menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: What's your bare minimum for retaining Albin in 2023?
Page: 4 of 4
mail
TWT
11/4/2022 6:39 PM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
With the win last night over Buffalo, Tim now has 9 career wins, surpassing Tom Lichtenberg's total of 8, and he is now tied with Cleve Bryant. Passing Brian Knorr's total of 11 is now a possibility before the end of this season.
Now that's putting things in perspective!

I must admit after the first few games last year I thought we were headed in the direction of OHIO football Wilderness Campaign II. I'm so glad that I was completely wrong.
No facilities back in the 80's and most of the 90's. No internet recruiting presence. Can't compare that era to today.
I don't think you understand the difference between-group variation and within-group variation. Please buy a good statistics book and study the concept of ANOVA, young man.
To make this comparison work the assumptions are that OU is the same level of university with the same recruiting attractiveness under the same recruiting rules. 85 scholarship limit didn't become official until the early 90's. A few years later Toledo was the first MAC program to appear in the Top 25 in decades and it eventually helped Ohio's program under the Grobe years.

Why Ohio would regress to the 1984-1994 period doesn't make sense to me. Ohio was a good program in the two platoon era and the guilded age of athletics back in Peden's time. That 1984-1994 period is worse than what Akron is today the very worst team in the MAC. It happens to be many fans on here were at OU at that time and are in perpetual disbelief about the current state.

For the wilderness years to work Albin would need to go 1-11, be fired and then be replaced with a terrible excuse of a coach. There is an outside chance TA could drive the program into a hole but the next hire isn't going to be making High School coach money as they did in the 80's. Next coach 1 million + coordinators making 300k-400k. Its very difficult to hire lemon staff after lemon staff with that type of money.

While the board might have placed the probability of a 1984-1994 wilderness decade post Frank at 50% its actual probability is around 0.1% that Ohio would be the very worst FBS team for a decade.
Wilderness Campaigns are possible in any era. Whatever new technology and environment may ensue is a factor for all teams playing in that era. So, one is making a comparison within a given era with other teams in that era, and then comparing those results with teams in different eras. So, what you are purposing is that the variance within our current era is less than the variance within past eras. Do you really have evidence that that is true? We don't have to look further than our own league to see a Wilderness Campaign in action -- Akron has now several years in a row of seasons that look at lot like the PapaL and Cleve years at OHIO. And, who knows when they will end for Akron.
There is a different variance. Back in 1985-1994 MAC schools played 11 game seasons and today half the MAC schools play 13 games counting the bowl with the division winners playing 14. More games and more home games help.

Comparing the OU offense from 1985-1994 to the bottom 1/3rd of the MAC was an exceptionally poor era.

1985 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.5), Ohio 16.5 ppg
*1986 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.6), Ohio 17.8 ppg
1987 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.4), Ohio 11.5 ppg
*1988 bottom 1/3 ppg (17.3), Ohio 17.7 ppg
1989 bottom 1/3 ppg (17.4), Ohio 17.4 ppg
1990 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.1), Ohio 14.7 ppg
1991 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.0), Ohio 16.0 ppg
1992 bottom 1/3 ppg (13.2), Ohio 13.2 ppg
1993 bottom 1/3 ppg (14.8), Ohio 12.2 ppg
1994 bottom 1/3 ppg (13.2), Ohio 7.5 ppg

The chances of finishing in the bottom 1/3 offensively 8/10 years with an average ppg about 90% of the bottom 1/3 was about 6% at that time.

Compare this to 2013-2022 where Ohio finished bottom 1/3 twice and the average ppg of the bottom 1/3 line was 24 ppg compared to 15.8 ppg.

2013 bottom 1/3 ppg (18.8), Ohio 27.4 ppg
*2014 bottom 1/3 ppg (22.3), Ohio 20.5 ppg
2015 bottom 1/3 ppg (23.1), Ohio 27.5 ppg
2016 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.8), Ohio 26.3 ppg
2017 bottom 1/3 ppg (25.3), Ohio 39.1 ppg
2018 bottom 1/3 ppg (23.9), Ohio 40.1 ppg
2019 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.1), Ohio 34.3 ppg
2020 bottom 1/3 ppg (28.7), Ohio 34.3 ppg
*2021 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.1), Ohio 22.6 ppg
2022 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.8), Ohio 33.4 ppg

The point you have on facilities and technology something MAC and G5 programs have can be thought of all things equal are in Ohio's case equalizers when from 1985-1994 it was at the bottom of the MAC and many levels below what other conferences had at the time. 6-6 in 2014 and 3-9 in 2021 have more wins than the 1985-1994 wilderness era in part because of more games.

Ohio averaged 14.45 ppg over a decade in 1985-1994. That is not going happen again in my lifetime.
I don't see how any of this addresses the issue you first raised that implied that Wilderness Campaigns couldn't happen now to OHIO or any other team in the modern era. UMass has pretty good facilities. Akron has better facilities than OHIO. Your logic is escaping me.
I am saying a 1985-1995 wilderness campaign where Ohio averages 14.5 ppg and averages 5 FBS wins a year was a statistical anomaly (6% chance in that era). What made it more likely for Ohio was at that time the facilities were a full standard deviation below the MAC and two standard deviations below the average FBS team (only had 105 teams so 52-53 was the middle).

Today the Ohio facilities are more equitable with MAC peers if not better in some respects so the program should stay closer to the mean and with FBS as a whole now 130 team facilities are behind by 1 standard deviation if that. The school isn't as remote as it was 40 years ago with the new highways and three times the restaurants. TV presence is at the Mountain West level.

Having a couple of extra games helps. Having six games at home helps. Akron is in the bottom of the MAC because it can't get the players nor the students. UMass doesn't have talent in its backyard. Ohio's within 2-3 hours of Cincy, Dayton, Columbus, Cleveland and can attract players across the state like it does with students. Better weather than Akron and UMass.

I though the question a lot of alums had years ago is why doesn't Ohio as a top MAC university have a good MAC football program and now it has one commensurate with the intangibles of a top college town. The last decade is the new normal, not back to the 1985-1994 era.
My first reaction is, "Monroe would be proud." Not of the content of this thread but its geometric shape.

In terms of content, I don't think you've proven at all that OHIO could never return to the Wildnerness years. Fortunately, it appears that Albin is turning out to be a better coach than many of us feared last year. Akron, by the way, has great facilities and is in the hot bed of Ohio high school football, with many great players in their own backyard. However, they are still going through a Wilderness Campaign.

Akron's last five years
2018 4-8
2019 0-12
2020 1-5
2021 2-10
2022 1-8 (and counting)

This Cleve and PapaL ball if I ever saw it.

Their new coach may pull them out of it, so they may rebound more quickly than OHIO did hiring two bad coaches back to back, but it's not a given. Time will tell. To say that it's not possible for this kind of record to happend again at OHIO is just nonsensical.
Let's just go then with your premise that all things in the MAC are equal. The probability of OU then being as bad as what it was from 1985-1994 was in that day and age only 6%.

How common would that decade long offensive performance of 14.5 ppg be in today's MAC?

2013 bottom 1/3 ppg (18.8), Ohio 16.5 ppg -10th
2014 bottom 1/3 ppg (22.3),Ohio 17.8 ppg -10th
2015 bottom 1/3 ppg (23.1), Ohio 11.5 ppg -12th
2016 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.8), Ohio 17.7 ppg -11th
2017 bottom 1/3 ppg (25.3), Ohio 17.4 ppg -11th
2018 bottom 1/3 ppg (23.9), Ohio 14.7 ppg -12th
2019 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.1), Ohio 16.0 ppg -11th
2020 bottom 1/3 ppg (28.7), Ohio 13.2 ppg -12th
2021 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.1), Ohio 12.2 ppg -12th
2022 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.8), Ohio 7.5 ppg -12th

The average Ohio ppg would be ranked 11.3 in that time period, finishing in the bottom 1/3 10 times out of 10 with an average difference from the median of -9.5 ppg. A rough probability then is equal to (0.0885*0.05*0.6) which is 0.27%. It would be extraordinary to put up the 1985-1994 ppg numbers again for another decade.

This is why I don't expect it, I don't fear it and don't project it.
mail
OhioCatFan
11/4/2022 10:10 PM
Campus Flow wrote:expand_more
With the win last night over Buffalo, Tim now has 9 career wins, surpassing Tom Lichtenberg's total of 8, and he is now tied with Cleve Bryant. Passing Brian Knorr's total of 11 is now a possibility before the end of this season.
Now that's putting things in perspective!

I must admit after the first few games last year I thought we were headed in the direction of OHIO football Wilderness Campaign II. I'm so glad that I was completely wrong.
No facilities back in the 80's and most of the 90's. No internet recruiting presence. Can't compare that era to today.
I don't think you understand the difference between-group variation and within-group variation. Please buy a good statistics book and study the concept of ANOVA, young man.
To make this comparison work the assumptions are that OU is the same level of university with the same recruiting attractiveness under the same recruiting rules. 85 scholarship limit didn't become official until the early 90's. A few years later Toledo was the first MAC program to appear in the Top 25 in decades and it eventually helped Ohio's program under the Grobe years.

Why Ohio would regress to the 1984-1994 period doesn't make sense to me. Ohio was a good program in the two platoon era and the guilded age of athletics back in Peden's time. That 1984-1994 period is worse than what Akron is today the very worst team in the MAC. It happens to be many fans on here were at OU at that time and are in perpetual disbelief about the current state.

For the wilderness years to work Albin would need to go 1-11, be fired and then be replaced with a terrible excuse of a coach. There is an outside chance TA could drive the program into a hole but the next hire isn't going to be making High School coach money as they did in the 80's. Next coach 1 million + coordinators making 300k-400k. Its very difficult to hire lemon staff after lemon staff with that type of money.

While the board might have placed the probability of a 1984-1994 wilderness decade post Frank at 50% its actual probability is around 0.1% that Ohio would be the very worst FBS team for a decade.
Wilderness Campaigns are possible in any era. Whatever new technology and environment may ensue is a factor for all teams playing in that era. So, one is making a comparison within a given era with other teams in that era, and then comparing those results with teams in different eras. So, what you are purposing is that the variance within our current era is less than the variance within past eras. Do you really have evidence that that is true? We don't have to look further than our own league to see a Wilderness Campaign in action -- Akron has now several years in a row of seasons that look at lot like the PapaL and Cleve years at OHIO. And, who knows when they will end for Akron.
There is a different variance. Back in 1985-1994 MAC schools played 11 game seasons and today half the MAC schools play 13 games counting the bowl with the division winners playing 14. More games and more home games help.

Comparing the OU offense from 1985-1994 to the bottom 1/3rd of the MAC was an exceptionally poor era.

1985 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.5), Ohio 16.5 ppg
*1986 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.6), Ohio 17.8 ppg
1987 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.4), Ohio 11.5 ppg
*1988 bottom 1/3 ppg (17.3), Ohio 17.7 ppg
1989 bottom 1/3 ppg (17.4), Ohio 17.4 ppg
1990 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.1), Ohio 14.7 ppg
1991 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.0), Ohio 16.0 ppg
1992 bottom 1/3 ppg (13.2), Ohio 13.2 ppg
1993 bottom 1/3 ppg (14.8), Ohio 12.2 ppg
1994 bottom 1/3 ppg (13.2), Ohio 7.5 ppg

The chances of finishing in the bottom 1/3 offensively 8/10 years with an average ppg about 90% of the bottom 1/3 was about 6% at that time.

Compare this to 2013-2022 where Ohio finished bottom 1/3 twice and the average ppg of the bottom 1/3 line was 24 ppg compared to 15.8 ppg.

2013 bottom 1/3 ppg (18.8), Ohio 27.4 ppg
*2014 bottom 1/3 ppg (22.3), Ohio 20.5 ppg
2015 bottom 1/3 ppg (23.1), Ohio 27.5 ppg
2016 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.8), Ohio 26.3 ppg
2017 bottom 1/3 ppg (25.3), Ohio 39.1 ppg
2018 bottom 1/3 ppg (23.9), Ohio 40.1 ppg
2019 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.1), Ohio 34.3 ppg
2020 bottom 1/3 ppg (28.7), Ohio 34.3 ppg
*2021 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.1), Ohio 22.6 ppg
2022 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.8), Ohio 33.4 ppg

The point you have on facilities and technology something MAC and G5 programs have can be thought of all things equal are in Ohio's case equalizers when from 1985-1994 it was at the bottom of the MAC and many levels below what other conferences had at the time. 6-6 in 2014 and 3-9 in 2021 have more wins than the 1985-1994 wilderness era in part because of more games.

