What did we learn? Purdue

presidentjlh said:
It's a lot like Corsi if you follow hockey, it basically looks at various analytical considerations and says "the stats suggest this team would win this percent of the time if you played the game all over again and they put up similar stats."

Basically, Nebraska had a better game analytically but lost due to other factors. I reckon we have a lot of games like this the past few years.
Click to expand...
Well metrics does it think will win games? Time of possession, offensive yardage, turnovers, sacks?  What metric did we actually win? 

 
krc1995 said:
Well metrics does it think will win games? Time of possession, offensive yardage, turnovers, sacks?  What metric did we actually win? 
Click to expand...


Yards per play and explosive plays. If you outgain your opponents by over 3 yards per play (9.2 to 6.0) you will win more often than not - the fact that we "lost" most other metrics explains why it was only a 60% chance. And I get it, the only stat that ends up mattering is points scored versus points allowed. But you can give up sacks, lose the TO battle, and give up a lot of yardage and still win averaging 9 yards per play. We did just enough to lose in spite of that.

 
Husker in WI said:
Yards per play and explosive plays. If you outgain your opponents by over 3 yards per play (9.2 to 6.0) you will win more often than not - the fact that we "lost" most other metrics explains why it was only a 60% chance. And I get it, the only stat that ends up mattering is points scored versus points allowed. But you can give up sacks, lose the TO battle, and give up a lot of yardage and still win averaging 9 yards per play. We did just enough to lose in spite of that.
Click to expand...
I was going to say something similar, but you explained this very well.  You can add points per play (which were off the charts), which is a by-product of explosive plays.  I also think that TOP isn't a huge metric when it comes to win predictability, although when it gets as skewed as it was on Saturday, it probably should.

 
BigRedBuster said:
Want a total mind f#&%?  Georgia southern put up more points and yards against us than Purdue. 
Click to expand...
Georgia Southern just beat a top 25 ranked team Saturday.  Today's college football isn't what it used to be.  That is a pretty dang good offensive football team and we are not.  

 
Hilltop said:
Georgia Southern just beat a top 25 ranked team Saturday.  Today's college football isn't what it used to be.  That is a pretty dang good offensive football team and we are not.  
Click to expand...
Helton is also a pretty good coach, despite of what people think from his USC time.  He had some great seasons there.

 
Husker in WI said:
Yards per play and explosive plays. If you outgain your opponents by over 3 yards per play (9.2 to 6.0) you will win more often than not - the fact that we "lost" most other metrics explains why it was only a 60% chance. And I get it, the only stat that ends up mattering is points scored versus points allowed. But you can give up sacks, lose the TO battle, and give up a lot of yardage and still win averaging 9 yards per play. We did just enough to lose in spite of that.
Click to expand...
And I thought the stats looked like we should have lost by much more. 

 
I am sure the stat geeks can generate all sorts of graphs and charts showing correlations between points scored and first downs, total yards, rush yards, pass yards, time of possession etc.  

Anomalies abound but I’d be surprised to see that the correlation on TOP, total yards, TO margin, relative field position, completion %, yards per carry, and most of the commonly compared stats are not strong indicators.  

Unusual plays can help the weaker team, as indicated by the various measures, overcome to win but reliance on the breaks, oddities, etc is not the way to build a sustainable winning program.  Imo, better to focus on fundamentals.  Blocking. Tackling.  Penalty free execution, etc.  

Big plays are great. You never want to turn down TDs I guess but just matching TD for TD doesn’t assure a win. PATs are missed. 2 pt conversions.  On side kicks.  There are times when time off the clock is more valuable than another score.  Keeping the ball away from the opponent and TDs prevented can be better at times.  
 

 
84HuskerLaw said:
I am sure the stat geeks can generate all sorts of graphs and charts showing correlations between points scored and first downs, total yards, rush yards, pass yards, time of possession etc.  

Anomalies abound but I’d be surprised to see that the correlation on TOP, total yards, TO margin, relative field position, completion %, yards per carry, and most of the commonly compared stats are not strong indicators.  

Unusual plays can help the weaker team, as indicated by the various measures, overcome to win but reliance on the breaks, oddities, etc is not the way to build a sustainable winning program.  Imo, better to focus on fundamentals.  Blocking. Tackling.  Penalty free execution, etc.  

Big plays are great. You never want to turn down TDs I guess but just matching TD for TD doesn’t assure a win. PATs are missed. 2 pt conversions.  On side kicks.  There are times when time off the clock is more valuable than another score.  Keeping the ball away from the opponent and TDs prevented can be better at times.  
Click to expand...


There is a lot of statistical analysis abound.  Just because fans are into those things, doesn't make us "geeks", it makes us more informed and smarter fans.  Time of possession is often used by weaker teams to limit possessions and reduce the opportunities for opponents.  Yes, there is a time and place for wanting to grind down the clock, but the best teams (by winning percentage) are able to score the most efficiently (fewest plays).

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
If I can step out of my bias a moment, that was an entertaining football game.

