Pace of Play or Efficiency?

[MuskogeeHogFan]

This is interesting as it relates to teams like Alabama, Arkansas, etc, who have in the past, had a tendency to embrace a slow down of play.

The article is about Oregon, but the way they lay it out you get a feel for what Bielema is attempting to achieve at Arkansas.

The 2014 season brought the Ducks to their lowest mark of plays per minute at 2.90 but their best points per snap mark of .571 points. Slowing the pace takes time off the clock and limits the ability of the competition to score. To do this while increasing offensive scoring output and efficiency is the dagger.  I foresee a slow down in pace and increase in efficiency as college football starts to balance speed with control.

http://cfbmatrix.com/efficiency-consistency/

[HappyHogFan]

IMO defenses are and will continue to adjust to the HUNH type offenses rendering them not obsolete, but certainly less potent than they have been in the last 5 years.

Defense still wins championships.

[PorkRyan]

IMO defenses are and will continue to adjust to the HUNH type offenses rendering them not obsolete, but certainly less potent than they have been in the last 5 years.

Defense still wins championships.

Defense may win championships, but good offense will still win 10+ games every year in college football.  Offenses continue to add wrinkles, especially with the new play option stuff.  The play option plays are going to be very difficult to stop.  The offense is almost always going to get you in a 1 on 1 situation and only the teams that can really tackle in space can slow them down.   

[Missooie]

IMO defenses are and will continue to adjust to the HUNH type offenses rendering them not obsolete, but certainly less potent than they have been in the last 5 years.

Defense still wins championships.

I sure hope so. I don't know how people love high scoring games like what we have now. Games like our game against Alabama are perfect. Football is not just played on offense, defensive teams are a blast to watch. The faster teams go, the less fun the game is because it ends up being a shoot out of which offense will mess up first and lose their pace.

[HappyHogFan]

Defense may win championships, but good offense will still win 10+ games every year in college football.  Offenses continue to add wrinkles, especially with the new play option stuff.  The play option plays are going to be very difficult to stop.  The offense is almost always going to get you in a 1 on 1 situation and only the teams that can really tackle in space can slow them down.   

Sure really good offenses can win 10 + games a year (most years anyway) but I want a championship at Arkansas, not "just" 10 wins.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Defense may win championships, but good offense will still win 10+ games every year in college football.  Offenses continue to add wrinkles, especially with the new play option stuff.  The play option plays are going to be very difficult to stop.  The offense is almost always going to get you in a 1 on 1 situation and only the teams that can really tackle in space can slow them down.   

I think it depends upon what the most reliable and accurate definition of what a "good offense" may be. As this author points out, while Oregon has actually slowed its pace of play, they have become more effective in scoring by scoring more points on average per minute that they hold the ball, and that seems to be a good yardstick. Of course the same could apply to the defense as well.

[Vantage 8 dude]

This is interesting as it relates to teams like Alabama, Arkansas, etc, who have in the past, had a tendency to embrace a slow down of play.

The article is about Oregon, but the way they lay it out you get a feel for what Bielema is attempting to achieve at Arkansas.

The 2014 season brought the Ducks to their lowest mark of plays per minute at 2.90 but their best points per snap mark of .571 points. Slowing the pace takes time off the clock and limits the ability of the competition to score. To do this while increasing offensive scoring output and efficiency is the dagger.  I foresee a slow down in pace and increase in efficiency as college football starts to balance speed with control.

http://cfbmatrix.com/efficiency-consistency/

I think this is very much in line with what CBB has in mind. He wants to be able to control the ball, score as efficiently as he can when we do have the pigskin, and then stuff the other team with a solid, stingy defense. I think the idea that our offensive style (along with 'Bama's traditional) has become far less common recently also gives us some advantage in matchup/scheme situations with many teams. 

[hogsanity]

Defense wins titles, offense puts butts in the seats ( and eyeballs on the tv screens ). 

Casual fans want excitement and they see offense as that exciting element. Even if you are a die hard fan of a team, if you sit down to watch a game not involving your team, most people want a high scoring game.

And, with the playoff, and 4,987,673 bowl games every year, most fan bases will be happy with 9 or 10 wins, knowing their chances of making the playoff were slim to none to begin with, but be happier with 9 or 10 wins if it is in a exciting fashion.

[Josh Goforth]

Offense and defense win championships. Every championship season has a point where one or the other has to pick up the slack.A team with a great defense gets behind early and the offense scores a couple tds to get back and it energizes the defense for a big stop in the 4 th quarter. Must have both.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Defense wins titles, offense puts butts in the seats ( and eyeballs on the tv screens ). 