Ohio averaged 14.45 ppg over a decade in 1985-1994. That is not going happen again in my lifetime.
I don't see how any of this addresses the issue you first raised that implied that Wilderness Campaigns couldn't happen now to OHIO or any other team in the modern era. UMass has pretty good facilities. Akron has better facilities than OHIO. Your logic is escaping me.
I am saying a 1985-1995 wilderness campaign where Ohio averages 14.5 ppg and averages 5 FBS wins a year was a statistical anomaly (6% chance in that era). What made it more likely for Ohio was at that time the facilities were a full standard deviation below the MAC and two standard deviations below the average FBS team (only had 105 teams so 52-53 was the middle).

Today the Ohio facilities are more equitable with MAC peers if not better in some respects so the program should stay closer to the mean and with FBS as a whole now 130 team facilities are behind by 1 standard deviation if that. The school isn't as remote as it was 40 years ago with the new highways and three times the restaurants. TV presence is at the Mountain West level.

Having a couple of extra games helps. Having six games at home helps. Akron is in the bottom of the MAC because it can't get the players nor the students. UMass doesn't have talent in its backyard. Ohio's within 2-3 hours of Cincy, Dayton, Columbus, Cleveland and can attract players across the state like it does with students. Better weather than Akron and UMass.

I though the question a lot of alums had years ago is why doesn't Ohio as a top MAC university have a good MAC football program and now it has one commensurate with the intangibles of a top college town. The last decade is the new normal, not back to the 1985-1994 era.
My first reaction is, "Monroe would be proud." Not of the content of this thread but its geometric shape.

In terms of content, I don't think you've proven at all that OHIO could never return to the Wildnerness years. Fortunately, it appears that Albin is turning out to be a better coach than many of us feared last year. Akron, by the way, has great facilities and is in the hot bed of Ohio high school football, with many great players in their own backyard. However, they are still going through a Wilderness Campaign.

Akron's last five years
2018 4-8
2019 0-12
2020 1-5
2021 2-10
2022 1-8 (and counting)

This Cleve and PapaL ball if I ever saw it.

Their new coach may pull them out of it, so they may rebound more quickly than OHIO did hiring two bad coaches back to back, but it's not a given. Time will tell. To say that it's not possible for this kind of record to happend again at OHIO is just nonsensical.
Let's just go then with your premise that all things in the MAC are equal. The probability of OU then being as bad as what it was from 1985-1994 was in that day and age only 6%.

How common would that decade long offensive performance of 14.5 ppg be in today's MAC?

2013 bottom 1/3 ppg (18.8), Ohio 16.5 ppg -10th
2014 bottom 1/3 ppg (22.3),Ohio 17.8 ppg -10th
2015 bottom 1/3 ppg (23.1), Ohio 11.5 ppg -12th
2016 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.8), Ohio 17.7 ppg -11th
2017 bottom 1/3 ppg (25.3), Ohio 17.4 ppg -11th
2018 bottom 1/3 ppg (23.9), Ohio 14.7 ppg -12th
2019 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.1), Ohio 16.0 ppg -11th
2020 bottom 1/3 ppg (28.7), Ohio 13.2 ppg -12th
2021 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.1), Ohio 12.2 ppg -12th
2022 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.8), Ohio 7.5 ppg -12th

The average Ohio ppg would be ranked 11.3 in that time period, finishing in the bottom 1/3 10 times out of 10 with an average difference from the median of -9.5 ppg. A rough probability then is equal to (0.0885*0.05*0.6) which is 0.27%. It would be extraordinary to put up the 1985-1994 ppg numbers again for another decade.

This is why I don't expect it, I don't fear it and don't project it.
Can anyone make sense out of this for me? What does ppg averages have to do with whether or not OHIO could experience another Wilderness Campaign if we hired a bad coach.
mail
person
bobcatsquared
11/5/2022 8:25 AM
Can anyone explain to me the purpose of the quote boxes? Am I expected (required?) to re-read each post over again? Otherwise, what's the purpose?
mail
TWT
11/5/2022 8:25 AM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
With the win last night over Buffalo, Tim now has 9 career wins, surpassing Tom Lichtenberg's total of 8, and he is now tied with Cleve Bryant. Passing Brian Knorr's total of 11 is now a possibility before the end of this season.
Now that's putting things in perspective!

I must admit after the first few games last year I thought we were headed in the direction of OHIO football Wilderness Campaign II. I'm so glad that I was completely wrong.
No facilities back in the 80's and most of the 90's. No internet recruiting presence. Can't compare that era to today.
I don't think you understand the difference between-group variation and within-group variation. Please buy a good statistics book and study the concept of ANOVA, young man.
To make this comparison work the assumptions are that OU is the same level of university with the same recruiting attractiveness under the same recruiting rules. 85 scholarship limit didn't become official until the early 90's. A few years later Toledo was the first MAC program to appear in the Top 25 in decades and it eventually helped Ohio's program under the Grobe years.

Why Ohio would regress to the 1984-1994 period doesn't make sense to me. Ohio was a good program in the two platoon era and the guilded age of athletics back in Peden's time. That 1984-1994 period is worse than what Akron is today the very worst team in the MAC. It happens to be many fans on here were at OU at that time and are in perpetual disbelief about the current state.

For the wilderness years to work Albin would need to go 1-11, be fired and then be replaced with a terrible excuse of a coach. There is an outside chance TA could drive the program into a hole but the next hire isn't going to be making High School coach money as they did in the 80's. Next coach 1 million + coordinators making 300k-400k. Its very difficult to hire lemon staff after lemon staff with that type of money.

While the board might have placed the probability of a 1984-1994 wilderness decade post Frank at 50% its actual probability is around 0.1% that Ohio would be the very worst FBS team for a decade.
Wilderness Campaigns are possible in any era. Whatever new technology and environment may ensue is a factor for all teams playing in that era. So, one is making a comparison within a given era with other teams in that era, and then comparing those results with teams in different eras. So, what you are purposing is that the variance within our current era is less than the variance within past eras. Do you really have evidence that that is true? We don't have to look further than our own league to see a Wilderness Campaign in action -- Akron has now several years in a row of seasons that look at lot like the PapaL and Cleve years at OHIO. And, who knows when they will end for Akron.
There is a different variance. Back in 1985-1994 MAC schools played 11 game seasons and today half the MAC schools play 13 games counting the bowl with the division winners playing 14. More games and more home games help.

Comparing the OU offense from 1985-1994 to the bottom 1/3rd of the MAC was an exceptionally poor era.

1985 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.5), Ohio 16.5 ppg
*1986 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.6), Ohio 17.8 ppg
1987 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.4), Ohio 11.5 ppg
*1988 bottom 1/3 ppg (17.3), Ohio 17.7 ppg
1989 bottom 1/3 ppg (17.4), Ohio 17.4 ppg
1990 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.1), Ohio 14.7 ppg
1991 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.0), Ohio 16.0 ppg
1992 bottom 1/3 ppg (13.2), Ohio 13.2 ppg
1993 bottom 1/3 ppg (14.8), Ohio 12.2 ppg
1994 bottom 1/3 ppg (13.2), Ohio 7.5 ppg

The chances of finishing in the bottom 1/3 offensively 8/10 years with an average ppg about 90% of the bottom 1/3 was about 6% at that time.

Compare this to 2013-2022 where Ohio finished bottom 1/3 twice and the average ppg of the bottom 1/3 line was 24 ppg compared to 15.8 ppg.

2013 bottom 1/3 ppg (18.8), Ohio 27.4 ppg
*2014 bottom 1/3 ppg (22.3), Ohio 20.5 ppg
2015 bottom 1/3 ppg (23.1), Ohio 27.5 ppg
2016 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.8), Ohio 26.3 ppg
2017 bottom 1/3 ppg (25.3), Ohio 39.1 ppg
2018 bottom 1/3 ppg (23.9), Ohio 40.1 ppg
2019 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.1), Ohio 34.3 ppg
2020 bottom 1/3 ppg (28.7), Ohio 34.3 ppg
*2021 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.1), Ohio 22.6 ppg
2022 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.8), Ohio 33.4 ppg

The point you have on facilities and technology something MAC and G5 programs have can be thought of all things equal are in Ohio's case equalizers when from 1985-1994 it was at the bottom of the MAC and many levels below what other conferences had at the time. 6-6 in 2014 and 3-9 in 2021 have more wins than the 1985-1994 wilderness era in part because of more games.

Ohio averaged 14.45 ppg over a decade in 1985-1994. That is not going happen again in my lifetime.
I don't see how any of this addresses the issue you first raised that implied that Wilderness Campaigns couldn't happen now to OHIO or any other team in the modern era. UMass has pretty good facilities. Akron has better facilities than OHIO. Your logic is escaping me.
I am saying a 1985-1995 wilderness campaign where Ohio averages 14.5 ppg and averages 5 FBS wins a year was a statistical anomaly (6% chance in that era). What made it more likely for Ohio was at that time the facilities were a full standard deviation below the MAC and two standard deviations below the average FBS team (only had 105 teams so 52-53 was the middle).

Today the Ohio facilities are more equitable with MAC peers if not better in some respects so the program should stay closer to the mean and with FBS as a whole now 130 team facilities are behind by 1 standard deviation if that. The school isn't as remote as it was 40 years ago with the new highways and three times the restaurants. TV presence is at the Mountain West level.

Having a couple of extra games helps. Having six games at home helps. Akron is in the bottom of the MAC because it can't get the players nor the students. UMass doesn't have talent in its backyard. Ohio's within 2-3 hours of Cincy, Dayton, Columbus, Cleveland and can attract players across the state like it does with students. Better weather than Akron and UMass.

I though the question a lot of alums had years ago is why doesn't Ohio as a top MAC university have a good MAC football program and now it has one commensurate with the intangibles of a top college town. The last decade is the new normal, not back to the 1985-1994 era.
My first reaction is, "Monroe would be proud." Not of the content of this thread but its geometric shape.

In terms of content, I don't think you've proven at all that OHIO could never return to the Wildnerness years. Fortunately, it appears that Albin is turning out to be a better coach than many of us feared last year. Akron, by the way, has great facilities and is in the hot bed of Ohio high school football, with many great players in their own backyard. However, they are still going through a Wilderness Campaign.

Akron's last five years
2018 4-8
2019 0-12
2020 1-5
2021 2-10
2022 1-8 (and counting)

This Cleve and PapaL ball if I ever saw it.

Their new coach may pull them out of it, so they may rebound more quickly than OHIO did hiring two bad coaches back to back, but it's not a given. Time will tell. To say that it's not possible for this kind of record to happend again at OHIO is just nonsensical.
Let's just go then with your premise that all things in the MAC are equal. The probability of OU then being as bad as what it was from 1985-1994 was in that day and age only 6%.

How common would that decade long offensive performance of 14.5 ppg be in today's MAC?

2013 bottom 1/3 ppg (18.8), Ohio 16.5 ppg -10th
2014 bottom 1/3 ppg (22.3),Ohio 17.8 ppg -10th
2015 bottom 1/3 ppg (23.1), Ohio 11.5 ppg -12th
2016 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.8), Ohio 17.7 ppg -11th
2017 bottom 1/3 ppg (25.3), Ohio 17.4 ppg -11th
2018 bottom 1/3 ppg (23.9), Ohio 14.7 ppg -12th
2019 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.1), Ohio 16.0 ppg -11th
2020 bottom 1/3 ppg (28.7), Ohio 13.2 ppg -12th
2021 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.1), Ohio 12.2 ppg -12th
2022 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.8), Ohio 7.5 ppg -12th

The average Ohio ppg would be ranked 11.3 in that time period, finishing in the bottom 1/3 10 times out of 10 with an average difference from the median of -9.5 ppg. A rough probability then is equal to (0.0885*0.05*0.6) which is 0.27%. It would be extraordinary to put up the 1985-1994 ppg numbers again for another decade.

This is why I don't expect it, I don't fear it and don't project it.
Can anyone make sense out of this for me? What does ppg averages have to do with whether or not OHIO could experience another Wilderness Campaign if we hired a bad coach.
What you asked me to do is prove that Ohio couldn't repeat the wilderness performance of the Cleve/PapaL years so I thought showing how the offenses were more limited in those years was the most direct and quickest way to demonstrate a difference statistically from then to the current era.

The 0.0885 is the percentile finish in the conference. The 0.05 number related to the number of times Ohio finished in bottom 1/3. Since Ohio finished in the bottom 1/3 every year for 10 years and multiplying by 0 gives a total value of zero I gave an estimation of 1 out of 20 (which is very generous) for having an offense that averages 14.5 a game finish in the top 1/3 of the MAC. Then 0.6 is the variance in the Ohio 14.5 ppg from the average in the 2013-2022 period so the Cleve/PapaL offensive performance was about 2 standard deviations away from the modern mean.
Last Edited: 11/5/2022 8:26:08 AM by TWT
mail
person
bobcatsquared
11/5/2022 8:29 AM
Perfect example. Was I suppose to re-read 12 earlier posts before reading Campus Flow's most recent post?

