brophog

I've always said people are looking at the wrong things in regards to Lee. I don't think it coincidence that as the playcalling and protection has improved, so has people's opinion of him.

Penalties don't have a strong correlation to victory.

It's an example of inverse correlation.

Turnovers, yes. Strong Correlation to victory. Time of possession? No. There is some correlation to victory, though not strong, but it is not causal. It's what is referred to as an inverse correlation. Being in the state of winning leads to a higher time of possession rather than time of possession leading to winning. (Rushing yards are another example of this phenomenon.) It's pretty simple to see why. Football is an alternate possession sport. If you score, you give the other team the ball. While it is often said that you can't score if you don't have the ball, it's also technically true that you can't score AND keep the ball....since the moment you score you have to surrender the ball. If you're simply holding the ball and building T.O.P. then you're preventing both teams from scoring. Certainly useful in situations where you're already ahead but only situationally useful when you're not. To be honest, time of possession is a pretty useless stat. It's a secondary stat because it is the product of other stats, and such secondary stats are neither worthwhile goals nor good indicators for success.

So we must recruit to one specific, yet undefined offense because of recruiting? I don't understand that when Wisconsin's offensive personnel and philosophy is very similar to Riley's stated goals and they don't recruit as well. The point of this conversation is that we must be like Wisconsin, right? Recruiting is more impactful on the defensive side due to its reactionary basis and need for force multipliers. If the argument is true, that we can't recruit to Nebraska, then how do we have a high level defense? I agree that the walk on program is important. I think Nebraska can also better utilize the tremendous JUCOs in the area. There are certainly unique challenges. What I haven't heard is why that limits offensive choice to such a narrow degree. The weather is stated as a reason yet in the surrounding states there have been a myriad of successful teams running various styles. Tom Brady and Brett Favre are two of the greatest pro QBs of all time playing in two of the harshest winter environments in pro football. What makes Lincoln such a meteorological anomaly?

Why? This sort of statement comes up a lot without much to back it up. Why this style, specifically, and above all other styles? College football has shown many ways to win, and the one common denominator is that teams that win consistently execute whatever they do well. That's why Washington St is suddenly noteworthy, that's why Nebraska was once noteworthy. Different styles, but the same high execution. Can anyone tell me one play, over the last several years, that Nebraska ran consistently well? I can't over the course of several coordinators. I can think of fly by night plays that worked for a short stretch, but I can't recall one for a very long time that was the kind of play executed to a high degree that one could have confidence in. Let's paint a scenario for the idea that Nebraska has to copy Wisconsin in order to break through this current ceiling. Suppose Nebraska is the top team in the West. If you don't like that, suppose Nebraska and Ohio St swapped divisions permanently. Paint it however, but don't change Wisconsin. What is the viewpoint of Wisconsin now? They're now Bo Pelini...5-3/4-4, 9/10 wins. Maybe they don't get blown out as often (cough 59-0 cough), but they're Bo Pelini. When you look at Wisconsin's record against the best Big Ten sides, which conveniently all are in another division, it's not great (they've also dodged most of the better teams). The team they've most consistently played is Ohio St, whom they've lost the last 5. They played Michigan once since 2010, lost. They've lost the last 3 to Penn St (and 5 of the last 6). They've played MSU once since 2012 (win last year). It appears to me that the thing that is making Wisconsin seem worthy of copying is that Nebraska isn't.

The public dialogue of the sport is such that it can't resonate. The fact we classify plays for rules purposes means there is always this false dichotomy present. It's such a shame the descriptors used in the game are so generic, robs from the beauty of the game. But it also means we make judgements on sites like this with false knowledge. I hear what you're saying. I'll take my annual leave. I get burned out discussing things this way faster than people get annoyed of it. My pm box is always open, though.

What if Nebraska runs a different front? What if they're completions?

You don't need to be better, just score more points.

Someone is getting a call in the morning. What a terrible headline if you're a coach. (the article is what it says)

As I've said before, you can do whatever you want with that offense. I don't know how to say this more respectfully: you guys have got to stop treating football as a 2 play game. It's so much more diverse and creative than this board makes it seem. If you have a running QB, you use those plays. Don't have a TE, don't use one. The only limit is what you can install and practice. As I explained in the defense post the other day, your scheme is not the personnel or formations or whether it's a run or pass. It's your system. How you structure plays, how you call them, your audibles, your alerts, your option routes, your pass pro. It's made to be flexible.

We are a brainwashed society, trained in hoop jumping. I don't find it as tiresome as I do limiting. I go on big breaks from posting only to come back and post the same thing, because it just can't bust through these sorts of buzzwords. That's all for another time and place. It's a huge game. Winner takes control of the West.

And why is he gone?

Partially true. Both teams were willing to run certain plays in exchange for some degree of safety against their own poor QB play. I don't think either coach thought they could win a shootout.

In his post game he talked quite a bit about making his kids feel like they really hadn't accomplished much yet. He didn't want them looking ahead, didn't want them getting a big head. He wanted to treat it like an 8 game season (their remaining due to the hurricane). He he knows he has something brewing, and they need it as an athletic department. Their attendance isn't great and they really need to raise money and losing a home game due to Irma doesn't help.

I was typing it up, saved me the post. Wisconsin has also been very good on third and long.

That team was not what they seemed, as I showed time and again that year. They may have won the title game, but they're a lousy example for "best". Winning does not denote best, it means you simply scored one more point than the other team. You get into a logical fallacy if you try to equate the two. That said, any two teams are not as far a part as generally viewed. It's more middle with a few outliers in each direction.

That's with dealing with a hurricane and having your schedule ripped up.

I kinda agree, very curious to see if it does.

And it will probably go up at least a point.

Riley was hired to win these 3 games in year 3. You want expectations of him, there they are. Oh, and something about Iowa.

Thats been a pet peeve of his for some time.

I only wish that would be true.

After watching Illinois again, I'm not too worried about that. Our best still isn't very good.

Every team UCF has played is undefeated.