brophog

This is why I'd go through an exercise like I did above, because it can show red flags. The KSU and Texas games that year were not even remotely close, and that's not that surprising with a profile like I showed above.

Mike Riley is a case of "geek cred" with some of the national pundits.

It's an interesting question when we look at it with variables other than wins, which can be noisy. First let's look at scoring margin, a very good indicator in an alternating possession game like football. 2003 has a much higher scoring margin, specifically because of scoring defense. 2003 scoring defense: 2nd nationally 2003 scoring margin: 10.3 ppg 2002 scoring defense: 45th nationally 2002 scoring margin: 3.5 ppg Scoring Margin clearly is in favor of 2003 Comparatively, let's look at another good indicator, yards per play difference. 2003: +.5 YPP 2002: +.4 YPP Why the big difference in conclusion between scoring margin and yards per play? They should correlate closer than that. Turnover margin. 2003: +1.8 2002: -2.0 Some of you were also on the Scout boards a long time ago and may remember I used to beat the drum on the random nature of turnovers, and the reason I don't post that as much anymore is that people really didn't like this idea, and randomness or the lack thereof, is a tough thing to convince people on. I think it's generally more accepted now than say 10 or 15 years ago because statistical analysis is generally more accepted, but it's still a major dividing line. If you're like me, and I made this same argument way back in the day, you're more likely to see 2002 and 2003 as similar, or more specifically, don't assign as much a causal relation between performance and final win total. If you fall on the "forced turnovers" side of the fence, your more likely to see 2003 as the better season.

Blocking gets you to the third level of the defense, then it's on the RB.

Then it's not to be.

They have fantasy teams, too.

Long runs tend to be a function of the back, moreso than blocking.

I'd say we are. Our longest rush this year is only 35 yards....by Bryant.

Does Frank have an ankle monitor that prohibits running short side option away from home?

Politics played too big of a part in those decisions. Oh well, it is what it is.

It's purely coincidental that post looks so similar to what I posted in the Purdue thread this morning.

Florida did, but too often people think two very small losses is more indicative of a team's strength than one big loss. Florida's losses to Auburn and Tennessee were by a combined 5 points. I don't need to list ours.

I remember not wanting to go to that Rose Bowl because it didn't feel earned. I honestly thought it would curse us. Obviously I couldn't see the future.

We have very different ideas of boring. Mine involves me sitting in my recliner in peace and quiet. Yours apparently has the neighbor kids firing bottle rockets at your windows.

The 99 season still ranks up there with the best in program history, despite no national title. Just couldn't hang onto the daggum ball. Sobering stat: that team gave up 6 rushing TDs all year.

Turnovers regress to the mean heavily from year to year due to randomness. They should not be used in any such analysis, despite their impact on wins. They'll just add noise.

They should win comfortably at Rutgers, which says a little something considering they haven't been a road favorite since 2012 and haven't covered as one since 2009. Rutgers had no depth or playmakers to begin with, and they starting to get banged up. If Purdue wins, I'm not sure it says anything more than any other team beating Rutgers, unless they win really big. Similar to their win over Missouri, in retrospect.

I explained, briefly, the base principles of S&P the other day. Those scoring margins being what they are is what is creating the difference you're seeing.

I hope the offseason is boring, personally.

They do love crossing routes, and Nebraska has not defended them well. When you're physical with Purdue's receivers they struggle, obviously not a tendency Nebraska has shown defensively.

What you really want is repeatability. There is no such thing as being good in close games (sample error), and if you're trying to forecast what a team will do in the future, close games are a red flag. Moreso are teams that have inconsistent or bad production relative to the final outcome. Purdue is 3-3 and has slightly negative differentials across most stats. When I see a team with a negative yards per play differential, it's an enormous red flag. (See my 2015 Sparty posts) Purdue is making their wins seem bigger than they are and their losses seem closer than they are due to a small sample size. Against Minnesota: they're actually down 1 with just over a minute to play. Final Score: 31-17. Against Michigan: 10 net yards in the second half. Mich 5.64 YPP, Purdue 3.78 YPP. Final score 28-10 Against Wisconsin: Purdue 4.02 YPP, Wisconsin 6.96 YPP. Final score 17-9 One might think that they had a good chance to win vs Wisconsin, because of those 3 Wisconsin turnovers. This is true, turnovers are big, but they are not repeatable, nor are they predictable. They may have been able to win that game, but they also got outplayed by a large margin. Purdue to date is roughly equivalent to Nebraska to date, but the perception is that they are doing much better. Hence they're being overrated.

Purdue, by reputation, is the most overrated team of 2017. They have an uncanny ability to make the final score seem closer than it really was. I'm half convinced no one has seen them play.

He has Iowa St going in the right direction and that's nothing to sneeze at. Curious to look back at this post after Iowa St plays the trio of TCU, WVU, OSU in consecutive weeks.

Iowa St only averages 3.5 ypc, so that eliminates him right there. His best two seasons (2015 Toledo and 2017 ISU), and they're major outliers with his rest, would be mid tier Bo Pelini seasons. Better than anything Mike Riley has done here, but not suggestive he'd get us over the hump. IMO, if you're not the guy who will get past the 9 win plateau then it's a waste of time. But then again I'm prepared to fire any coach after 3 years in pursuit of that goal, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

Try playing without them.