Casual fans want excitement and they see offense as that exciting element. Even if you are a die hard fan of a team, if you sit down to watch a game not involving your team, most people want a high scoring game.

And, with the playoff, and 4,987,673 bowl games every year, most fan bases will be happy with 9 or 10 wins, knowing their chances of making the playoff were slim to none to begin with, but be happier with 9 or 10 wins if it is in a exciting fashion.

A lot of folks in this thread keep saying that, and of course I believe it to be true as well, except for the fact that defense alone, will not win championships because you still have to be effective to some degree (better than your opponents obviously) in scoring points. And this brings us back to the topic of this thread...pace of play or offensive efficiency? For Oregon it seems to have gone from pace of play to both pace of play and offensive efficiency.

For Arkansas, the focus on offense seems to be more about offensive efficiency and controlling the ball. As evidence of this, what did we average per game this year? 70 plays or so per game?

So again, I agree about the defensive part of the equation, but this is about the offensive side of the ball which can be illustrated by the fact that the difference between average plays ran to average plays allowed per game for Arkansas this past season was 70.5 to 63.2 for a difference of +7.3 per game for Arkansas.

By contrast, Miss St ran more plays per game on average than anyone else in the SEC this past season averaging 77 per game, but they also allowed opponents to average 75.2 per game, which tells me that the speed with which they ran plays may have worked against them and left their defense on the field longer than they should have been in some cases.

I think I'll embrace our theory as long as we become more frequent and effective in producing scoring drives that create TD's than being limited to FG's.

And JMO, but I think that people watch teams who win whether they are fast paced and throwing it all over the field or not. Last time I checked, games between highly ranked teams tend to get the most viewers, regardless of the offense that they run.

[ZERO]

I sure hope so. I don't know how people love high scoring games like what we have now. Games like our game against Alabama are perfect. Football is not just played on offense, defensive teams are a blast to watch. The faster teams go, the less fun the game is because it ends up being a shoot out of which offense will mess up first and lose their pace.

Big plays are fun and all, but when they're the norm, it becomes ridiculous. I find sacks, fumbles, and interceptions to be very exciting, personally.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Here's a little more that speaks to Pace of Play or Efficiency.

                        ARK  MIZ   AUB    OM   MSU  LSU   ALA   A&M  GEO  USC(E)   FLA  TEN  VAN  KEN   ORE  OSU
O Plays P/GM    70.5  68.1  72.2   69.5  77.0  69.0  72.7  71.9  67.5   72.8     70.1  75.2 61.7  70.8  74.5  73.3
D Plays P/GM    63.2  71.8  70.3  70.4   75.2  65.0  67.5  76.3  69.6   69.5     72.4  68.6 70.3  74.0  77.9  68.8
O - D Plays        7.3   -3.6   1.9    -0.8    1.8    4.0    5.2  -4.4   -2.2     3.3     -2.3   6.5  -8.7  -3.3   -3.3   4.5
O Pts P/Play       .45    .41   .49     .41    .48    .40    .51   .49    .61     .45       .43   .38   .28   .41     .61    .61
D Pts P/Play       .30    .29   .38     .23    .29    .27    .27   .37    .30     .44       .29   .35   .47   .42     .30    .32
Net Pts/Play       .15    .11   .11     .18    .19    .13    .23   .12    .31     .01       .14   .03  -.19  -.01     .31    .29


Notice Oregon and Ohio State's average Offensive Points per Offensive Play. And their Defensive Points Allowed Per Play. Comes down to efficiency.

And take note of the total plays per game.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I think this is very much in line with what CBB has in mind. He wants to be able to control the ball, score as efficiently as he can when we do have the pigskin, and then stuff the other team with a solid, stingy defense. I think the idea that our offensive style (along with 'Bama's traditional) has become far less common recently also gives us some advantage in matchup/scheme situations with many teams. 

Speaking of controlling the ball and being effective when you have it, check out the numbers I posted above with regard to the difference in offensive to defensive plays and points per play on both sides of the ball, for all SEC teams plus Oregon and Ohio State.

