Ohio Football Topic
Topic: It's Not Frank
Page: 6 of 8
The Situation
General User
Member Since: 7/13/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 957
mail
The Situation
mail
Posted: 11/22/2013 1:24 PM
Paul Graham wrote:expand_more
The Situation has turned this thread into a laughable meditation on whether or not Frank has Free Will, or is some kind of deterministic being governed only by physical law.

Laugh if you want, but when I'm laughing back it utlimately comes down to results. And in your world of coincidence you all you can do is hope luck is on your side.

Last Edited: 11/22/2013 1:26:30 PM by The Situation
Robert Fox
General User
RF
Member Since: 11/17/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039
person
mail
Robert Fox
mail
Posted: 11/22/2013 1:30 PM
Monroe,
LC is responding to BTC's claim. That response has little (or nothing) to do with your point.

But to your point, you think we've played poorly over the past three games. I don't think anyone on earth disagrees with that. The only matter of discussion is what should be done about it.
OhioStunter
General User
Member Since: 2/18/2005
Location: Chicago
Post Count: 2,516
mail
OhioStunter
mail
Posted: 11/22/2013 2:10 PM
And if he eats at Hardee's.
The Situation
General User
Member Since: 7/13/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 957
mail
The Situation
mail
Posted: 11/22/2013 3:56 PM
It's like arguing about water with some of you.

Some of you: "Look at this ice cube. It was cold and hard. But now it is room temperature and soft. And when I took a flame to it, what was once an ice cube disappeared. My what a transformation this ice cube has undergone!"

And I'm like, "Bro, that s#!t was H2O all day."

The form Frank Solich takes has a lot to do with the dynamic world (ie the same guy that coached in a National Championship was relegated to the Potato Bowl).

I'm not talking about free will; I'm talking about situational boundaries of human decision. (ie When Solich became a part of a warmer administration (OHIO) his form was allowed to flow freely, but dude he was still H2O. And if you guys turn up the heat he will evaporate.) 

I get it. I was looking forward to a weekend in Detroit as much as any of you. But I'm more intelligent than some of your guts might lead you to believe.

 

Last Edited: 11/22/2013 3:58:52 PM by The Situation
Monroe Slavin
General User
MS
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121
person
mail
Monroe Slavin
mail
Posted: 11/22/2013 4:12 PM
Dude Situation--you are getting into whatishetalkingabout territory.

People are going to think that you are less lucid than I am.

Worry.
OhioStunter
General User
Member Since: 2/18/2005
Location: Chicago
Post Count: 2,516
mail
OhioStunter
mail
Posted: 11/22/2013 4:27 PM
All I know is that I'm going to really start questioning whether I am "changing" or "adapting" the next time I eat at Hardee's.
Last Edited: 11/22/2013 7:48:47 PM by OhioStunter
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 11/22/2013 4:34 PM
Monroe Slavin wrote:expand_more
...People are going to think that you are less lucid than I am.

Worry.

Scary. (JK, Monroe, we love you).
The Situation
General User
Member Since: 7/13/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 957
mail
The Situation
mail
Posted: 11/22/2013 4:51 PM
Monroe Slavin wrote:expand_more
Dude Situation--you are getting into whatishetalkingabout territory.

People are going to think that you are less lucid than I am.

Worry.

Well I certainly don't seek approval, just feedback.

Bcat2
General User
B2
Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 4,295
person
mail
Bcat2
mail
Posted: 11/22/2013 5:58 PM
Monroe Slavin wrote:expand_more
Dude Situation--you are getting into whatishetalkingabout territory.

People are going to think that you are less lucid than I am.

Worry.
No worries there.
Bcat2
General User
B2
Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 4,295
person
mail
Bcat2
mail
Posted: 11/22/2013 6:01 PM
L.C. wrote:expand_more
...People are going to think that you are less lucid than I am.

Worry.

Scary. (JK, Monroe, we love you).
L.C. "Love" is an awful strong word.
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,802
person
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 11/22/2013 11:20 PM
L.C. wrote:expand_more
Oh, c'mon. This is not about stats....