By my count, that would be 13 posts read 91 times: 13+12+11+10+9+8+7+6+5+4+3+2+1.
Last Edited: 11/5/2022 8:31:30 AM by bobcatsquared
mail
OhioCatFan
11/5/2022 11:43 PM
bobcatsquared wrote:expand_more
Perfect example. Was I suppose to re-read 12 earlier posts before reading Campus Flow's most recent post?

By my count, that would be 13 posts read 91 times: 13+12+11+10+9+8+7+6+5+4+3+2+1.
It's an art form invented by a former poster name Monroe. Remember him? In this case the content is much less important than the geometric shape. You seem to be outside the art object.

All you have to do is scroll down to the last post, since you've been faithfully reading each previous post.
mail
OhioCatFan
11/5/2022 11:50 PM
Campus Flow wrote:expand_more
With the win last night over Buffalo, Tim now has 9 career wins, surpassing Tom Lichtenberg's total of 8, and he is now tied with Cleve Bryant. Passing Brian Knorr's total of 11 is now a possibility before the end of this season.
Now that's putting things in perspective!

I must admit after the first few games last year I thought we were headed in the direction of OHIO football Wilderness Campaign II. I'm so glad that I was completely wrong.
No facilities back in the 80's and most of the 90's. No internet recruiting presence. Can't compare that era to today.
I don't think you understand the difference between-group variation and within-group variation. Please buy a good statistics book and study the concept of ANOVA, young man.
To make this comparison work the assumptions are that OU is the same level of university with the same recruiting attractiveness under the same recruiting rules. 85 scholarship limit didn't become official until the early 90's. A few years later Toledo was the first MAC program to appear in the Top 25 in decades and it eventually helped Ohio's program under the Grobe years.

Why Ohio would regress to the 1984-1994 period doesn't make sense to me. Ohio was a good program in the two platoon era and the guilded age of athletics back in Peden's time. That 1984-1994 period is worse than what Akron is today the very worst team in the MAC. It happens to be many fans on here were at OU at that time and are in perpetual disbelief about the current state.

For the wilderness years to work Albin would need to go 1-11, be fired and then be replaced with a terrible excuse of a coach. There is an outside chance TA could drive the program into a hole but the next hire isn't going to be making High School coach money as they did in the 80's. Next coach 1 million + coordinators making 300k-400k. Its very difficult to hire lemon staff after lemon staff with that type of money.

While the board might have placed the probability of a 1984-1994 wilderness decade post Frank at 50% its actual probability is around 0.1% that Ohio would be the very worst FBS team for a decade.
Wilderness Campaigns are possible in any era. Whatever new technology and environment may ensue is a factor for all teams playing in that era. So, one is making a comparison within a given era with other teams in that era, and then comparing those results with teams in different eras. So, what you are purposing is that the variance within our current era is less than the variance within past eras. Do you really have evidence that that is true? We don't have to look further than our own league to see a Wilderness Campaign in action -- Akron has now several years in a row of seasons that look at lot like the PapaL and Cleve years at OHIO. And, who knows when they will end for Akron.
There is a different variance. Back in 1985-1994 MAC schools played 11 game seasons and today half the MAC schools play 13 games counting the bowl with the division winners playing 14. More games and more home games help.

Comparing the OU offense from 1985-1994 to the bottom 1/3rd of the MAC was an exceptionally poor era.

1985 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.5), Ohio 16.5 ppg
*1986 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.6), Ohio 17.8 ppg
1987 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.4), Ohio 11.5 ppg
*1988 bottom 1/3 ppg (17.3), Ohio 17.7 ppg
1989 bottom 1/3 ppg (17.4), Ohio 17.4 ppg
1990 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.1), Ohio 14.7 ppg
1991 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.0), Ohio 16.0 ppg
1992 bottom 1/3 ppg (13.2), Ohio 13.2 ppg
1993 bottom 1/3 ppg (14.8), Ohio 12.2 ppg
1994 bottom 1/3 ppg (13.2), Ohio 7.5 ppg

The chances of finishing in the bottom 1/3 offensively 8/10 years with an average ppg about 90% of the bottom 1/3 was about 6% at that time.

Compare this to 2013-2022 where Ohio finished bottom 1/3 twice and the average ppg of the bottom 1/3 line was 24 ppg compared to 15.8 ppg.

2013 bottom 1/3 ppg (18.8), Ohio 27.4 ppg
*2014 bottom 1/3 ppg (22.3), Ohio 20.5 ppg
2015 bottom 1/3 ppg (23.1), Ohio 27.5 ppg
2016 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.8), Ohio 26.3 ppg
2017 bottom 1/3 ppg (25.3), Ohio 39.1 ppg
2018 bottom 1/3 ppg (23.9), Ohio 40.1 ppg
2019 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.1), Ohio 34.3 ppg
2020 bottom 1/3 ppg (28.7), Ohio 34.3 ppg
*2021 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.1), Ohio 22.6 ppg
2022 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.8), Ohio 33.4 ppg

The point you have on facilities and technology something MAC and G5 programs have can be thought of all things equal are in Ohio's case equalizers when from 1985-1994 it was at the bottom of the MAC and many levels below what other conferences had at the time. 6-6 in 2014 and 3-9 in 2021 have more wins than the 1985-1994 wilderness era in part because of more games.

Ohio averaged 14.45 ppg over a decade in 1985-1994. That is not going happen again in my lifetime.
I don't see how any of this addresses the issue you first raised that implied that Wilderness Campaigns couldn't happen now to OHIO or any other team in the modern era. UMass has pretty good facilities. Akron has better facilities than OHIO. Your logic is escaping me.
I am saying a 1985-1995 wilderness campaign where Ohio averages 14.5 ppg and averages 5 FBS wins a year was a statistical anomaly (6% chance in that era). What made it more likely for Ohio was at that time the facilities were a full standard deviation below the MAC and two standard deviations below the average FBS team (only had 105 teams so 52-53 was the middle).

Today the Ohio facilities are more equitable with MAC peers if not better in some respects so the program should stay closer to the mean and with FBS as a whole now 130 team facilities are behind by 1 standard deviation if that. The school isn't as remote as it was 40 years ago with the new highways and three times the restaurants. TV presence is at the Mountain West level.

Having a couple of extra games helps. Having six games at home helps. Akron is in the bottom of the MAC because it can't get the players nor the students. UMass doesn't have talent in its backyard. Ohio's within 2-3 hours of Cincy, Dayton, Columbus, Cleveland and can attract players across the state like it does with students. Better weather than Akron and UMass.

I though the question a lot of alums had years ago is why doesn't Ohio as a top MAC university have a good MAC football program and now it has one commensurate with the intangibles of a top college town. The last decade is the new normal, not back to the 1985-1994 era.
My first reaction is, "Monroe would be proud." Not of the content of this thread but its geometric shape.

In terms of content, I don't think you've proven at all that OHIO could never return to the Wildnerness years. Fortunately, it appears that Albin is turning out to be a better coach than many of us feared last year. Akron, by the way, has great facilities and is in the hot bed of Ohio high school football, with many great players in their own backyard. However, they are still going through a Wilderness Campaign.

Akron's last five years
2018 4-8
2019 0-12
2020 1-5
2021 2-10
2022 1-8 (and counting)

This Cleve and PapaL ball if I ever saw it.

Their new coach may pull them out of it, so they may rebound more quickly than OHIO did hiring two bad coaches back to back, but it's not a given. Time will tell. To say that it's not possible for this kind of record to happend again at OHIO is just nonsensical.
Let's just go then with your premise that all things in the MAC are equal. The probability of OU then being as bad as what it was from 1985-1994 was in that day and age only 6%.

How common would that decade long offensive performance of 14.5 ppg be in today's MAC?

2013 bottom 1/3 ppg (18.8), Ohio 16.5 ppg -10th
2014 bottom 1/3 ppg (22.3),Ohio 17.8 ppg -10th
2015 bottom 1/3 ppg (23.1), Ohio 11.5 ppg -12th
2016 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.8), Ohio 17.7 ppg -11th
2017 bottom 1/3 ppg (25.3), Ohio 17.4 ppg -11th
2018 bottom 1/3 ppg (23.9), Ohio 14.7 ppg -12th
2019 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.1), Ohio 16.0 ppg -11th
2020 bottom 1/3 ppg (28.7), Ohio 13.2 ppg -12th
2021 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.1), Ohio 12.2 ppg -12th
2022 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.8), Ohio 7.5 ppg -12th

The average Ohio ppg would be ranked 11.3 in that time period, finishing in the bottom 1/3 10 times out of 10 with an average difference from the median of -9.5 ppg. A rough probability then is equal to (0.0885*0.05*0.6) which is 0.27%. It would be extraordinary to put up the 1985-1994 ppg numbers again for another decade.

This is why I don't expect it, I don't fear it and don't project it.
Can anyone make sense out of this for me? What does ppg averages have to do with whether or not OHIO could experience another Wilderness Campaign if we hired a bad coach.
What you asked me to do is prove that Ohio couldn't repeat the wilderness performance of the Cleve/PapaL years so I thought showing how the offenses were more limited in those years was the most direct and quickest way to demonstrate a difference statistically from then to the current era.

The 0.0885 is the percentile finish in the conference. The 0.05 number related to the number of times Ohio finished in bottom 1/3. Since Ohio finished in the bottom 1/3 every year for 10 years and multiplying by 0 gives a total value of zero I gave an estimation of 1 out of 20 (which is very generous) for having an offense that averages 14.5 a game finish in the top 1/3 of the MAC. Then 0.6 is the variance in the Ohio 14.5 ppg from the average in the 2013-2022 period so the Cleve/PapaL offensive performance was about 2 standard deviations away from the modern mean.
Do you not realize that none of this is relevant to your point? Average points scored is no measure of our likelihood of having a Wilderness Campaign again in the future. We could average 30 points a game and go 0-12 if our defense was giving up an average of 45 points a game. I can cite a number of teams on long losing streaks that were scoring enough points to win an average college football game. I'd recommend enrolling not only in a basic statistics class, but also Logic 101.
mail
person
L.C.
11/6/2022 9:12 AM
bobcatsquared wrote:expand_more
Can anyone explain to me the purpose of the quote boxes? Am I expected (required?) to re-read each post over again? Otherwise, what's the purpose? [/QUOTE]
Many threads, including this one, have many different topics that are discussed within them. The quote boxes are particularly useful in threads like this one because they allow the reader to quickly discern which, of the several topics previously discussed in the thread, a writer is directing his reply to.

The quote boxes work particularly well if you edit the contents of the quote boxes to extract the particular sentence or phrase your reply is directed to. At the other extreme
[QUOTE=OhioCatFan]It's an art form...

once you have deeply nested boxes, the boxes themselves cease to serve a discussion purpose, and become art for the sake of art. Ryan, in writing this forum did a masterful job of coding the quote boxes to adjust to ever-narrower column widths, and to not overflow even as the number of quote boxes reaches ever more extreme levels. Few forums, if any, handle quote boxes as well as this one.
mail
person
bobcatsquared
11/6/2022 9:20 AM
L.C. wrote:expand_more
The quote boxes work particularly well if you edit the contents of the quote boxes to extract the particular sentence or phrase your reply is directed to.
This. . . why all posters don't follow this modus operandi?
Last Edited: 11/6/2022 9:23:40 AM by bobcatsquared
mail
TWT
11/6/2022 9:41 AM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
With the win last night over Buffalo, Tim now has 9 career wins, surpassing Tom Lichtenberg's total of 8, and he is now tied with Cleve Bryant. Passing Brian Knorr's total of 11 is now a possibility before the end of this season.
Now that's putting things in perspective!

I must admit after the first few games last year I thought we were headed in the direction of OHIO football Wilderness Campaign II. I'm so glad that I was completely wrong.
No facilities back in the 80's and most of the 90's. No internet recruiting presence. Can't compare that era to today.
I don't think you understand the difference between-group variation and within-group variation. Please buy a good statistics book and study the concept of ANOVA, young man.
To make this comparison work the assumptions are that OU is the same level of university with the same recruiting attractiveness under the same recruiting rules. 85 scholarship limit didn't become official until the early 90's. A few years later Toledo was the first MAC program to appear in the Top 25 in decades and it eventually helped Ohio's program under the Grobe years.

