WHAT YOU MIGHT SEE
These are just my thoughts on what you might see from each team today. I haven't been to any practices, or done any research other than what it took to write the last five posts, but from that work I've developed a few ideas. They could be totally off base, but maybe they'll shed a little light during the game.
UGA may focus on getting the ball to Moreno on offense, particularly on short passes. They won't have the time to drop back for long passes. Getting Moreno the ball in space will isolate him on some of Tech's inexperienced linebackers, and it will slow down the defensive line. They can then think about taking a shot down field later in the game.
Coach Paul Johnson will attack a weakness he saw on tap during his first drive. I'm guessing he's going to attack the edges of the Bulldog defense. The UGA DE's and outside linebackers haven't made a lot of plays this year, and the corner backs and safeties don't make a lot of plays behind the line of scrimmage. If Tech can get Georgia to sell out against the run, watch out for Bebe Thomas deep down the side line.
Defensively Georgia may try to play tech like Boston College did. If the tackles can get good penetration at the point of attack they can disrupt the timing of the triple option.
Tech will depend on their defensive line to get in the backfield, hit Stafford, and get Moreno juking and diving before he gets to the line of scrimmage.
Expect a couple of turnovers on both sides, but if the Yellow Jackets jump out to an early lead Stafford may be forced to pass, which may lead to some rally killing interceptions.
Tech is the hot team coming into this game while the Dawgs are going to have to rally to keep pace.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Friday, November 28, 2008
In Summation
I think AJC columnist Jeff Shultz said it well this morning, Georgia's not that good, and Tech's not that bad.
To hear some Georgia fans tell it, you'd think Tech was 3-8 and not 8-3. According to the AP poll its #13 vs. #18, which sounds a fair assessment. UGA should be the favorite, but not by 8 points. The difference between #13 and #18 just isn't that much, and I think the previous four instalments of the CLEAN OLD FASHION HATE SPECTACULAR proves that.
Georgia has been the dominant program over the last seven years, but the Jackets are much closer than Bulldog fans will acknowledge. In fact, Tech has been one play away from beating the Dawgs several times, and all of that with O'Leary-gate and Chan Gailey hanging over the program.
Yes, Georgia plays in the SEC, but no, the SEC is not better than the ACC. If anything they are different, but the similar. The SEC has more top dogs and bottom dwellers, but the ACC is chalk full of good solid teams. Tech has played out a string of hard fought games over the second half of the season and has racked up wins against several teams better than LSU (the best team UGA beat), including UNC, Boston College, and Florida State. Georgia failed miserably in its two big tests against Florida and Alabama, which would make Tech Georgia's best win if it happened.
Though both teams are suffering from injuries this year, they've had several weeks of the same personnel. The offensive lines are what they are, and there is no reason to expect them to play any differently this week. The most impactful injury could be to Tech linebacker Sedric Griffin. Griffin has been the rock of a young, oft injured unit. He was knocked out of action last week, so Tech hasn't played any games without him and could miss his solid tackling. Shane Bowen, a starter last year who missed time do to off season surgery replaces Griffin. Anthony Barnes and Kyle Jackson have provided spotty production most of the year as both players have suffered with occasional injuries, but they are talented.
Outside of injuries, the Teams are evenly matched. Mathew Stafford and Josh Nesbitt both play the quarterback position relatively well, though they are asked to do very different things by there coaches. Jonathan Dwyer and Knowshon Mareno have almost identical production. Wide receivers Mohamad Masoquoi and AJ Green are more consistent than Tech's Bebe Thomas, but Thomas is a talent and a threat to make a game changing play. Defensively Georgia Tech's defensive line is far better than Georgia's, but defensive tackles Geno Atkins and Corvey Irvin, work well with stand out linebacker Rennie Curran give Georgia a solid center. Tech's young secondary has come along nicely, and playing behind the Yellow Jacket defensive line makes them the equal of their Bulldog counter parts.
Match-up wise, the two worst units on the field will be the offensive lines, and the best unit on the field will be the Tech defensive line. While there are minor advantages and disadvantages else where, both coaching staffs are more than capable of covering them up.
To hear some Georgia fans tell it, you'd think Tech was 3-8 and not 8-3. According to the AP poll its #13 vs. #18, which sounds a fair assessment. UGA should be the favorite, but not by 8 points. The difference between #13 and #18 just isn't that much, and I think the previous four instalments of the CLEAN OLD FASHION HATE SPECTACULAR proves that.
Georgia has been the dominant program over the last seven years, but the Jackets are much closer than Bulldog fans will acknowledge. In fact, Tech has been one play away from beating the Dawgs several times, and all of that with O'Leary-gate and Chan Gailey hanging over the program.
Yes, Georgia plays in the SEC, but no, the SEC is not better than the ACC. If anything they are different, but the similar. The SEC has more top dogs and bottom dwellers, but the ACC is chalk full of good solid teams. Tech has played out a string of hard fought games over the second half of the season and has racked up wins against several teams better than LSU (the best team UGA beat), including UNC, Boston College, and Florida State. Georgia failed miserably in its two big tests against Florida and Alabama, which would make Tech Georgia's best win if it happened.
Though both teams are suffering from injuries this year, they've had several weeks of the same personnel. The offensive lines are what they are, and there is no reason to expect them to play any differently this week. The most impactful injury could be to Tech linebacker Sedric Griffin. Griffin has been the rock of a young, oft injured unit. He was knocked out of action last week, so Tech hasn't played any games without him and could miss his solid tackling. Shane Bowen, a starter last year who missed time do to off season surgery replaces Griffin. Anthony Barnes and Kyle Jackson have provided spotty production most of the year as both players have suffered with occasional injuries, but they are talented.
Outside of injuries, the Teams are evenly matched. Mathew Stafford and Josh Nesbitt both play the quarterback position relatively well, though they are asked to do very different things by there coaches. Jonathan Dwyer and Knowshon Mareno have almost identical production. Wide receivers Mohamad Masoquoi and AJ Green are more consistent than Tech's Bebe Thomas, but Thomas is a talent and a threat to make a game changing play. Defensively Georgia Tech's defensive line is far better than Georgia's, but defensive tackles Geno Atkins and Corvey Irvin, work well with stand out linebacker Rennie Curran give Georgia a solid center. Tech's young secondary has come along nicely, and playing behind the Yellow Jacket defensive line makes them the equal of their Bulldog counter parts.
Match-up wise, the two worst units on the field will be the offensive lines, and the best unit on the field will be the Tech defensive line. While there are minor advantages and disadvantages else where, both coaching staffs are more than capable of covering them up.
All things considered, Georgia ain't so tough, while Tech is only getting stronger. Tech's offense has been taking off, while Georgia's defense has been slipping. Will Tech's be far enough along it's rebuilding process to beat Georgia, or can Georgia stop it's slide and beat Tech for an eighth time in a row. hing, check out the chart below. Tech's offense is getting stronger.
Tune in tomorrow, or possibly late tonight, for a CLEAN OLD FASHION HATE SPECTACULAR bonus; My thoughts on what you might see on the field.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
CLEAN OLD FASHION HATE; Match-ups
WHEN TECH RUNS THE BALL
Georgia is 15th in the country against the run, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll have much success against Tech’s unique offense. After all, the triple-option isn’t a standard run play. Below is a list of top 25 rush defense Tech has already played this year, and how they fared against the triple option
7th Boston College – 95.8 y.p.g., against Tech, 162 yards, 2 touchdowns
19th Virginia Tech – 106.7 y.p.g., against Tech, 199 Yards, 2 touchdowns
21st Florida State – 109.6 y.p.g., against Tech, 288 yards, 4 touchdowns
The Boston College results came early in the season. It was Tech’s second game, and its first game on the road. Given those conditions, it represents a pretty solid effort. Even so, the Florida State game is more indicative of where the Tech rushing game is at this point in the season. Tech played Florida State, UNC, and Miami to end their ACC season. Tech had 326 yards rushing and a touchdown against UNC, and against Miami they rushed for 472 yards. Clearly the rushing game is cruising at a level above their lofty #4 rating.
Georgia Ranks 15th against the rush, but a lot of that ranking was built on good games against bad rushing offense early in the season. As you can see from the chart below Georgia gave up more rushing yards per game during the second half of the season when they began facing better rushing teams. That coincides with Tech’s rushing game finding its pace.
In the first six games, Georgia gave up an average of 52 yards a game, but that included a FCS team. The BCS subdivision teams averaged 82nd in rushing offense. Over the second half of the season, Georgia gave up an average of 167.4 yards per game. The opponents averaged 50th in rushing offense in the country. No team Georgia has faced has ranked as high as Georgia Tech in rushing offense.
Georgia Tech’s rushing offense is peaking, while Georgia’s defense has faltered late in the season against good, but inferior to Tech, rushing teams.
WHEN UGA RUNS THE BALL
Georgia will be the 3rd best rushing team Tech has played this year, behind Florida State and Virginia Tech. Georgia’s running game has been very consistent and very good this year. Knowshon Moreno is a talented back who ricochets away from defenders once he makes it into the secondary. He could very easily end up being one of the pre season contenders for the Heisman Trophy next year. Fullback Brannon Southerland does a tremendous job clearing the way for Moreno, and the two of them have been a big reason why Georgia ranks as high as 51 in rushing yards despite a depleted offensive line.
Tech’s defense has been good but not spectacular. They are 29th in the country against the run, behind Alabama, Tennessee, Florida, and LSU. At times this year the linebackers suffered spells of poor tackling. Late in the season this was exacerbated by fatigue and injuries against Virginia, Florida State, and UNC. The injuries and fatigue should be less of a factor against Georgia. The jackets will have played one game in the last 21 days when they face UGA, and that one game was a big victory over Miami in which many of the starters got to rest in the second half.
Georgia has played against statistically good rush defenses, but the numbers are slightly inflated because the SEC’s offenses are down this year. Tech’s defensive line will likely dominate UGA’s offensive line, and should be able to make plays in the backfield, but the linebackers have to step up and keep Moreno from breaking long runs.
WHEN TECH PASSES THE BALL
All though Tech’s offense will never be a pass heavy offense, Coach Paul Johnson would like to throw the ball more than the Jackets have this year. The offensive line hasn’t been up to the task of pass protecting on a consistent basis. The Jackets have gone to the pass under two sets of circumstances. Either they relying on the rush to draw eight and nine players into box and then go deep to Bebe Thomas. Thomas is a big athletic player who can dominate most of corner backs. Tech has also used the pass sparingly to loosen up defenses early in games. Couch Paul Johnson used a few simple eight to ten yard routs to back teams of the line in the Boston College and Miami games.
Georgia’s defensive line hasn’t produced much pressure this year, which should allow the Jackets a few opportunities to pass when they chose to. They just need to watch out for Rennie Currie on the blitz.
WHEN GEORGIA PASSES THE BALL
Matthew Stafford has the arm to make all the throws, and he’s been an excellent complement to Moreno, but his numbers are difficult to evaluate because the SEC is generally down this year. Quarterback play has been particularly bad this year, and poor quarterback play has inflated the numbers of the SEC’s pass defenses. Seven SEC Teams Rank in the top 25 for least yards passing allowed, but most of those teams are in the bottom half of the SEC.
Pass D Rank Team Sagarin Rating
2 South Carolina 32
26 Auburn 69
14 Mississippi State 97
77 LSU 34
16 Vanderbilt 45
64 Arkansas 81
43 Kentucky 52
Georgia played five of these teams, and none of them rank in the top 25 in Sagarin Ranting. Its reasonable to assume that Mississippi State, Auburn, and South Carolina's strong ranking against the pass is due in part to the fact that they are poor against the run.
Rush D Rank Team
35 South Carolina
45 Auburn
65 Mississippi State
15 LSU
63 Vanderbilt
91 Arkansas
50 Kentucky
Only one of those teams are in the top 25 in rush defense. While Stafford and his Wide Receivers, AJ Green and Mohamad Masoquoi, are very talented their numbers have been boosted by playing against some weak teams.