[Iwastherein1969]

i want the whole SEC to go "bat crap" crazy over these HUNH styles of offense...run those plays as fast as you can Gustopher, that's just the more 3 and outs your Offense suffers runs those defensive linemen running back on the field after about a 45 second breather...like a wise man once said, "exhaustion makes cowards of us all"

[MuskogeeHogFan]

i want the whole SEC to go "bat crap" crazy over these HUNH styles of offense...run those plays as fast as you can Gustopher, that's just the more 3 and outs your Offense suffers runs those defensive linemen running back on the field after about a 45 second breather...like a wise man once said, "exhaustion makes cowards of us all"

If you look at those numbers with regard to Auburn you'll notice that they ran less than 2 plays more each game than we did, but look at the average number of plays that their defense was on the field compared to ours, 7 plays more per game. That's what, about one more drive per game?

While their offense was a little more effective than ours was with .49 points per play compared to our.45, look at the defensive points per play and the net points as a result. It isn't that the extra drive per game appears to be that significant, it just appears that their defense just didn't play all that well, allowing the 4th most points per play in the SEC last year.

[HappyHogFan]

If you look at those numbers with regard to Auburn you'll notice that they ran less than 2 plays more each game than we did, but look at the average number of plays that their defense was on the field compared to ours, 7 plays more per game. That's what, about one more drive per game?

While their offense was a little more effective than ours was with .49 points per play compared to our.45, look at the defensive points per play and the net points as a result. It isn't that the extra drive per game appears to be that significant, it just appears that their defense just didn't play all that well, allowing the 4th most points per play in the SEC last year.

Your numbers certainly seem to back up the observation that teams which run plays faster seem to have their defenses on the field more often with fewer breaks in between, whether because of scoring or because of having to give the ball back to the other team. Common sense would dictate that the shorter the break your defense has between series, the more tired that defense will be later in the game and unless you're USC circa 2006 you probably won't have the depth to sustain the same level of defense through the entire game.

[Cinco de Hogo]

The football gods created both offense and defense, anyone thinking people would watch a lot of 6 to 3 ball games is crazy.  Whomever scores the mat points wins the game still and unless they change the rules offenses will alway try to score as much as possible.

Maybe in Oregon's case their success has led to them getting better players that allow them the luxury of playing a slower pace.  The one poster was right in a way, if you can achieve success and maintain it with 10 win seasons at some point you become elite and the best players want to play for you.  Every school has to choose its road and very few would be able to recruit the defense to achieve what Oregon has achieved without the offense.

[hogsanity]

A lot of folks in this thread keep saying that, and of course I believe it to be true as well, except for the fact that defense alone, will not win championships because you still have to be effective to some degree (better than your opponents obviously) in scoring points. And this brings us back to the topic of this thread...pace of play or offensive efficiency? For Oregon it seems to have gone from pace of play to both pace of play and offensive efficiency.

For Arkansas, the focus on offense seems to be more about offensive efficiency and controlling the ball. As evidence of this, what did we average per game this year? 70 plays or so per game?

So again, I agree about the defensive part of the equation, but this is about the offensive side of the ball which can be illustrated by the fact that the difference between average plays ran to average plays allowed per game for Arkansas this past season was 70.5 to 63.2 for a difference of +7.3 per game for Arkansas.

By contrast, Miss St ran more plays per game on average than anyone else in the SEC this past season averaging 77 per game, but they also allowed opponents to average 75.2 per game, which tells me that the speed with which they ran plays may have worked against them and left their defense on the field longer than they should have been in some cases.

I think I'll embrace our theory as long as we become more frequent and effective in producing scoring drives that create TD's than being limited to FG's.

And JMO, but I think that people watch teams who win whether they are fast paced and throwing it all over the field or not. Last time I checked, games between highly ranked teams tend to get the most viewers, regardless of the offense that they run.

No one is saying you do not need offense. But I do not care how great, how fast, how flashy your offense is, at some point you have to stop the other team. Look at the college playoffs last year. As good as OSU was on offense, it was their defense that turned the Bama game. Right after that horrible punt, the OSU defense came up with a pick. And they stymied Oregon's offense almost from the start of the title game. Same thing happened to Oregon against Auburn in that title game. A mediocre Auburn defense shut down the high octane Oregon offense.

[HappyHogFan]

The football gods created both offense and defense, anyone thinking people would watch a lot of 6 to 3 ball games is crazy.  Whomever scores the mat points wins the game still and unless they change the rules offenses will alway try to score as much as possible.

Maybe in Oregon's case their success has led to them getting better players that allow them the luxury of playing a slower pace.  The one poster was right in a way, if you can achieve success and maintain it with 10 win seasons at some point you become elite and the best players want to play for you.  Every school has to choose its road and very few would be able to recruit the defense to achieve what Oregon has achieved without the offense.

