Prep Time 2012

stinger78

Jacket by the grace of God.
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
12,544
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.
Have at it.
 

AE 87

Dodd-Like
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
8,368
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.
Keep your fingers in your ears and blindfold on your eyes. I've looked at the data normalized for defenses and discussed it in the post to which you responded as well as others.

Hey, but don't let the lack of data stop you, you have the coventional wisdom of ESPN on your side.
 

ThisIsAtlanta

Break In Case Of Emergency
Staff member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
61,115
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.
I haven't paid much attention to the specifics of the Texas or OK attacks, but ML's offense is pretty interesting to watch. It is a much more aggressive passing attack with a lot of option-like misdirection downfield. Even today, if you want to find ML, you just follow the trail of shattered passing records. :lol:

I would say that it was probably pretty unique until at least 2008, but that's pure speculation on my part. As an aside, I can't wait to see him coach at WaSt.
 

beej67

new around here
Joined
Oct 18, 2002
Messages
56,552
Have at it.
As I've mentioned three times (now four) I have done it. Last time I did it I had people like TaxJacket whining about statistical significance and begging for the return of Chan Gailey. The "prep time myth cult" will not be persuaded no matter what evidence you offer them.
 

stinger78

Jacket by the grace of God.
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
12,544
As I've mentioned three times (now four) I have done it. Last time I did it I had people like TaxJacket whining about statistical significance and begging for the return of Chan Gailey. The "prep time myth cult" will not be persuaded no matter what evidence you offer them.
The prep time myth cult violates one of the most time-tested common sense theorems of football. Time helps teams prepare better. It was once a highly debated concept, but then they began to play the games.
 

lonestarjacket

Dodd-Like
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
10,278
Keep your fingers in your ears and blindfold on your eyes. I've looked at the data normalized for defenses and discussed it in the post to which you responded as well as others.

Hey, but don't let the lack of data stop you, you have the coventional wisdom of ESPN on your side.

No fingers in my ears or blindfolds on my eyes.

I have read your analysis and compared it to others and yours fails to convince. I am done with the right fighting aspect of it all.

I started in this subject with no opinion but actually wanted it not to be true. That is why I can understand looking for rationalizations, even if they don't convince me anymore.
 

GoldZ

Dodd-Like
Joined
Oct 18, 2002
Messages
6,253
As I mentioned on this thread and previous ones, Stat worshippers should look at OU,NEB, UT in the 70's/80'sand see how they did in bowl games---hint, you won't like the results if u r a pro xtra prep makes a diff kinda geek.

Whatever time you have, the TO makes you hesitate just a split second longer than the same ole same ole pro set does. Hell, you are actually probably better off not to make such a big deal out of it and give your kids the basics and let em have at it full speed.
 

lonestarjacket

Dodd-Like
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
10,278
As I mentioned on this thread and previous ones, Stat worshippers should look at OU,NEB, UT in the 70's/80'sand see how they did in bowl games---hint, you won't like the results if u r a pro xtra prep makes a diff kinda geek.

Whatever time you have, the TO makes you hesitate just a split second longer than the same ole same ole pro set does. Hell, you are actually probably better off not to make such a big deal out of it and give your kids the basics and let em have at it full speed.

You mean the stats from the time when wishbone offenses were quite common among the top teams in the NCAA? The stats from when the wishbone was almost as common as the I formation for a defense to face?

Yeah, I would expect different results from analysis of those teams at those times. Because the TO offenses simply were not as uncommon back then.

Note that the TO seems pretty easy to defend against a team that does not run it very well. LSU kept trying the option pitch and it never seemd to work because they just didn't do it very well.
 

AE 87

Dodd-Like
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
8,368
No fingers in my ears or blindfolds on my eyes.

I have read your analysis and compared it to others and yours fails to convince. I am done with the right fighting aspect of it all.

I started in this subject with no opinion but actually wanted it not to be true. That is why I can understand looking for rationalizations, even if they don't convince me anymore.
Please be spefic, since there are a variety of arguments being made. Which analysis of others do you find more persuasive than mine?
 

ThisIsAtlanta

Break In Case Of Emergency
Staff member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
61,115
You mean the stats from the time when wishbone offenses were quite common among the top teams in the NCAA? The stats from when the wishbone was almost as common as the I formation for a defense to face?

Yeah, I would expect different results from analysis of those teams at those times. Because the TO offenses simply were not as uncommon back then.

