menu
Logo
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: Ohio 39th in tempo last season
Page: 1 of 1
Ted Thompson
Administrator
Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: MAC Play
Post Count: 7,948
mail
Ted Thompson
mail
Posted: 4/25/2013 9:47 AM
According to this Football Study Hall article, Ohio had the 39th fastest tempo last season running 2.48 plays per minute of possession.

http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2013/4/24/4263582/tempo
 

colobobcat66
General User
C66
Member Since: 9/1/2006
Location: Watching the bobcats run outside my window., CO
Post Count: 4,744
person
mail
colobobcat66
mail
Posted: 4/25/2013 10:19 AM
I'm not sure that there is much correlation between pace of play and winning, but it makes for exciting football.
Last Edited: 4/25/2013 10:19:37 AM by colobobcat66
Ted Thompson
Administrator
Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: MAC Play
Post Count: 7,948
mail
Ted Thompson
mail
Posted: 4/25/2013 10:47 AM
colobobcat66 wrote:expand_more
I'm not sure that there is much correlation between pace of play and winning, but it makes for exciting football.


Yes, the teams that played for the National Championship ranked 98 and 117.
C Money
General User
Member Since: 8/28/2010
Post Count: 3,420
mail
C Money
mail
Posted: 4/25/2013 10:53 AM
Thing is, I feel like we could have played even faster last year, with better results. We were good at getting to the line quickly, but then we would stand around looking while the plays were called in. Defenses often had plenty of time to substitute and adjust, which kind of kills a big part of the reason for playing at a fast tempo. True "hurry up" mode was the exception, not the rule.

Edit to add: Clicking on the link to the original story, there's an interesting chart breaking down pace by conference. The MAC is in the bottom half of conferences. #MACtion may have a reputation for offense...but it looks like that might be more about bad defense....
Last Edited: 4/25/2013 11:08:10 AM by C Money
colobobcat66
General User
C66
Member Since: 9/1/2006
Location: Watching the bobcats run outside my window., CO
Post Count: 4,744
person
mail
colobobcat66
mail
Posted: 4/25/2013 11:28 AM
Ted Thompson wrote:expand_more
I'm not sure that there is much correlation between pace of play and winning, but it makes for exciting football.


Yes, the teams that played for the National Championship ranked 98 and 117.
you don't get a correlation based on 2 teams when there are plenty of bad teams mixed among those 2 teams. And there are plenty of good teams that run a lot if plays and plenty of bad teams eg Akron, that run a lot of plays. Way too much scatter to mean much to me. Effectiveness of each play would probably mean more than just numbers of plays. And defensive effectiveness needs to be figured into the overall quality of a team.
Last Edited: 4/25/2013 11:34:20 AM by colobobcat66
Ted Thompson
Administrator
Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: MAC Play
Post Count: 7,948
mail
Ted Thompson
mail
Posted: 4/25/2013 11:41 AM
colobobcat66 wrote:expand_more
I'm not sure that there is much correlation between pace of play and winning, but it makes for exciting football.


Yes, the teams that played for the National Championship ranked 98 and 117.
you don't get a correlation based on 2 teams when there are plenty of bad teams mixed among those 2 teams. And there are plenty of good teams that run a lot if plays and plenty of bad teams eg Akron, that run a lot of plays. Way too much scatter to mean much to me. Effectiveness of each play would probably mean more than just numbers of plays. And defensive effectiveness needs to be figured into the overall quality of a team.


I'm not suggesting correlation. Oregon is obviously very successful with its pace.

It's probably also true that teams in the lead would tend to play more slowly, especially in end-game situations.

To get a better sense of pace, you would have to adjust for that. Also, teams that run the ball more may have a great pace but get dinged in the calculation because the clock doesn't stop like it would on a pass incompletion. Still, this doesn't suggest that there is a right or wrong pace.

OUcats82
General User
Member Since: 1/9/2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Post Count: 1,912
mail
OUcats82
mail
Posted: 4/25/2013 11:52 AM
I would be curious to see a complementary chart to see how much more these teams defenses are on the field.

One obvious drawback of playing quick on offense is your defense spends a lot of time on the field and then you see trackmeet games. 
Monroe Slavin
General User
MS
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121
person
mail
Monroe Slavin
mail
Posted: 4/25/2013 5:45 PM
C Money wrote:expand_more
Thing is, I feel like we could have played even faster last year, with better results. We were good at getting to the line quickly, but then we would stand around looking while the plays were called in. Defenses often had plenty of time to substitute and adjust, which kind of kills a big part of the reason for playing at a fast tempo. True "hurry up" mode was the exception, not the rule.

Edit to add: Clicking on the link to the original story, there's an interesting chart breaking down pace by conference. The MAC is in the bottom half of conferences. #MACtion may have a reputation for offense...but it looks like that might be more about bad defense....



There was, indeed, too much of the highlighted last year.  When I was in Athens for the first time in two years last fall to watch the BG game--ugh, that was horrible management.

The statistic is not enlightening to me generally, though. I'm thinking of an offense that lights it up with the fast ball, takes a hugehuge lead and coasts (plays at a much slower tempo) for the rest of the game.

I believe that effectiveness of pace--that's what you want, right?...who cares about the pure speed?--is best judged with the eyeballs on live action.

For instance, when we turned the tide   late first half, early 2nd half on Penn State, we played with heightened pace.  And it worked.


MAC CHAMPIONHIP.
Bcat2
General User
B2
Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 4,295
person
mail
Bcat2
mail
Posted: 4/26/2013 9:06 AM
C Money wrote:expand_more
Thing is, I feel like we could have played even faster last year, with better results. We were good at getting to the line quickly, but then we would stand around looking while the plays were called in. Defenses often had plenty of time to substitute and adjust, which kind of kills a big part of the reason for playing at a fast tempo. True "hurry up" mode was the exception, not the rule.

Edit to add: Clicking on the link to the original story, there's an interesting chart breaking down pace by conference. The MAC is in the bottom half of conferences. #MACtion may have a reputation for offense...but it looks like that might be more about bad defense....


Way too much involved with different games, different situations for this to be important. 
Showing Messages: 1 - 9 of 9
MAC News Links



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