Hail Varsity: College Football's 3-Point Revolution

[Saunders]

College Football's 3-Point Revolution

And The Stat That Matters Most For Nebraska In 2017.

“It would be the only instance of rewarding distance in sports,” Eddie Gottlieb, NBA rules consultant, told a Philadelphia Inquirer reporter in the summer of 1979. The league was about to add the 3-point shot for a one-year trial run. Anyone who has been to a track meet knows that’s not true, and one of football’s building blocks, the first down, is all about distance, but Gottlieb, a hall-of-fame coach and owner of the Philadelphia (now Golden State) Warriors had a point to make. The bonus ball was great for a fast and loose league like the ABA, but it had no place in the traditionalist NBA he helped build.

“It was a gimmick to increase attendance,” he said. “And what happened to the ABA indicates how successful that was.”

Gottlieb was wrong, of course. The 3-pointer wasn’t a gimmick. Outside of maybe the addition of the shot clock, there hasn’t been a more revolutionary rule change in basketball. NBA teams attempted 2.77 3-pointers per game during the regular season that first year. This year teams attempted an average of 27 per game. The Houston Rockets, the highest-scoring team in the league with noted advanced-stats advocate Daryl Morey as general manager, attempted 40.3 3s per game.

You say you want a revolution? That’s what a revolution looks like, and, though it’s not the direct result of any rule change, college football has its own 3-point revolution on its hands.

It’s a big part of the reason why new defensive coordinator Bob Diaco is the highest-paid assistant in the history of Nebraska football.

https://hailvarsity.com/s/1650/college-footballs-3-point-revolution

 

[Enhance]

Really enjoyed reading that. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Saunders]

Really enjoyed reading that. Thanks for sharing.

No prob, I missed it when it went up. It was really interesting, especially the end.

The Huskers occupy an interesting spot in both rankings. Nebraska ranks 60th in toxic differential per game over that span, which is dead average. Yet the Huskers have the 22nd-best winning percentage in those years. That gap of 38 spots in the two rankings is the largest in college football. No team has won a greater percentage of its games with a worse ranking in toxic differential.
There are two basic ways to think about that. You could look at it and think the Huskers have been fortunate to win as many games as they have over the previous seven seasons. Or you could look at it and wonder what things might be like if Nebraska’s toxic differential improved.

 

[Kiyoat Husker]

Great article, but it takes a while to get to the point.

crib notes:

1. Brian Billick (Ravens Coach) created a stat he calls the "toxic differential" that looks at explosive plays and turnovers both on offense and defense.
2. Explosive plays have become more prevalent in college football with all the innovation on offense.
3. 2010-2016 Nebraska has the largest gap between "toxic differential" rank and win percent rank. This means that we have been winning despite being bad in that stat, so it stands to reason that we could be great with improvement in that stat. (I don't necessarily agree with this assumption)
4. Bob Diaco's defenses have historically been great at limiting explosive plays, but average at creating turnovers. (pick your poison) The assumption here is that turnovers are the more random of the two stats, so it is better to be in control of explosive plays and the turnovers could come anyway. (I like this assumption)
5. 3-pointers and field goals have very little to do with this article, and are an analogy for "explosive plays" - kind of confusing.

 

[Notre Dame Joe]

• Bob Diaco's defenses have historically been great at limiting explosive plays, but average at creating turnovers. (pick your poison) The assumption here is that turnovers are the more random of the two stats, so it is better to be in Ycontrol of explosive plays and the turnovers could come anyway. (I like this assumption

Diacos's 1st qtr prevent defense will drive you up a wall, and 70 yards downfield.

 

[Nebfanatic]

Can't be any worse than Bankers full game prevent defense

 

[dvdcrr]

Whenever I read about the implementation of advanced stats, I feel as though I understand how the Neanderthals felt as they watched modern man roll into the valley and build a lodge.

These are fascinating. I believe this is the stuff that helps the Patriots. There is no doubt that they are some next level sh#&.

I think the best thing a staff can do is sit down pre season with these stats guys in a room and here them present "Here is what is important for you guys to work on." Then as HC you base performance plans on exactly those things and have regular evaluations. Follow up to make sure each coach is doing those things.

 

[Enhance]

I think the best thing a staff can do is sit down pre season with these stats guys in a room and here them present "Here is what is important for you guys to work on." Then as HC you base performance plans on exactly those things and have regular evaluations. Follow up to make sure each coach is doing those things.

To this point, I would question how many next level/advanced stats teams aren't using. It's difficult for me to imagine they're ignoring these progressive analytics in today's game, particularly at the major division one schools.

Perhaps it's more a matter of knowing what to do with the numbers once you've got them, or how a team can approach a certain statistic in order to improve. Or, maybe even how one's philosophy can be adjusted to help the program.

 

[JJ Husker]

Very interesting saunders. Thanks.

I guess indirectly this is why I'm hopeful for this season. I have been expecting a more efficient and explosive offense and I am expecting Diaco to limit big plays and improve the turnover differential. I was not aware of the toxic differential stat per se but now that I know what it is, it kind of validates my expectations for this team. I hate prevent defense (which this isn't necessarily) but if it gets the job done....

 

[dvdcrr]

The stats guys can tell you what factors are important, and correlative, but it is the coach's job to actually teach the skills, schemes, and philosophies that produce those factors.

And maybe the biggest of all: To inspire.

 

[Notre Dame Joe]

I think the best thing a staff can do is sit down pre season with these stats guys in a room and here them present "Here is what is important for you guys to work on." Then as HC you base performance plans on exactly those things and have regular evaluations. Follow up to make sure each coach is doing those things.

To this point, I would question how many next level/advanced stats teams aren't using. It's difficult for me to imagine they're ignoring these progressive analytics in today's game, particularly at the major division one schools.

Perhaps it's more a matter of knowing what to do with the numbers once you've got them, or how a team can approach a certain statistic in order to improve. Or, maybe even how one's philosophy can be adjusted to help the program.

the major stats simply tell you what the winners are doing (let's avoid 3rd and long!) as opposed to saying what coaches should be doing differently. There's also an elephant of circular logic squatting on the data, since teams rarely run systems they aren't capable of executing.

But there are some clear prescriptive metrics such as stop punting in enemy territory that most current HCs are averse to hearing. It just sounds to risky and cuts against their conservative nature.

 

[admo]

“I still think turnovers and explosive plays make the biggest difference in winning the game,” Mike Riley said at one of his press conferences last October. Every coach has his own definition of what makes for an explosive play. Some say any gain of 20 yards or more qualifies. Others, like Riley, weight things and say a run of 10-plus yards and a pass of 15-plus yards are both explosive.

I like Riley, but a 10 yard run is not an explosive play. It just moves the chains. And unless they are running the jet sweep that most defenses are aware of, this offense has no explosive run play opportunities for our RBs. We run between guards so much that it's predictable. Explosive runs will happen if a back is going outside with some spacing. They need to address this in fall.