Why Ohio would regress to the 1984-1994 period doesn't make sense to me. Ohio was a good program in the two platoon era and the guilded age of athletics back in Peden's time. That 1984-1994 period is worse than what Akron is today the very worst team in the MAC. It happens to be many fans on here were at OU at that time and are in perpetual disbelief about the current state.

For the wilderness years to work Albin would need to go 1-11, be fired and then be replaced with a terrible excuse of a coach. There is an outside chance TA could drive the program into a hole but the next hire isn't going to be making High School coach money as they did in the 80's. Next coach 1 million + coordinators making 300k-400k. Its very difficult to hire lemon staff after lemon staff with that type of money.

While the board might have placed the probability of a 1984-1994 wilderness decade post Frank at 50% its actual probability is around 0.1% that Ohio would be the very worst FBS team for a decade.
Wilderness Campaigns are possible in any era. Whatever new technology and environment may ensue is a factor for all teams playing in that era. So, one is making a comparison within a given era with other teams in that era, and then comparing those results with teams in different eras. So, what you are purposing is that the variance within our current era is less than the variance within past eras. Do you really have evidence that that is true? We don't have to look further than our own league to see a Wilderness Campaign in action -- Akron has now several years in a row of seasons that look at lot like the PapaL and Cleve years at OHIO. And, who knows when they will end for Akron.
There is a different variance. Back in 1985-1994 MAC schools played 11 game seasons and today half the MAC schools play 13 games counting the bowl with the division winners playing 14. More games and more home games help.

Comparing the OU offense from 1985-1994 to the bottom 1/3rd of the MAC was an exceptionally poor era.

1985 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.5), Ohio 16.5 ppg
*1986 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.6), Ohio 17.8 ppg
1987 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.4), Ohio 11.5 ppg
*1988 bottom 1/3 ppg (17.3), Ohio 17.7 ppg
1989 bottom 1/3 ppg (17.4), Ohio 17.4 ppg
1990 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.1), Ohio 14.7 ppg
1991 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.0), Ohio 16.0 ppg
1992 bottom 1/3 ppg (13.2), Ohio 13.2 ppg
1993 bottom 1/3 ppg (14.8), Ohio 12.2 ppg
1994 bottom 1/3 ppg (13.2), Ohio 7.5 ppg

The chances of finishing in the bottom 1/3 offensively 8/10 years with an average ppg about 90% of the bottom 1/3 was about 6% at that time.

Compare this to 2013-2022 where Ohio finished bottom 1/3 twice and the average ppg of the bottom 1/3 line was 24 ppg compared to 15.8 ppg.

2013 bottom 1/3 ppg (18.8), Ohio 27.4 ppg
*2014 bottom 1/3 ppg (22.3), Ohio 20.5 ppg
2015 bottom 1/3 ppg (23.1), Ohio 27.5 ppg
2016 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.8), Ohio 26.3 ppg
2017 bottom 1/3 ppg (25.3), Ohio 39.1 ppg
2018 bottom 1/3 ppg (23.9), Ohio 40.1 ppg
2019 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.1), Ohio 34.3 ppg
2020 bottom 1/3 ppg (28.7), Ohio 34.3 ppg
*2021 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.1), Ohio 22.6 ppg
2022 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.8), Ohio 33.4 ppg

The point you have on facilities and technology something MAC and G5 programs have can be thought of all things equal are in Ohio's case equalizers when from 1985-1994 it was at the bottom of the MAC and many levels below what other conferences had at the time. 6-6 in 2014 and 3-9 in 2021 have more wins than the 1985-1994 wilderness era in part because of more games.

Ohio averaged 14.45 ppg over a decade in 1985-1994. That is not going happen again in my lifetime.
I don't see how any of this addresses the issue you first raised that implied that Wilderness Campaigns couldn't happen now to OHIO or any other team in the modern era. UMass has pretty good facilities. Akron has better facilities than OHIO. Your logic is escaping me.
I am saying a 1985-1995 wilderness campaign where Ohio averages 14.5 ppg and averages 5 FBS wins a year was a statistical anomaly (6% chance in that era). What made it more likely for Ohio was at that time the facilities were a full standard deviation below the MAC and two standard deviations below the average FBS team (only had 105 teams so 52-53 was the middle).

Today the Ohio facilities are more equitable with MAC peers if not better in some respects so the program should stay closer to the mean and with FBS as a whole now 130 team facilities are behind by 1 standard deviation if that. The school isn't as remote as it was 40 years ago with the new highways and three times the restaurants. TV presence is at the Mountain West level.

Having a couple of extra games helps. Having six games at home helps. Akron is in the bottom of the MAC because it can't get the players nor the students. UMass doesn't have talent in its backyard. Ohio's within 2-3 hours of Cincy, Dayton, Columbus, Cleveland and can attract players across the state like it does with students. Better weather than Akron and UMass.

I though the question a lot of alums had years ago is why doesn't Ohio as a top MAC university have a good MAC football program and now it has one commensurate with the intangibles of a top college town. The last decade is the new normal, not back to the 1985-1994 era.
My first reaction is, "Monroe would be proud." Not of the content of this thread but its geometric shape.

In terms of content, I don't think you've proven at all that OHIO could never return to the Wildnerness years. Fortunately, it appears that Albin is turning out to be a better coach than many of us feared last year. Akron, by the way, has great facilities and is in the hot bed of Ohio high school football, with many great players in their own backyard. However, they are still going through a Wilderness Campaign.

Akron's last five years
2018 4-8
2019 0-12
2020 1-5
2021 2-10
2022 1-8 (and counting)

This Cleve and PapaL ball if I ever saw it.

Their new coach may pull them out of it, so they may rebound more quickly than OHIO did hiring two bad coaches back to back, but it's not a given. Time will tell. To say that it's not possible for this kind of record to happend again at OHIO is just nonsensical.
Let's just go then with your premise that all things in the MAC are equal. The probability of OU then being as bad as what it was from 1985-1994 was in that day and age only 6%.

How common would that decade long offensive performance of 14.5 ppg be in today's MAC?

2013 bottom 1/3 ppg (18.8), Ohio 16.5 ppg -10th
2014 bottom 1/3 ppg (22.3),Ohio 17.8 ppg -10th
2015 bottom 1/3 ppg (23.1), Ohio 11.5 ppg -12th
2016 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.8), Ohio 17.7 ppg -11th
2017 bottom 1/3 ppg (25.3), Ohio 17.4 ppg -11th
2018 bottom 1/3 ppg (23.9), Ohio 14.7 ppg -12th
2019 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.1), Ohio 16.0 ppg -11th
2020 bottom 1/3 ppg (28.7), Ohio 13.2 ppg -12th
2021 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.1), Ohio 12.2 ppg -12th
2022 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.8), Ohio 7.5 ppg -12th

The average Ohio ppg would be ranked 11.3 in that time period, finishing in the bottom 1/3 10 times out of 10 with an average difference from the median of -9.5 ppg. A rough probability then is equal to (0.0885*0.05*0.6) which is 0.27%. It would be extraordinary to put up the 1985-1994 ppg numbers again for another decade.

This is why I don't expect it, I don't fear it and don't project it.
Can anyone make sense out of this for me? What does ppg averages have to do with whether or not OHIO could experience another Wilderness Campaign if we hired a bad coach.
What you asked me to do is prove that Ohio couldn't repeat the wilderness performance of the Cleve/PapaL years so I thought showing how the offenses were more limited in those years was the most direct and quickest way to demonstrate a difference statistically from then to the current era.

The 0.0885 is the percentile finish in the conference. The 0.05 number related to the number of times Ohio finished in bottom 1/3. Since Ohio finished in the bottom 1/3 every year for 10 years and multiplying by 0 gives a total value of zero I gave an estimation of 1 out of 20 (which is very generous) for having an offense that averages 14.5 a game finish in the top 1/3 of the MAC. Then 0.6 is the variance in the Ohio 14.5 ppg from the average in the 2013-2022 period so the Cleve/PapaL offensive performance was about 2 standard deviations away from the modern mean.
Do you not realize that none of this is relevant to your point? Average points scored is no measure of our likelihood of having a Wilderness Campaign again in the future. We could average 30 points a game and go 0-12 if our defense was giving up an average of 45 points a game. I can cite a number of teams on long losing streaks that were scoring enough points to win an average college football game. I'd recommend enrolling not only in a basic statistics class, but also Logic 101.
Do you remember in the early days of Solich one of the first aspects he said that he came away with from his years of studying top offenses in the country was the desirability of having explosive big play capability. Throwing downfield to catch the offense off guard on first down. Scoring more quickly and more often is the indicator of a quality team. It gives a team the edge in the fourth quarter and OT situations. This is why I disappointed that Kurtis didn't get it done at Kent in that OT situation. Its play calling on offense which is a fine art and on defense its more the scheme.

I gave my shot at the statistics and came up with 0.27 chance of the offense repeating the 1985-1994 performance. Why don't you as the statistics guy add up the amount of FBS wins in that time period and determine the probability in my lifetime (20 years) that Ohio will have another 10 year stretch with the amount of FBS wins from 1985-1994. Show this young whipper snapper how its done. Explain to me how its logical.
mail
OhioCatFan
11/6/2022 10:19 AM
Campus Flow wrote:expand_more
With the win last night over Buffalo, Tim now has 9 career wins, surpassing Tom Lichtenberg's total of 8, and he is now tied with Cleve Bryant. Passing Brian Knorr's total of 11 is now a possibility before the end of this season.
Now that's putting things in perspective!

I must admit after the first few games last year I thought we were headed in the direction of OHIO football Wilderness Campaign II. I'm so glad that I was completely wrong.
No facilities back in the 80's and most of the 90's. No internet recruiting presence. Can't compare that era to today.
I don't think you understand the difference between-group variation and within-group variation. Please buy a good statistics book and study the concept of ANOVA, young man.
To make this comparison work the assumptions are that OU is the same level of university with the same recruiting attractiveness under the same recruiting rules. 85 scholarship limit didn't become official until the early 90's. A few years later Toledo was the first MAC program to appear in the Top 25 in decades and it eventually helped Ohio's program under the Grobe years.

Why Ohio would regress to the 1984-1994 period doesn't make sense to me. Ohio was a good program in the two platoon era and the guilded age of athletics back in Peden's time. That 1984-1994 period is worse than what Akron is today the very worst team in the MAC. It happens to be many fans on here were at OU at that time and are in perpetual disbelief about the current state.

For the wilderness years to work Albin would need to go 1-11, be fired and then be replaced with a terrible excuse of a coach. There is an outside chance TA could drive the program into a hole but the next hire isn't going to be making High School coach money as they did in the 80's. Next coach 1 million + coordinators making 300k-400k. Its very difficult to hire lemon staff after lemon staff with that type of money.

While the board might have placed the probability of a 1984-1994 wilderness decade post Frank at 50% its actual probability is around 0.1% that Ohio would be the very worst FBS team for a decade.
Wilderness Campaigns are possible in any era. Whatever new technology and environment may ensue is a factor for all teams playing in that era. So, one is making a comparison within a given era with other teams in that era, and then comparing those results with teams in different eras. So, what you are purposing is that the variance within our current era is less than the variance within past eras. Do you really have evidence that that is true? We don't have to look further than our own league to see a Wilderness Campaign in action -- Akron has now several years in a row of seasons that look at lot like the PapaL and Cleve years at OHIO. And, who knows when they will end for Akron.
There is a different variance. Back in 1985-1994 MAC schools played 11 game seasons and today half the MAC schools play 13 games counting the bowl with the division winners playing 14. More games and more home games help.

Comparing the OU offense from 1985-1994 to the bottom 1/3rd of the MAC was an exceptionally poor era.

1985 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.5), Ohio 16.5 ppg
*1986 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.6), Ohio 17.8 ppg
1987 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.4), Ohio 11.5 ppg
*1988 bottom 1/3 ppg (17.3), Ohio 17.7 ppg
1989 bottom 1/3 ppg (17.4), Ohio 17.4 ppg
1990 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.1), Ohio 14.7 ppg
1991 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.0), Ohio 16.0 ppg
1992 bottom 1/3 ppg (13.2), Ohio 13.2 ppg
1993 bottom 1/3 ppg (14.8), Ohio 12.2 ppg
1994 bottom 1/3 ppg (13.2), Ohio 7.5 ppg

The chances of finishing in the bottom 1/3 offensively 8/10 years with an average ppg about 90% of the bottom 1/3 was about 6% at that time.

Compare this to 2013-2022 where Ohio finished bottom 1/3 twice and the average ppg of the bottom 1/3 line was 24 ppg compared to 15.8 ppg.

