40 time: Offers: Arizona, Baylor, Colorado, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oregon State, SMU, Texas Tech, UCLA Visits: Twitter 247 Composite: #754 Overall; #40 RB; .8518; :star Rivals: #22 RB; :star 247: #62 RB; :star Scout: #29 RB; :star ESPN: #47 RB; :star Hudl