They will face a Georgia Tech defense that has the 10th most interceptions in the country, has the 9th most tackles for loss, and the 16th most sacks in the country. The interceptions and sacks are related. The Tech defensive line forces quarterbacks to make passes under duress, this leads to mistakes which the secondary has taken advantage of. All of this leads to a team that is 21st in the country in passing defense.
The only team that had a successful passing game against the Jackets was UVA who utilized passes to the running back to take advantage of Georgia Tech’s weakness at the linebacker position, but Georgia hasn’t thrown much to their backs. It will be interesting to see if they make that adjustment.
Passing for Georgia will likely be a high-risk activity with their beaten up offensive line. Georgia Tech has consistently gotten to the quarterback all year, and their defensive backs have played better than most people care to admit.
TURNOVERS
Georgia Tech has turned the ball over a lot this year. They have lost 18 fumbles which ties them for 117th in the country. That number is slightly inflated because they run so much, but it’s impossible to deny that they have been generous this year. Georgia Tech has thrown 3 interceptions.
Georgia on the other hand has fewer turnovers. They’ve only fumbled 7 times, and thrown 8 interceptions, for a total of 15 turnovers.
Yet, Georgia Tech has a better turnover margin thanks to their defense. The Jackets have forced 27 turnovers, while Georgia has force only 11 turnovers. This gives Tech a turnover margin of +.36 on the year, and Georgia a turnover margin of -.09. By virtue of their defense, the Jackets hold the advantage in the turnover department.
Georgia is 15th in the country against the run, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll have much success against Tech’s unique offense. After all, the triple-option isn’t a standard run play. Below is a list of top 25 rush defense Tech has already played this year, and how they fared against the triple option
7th Boston College – 95.8 y.p.g., against Tech, 162 yards, 2 touchdowns
19th Virginia Tech – 106.7 y.p.g., against Tech, 199 Yards, 2 touchdowns
21st Florida State – 109.6 y.p.g., against Tech, 288 yards, 4 touchdowns
The Boston College results came early in the season. It was Tech’s second game, and its first game on the road. Given those conditions, it represents a pretty solid effort. Even so, the Florida State game is more indicative of where the Tech rushing game is at this point in the season. Tech played Florida State, UNC, and Miami to end their ACC season. Tech had 326 yards rushing and a touchdown against UNC, and against Miami they rushed for 472 yards. Clearly the rushing game is cruising at a level above their lofty #4 rating.
Georgia Ranks 15th against the rush, but a lot of that ranking was built on good games against bad rushing offense early in the season. As you can see from the chart below Georgia gave up more rushing yards per game during the second half of the season when they began facing better rushing teams. That coincides with Tech’s rushing game finding its pace.
In the first six games, Georgia gave up an average of 52 yards a game, but that included a FCS team. The BCS subdivision teams averaged 82nd in rushing offense. Over the second half of the season, Georgia gave up an average of 167.4 yards per game. The opponents averaged 50th in rushing offense in the country. No team Georgia has faced has ranked as high as Georgia Tech in rushing offense.
Georgia Tech’s rushing offense is peaking, while Georgia’s defense has faltered late in the season against good, but inferior to Tech, rushing teams.
WHEN UGA RUNS THE BALLGeorgia will be the 3rd best rushing team Tech has played this year, behind Florida State and Virginia Tech. Georgia’s running game has been very consistent and very good this year. Knowshon Moreno is a talented back who ricochets away from defenders once he makes it into the secondary. He could very easily end up being one of the pre season contenders for the Heisman Trophy next year. Fullback Brannon Southerland does a tremendous job clearing the way for Moreno, and the two of them have been a big reason why Georgia ranks as high as 51 in rushing yards despite a depleted offensive line.
Tech’s defense has been good but not spectacular. They are 29th in the country against the run, behind Alabama, Tennessee, Florida, and LSU. At times this year the linebackers suffered spells of poor tackling. Late in the season this was exacerbated by fatigue and injuries against Virginia, Florida State, and UNC. The injuries and fatigue should be less of a factor against Georgia. The jackets will have played one game in the last 21 days when they face UGA, and that one game was a big victory over Miami in which many of the starters got to rest in the second half.
Georgia has played against statistically good rush defenses, but the numbers are slightly inflated because the SEC’s offenses are down this year. Tech’s defensive line will likely dominate UGA’s offensive line, and should be able to make plays in the backfield, but the linebackers have to step up and keep Moreno from breaking long runs.
WHEN TECH PASSES THE BALLAll though Tech’s offense will never be a pass heavy offense, Coach Paul Johnson would like to throw the ball more than the Jackets have this year. The offensive line hasn’t been up to the task of pass protecting on a consistent basis. The Jackets have gone to the pass under two sets of circumstances. Either they relying on the rush to draw eight and nine players into box and then go deep to Bebe Thomas. Thomas is a big athletic player who can dominate most of corner backs. Tech has also used the pass sparingly to loosen up defenses early in games. Couch Paul Johnson used a few simple eight to ten yard routs to back teams of the line in the Boston College and Miami games.
Georgia’s defensive line hasn’t produced much pressure this year, which should allow the Jackets a few opportunities to pass when they chose to. They just need to watch out for Rennie Currie on the blitz.
WHEN GEORGIA PASSES THE BALL
Matthew Stafford has the arm to make all the throws, and he’s been an excellent complement to Moreno, but his numbers are difficult to evaluate because the SEC is generally down this year. Quarterback play has been particularly bad this year, and poor quarterback play has inflated the numbers of the SEC’s pass defenses. Seven SEC Teams Rank in the top 25 for least yards passing allowed, but most of those teams are in the bottom half of the SEC.
Pass D Rank Team Sagarin Rating
2 South Carolina 32
26 Auburn 69
14 Mississippi State 97
77 LSU 34
16 Vanderbilt 45
64 Arkansas 81
43 Kentucky 52
Georgia played five of these teams, and none of them rank in the top 25 in Sagarin Ranting. Its reasonable to assume that Mississippi State, Auburn, and South Carolina's strong ranking against the pass is due in part to the fact that they are poor against the run.
Rush D Rank Team
35 South Carolina
45 Auburn
65 Mississippi State
15 LSU
63 Vanderbilt
91 Arkansas
50 Kentucky
Only one of those teams are in the top 25 in rush defense. While Stafford and his Wide Receivers, AJ Green and Mohamad Masoquoi, are very talented their numbers have been boosted by playing against some weak teams.
They will face a Georgia Tech defense that has the 10th most interceptions in the country, has the 9th most tackles for loss, and the 16th most sacks in the country. The interceptions and sacks are related. The Tech defensive line forces quarterbacks to make passes under duress, this leads to mistakes which the secondary has taken advantage of. All of this leads to a team that is 21st in the country in passing defense.
The only team that had a successful passing game against the Jackets was UVA who utilized passes to the running back to take advantage of Georgia Tech’s weakness at the linebacker position, but Georgia hasn’t thrown much to their backs. It will be interesting to see if they make that adjustment.
Passing for Georgia will likely be a high-risk activity with their beaten up offensive line. Georgia Tech has consistently gotten to the quarterback all year, and their defensive backs have played better than most people care to admit.
TURNOVERSGeorgia Tech has turned the ball over a lot this year. They have lost 18 fumbles which ties them for 117th in the country. That number is slightly inflated because they run so much, but it’s impossible to deny that they have been generous this year. Georgia Tech has thrown 3 interceptions.
Georgia on the other hand has fewer turnovers. They’ve only fumbled 7 times, and thrown 8 interceptions, for a total of 15 turnovers.
Yet, Georgia Tech has a better turnover margin thanks to their defense. The Jackets have forced 27 turnovers, while Georgia has force only 11 turnovers. This gives Tech a turnover margin of +.36 on the year, and Georgia a turnover margin of -.09. By virtue of their defense, the Jackets hold the advantage in the turnover department.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
The Players
Installment three of the Clean Old Fashion Hate spectacular, a position by position comaprison of the two teams.
QUARTERBACKS
Matthew Stafford is the more heralded player. Stafford has more yards from scrimmage than Nesbitt. Most of Stafford’s yards are passing yards, and most of Nesbitt’s yards are rushing, and that’s reflects the offenses the two QB’s run. Stafford plays in pro style offense, and Nesbitt plays for the fifth best rushing offense in the country. Tech has thrown fewer passes than every other BCS school except for Air Force, Army, and Navy.
But, traditional stats don’t tell the whole story. The triple-option is not a pure running play. It requires the quarterback to make pre-snap reads and in play decisions that are similar to a passing play. Just like a passing play, a good decision by the QB in the triple option can be the key that springs a big play, but unlike a passing play the QB doesn’t get credit for this in the stat sheets. A more fair comparison would be to add the yards Georgia Tech gained on triple option plays to Nesbitt’s stats. Unfortunately the stat sheets don’t record the play call, so it’s impossible to tell from them if the play was an option play or not. As a compromise, we could add A-Back yards to Nesbitt’s totals. This doesn’t account for yards gained by the B-back on the triple option, but lacking harder data it’s safer to error on the side of caution.
Nesbit yards from scrimmage in traditional stats = 1,230
Stafford yards from scrimmage in traditional stats = 2,847
Nesbit YFS plus A-Backs = 1,714
That’s still a substantial lead for Stafford, but if we adjust for the fact that Nesbitt missed two games as of last week (note, I only added a portion of A-Back yards above to account for that). With A-Backs Nesbit accounted for 193.5 YFS. Over an 11 game season that averages out to 2,129 yds. Add to that the fact that Nesbitt and the A-Backs have accounted for a total of 13 touchdowns, and Stafford has accounted for 9 and suddenly the difference isn’t so great.
The more you look into the years each quarterback has had, the harder it is to concluded that Stafford has been significantly better than Nesbit. Even in a comparison of traditional statistics, it has to be noted that Stafford’s back-up Joe Cox only made three appearances in which he threw 15 passes and rushed three times, while Nesbitt’s back-ups made 15 appearances accounting for two starts, 85 rushing attempts and 28 passes. Some of Tech’s back-up appearances were due to Nesbitt’s injuries, but Tech also made a concerted effort to get all four quarterbacks live snaps this year, and Georgia didn’t. This is understandable because the Bulldogs were chasing a national title and Tech was trying to learn a new offense.
Stafford’s more impressive stats are in part a function of having more opportunity. Other contributing factors are Tech learning a new offense, one they are more efficient at now than earlier in the season, and Stafford racking up easy yards in the second half against Florida and Alabama.
Both QB’s do what they are supposed to do very well.
Result – Push
TAILBACK VS. B-BACK
It’s commonly believed that Knowshon Marino is significantly more effective than Jonathan Dwyer. This simply isn’t true. Perhaps it could be argued that Marino is the more complete back at this point in his career, and that he would fit better into a pro offense, but as for on the field production these players are almost exactly equal. Morino is 13th in the country in yards rushed Jonathan Dwyer is 19th. Marino does have almost twice as many touchdowns as Dwyer, but Dwyer averages almost twice as many yards per carry as Marino. Both stats are products of the offenses each player plays in.
Also, like Nesbitt, Dwyer has achieved his stats with significantly fewer opportunities than Marino because of the emphasis Tech put on getting more players game experience.
Result – Push
WIDE RECEIVERS, A-BACKS, AND TIGHT ENDS
Georgia has a classic style offense. They have a good Quarterback, a great running back, and an excellent #1 receiver in AJ Green, a good possession receiver in Mohamed Massaquoi.
AJ Green, the true freshman is 31th in the country with 887 yards receiving and 30th with 7 touchdowns. Massaquoi has 730 yards receiving and 6 touchdowns. Georgia hasn’t used their tight ends much at all.