2013 bottom 1/3 ppg (18.8), Ohio 27.4 ppg
*2014 bottom 1/3 ppg (22.3), Ohio 20.5 ppg
2015 bottom 1/3 ppg (23.1), Ohio 27.5 ppg
2016 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.8), Ohio 26.3 ppg
2017 bottom 1/3 ppg (25.3), Ohio 39.1 ppg
2018 bottom 1/3 ppg (23.9), Ohio 40.1 ppg
2019 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.1), Ohio 34.3 ppg
2020 bottom 1/3 ppg (28.7), Ohio 34.3 ppg
*2021 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.1), Ohio 22.6 ppg
2022 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.8), Ohio 33.4 ppg

The point you have on facilities and technology something MAC and G5 programs have can be thought of all things equal are in Ohio's case equalizers when from 1985-1994 it was at the bottom of the MAC and many levels below what other conferences had at the time. 6-6 in 2014 and 3-9 in 2021 have more wins than the 1985-1994 wilderness era in part because of more games.

Ohio averaged 14.45 ppg over a decade in 1985-1994. That is not going happen again in my lifetime.
I don't see how any of this addresses the issue you first raised that implied that Wilderness Campaigns couldn't happen now to OHIO or any other team in the modern era. UMass has pretty good facilities. Akron has better facilities than OHIO. Your logic is escaping me.
I am saying a 1985-1995 wilderness campaign where Ohio averages 14.5 ppg and averages 5 FBS wins a year was a statistical anomaly (6% chance in that era). What made it more likely for Ohio was at that time the facilities were a full standard deviation below the MAC and two standard deviations below the average FBS team (only had 105 teams so 52-53 was the middle).

Today the Ohio facilities are more equitable with MAC peers if not better in some respects so the program should stay closer to the mean and with FBS as a whole now 130 team facilities are behind by 1 standard deviation if that. The school isn't as remote as it was 40 years ago with the new highways and three times the restaurants. TV presence is at the Mountain West level.

Having a couple of extra games helps. Having six games at home helps. Akron is in the bottom of the MAC because it can't get the players nor the students. UMass doesn't have talent in its backyard. Ohio's within 2-3 hours of Cincy, Dayton, Columbus, Cleveland and can attract players across the state like it does with students. Better weather than Akron and UMass.

I though the question a lot of alums had years ago is why doesn't Ohio as a top MAC university have a good MAC football program and now it has one commensurate with the intangibles of a top college town. The last decade is the new normal, not back to the 1985-1994 era.
My first reaction is, "Monroe would be proud." Not of the content of this thread but its geometric shape.

In terms of content, I don't think you've proven at all that OHIO could never return to the Wildnerness years. Fortunately, it appears that Albin is turning out to be a better coach than many of us feared last year. Akron, by the way, has great facilities and is in the hot bed of Ohio high school football, with many great players in their own backyard. However, they are still going through a Wilderness Campaign.

Akron's last five years
2018 4-8
2019 0-12
2020 1-5
2021 2-10
2022 1-8 (and counting)

This Cleve and PapaL ball if I ever saw it.

Their new coach may pull them out of it, so they may rebound more quickly than OHIO did hiring two bad coaches back to back, but it's not a given. Time will tell. To say that it's not possible for this kind of record to happend again at OHIO is just nonsensical.
Let's just go then with your premise that all things in the MAC are equal. The probability of OU then being as bad as what it was from 1985-1994 was in that day and age only 6%.

How common would that decade long offensive performance of 14.5 ppg be in today's MAC?

2013 bottom 1/3 ppg (18.8), Ohio 16.5 ppg -10th
2014 bottom 1/3 ppg (22.3),Ohio 17.8 ppg -10th
2015 bottom 1/3 ppg (23.1), Ohio 11.5 ppg -12th
2016 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.8), Ohio 17.7 ppg -11th
2017 bottom 1/3 ppg (25.3), Ohio 17.4 ppg -11th
2018 bottom 1/3 ppg (23.9), Ohio 14.7 ppg -12th
2019 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.1), Ohio 16.0 ppg -11th
2020 bottom 1/3 ppg (28.7), Ohio 13.2 ppg -12th
2021 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.1), Ohio 12.2 ppg -12th
2022 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.8), Ohio 7.5 ppg -12th

The average Ohio ppg would be ranked 11.3 in that time period, finishing in the bottom 1/3 10 times out of 10 with an average difference from the median of -9.5 ppg. A rough probability then is equal to (0.0885*0.05*0.6) which is 0.27%. It would be extraordinary to put up the 1985-1994 ppg numbers again for another decade.

This is why I don't expect it, I don't fear it and don't project it.
Can anyone make sense out of this for me? What does ppg averages have to do with whether or not OHIO could experience another Wilderness Campaign if we hired a bad coach.
What you asked me to do is prove that Ohio couldn't repeat the wilderness performance of the Cleve/PapaL years so I thought showing how the offenses were more limited in those years was the most direct and quickest way to demonstrate a difference statistically from then to the current era.

The 0.0885 is the percentile finish in the conference. The 0.05 number related to the number of times Ohio finished in bottom 1/3. Since Ohio finished in the bottom 1/3 every year for 10 years and multiplying by 0 gives a total value of zero I gave an estimation of 1 out of 20 (which is very generous) for having an offense that averages 14.5 a game finish in the top 1/3 of the MAC. Then 0.6 is the variance in the Ohio 14.5 ppg from the average in the 2013-2022 period so the Cleve/PapaL offensive performance was about 2 standard deviations away from the modern mean.
Do you not realize that none of this is relevant to your point? Average points scored is no measure of our likelihood of having a Wilderness Campaign again in the future. We could average 30 points a game and go 0-12 if our defense was giving up an average of 45 points a game. I can cite a number of teams on long losing streaks that were scoring enough points to win an average college football game. I'd recommend enrolling not only in a basic statistics class, but also Logic 101.
Do you remember in the early days of Solich one of the first aspects he said that he came away with from his years of studying top offenses in the country was the desirability of having explosive big play capability. Throwing downfield to catch the offense off guard on first down. Scoring more quickly and more often is the indicator of a quality team. It gives a team the edge in the fourth quarter and OT situations. This is why I disappointed that Kurtis didn't get it done at Kent in that OT situation. Its play calling on offense which is a fine art and on defense its more the scheme.

I gave my shot at the statistics and came up with 0.27 chance of the offense repeating the 1985-1994 performance. Why don't you as the statistics guy add up the amount of FBS wins in that time period and determine the probability in my lifetime (20 years) that Ohio will have another 10 year stretch with the amount of FBS wins from 1985-1994. Show this young whipper snapper how its done. Explain to me how its logical.
There are some things to which statistics can't be applied in any reasonable way, and this is one of them. We are one bad coach hire away from a Wilderness Campaign. How do you calculate the chances of OHIO's next coach being a dude? What data do you feed into your formula to come up with a reasonable estimate? I submit that this is a subject where only fools would try to apply statistical analysis.
mail
TWT
11/6/2022 10:25 AM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
With the win last night over Buffalo, Tim now has 9 career wins, surpassing Tom Lichtenberg's total of 8, and he is now tied with Cleve Bryant. Passing Brian Knorr's total of 11 is now a possibility before the end of this season.
Now that's putting things in perspective!

I must admit after the first few games last year I thought we were headed in the direction of OHIO football Wilderness Campaign II. I'm so glad that I was completely wrong.
No facilities back in the 80's and most of the 90's. No internet recruiting presence. Can't compare that era to today.
I don't think you understand the difference between-group variation and within-group variation. Please buy a good statistics book and study the concept of ANOVA, young man.
To make this comparison work the assumptions are that OU is the same level of university with the same recruiting attractiveness under the same recruiting rules. 85 scholarship limit didn't become official until the early 90's. A few years later Toledo was the first MAC program to appear in the Top 25 in decades and it eventually helped Ohio's program under the Grobe years.

Why Ohio would regress to the 1984-1994 period doesn't make sense to me. Ohio was a good program in the two platoon era and the guilded age of athletics back in Peden's time. That 1984-1994 period is worse than what Akron is today the very worst team in the MAC. It happens to be many fans on here were at OU at that time and are in perpetual disbelief about the current state.

For the wilderness years to work Albin would need to go 1-11, be fired and then be replaced with a terrible excuse of a coach. There is an outside chance TA could drive the program into a hole but the next hire isn't going to be making High School coach money as they did in the 80's. Next coach 1 million + coordinators making 300k-400k. Its very difficult to hire lemon staff after lemon staff with that type of money.

While the board might have placed the probability of a 1984-1994 wilderness decade post Frank at 50% its actual probability is around 0.1% that Ohio would be the very worst FBS team for a decade.
Wilderness Campaigns are possible in any era. Whatever new technology and environment may ensue is a factor for all teams playing in that era. So, one is making a comparison within a given era with other teams in that era, and then comparing those results with teams in different eras. So, what you are purposing is that the variance within our current era is less than the variance within past eras. Do you really have evidence that that is true? We don't have to look further than our own league to see a Wilderness Campaign in action -- Akron has now several years in a row of seasons that look at lot like the PapaL and Cleve years at OHIO. And, who knows when they will end for Akron.
There is a different variance. Back in 1985-1994 MAC schools played 11 game seasons and today half the MAC schools play 13 games counting the bowl with the division winners playing 14. More games and more home games help.

Comparing the OU offense from 1985-1994 to the bottom 1/3rd of the MAC was an exceptionally poor era.

1985 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.5), Ohio 16.5 ppg
*1986 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.6), Ohio 17.8 ppg
1987 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.4), Ohio 11.5 ppg
*1988 bottom 1/3 ppg (17.3), Ohio 17.7 ppg
1989 bottom 1/3 ppg (17.4), Ohio 17.4 ppg
1990 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.1), Ohio 14.7 ppg
1991 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.0), Ohio 16.0 ppg
1992 bottom 1/3 ppg (13.2), Ohio 13.2 ppg
1993 bottom 1/3 ppg (14.8), Ohio 12.2 ppg
1994 bottom 1/3 ppg (13.2), Ohio 7.5 ppg

The chances of finishing in the bottom 1/3 offensively 8/10 years with an average ppg about 90% of the bottom 1/3 was about 6% at that time.

Compare this to 2013-2022 where Ohio finished bottom 1/3 twice and the average ppg of the bottom 1/3 line was 24 ppg compared to 15.8 ppg.

2013 bottom 1/3 ppg (18.8), Ohio 27.4 ppg
*2014 bottom 1/3 ppg (22.3), Ohio 20.5 ppg
2015 bottom 1/3 ppg (23.1), Ohio 27.5 ppg
2016 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.8), Ohio 26.3 ppg
2017 bottom 1/3 ppg (25.3), Ohio 39.1 ppg
2018 bottom 1/3 ppg (23.9), Ohio 40.1 ppg
2019 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.1), Ohio 34.3 ppg
2020 bottom 1/3 ppg (28.7), Ohio 34.3 ppg
*2021 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.1), Ohio 22.6 ppg
2022 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.8), Ohio 33.4 ppg

The point you have on facilities and technology something MAC and G5 programs have can be thought of all things equal are in Ohio's case equalizers when from 1985-1994 it was at the bottom of the MAC and many levels below what other conferences had at the time. 6-6 in 2014 and 3-9 in 2021 have more wins than the 1985-1994 wilderness era in part because of more games.

Ohio averaged 14.45 ppg over a decade in 1985-1994. That is not going happen again in my lifetime.
I don't see how any of this addresses the issue you first raised that implied that Wilderness Campaigns couldn't happen now to OHIO or any other team in the modern era. UMass has pretty good facilities. Akron has better facilities than OHIO. Your logic is escaping me.
I am saying a 1985-1995 wilderness campaign where Ohio averages 14.5 ppg and averages 5 FBS wins a year was a statistical anomaly (6% chance in that era). What made it more likely for Ohio was at that time the facilities were a full standard deviation below the MAC and two standard deviations below the average FBS team (only had 105 teams so 52-53 was the middle).

Today the Ohio facilities are more equitable with MAC peers if not better in some respects so the program should stay closer to the mean and with FBS as a whole now 130 team facilities are behind by 1 standard deviation if that. The school isn't as remote as it was 40 years ago with the new highways and three times the restaurants. TV presence is at the Mountain West level.

Having a couple of extra games helps. Having six games at home helps. Akron is in the bottom of the MAC because it can't get the players nor the students. UMass doesn't have talent in its backyard. Ohio's within 2-3 hours of Cincy, Dayton, Columbus, Cleveland and can attract players across the state like it does with students. Better weather than Akron and UMass.