Some truth there, the truly elite players seem to be offensive guys coming out of high school. In order to have an elite defense you have to be so stocked in recruiting that the elite players are willing to consider switching to defense just to play for you. I think back to Joe Adams , when we had a thousand receivers on campus and hardly any talent at DB and we had to promise him that he would play offense to get him on campus, compared to a school like USC which flat told him that he'd play defense and like it if he wanted to be a Trojan.

[Doug]

You guys really need to spend time on the CFBMatrix website. Dave Bartoo (founder and lead guy) puts a LOT of work into that site, developing matrices to back up his views.

Plus, Dave is a darned awesome guy... very football smart. Trust me... several coaches and programs know who he is.

[DeltaBoy]

I waste enough time already Doug.

[CFBMatrix]

If you don't mind too much, I am going to jump in with a few more metrics on football scheme as it relates to your discussion. You can find the articles on each in the 2015 digital SEC preview magazine on the Matrix App May 1
1. Tempo is not picking up pace in the FBS.  The year over year pace of college football saw it lowest gain in 7 years in 2014.  And for the first time in 7 years, a quarter played slower than the previous season.  Plays per minute in Q3 of 2014 was less than 2013. We are reaching Peak Pace.
2. Over the last 3 years, drives with more runs than passes scored 29.3% more often than drive that had more passes than runs.  No run game = no championship (IMO)
3. Total scoring efficiency is king.  The last 7 national champs were all top 10 in total scoring efficiency in the regular season.  The line in the sand is .234 points per play.  That is the worst number of any champ the last 7 seasons.  Even the losers are all top 20 in total scoring efficiency.  The best example was 2011 Alabama who was no. 124 in pace of play but no. 1 in total scoring efficiency.  Unbelievable pure game control.

~Bartoo

[HappyHogFan]

If you don't mind too much, I am going to jump in with a few more metrics on football scheme as it relates to your discussion. You can find the articles on each in the 2015 digital SEC preview magazine on the Matrix App May 1
1. Tempo is not picking up pace in the FBS.  The year over year pace of college football saw it lowest gain in 7 years in 2014.  And for the first time in 7 years, a quarter played slower than the previous season.  Plays per minute in Q3 of 2014 was less than 2013. We are reaching Peak Pace.
2. Over the last 3 years, drives with more runs than passes scored 29.3% more often than drive that had more passes than runs.  No run game = no championship (IMO)
3. Total scoring efficiency is king.  The last 7 national champs were all top 10 in total scoring efficiency in the regular season.  The line in the sand is .234 points per possession.  That is the worst number of any champ the last 7 seasons.  Even the losers are all top 20 in total scoring efficiency.  The best example was 2011 Alabama who was no. 124 in pace of play but no. 1 in total scoring efficiency.  Unbelievable pure game control.

~Bartoo

Good data, I gave you your first applaud.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

If you don't mind too much, I am going to jump in with a few more metrics on football scheme as it relates to your discussion. You can find the articles on each in the 2015 digital SEC preview magazine on the Matrix App May 1
1. Tempo is not picking up pace in the FBS.  The year over year pace of college football saw it lowest gain in 7 years in 2014.  And for the first time in 7 years, a quarter played slower than the previous season.  Plays per minute in Q3 of 2014 was less than 2013. We are reaching Peak Pace.
2. Over the last 3 years, drives with more runs than passes scored 29.3% more often than drive that had more passes than runs.  No run game = no championship (IMO)
3. Total scoring efficiency is king.  The last 7 national champs were all top 10 in total scoring efficiency in the regular season.  The line in the sand is .234 points per possession.  That is the worst number of any champ the last 7 seasons.  Even the losers are all top 20 in total scoring efficiency.  The best example was 2011 Alabama who was no. 124 in pace of play but no. 1 in total scoring efficiency.  Unbelievable pure game control.

~Bartoo

Thanks for joining the board and the discussion. Your stats are very interesting and I enjoy your work. Welcome aboard, Dave.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

If you don't mind too much, I am going to jump in with a few more metrics on football scheme as it relates to your discussion. You can find the articles on each in the 2015 digital SEC preview magazine on the Matrix App May 1
1. Tempo is not picking up pace in the FBS.  The year over year pace of college football saw it lowest gain in 7 years in 2014.  And for the first time in 7 years, a quarter played slower than the previous season.  Plays per minute in Q3 of 2014 was less than 2013. We are reaching Peak Pace.
2. Over the last 3 years, drives with more runs than passes scored 29.3% more often than drive that had more passes than runs.  No run game = no championship (IMO)
3. Total scoring efficiency is king.  The last 7 national champs were all top 10 in total scoring efficiency in the regular season.  The line in the sand is .234 points per possession.  That is the worst number of any champ the last 7 seasons.  Even the losers are all top 20 in total scoring efficiency.  The best example was 2011 Alabama who was no. 124 in pace of play but no. 1 in total scoring efficiency.  Unbelievable pure game control.