Monroe, I just set out to prove or disprove the "claims" made by Billy the Cat about how things were soooo much harder in the "good old days" under Grobe. He was trying to make the case that Grobe>>Solich even though his winning record was lower, because Grobe played a harder schedule. A little research showed that his "facts" were wrong. The MAC of the late 90s was not that different from the MAC of today, though the MAC was indeed harder during the Knorr years.

When you look at it, on it's face, Solich's record and Grobe's are quite similar if you adjust for the difficulty of the schedule:

Solich Grobe
MAC games 43-31 58.1% 27-20-1 57.3%
BCS teams 3-12 20.0% 2- 9 18.1%
Other I-A teams 11- 6 64.7% 1- 3 25.0%
I-AA teams 8- 0 100.0% 3- 1 75.0%
Total 65-49 57.0% 33-33-1 50.0%

Another of Billy's claims is that Grobe played a harder schedule. That seems to be true, given that he played 11 BCS teams in 6 years, while Solich has only played 15 in 9 years. Yet, does it really matter who you play, if you don't beat them? So, let's have a look, and see who those OOC wins came against:

Grobe's OOC wins against I-A teams:
1996 Hawaii 2- 9
1997 Maryland 2- 9
2000 Minnesota 6- 6

Solich's OOC wins against I-A teams:
2005 Pitt 5- 6
2006 Illinois 2-10
2007 La-Lafayette 3- 9
2009 North Texas 2-10
2010 La-Lafayette 3- 9
2011 New Mexico State 4- 9
2011 Marshall 7- 6
2011 Utah State 7- 6
2012 Penn State 8- 4
2012 New Mexico St 1-11
2012 Marshall 5- 7
2012 La-Monroe 8- 5
2013 North Texas 7- 3
2013 Marshall 7- 3

Amazingingly, Solich's first 5-6 years look almost identical to Grobe's 5 years. But....something amazing happens in the last three years. For the first time, Ohio starts beating OOC teams with winning records, and not just once - six times in three years. These same Seniors that everyone is complaining about giving up? They are the ones who played in those games. Very, interesting.
Prove to me where we are better in 9 years? How many MAC Titles do we have? How much more money and resources is one working with than the other?
Robert Fox
General User
RF
Member Since: 11/17/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039
person
mail
Robert Fox
mail
Posted: 11/23/2013 9:19 AM
Now you're changing the argument. You said Grobe had to play a tougher MAC than Solich. The data proves that's not true.

Now you want to go to the next argument, Solich has more resources so should be doing better.

When you change the rules of the debate mid stream, why should anyone continue to engage you?
Paul Graham
General User
Member Since: 1/18/2005
Location: The Plains, OH
Post Count: 1,424
mail
Paul Graham
mail
Posted: 11/23/2013 10:30 AM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
Now you're changing the argument. You said Grobe had to play a tougher MAC than Solich. The data proves that's not true.

Now you want to go to the next argument, Solich has more resources so should be doing better.

When you change the rules of the debate mid stream, why should anyone continue to engage you?


While I agree the RPI data doesn't look good for us "Grobe had a tougher go" folks, the list of MAC champions does:

From 1997-2000, The East (Marshall) won the MAC championship game every year.In fact, from 1997-2003 the East **dominated** the MACC, winning it 6 out of 7 years. During the Franky years, the West has taken over and won the MACC 5 out of 8 years. And we might as well make it 6 out of 9 the way it is looking.

We should also note that the East teams that won the MACC (Akron, Buffalo and Miami) have not been able to maintain success unlike the West which has produced a couple of dynasties during this time (NIU and WMU). 
mcbin
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 951
mail
mcbin
mail
Posted: 11/23/2013 10:43 AM
But I think it's pretty fair to say there was much more star power in years past (hoops & FB). MAC used to churn out NFL starting QBs, receivers, NBA players. It really seems that way at least. Without looking it all up, I think the best players coming out of the MAC these days are the guys in the trenches.  I could be wrong.
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 11/23/2013 11:14 AM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
Now you're changing the argument. You said Grobe had to play a tougher MAC than Solich. The data proves that's not true.