I though the question a lot of alums had years ago is why doesn't Ohio as a top MAC university have a good MAC football program and now it has one commensurate with the intangibles of a top college town. The last decade is the new normal, not back to the 1985-1994 era.
My first reaction is, "Monroe would be proud." Not of the content of this thread but its geometric shape.

In terms of content, I don't think you've proven at all that OHIO could never return to the Wildnerness years. Fortunately, it appears that Albin is turning out to be a better coach than many of us feared last year. Akron, by the way, has great facilities and is in the hot bed of Ohio high school football, with many great players in their own backyard. However, they are still going through a Wilderness Campaign.

Akron's last five years
2018 4-8
2019 0-12
2020 1-5
2021 2-10
2022 1-8 (and counting)

This Cleve and PapaL ball if I ever saw it.

Their new coach may pull them out of it, so they may rebound more quickly than OHIO did hiring two bad coaches back to back, but it's not a given. Time will tell. To say that it's not possible for this kind of record to happend again at OHIO is just nonsensical.
Let's just go then with your premise that all things in the MAC are equal. The probability of OU then being as bad as what it was from 1985-1994 was in that day and age only 6%.

How common would that decade long offensive performance of 14.5 ppg be in today's MAC?

2013 bottom 1/3 ppg (18.8), Ohio 16.5 ppg -10th
2014 bottom 1/3 ppg (22.3),Ohio 17.8 ppg -10th
2015 bottom 1/3 ppg (23.1), Ohio 11.5 ppg -12th
2016 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.8), Ohio 17.7 ppg -11th
2017 bottom 1/3 ppg (25.3), Ohio 17.4 ppg -11th
2018 bottom 1/3 ppg (23.9), Ohio 14.7 ppg -12th
2019 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.1), Ohio 16.0 ppg -11th
2020 bottom 1/3 ppg (28.7), Ohio 13.2 ppg -12th
2021 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.1), Ohio 12.2 ppg -12th
2022 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.8), Ohio 7.5 ppg -12th

The average Ohio ppg would be ranked 11.3 in that time period, finishing in the bottom 1/3 10 times out of 10 with an average difference from the median of -9.5 ppg. A rough probability then is equal to (0.0885*0.05*0.6) which is 0.27%. It would be extraordinary to put up the 1985-1994 ppg numbers again for another decade.

This is why I don't expect it, I don't fear it and don't project it.
Can anyone make sense out of this for me? What does ppg averages have to do with whether or not OHIO could experience another Wilderness Campaign if we hired a bad coach.
What you asked me to do is prove that Ohio couldn't repeat the wilderness performance of the Cleve/PapaL years so I thought showing how the offenses were more limited in those years was the most direct and quickest way to demonstrate a difference statistically from then to the current era.

The 0.0885 is the percentile finish in the conference. The 0.05 number related to the number of times Ohio finished in bottom 1/3. Since Ohio finished in the bottom 1/3 every year for 10 years and multiplying by 0 gives a total value of zero I gave an estimation of 1 out of 20 (which is very generous) for having an offense that averages 14.5 a game finish in the top 1/3 of the MAC. Then 0.6 is the variance in the Ohio 14.5 ppg from the average in the 2013-2022 period so the Cleve/PapaL offensive performance was about 2 standard deviations away from the modern mean.
Do you not realize that none of this is relevant to your point? Average points scored is no measure of our likelihood of having a Wilderness Campaign again in the future. We could average 30 points a game and go 0-12 if our defense was giving up an average of 45 points a game. I can cite a number of teams on long losing streaks that were scoring enough points to win an average college football game. I'd recommend enrolling not only in a basic statistics class, but also Logic 101.
Do you remember in the early days of Solich one of the first aspects he said that he came away with from his years of studying top offenses in the country was the desirability of having explosive big play capability. Throwing downfield to catch the offense off guard on first down. Scoring more quickly and more often is the indicator of a quality team. It gives a team the edge in the fourth quarter and OT situations. This is why I disappointed that Kurtis didn't get it done at Kent in that OT situation. Its play calling on offense which is a fine art and on defense its more the scheme.

I gave my shot at the statistics and came up with 0.27 chance of the offense repeating the 1985-1994 performance. Why don't you as the statistics guy add up the amount of FBS wins in that time period and determine the probability in my lifetime (20 years) that Ohio will have another 10 year stretch with the amount of FBS wins from 1985-1994. Show this young whipper snapper how its done. Explain to me how its logical.
There are some things to which statistics can't be applied in any reasonable way, and this is one of them. We are one bad coach hire away from a Wilderness Campaign. How do you calculate the chances of OHIO's next coach being a dude? What data do you feed into your formula to come up with a reasonable estimate? I submit that this is a subject where only fools would try to apply statistical analysis.
Basically what you are telling me you won't try to apply a statistical method because you can't do it. But you do have the audacity to tell someone who has led research teams performing Monte Carlo analysis to go take a 101 class in probability and statistics.
mail
OhioCatFan
11/6/2022 1:03 PM
Campus Flow wrote:expand_more
With the win last night over Buffalo, Tim now has 9 career wins, surpassing Tom Lichtenberg's total of 8, and he is now tied with Cleve Bryant. Passing Brian Knorr's total of 11 is now a possibility before the end of this season.
Now that's putting things in perspective!

I must admit after the first few games last year I thought we were headed in the direction of OHIO football Wilderness Campaign II. I'm so glad that I was completely wrong.
No facilities back in the 80's and most of the 90's. No internet recruiting presence. Can't compare that era to today.
I don't think you understand the difference between-group variation and within-group variation. Please buy a good statistics book and study the concept of ANOVA, young man.
To make this comparison work the assumptions are that OU is the same level of university with the same recruiting attractiveness under the same recruiting rules. 85 scholarship limit didn't become official until the early 90's. A few years later Toledo was the first MAC program to appear in the Top 25 in decades and it eventually helped Ohio's program under the Grobe years.

Why Ohio would regress to the 1984-1994 period doesn't make sense to me. Ohio was a good program in the two platoon era and the guilded age of athletics back in Peden's time. That 1984-1994 period is worse than what Akron is today the very worst team in the MAC. It happens to be many fans on here were at OU at that time and are in perpetual disbelief about the current state.

For the wilderness years to work Albin would need to go 1-11, be fired and then be replaced with a terrible excuse of a coach. There is an outside chance TA could drive the program into a hole but the next hire isn't going to be making High School coach money as they did in the 80's. Next coach 1 million + coordinators making 300k-400k. Its very difficult to hire lemon staff after lemon staff with that type of money.

While the board might have placed the probability of a 1984-1994 wilderness decade post Frank at 50% its actual probability is around 0.1% that Ohio would be the very worst FBS team for a decade.
Wilderness Campaigns are possible in any era. Whatever new technology and environment may ensue is a factor for all teams playing in that era. So, one is making a comparison within a given era with other teams in that era, and then comparing those results with teams in different eras. So, what you are purposing is that the variance within our current era is less than the variance within past eras. Do you really have evidence that that is true? We don't have to look further than our own league to see a Wilderness Campaign in action -- Akron has now several years in a row of seasons that look at lot like the PapaL and Cleve years at OHIO. And, who knows when they will end for Akron.
There is a different variance. Back in 1985-1994 MAC schools played 11 game seasons and today half the MAC schools play 13 games counting the bowl with the division winners playing 14. More games and more home games help.

Comparing the OU offense from 1985-1994 to the bottom 1/3rd of the MAC was an exceptionally poor era.

1985 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.5), Ohio 16.5 ppg
*1986 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.6), Ohio 17.8 ppg
1987 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.4), Ohio 11.5 ppg
*1988 bottom 1/3 ppg (17.3), Ohio 17.7 ppg
1989 bottom 1/3 ppg (17.4), Ohio 17.4 ppg
1990 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.1), Ohio 14.7 ppg
1991 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.0), Ohio 16.0 ppg
1992 bottom 1/3 ppg (13.2), Ohio 13.2 ppg
1993 bottom 1/3 ppg (14.8), Ohio 12.2 ppg
1994 bottom 1/3 ppg (13.2), Ohio 7.5 ppg

The chances of finishing in the bottom 1/3 offensively 8/10 years with an average ppg about 90% of the bottom 1/3 was about 6% at that time.

Compare this to 2013-2022 where Ohio finished bottom 1/3 twice and the average ppg of the bottom 1/3 line was 24 ppg compared to 15.8 ppg.

2013 bottom 1/3 ppg (18.8), Ohio 27.4 ppg
*2014 bottom 1/3 ppg (22.3), Ohio 20.5 ppg
2015 bottom 1/3 ppg (23.1), Ohio 27.5 ppg
2016 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.8), Ohio 26.3 ppg
2017 bottom 1/3 ppg (25.3), Ohio 39.1 ppg
2018 bottom 1/3 ppg (23.9), Ohio 40.1 ppg
2019 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.1), Ohio 34.3 ppg
2020 bottom 1/3 ppg (28.7), Ohio 34.3 ppg
*2021 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.1), Ohio 22.6 ppg
2022 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.8), Ohio 33.4 ppg

The point you have on facilities and technology something MAC and G5 programs have can be thought of all things equal are in Ohio's case equalizers when from 1985-1994 it was at the bottom of the MAC and many levels below what other conferences had at the time. 6-6 in 2014 and 3-9 in 2021 have more wins than the 1985-1994 wilderness era in part because of more games.

Ohio averaged 14.45 ppg over a decade in 1985-1994. That is not going happen again in my lifetime.
I don't see how any of this addresses the issue you first raised that implied that Wilderness Campaigns couldn't happen now to OHIO or any other team in the modern era. UMass has pretty good facilities. Akron has better facilities than OHIO. Your logic is escaping me.
I am saying a 1985-1995 wilderness campaign where Ohio averages 14.5 ppg and averages 5 FBS wins a year was a statistical anomaly (6% chance in that era). What made it more likely for Ohio was at that time the facilities were a full standard deviation below the MAC and two standard deviations below the average FBS team (only had 105 teams so 52-53 was the middle).

Today the Ohio facilities are more equitable with MAC peers if not better in some respects so the program should stay closer to the mean and with FBS as a whole now 130 team facilities are behind by 1 standard deviation if that. The school isn't as remote as it was 40 years ago with the new highways and three times the restaurants. TV presence is at the Mountain West level.

Having a couple of extra games helps. Having six games at home helps. Akron is in the bottom of the MAC because it can't get the players nor the students. UMass doesn't have talent in its backyard. Ohio's within 2-3 hours of Cincy, Dayton, Columbus, Cleveland and can attract players across the state like it does with students. Better weather than Akron and UMass.

I though the question a lot of alums had years ago is why doesn't Ohio as a top MAC university have a good MAC football program and now it has one commensurate with the intangibles of a top college town. The last decade is the new normal, not back to the 1985-1994 era.
My first reaction is, "Monroe would be proud." Not of the content of this thread but its geometric shape.

In terms of content, I don't think you've proven at all that OHIO could never return to the Wildnerness years. Fortunately, it appears that Albin is turning out to be a better coach than many of us feared last year. Akron, by the way, has great facilities and is in the hot bed of Ohio high school football, with many great players in their own backyard. However, they are still going through a Wilderness Campaign.

Akron's last five years
2018 4-8
2019 0-12
2020 1-5
2021 2-10
2022 1-8 (and counting)

This Cleve and PapaL ball if I ever saw it.

Their new coach may pull them out of it, so they may rebound more quickly than OHIO did hiring two bad coaches back to back, but it's not a given. Time will tell. To say that it's not possible for this kind of record to happend again at OHIO is just nonsensical.
Let's just go then with your premise that all things in the MAC are equal. The probability of OU then being as bad as what it was from 1985-1994 was in that day and age only 6%.

How common would that decade long offensive performance of 14.5 ppg be in today's MAC?

2013 bottom 1/3 ppg (18.8), Ohio 16.5 ppg -10th
2014 bottom 1/3 ppg (22.3),Ohio 17.8 ppg -10th
2015 bottom 1/3 ppg (23.1), Ohio 11.5 ppg -12th
2016 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.8), Ohio 17.7 ppg -11th
2017 bottom 1/3 ppg (25.3), Ohio 17.4 ppg -11th
2018 bottom 1/3 ppg (23.9), Ohio 14.7 ppg -12th
2019 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.1), Ohio 16.0 ppg -11th
2020 bottom 1/3 ppg (28.7), Ohio 13.2 ppg -12th
2021 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.1), Ohio 12.2 ppg -12th
2022 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.8), Ohio 7.5 ppg -12th

The average Ohio ppg would be ranked 11.3 in that time period, finishing in the bottom 1/3 10 times out of 10 with an average difference from the median of -9.5 ppg. A rough probability then is equal to (0.0885*0.05*0.6) which is 0.27%. It would be extraordinary to put up the 1985-1994 ppg numbers again for another decade.

