Prep Time 2012

ThisIsAtlanta said:
Why exclude 2009? (curious)
Click to expand...

My point has been that the data cyp provided doesn't support statistically significant improvement for teams with extra-prep compared to teams without extra prep when normalized by to their average rush and pass defense.

In 2009, the only two teams who had extra prep were apparently Miami and Iowa. Now, our rush offense typically outperforms an opponents yds/carry so the ratio of actual yds/carry to a D's ave yds/carry is typically over 1, often well over 1. It is less than .9 only twice: Miami's Home games in 2009 at .69 and in 2011 at .68. The 2009 game is calculated as 1 of 16 for the extra-prep stat and 1 of 32 for the non-extra prep. The 2009 Iowa game was also in Miami and they crushed our passing game compared to their expected Pass-D. So, I thought it would be interesting to see how the numbers stacked up without 2009.

As I've said, I think the normalization of the GTypc/DEFypcAv and GTypa/DEFypaAv are interesting statistics. If you take this ratio from the no-extra-prep games as the baseline, then you can compare the ratio from the extra-prep games as a %change. (Remember, imo, the differences are insignificant since they typically fall within a half st dev of the no-extra-prep ratios). Still, here's what you get.

Teams with Extra Prep compared to those without:
2008-2011
Rush: 1% Worse
Pass: 27% Better
YPP: 10% Better

2008, 2010-2011
Rush: 7% Worse (4% Worse w/o 2011 Miami)
Pass: 18% Better (20% Better w/o 2011 Miami)
YPP: 4% Better (6% Better w/o 2011 Miami)

2010-2011
Rush: 15% Worse (11% Worse w/o 2011 Miami)
Pass: 11% Better (14% Better w/o 2011 Miami)
YPP: 2% Worse (1% Better w/o 2011 Miami)

Now, it should also be noted that 2008 was the only year in which we averaged more passes in the games for which the other team had more prep than the games in which they didn't. So, it's not simply the fact that with more prep they are forcing us to throw it more and worse.

I still contend that the data does not support the assertion that teams with extra prep will perform better against us.
 
AE 87 said:
My point has been that the data cyp provided doesn't support statistically significant improvement for teams with extra-prep compared to teams without extra prep when normalized by to their average rush and pass defense.

In 2009, the only two teams who had extra prep were apparently Miami and Iowa. Now, our rush offense typically outperforms an opponents yds/carry so the ratio of actual yds/carry to a D's ave yds/carry is typically over 1, often well over 1. It is less than .9 only twice: Miami's Home games in 2009 at .69 and in 2011 at .68. The 2009 game is calculated as 1 of 16 for the extra-prep stat and 1 of 32 for the non-extra prep. The 2009 Iowa game was also in Miami and they crushed our passing game compared to their expected Pass-D. So, I thought it would be interesting to see how the numbers stacked up without 2009.

As I've said, I think the normalization of the GTypc/DEFypcAv and GTypa/DEFypaAv are interesting statistics. If you take this ratio from the no-extra-prep games as the baseline, then you can compare the ratio from the extra-prep games as a %change. (Remember, imo, the differences are insignificant since they typically fall within a half st dev of the no-extra-prep ratios). Still, here's what you get.

Teams with Extra Prep compared to those without:
2008-2011
Rush: 1% Worse
Pass: 27% Better
YPP: 10% Better

2008, 2010-2011
Rush: 7% Worse (4% Worse w/o 2011 Miami)
Pass: 18% Better (20% Better w/o 2011 Miami)
YPP: 4% Better (6% Better w/o 2011 Miami)

2010-2011
Rush: 15% Worse (11% Worse w/o 2011 Miami)
Pass: 11% Better (14% Better w/o 2011 Miami)
YPP: 2% Worse (1% Better w/o 2011 Miami)

Now, it should also be noted that 2008 was the only year in which we averaged more passes in the games for which the other team had more prep than the games in which they didn't. So, it's not simply the fact that with more prep they are forcing us to throw it more and worse.