Now you want to go to the next argument, Solich has more resources so should be doing better.

When you change the rules of the debate mid stream, why should anyone continue to engage you?

That's just Billy for you.


Paul Graham wrote:expand_more
While I agree the RPI data doesn't look good for us "Grobe had a tougher go" folks, the list of MAC champions does:

From 1997-2000, The East (Marshall) won the MAC championship game every year.In fact, from 1997-2003 the East **dominated** the MACC, winning it 6 out of 7 years. During the Franky years, the West has taken over and won the MACC 5 out of 8 years. And we might as well make it 6 out of 9 the way it is looking.

We should also note that the East teams that won the MACC (Akron, Buffalo and Miami) have not been able to maintain success unlike the West which has produced a couple of dynasties during this time (NIU and WMU). 

Actually, no, the fact that the East dominated makes is worse for the "Grobe had it tougher" group, not better. The averages I gave above were for the East only, not for the whole MAC. Since the East was dominant back then, the overall MAC average was lower than the East's average. Since the  West is dominant now, the overall MAC average is now higher than the East's average. Thus, even though the East is about the same now as the East was then, the overall MAC is better now than the overall MAC was then.  I didn't go there, however, because, due to the luck of the draw, in recent years Ohio hasn't had to play the best of the West (except in years they were playing in the MACC), so I figured it was about a wash.

It is true that the MAC East is more balanced than it was then. Back then some teams were very dominant, while others were always bad, and the difference was huge. Kent of Buffalo were not going to beat Miami, or Marshall in those days.  These days any team might beat any other, and you have a lot more diversity in who wins the MAC East.
Last Edited: 11/23/2013 11:27:59 AM by L.C.
Paul Graham
General User
Member Since: 1/18/2005
Location: The Plains, OH
Post Count: 1,424
mail
Paul Graham
mail
Posted: 11/23/2013 1:58 PM
L.C. wrote:expand_more
Now you're changing the argument. You said Grobe had to play a tougher MAC than Solich. The data proves that's not true.

Now you want to go to the next argument, Solich has more resources so should be doing better.

When you change the rules of the debate mid stream, why should anyone continue to engage you?

That's just Billy for you.


While I agree the RPI data doesn't look good for us "Grobe had a tougher go" folks, the list of MAC champions does:

From 1997-2000, The East (Marshall) won the MAC championship game every year.In fact, from 1997-2003 the East **dominated** the MACC, winning it 6 out of 7 years. During the Franky years, the West has taken over and won the MACC 5 out of 8 years. And we might as well make it 6 out of 9 the way it is looking.

We should also note that the East teams that won the MACC (Akron, Buffalo and Miami) have not been able to maintain success unlike the West which has produced a couple of dynasties during this time (NIU and WMU). 

Actually, no, the fact that the East dominated makes is worse for the "Grobe had it tougher" group, not better. The averages I gave above were for the East only, not for the whole MAC. Since the East was dominant back then, the overall MAC average was lower than the East's average. Since the  West is dominant now, the overall MAC average is now higher than the East's average. Thus, even though the East is about the same now as the East was then, the overall MAC is better now than the overall MAC was then.  I didn't go there, however, because, due to the luck of the draw, in recent years Ohio hasn't had to play the best of the West (except in years they were playing in the MACC), so I figured it was about a wash.

It is true that the MAC East is more balanced than it was then. Back then some teams were very dominant, while others were always bad, and the difference was huge. Kent of Buffalo were not going to beat Miami, or Marshall in those days.  These days any team might beat any other, and you have a lot more diversity in who wins the MAC East.


I respectfully disagree LC and I think your analysis is flawed. I think taking the mean includes a ton of noise in the samples at the bottom (those 0-11, 1-10 guys). They have a ton of variance and its masking the differences at the top (which is the reason that those of us that followed this stuff back then feel this way).

