More than one week to prepare: myth or reality?

Blah, just look at Oklahoma, Texas, and Nebraska's bowl records in the 70's, plus their scores vs each other. This should put it to rest.
 
coit said:
Did you see the links cyp posted? Basically used point spreads versus results to say that teams with more time to prepare actually did worse against the spread than those without a bye week. Just goes to prove the old cliche about statistics...
Click to expand...
Not sure if you're agreeing with me or not. What I'm trying to say is more time should always help no matter who you're playing. If it doesn't, you need help for your coaching staff. But the main issue is who you play not how much time they have. Upsets happen, but most of the time the better team wins.
 
ncjacket said:
Not sure if you're agreeing with me or not. What I'm trying to say is more time should always help no matter who you're playing. If it doesn't, you need help for your coaching staff. But the main issue is who you play not how much time they have. Upsets happen, but most of the time the better team wins.
Click to expand...


Oh, I 100% agree with you. Was pointing out that last week, many folks were trying to say it doesn't help, and might actually hurt, which I think is crazy.
 
I think they were trying to say it may hurt ATS. This could be true, because the spread is set by humans who may overvalue the effect of a bye week, thus making it more difficult for the team with a bye week to cover. Whereas, without a bye week the spread may have been a more accurate reflection of the match up allowing them to cover it with more frequency. :dunno:
 
I'm beginning to think that having the extra week to prepare really does matter.
 
Well,

The elephant in this room isn't necessarily that we're so much worse when other teams have time to prepare, but rather is the system itself allowing us to over-perform when teams only have a week.

The issue might not be "you'll never win a national championship with that offense!" but rather "you never would have gotten into a national championship with any offense, but you might get there with that one, and you'll lose!"

/shrug

In other words, what would our record be with Gailey, and Al Groh, and the same players?
 
Depends on who starts at QB. Gailey + Vad + the guys we have now might do pretty well. Gailey + Tevin = it doesn't even matter if Calvin comes back, Tevin isn't a passing QB and couldn't run Gailey's offense. Of course our record under Gailey is going to be between 7-5 and 9-3 at all times, so...
 
ThisIsAtlanta said:
Depends on who starts at QB. Gailey + Vad + the guys we have now might do pretty well. Gailey + Tevin = it doesn't even matter if Calvin comes back, Tevin isn't a passing QB and couldn't run Gailey's offense. Of course our record under Gailey is going to be between 7-5 and 9-3 at all times, so...
Click to expand...

Gailey + Calvin + Vad + Choice + Tenuta + '06 defense = orgasm.
 
cajunjacket said:
After the UVA loss I wanted to see what our record was against FBS teams that had one week or less to prepare vs more than one week to prepare.

Our records against FBS teams in the regular season and bowl games under CPJ are:

22-6 (0.79) when a team has one week or less to prepare against us.
4-9 (0.31) when a team has more than one week to prepare against us.


The details for those who are interested, and so that you can check my data for any possible fat finger errors:
2008:
With one week or less to prepare (4-2):
BC - W
VT - L
MSU - W
Duke - W
UVA - L
FSU - W
Miami - W
With more than one week to prepare (2-2):
Clemson - W
UNC - L
UGA - W
LSU - L

2009:
With one week or less to prepare (10-1):
Clemson - W
UNC - W
MSU - W
FSU - W
VT - W
UVA - W
Vandy - W
WF - W
Duke - W
UGA - L
Clemson (ACC CG) - W
With more than one week to prepare (0-2):
Miami - L
Iowa - L

2010:
With one week or less to prepare (4-3) :
Kansas - L
UNC - W
WF - W
UVA - W
Clemson - L
Miami - L
Duke - W
With more than one week to prepare (1-4):
NCSU - L
MTSU - W
VT - L
UGA - L
AFA - L

2011:
With one week or less to prepare (4-0):
MTSU - W
Kansas - W
UNC - W
UMD - W
With more than one week to prepare(1-1):
NCSU - W
UVA - L
Click to expand...

I read in one of those magazines that quotes an opposing coach's thoughts that stated: "They are the worst team to prepare for on a short turn around" More or less paraphrased but the gist of what he was saying was that because the scheme is so unique that players having only a week to prepare makes it doubly difficult. I would imagine Tech is especially difficult for outside linebackers and safeties who may not be used to being blocked quite so much.
 
The prep time thing is permanently inked in blood after this past game. It's true, proven, unarguable.
 
beej67 said:
The prep time thing is permanently inked in blood after this past game. It's true, proven, unarguable.
Click to expand...
it has less to do with one game, but it has a lot to do with 3 seasons of data

Next step is for someone to do the offensive scheme calculations for other ACC teams.
 
When I did it last year, I think UNC actually did better on offense vs teams who had extra time to prepare.
 
I think it hurts us more than other teams because it likely intrigues the opposing players moreso than a standard pro-style offense. They know we run a unique scheme and its easier to stay focused through 2 weeks of practice against something unique rather than simply 2 weeks of practice against the same damn things they always practice against.
 
Switzer, Osborn, and Royal would get a real hoot out of this thread. CMR didn't think it was so funny though when CPJ hung 45 on him after they had an extra week of prep. The teams facing the trio of coaches mentioned didn't think it was so funny either in bowl games after a month to prepare.

Completely unlike most scout teams, OU, NU, & Texas actually had offenses that could provide their defenses game like speed to practice against and they still couldn't stop each other.

A full month to prepare won't help a great deal against a option team with average A-backs, average B-backs, and above average WRs, QB, and OL. I think we will have such in 2012/2013, so we'll see, huh?
 
GoldZ said:
Switzer, Osborn, and Royal would get a real hoot out of this thread. CMR didn't think it was so funny though when CPJ hung 45 on him after they had an extra week of prep. The teams facing the trio of coaches mentioned didn't think it was so funny either in bowl games after a month to prepare.

Completely unlike most scout teams, OU, NU, & Texas actually had offenses that could provide their defenses game like speed to practice against and they still couldn't stop each other.

A full month to prepare won't help a great deal against a option team with average A-backs, average B-backs, and above average WRs, QB, and OL. I think we will have such in 2012/2013, so we'll see, huh?
Click to expand...


The difference was that in those days that offense was not as unique. It WAS what they faced all during the season.

It is not just about having extra time to work to defend the option. It is about so few teams using it to the extent that we do or the service academies do. Therefore opponents spend most time learning to defend the offense they face most of the time.


OU, NU, and Texas faced (and prepared for) each other as their primary rivals. Of course they practiced defending it more all year and so the advantage of a little extra time for a particular game was minimal.
 
lonestarjacket said:
The difference was that in those days that offense was not as unique. It WAS what they faced all during the season.

It is not just about having extra time to work to defend the option. It is about so few teams using it to the extent that we do or the service academies do. Therefore opponents spend most time learning to defend the offense they face most of the time.


OU, NU, and Texas faced (and prepared for) each other as their primary rivals. Of course they practiced defending it more all year and so the advantage of a little extra time for a particular game was minimal.
Click to expand...

Yes, and the point is, they STILL couldn't stop it, ok?
 
GoldZ said:
Yes, and the point is, they STILL couldn't stop it, ok?
Click to expand...


They did sometimes. They certainly slowed it down as much as any defense has slowed down any offense.

Those teams weren't racking up 40+ points on each other with regularity. There was lots of grinding it out and field position football.

P.S.
I am ignoring the fact that the option offenses of that era (veer, wishbone, and I) were fundamentally different than the spread option offenses of today. Those were power running offenses. You certainly never saw those wide gaps in the OL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top