I still contend that the data does not support the assertion that teams with extra prep will perform better against us.
Click to expand...
Hey I got a great idea, let's pick and choose games and report stats that are statistically even less valid than looking at the whole period of 2008-2011 games.

Also your idea of somehow deducing statistical significance from standard deviation is way off. You can definitely have statistically significant differences under 1 or half standard deviation.

Since I have done more analysis, here is an update.

To summarize the different stats presented, with extra time against Tech in the period of 2008-2011 BCS games:

1. GT offense does 11% worse in the total offense (total yards) stat after adjusting for opponents' defense.
2. GT offense does 9% worse in the yards per play stat after adjusting for opponents' defense.
3. GT win-loss record is worse. (23-8 vs. 4-11)
3a. GT win-loss record is worse when GT is favored to win. (18-3 vs. 2-6)
3b. GT win-loss record is worse when GT is not favored to win. (4-6 vs. 2-5)
4. GT win-loss record is worse against the spread. (18-11 vs. 5-9)
5. GT scoring differential is worse after adjusting for the Vegas spread differential. (doing 3.39 points better than the line vs. doing 7.66 points worse than the line)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0Ar8cqnkh36RRdENBQk1fRTYyRDFIVTdOa1Q0cXNrbGc&gid=3
 
Hey, I got an idea. Let's just use common sense. It goes like this:

Does it help a team to have extra prep time for an opponent? Sure it does. Is that true for any team? Pretty much. Does it help a team a bit more to have extra time when the opponent's system is rather unconventional? Sure it does.

See how easy it is?

:wink:
 
cyptomcat said:
Hey I got a great idea, let's pick and choose games and report stats that are statistically even less valid than looking at the whole period of 2008-2011 games.

Also your idea of somehow deducing statistical significance from standard deviation is way off. You can definitely have statistically significant differences under 1 or half standard deviation.

Since I have done more analysis, here is an update.

To summarize the different stats presented, with extra time against Tech in the period of 2008-2011 BCS games:

1. GT offense does 11% worse in the total offense (total yards) stat after adjusting for opponents' defense.
2. GT offense does 9% worse in the yards per play stat after adjusting for opponents' defense.
3. GT win-loss record is worse. (23-8 vs. 4-11)
3a. GT win-loss record is worse when GT is favored to win. (18-3 vs. 2-6)
3b. GT win-loss record is worse when GT is not favored to win. (4-6 vs. 2-5)
4. GT win-loss record is worse against the spread. (18-11 vs. 5-9)
5. GT scoring differential is worse after adjusting for the Vegas spread differential. (doing 3.39 points better than the line vs. doing 7.66 points worse than the line)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0Ar8cqnkh36RRdENBQk1fRTYyRDFIVTdOa1Q0cXNrbGc&gid=3
Click to expand...

6. GT yds/carry after adjusting for opponents D is worse when opponent has more time to prepare.

7. For the last two years, GT yds/carry after adjusting for opponents' D are 15% worse when they've had more time to prepare.

8. For the last two years, GT yds/play after adjusting for opponents' D are worse when a team has more time to prepare.

So, I guess we've solved the problem. VPI is toast; we just won't throw the ball since that's where the extra prep helps them.
 
So has anyone run these number for other teams? In other words, it's pretty well established that extra prep time is an advantage against us, but is it any more/less of an advantage against other teams?
 
I hope CPJ is here for like 30 years. At the very end we'll look over all the data and come to real conclusions. :lol:
 
panic.gif
 
stinger78 said:
Hey, I got an idea. Let's just use common sense. It goes like this:

Does it help a team to have extra prep time for an opponent? Sure it does. Is that true for any team? Pretty much. Does it help a team a bit more to have extra time when the opponent's system is rather unconventional? Sure it does.

See how easy it is?