~Bartoo

I think this is the goal at Arkansas with Bielema's philosophy. That is a pretty amazing stat.

[Cinco de Hogo]

If you don't mind too much, I am going to jump in with a few more metrics on football scheme as it relates to your discussion. You can find the articles on each in the 2015 digital SEC preview magazine on the Matrix App May 1
1. Tempo is not picking up pace in the FBS.  The year over year pace of college football saw it lowest gain in 7 years in 2014.  And for the first time in 7 years, a quarter played slower than the previous season.  Plays per minute in Q3 of 2014 was less than 2013. We are reaching Peak Pace.
2. Over the last 3 years, drives with more runs than passes scored 29.3% more often than drive that had more passes than runs.  No run game = no championship (IMO)
3. Total scoring efficiency is king.  The last 7 national champs were all top 10 in total scoring efficiency in the regular season.  The line in the sand is .234 points per possession.  That is the worst number of any champ the last 7 seasons.  Even the losers are all top 20 in total scoring efficiency.  The best example was 2011 Alabama who was no. 124 in pace of play but no. 1 in total scoring efficiency.  Unbelievable pure game control.

~Bartoo

Welcome aboard!

I don't know what your overal opinion is but mine a probably a lot of people's opinion is that you can't take a team from nowhere and build the type team that can be competitive with the big boys based on power football. 

Arkansas is a tweener in that we have a certain amount of history and prestige to start with.  Still it's a uphill battle to build one even here and if the Bama's switch gears like Saban did last year they will still have the best athletes.  So then it become a game of our power against their speed and quickness, with their superior athletes. 

We had a good chance last year before they got organized but it's hard to say whether or not it will be a competitive game this year in Tuscalusa.

[HappyHogFan]

Welcome aboard!

I don't know what your overal opinion is but mine a probably a lot of people's opinion is that you can't take a team from nowhere and build the type team that can be competitive with the big boys based on power football. 

Arkansas is a tweener in that we have a certain amount of history and prestige to start with.  Still it's a uphill battle to build one even here and if the Bama's switch gears like Saban did last year they will still have the best athletes.  So then it become a game of our power against their speed and quickness, with their superior athletes. 

We had a good chance last year before they got organized but it's hard to say whether or not it will be a competitive game this year in Tuscalusa.

You assume Alabama will always have superior athletes to Arkansas at every position. I do not.

I think we CAN compete with them as a power run team, and that we can continue to close the talent gap, and that now we have a coach who knows how to put that talent all over the field on both sides of the football and get maximum results.

[jdevers]

.234 points per possession?  Are you sure you didn't misplace the decimal there?  That would lead to extremely low scoring games.  2.34 would appear to be much more realistic.

[CFBMatrix]

.234 points per possession?  Are you sure you didn't misplace the decimal there?  That would lead to extremely low scoring games.  2.34 would appear to be much more realistic.

Per play.... sorry about that jdevers.  Good catch on my mistype.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Welcome aboard!

I don't know what your overal opinion is but mine a probably a lot of people's opinion is that you can't take a team from nowhere and build the type team that can be competitive with the big boys based on power football. 

Arkansas is a tweener in that we have a certain amount of history and prestige to start with.  Still it's a uphill battle to build one even here and if the Bama's switch gears like Saban did last year they will still have the best athletes.  So then it become a game of our power against their speed and quickness, with their superior athletes.

We had a good chance last year before they got organized but it's hard to say whether or not it will be a competitive game this year in Tuscalusa.

It isn't just about having what are perceived to be better athletes that are highly ranked players, at least according to this.

Recruiting analysis ought to be more about adding the right people rather than the best people or the most people. Whether the right person is based on personality, capability, positional need, or something else is where the coaches must make critical personnel decisions.

A good barometer for recruiting success for highly respected and effective recruiters is not the commonly used "star average" but rather looking at their target list and seeing how many of the target players they get. If a team's target list averages out at three-and-a-half stars and they get 80% of that list, that's a great recruiting class.

It's much better than a team that has a class average of four stars yet only got 25% of those they targeted. It's the same old, time proven perspective that shows why a good team that has practiced and played together will be a hastily put together all-star team every time.