Georgia Tech is harder to get a hand on. The A-Back position is a hybrid spot. The ideal A-back is similar to a third down back in the pros. Kevin Faulk and Brian Westbrook would make good A-backs. These players are equally dangerous as a receiver or runner on any play. Also, in the triple option A-backs receive plays on pitches from the QB, which is similar to a pass. In a traditional offense ideally the QB only throws to open receivers. Similarly the QB only pitches to the AB when he has a clear path down field in the option attack. So often an A-Back's yards are more a function of the QB’s decision-making process than his skill as a runner. It helps to be able to run, just like it helps if a wide receiver has good hands, but a successful option pitch is the result of two players working together, like a success full pass play.
Georgia Tech’s most effective A-Back has been Roddy Jones. Jones, a true freshman has accounted for 150 yards receiving and 444 yards rushing plus 3 touchdowns. His numbers pale in comparison to Green’s and Massaquoi, but he’s come on quickly and represents a real threat for Georgia Tech.
Lucas Cox is the other starting A-Back and the back-up B-Back. Cox was fullback coming to Tech from UConn and has earned his spot in the starting line-up because of his ability to block and because he was one of the first players to master the new offense. Physically he isn’t a good fit for this offense but he has gained 203 yards and scored 2 touchdown this year.
Tech’s best, and possibly only legitimate wide receiver is Demarious “Bebe” Thomas. Thomas is 88th in the country with 576 yards receiving and 3 touchdowns.
The poor state of the Jacket’s offensive line has hurt Bebe and the rest of the passing games effectiveness, but Paul Johnson and his staff have kept the big play as a serious option. Thomas averages 16.5 yards per reception, which is 39th in the country. Jones has averaged 21.4 yards per catch, but doesn’t have enough catches to qualify.
Georgia has an advantage overall, but Tech is just dangerous enough to make a play or two that can change a game.
Results – plus Georgia
OFFENSIVE LINES
Both of these lines have been beaten up early and often this year.
Georgia lost it’s starting left tackle, Trinton Sturdivant, in the pre season, and Georgia Tech lost its own left tackle, Andrew Gardner, an NFL prospect, after the Florida State game. AJ Smith has also been in and out of the line up for the jackets this year.
In addition, Tech’s offensive lineman had to learn new techniques going into the season. Many of them were recruited to play in a pro style system, which has further complicated the transition.
Both units have struggled during the season, but the coaching staffs and players have managed to grind out good results. Georgia averages 4.75 yards per carry, and Tech averages 5.48 yards per carry. Both teams have surrendered 12 sacks. This is misleading because the Jackets pass so rarely. Georgia gives up a sack once every 26.5 attempts, and Tech gives up a sack once every 10.5 attempts.
Bottom line, both lines are equal on run plays, but Tech struggles to run block.
Results – plus Georgia
Defensive Line
Tech and Georgia have gotten very different results from their defensive lines. Some of this may be do to scheme, but most of it is due to a difference in quality.
Tech’s defensive line has been a dominant force that sets the tone for the rest the defense. Georgia Tech is 9th in the nation in Tackles for loss, and 16th in sacks. All four starters will likely play in the NFL.
Michael Johnson is the best-known player. His 6 sacks are second on the team and 41st in the country, but that’s a very limited metric to judge Johnson by. The coaching staff has really taken advantage of Johnson unique athletic ability. Not only do they line him up at end and rush Johnson, but they’ve also lined him up at tackle, or dropped him into coverage. This has resulted in an impressive stat line. Johnson has an interception, which he returned for a touch down, and he’s second on the team with 5 pass break-ups. He’s also forced two fumbles this year and blocked a kick.
Derrick Morgan is the baby of the unit. He leads the teams with 6.5 sacks. Morgan really benefits from the attention Johnson draws.
Defensive tackles Vance Walker and Daryl Richard are big and quick. They have 8.5 and 10 tackles for loss apiece and 3 and 4 sacks.
Georgia’s defensive line has traditionally been a strength. The defense as a whole has been good against the rush, ranking 15th in the country, and a lot of credit has to go the defensive line for that, but they’ve really struggled against the pass. The starters have only notched 3.5 sacks this year.
Senior Roderick Battle has battled injuries this year, and Jarius Wynn has failed to live up to the potential he showed in part time action last year. He has only one sack. The other end, Jeremy Lomax hasn’t done much either with 1.5 tackles for loss and a half sack
The Defensive Tackles have been pretty solid. They haven’t put up the stats to match Tech’s tackles, but they’ve done a good job of occupying blockers. Corey Irvin has 7 tackles for a loss, and Geno Atkins has 6.5 tackles for a loss.
Georgia’s defensive line tries to set the table for the rest of the team to make plays. Tech’s defensive line makes plays.
The bottom line, no one on Tech’s line can be blocked one on one, and you can’t double all of them.
Results – plus Tech
Linebackers and Rover
Technically the Rover is a Defensive Back in Dave Womack’s defense, but Tech plays a nickel formation on a plurality of snaps, and its best to compare the units, as they will be seen on the field.
Rennie Curran has been a great player for Georgia this year. He’s been able to flow to the ball and make plays behind solid tackle play. Curran has 98 tackles on the season, 9.5 for loss, and 3 sacks. Opposite Curran is Sedric Griffin. The rest of Tech’s Linebackers have been in and out of the line-up with injuries, but Griffin has played at a very high level. Griffin has 66 tackles, 8 for losses and three sacks.
Joining Griffin for most of the year has been Kyle Jackson, thought Brad Jefferson has seen time when healthy. Jackson has been solid, with 53 tackles, but he doesn’t make big plays and has a tendency to miss tackles. Darryl Gamble and Akeem Dent have produced similar results for the Bull Dogs. None of these players are particularly special, but they are all solid and dependable.
Tech Rover Morgan Burnett is a true sophomore and arguably the best player on Tech’s defense. Burnett leads the team and country with 6 interceptions, and he has 5.5 tackles for loss. He makes plays all over the field.
Burnett is a special player and he makes the difference, but unfortunatley for Tech Griffin is out, leaving Tech without it's best linebacker
Results – plus Georgia
Defensive Secondary
Georgia Tech’s secondary is young with only one upper classman, but that doesn’t mean they look up to their Georgia opponents.
Cornerback Asher Allen leads the Bulldogs with 7 break-ups, safety CJ Byrd has six break-ups, and safety Reshard Jones has 3 break-ups. Tech’s Best four defensive backs have two break ups a piece, which is the same Georgia’s fourth defensive back, Corner Back Prince Miller. This is deceiving.
Tech gives up 40 less passing yards a game than Georgia. Though Georgia’s defensive backs have defended significantly more passes than Georgia Tech’s this year, as a team Georgia has only defended against two more passes than Georgia tech. The difference in defensive back production in this area is probably due to differences in scheme and the performance of other units.
While statistically Georgia defends more passes, Tech dominates in tackling statistics. Free safety Dominique Reese and cornerbacks Jahai Word-Daniels and Mario Butler have 3.5 tackles for loss, and Word Daniels missed three games with injuries. Reshard Reid has 3 tackles for a loss. While Cooper Taylor doesn’t have any tackles for loss, he has forced two fumbles. Georgia’s defensive backs only totaled nine tackles for loss and zero forced fumbles.
Result – push
SPECIAL TEAMS
Tech has relied on one player to provide both the punting and place kicking duties. Scott Blair has been an effective punter, averaging about 41 yards a punt, but he’s been a limited field goal kicker. He’s made 58.8% of his field goal attempts. His accuracy slips from further than 35 yards out.
Blair Walsh on the other hand has hit on 63% of his field goals, which is slightly better than Blair. Punter Josh Mims average about two yards further a punt than Blair.
Kick returns are similar for both teams, but Georgia does average 16 yards per punt return, while Tech only averages, but both teams have relatively good coverage teams, which should nullify some of that advantage.
Tech’s rebuilding project has been faster in every area of the game except the kicking game. Georgia is merely adequate, which is good enough.
Results – plus Georgia
QUARTERBACKS
Matthew Stafford is the more heralded player. Stafford has more yards from scrimmage than Nesbitt. Most of Stafford’s yards are passing yards, and most of Nesbitt’s yards are rushing, and that’s reflects the offenses the two QB’s run. Stafford plays in pro style offense, and Nesbitt plays for the fifth best rushing offense in the country. Tech has thrown fewer passes than every other BCS school except for Air Force, Army, and Navy.
But, traditional stats don’t tell the whole story. The triple-option is not a pure running play. It requires the quarterback to make pre-snap reads and in play decisions that are similar to a passing play. Just like a passing play, a good decision by the QB in the triple option can be the key that springs a big play, but unlike a passing play the QB doesn’t get credit for this in the stat sheets. A more fair comparison would be to add the yards Georgia Tech gained on triple option plays to Nesbitt’s stats. Unfortunately the stat sheets don’t record the play call, so it’s impossible to tell from them if the play was an option play or not. As a compromise, we could add A-Back yards to Nesbitt’s totals. This doesn’t account for yards gained by the B-back on the triple option, but lacking harder data it’s safer to error on the side of caution.
Nesbit yards from scrimmage in traditional stats = 1,230
Stafford yards from scrimmage in traditional stats = 2,847
Nesbit YFS plus A-Backs = 1,714
That’s still a substantial lead for Stafford, but if we adjust for the fact that Nesbitt missed two games as of last week (note, I only added a portion of A-Back yards above to account for that). With A-Backs Nesbit accounted for 193.5 YFS. Over an 11 game season that averages out to 2,129 yds. Add to that the fact that Nesbitt and the A-Backs have accounted for a total of 13 touchdowns, and Stafford has accounted for 9 and suddenly the difference isn’t so great.
The more you look into the years each quarterback has had, the harder it is to concluded that Stafford has been significantly better than Nesbit. Even in a comparison of traditional statistics, it has to be noted that Stafford’s back-up Joe Cox only made three appearances in which he threw 15 passes and rushed three times, while Nesbitt’s back-ups made 15 appearances accounting for two starts, 85 rushing attempts and 28 passes. Some of Tech’s back-up appearances were due to Nesbitt’s injuries, but Tech also made a concerted effort to get all four quarterbacks live snaps this year, and Georgia didn’t. This is understandable because the Bulldogs were chasing a national title and Tech was trying to learn a new offense.
Stafford’s more impressive stats are in part a function of having more opportunity. Other contributing factors are Tech learning a new offense, one they are more efficient at now than earlier in the season, and Stafford racking up easy yards in the second half against Florida and Alabama.
Both QB’s do what they are supposed to do very well.
Result – Push
TAILBACK VS. B-BACK
It’s commonly believed that Knowshon Marino is significantly more effective than Jonathan Dwyer. This simply isn’t true. Perhaps it could be argued that Marino is the more complete back at this point in his career, and that he would fit better into a pro offense, but as for on the field production these players are almost exactly equal. Morino is 13th in the country in yards rushed Jonathan Dwyer is 19th. Marino does have almost twice as many touchdowns as Dwyer, but Dwyer averages almost twice as many yards per carry as Marino. Both stats are products of the offenses each player plays in.
Also, like Nesbitt, Dwyer has achieved his stats with significantly fewer opportunities than Marino because of the emphasis Tech put on getting more players game experience.
Result – Push
WIDE RECEIVERS, A-BACKS, AND TIGHT ENDS
Georgia has a classic style offense. They have a good Quarterback, a great running back, and an excellent #1 receiver in AJ Green, a good possession receiver in Mohamed Massaquoi.
AJ Green, the true freshman is 31th in the country with 887 yards receiving and 30th with 7 touchdowns. Massaquoi has 730 yards receiving and 6 touchdowns. Georgia hasn’t used their tight ends much at all.
