SB Nation User Blog: 34hawk

Brown and Moreno

34hawk — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 17:03:01 -0000

The trendy thing to do, following Thomas Brown's monster performance against the Rebels, is to tell those of us who've been calling for more Moreno to shush up.

Looking at the aggregate statistics for the season, Brown and Moreno appear to be equals. Brown averages 5.6 yards per carry, and Moreno averages 5.5 ypc. As a receiver, Moreno holds the edge averaging 13.5 yards per reception to Brown's 8.4 ypr. Likewise, Moreno accounts for more offensive yardage, while Brown has scored more touchdowns.

When you disaggregate the statistics and look at each game individually, Moreno has been more productive in 3 out of 5 games, Brown more productive in 1 of 5 games, and the two were equally productive in one game (the loss to South Carolina).

As to intangibles, Brown exemplifies every leadership quality a coach could hope for, and Moreno's enthusiasm and energy provides a spark for every Dawg in the stadium. Both have made several huge plays, and both have faltered at key moments (Brown on UGA's last possession of the 1st half against Alabama, and Moreno on 3rd and 4th downs in the 1st quarter against Ole Miss).

Overall, Brown's performance has forced me to update my opinion of his ability relative to Moreno's. At this point in time he may be Moreno's equal. If so, it is appropriate for the UGA coaching staff to evenly distribute playing time and touches. Over time, and against tougher competition, I expect Moreno to be the more productive back. Only time will tell.

However I remain steadfast in my opinion that the best running back should receive the most playing time and the most touches. The "two back" rotation makes sense only when the backs are of equal ability. Football, like all winner take all games, provides large rewards to those with even marginally superior ability. To pretend that fairness, "fresh legs", or some other such concept should be heavily considered when deciding who should and should not play is a recipe for losing.

The bottom line is to maintain possession, advance the ball, score points, and win the game.

Poll

Against Tennessee I want to see...

An equal portion of Brown and Moreno

12 votes

More Moreno

0 votes

More Brown

0 votes

12 votes | Poll has closed

Less Moreno?

34hawk — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:32:23 -0000

I like Thomas Brown. Brown is a very good running back. And he has demonstrated a number of admirable personal characteristics. But he is not the Bulldogs best running back. Knowshon Moreno is a more productive running back, and the more touches he gets, the more likely the Dawgs are to win.

With 2 minutes and 9 seconds left in the first half against Alabama, the Dawg's coaching brain trust elected to hand the ball to Thomas Brown on three consecutive plays. Unable to run out the clock, the Dawgs punted to Alabama, and the Tide put 3 points on the board to close the half. Would Knowshon Moreno have gained the extra yard necessary to move the chains and maintain possession? We can not say with certainty, but the following facts are relevant:

Knowshon Moreno averages 1.4 yards more per carry than does Thomas Brown (5.3 to 3.9).
Moreno's longest run is 50 yards, while Brown's longest is 17.
Moreno averages 6.9 yards more per reception than does Brown (15 to 8.1).

Moreno hasn't fumbled (knock on wood) and he appears to be adequate in pass protection. Playing your second best running back, especially in key situations against tough conference opponents, is a good way to lose games.

I do not understand the decision to give Moreno fewer touches than Brown. The Dawgs managed to pull out the win in overtime, but they could have put the game away much earlier. The decision to give Moreno fewer touches than Brown was a coaching mistake, and it should not be repeated.

Resume Ranking

34hawk — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 03:36:50 -0000

We define only out of despair, we must have a formula.. to give a façade to the void. Emil Cioran

In ranking teams, our intention should be to observe and record objective information as games are played and to use this information to update our existing perceptions of the ordinal standing of college football teams. In my opinion:

1.    Teams should be ranked on all available information.
2.    Objective statistical information should be emphasized.
3.    Preseason and early season rankings should be based on team characteristics such as recent performance, returning starters, depth, recruiting, and coaching staff.
4.    As the season progresses, ranking should be based less on perceptions of team characteristics and more on actual team performance.
5.    Teams that are likely to be very good, but that have not been tested in tough games and/or in adverse circumstances should not be ranked above teams with similar characteristics but a superior resume of on-field performance.
6.    The worthiness of a ranking methodology should be judged by one simple criterion: the number of games correctly predicted. The best ranking methodology is the one which produces a ranking which most often predicts winners. Higher ranked teams should beat lower ranked and unranked opponents.

As I understand it, SMQ defines resume ranking as a methodology in which rank is 1) "based strictly on the measurable" and 2) "takes into account only games played to date this season".

The first criterion seems laudable at first glance. However, a strict adherence to ranking based only on "measurable" attributes would lead to mathematical ranking schemas which omit subjective criteria. I find the clarity of computational ranking methods attractive, but do not believe any computational method is sufficiently robust to incorporate every relevant factor.

More importantly, many attributes that are objectively and easily measured do not lend themselves to objective comparisons between teams. We can easily determine whether a win occurred at home or away. But how do we objectively compare the degree of difficulty of winning an away game at Ann Arbor versus the difficulty of winning an away game at Palo Alto? We could measure decibels, distance from home, variations in climate, etc... I suppose, but this is ultimately a matter of subjective opinion. Is Nebraska's Memorial Stadium more or less hospitable than Clemson's Memorial Stadium? And does it depend upon who is visiting?

I would suggest that resume ranking emphasize objective and quantitative criteria, while allowing subjective criteria so long as the potential bias is considered and noted, and so long as the subjective criteria are subordinate to the objective criteria. If we are to strictly limit ourselves to objective measurable criteria, we should use a computational method which eliminates all bias and error.