It's more about the coaches targeting the right guys and getting the right pieces than it is about stars and team rankings.

http://lastwordonsports.com/2015/01/24/the-real-value-of-recruiting-in-college-football/

[HappyHogFan]

It isn't just about having what are perceived to be better athletes that are highly ranked players, at least according to this.

Recruiting analysis ought to be more about adding the right people rather than the best people or the most people. Whether the right person is based on personality, capability, positional need, or something else is where the coaches must make critical personnel decisions.

A good barometer for recruiting success for highly respected and effective recruiters is not the commonly used "star average" but rather looking at their target list and seeing how many of the target players they get. If a team's target list averages out at three-and-a-half stars and they get 80% of that list, that's a great recruiting class.

It's much better than a team that has a class average of four stars yet only got 25% of those they targeted. It's the same old, time proven perspective that shows why a good team that has practiced and played together will be a hastily put together all-star team every time.

It's more about the coaches targeting the right guys and getting the right pieces than it is about stars and team rankings.

http://lastwordonsports.com/2015/01/24/the-real-value-of-recruiting-in-college-football/

I don't buy that article at all. Are you saying that if Bielema targeted twenty five 2 stars and signed them all we should consider that a good recruiting class?

Conversely, what if he initially targeted twenty five 5 stars, and signed 5 of them along with twenty 3 stars. I'd consider that a great class, as would most people.

I get what the author is trying to say, but he's jumping to conclusions to get there and assuming that the higher ranked players can't possibly be a fit for a program, so it's better to sign a lower ranked player who does fit.

The BEST scenario is the one the author avoids. Sign the highly ranked players who fit your program.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I don't buy that article at all. Are you saying that if Bielema targeted twenty five 2 stars and signed them all we should consider that a good recruiting class?

Conversely, what if he initially targeted twenty five 5 stars, and signed 5 of them along with twenty 3 stars. I'd consider that a great class, as would most people.

I get what the author is trying to say, but he's jumping to conclusions to get there and assuming that the higher ranked players can't possibly be a fit for a program, so it's better to sign a lower ranked player who does fit.

The BEST scenario is the one the author avoids. Sign the highly ranked players who fit your program.

You might want to pay particular attention to the second paragraph of that quote. He doesn't mention anything about two star players.

[HappyHogFan]

You might want to pay particular attention to the second paragraph of that quote. He doesn't mention anything about two star players.

Of course he doesn't specifically mention 2 stars. Who said he did? That was MY example. His point was sign the players that fit you best and don't worry about stars. My point is sign the players that fit your system best while ALSO paying attention to stars.

"Stars don't matter" is ridiculous

[hogsanity]

Of course he doesn't specifically mention 2 stars. Who said he did? That was MY example. His point was sign the players that fit you best and don't worry about stars. My point is sign the players that fit your system best while ALSO paying attention to stars.

"Stars don't matter" is ridiculous

That was not the point, at all.  The point was if you target 25 players, that average out to 3.5 stars, and get 80% ( 20 players ), your class is better than one made from targeting a group that averages 4 stars, but you only get 25% (6) players.

[Cinco de Hogo]

You assume Alabama will always have superior athletes to Arkansas at every position. I do not.

I think we CAN compete with them as a power run team, and that we can continue to close the talent gap, and that now we have a coach who knows how to put that talent all over the field on both sides of the football and get maximum results.

I don't assume anything, I go by fact and history.  Those things tell me we can compete on a national level but we can't run consistently with the big boys.  Yes several factors can conspire to make a run at a NC possible and it starts with the coach.  CBB can do that its just a matter of several other factors falling in our favor.  Concerning Bama one of those would be a coaching change that went bad.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Of course he doesn't specifically mention 2 stars. Who said he did? That was MY example. His point was sign the players that fit you best and don't worry about stars. My point is sign the players that fit your system best while ALSO paying attention to stars.

"Stars don't matter" is ridiculous

Again, that was not what that quote said at all and it didn't indicate that a class full of 2 star players is just fine or a good class. Your example was ridiculous. That's why I suggested that you read it again.

[31to6]

I get what the author is trying to say, but he's jumping to conclusions to get there and assuming that the higher ranked players can't possibly be a fit for a program, so it's better to sign a lower ranked player who does fit.

The BEST scenario is the one the author avoids. Sign the highly ranked players who fit your program.

The reality is that nobody gets all (or even most) of their "Plan A" players. Everybody compromises. Some programs compromise on fit (or character) rather than compromising on athletic ability. It is clear that CBB places a very high value on character and fit.