Georgia Tech is harder to get a hand on. The A-Back position is a hybrid spot. The ideal A-back is similar to a third down back in the pros. Kevin Faulk and Brian Westbrook would make good A-backs. These players are equally dangerous as a receiver or runner on any play. Also, in the triple option A-backs receive plays on pitches from the QB, which is similar to a pass. In a traditional offense ideally the QB only throws to open receivers. Similarly the QB only pitches to the AB when he has a clear path down field in the option attack. So often an A-Back's yards are more a function of the QB’s decision-making process than his skill as a runner. It helps to be able to run, just like it helps if a wide receiver has good hands, but a successful option pitch is the result of two players working together, like a success full pass play.
Georgia Tech’s most effective A-Back has been Roddy Jones. Jones, a true freshman has accounted for 150 yards receiving and 444 yards rushing plus 3 touchdowns. His numbers pale in comparison to Green’s and Massaquoi, but he’s come on quickly and represents a real threat for Georgia Tech.
Lucas Cox is the other starting A-Back and the back-up B-Back. Cox was fullback coming to Tech from UConn and has earned his spot in the starting line-up because of his ability to block and because he was one of the first players to master the new offense. Physically he isn’t a good fit for this offense but he has gained 203 yards and scored 2 touchdown this year.
Tech’s best, and possibly only legitimate wide receiver is Demarious “Bebe” Thomas. Thomas is 88th in the country with 576 yards receiving and 3 touchdowns.
The poor state of the Jacket’s offensive line has hurt Bebe and the rest of the passing games effectiveness, but Paul Johnson and his staff have kept the big play as a serious option. Thomas averages 16.5 yards per reception, which is 39th in the country. Jones has averaged 21.4 yards per catch, but doesn’t have enough catches to qualify.
Georgia has an advantage overall, but Tech is just dangerous enough to make a play or two that can change a game.
Results – plus Georgia
OFFENSIVE LINES
Both of these lines have been beaten up early and often this year.
Georgia lost it’s starting left tackle, Trinton Sturdivant, in the pre season, and Georgia Tech lost its own left tackle, Andrew Gardner, an NFL prospect, after the Florida State game. AJ Smith has also been in and out of the line up for the jackets this year.
In addition, Tech’s offensive lineman had to learn new techniques going into the season. Many of them were recruited to play in a pro style system, which has further complicated the transition.
Both units have struggled during the season, but the coaching staffs and players have managed to grind out good results. Georgia averages 4.75 yards per carry, and Tech averages 5.48 yards per carry. Both teams have surrendered 12 sacks. This is misleading because the Jackets pass so rarely. Georgia gives up a sack once every 26.5 attempts, and Tech gives up a sack once every 10.5 attempts.
Bottom line, both lines are equal on run plays, but Tech struggles to run block.
Results – plus Georgia
Defensive Line
Tech and Georgia have gotten very different results from their defensive lines. Some of this may be do to scheme, but most of it is due to a difference in quality.
Tech’s defensive line has been a dominant force that sets the tone for the rest the defense. Georgia Tech is 9th in the nation in Tackles for loss, and 16th in sacks. All four starters will likely play in the NFL.
Michael Johnson is the best-known player. His 6 sacks are second on the team and 41st in the country, but that’s a very limited metric to judge Johnson by. The coaching staff has really taken advantage of Johnson unique athletic ability. Not only do they line him up at end and rush Johnson, but they’ve also lined him up at tackle, or dropped him into coverage. This has resulted in an impressive stat line. Johnson has an interception, which he returned for a touch down, and he’s second on the team with 5 pass break-ups. He’s also forced two fumbles this year and blocked a kick.
Derrick Morgan is the baby of the unit. He leads the teams with 6.5 sacks. Morgan really benefits from the attention Johnson draws.
Defensive tackles Vance Walker and Daryl Richard are big and quick. They have 8.5 and 10 tackles for loss apiece and 3 and 4 sacks.
Georgia’s defensive line has traditionally been a strength. The defense as a whole has been good against the rush, ranking 15th in the country, and a lot of credit has to go the defensive line for that, but they’ve really struggled against the pass. The starters have only notched 3.5 sacks this year.
Senior Roderick Battle has battled injuries this year, and Jarius Wynn has failed to live up to the potential he showed in part time action last year. He has only one sack. The other end, Jeremy Lomax hasn’t done much either with 1.5 tackles for loss and a half sack
The Defensive Tackles have been pretty solid. They haven’t put up the stats to match Tech’s tackles, but they’ve done a good job of occupying blockers. Corey Irvin has 7 tackles for a loss, and Geno Atkins has 6.5 tackles for a loss.
Georgia’s defensive line tries to set the table for the rest of the team to make plays. Tech’s defensive line makes plays.
The bottom line, no one on Tech’s line can be blocked one on one, and you can’t double all of them.
Results – plus Tech
Linebackers and Rover
Technically the Rover is a Defensive Back in Dave Womack’s defense, but Tech plays a nickel formation on a plurality of snaps, and its best to compare the units, as they will be seen on the field.
Rennie Curran has been a great player for Georgia this year. He’s been able to flow to the ball and make plays behind solid tackle play. Curran has 98 tackles on the season, 9.5 for loss, and 3 sacks. Opposite Curran is Sedric Griffin. The rest of Tech’s Linebackers have been in and out of the line-up with injuries, but Griffin has played at a very high level. Griffin has 66 tackles, 8 for losses and three sacks.
Joining Griffin for most of the year has been Kyle Jackson, thought Brad Jefferson has seen time when healthy. Jackson has been solid, with 53 tackles, but he doesn’t make big plays and has a tendency to miss tackles. Darryl Gamble and Akeem Dent have produced similar results for the Bull Dogs. None of these players are particularly special, but they are all solid and dependable.
Tech Rover Morgan Burnett is a true sophomore and arguably the best player on Tech’s defense. Burnett leads the team and country with 6 interceptions, and he has 5.5 tackles for loss. He makes plays all over the field.
Burnett is a special player and he makes the difference, but unfortunatley for Tech Griffin is out, leaving Tech without it's best linebacker
Results – plus Georgia
Defensive Secondary
Georgia Tech’s secondary is young with only one upper classman, but that doesn’t mean they look up to their Georgia opponents.
Cornerback Asher Allen leads the Bulldogs with 7 break-ups, safety CJ Byrd has six break-ups, and safety Reshard Jones has 3 break-ups. Tech’s Best four defensive backs have two break ups a piece, which is the same Georgia’s fourth defensive back, Corner Back Prince Miller. This is deceiving.
Tech gives up 40 less passing yards a game than Georgia. Though Georgia’s defensive backs have defended significantly more passes than Georgia Tech’s this year, as a team Georgia has only defended against two more passes than Georgia tech. The difference in defensive back production in this area is probably due to differences in scheme and the performance of other units.
While statistically Georgia defends more passes, Tech dominates in tackling statistics. Free safety Dominique Reese and cornerbacks Jahai Word-Daniels and Mario Butler have 3.5 tackles for loss, and Word Daniels missed three games with injuries. Reshard Reid has 3 tackles for a loss. While Cooper Taylor doesn’t have any tackles for loss, he has forced two fumbles. Georgia’s defensive backs only totaled nine tackles for loss and zero forced fumbles.
Result – push
SPECIAL TEAMS
Tech has relied on one player to provide both the punting and place kicking duties. Scott Blair has been an effective punter, averaging about 41 yards a punt, but he’s been a limited field goal kicker. He’s made 58.8% of his field goal attempts. His accuracy slips from further than 35 yards out.
Blair Walsh on the other hand has hit on 63% of his field goals, which is slightly better than Blair. Punter Josh Mims average about two yards further a punt than Blair.
Kick returns are similar for both teams, but Georgia does average 16 yards per punt return, while Tech only averages, but both teams have relatively good coverage teams, which should nullify some of that advantage.
Tech’s rebuilding project has been faster in every area of the game except the kicking game. Georgia is merely adequate, which is good enough.
Results – plus Georgia
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
2008 Seasons in Review; A Duck is a Duck, Unless It's a Drake
This is the second instalment of our CLEAN OLD FASHION HATE SPECTACULAR. Today we look at, and compare how Tech and Georgia did this season.
UGA is a big time football factory school. It plays in the SEC, the best football conference in the country. It was a preseason #1. It’s 8 and 2, while the lowly technical college, Georgia Tech, is 7-3 in the weaker ACC, surely Georgia has had the more impressive season. Not so fast my friend. Let’s take a look at the seasons Georgia and Georgia Tech actually had, and not what we think they had.
Most of the analysis will be based on Jeff Sagarin’s computer ratings. Computer ratings are not then alpha and omega of football ratings, but they are objective. This makes it easier to distinguish outliers that may not necessarily reflect what happens on the football field. I find that Sagarin’s ratings, which use a combination of margin of victory and strength of schedule, are the most useful.
Let us start by taking a look at the two conferences. Sagarin and most of the computer poles ranks the ACC ahead of SEC, even though the ACC doesn’t have any marquee teams. While the SEC has Florida and Alabama, the ACC has a slew of solid football teams, and quantity has a quality all its own.
The chat below ranks all the SEC and ACC teams according to Sagarin ratings. The difference between each team is shown by a black band that is scaled to show the difference; the bigger the difference between two teams, the broader the band. ACC teams are shown in beautiful old gold, and the SEC is shown in barn yard red.
The chart shows that the ACC/SEC can be broken into five categories
1 – Florida and Alabama
The ACC doesn’t have any teams that can hold a candle to these two national championship contenders, but a league is more than its leaders.
2- Georgia, Florida State, Boston College, Georgia Tech, Ole Miss, Clemson, UNC, Virginia Tech, Miami, South Carolina, LSU, and Wake.
Now the ACC is beginning to show its strength. Eight of the twelve teams in this category are from the ACC, and South Carolina and LSU barely make the cut. Clemson seems like an odd fit here. It will be interesting to see what they do against the Gamecocks this weekend.
3-Vanderbilt, Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky, Duke, NC State
This is a frisky bunch with some big wins and some bad losses. Collectively these teams have beaten Ole Miss, North Carolina, Cal, Navy, Georgia Tech, and Louisville, but lost to Middle Tennessee State, UConn, Mississippi State, and South Florida. These are the average but dangerous teams that give a conference spice. Four of these schools are from the ACC. Those who are good at math know what the other two groups are going to look like
4-Auburn, Tennessee, and Arkansas
The bowlless bottom of the SEC; these three teams are dragging the SEC down, and look at the spread between these teams. Each one is significantly worse than the one that precedes it, but that’s not the end of it.
5-Mississippi State
Starkville is in a category all its own when it comes to stinking the joint out.
That’s how the ACC has a better ranking than the SEC. Two good teams, and four terrible teams. The ACC on the other hand is a tightly packed bunch of very good to good teams. The ACC has been beating each other up over the course of the season while a few good SEC teams have been stomping a lot of bad teams
Now let’s look at each teams strength of schedule. Much like comparing the ACC and SEC, Tech has a higher ranked strength of schedule than Georgia despite not playing any national championship contenders. In the following chart the black bars play the same role as they did in the previous table, only I’ve displayed Tech’s schedule on the left and Georgia’s on the right. Wins are highlighted in green and losses in grey.
Georgia’s Schedule is stronger at the top and bottom, but the big thick middle of Tech’s schedule out paces UGA. Sure Georgia played two great teams, but they were destroyed by them. Tech, on the other hand, beat four teams (Florida State, at Boston College, at Clemson, Miami) that are better than LSU, the best team Georgia beat. Tech also lost at UNC and at Virginia Tech, who are also better than LSU.
How would Georgia due against a bunch of good but not great teams week after week? It’s hard to say. And how would Tech do against a really Great team? Again, its hard to say.
We can do more with Sagarin Rankings. The difference in Sagarin ranking between two teams represents the point difference if the two teams where to play on a neutral field. By adding or subtracting three points for home field advantage we can project how a team was expected to do. We can then subtract that number from the actual point difference and determine how well a team played against an opponent. This allows us to see if a team played up or down to its potential.