This is why I don't expect it, I don't fear it and don't project it.
Can anyone make sense out of this for me? What does ppg averages have to do with whether or not OHIO could experience another Wilderness Campaign if we hired a bad coach.
What you asked me to do is prove that Ohio couldn't repeat the wilderness performance of the Cleve/PapaL years so I thought showing how the offenses were more limited in those years was the most direct and quickest way to demonstrate a difference statistically from then to the current era.

The 0.0885 is the percentile finish in the conference. The 0.05 number related to the number of times Ohio finished in bottom 1/3. Since Ohio finished in the bottom 1/3 every year for 10 years and multiplying by 0 gives a total value of zero I gave an estimation of 1 out of 20 (which is very generous) for having an offense that averages 14.5 a game finish in the top 1/3 of the MAC. Then 0.6 is the variance in the Ohio 14.5 ppg from the average in the 2013-2022 period so the Cleve/PapaL offensive performance was about 2 standard deviations away from the modern mean.
Do you not realize that none of this is relevant to your point? Average points scored is no measure of our likelihood of having a Wilderness Campaign again in the future. We could average 30 points a game and go 0-12 if our defense was giving up an average of 45 points a game. I can cite a number of teams on long losing streaks that were scoring enough points to win an average college football game. I'd recommend enrolling not only in a basic statistics class, but also Logic 101.
Do you remember in the early days of Solich one of the first aspects he said that he came away with from his years of studying top offenses in the country was the desirability of having explosive big play capability. Throwing downfield to catch the offense off guard on first down. Scoring more quickly and more often is the indicator of a quality team. It gives a team the edge in the fourth quarter and OT situations. This is why I disappointed that Kurtis didn't get it done at Kent in that OT situation. Its play calling on offense which is a fine art and on defense its more the scheme.

I gave my shot at the statistics and came up with 0.27 chance of the offense repeating the 1985-1994 performance. Why don't you as the statistics guy add up the amount of FBS wins in that time period and determine the probability in my lifetime (20 years) that Ohio will have another 10 year stretch with the amount of FBS wins from 1985-1994. Show this young whipper snapper how its done. Explain to me how its logical.
There are some things to which statistics can't be applied in any reasonable way, and this is one of them. We are one bad coach hire away from a Wilderness Campaign. How do you calculate the chances of OHIO's next coach being a dude? What data do you feed into your formula to come up with a reasonable estimate? I submit that this is a subject where only fools would try to apply statistical analysis.
Basically what you are telling me you won't try to apply a statistical method because you can't do it. But you do have the audacity to tell someone who has led research teams performing Monte Carlo analysis to go take a 101 class in probability and statistics.
Yep, I can't do it, because no one can do it. You are only fooling yourself if you think that the analysis you shared here has a shred of merit. I tried to say this nicely several times, but you kept insisting that you had great insight based on applying statistics to underlying data that had no relevance to the question at hand. If you want to compare credentials, I used to teach research methodology for journalism students, and have a great deal of experise in survey research and am quite proficient in using statistics related to various aspects of Mass Communication research.
mail
person
colobobcat66
11/6/2022 2:04 PM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
With the win last night over Buffalo, Tim now has 9 career wins, surpassing Tom Lichtenberg's total of 8, and he is now tied with Cleve Bryant. Passing Brian Knorr's total of 11 is now a possibility before the end of this season.
Now that's putting things in perspective!

I must admit after the first few games last year I thought we were headed in the direction of OHIO football Wilderness Campaign II. I'm so glad that I was completely wrong.
No facilities back in the 80's and most of the 90's. No internet recruiting presence. Can't compare that era to today.
I don't think you understand the difference between-group variation and within-group variation. Please buy a good statistics book and study the concept of ANOVA, young man.
To make this comparison work the assumptions are that OU is the same level of university with the same recruiting attractiveness under the same recruiting rules. 85 scholarship limit didn't become official until the early 90's. A few years later Toledo was the first MAC program to appear in the Top 25 in decades and it eventually helped Ohio's program under the Grobe years.

Why Ohio would regress to the 1984-1994 period doesn't make sense to me. Ohio was a good program in the two platoon era and the guilded age of athletics back in Peden's time. That 1984-1994 period is worse than what Akron is today the very worst team in the MAC. It happens to be many fans on here were at OU at that time and are in perpetual disbelief about the current state.

For the wilderness years to work Albin would need to go 1-11, be fired and then be replaced with a terrible excuse of a coach. There is an outside chance TA could drive the program into a hole but the next hire isn't going to be making High School coach money as they did in the 80's. Next coach 1 million + coordinators making 300k-400k. Its very difficult to hire lemon staff after lemon staff with that type of money.

While the board might have placed the probability of a 1984-1994 wilderness decade post Frank at 50% its actual probability is around 0.1% that Ohio would be the very worst FBS team for a decade.
Wilderness Campaigns are possible in any era. Whatever new technology and environment may ensue is a factor for all teams playing in that era. So, one is making a comparison within a given era with other teams in that era, and then comparing those results with teams in different eras. So, what you are purposing is that the variance within our current era is less than the variance within past eras. Do you really have evidence that that is true? We don't have to look further than our own league to see a Wilderness Campaign in action -- Akron has now several years in a row of seasons that look at lot like the PapaL and Cleve years at OHIO. And, who knows when they will end for Akron.
There is a different variance. Back in 1985-1994 MAC schools played 11 game seasons and today half the MAC schools play 13 games counting the bowl with the division winners playing 14. More games and more home games help.

Comparing the OU offense from 1985-1994 to the bottom 1/3rd of the MAC was an exceptionally poor era.

1985 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.5), Ohio 16.5 ppg
*1986 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.6), Ohio 17.8 ppg
1987 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.4), Ohio 11.5 ppg
*1988 bottom 1/3 ppg (17.3), Ohio 17.7 ppg
1989 bottom 1/3 ppg (17.4), Ohio 17.4 ppg
1990 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.1), Ohio 14.7 ppg
1991 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.0), Ohio 16.0 ppg
1992 bottom 1/3 ppg (13.2), Ohio 13.2 ppg
1993 bottom 1/3 ppg (14.8), Ohio 12.2 ppg
1994 bottom 1/3 ppg (13.2), Ohio 7.5 ppg

The chances of finishing in the bottom 1/3 offensively 8/10 years with an average ppg about 90% of the bottom 1/3 was about 6% at that time.

Compare this to 2013-2022 where Ohio finished bottom 1/3 twice and the average ppg of the bottom 1/3 line was 24 ppg compared to 15.8 ppg.

2013 bottom 1/3 ppg (18.8), Ohio 27.4 ppg
*2014 bottom 1/3 ppg (22.3), Ohio 20.5 ppg
2015 bottom 1/3 ppg (23.1), Ohio 27.5 ppg
2016 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.8), Ohio 26.3 ppg
2017 bottom 1/3 ppg (25.3), Ohio 39.1 ppg
2018 bottom 1/3 ppg (23.9), Ohio 40.1 ppg
2019 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.1), Ohio 34.3 ppg
2020 bottom 1/3 ppg (28.7), Ohio 34.3 ppg
*2021 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.1), Ohio 22.6 ppg
2022 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.8), Ohio 33.4 ppg

The point you have on facilities and technology something MAC and G5 programs have can be thought of all things equal are in Ohio's case equalizers when from 1985-1994 it was at the bottom of the MAC and many levels below what other conferences had at the time. 6-6 in 2014 and 3-9 in 2021 have more wins than the 1985-1994 wilderness era in part because of more games.

Ohio averaged 14.45 ppg over a decade in 1985-1994. That is not going happen again in my lifetime.
I don't see how any of this addresses the issue you first raised that implied that Wilderness Campaigns couldn't happen now to OHIO or any other team in the modern era. UMass has pretty good facilities. Akron has better facilities than OHIO. Your logic is escaping me.
I am saying a 1985-1995 wilderness campaign where Ohio averages 14.5 ppg and averages 5 FBS wins a year was a statistical anomaly (6% chance in that era). What made it more likely for Ohio was at that time the facilities were a full standard deviation below the MAC and two standard deviations below the average FBS team (only had 105 teams so 52-53 was the middle).

Today the Ohio facilities are more equitable with MAC peers if not better in some respects so the program should stay closer to the mean and with FBS as a whole now 130 team facilities are behind by 1 standard deviation if that. The school isn't as remote as it was 40 years ago with the new highways and three times the restaurants. TV presence is at the Mountain West level.

Having a couple of extra games helps. Having six games at home helps. Akron is in the bottom of the MAC because it can't get the players nor the students. UMass doesn't have talent in its backyard. Ohio's within 2-3 hours of Cincy, Dayton, Columbus, Cleveland and can attract players across the state like it does with students. Better weather than Akron and UMass.

I though the question a lot of alums had years ago is why doesn't Ohio as a top MAC university have a good MAC football program and now it has one commensurate with the intangibles of a top college town. The last decade is the new normal, not back to the 1985-1994 era.
My first reaction is, "Monroe would be proud." Not of the content of this thread but its geometric shape.

In terms of content, I don't think you've proven at all that OHIO could never return to the Wildnerness years. Fortunately, it appears that Albin is turning out to be a better coach than many of us feared last year. Akron, by the way, has great facilities and is in the hot bed of Ohio high school football, with many great players in their own backyard. However, they are still going through a Wilderness Campaign.

Akron's last five years
2018 4-8
2019 0-12
2020 1-5
2021 2-10
2022 1-8 (and counting)

This Cleve and PapaL ball if I ever saw it.

Their new coach may pull them out of it, so they may rebound more quickly than OHIO did hiring two bad coaches back to back, but it's not a given. Time will tell. To say that it's not possible for this kind of record to happend again at OHIO is just nonsensical.
Let's just go then with your premise that all things in the MAC are equal. The probability of OU then being as bad as what it was from 1985-1994 was in that day and age only 6%.

How common would that decade long offensive performance of 14.5 ppg be in today's MAC?

2013 bottom 1/3 ppg (18.8), Ohio 16.5 ppg -10th
2014 bottom 1/3 ppg (22.3),Ohio 17.8 ppg -10th
2015 bottom 1/3 ppg (23.1), Ohio 11.5 ppg -12th
2016 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.8), Ohio 17.7 ppg -11th
2017 bottom 1/3 ppg (25.3), Ohio 17.4 ppg -11th
2018 bottom 1/3 ppg (23.9), Ohio 14.7 ppg -12th
2019 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.1), Ohio 16.0 ppg -11th
2020 bottom 1/3 ppg (28.7), Ohio 13.2 ppg -12th
2021 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.1), Ohio 12.2 ppg -12th
2022 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.8), Ohio 7.5 ppg -12th

The average Ohio ppg would be ranked 11.3 in that time period, finishing in the bottom 1/3 10 times out of 10 with an average difference from the median of -9.5 ppg. A rough probability then is equal to (0.0885*0.05*0.6) which is 0.27%. It would be extraordinary to put up the 1985-1994 ppg numbers again for another decade.

This is why I don't expect it, I don't fear it and don't project it.
Can anyone make sense out of this for me? What does ppg averages have to do with whether or not OHIO could experience another Wilderness Campaign if we hired a bad coach.
What you asked me to do is prove that Ohio couldn't repeat the wilderness performance of the Cleve/PapaL years so I thought showing how the offenses were more limited in those years was the most direct and quickest way to demonstrate a difference statistically from then to the current era.

The 0.0885 is the percentile finish in the conference. The 0.05 number related to the number of times Ohio finished in bottom 1/3. Since Ohio finished in the bottom 1/3 every year for 10 years and multiplying by 0 gives a total value of zero I gave an estimation of 1 out of 20 (which is very generous) for having an offense that averages 14.5 a game finish in the top 1/3 of the MAC. Then 0.6 is the variance in the Ohio 14.5 ppg from the average in the 2013-2022 period so the Cleve/PapaL offensive performance was about 2 standard deviations away from the modern mean.
Do you not realize that none of this is relevant to your point? Average points scored is no measure of our likelihood of having a Wilderness Campaign again in the future. We could average 30 points a game and go 0-12 if our defense was giving up an average of 45 points a game. I can cite a number of teams on long losing streaks that were scoring enough points to win an average college football game. I'd recommend enrolling not only in a basic statistics class, but also Logic 101.
Do you remember in the early days of Solich one of the first aspects he said that he came away with from his years of studying top offenses in the country was the desirability of having explosive big play capability. Throwing downfield to catch the offense off guard on first down. Scoring more quickly and more often is the indicator of a quality team. It gives a team the edge in the fourth quarter and OT situations. This is why I disappointed that Kurtis didn't get it done at Kent in that OT situation. Its play calling on offense which is a fine art and on defense its more the scheme.