Just getting a bunch of great athletes and trying to build them into a team often backfires.

That's how Larry Coker drove one of the best football programs in the nation into the ditch with top-10 classes.

[Mike_e]

Good stuff Bartoo.  I've been harping on drive efficiency for sometime but as playing defense is more demanding (offensive players already know where they're supposed to be but defensive players have to figure it out and hustle to get there) I can see that a certain range of plays per drive would be optimal.

I also get why some think pure talent is the end all for players (trying to chase down guys who are just better than you can be frustrating) but unlike basketball where each player is responsible for more of the total game football players have a lot more help and must mesh more perfectly with each other so that building a team becomes paramount rather than the physical metrics (within reason of course).

Thanks for posting.

[HappyHogFan]

The reality is that nobody gets all (or even most) of their "Plan A" players. Everybody compromises. Some programs compromise on fit (or character) rather than compromising on athletic ability. It is clear that CBB places a very high value on character and fit.

Just getting a bunch of great athletes and trying to build them into a team often backfires.

That's how Larry Coker drove one of the best football programs in the nation into the ditch with top-10 classes.

Agree, this is why I said the best players that fit your system, not simply the best players.

As I was saying in another thread, I think we can compete with Alabama as a powering running strong defense team, even though on paper I think we can agree they will probably always get the "better" recruits.

[Cinco de Hogo]

Agree, this is why I said the best players that fit your system, not simply the best players.

As I was saying in another thread, I think we can compete with Alabama as a powering running strong defense team, even though on paper I think we can agree they will probably always get the "better" recruits.

Then wouldn't you have to believe that Bielema is a better coach than Saban?  Three Rose Bowl loses doesn't give strong argument to that.  I kinda suspect that Saban has seen his heyday.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

The reality is that nobody gets all (or even most) of their "Plan A" players. Everybody compromises. Some programs compromise on fit (or character) rather than compromising on athletic ability. It is clear that CBB places a very high value on character and fit.

Just getting a bunch of great athletes and trying to build them into a team often backfires.

That's how Larry Coker drove one of the best football programs in the nation into the ditch with top-10 classes.

And there is the rub and the never ending argument of quality of players.

How much better is a 5 star player than a 4 star player, or even a 3 star player? What enabled this kid to earn a higher rating than another kid? Physical performance and stature as typically defined by position is one obvious thing (a RB that is 6-1, 220 lbs and runs a 4.3-40). But let's face it, a kid with that size, with that speed, playing on a decent HS football team is probably going to run up some pretty big numbers and garner a lot of attention. The same goes for the LB who is a 6-2/6-3, 240 lbs and runs a 4.5/4.6-40. Superior size and athleticism can certainly give a kid a leg up. And given that all D-I signees of all star ranking levels account for about 1.5% or so of the entire number of kids playing high school football, these kids are going to (or should) stand out in a crowd with their physical and athletic performances. But inside that group, what determines whether a kid is going to be a 3, 4 or 5 star?

I think that the vast majority of the time the rankings services are talking and listening to coaching staffs and HS coaches/players to find out who is interested in who and who is garnering a lot of attention. So the ranking services "project" their rankings of a player based on that. It's no wonder that they "miss" on some players or overlook some players entirely because there simply isn't enough time in a day (or days) to talk about every single potential D-I recruit.

This is where offer lists come into play and especially if you are a skill player. If a RB has the measurables that I mentioned above and runs for 1500 yards 2-3 seasons in a row and has offers from Alabama, Ohio State, Florida State, Georgia, So. California, Notre Dame, Oregon, Oklahoma, how can they not rank the kid as a 4 or 5 star player? That may not mean that the kid is a particularly good student or of good character or even that he fits well with the rest of their teams, but he gains a lot of yards and scores a lot of TD's and he looks and acts the part on the field.

Does that mean that he is automatically a great fit for every team? No. Is he going to get up and go to class and make his grades without someone constantly standing over him? Is he going to be committed as a part of the team on and off the field? Is he a "party guy" or a "roll his sleeves up and go to work" guy? Does he have a humble demeanor that reflects the character of a kid who doesn't already know it all and is coachable, or is he so overconfident that feels he already knows it all? Let's face it, those are all things that the recruiting rankings don't reflect.

Would you rather have a highly ranked 4 or 5 star kid that might not fit well with the culture of your program or might not have enough self discipline to last all 3 to 5 years, or a 3 star kid that does fit your mold and that you feel (through your evaluation) that you can develop into being a great player? Hopefully that answer is clear but I believe our staff is looking for the best athletes in each position that fit our mold of the total person. That may not always wind up being the most highly ranked player out there.