A good example of this is the Georgia Tech / Gardner-Webb game. Tech won by three, but that doesn’t tell the whole story. Sagarin projected them to win by 38 points. By subtracting the projected results from the real results and then ranking the games from highest to lowest the Gardner-Webb game comes out as far and away the worst team Tech played all year. Granted they were playing it with a third string quarterback. In this case the black bars represent how much better a teams performance in that game was over the next game on the list.
The Worst game played by UGA was against Florida. Its one thing to say you played a tougher team, but it only matters if you were competitive. Georgia’s second worst game was against Alabama. Tech on the other hand, racked up some impressive games against Duke, Miami, and Mississippi State. Playing a bad team is impressive when you beat the crap out of them. Miami, and Boston College for that matter, are pretty good teams, and Tech played them well.
It’s safe to say that the two teams performed about the same over the course of the season. Georgia does have the best game on the chart. In retrospect Georgia’s win over a solid Chippewas team looks really good and it combined with the Gardner-Webb game are the difference in the teams Sagarin ratings.
Finally, let’s look at how the teams are trending over the course of the season. Which team is peaking as Clean old Fashion Hate nears. The chart below shows the games for each team in order. Games in which Tech or Georgia failed to beat Sagarin’s project spread are red. Games in which they beat the spread are highlighted green.
Both teams under performed against their season opener, but some of this needs to be chalked up to Georgia and Georgia Tech playing reserves in the second half.
Tech peaked against Mississippi and Duke, but injuries began to pile up, and they were up and down during the second half of season. Tech started a third string quarterback against Gardner-Webb and was playing practice squad players against UNC. The Virginia Tech game was a close game, and Tech just missed the mark, so it’s hard to call that a bad game.
Georgia on the other hand shows a clear pattern of a late season swoon. Over their last 7 games Georgia failed to beat the Sagarin projection six times, and they weren’t even close in most cases.
All of this is a long complicated way of saying Tech faced a schedule loaded with solid teams with a few breaks that they more or less held their own against, while Georgia whooped up on a softer schedule and failed in its tough tests. Which is more impressive can be argued, but Georgia has shown a steady down ward trend over the second half of the season, while Tech finished strong against a top 25 Miami team.
UGA is a big time football factory school. It plays in the SEC, the best football conference in the country. It was a preseason #1. It’s 8 and 2, while the lowly technical college, Georgia Tech, is 7-3 in the weaker ACC, surely Georgia has had the more impressive season. Not so fast my friend. Let’s take a look at the seasons Georgia and Georgia Tech actually had, and not what we think they had.
Most of the analysis will be based on Jeff Sagarin’s computer ratings. Computer ratings are not then alpha and omega of football ratings, but they are objective. This makes it easier to distinguish outliers that may not necessarily reflect what happens on the football field. I find that Sagarin’s ratings, which use a combination of margin of victory and strength of schedule, are the most useful.
Let us start by taking a look at the two conferences. Sagarin and most of the computer poles ranks the ACC ahead of SEC, even though the ACC doesn’t have any marquee teams. While the SEC has Florida and Alabama, the ACC has a slew of solid football teams, and quantity has a quality all its own.
The chat below ranks all the SEC and ACC teams according to Sagarin ratings. The difference between each team is shown by a black band that is scaled to show the difference; the bigger the difference between two teams, the broader the band. ACC teams are shown in beautiful old gold, and the SEC is shown in barn yard red.
The chart shows that the ACC/SEC can be broken into five categories1 – Florida and Alabama
The ACC doesn’t have any teams that can hold a candle to these two national championship contenders, but a league is more than its leaders.
2- Georgia, Florida State, Boston College, Georgia Tech, Ole Miss, Clemson, UNC, Virginia Tech, Miami, South Carolina, LSU, and Wake.
Now the ACC is beginning to show its strength. Eight of the twelve teams in this category are from the ACC, and South Carolina and LSU barely make the cut. Clemson seems like an odd fit here. It will be interesting to see what they do against the Gamecocks this weekend.
3-Vanderbilt, Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky, Duke, NC State
This is a frisky bunch with some big wins and some bad losses. Collectively these teams have beaten Ole Miss, North Carolina, Cal, Navy, Georgia Tech, and Louisville, but lost to Middle Tennessee State, UConn, Mississippi State, and South Florida. These are the average but dangerous teams that give a conference spice. Four of these schools are from the ACC. Those who are good at math know what the other two groups are going to look like
4-Auburn, Tennessee, and Arkansas
The bowlless bottom of the SEC; these three teams are dragging the SEC down, and look at the spread between these teams. Each one is significantly worse than the one that precedes it, but that’s not the end of it.
5-Mississippi State
Starkville is in a category all its own when it comes to stinking the joint out.
That’s how the ACC has a better ranking than the SEC. Two good teams, and four terrible teams. The ACC on the other hand is a tightly packed bunch of very good to good teams. The ACC has been beating each other up over the course of the season while a few good SEC teams have been stomping a lot of bad teams
Now let’s look at each teams strength of schedule. Much like comparing the ACC and SEC, Tech has a higher ranked strength of schedule than Georgia despite not playing any national championship contenders. In the following chart the black bars play the same role as they did in the previous table, only I’ve displayed Tech’s schedule on the left and Georgia’s on the right. Wins are highlighted in green and losses in grey.
Georgia’s Schedule is stronger at the top and bottom, but the big thick middle of Tech’s schedule out paces UGA. Sure Georgia played two great teams, but they were destroyed by them. Tech, on the other hand, beat four teams (Florida State, at Boston College, at Clemson, Miami) that are better than LSU, the best team Georgia beat. Tech also lost at UNC and at Virginia Tech, who are also better than LSU. How would Georgia due against a bunch of good but not great teams week after week? It’s hard to say. And how would Tech do against a really Great team? Again, its hard to say.
We can do more with Sagarin Rankings. The difference in Sagarin ranking between two teams represents the point difference if the two teams where to play on a neutral field. By adding or subtracting three points for home field advantage we can project how a team was expected to do. We can then subtract that number from the actual point difference and determine how well a team played against an opponent. This allows us to see if a team played up or down to its potential.
A good example of this is the Georgia Tech / Gardner-Webb game. Tech won by three, but that doesn’t tell the whole story. Sagarin projected them to win by 38 points. By subtracting the projected results from the real results and then ranking the games from highest to lowest the Gardner-Webb game comes out as far and away the worst team Tech played all year. Granted they were playing it with a third string quarterback. In this case the black bars represent how much better a teams performance in that game was over the next game on the list.
The Worst game played by UGA was against Florida. Its one thing to say you played a tougher team, but it only matters if you were competitive. Georgia’s second worst game was against Alabama. Tech on the other hand, racked up some impressive games against Duke, Miami, and Mississippi State. Playing a bad team is impressive when you beat the crap out of them. Miami, and Boston College for that matter, are pretty good teams, and Tech played them well.It’s safe to say that the two teams performed about the same over the course of the season. Georgia does have the best game on the chart. In retrospect Georgia’s win over a solid Chippewas team looks really good and it combined with the Gardner-Webb game are the difference in the teams Sagarin ratings.
Finally, let’s look at how the teams are trending over the course of the season. Which team is peaking as Clean old Fashion Hate nears. The chart below shows the games for each team in order. Games in which Tech or Georgia failed to beat Sagarin’s project spread are red. Games in which they beat the spread are highlighted green.
Both teams under performed against their season opener, but some of this needs to be chalked up to Georgia and Georgia Tech playing reserves in the second half.Tech peaked against Mississippi and Duke, but injuries began to pile up, and they were up and down during the second half of season. Tech started a third string quarterback against Gardner-Webb and was playing practice squad players against UNC. The Virginia Tech game was a close game, and Tech just missed the mark, so it’s hard to call that a bad game.
Georgia on the other hand shows a clear pattern of a late season swoon. Over their last 7 games Georgia failed to beat the Sagarin projection six times, and they weren’t even close in most cases.
All of this is a long complicated way of saying Tech faced a schedule loaded with solid teams with a few breaks that they more or less held their own against, while Georgia whooped up on a softer schedule and failed in its tough tests. Which is more impressive can be argued, but Georgia has shown a steady down ward trend over the second half of the season, while Tech finished strong against a top 25 Miami team.
Monday, November 24, 2008
RECENT HISTORY OF CLEAN OLD FASHION HATE
What follows is a brief history of the last seven Tech vs. Georgia games. Georgia has beaten Georgia Tech the last seven games, so you may think that Georgia is far superior to Georgia Tech , but if you look at each game by itself you’ll see that the difference isn’t that great. In fact, with a little luck, or some decent coaching, Tech could easily have won several of those games.
They didn’t; and credit Georgia for not making the mistakes. The purpose of this history isn’t to demonstrate that Tech has been better than Georgia, because they haven’t. The purpose is to demonstrate that the gap between Tech and Georgia is more of a canal than a gulf, particularly in the last few years.
Note, yardage and turnover information wasn't available on ESPN.com for some of the earlier games.
2001 Georgia 31; Georgia Tech 17
This was George O’Leary’s last year. He’d beaten UGA the three previous years in a row, but he’d lost Offensive Coordinator Ralf Friedgen during the previous off season. O'Leary enjoyed his most successful years with Friedgen calling the plays on offense. The Yellow Jackets where down by four going into the fourth quarter, but couldn’t match Georgia’s 10 point out-put to finish the game.
I'd like to take this time to nominate George O'Leary as the most overrated coach in Tech history. I'm not saying he was bad, but he never had a good defense, he only won when Friedgen was there, he left the school with NCAA restrictions and no talent, and he sold Tech out for Notre Dame. I'm not saying O'Leary was all bad, he saved the program after Bill Lewis sunk the ship, but Tech fans wax a little to nostalgic for the O'Leary years.
Georgia Jumped out to a 34 nothing lead by half time and never looked back. Tech scored late in the game to salvage a modicum of respect. It was Tech’ worst loss sense a 1996 loss to Florida State.
I'd like to take the time now to nominate Gailey for most under rated Tech Coach of the last 30 years. I'm not saying he was a great coach, but he cleaned up the mess left behind by O'Leary. He recruited top notch talent, took Tech to the ACC championship game, went to a bowl game every year (with below average talent early in his time at Tech), and he did it all while dealing with NCAA restrictions. Given he didn't appreciate the importance of the Georgia game, and he made the stupid comment about 7-8 wins being the best Tech could hope for, but he did a nice job as a care taker, and improved the overall health of the program.
2005 – Georgia 14, Georgia Tech 7
Once again Tech dominated the field position battle, and this year they out gained the Bulldogs 327 to 266, but Tech also turned the ball over three times.
Both Teams scored early in the first quarter, but it wasn’t until the 3:18 was left in the game that the Bulldogs scored a second touchdown for the go ahead score.
Tech wasn’t done yet, once again Ball drove the Jackets deep into Georgia territory, but with just over a minute remaining, Tim Jennings picked of a pass from Reggie Ball at the goal line and returned it out to Georgia’s 33 yard line. For the second year in a row, an unforced error by the Jackets preserved a Georgia victory.
2006 – Georgia 15; Georgia Tech 12
Reggie Ball had a truly horrible game in his fourth and final bid to beat Georgia. He was 6 of 22. Threw 2 interceptions and fumbled the ball once. Georgia recovered the fumble for a touchdown.
The jackets kicked an early field goal to go up 3-0, and went into half time down 7-6. They kicked two more field goals in the second half to go up 12-7. It looked like Tech might win as the Yellow Jackets’ defense bottled Georgia up, and Tashard Choice ground down the clock on his way to 146 yards rushing.
Late in the game Matthew Stafford strung together a drive that ended with a touchdown pass to Mohamed Massaquoi with 1:45 remaining in the game. For the fourth straight year it was close but no cigar.