Take for example 2009 vs. 1998. Taking the mean shows those two years to be statistically equivalent (relying on your math here :) )

1998: 60.62
2009: 60.29

That really doesn't tell us much at all. In fact, the type of teams that won the MAC East in those years were *very* different. Here are the top three teams:

1998
Team        (Sagarin)    Record
Miami :      41               10-1
Marshall:   54               12-1 (MAC East Champs)
Ohio:         91               5-6

2009
Team        (Sagarin)    Record
Temple:     72               9-4
Ohio:         88               9-5 (MAC East Champs)
Buffalo:     107             5-7


That my friend is a BIG difference. In fact, its weird that Marshall had such a low ranking (54) that year. That's actually lower than BG's current ranking, which goes to show that some of this is pretty flawed. My guess is because they play more OOC games today, which improves their overall strength of schedule. So if you played a tough OOC conference schedule, then do well in MAC play, you can grab a higher Sagarin. Just a guess.

Oh, also, its important to recognize that this was a big year for Frank. We went to the MACC, bowl game, etc... How would that team have performed in 1998, having to play against Miami and Marshall?
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 11/23/2013 4:47 PM
Interesting points, Paul. I was using the rating, not the ranking. In theory a team with a rating of 75 in 1998 played relative to opponents as a team with a predictor rating of 75 today it, relative to opponents. (All teams today might be better due to better training methods and equipment, etc, or they all might be worse due to them all playing more video games, who knows?)

Comparing the MAC-1998 to the MAC 2009 (1998 on the left)
( 42) Miami     10- 1   75.79           ( 42) CMU      12- 2  74.90
( 54) Marshall  12- 1   72.53           ( 72) Temple    9- 4  68.65
( 76) Toledo     7- 5   65.69           ( 88) Ohio      9- 5  65.96 
( 80) BG         5- 6   65.30           ( 92) BG        7- 6  64.89
( 91) Ohio       5- 6   61.56           ( 95) NIU       7- 6  65.99
( 94) WMU        7- 4   61.31           (107) Buffalo   5- 7  63.29
(106) CMU        6- 5   58.26           (119) Kent      5- 7  58.44
(119) Akron      4- 7   55.04           (122) Toledo    5- 7  56.50
(139) EMU        3- 8   49.31           (125) WMU       5- 7  57.56          
(143) NIU        2- 9   48.42           (137) Akron     3- 9  54.43
(154) Ball State 1-10   45.36           (151) Ball St   2-10  53.48
(188) Kent       0-11   34.42           (156) Miami     1-11  50.46
                                        (184) EMU       0-12  45.50


Bolded teams are ones Ohio actually played. Red teams were losses, Blue teams were wins. Here are some comparisons:
                     1998                  2009
MAC East Avg         60.77                60.87
MAC West Avg         54.72                58.99
Overall MAC          57.75                60.00
Teams Ohio played    57.77                61.61
Teams Ohio lost to   71.20                66.67
Teams Ohio Beat      49.70                60.17


In that particular year, you are right - the MAC was thinner at the top, but also thinner at the bottom, much more of a balance league. In 2013 the distribution is much more like 1998 - more teams at the top, and more at the far bottom. I think that ebbs and flows. I note that the records were overall better in 1998 - the MAC didn't seem to be playing as many  "money" games back then, so overall records were better, especially for the top teams.
Casper71
General User
C71
Member Since: 12/1/2006
Post Count: 3,237
person
mail
Casper71
mail
Posted: 11/23/2013 4:52 PM
What I notice in Paul's table is that the top 3 in the MAC East really suck versus years gone by (1998).  Face it, the MAC is not really made up of BCS teams from top to bottom!
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 11/23/2013 6:26 PM
Casper71 wrote:expand_more
What I notice in Paul's table is that the top 3 in the MAC East really suck versus years gone by (1998).  Face it, the MAC is not really made up of BCS teams from top to bottom!