[ballhog™]

No matter what kind of offense you have, if you're defense can get a high percentage of 3 and outs and limit big plays, you're good.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

No matter what kind of offense you have, if you're defense can get a high percentage of 3 and outs and limit big plays, you're good.

That's where offensive efficiency in keeping the chains moving, extending drives and scoring TD's as opposed to FG's when you have the opportunity to score, really helps a defense to stay rested and able to do these things. It all works hand in hand but if the offense isn't efficient they make the job of the defense to do theirs, much harder to accomplish.

[ballhog™]

That's where offensive efficiency in keeping the chains moving, extending drives and scoring TD's as opposed to FG's when you have the opportunity to score, really helps a defense to stay rested and able to do these things. It all works hand in hand but if the offense isn't efficient they make the job of the defense to do theirs, much harder to accomplish.

True dat

[HappyHogFan]

Then wouldn't you have to believe that Bielema is a better coach than Saban?  Three Rose Bowl loses doesn't give strong argument to that.  I kinda suspect that Saban has seen his heyday.

Certainly not, you have to factor in other things as well, lucky bounces and such. It is not as simple as Coach A is a better coach and has better recruits than Coach B

[Cinco de Hogo]

Certainly not, you have to factor in other things as well, lucky bounces and such. It is not as simple as Coach A is a better coach and has better recruits than Coach B

Well I will keep it simple, if CBB and Arkansas beats Saban and Alabama with the recruits each school has the CBB would have been the better coach...that year.

Usually that is COY type stuff.

[gawntrail]

The reality is that nobody gets all (or even most) of their "Plan A" players. Everybody compromises. Some programs compromise on fit (or character) rather than compromising on athletic ability. It is clear that CBB places a very high value on character and fit.

Just getting a bunch of great athletes and trying to build them into a team often backfires.

That's how Larry Coker drove one of the best football programs in the nation into the ditch with top-10 classes.

Are you talking about this Larry Coker:



60-15 record and a NC Ring in 6 seasons as HC @ Miami........  I'd settle for that ditch.

[31to6]

Are you talking about this Larry Coker:



60-15 record and a NC Ring in 6 seasons as HC @ Miami........  I'd settle for that ditch.

Yup. That one. You have to remember how awesome Miami used to be.

Coker basically won with the team Butch Davis re-built after the Erickson sanctions.

His fault were not how well he coached the team, but that he completely blew it when it came to talent evaluation. It is widely documented (I don't have the link handy) that the staff admitted that they relied too much on the ratings services instead of doing their own evaluations.

Consequently, their real on the field talent degraded and they ended up with a slow-rolling disaster, with every year of his tenure worse than the year before:

year 1 - NC, undefeated
year 2 - runner up, 1 loss
year 3 - BCS win, 2 losses
year 4 - peach bowl win, 3 losses
year 5 - blowout peach bowl loss to LSU, 3 losses including a head-scratcher to unranked GT.
year 6 - had to beat Nevada in the MPC Computers Bowl to salvage a winning record. 6 losses.
Fired.

So yah, he looks good on paper unless you put it in context.

Miami has never really recovered from the damage Coker inflicted on the program.

[Deep Shoat]

Yup. That one. You have to remember how awesome Miami used to be.

Coker basically won with the team Butch Davis re-built after the Erickson sanctions.

His fault were not how well he coached the team, but that he completely blew it when it came to talent evaluation. It is widely documented (I don't have the link handy) that the staff admitted that they relied too much on the ratings services instead of doing their own evaluations.

Consequently, their real on the field talent degraded and they ended up with a slow-rolling disaster, with every year of his tenure worse than the year before:

year 1 - NC, undefeated
year 2 - runner up, 1 loss
year 3 - BCS win, 2 losses
year 4 - peach bowl win, 3 losses
year 5 - blowout peach bowl loss to LSU, 3 losses including a head-scratcher to unranked GT.
year 6 - had to beat Nevada in the MPC Computers Bowl to salvage a winning record. 6 losses.
Fired.

So yah, he looks good on paper unless you put it in context.

Miami has never really recovered from the damage Coker inflicted on the program.

Excellent post.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

His fault were not how well he coached the team, but that he completely blew it when it came to talent evaluation. It is widely documented (I don't have the link handy) that the staff admitted that they relied too much on the ratings services instead of doing their own evaluations.

So you are saying that he and Mack Brown (later in his career) have something in common?