brophog

You notice there wasn't nothing unique about this game. No new formation, onsides kick, fake punt, trick play.... Nothing that suggested this was a big game against a top opponent, and here's what we wanna do to gain an edge. You would have thought it was Rutgers. No excitement, no joy, no surprise that we played like that. Just another day.

UCF's line has played well, but they help their linemen. The entire offense is predicated on quick, decisive decisions in the run and pass game. When they throw downfield, they don't invite 12 people to rush by formation and protection scheme. If you're going to blitz them, you're giving something up somewhere.

That's the major positive he's cited. The major negative is fan support hasn't been exactly ideal down there. They need some pretty significant facilities upgrades and there are concerns on if they can raise the funds for them. Attendance and fan support issues are not uncommon for Florida sports teams, so concerns go both ways.

Last we talked about UCF playing smash mouth with 100 OL and a DT as the fullback. This week we have the PA PASS to the DT. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jRm0tgDmW44 The point I'd like to make isn't about using a DT as a makeshift FB, the use of complementary action plays from week to week, or the myriad of ways UCF finds to score easily. It's about the importance of having fun, and what's more fun than fat guys scoring TDs.

Here's a very simplified for why S&P likes UCF. Some of its principles are based on the Pythagorean theorem, which for sports originated in baseball (like a lot of advanced stats). Simply, it's this: Win%=[(Points Scored)^2]/[(Points Scored)^2 + (Points Allowed)^2] The exponent changes by sport, and is not always universally agreed upon in any particular sport. It's a good second guess metric. This sort of metric shows flaws in a team's record. The positives for a metric like this is that it is based on scoring margin, which especially in an alternate possession sport like football, is a great predictor. The obvious negative is that it is prone to big results in small sample sizes having lopsided weights. I.E. you play 4 teams, 2 of those being lightweights you manhandle, and 2 being your relative equals. There are ways of working around that, though, with things like SOS filters and capping scores. That's why it likes UCF, they have lopsided scores against all of their opponents. It's also why it likes Ohio State, who despite a loss, has been very impressive in its other showings.

If you're trying to use stats to accomplish something, to try to understand something, yes. If you just want to cite things we suck at, no.

In theory it lets you get things done early, but that can be done behind the scenes just as easily. It's a nothing decision, IMO, but that's probably because I feel the ultimate decision has been made and we're just debating the timing.

How many on the defensive side, where recruiting really matters? I'll give you a hint, it doesn't match this narrative.

3rd down percentage is another noisy stat, and therefore not very predictive. A better thing to look at is passing stats, because 3rd down is generally a passing stat, so that greatly reduces the noise. Or look at success rates, because that will rate your ability to stay on schedule for all downs, not just 3rd down. The real issue, and we've known this all season, is this team's pass defense is suspect.

I think that's a little different than what most people mean when they say that, but I see where you're coming from. I couldn't even begin to answer that. Only one person can, and he has to be asked the question first.

That's a popular sentiment, but have we ever wondered why? Is it because we think he's more prepared or is it because we feel better because the list of accomplishments is longer on paper? I'm not a fan of resumes because they tell you what a person has done, not who the person is. It's taking a result and trying to extrapolate the ingredients. I'll be honest, if it's not Frost, I'm going to want to know why, and that's because I feel he's on his way to becoming a big time success. After that question, the next thing I want to know is who the person is that was hired instead. I won't care where he's from or what systems he favors; what his record was or who he beat. What I want to know first is: how much does he hate losing. Skip the questions, and deal the cards.

That original throwaway comment was in response to this quote from that top 5 article a few pages back. I guess no one caught the reference.

I do too, for his sake. I like him and want him to do well. But if he doesn't, you move on to someone else, knowing you took a risk that had a shot at a great payoff. What I don't want is some retread with a resume that has little chance of becoming the next big thing, because let's look at ourselves in the mirror honestly....we won't be happy unless we can make serious strides. It takes someone special to do that, and it takes someone willing to make risks to get that person. If this new AD just looks for safe picks with a long resume he'll fail.

Honestly, I don't care about the AD. Just fire the guy that needs fired and at least interview the guy we want interviewed. Try to be cute and pull some name out of your drawer, then have your suitcase packed. You only know the AD's name when a school's big revenue sport is doing bad. Somehow when that sport is doing well, so is the AD. Weird, huh.

Clemsom is still undefeated.

That only lasts, on average, 20 seconds.

I was literally pissed off.

I don't know that we are better in Year 3 than Year 1. I think we are. I think the floor for this team against bottom to mid tier Big Ten teams is higher than year 1. I think if we want to win these next 3 games then we do. It's hard to say because this team feels like it doesn't. But all of that is irrelevant, isn't it? The fact we are even asking the question is an answer unto itself.

None of them. He was a lame duck coach from the moment he was hired.

Bad isn't even how I'd describe this game. It was casual. It was at the pace of an exhibition. Maybe the refs wanted to be there, but nobody else seemed to.

You get the gold star today!

That part was written in invisible ink. You have to throw lemon juice on your monitor to read it.

Frosty did what was required today. Next week is gonna be another great test. Navy is a good football team.

Kinda. That game was odd today. No where close to what the score said it should have been. Wisconsin had 500 yards, 24 first downs.....and 17 points. That's what turnovers do to a game. I still see the next three as, at worst, tossups. I'm not impressed by Purdue, certainly.

Dick lives for this s#!t, though.