Turnover Margin 2010 - 2014

[Redux]

I hate Wisconsin

[strigori]

That chart is very telling. Particularly when turn over margin tends to be one of the most critical stats in the outcome of games. Getting a win when -2 in a game is very much against the odds.

[Count 'Bility]

 

 

That is a truly mind numbing stat. How does an issue CLEARLY the biggest difference between 9 wins and 13 wins get neglected for that long????

I could name multiole games that could have been changed dramatically by 1 or 2 less turnovers. Bo would have won like 3 conference titles and he would still be here in a cool seat. Well saave for the embarassments.

Not so fast.

 

How many of those embarrassments were in a fairly competitive state only to be thrusted into the fast track of out-of-hand with, well, turnovers.

You could have us winning the turnover battle against OU and Mizzou in 08 and still losing by double digits, same for Tech '09, Wiscy and Michigan '11, Wiscy and tOSU '12, Wiscy '14.

 

Wiscy and Michigan games in 2011 were still competitive until multiple turnovers allowed them to get out of hand. Same with Ohio St 2012. It was a 1 score game. Int for a TD and punt return TD and walla, game over. Hell, once we stopped turning it over in Norman in 2008 we were halfway competitive. That game was the epitimy of what happens when you give the ball away multiple times. Youre looking at the scores and saying turnovers wouldntve mattered. But I'm getting down into the game and actually looking at what transpired when.

[Count 'Bility]

Then you look at games in 2013 like the Michigan St and Iowa games that appeared to be 3 score "blowouts", but yet if you actually analyze the game, you'll see what happens between teams that are extremely even in talent when one gives the other the ball in their own territory ALL AFTER NOON.

 

It's why I say dont look at the score. Watch the game.

[Redux]

Okay. In any of those games take away one turnover we committed. Now add 7 points to our score, hell subtract 7 from their score.

 

Now, did it make that loss a win?

 

Now do the same but take away 2 turnovers, add 14 and subtract 14.

 

Did that make the loss a win?

[Redux]

Then you look at games in 2013 like the Michigan St and Iowa games that appeared to be 3 score "blowouts", but yet if you actually analyze the game, you'll see what happens between teams that are extremely even in talent when one gives the other the ball in their own territory ALL AFTER NOON.

 

It's why I say dont look at the score. Watch the game.

Yeah I was at the MSU game. It was competetive. We could have won. Turnovers killed us, deep in our territory.

 

Doesnt change the fact we lost by double digits. And that wasnt one I pointed to above.

[Count 'Bility]

 

Then you look at games in 2013 like the Michigan St and Iowa games that appeared to be 3 score "blowouts", but yet if you actually analyze the game, you'll see what happens between teams that are extremely even in talent when one gives the other the ball in their own territory ALL AFTER NOON.

 

It's why I say dont look at the score. Watch the game.

Yeah I was at the MSU game. It was competetive. We could have won. Turnovers killed us, deep in our territory.

 

Doesnt change the fact we lost by double digits. And that wasnt one I pointed to above.

 

But what does that do the process of the entire game. It changes the course and complection of the game. Youre tied, turn it over and your down 7. then you turn it over again and youre down 14 in the blink of an eye. how many times did this happen? The psychological effects are hard to put a finger on. Coaches and players feel a little panic. they start pressin some. Then more mistakes happen. A snowball effect.

 

Michigan 2011 was 17-10 at half and we fumbled away the second half kickoff and it's 24-10. turn it over on the next drive and its 31-10. This is the kind of theory i'm getting at. Now were down 21 midway in the third. Now the panic sets in.

[Count 'Bility]

Okay. In any of those games take away one turnover we committed. Now add 7 points to our score, hell subtract 7 from their score.

 

Now, did it make that loss a win?

 

Now do the same but take away 2 turnovers, add 14 and subtract 14.

