Key to UCF's Success? Coaches Doing Less

[VectorVictor]

The good thing at least is this offense actually has the capability to overcome penalties, as opposed to the "1st and 20, we'll throw 3 straight YOLO bombs and punt" offense.

 

[Cdog923]

Article from Barfy @ OWH, written after the Minnesota loss:

http://www.omaha.com/huskers/football/barfknecht-huskers-lack-tom-osborne-and-former-administration-s-internal/article_8294ab84-c802-11e7-b611-5b958b55918c.html

Out @ Barfy. All that guy does is stir ****. 

 

[NUance]

“When coaches do less and less during the day, that’s when winning results happen”

The title of that article is a bit misleading.  It's not about coaches doing less.  It's about coaches avoiding endless scheming behind closed doors in the days leading up to games.  Instead, they do their homework and get their scheming done early in the week so they have time to interact with players and implement the tweaks for that week's game.  This second approach might actually take more of the coaches' time, rather than "do[ing] less and less during the day."  It's about working smarter, and maybe also harder.  

 

[Toe]

Out @ Barfy. All that guy does is stir ****. 

Can't say I disagree, although you might as well say the whole OWH staff.

 

[Cdog923]

Can't say I disagree, although you might as well say the whole OWH staff.

To an extent, I agree. Shatel, absolutely. Dirk does, but he's so good at longform writing, it makes up for when he stirs it up.

 

[brophog]

UCF was 116th of 129 teams in fewest penalty yards last year.  They averaged 8.4 penalties per game for 68 penalty yards per game.  Hopefully that gets cleaned up here in the first year or two. 

This surprises some people: Penalties actually don't correlate very well to winning. It would make sense that they would, after all, the lost yardage is meant to discourage and change behavior. But in reality, it doesn't work that way. One possible explanation is their overall aggressiveness is causing them to gain more than they're losing by the relatively few times they're actually caught. 

Note, it's not a universal case of negative correlation, either (such as the case of UCF). It simply, over time, doesn't seem to matter across the spectrum. Some good teams get very few penalties, some an awful lot. 

 

[Mierin]

I looked up penalties per play and UCF was close to the worst team in the country, but I noticed something else.  USF, Temple, Concinnati, and Memphis were also in the bottom 15. 4 of those were in the bottom 10.

Maybe AAC refs throw more penalties. Or maybe it's the offensive style (I don't know much about the other teams' styles).

 

[HS_Coach_C]

This surprises some people: Penalties actually don't correlate very well to winning. It would make sense that they would, after all, the lost yardage is meant to discourage and change behavior. But in reality, it doesn't work that way. One possible explanation is their overall aggressiveness is causing them to gain more than they're losing by the relatively few times they're actually caught. 

Note, it's not a universal case of negative correlation, either (such as the case of UCF). It simply, over time, doesn't seem to matter across the spectrum. Some good teams get very few penalties, some an awful lot. 

I looked up penalties per play and UCF was close to the worst team in the country, but I noticed something else.  USF, Temple, Concinnati, and Memphis were also in the bottom 15. 4 of those were in the bottom 10.

Maybe AAC refs throw more penalties. Or maybe it's the offensive style (I don't know much about the other teams' styles).

I think a lot of it could be conference, but I think a large part of it could easily be the up tempo offenses:

When you go fast on offense and shift/motion a lot, you are likely getting flagged for illegal shifts (and possibly false starts) at a higher rate

When you're facing an up tempo offense, your defense is likely to get some offsides or illegal substitution penalties.

Also, running so many extra plays per game naturally means more penalties, both because of sheer number of plays and being more tired.

 

[Scarlet Overkill]

I think the refs just got tired because of the pace and needed a breather every now and then.

 

[desertshox]

I think the refs just got tired because of the pace and needed a breather every now and then.

Thats what instant replay is for.

 

[Mavric]

This surprises some people: Penalties actually don't correlate very well to winning. It would make sense that they would, after all, the lost yardage is meant to discourage and change behavior. But in reality, it doesn't work that way. One possible explanation is their overall aggressiveness is causing them to gain more than they're losing by the relatively few times they're actually caught. 

Note, it's not a universal case of negative correlation, either (such as the case of UCF). It simply, over time, doesn't seem to matter across the spectrum. Some good teams get very few penalties, some an awful lot. 

I think it’s not nearly as much how many penalties as when they happen and especially what kind of game you’re in.  

The main reason they don’t correlate well to wins and losses is they’re still a (relatively) small part of the game .... most of the time.  The really good teams - Ohio State, USC and South Florida were among the most penalized last year - that their talent advantage overcomes the penalties most of the time.  On the other side, the bad teams - Minnesota, Rice, Texas State - don’t gain much from committing few penalties because they’re not good at much else.

However, for teams that are in a lot of close games - such as Nebraska has been the last three years - it can make a lot of difference because changing the result of a possession from a TD to a FG or from a punt to a TD can make a lot of difference in those games.

 

[VectorVictor]

Can't say I disagree, although you might as well say the whole OWH staff.

Whoa...let's not paint with a brush as broad as a damn baseball bat here. I would heavily suggest not lumping Sam into that maelstrom of excrement--he's a ray of motherf****** sunshine compared to the rest of the OWH staff, and he typically backs up what he writes with data (when possible/plausible). 

And sometimes...you need reporters willing to stir the s*** like at the OWH, especially when you have a 4-8 season at a program that expects and is capable of so much more. Lord knows Sipple at the LJS really isn't one to rock the proverbial boat (unless someone else in the media instigates first).  Now, with Frost's first few years? The OWH needs to step off and let him breathe--give Frost a chance to do his thing for a couple of years (at least).

There's a difference between being critical to foster change or right a proverbial wrong in the environment you're covering, and being critical just to be critical/negative and try to sell subscriptions with sensationalism. Sam is probably the only one from the LJS and OWH staff combined that can walk the fine line between the two--the rest are doggedly on one side or the other.

 

[Toe]

I would say even with McKewon, comparing his pre-OWH writing, he's had a bit of that as well. Not nearly as bad as some, but a bit.

 

[HS_Coach_C]

"Everybody when I was out recruiting, and assistants at the (coaching) convention, they said, 'You're lucky you can work for a guy like that. It just doesn't happen,'" explained running backs coach Ryan Held.

"His culture is unbelievable. You're not coming in miserable. Our hours are such that when we get in, we get our deal done and you're not in here until 11 at night in the offseason. He gives us time to go see our families and all that. A lot of places, that's a rare deal. It makes us want to come and work harder that he cares about us as people and not just football coaches."