Certainly it's true that there are no teams recently like the 1999 Marshall team (Pennington) or the 2003 Miami team (Roethlisberger). Here are historical averages for the top three and bottom 3 in the MAC:
            Top 3        Bot 3        Difference
1998        71.34        42.73          28.60
1999        74.11        41.40          32.71
2000        76.95        43.36          33.59
2001        76.03        47.49          28.54
2002        72.85        47.33          25.52
2003        79.18        52.43          26.76
2004        71.68        47.03          24.65
2005        73.48        47.65          25.83
2006        69.69        53.42          16.27
2007        64.72        53.09          11.63
2008        69.02        52.53          16.49
2009        69.84        49.81          20.02
2010        70.38        44.58          25.80
2011        75.69        50.50          25.18
2012        71.12        47.14          23.99
2013        73.65        41.79          31.86

Regarding the top teams, indeed there were more good teams at the top in the 1999-2003 time period than recently, but 2013 is much more like those years. There was a definite slump at the top between 2006 and 2010.  On the other hand, when you look at the teams at the bottom, there were more really bad teams back in the 1998-2000 time period. Interestingly, again, 2013 is much more like those years.

Overall what is interesting is the dramatic increase in parity betwee 2004 and 2012. There was not a lot of difference between the top and bottom teams, especially in 2007. That was why the MAC got a reputation during those years as a league where any team could beat any other team, and where every team played hard every week. For whatever reason, however, this year has reverted to the patterns of a decade ago, with a cluster of very good teams, and a cluster of very bad teams. It will be interesting to see what the future brings. A return to parity? Or, a return to domination by a few select teams? A related question - is it easier for a coach when your foes are mostly all equal to you, or when a few are so good you will rarely win, and many are so bad you will rarely lose?

As an aside, I note that these days the top MAC teams usually are not undefeated (even the good ones) as most MAC teams now need to play "money games" to keep the budget balanced, where that seemed to be less common a decade ago. It's a shame that money has become such a factor in the game.
Last Edited: 11/23/2013 6:30:13 PM by L.C.
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,802
person
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 11/23/2013 9:26 PM
Use these numbers all you want, they may even prove that the NFC Central was better in 1985 than it is today, but the numbers do not make that a fact. Comparing sagrin ratings from one year to the next is meaningless. and we've been losing to horse shit teams.
Casper71
General User
C71
Member Since: 12/1/2006
Post Count: 3,237
person
mail
Casper71
mail
Posted: 11/24/2013 1:07 AM
Seriously, for all the money the teams in this Conference havethrown at FB, over the last 15 years and the results basically show no change.  WOW!
Monroe Slavin
General User
MS
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121
person
mail
Monroe Slavin
mail
Posted: 11/24/2013 3:29 AM
Here's my statistical analysis:  We totally tanked the last three games and anyone who thinks Coach doesn't bear responsibility is blind.
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,802
person
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 11/24/2013 4:02 AM
Monroe Slavin wrote:expand_more
Here's my statistical analysis: We totally tanked the last three games and anyone who thinks Coach doesn't bear responsibility is blind.
+1
71 BOBCAT
General User
71B
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Post Count: 1,954
person
mail
71 BOBCAT
mail
Posted: 11/24/2013 8:41 AM
All I know is the coaches do not play the game, the players do.
All I know is the coaches draw up the plays, and the players are expected to execute the plays.

I will say that it appears to me that  Solich teams do not  play with a great deal of emotion which is translated into on field energy.

My final thought: Last year we lost 4 out of our last 5 games and managed to regroup to blow out our opponent in the Independence Bowl. We showed emotion and on field energy throughout that game.

Obviously we need to blow out UMASS next week to have a chance at a bowl game.

I want to believe that a win next week will get us to our 6 straight bowl game.


GO BOBCATS
The Situation
General User
Member Since: 7/13/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 957
mail
The Situation
mail
Posted: 11/24/2013 10:54 AM

BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
Use these numbers all you want, they may even prove that the NFC Central was better in 1985 than it is today, but the numbers do not make that a fact. Comparing sagrin ratings from one year to the next is meaningless. and we've been losing to horse shit teams.


Yeah... why rely on numbers when you can rely on your gut... 

Showing Messages: 126 - 150 of 178
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)