No opponent will want to underestimate Nebraska, although Michigan could totally get away with it.

That game was like a lot of last years' losses under Scott Frost. I want to believe something's different this year under Mickey, so I will continue to do so. 

I want to say the defense totally sucked, but I honestly thought the tackling was solid and they we mostly out-schemed by a really smart play caller (although Husker fans would have s#!t bricks had Whipple made some of Brohm's calls)

If you watched much college football Saturday, you'll notice defense went missing in a lot of games. Even elite defenses were getting rolled. 

Say what you will about the OL, Casey Thompson had time to make deep throws that were instant game changers. Casey definitely missed some wide open guys and threw a couple balls he'd like to have back, but I still think we're lucky to have him. 
Click to expand...
I was at the game, and I'll disagree with you about the tackling. It was poor, I recall mentioning to my buddy about having 3 missed tackles each on two separate plays, plus a bunch of single ones on others.  I will agree with the scheme comment as we had just one defensive lineman in on a lot of early down plays in the first half and I was very confused by that.  They were getting huge chunks running around the tackles but then went away from it.

 
ColoradoHusk said:
Taking a guy who struggled at CB the first 4 games, to the point he was benched and moved to WR, and then moving him back to DB, might be one of the worst recommendations I have seen out there.
Click to expand...
Not saying Hill would be the same, but Bo moved SJB to CB against OSU.  Dude got the game winning INT.  Gotta get the athletes on the field and let them play.

 
ColoradoHusk said:
There is a lot of statistical analysis abound.  Just because fans are into those things, doesn't make us "geeks", it makes us more informed and smarter fans.  Time of possession is often used by weaker teams to limit possessions and reduce the opportunities for opponents.  Yes, there is a time and place for wanting to grind down the clock, but the best teams (by winning percentage) are able to score the most efficiently (fewest plays).
Click to expand...
I somewhat disagree with that. Time of possession is important depending on the type of team you are. With Nebraska for years it was important.  For Oregon for years it wasn’t. Both were good teams. 

 
Just because you marry a bunch of stats together doesn’t mean they spit out anything  meaningful or descriptive.   You have to use your eyes too. 
 

this goes for recruits and their stars as well. 
 

 
BigRedBuster said:
I somewhat disagree with that. Time of possession is important depending on the type of team you are. With Nebraska for years it was important.  For Oregon for years it wasn’t. Both were good teams. 
Click to expand...
I disagree in that TOP was "important for Nebraska" in their peak years, and Osborne wasn't necessarily trying to win the TOP. I think that's your perception bias. In NU's peak, Osborne was always looking for a high scoring offense, and then the defense improved as the 90s went on, resulting shorter opponent drives and the ball going back to NU's offense.  As NU got better, that resulted in more TOP for NU.  In reviewing 1990-1997 (peak Osborne years), let's look at how much TOP advantage NU actually had in those seasons.

1990:  29:35 NU, 30:25 opposition - this was a great NU team, led by Mickey Joseph, until the last month of the season, when it lost to Colorado, Oklahoma, and Georgia Tech

1991:  29:23 NU, 30:37 opposition - this was Osborne's first Big 8 title team in since 1988

1992:  31:12 NU, 28:48 opposition - Frazier's first year as starting QB, and that wasn't until midway through the season

1993:  31 NU, 29 opposition - undefeated regular season, lost to FSU in NC game

1994:  33:35 NU, 26:25 opposition - biggest TOP advantage by a NU team, but this team had issues at QB after Frazier's injury and lost a lot of big play ability.  This is the one season where Osborne focused on shortening games and relying on the defense

1995:  31:56 NU, 28:03 opposition - much shorter TOP advantage than previous year, as NU was able to rely on more big plays on offense, also had an amazing D

1996:  31:11 NU, 28:49 opposition - first year starting QB, not as strong as offense as 1995, also had injury issues at I-back

1997:  32:48 NU, 27:12 opposition - 2nd largest TOP advantage of Osborne's 90s teams.

Looking at these numbers, other than 1994 and 1997, NU didn't have huge TOP advantages over their opponent.  My argument about TOP not being a strategy by Osborne's teams are:

1) TOP can be skewed by slowing tempo and limiting possessions -- Osborne wasn't doing this.  Osborne wouldn't want to limit possessions, as he had better talent than most teams.  Osborne would want NU to have more possessions during a game, and more opportunities to score.

2) Osborne's offenses did skew the TOP more towards NU, mainly because it moved the ball primarily by running the ball, thus keeping the clock running.  If a running team has an unsuccessful play, the clock still runs.  If a passing team has an unsuccessful play (incomplete pass) the clock stops.

3) TOP can be skewed by teams with the lead trying to "run out the clock" when the game is in-hand.  This was a common occurrence for peak NU teams.

Time of possession advantage can be a by-product of successful and winning teams.  Time of possession advantage can also be a by-product of less talented teams trying to limit possessions and scoring.  That's why TOP isn't a good indicator of winning a football game. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top