2007 – Georgia 31; Georgia Tech 17
This may have been the most unlucky game ever for the Yellow Jackets. Expectations where low, as Chan Gailey was likely going to relieved of his duties at the end of the season, but the Jackets hung tight going into half time down 14-16. Things got ugly in the second half. Georgia outscored Tech 15 to 3. It would be an understatement to say the Jacket’s quite on their coach.
Tashard Choice did rush for 134 yards, and deserves credit for being one of the few players to finish the game strong.
Now comes the bad luck part.
Georgia fumbled the ball 3 times, and three times the ball rolled out of the end zone for a touch back, twice on punt attempts when the ball sailed over the punter's head, and once on a pitch broken up by Morgan Burnett. The odds of recovering a fumble are 50/50, so its surprising that Tech couldn’t recover one or two of those punts for touchdowns. Corry Earls also dropped a wide open touchdown pass, a finally Morgan Burnett was called for a questionable pass interference penalty in the end zone that led to a Georgia touch down.
They didn’t; and credit Georgia for not making the mistakes. The purpose of this history isn’t to demonstrate that Tech has been better than Georgia, because they haven’t. The purpose is to demonstrate that the gap between Tech and Georgia is more of a canal than a gulf, particularly in the last few years.
Note, yardage and turnover information wasn't available on ESPN.com for some of the earlier games.
2001 Georgia 31; Georgia Tech 17
This was George O’Leary’s last year. He’d beaten UGA the three previous years in a row, but he’d lost Offensive Coordinator Ralf Friedgen during the previous off season. O'Leary enjoyed his most successful years with Friedgen calling the plays on offense. The Yellow Jackets where down by four going into the fourth quarter, but couldn’t match Georgia’s 10 point out-put to finish the game.
I'd like to take this time to nominate George O'Leary as the most overrated coach in Tech history. I'm not saying he was bad, but he never had a good defense, he only won when Friedgen was there, he left the school with NCAA restrictions and no talent, and he sold Tech out for Notre Dame. I'm not saying O'Leary was all bad, he saved the program after Bill Lewis sunk the ship, but Tech fans wax a little to nostalgic for the O'Leary years.
2002 Georgia 44; Georgia Tech 7
Ouch, that one hurt, but we all saw it coming. Tech was in a bad spot that year. O’Leary had suddenly left for Notre Dame, where he was soon fired for fabricating parts of his resume. Scholarship limitations where looming because of some academic shenanigans under his regime. The talent cupboard was bare as the program had been on the decline for the last year and a half under O’Leary, and Tech had replaced O’Leary with the rather underwhelming Chan Gailey.
Gailey did keep Tech’s streak of bowl games alive, and he did so with AJ Suggs as his starting quarterback. I’ve never seen a QB run an option pitch with so little interest in contact. One step and pitch, that was how Suggs ran the option.
Ouch, that one hurt, but we all saw it coming. Tech was in a bad spot that year. O’Leary had suddenly left for Notre Dame, where he was soon fired for fabricating parts of his resume. Scholarship limitations where looming because of some academic shenanigans under his regime. The talent cupboard was bare as the program had been on the decline for the last year and a half under O’Leary, and Tech had replaced O’Leary with the rather underwhelming Chan Gailey.
Gailey did keep Tech’s streak of bowl games alive, and he did so with AJ Suggs as his starting quarterback. I’ve never seen a QB run an option pitch with so little interest in contact. One step and pitch, that was how Suggs ran the option.
Georgia Jumped out to a 34 nothing lead by half time and never looked back. Tech scored late in the game to salvage a modicum of respect. It was Tech’ worst loss sense a 1996 loss to Florida State.
I'd like to take the time now to nominate Gailey for most under rated Tech Coach of the last 30 years. I'm not saying he was a great coach, but he cleaned up the mess left behind by O'Leary. He recruited top notch talent, took Tech to the ACC championship game, went to a bowl game every year (with below average talent early in his time at Tech), and he did it all while dealing with NCAA restrictions. Given he didn't appreciate the importance of the Georgia game, and he made the stupid comment about 7-8 wins being the best Tech could hope for, but he did a nice job as a care taker, and improved the overall health of the program.
2003 – Georgia 34; Georgia Tech 17
Another big loss for the Jackets, but they showed signs of improvement. Tech really was in the middle of a rebuilding process. The O’Leary Regime had left them with nothing. Freshman ACC Rookie of the year Reggie Ball was knocked out of the game early with a concussion. Georgia jumped out to a quick 14 nothing lead, but the Jackets where able to stabilize the situation and trade blow for blow with Georgia over the last three quarters. The score bounced back and force between 17 and 14 points with AJ Suggs under center. In the end it was another sizable win for Georgia, but it didn't come easy.
Another big loss for the Jackets, but they showed signs of improvement. Tech really was in the middle of a rebuilding process. The O’Leary Regime had left them with nothing. Freshman ACC Rookie of the year Reggie Ball was knocked out of the game early with a concussion. Georgia jumped out to a quick 14 nothing lead, but the Jackets where able to stabilize the situation and trade blow for blow with Georgia over the last three quarters. The score bounced back and force between 17 and 14 points with AJ Suggs under center. In the end it was another sizable win for Georgia, but it didn't come easy.
2004 – Georgia 19; Georgia Tech 13
This game set the pattern for the rest of the Gailey regime. Gailey had come to Tech heralded as an offensive genius, but his teams mostly ground out sub twenty point wins, and losses, and relied heavily on defensive coordinator John Tenuta’s hard blitzing defenses.
The Jackets fell behind 16-0 in the first half. Then the defense knocked David Green out of the game. Then in the third quarter Tech put up 13 unanswered points in large part due to the significant field position advantage they enjoyed thanks to Tenuta’s defense.
By the start of the fourth Tech had clawed its way to within three points. That’s when David Green returned and led his team on an efficient drive resulting in a field goal with a little over three minutes left.
Not to be out done, Ball turned around and drove his team right back down the field to the Georgia 21, and that’s when all hell broke loose. Ball and the coaching staff lost track of downs after an 11 yard sack and spiked the ball to kill the clock on what they thought was second down. It was actually third down, making the ensuing play fourth down. Reggie then threw the ball away trying to avoid a sack, thus ending Tech’s chances of a win.
There’s no guarantee Reggie would have completed a pass if he would have fired it into the end zone, but Tech was knocking at the door.
This game set the pattern for the rest of the Gailey regime. Gailey had come to Tech heralded as an offensive genius, but his teams mostly ground out sub twenty point wins, and losses, and relied heavily on defensive coordinator John Tenuta’s hard blitzing defenses.
The Jackets fell behind 16-0 in the first half. Then the defense knocked David Green out of the game. Then in the third quarter Tech put up 13 unanswered points in large part due to the significant field position advantage they enjoyed thanks to Tenuta’s defense.
By the start of the fourth Tech had clawed its way to within three points. That’s when David Green returned and led his team on an efficient drive resulting in a field goal with a little over three minutes left.
Not to be out done, Ball turned around and drove his team right back down the field to the Georgia 21, and that’s when all hell broke loose. Ball and the coaching staff lost track of downs after an 11 yard sack and spiked the ball to kill the clock on what they thought was second down. It was actually third down, making the ensuing play fourth down. Reggie then threw the ball away trying to avoid a sack, thus ending Tech’s chances of a win.
There’s no guarantee Reggie would have completed a pass if he would have fired it into the end zone, but Tech was knocking at the door.
One more note, Tech was 0-4 on fourth-down conversion during that game. The box score doesn’t say where they were on the field, but kicking the ball away or kicking a field goal could have easily led to at least three more Jacket points, which totally changes the end game scenario.
2005 – Georgia 14, Georgia Tech 7
Once again Tech dominated the field position battle, and this year they out gained the Bulldogs 327 to 266, but Tech also turned the ball over three times.
Both Teams scored early in the first quarter, but it wasn’t until the 3:18 was left in the game that the Bulldogs scored a second touchdown for the go ahead score.
Tech wasn’t done yet, once again Ball drove the Jackets deep into Georgia territory, but with just over a minute remaining, Tim Jennings picked of a pass from Reggie Ball at the goal line and returned it out to Georgia’s 33 yard line. For the second year in a row, an unforced error by the Jackets preserved a Georgia victory.
2006 – Georgia 15; Georgia Tech 12
Reggie Ball had a truly horrible game in his fourth and final bid to beat Georgia. He was 6 of 22. Threw 2 interceptions and fumbled the ball once. Georgia recovered the fumble for a touchdown.
The jackets kicked an early field goal to go up 3-0, and went into half time down 7-6. They kicked two more field goals in the second half to go up 12-7. It looked like Tech might win as the Yellow Jackets’ defense bottled Georgia up, and Tashard Choice ground down the clock on his way to 146 yards rushing.
Late in the game Matthew Stafford strung together a drive that ended with a touchdown pass to Mohamed Massaquoi with 1:45 remaining in the game. For the fourth straight year it was close but no cigar.
2007 – Georgia 31; Georgia Tech 17
This may have been the most unlucky game ever for the Yellow Jackets. Expectations where low, as Chan Gailey was likely going to relieved of his duties at the end of the season, but the Jackets hung tight going into half time down 14-16. Things got ugly in the second half. Georgia outscored Tech 15 to 3. It would be an understatement to say the Jacket’s quite on their coach.
Tashard Choice did rush for 134 yards, and deserves credit for being one of the few players to finish the game strong.
Now comes the bad luck part.
Georgia fumbled the ball 3 times, and three times the ball rolled out of the end zone for a touch back, twice on punt attempts when the ball sailed over the punter's head, and once on a pitch broken up by Morgan Burnett. The odds of recovering a fumble are 50/50, so its surprising that Tech couldn’t recover one or two of those punts for touchdowns. Corry Earls also dropped a wide open touchdown pass, a finally Morgan Burnett was called for a questionable pass interference penalty in the end zone that led to a Georgia touch down.
What I'm trying to say is both teams played like crap, but one of them was very unlucky and then quit.
And that’s the history of the last seven games. Tech spent three years clearing out the cobwebs and getting their feet under them after the O’Leary years petered out, and then basically beat themselves the next four years.
By no means am I suggesting that Tech deserved to win any of the past seven games, but Tech has played Georgia very close recently. The gap between Georgia and Georgia Tech could have been eliminated by the bounce of the ball. Now that Tech has a very good coach and a team that really believes in itself, Georgia should be very worried. Coach Paul Johnson will make a difference this year, and he doesn’t have to make a very big difference to swing the game for Tech.
And that’s the history of the last seven games. Tech spent three years clearing out the cobwebs and getting their feet under them after the O’Leary years petered out, and then basically beat themselves the next four years.
By no means am I suggesting that Tech deserved to win any of the past seven games, but Tech has played Georgia very close recently. The gap between Georgia and Georgia Tech could have been eliminated by the bounce of the ball. Now that Tech has a very good coach and a team that really believes in itself, Georgia should be very worried. Coach Paul Johnson will make a difference this year, and he doesn’t have to make a very big difference to swing the game for Tech.
Clean Old Fashion Hate
For the next week most of this blog will be dedicated to the Georgia Tech / Georgia game. Look for the following future instalments
1 - Recent History of the Game - If only it where horse shoes, or hand grenades
2 - 2008 Seasons in review - What's in a name; A blind taste test
3 - The Players - B-Backs and Tailbacks, A-Backs and Receivers, Rovers and Safeties
4 - The Match-ups - Duckie vs. Steff
5 - Summary - Everything I just said, only shorter.
1 - Recent History of the Game - If only it where horse shoes, or hand grenades
2 - 2008 Seasons in review - What's in a name; A blind taste test
3 - The Players - B-Backs and Tailbacks, A-Backs and Receivers, Rovers and Safeties
4 - The Match-ups - Duckie vs. Steff
5 - Summary - Everything I just said, only shorter.
