Topic: HD article - MU going old school?

[Thundering Accountant]

Not really sure what it means, but if you take Pruett's last 2 years and Snyders last 2 years and compare # of pass plays, # of run plays and total offense, here are the averages:

'03-'04
run plays- 440
pass plays- 385
total offense- 4506

'07-'08
run plays- 415
pass plays- 391
total offense- 4460

About the biggest thing I get from this is that the defense must have been stronger during Pruetts last two years, the offenses are pretty danged similar so maybe the focus of the article on defense is pretty much dead on?  Just an observation.

Banker pretty much nailed it. The passing yards and total offense from 2097-2008 is inflated because we were normally playing from behind. The 2004 and 2003 teams usually had a lead, so we obviously ran the ball more. Most successful d-1 teams that are considered "passing teams" still run the ball more than they throw because they normally have the lead in the 4th.

gtrman, you left out a big stat in your comparison: Points per game. The 2003-2004 teams averaged 26.7 points per game and 2007-2008 teams averaged 22.7 points per game. Obviously, we were doing something better offensively when Pruett was here because we were scoring more while are yards per game were roughly equal. Could it be that the 2003-2004 teams were just better coached offensivly? Possibly.

I would also argue our defenses in 2003-2004 were much better than the defenses of 2007-2008, so it would make more sense to play a ball control offense during that time period. The 2003-2004 defenses gave up 332 yards per game and 22.7 points per game compared to Snyder's 07-08 teams that gave up 434.5 yards per game and 31 points per game. It's a lot easier to play ball control when you have a defense that can actually stop people.

Personally, I agree with what Snyder is doing. He is going to play to our strengths (defense and running game). I just don't think our strengths are really strong enough to out weigh out weaknesses.

[Thundering Accountant]

Here are some numbers to ponder when it comes to the East being having an 'old school' philosophy.

Marshall attempted 351 passes last season, ECU attempted 419, Southern Miss attempted 457, UCF attempted 308.

I'll throw in UAB & Memphis as well. UAB attempted 353, & Memphis attempted 437.

So the teams that threw less or roughly the same as us didn't go bowling (UAB & UCF)

The teams that threw considerably more than us went bowling.

While I agree with the premise of your post, we threw the ball 29 times a game and ECU threw the ball 30 times a game. ECU did average 43 more yards so they were more effective.

[ought-three]

OK, the numbers are in...

Correlation coefficient (r²) between a CUSA teams winning percentage and their:
Rush Offense 0.65
Pass Offense 0.41
Total Offense 0.70

Rush Defense -0.63
Pass Defense 0.31
Total Defense -0.28

Teams that have higher total offense tend to have a better win percentage, no matter which mode although rushing offense is more closely linked to winning than pass offense.

Counter-intuitively, three of the best records in the conference (Rice, Houston, Tulsa) finished in the bottom half of the conference in pass defense. Only two teams with winning records (Southern Miss and ECU) finished in the top half. Rushing defense is a much stronger indicator of a teams win even than total defense.

Bottom line, in CUSA, how you run - and stop the run - appear to be the strongest individual indicators of winning percentage.

[Thundering Accountant]

OK, the numbers are in...

Correlation coefficient (r²) between a CUSA teams winning percentage and their:
Rush Offense 0.65
Pass Offense 0.41
Total Offense 0.70

Rush Defense -0.63
Pass Defense 0.31
Total Defense -0.28

Teams that have higher total offense tend to have a better win percentage, no matter which mode although rushing offense is more closely linked to winning than pass offense.

Counter-intuitively, three of the best records in the conference (Rice, Houston, Tulsa) finished in the bottom half of the conference in pass defense. Only two teams with winning records (Southern Miss and ECU) finished in the top half. Rushing defense is a much stronger indicator of a teams win even than total defense.

Bottom line, in CUSA, how you run - and stop the run - appear to be the strongest individual indicators of winning percentage.

What are your variables, sample size and how are you controlling for things like strength of schedule differences?
Also what regression program are you using to come up with your results?

[360]

2 - 10

Have been saying it for months.

Was at Virginia Beach a few days ago; you wouldn't believe how many comments we received when wearing our herd T-shirts and when people saw the herd stuff on my wife's car. Had know idea how many people the movie touched.

[svherd]

There you have it ladies and gents, spelled out in black and white, numbers don't lie. In 2009, we will run the ball, try to stop the other team, and hope for a win. Sounds like a broken record. I am stil waiting for someone to convince me why our defense will be able to make the stops they didn't last year; and why our offense will be able to score more points than last year?

I sure as hell hope you are right. I am tired of losing ugly.

[extragreen]

'03-'04
run plays- 440
pass plays- 385
total offense- 4506
points scored-641 points
points allowed-544


'07-'08
run plays- 415
pass plays- 391
total offense- 4460
points scored-544
points allowed-743

Our offense has scored 50 points less PER YEAR in 07-08. Our defense has given up 100 more points PER YEAR in 07-08. And counting on our defense is playing to our STRENGTH?????

[guru shudu moonday]

"old school offense" sucks.

[ought-three]

What are your variables, sample size and how are you controlling for things like strength of schedule differences?
Also what regression program are you using to come up with your results?

There are twelve CUSA teams, so the sample was 12. I used MSExcel, though they were r instead of r²-values.

Correlation coefficient (r) between a CUSA teams winning percentage and their:
Rush Offense 0.65
Pass Offense 0.41
Total Offense 0.70

Rush Defense -0.63
Pass Defense 0.31
Total Defense -0.28"

I don't think there is a need to control for strength of schedule, but there's an easy way to fix that. I also have the 119 non-transitional teams. If you think adding Western Kentucky would make a difference I can add them, it was just less to parse since the NCAA listed them in a lower table.

correlation coefficient (r) between an FBS team's winning percentage and their:
Rush Offense: 0.40
Pass Offense: 0.23
Total OFfense: 0.51

Rush Defense: -0.62
Pass Defense: -0.03
Total Defense: -0.45

So, as the sample size grows approaches the population it tells basically the same comparative story. Of the individual categories listed, rush offense and rush defense are more closely correlated with winning percentage than pass offense and defense. I would say it is a causation as well, but that is up to interpretation. When I coached I knew we could win 90% of the games where we controlled the clock, though time of possession is a 0.22 r-value...about the same as pass offense. I don't think you'll find a magic trend in any of the data, but it makes the point that passing, while entertaining, isn't necessarily what a team must do to succeed. There are too many factors contributing to a team's game plan to point out any one thing as the key other than finding those advantageous match-ups.