 

Did that make the loss a win?

if you wanna go by this method, let's look how the games you listed about change in overall complexity

 

Oklahoma 2008, -3 TO margin, goes from 62-28OU to 49-41 NU

 

Missouri 2008, -2 TO margin, goes from 52-17 MU to 38-31 MU

 

Tech 2009, -2 TO margin goes from 31-10 TT to 24-17 NU

 

Wiscy 2011, -2 TO margin goes from 48-17 UW to 34-31 UW

 

Michigan 2011, -2 TO margin goes from 45-17 UM to 31-31

 

Ohio St 2012, -3 TO margin goes from 63-38 OSU to 59-42 NU

 

Changes the outcome completely on most of them games. So obviously saying the turnovers had no effect in the blowout losses, when you looking at it from my perspective or your simplistic "trade a score for a score" is not correct.

 

I think we're on the same page here mostly. I'm just sayin that even in some of our blowout losses, the thing spiraled out of control mainly cuz of turnovers. These werent games where we were completely outclassed right off the bus. And that's pretty much the rally cry for the whole Pelini era. Self-inflicted wounds.

[In the Deed the Glory]

I agree with Count, turnovers have a bigger effect on player psychology than the scoreboard. And they have a pretty damn big effect on the scoreboard...

[RunMickeyRun02]

Excellent data! Good work!

 

I knew our turnover margin was disproportionate to our rank/win totals, but the most surprising stat to me was that we were 16th in win percentage.

[Count 'Bility]

And it's still even bigger than the psychological effects and how bad it actually was. But you have to get in and actually watch the game and get a feel for things like the momentum and the score at the time. Remeber Wiscy 2011. It was tied and we had the ball and i think it was like 2 turnovers in a row and whammo, it's a two possession deficit at half. First possesion of the third we turn it over again and we're down 17, from a tied game and feeling good, in the blink of an eye. Ball game. It's actually pretty easy to make the "what if" argument in regards to the turnovers in that instance.

[Redux]

You do realize all the extra handicapping you had to give Nebraska to change the game to a win for them right? For OU '08 alone you had to subtract 21 points from their score and add 21 to Nebraskas based solely off of the -3 margin.

 

Like you said, turnovers affect the game psychologically too. Theres no guarantee Nebraska scores 21 points AND prevents OU from scoring 21 points if you erase the -3 turnovers.

 

My original point is yes the turnovers are costly, clearly very costly. But there was more bad mojo at work here than just the turnovers.

 

Take the ISU '09 game. Had one player just said screw it and stepped up that game it could have been won on perhaps a single play. As awful as the turnovers have been, as costly as they have been it was the lack of discipline and focus that ultimately led to those turnovers and losses.

[Redux]

Plus you have to consider that Nebraska scoring gets the ball back in the hands of the teams that ultimately dropped up to 70 points on them in the first place. So subtracting a turnover and giving Nebraska points doesnt prevent them from scoring. Our defense has lacked in a big way in that area. The offense is expected to keep our leaky defense off the field as much as possible to prevent us from getting blown out. THAT was our scheme!

[Redux]

Wisconsin 2012

 

A team we had already beaten (via 17 point deficit comeback) was able to hang 70 points on us. Granted the first time we touched the ball we practically handed it to them. But really before roughly 3 minutes rolled off the clock we were down 14 points.

 

Erase that first turnover and make it 7-7

 

Great, now we only lost 63-38. I dont think there is a person on this board who feels we had a legitimate shot of winning that one no matter how many "what ifs" we apply to it. That game alone basically sums up the fact that turnovers have been our Achilles Heel for a long time but its the nonsense that led to those turnovers that repeatedly did us in.

[Guy Chamberlin]

The rash of turnovers in big games, and the panic on the defensive side, suggest a team that didn't have its head in the game.

 

Reversing a couple turnovers probably changes nothing in these games.

 

Wisconsin 2012 CCG, Martinez has a nightmare first quarter. Quick turnovers put us in an immediate 14 - 0 hole. Taylor's famous scramble followed by a sustained drive put it back to 14 - 10. Offense has calmed down. Nebraska is back in the game. Except we're not. Wisconsin runs all over our defense. Wisconsin is a better team.