Friday, November 21, 2008
The Visual Display of Quantitative Information
I've discussed the system I generated for grading defensive players on this blog before. Basically I calculated how likely a play is to force the offense to get off the field and then assigned points accordingly. Well I just put together a chart of the top 12 defensive players according to that system. The chart shows very clearly who had big games and how a player is progressing from game to game. Bottom line, Michael Johnson and Morgan Burnett are studs, but I guess we didn't need a chart to tell us that.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Understanding College Football
I like Barack Obama. I voted for Barack Obama, but Barack Obama doesn't know college football. When Barry said (I'm going to start pushing early for a simple way of differentiating between good Obama ideas and bad Obama ideas. Good Obama ideas will be prefaced with "Barrack Said" and bad Obama ideas will be profaced with "Barry said". Agreed? Good) "I don't know any serious fan of college football who has disagreed with me on (having a play-off)" he clearly demonstrated that he doesn't know many college football fans. BCS vs. Playoff has become the Astro Turf vs. Natural Grass of the new millennium.
If we really want to get serious about fixing, refining, or replacing the current system we need to first establish clearly the essence of College Football. The structure of college football should enhance that essence. A good way to to that is by identifying the things we like and dislike about the BCS, and then divining some general principals from that.
Good BCS
1) The Current bowl system provides enough rewards to keep all 120 teams motivated during the season. Under a playoff season there would be at most eight post-season playoff spots available, and only a small percentage of teams would have a chance at earning a playoff spot. So what would the other teams play for? There are currently 34 bowl games, which means there are 68 available post season spots, which is enough to keep all but the worst teams motivated through-out the season. Maybe the International Bowl doesn’t mean much to 118teams, but it means something to the two teams that are in it. Also, think about the economic benifett of 34 games, over the seven games we would have in a playoff system.
2) The BCS has preserved the importance of the conferences. Unlike all other major sports in the United States, college football is a regional sport. Those that point out the faults of the BCS conference fail to recognize this. Steve Spurrier once said he cares more about winning the SEC than the BCS. Spurrier was demonstrating one of the essential truths of College Football. National Championships are nice, but what drives the sport is a passion for being the biggest kid on the block, to be able to lord your supremacy over your friend sand neighbors. Who cares if your team is better than a team 1,000 miles away?
3) The BCS has also expanded the interest in regular season football. While Conferences still play prominent roles in the BCS, winning a conference championship only gets you into one of five games. To make the Championship Game a team has to out rank all by one other team. This encourages fans to not only watch their team, but to watch other teams in other conferences. This year a loss for Penn State was a victory for Florida and Texas. For that reason the national TV ratings for the College Football are up under the BCS system.
4) It does create a great game at the end of the season. Under the old system we never would have had Texas vs. USC, or Miami vs. Ohio St.
Bad BCS
1) The BCS is a compromise system that uses both polls and conference results to determine who plays in the big bowl games. This situation led to Oklahoma playing in the BCS championship game despite loosing to Nebraska in the Big 12Championship game in 2003. It’s not important if Oklahoma deserved to play in that game or not. In fact it’s impossible to determine objectively if Oklahoma deserved to be there because the standards used by the BCS system contradicted each other.
2) A lot of bowl games just don’t mean much to College Football as a whole.
3) The Polls are inadequate. The Polls currently used in the BCS don't have reasonable standards for membership and rules of conduct. Pollsters should have the knowledge and time to properly evaluate up to 120 teams every week, and procedures need to be in place to insure they are performing their job with a minimum level of competency and care.
4) Nobody understands the computer polls. When done correctly, advanced statistical models really do a good job of identifying a team’s quality; you just have to have the right statistics to do so. There is currently too much mistrust of the computer polls right now, because no one has taken the time to understand them and explain them to the coaches, media, and fans. Bye the way, shame on you Pete Carroll for not understanding the computers. You're college football coach, its part of your job!
5) The conference formats are not the same. The fact the conferences very greatly in quality and format makes it very difficult to compare teams who have not faced each other.
6) The BCS has two sometimes competing goals; one, to determine a champion, and two to put together a fiscally successful exhibition. Combining this with the bowl alliances creates some un-compelling match-ups.
Is there anything I missed? Is there anything to be added to "Good BCS" and "Bad BCS"
If we really want to get serious about fixing, refining, or replacing the current system we need to first establish clearly the essence of College Football. The structure of college football should enhance that essence. A good way to to that is by identifying the things we like and dislike about the BCS, and then divining some general principals from that.
Good BCS
1) The Current bowl system provides enough rewards to keep all 120 teams motivated during the season. Under a playoff season there would be at most eight post-season playoff spots available, and only a small percentage of teams would have a chance at earning a playoff spot. So what would the other teams play for? There are currently 34 bowl games, which means there are 68 available post season spots, which is enough to keep all but the worst teams motivated through-out the season. Maybe the International Bowl doesn’t mean much to 118teams, but it means something to the two teams that are in it. Also, think about the economic benifett of 34 games, over the seven games we would have in a playoff system.
2) The BCS has preserved the importance of the conferences. Unlike all other major sports in the United States, college football is a regional sport. Those that point out the faults of the BCS conference fail to recognize this. Steve Spurrier once said he cares more about winning the SEC than the BCS. Spurrier was demonstrating one of the essential truths of College Football. National Championships are nice, but what drives the sport is a passion for being the biggest kid on the block, to be able to lord your supremacy over your friend sand neighbors. Who cares if your team is better than a team 1,000 miles away?
3) The BCS has also expanded the interest in regular season football. While Conferences still play prominent roles in the BCS, winning a conference championship only gets you into one of five games. To make the Championship Game a team has to out rank all by one other team. This encourages fans to not only watch their team, but to watch other teams in other conferences. This year a loss for Penn State was a victory for Florida and Texas. For that reason the national TV ratings for the College Football are up under the BCS system.
4) It does create a great game at the end of the season. Under the old system we never would have had Texas vs. USC, or Miami vs. Ohio St.
Bad BCS
1) The BCS is a compromise system that uses both polls and conference results to determine who plays in the big bowl games. This situation led to Oklahoma playing in the BCS championship game despite loosing to Nebraska in the Big 12Championship game in 2003. It’s not important if Oklahoma deserved to play in that game or not. In fact it’s impossible to determine objectively if Oklahoma deserved to be there because the standards used by the BCS system contradicted each other.
2) A lot of bowl games just don’t mean much to College Football as a whole.
3) The Polls are inadequate. The Polls currently used in the BCS don't have reasonable standards for membership and rules of conduct. Pollsters should have the knowledge and time to properly evaluate up to 120 teams every week, and procedures need to be in place to insure they are performing their job with a minimum level of competency and care.
4) Nobody understands the computer polls. When done correctly, advanced statistical models really do a good job of identifying a team’s quality; you just have to have the right statistics to do so. There is currently too much mistrust of the computer polls right now, because no one has taken the time to understand them and explain them to the coaches, media, and fans. Bye the way, shame on you Pete Carroll for not understanding the computers. You're college football coach, its part of your job!
5) The conference formats are not the same. The fact the conferences very greatly in quality and format makes it very difficult to compare teams who have not faced each other.
6) The BCS has two sometimes competing goals; one, to determine a champion, and two to put together a fiscally successful exhibition. Combining this with the bowl alliances creates some un-compelling match-ups.
Is there anything I missed? Is there anything to be added to "Good BCS" and "Bad BCS"
Labels; More to the point
It's better, but is it a little too obvious? Also, it's a little sloppy, I need to clean up those edges.Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Labels
We brewed some beer this weekend, so we need labels. We also wanted to comemorate some personal family history. It's a work in progress.
A logo should be simple and legable, but not to literal, but it should have an "ah-ha" quality to it.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
How To Hike When the no Ozone
The Crosswise appeals to the individual seeking long quite hikes among our world’s beauty without the danger of exposure to unchecked solar radiation and toxic off gassing of our now fragile environment. It allows those who seek adventure in the new world to do so in old world comfort.
The full-size, two-ton Toyota Crossway comes in three colors, Brushed Aluminum, Yellow Jacket, and Toupe. The Cab is essentially a large extended bubble with three view shields providing a near 360 degree view for its passenger.
The Crossway’s two C77 7.2L Caterpillar Diesel Engines provide enough horsepower to its patented dual tripod oildraulic propulsion system to transverse slopes as steep as seventy five degrees.
The uniquely stable dual tripod system allows three legs to hold the cab stable while the three legs of the second tripod reach forward. This moves the Crossway smoothly and securely over even the most rugged terrain.
It's the best way to enjoy the outdoors without being outdoors.
The full-size, two-ton Toyota Crossway comes in three colors, Brushed Aluminum, Yellow Jacket, and Toupe. The Cab is essentially a large extended bubble with three view shields providing a near 360 degree view for its passenger.
The Crossway’s two C77 7.2L Caterpillar Diesel Engines provide enough horsepower to its patented dual tripod oildraulic propulsion system to transverse slopes as steep as seventy five degrees.
The uniquely stable dual tripod system allows three legs to hold the cab stable while the three legs of the second tripod reach forward. This moves the Crossway smoothly and securely over even the most rugged terrain.
It's the best way to enjoy the outdoors without being outdoors.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
The Voices In My Head Are Now Talking Back!
I just received my first comment from someone who is not my wife, and that person claimed to be Jim Manzi!!! For those of you who are not regular readers, and evidently I now have regular readers, if you include my Jim and my wife, I quoted Jim Manzi in a post I published earlier today.
Apparently the Jim Manzi, of "an applied artificial intelligence software company", and a contributing editor to The National Review reads my Blog. Who knew? And he read a really long boring post. He must love Yellow Jacket Football and poorly rendered 3-D models as much as I do! We also share an almost crippling inability to spell.
Whoever it was, he/she is right, Manzi doesn't mention "vouchers", and was suggesting that some other vehicle for choice should be incorporated into the public school system as part of an overall plan to reinvigorate public education.
I apologize for misrepresenting Manzi's argument, but it should be considered when discussing how to improve public schools that there is a mechanisms for choice that already exist in the current system, and money and students are flowing to the better schools.
I'm now going to go home and pull out all my teeth so that Jim Manzi will no longer be able to broadcast directly into my head via the tiny speaker and antenna installed during my last dentist visit. New dental hygienist my butt. Then I'm going to hack into all my friends computers to insure this isn't a prank. Wait a second, lets reverse the order. Check with friends first, then pull teeth.
Apparently the Jim Manzi, of "an applied artificial intelligence software company", and a contributing editor to The National Review reads my Blog. Who knew? And he read a really long boring post. He must love Yellow Jacket Football and poorly rendered 3-D models as much as I do! We also share an almost crippling inability to spell.
Whoever it was, he/she is right, Manzi doesn't mention "vouchers", and was suggesting that some other vehicle for choice should be incorporated into the public school system as part of an overall plan to reinvigorate public education.
I apologize for misrepresenting Manzi's argument, but it should be considered when discussing how to improve public schools that there is a mechanisms for choice that already exist in the current system, and money and students are flowing to the better schools.
I'm now going to go home and pull out all my teeth so that Jim Manzi will no longer be able to broadcast directly into my head via the tiny speaker and antenna installed during my last dentist visit. New dental hygienist my butt. Then I'm going to hack into all my friends computers to insure this isn't a prank. Wait a second, lets reverse the order. Check with friends first, then pull teeth.
What It Means to Be Tough
If you break up the BCS subdivision conferences by division (East West, North South, Atlantic Costal) one division ranks in the top three for Average Sagarin Ranking, Opponents Average Sagarin Ranking, and Standard Deviation of Sagarin Ranking, The ACC Coastal. The ACC Atlantic Ranks 6th in Sagarin Ranking, and Second in Standard deviation.