Note that the TO seems pretty easy to defend against a team that does not run it very well. LSU kept trying the option pitch and it never seemd to work because they just didn't do it very well.
I thought that LSU was just running the straight option. I never saw anything from them that resembled a triple.
 

GoldZ

Dodd-Like
Joined
Oct 18, 2002
Messages
6,253
You mean the stats from the time when wishbone offenses were quite common among the top teams in the NCAA? The stats from when the wishbone was almost as common as the I formation for a defense to face?

Yeah, I would expect different results from analysis of those teams at those times. Because the TO offenses simply were not as uncommon back then.

Note that the TO seems pretty easy to defend against a team that does not run it very well. LSU kept trying the option pitch and it never seemd to work because they just didn't do it very well.
So, the I formation teams (still by far the majority) would have been even more familiar with it---right?
The I/pro set teams facing the teams I mentioned in bowl games would have been very good teams with a month to prep and yet they still couldn't stop em----hmmm?
 

stinger78

Jacket by the grace of God.
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
12,544
OK, here's how the logic goes...

Teams practice to gain proficiency.
Teams run practice vs. scout teams to gain more proficiency against an opponent.

The more practice the better a teams gets (practice makes perfect, yes?)
The more practice vs. a scout team the more a team gains proficiency against an opponent.

There may be a law of diminishing returns, though. So two weeks of practice may be as effective as two months of practice in some cases. This is all that's up for debate, IMO.

This is not rocket science.
 

beej67

new around here
Joined
Oct 18, 2002
Messages
56,552
The prep time myth cult violates one of the most time-tested common sense theorems of football. Time helps teams prepare better. It was once a highly debated concept, but then they began to play the games.
We all know that. It helps our opponents more.
 

beej67

new around here
Joined
Oct 18, 2002
Messages
56,552
As I mentioned on this thread and previous ones, Stat worshippers should look at OU,NEB, UT in the 70's/80'sand see how they did in bowl games---hint, you won't like the results if u r a pro xtra prep makes a diff kinda geek.
Extra time for our opponents hurts GT a lot more than it hurt Navy under Paul Johnson. We can argue about why, but the proof is in the numbers, it does matter more for us than other teams.
 

stinger78

Jacket by the grace of God.
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
12,544
We all know that. It helps our opponents more.
This is the law of diminishing returns. If you're already fairly proficient against a team due to familiarity with their system, the plateau will come more quickly than if you are not.

Therefore, it stands to reason that teams less familiar with a system will gain more proficiency over time than a team who starts will greater proficiency. This reality will tend to help our opponent more than it helps us.
 
Last edited:

lonestarjacket

Dodd-Like
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
10,278
So, the I formation teams (still by far the majority) would have been even more familiar with it---right?
The I/pro set teams facing the teams I mentioned in bowl games would have been very good teams with a month to prep and yet they still couldn't stop em----hmmm?
Yes, and they were comparatively.

Have you even bothered to actually analyze that stats over many games or are you simply hanging your hat on anecdotal success of previous wishbone teams and a few smarmy hmmms?

As has been belabored through this thread, prep time is a factor, not the only factor. And even that is not under debate, it is whether we get a relative advantage with little prep time because we are relatively unique that we lose when a DC can prepare specifically for us. Relative, again, is the key term.

Success of highly talented wishbone teams four decades ago does little to prove anything. Those teams, with that talent, would have likely been successful against anyone running any type of offense. You can't make a conclusion unless they were sufficiently unique that teams did not face teams like them much during the season ( but they did ) AND if you can show that they did just as well in those bowls as in the regular season. If they were good enough they could still win even if they had an extra advantage.

So, my point is those teams you reference 1) were not as unique relatively as wishbones and veers were as popular as the traditional spread is today, 2) were so talented that they could win even if they had such a prep time advantage during the regular season, which I contend they did not have anyway.

Again, you are mistaking the contention of prep time being a partial factor with the idea that extra prep time is a reliable way to completely stop an option attack. No one has made that contention, at least not here. All that "blueprint for stopping the option" crap comes from ignorant message board fans of other teams.

The real "blueprint" if we are executing is sound fundamentals and talented defense, but that works against any offense. Of course, if we are having trouble with fumbles another blueprint is to simply give up the shorter gains and wait for us to beat ourselves. But that is also true against any big play offense with ball security issues.
 

eg1

Dodd-Like
Joined
Jan 29, 2009
Messages
3,308
Confirmation bias, thy name is this thread ... :rolleyes:
 
Top