:wink:
Click to expand...
My reasoning is slightly different, that we have an advantage with our unconventional offense and the advantage gets lessened with extra prep against the offense.
 
TechinItEasy said:
So has anyone run these number for other teams? In other words, it's pretty well established that extra prep time is an advantage against us, but is it any more/less of an advantage against other teams?
Click to expand...

I did it for the ACC a few years ago and we were the only major outlier. Butch Davis actually did better when his opponents had extra prep time.

Haven't done a four year sample size yet.
 
This has been covered by others but I think it bears repeating.

Those protesting any advantage in prep time versus other teams are viewing the assertion as validation that teams have "figured out" the triple option. The idea that there is a "blueprint" to stop it has been put out in the media several times. But the idea that we have an advantage with shorter prep time is NOT the same thing as anyone figuring it out.

I'm fact, my last statement is the whole point. We have an added advantage with short prep time that we lose with longer prep time. The whole thing supposes a competent DC who can use that time effectively to prepare better and athletes who can execute the plan. And it still comes down to execution on both sides. It is a tendency, not a rule. We can win even when other teams have the extra time and we can lose if they do not have the extra time. Conflicting anecdotes do not disprove the overall tendency.

We just have a little extra advantage with short prep time that we lose with longer prep time. With longer prep time we are more on an even keel with all the other teams, not at a disadvantage. The same would be true for any offense that is significantly different than the offenses that most other teams run.

If suddenly all of the NCAA switched to a similar offense as ours the difference in advantage due to prep time would probably diminish or even disappear. Yet some teams would still be more or less successful and there would still be counter examples.

P.S.
The other factor mentioned in the past was the penalty teams pay for preparing for us excessively. Lots of teams who are more successful against us fall off in the following week, presumably because they lost time prepping for a more traditional offense.
 
lonestarjacket said:
This has been covered by others but I think it bears repeating.

Those protesting any advantage in prep time versus other teams are viewing the assertion as validation that teams have "figured out" the triple option. The idea that there is a "blueprint" to stop it has been put out in the media several times. But the idea that we have an advantage with shorter prep time is NOT the same thing as anyone figuring it out.

I'm fact, my last statement is the whole point. We have an added advantage with short prep time that we lose with longer prep time. The whole thing supposes a competent DC who can use that time effectively to prepare better and athletes who can execute the plan. And it still comes down to execution on both sides. It is a tendency, not a rule. We can win even when other teams have the extra time and we can lose if they do not have the extra time. Conflicting anecdotes do not disprove the overall tendency.

We just have a little extra advantage with short prep time that we lose with longer prep time. With longer prep time we are more on an even keel with all the other teams, not at a disadvantage. The same would be true for any offense that is significantly different than the offenses that most other teams run.

If suddenly all of the NCAA switched to a similar offense as ours the difference in advantage due to prep time would probably diminish or even disappear. Yet some teams would still be more or less successful and there would still be counter examples.

P.S.
The other factor mentioned in the past was the penalty teams pay for preparing for us excessively. Lots of teams who are more successful against us fall off in the following week, presumably because they lost time prepping for a more traditional offense.
Click to expand...
Agreed 100% and thank you for your earlier posts too.
 
cyptomcat said:
good start sam, could you share list of games and the W-L records? Google docs is free.

btw, those numbers look very low. it seems like pretty good bet to bet against those teams.
Click to expand...

Here’s the website I used to get the wins, loses, and pushes against the spread: http://www.statfox.com/cfb/gamelog~teamid~georgia+tech.htm . Here’s the link to google docs: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjQT-u2MpDhOdExVbExFRDRRbVN2UVc2SjdZY2FucUE , I hope this works I’ve never loaded anything onto google docs.

On the website, you can find each year’s score and against the spread (ATS) column under the “Game Log” link under the teams names.