I gave my shot at the statistics and came up with 0.27 chance of the offense repeating the 1985-1994 performance. Why don't you as the statistics guy add up the amount of FBS wins in that time period and determine the probability in my lifetime (20 years) that Ohio will have another 10 year stretch with the amount of FBS wins from 1985-1994. Show this young whipper snapper how its done. Explain to me how its logical.
There are some things to which statistics can't be applied in any reasonable way, and this is one of them. We are one bad coach hire away from a Wilderness Campaign. How do you calculate the chances of OHIO's next coach being a dude? What data do you feed into your formula to come up with a reasonable estimate? I submit that this is a subject where only fools would try to apply statistical analysis.
Basically what you are telling me you won't try to apply a statistical method because you can't do it. But you do have the audacity to tell someone who has led research teams performing Monte Carlo analysis to go take a 101 class in probability and statistics.
Yep, I can't do it, because no one can do it. You are only fooling yourself if you think that the analysis you shared here has a shred of merit. I tried to say this nicely several times, but you kept insisting that you had great insight based on applying statistics to underlying data that had no relevance to the question at hand. If you want to compare credentials, I used to teach research methodology for journalism students, and have a great deal of experise in survey research and am quite proficient in using statistics related to various aspects of Mass Communication research.
What we have here is a grade A p…..g contest.
mail
OhioCatFan
11/6/2022 6:15 PM

colobobcat66 wrote:expand_more
With the win last night over Buffalo, Tim now has 9 career wins, surpassing Tom Lichtenberg's total of 8, and he is now tied with Cleve Bryant. Passing Brian Knorr's total of 11 is now a possibility before the end of this season.


Now that's putting things in perspective!

I must admit after the first few games last year I thought we were headed in the direction of OHIO football Wilderness Campaign II. I'm so glad that I was completely wrong.


No facilities back in the 80's and most of the 90's. No internet recruiting presence. Can't compare that era to today.


I don't think you understand the difference between-group variation and within-group variation. Please buy a good statistics book and study the concept of ANOVA, young man.


To make this comparison work the assumptions are that OU is the same level of university with the same recruiting attractiveness under the same recruiting rules. 85 scholarship limit didn't become official until the early 90's. A few years later Toledo was the first MAC program to appear in the Top 25 in decades and it eventually helped Ohio's program under the Grobe years.

Why Ohio would regress to the 1984-1994 period doesn't make sense to me. Ohio was a good program in the two platoon era and the guilded age of athletics back in Peden's time. That 1984-1994 period is worse than what Akron is today the very worst team in the MAC. It happens to be many fans on here were at OU at that time and are in perpetual disbelief about the current state.

For the wilderness years to work Albin would need to go 1-11, be fired and then be replaced with a terrible excuse of a coach. There is an outside chance TA could drive the program into a hole but the next hire isn't going to be making High School coach money as they did in the 80's. Next coach 1 million + coordinators making 300k-400k. Its very difficult to hire lemon staff after lemon staff with that type of money.

While the board might have placed the probability of a 1984-1994 wilderness decade post Frank at 50% its actual probability is around 0.1% that Ohio would be the very worst FBS team for a decade.


Wilderness Campaigns are possible in any era. Whatever new technology and environment may ensue is a factor for all teams playing in that era. So, one is making a comparison within a given era with other teams in that era, and then comparing those results with teams in different eras. So, what you are purposing is that the variance within our current era is less than the variance within past eras. Do you really have evidence that that is true? We don't have to look further than our own league to see a Wilderness Campaign in action -- Akron has now several years in a row of seasons that look at lot like the PapaL and Cleve years at OHIO. And, who knows when they will end for Akron.


There is a different variance. Back in 1985-1994 MAC schools played 11 game seasons and today half the MAC schools play 13 games counting the bowl with the division winners playing 14. More games and more home games help.

Comparing the OU offense from 1985-1994 to the bottom 1/3rd of the MAC was an exceptionally poor era.

1985 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.5), Ohio 16.5 ppg
*1986 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.6), Ohio 17.8 ppg
1987 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.4), Ohio 11.5 ppg
*1988 bottom 1/3 ppg (17.3), Ohio 17.7 ppg
1989 bottom 1/3 ppg (17.4), Ohio 17.4 ppg
1990 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.1), Ohio 14.7 ppg
1991 bottom 1/3 ppg (16.0), Ohio 16.0 ppg
1992 bottom 1/3 ppg (13.2), Ohio 13.2 ppg
1993 bottom 1/3 ppg (14.8), Ohio 12.2 ppg
1994 bottom 1/3 ppg (13.2), Ohio 7.5 ppg

The chances of finishing in the bottom 1/3 offensively 8/10 years with an average ppg about 90% of the bottom 1/3 was about 6% at that time.

Compare this to 2013-2022 where Ohio finished bottom 1/3 twice and the average ppg of the bottom 1/3 line was 24 ppg compared to 15.8 ppg.

2013 bottom 1/3 ppg (18.8), Ohio 27.4 ppg
*2014 bottom 1/3 ppg (22.3), Ohio 20.5 ppg
2015 bottom 1/3 ppg (23.1), Ohio 27.5 ppg
2016 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.8), Ohio 26.3 ppg
2017 bottom 1/3 ppg (25.3), Ohio 39.1 ppg
2018 bottom 1/3 ppg (23.9), Ohio 40.1 ppg
2019 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.1), Ohio 34.3 ppg
2020 bottom 1/3 ppg (28.7), Ohio 34.3 ppg
*2021 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.1), Ohio 22.6 ppg
2022 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.8), Ohio 33.4 ppg

The point you have on facilities and technology something MAC and G5 programs have can be thought of all things equal are in Ohio's case equalizers when from 1985-1994 it was at the bottom of the MAC and many levels below what other conferences had at the time. 6-6 in 2014 and 3-9 in 2021 have more wins than the 1985-1994 wilderness era in part because of more games.

Ohio averaged 14.45 ppg over a decade in 1985-1994. That is not going happen again in my lifetime.


I don't see how any of this addresses the issue you first raised that implied that Wilderness Campaigns couldn't happen now to OHIO or any other team in the modern era. UMass has pretty good facilities. Akron has better facilities than OHIO. Your logic is escaping me.


I am saying a 1985-1995 wilderness campaign where Ohio averages 14.5 ppg and averages 5 FBS wins a year was a statistical anomaly (6% chance in that era). What made it more likely for Ohio was at that time the facilities were a full standard deviation below the MAC and two standard deviations below the average FBS team (only had 105 teams so 52-53 was the middle).

Today the Ohio facilities are more equitable with MAC peers if not better in some respects so the program should stay closer to the mean and with FBS as a whole now 130 team facilities are behind by 1 standard deviation if that. The school isn't as remote as it was 40 years ago with the new highways and three times the restaurants. TV presence is at the Mountain West level.

Having a couple of extra games helps. Having six games at home helps. Akron is in the bottom of the MAC because it can't get the players nor the students. UMass doesn't have talent in its backyard. Ohio's within 2-3 hours of Cincy, Dayton, Columbus, Cleveland and can attract players across the state like it does with students. Better weather than Akron and UMass.

I though the question a lot of alums had years ago is why doesn't Ohio as a top MAC university have a good MAC football program and now it has one commensurate with the intangibles of a top college town. The last decade is the new normal, not back to the 1985-1994 era.


My first reaction is, "Monroe would be proud." Not of the content of this thread but its geometric shape.

In terms of content, I don't think you've proven at all that OHIO could never return to the Wildnerness years. Fortunately, it appears that Albin is turning out to be a better coach than many of us feared last year. Akron, by the way, has great facilities and is in the hot bed of Ohio high school football, with many great players in their own backyard. However, they are still going through a Wilderness Campaign.

Akron's last five years
2018 4-8
2019 0-12
2020 1-5
2021 2-10
2022 1-8 (and counting)

This Cleve and PapaL ball if I ever saw it.

Their new coach may pull them out of it, so they may rebound more quickly than OHIO did hiring two bad coaches back to back, but it's not a given. Time will tell. To say that it's not possible for this kind of record to happend again at OHIO is just nonsensical.


Let's just go then with your premise that all things in the MAC are equal. The probability of OU then being as bad as what it was from 1985-1994 was in that day and age only 6%.

How common would that decade long offensive performance of 14.5 ppg be in today's MAC?

2013 bottom 1/3 ppg (18.8), Ohio 16.5 ppg -10th
2014 bottom 1/3 ppg (22.3),Ohio 17.8 ppg -10th
2015 bottom 1/3 ppg (23.1), Ohio 11.5 ppg -12th
2016 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.8), Ohio 17.7 ppg -11th
2017 bottom 1/3 ppg (25.3), Ohio 17.4 ppg -11th
2018 bottom 1/3 ppg (23.9), Ohio 14.7 ppg -12th
2019 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.1), Ohio 16.0 ppg -11th
2020 bottom 1/3 ppg (28.7), Ohio 13.2 ppg -12th
2021 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.1), Ohio 12.2 ppg -12th
2022 bottom 1/3 ppg (24.8), Ohio 7.5 ppg -12th

The average Ohio ppg would be ranked 11.3 in that time period, finishing in the bottom 1/3 10 times out of 10 with an average difference from the median of -9.5 ppg. A rough probability then is equal to (0.0885*0.05*0.6) which is 0.27%. It would be extraordinary to put up the 1985-1994 ppg numbers again for another decade.

This is why I don't expect it, I don't fear it and don't project it.


Can anyone make sense out of this for me? What does ppg averages have to do with whether or not OHIO could experience another Wilderness Campaign if we hired a bad coach.


What you asked me to do is prove that Ohio couldn't repeat the wilderness performance of the Cleve/PapaL years so I thought showing how the offenses were more limited in those years was the most direct and quickest way to demonstrate a difference statistically from then to the current era.

The 0.0885 is the percentile finish in the conference. The 0.05 number related to the number of times Ohio finished in bottom 1/3. Since Ohio finished in the bottom 1/3 every year for 10 years and multiplying by 0 gives a total value of zero I gave an estimation of 1 out of 20 (which is very generous) for having an offense that averages 14.5 a game finish in the top 1/3 of the MAC. Then 0.6 is the variance in the Ohio 14.5 ppg from the average in the 2013-2022 period so the Cleve/PapaL offensive performance was about 2 standard deviations away from the modern mean.


Do you not realize that none of this is relevant to your point? Average points scored is no measure of our likelihood of having a Wilderness Campaign again in the future. We could average 30 points a game and go 0-12 if our defense was giving up an average of 45 points a game. I can cite a number of teams on long losing streaks that were scoring enough points to win an average college football game. I'd recommend enrolling not only in a basic statistics class, but also Logic 101.


Do you remember in the early days of Solich one of the first aspects he said that he came away with from his years of studying top offenses in the country was the desirability of having explosive big play capability. Throwing downfield to catch the offense off guard on first down. Scoring more quickly and more often is the indicator of a quality team. It gives a team the edge in the fourth quarter and OT situations. This is why I disappointed that Kurtis didn't get it done at Kent in that OT situation. Its play calling on offense which is a fine art and on defense its more the scheme.

I gave my shot at the statistics and came up with 0.27 chance of the offense repeating the 1985-1994 performance. Why don't you as the statistics guy add up the amount of FBS wins in that time period and determine the probability in my lifetime (20 years) that Ohio will have another 10 year stretch with the amount of FBS wins from 1985-1994. Show this young whipper snapper how its done. Explain to me how its logical.


There are some things to which statistics can't be applied in any reasonable way, and this is one of them. We are one bad coach hire away from a Wilderness Campaign. How do you calculate the chances of OHIO's next coach being a dude? What data do you feed into your formula to come up with a reasonable estimate? I submit that this is a subject where only fools would try to apply statistical analysis.


Basically what you are telling me you won't try to apply a statistical method because you can't do it. But you do have the audacity to tell someone who has led research teams performing Monte Carlo analysis to go take a 101 class in probability and statistics.


Yep, I can't do it, because no one can do it. You are only fooling yourself if you think that the analysis you shared here has a shred of merit. I tried to say this nicely several times, but you kept insisting that you had great insight based on applying statistics to underlying data that had no relevance to the question at hand. If you want to compare credentials, I used to teach research methodology for journalism students, and have a great deal of expertise in survey research and am quite proficient in using statistics related to various aspects of Mass Communication research.


What we have here is a grade A p…..g contest. 

We do everything Grade A here on BA. No, Grade B stuff allowed!  cool frown sad wink

 

 

via GIPHY

Showing Messages: 76 - 90 of 90
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
MAC News Links



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