While no one among UNC, Georgia Tech, Duke, Va Tech, Miami, and Virginia (and FSU and Wake from the Atlantic) are in the same legue as Florida, Penn State, USC, or the best teams in the Big 12, they'd give them a run for their money. The ACC is the one conference that is tearing itself apart this fall.
While no one among UNC, Georgia Tech, Duke, Va Tech, Miami, and Virginia (and FSU and Wake from the Atlantic) are in the same legue as Florida, Penn State, USC, or the best teams in the Big 12, they'd give them a run for their money. The ACC is the one conference that is tearing itself apart this fall.
Why School Vouchers.
Per Jim Manzi’s Article “A return to Reganism Won’t Be Enough” on Slate.com. Italics are mine
Most conservatives who propose a return to "Reagan conservatism" don't understand either the motivations or structure of the Reagan economic revolution. The 1970s were a period of economic crisis for America as it emerged from global supremacy to a new world of real economic competition. The Reagan economic strategy for meeting this challenge was sound money plus deregulation, broadly defined. It succeeded, but it exacerbated a number of pre-existing trends that began or accelerated in the '70s that tended to increase inequality.
Seen in this light, the challenge in front of conservatives is clear: How do we continue to increase the market orientation of the American economy while helping more Americans to participate in it more equally? …
…First, improve K-12 schools. U.S. public schools are in desperate need of improvement and have been for decades. We do not prepare the average American child to succeed versus international competition. Schools can do only so much to fix this—in a nation where 37 percent of births are out-of-wedlock, many children will be left behind—but it would be a great start if the average school didn't go out of its way to make kids lazy and stupid.
No amount of money or number of "programs" will create anything more than marginal improvements, because public schools are organized to serve teachers and administrators rather than students and families. We need, at least initially, competition for students among public schools in which funding moves with students and in which schools are far freer to change how they operate. As we have seen in the private economy, only markets will force the unpleasant restructuring necessary to unleash potential. Conservatives have long had this goal but are unprepared to win the fight. Achieving it would be at least a decade-long project.
It’s an interesting passage, and I hope it reflects the direction many conservatives are moving. In pointing out that the Regan years are almost 30 years in the past, and that while Regan’s economic policies more or less succeeded, the success came at a heavy social price that “Regan Conservatism” was unable to answer, Manzi holds himself to a level of intellectual honesty rarely seen in political discourse.
These observations lead Manzi to formulate a mission statement for the Conservative movement, “How do we continue to increase the market orientation of American economy while helping more Americans to participate in it more equally”. Again, the italics are mine. It’s a perplexing question for the Conservatives, how do they act to increase individual agency (market orientation) and develop and execute a social agenda that will require people to set aside their individual goals in the short run, for the long term health of the whole, making sure enough people can participate? The term “participate in it more equally” begins to suggest an intellectual basis for an agenda. The phrase does not suggest an equality of results, but an equality of opportunity; an equality of input as opposed to an equality of output. An agenda based on this position would still be against such programs as well-fare and affirmative action.
Including an agenda of “equality of opportunity” in a political platform carries with it an implied understanding that a person’s ability to achieve their goals is limited by the circumstances they are born into and that there is a social responsibility to minimize the negative effects of those circumstances, but still leaves the achievement of those goals to the individual. It would not be society’s responsibility to insure that you have things, only that you have a fair chance to earn those things through the execution of your own agency. Under such an agenda, it would be society’s responsibility to insure that you have the ability and opportunity to execute your agency, that’s all.
Manzi goes on to describe one way “equality of opportunity” may be achieved, through improving the public school system. “First, improve K-12 schools. U.S. public schools are in desperate need of improvement and have been for decades. We do not prepare the average American child to succeed…” A noble goal, but the details of Manzi’s theoretical plan fall back on old ideas. Manzi suggests that a voucher system would improve the quality of education across the board in America. This is not a new idea. The theory behind vouchers is that it will force schools to compete, and competition will drive up quality. A secondary benefit is that it’s fairer, because it allows parents more control of their children’s education. The problem with the voucher plan is that we have a system in place that already achieves both those goals.
The current US education system is in fact, not a national system. Education is funded and organized at a local level by cities or counties. This creates a huge disparity in the quality of education students receive in “the public schools”. Because of this disparity parents who have the economic and intellectual ability to seek out good school systems do so. It is not uncommon to see school districts listed in real-estate advertisements. Homes in good school districts cost more than comparable homes in bad school districts, so schools are competing for students, and because the schools are supported by local taxes, the money does flow to the better schools. Even the benefit of the voucher providing more buying power to the parent is offset by the fact that public schools are supported by local sales or property taxes and federal financing, so no parent who has a child in a public school is actually paying the full amount of what it takes to educate that child.
The problem with the current model and a voucher program isn’t that competition doesn’t drive up quality, but that it does so unevenly. Within any industry there are different markets. The two markets within an industry are often differentiated from each other by the customers buying power. Some markets are purely quality based. Companies seek to provide the best product regardless of price knowing that price is no object to the customers in their market. On the other end of the spectrum are markets based on access. Quality doesn’t matter because the customers in this market cannot afford to pay for quality. All that matters is that the customer’s can afford the product no matter how poor the product is. So, while competition does drive up quality, it does not do so universally. Companies compete on multiple fronts, and quality is just one factor, so a market solution will not necessarily “prepare the average American child to succeed.” When dealing with Adult’s who have agency over there own situation this condition is morally defensible. Each reaps what he or she sows, but when dealing with children whose education rests not on their own ability, but on the ability of others, this situation in fundamentally wrong. The children in poor school systems have done nothing to put themselves there.
Relying on simplified market theories, such as competition drives up quality, as in the voucher argument; to “(help) more Americans to participate … more equally” represents a short coming of conservative ideology that stops conservatives from creating an intelligible social agenda. Manzi has the right idea but he needs to carry it out to its full conclusion. Sometimes for the benefit of individuals, we must act collectively. This would require Mazi and others to not only re-examine “Regan conservatism” but conservative attitudes towards public institutions and others’ situations. In order to believe that public schools are “organized to serve teachers and administrators rather than students and families” not only requires one to demonize other people to a degree that is ludicrous, it ignores the fact that schools do compete for parents and students under the current system, and the statement that “in a nation where 37 percent of births are out-of-wedlock, many children will be left behind” exposes a self-serving miserliness that too often serves as the conservative social agenda.
Most conservatives who propose a return to "Reagan conservatism" don't understand either the motivations or structure of the Reagan economic revolution. The 1970s were a period of economic crisis for America as it emerged from global supremacy to a new world of real economic competition. The Reagan economic strategy for meeting this challenge was sound money plus deregulation, broadly defined. It succeeded, but it exacerbated a number of pre-existing trends that began or accelerated in the '70s that tended to increase inequality.
Seen in this light, the challenge in front of conservatives is clear: How do we continue to increase the market orientation of the American economy while helping more Americans to participate in it more equally? …
…First, improve K-12 schools. U.S. public schools are in desperate need of improvement and have been for decades. We do not prepare the average American child to succeed versus international competition. Schools can do only so much to fix this—in a nation where 37 percent of births are out-of-wedlock, many children will be left behind—but it would be a great start if the average school didn't go out of its way to make kids lazy and stupid.
No amount of money or number of "programs" will create anything more than marginal improvements, because public schools are organized to serve teachers and administrators rather than students and families. We need, at least initially, competition for students among public schools in which funding moves with students and in which schools are far freer to change how they operate. As we have seen in the private economy, only markets will force the unpleasant restructuring necessary to unleash potential. Conservatives have long had this goal but are unprepared to win the fight. Achieving it would be at least a decade-long project.
It’s an interesting passage, and I hope it reflects the direction many conservatives are moving. In pointing out that the Regan years are almost 30 years in the past, and that while Regan’s economic policies more or less succeeded, the success came at a heavy social price that “Regan Conservatism” was unable to answer, Manzi holds himself to a level of intellectual honesty rarely seen in political discourse.
These observations lead Manzi to formulate a mission statement for the Conservative movement, “How do we continue to increase the market orientation of American economy while helping more Americans to participate in it more equally”. Again, the italics are mine. It’s a perplexing question for the Conservatives, how do they act to increase individual agency (market orientation) and develop and execute a social agenda that will require people to set aside their individual goals in the short run, for the long term health of the whole, making sure enough people can participate? The term “participate in it more equally” begins to suggest an intellectual basis for an agenda. The phrase does not suggest an equality of results, but an equality of opportunity; an equality of input as opposed to an equality of output. An agenda based on this position would still be against such programs as well-fare and affirmative action.
Including an agenda of “equality of opportunity” in a political platform carries with it an implied understanding that a person’s ability to achieve their goals is limited by the circumstances they are born into and that there is a social responsibility to minimize the negative effects of those circumstances, but still leaves the achievement of those goals to the individual. It would not be society’s responsibility to insure that you have things, only that you have a fair chance to earn those things through the execution of your own agency. Under such an agenda, it would be society’s responsibility to insure that you have the ability and opportunity to execute your agency, that’s all.
Manzi goes on to describe one way “equality of opportunity” may be achieved, through improving the public school system. “First, improve K-12 schools. U.S. public schools are in desperate need of improvement and have been for decades. We do not prepare the average American child to succeed…” A noble goal, but the details of Manzi’s theoretical plan fall back on old ideas. Manzi suggests that a voucher system would improve the quality of education across the board in America. This is not a new idea. The theory behind vouchers is that it will force schools to compete, and competition will drive up quality. A secondary benefit is that it’s fairer, because it allows parents more control of their children’s education. The problem with the voucher plan is that we have a system in place that already achieves both those goals.
The current US education system is in fact, not a national system. Education is funded and organized at a local level by cities or counties. This creates a huge disparity in the quality of education students receive in “the public schools”. Because of this disparity parents who have the economic and intellectual ability to seek out good school systems do so. It is not uncommon to see school districts listed in real-estate advertisements. Homes in good school districts cost more than comparable homes in bad school districts, so schools are competing for students, and because the schools are supported by local taxes, the money does flow to the better schools. Even the benefit of the voucher providing more buying power to the parent is offset by the fact that public schools are supported by local sales or property taxes and federal financing, so no parent who has a child in a public school is actually paying the full amount of what it takes to educate that child.
The problem with the current model and a voucher program isn’t that competition doesn’t drive up quality, but that it does so unevenly. Within any industry there are different markets. The two markets within an industry are often differentiated from each other by the customers buying power. Some markets are purely quality based. Companies seek to provide the best product regardless of price knowing that price is no object to the customers in their market. On the other end of the spectrum are markets based on access. Quality doesn’t matter because the customers in this market cannot afford to pay for quality. All that matters is that the customer’s can afford the product no matter how poor the product is. So, while competition does drive up quality, it does not do so universally. Companies compete on multiple fronts, and quality is just one factor, so a market solution will not necessarily “prepare the average American child to succeed.” When dealing with Adult’s who have agency over there own situation this condition is morally defensible. Each reaps what he or she sows, but when dealing with children whose education rests not on their own ability, but on the ability of others, this situation in fundamentally wrong. The children in poor school systems have done nothing to put themselves there.
Relying on simplified market theories, such as competition drives up quality, as in the voucher argument; to “(help) more Americans to participate … more equally” represents a short coming of conservative ideology that stops conservatives from creating an intelligible social agenda. Manzi has the right idea but he needs to carry it out to its full conclusion. Sometimes for the benefit of individuals, we must act collectively. This would require Mazi and others to not only re-examine “Regan conservatism” but conservative attitudes towards public institutions and others’ situations. In order to believe that public schools are “organized to serve teachers and administrators rather than students and families” not only requires one to demonize other people to a degree that is ludicrous, it ignores the fact that schools do compete for parents and students under the current system, and the statement that “in a nation where 37 percent of births are out-of-wedlock, many children will be left behind” exposes a self-serving miserliness that too often serves as the conservative social agenda.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Monday, November 3, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)