I had to set up a matrix showing teams who had extra time and who they played. Then I counted the wins (W) and loses (L) as opposites for the opponents to see how they fared against the spread and teams with extra time (I didn't count pushes). In my first numbers I must of missed something, but here’s a corrected spreadsheet. Also, it’s only as good as the data I put into it, it is possible I could have missed a game here or there.

To summarize, win percentage against the spread vs. teams with extra time, ACC games only 2008-2011:
ACC 43%
VT 55%
UVA 25%
GT 44%
UM 57%
UNC 29%
DU 30%
CU 40%
FSU 29%
NCSU 71%
WF 60%
BC 20%
MD 43%
 
Maybe we should use Texas Tech under Mike Leach as a control? His offense was a little unconventional, so it should show the same pattern.
 
samsgt02 said:
Here’s the website I used to get the wins, loses, and pushes against the spread: http://www.statfox.com/cfb/gamelog~teamid~georgia+tech.htm . Here’s the link to google docs: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjQT-u2MpDhOdExVbExFRDRRbVN2UVc2SjdZY2FucUE , I hope this works I’ve never loaded anything onto google docs.

On the website, you can find each year’s score and against the spread (ATS) column under the “Game Log” link under the teams names.

I had to set up a matrix showing teams who had extra time and who they played. Then I counted the wins (W) and loses (L) as opposites for the opponents to see how they fared against the spread and teams with extra time (I didn't count pushes). In my first numbers I must of missed something, but here’s a corrected spreadsheet. Also, it’s only as good as the data I put into it, it is possible I could have missed a game here or there.

To summarize, win percentage against the spread vs. teams with extra time, ACC games only 2008-2011:
ACC 43%
VT 55%
UVA 25%
GT 44%
UM 57%
UNC 29%
DU 30%
CU 40%
FSU 29%
NCSU 71%
WF 60%
BC 20%
MD 43%
Click to expand...

There was one error for GT, you included 08 Miami game as a W against the spread for GT, but Miami didn't have extra time. We were the second Thursday nighter they played, so that makes GT 0.375 or 38%. I assume there are couple mistakes here and there since you looked at so many games, not a problem.

I will extend this to include all games vs. BCS for the ACC teams, since the argument is not limited to performance vs. ACC teams. Thanks a lot for this, you did most of the work, I'll try to finish it sometime!
 
lonestarjacket said:
This has been covered by others but I think it bears repeating.

Those protesting any advantage in prep time versus other teams are viewing the assertion as validation that teams have "figured out" the triple option. The idea that there is a "blueprint" to stop it has been put out in the media several times. But the idea that we have an advantage with shorter prep time is NOT the same thing as anyone figuring it out.

I'm fact, my last statement is the whole point. We have an added advantage with short prep time that we lose with longer prep time. The whole thing supposes a competent DC who can use that time effectively to prepare better and athletes who can execute the plan. And it still comes down to execution on both sides. It is a tendency, not a rule. We can win even when other teams have the extra time and we can lose if they do not have the extra time. Conflicting anecdotes do not disprove the overall tendency.

We just have a little extra advantage with short prep time that we lose with longer prep time. With longer prep time we are more on an even keel with all the other teams, not at a disadvantage. The same would be true for any offense that is significantly different than the offenses that most other teams run.

If suddenly all of the NCAA switched to a similar offense as ours the difference in advantage due to prep time would probably diminish or even disappear. Yet some teams would still be more or less successful and there would still be counter examples.

P.S.
The other factor mentioned in the past was the penalty teams pay for preparing for us excessively. Lots of teams who are more successful against us fall off in the following week, presumably because they lost time prepping for a more traditional offense.
Click to expand...

No. I am not seeing it as a evidence of "figuring it out." My protest is that the data doesn't support the claim.

Only an idiot would cite, or be persuaded by, W-L or total yards as evidence of a team being able to prepare for our "unconventional offense." W-L and Total Yards are not independent from Defense. Therefore, they are not rationally a good indicator of team's prep "against our uncoventional offense" for which cyp offered them.

Then, once you look at the actual offense vs defense statistics, you see that they don't really support the claim either. For the last two years, teams with an extra prep did 15% worse against the rush than teams without it. Would any reasonable person conclude that extra-prep now hurts you against our rushing attack? It's true that passing yrd/attempt seem to indicate an improvement for teams with extra-prep, but the stdev for the ypa ratio is huge (almost twice the stdev for rush-ratio), and the difference between the ypa ratio for teams without prep and teams with prep is statistically small.

Moreover, it's not a trend. If you look at the ypa ratio for the individual years, you'll see that teams with extra prep had a 34% improvement in ypa ratio, in 2009, 54% improvement, in 2010, they did 18% worse, and in 2011, they had a 28% improvement. That's not a trend.

Philosophically, I'm sympathetic to the theory just as Cyp has articulated it. However, I don't think the data that he has presented has supported the theory.
 
ThisIsAtlanta said:
Maybe we should use Texas Tech under Mike Leach as a control? His offense was a little unconventional, so it should show the same pattern.
Click to expand...

Is it really much different than what OK or Texas run?

There are quite a few pass happy offenses of various favors out there now. It was more unique when he started using it though. Then it seemed the whole conference copied him to some degree.
 
AE 87 said:
No. I am not seeing it as a evidence of "figuring it out." My protest is that the data doesn't support the claim.

Only an idiot would cite, or be persuaded by, W-L or total yards as evidence of a team being able to prepare for our "unconventional offense." W-L and Total Yards are not independent from Defense. Therefore, they are not rationally a good indicator of team's prep "against our uncoventional offense" for which cyp offered them.

Then, once you look at the actual offense vs defense statistics, you see that they don't really support the claim either. For the last two years, teams with an extra prep did 15% worse against the rush than teams without it. Would any reasonable person conclude that extra-prep now hurts you against our rushing attack? It's true that passing yrd/attempt seem to indicate an improvement for teams with extra-prep, but the stdev for the ypa ratio is huge (almost twice the stdev for rush-ratio), and the difference between the ypa ratio for teams without prep and teams with prep is statistically small.

Moreover, it's not a trend. If you look at the ypa ratio for the individual years, you'll see that teams with extra prep had a 34% improvement in ypa ratio, in 2009, 54% improvement, in 2010, they did 18% worse, and in 2011, they had a 28% improvement. That's not a trend.

Philosophically, I'm sympathetic to the theory just as Cyp has articulated it. However, I don't think the data that he has presented has supported the theory.
Click to expand...

You are right that only an idiot would be persuaded by W-L or total yards alone. Thankfully there are not many idiots evaluating this issue.

I ready many different takes that normalized for the strength of the defenses faced. You evidently missed them or did not believe them.

I just saw an analysis of the VT schedule on ESPN going game by game. They brought up the GT game and mentioned the best time to face us was the first game or a bowl game. I doubt you would find a single coach in NCAA who would disagree, including CPJ (first season excluded when we were comically inept running the offense at the beginning of the year.)

We survived those first games by individual heroics by Dwyer and Nesbitt alone. They made broken plays work somehow while we figured out how to run it correctly.
 
cyptomcat said:
My reasoning is slightly different, that we have an advantage with our unconventional offense and the advantage gets lessened with extra prep against the offense.
Click to expand...

Six of one, half dozen of the other. Some things are so evident that they are simply warranted without extensive proof. IMO, this is one such item.
 
stinger78 said:
Six of one, half dozen of the other. Some things are so evident that they are simply warranted without extensive proof. IMO, this is one such item.
Click to expand...

Where the rubber will meet the road is when we do the same analysis for half a dozen other teams, and discover that extra prep time blatantly and amazingly hurts GT more than it hurts anyone else. Even perhaps Navy.

As I say, I think coaches at this level of football take the perception of being outcoached very seriously, more seriously than they take an ordinary game, and I think they drive their players harder vs Tech as a result.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top