The second criterion (consider only games played to date) is simply ludicrous if one wishes to form a rational ordinal ranking. Prior to the first week's games, the current resume ranking methodology would compel us to ignore a wide variety of relevant information that is easily measured and objectively comparable (past performance, returning starters, depth, recruiting), and instead rank every team in a 119 way tie for first, last, and only place.

The situation is little better after the first games are played. Suppose for example that a panel of experts has assigned a preseason rank for each team on the basis of the factors mentioned above (past performance, returning starters, depth, etc...). Let letters appearing earlier in the alphabet represent the higher ranked teams. Now suppose that A beats Z, and T beats S. All else equal, by virtue of defeating a tougher opponent, T has a more impressive resume than does A. Resume ranking thus requires that we rank T ahead of A.

This seems unreasonable. We've learned that A is better than Z. And we've learned that T is better than S. But no new information has been generated from the first games that allow T to be objectively compared to A. The resume ranking methodology is therefore requiring us to ignore the only available objective information and form an ordinal ranking based on the subjective value judgment that a team beating a "tougher" opponent should have the higher rank.

In most sports it is the case that either every league team plays every other league team at least once and/or a championship is determined via a playoff. In this situation we have a plethora of pair wise comparisons to facilitate an ordinal ranking. But in college football, most teams do not play each other and there is no playoff. This paucity of information makes ranking by any methodology troublesome, and it is a particularly difficult problem for those bold enough to publish an ordinal ranking early in the season. How do we compare A and Z when they do not play, and when A plays tough opponents while Z plays easy opponents? As more games are played this problem will become less pressing, though we will have to contend with the rise of contradictory information (A beats B, B beats C, and C beats A).

If you insist on resume ranking based only on statistics from this season, this computational method might be of interest. It produces a ranking based on something very much like the "resume" and does so without human bias or error.

More Moreno

34hawk — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 15:05:42 -0000

Knowshon Moreno needs more touches.

Small differences in performance create large differences in outcomes. In football an extra inch is the difference between moving the chains and keeping the ball or bringing in the defense. Over the course of a game it's the difference between winning and losing.

Knowshon Moreno is averaging just over 5 yards per carry, which is one yard better than Thomas Brown. And as a receiver he's averaging twice as much (16.2) per catch as Brown (8.0), though we only have a few catches to judge from. He has also demonstrated more ability to make "game breaking" plays with longer runs than Brown.

With Moreno in the game, the opposing linebackers will be pulled closer to the line, and will be slower to bail out into pass coverage. This will create space for receivers to make plays over the middle, and it will help the tight end and fullback contriubte in the passing game as more attention is paid to Moreno.

Certainly Brown deserves to play and has proven to be a more than capable back. But Moreno needs more touches. If I were calling the shots, Moreno would get 75% of the touches and Brown 25%. It isn't fair to Moreno, it isn't fair to the team, and it isn't fair to the Bulldawg nation for the more productive and more dangerous Moreno to be underutilized.

Poll

Moreno should get ___ percent of the carries

25

1 votes

50

12 votes

75

13 votes

90

6 votes

32 votes | Poll has closed

First Thoughts on Football at Georgia State

34hawk — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 00:35:04 -0000

Who wins and who loses if Georgia State starts a I-AA football program?

Georgia Southern will be a big loser. I-AA caliber football players from Metro Atlanta will likely much prefer Atlanta to Statesboro. And I'm sure more than a few from below the gnat line will also be tempted by the bright lights of the big city.

Longer term, Georgia Tech will probably also be a loser. Their location in Hotlanta is one of the few positive things going for the program. But as Georgia State grows their program, they will compete with Tech for marginal D1 athletes interested in playing in Atlanta. Tech will not likely lose many highly touted recruits to State, but their depth chart will take a hit.

The direct impact on UGA should be negligible over any reasonable forecasting time horizon. Of course as Tech's fortunes wane, UGA's strength of schedule will decline.

No Excuses on the Road to Excellence

34hawk — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 02:22:11 -0000

Florida has an outstanding athletics program from stem to stern as evidenced by their standing in the Directors' Cup. And it's not an accident, or statistical anomaly that we can wish away.

The idea that Florida's performance will revert to a historical norm serves only to obscure why Florida has achieved excellence while our achievements are merely above average.

Florida has no intrinsic advantage that predisposes them to achieve more than we. The "natural resources" for excellence are as abundant and readily available in Georgia as they are in Florida. Our in-state high school programs, Alumni support, financial standing, facilities, weather patterns, etc..... are all on par with Florida's.

The difference is simple: Florida has had a great athletics director for over a decade. During that time we've had a retired and beloved football coach and his young protege serving in that capacity.

Jeremy Foley has set a standard of excellence at Florida that our AD must match. We will not overtake Florida by aiming low or waiting for them to stumble. Billy Donovan was a great hire. Ron Zook was a great fire. And Urban Meyer was a great hire.

Damon Evans has done a good job so far, and shows great promise. Now is the time for that promise to be fulfilled. Will he risk excellence? Does he have what it takes to be great? Or will he settle for being good?

My fear is that Mark Richt is Georgia's Ron Zook. Richt is better than Ray Goff, and so far, better than Jim Donnan though not by much. He's certainly no Steve Spurrier. Last years losses to Kentucky and Vanderbilt were inexcusable and reminiscent of Zook's losses to lessor teams. AS to basketball I've been cutting Dennis Felton a lot of slack given the program he inherited. But the next two seasons will be definitive.

I'll be interested to see the standards that Damon Evans sets for the athletics program in the next few years. Does he have the confidence to demand excellence and make the changes necessary to achieve it? Or will he settle for UGA playing second, third, or fourth fiddle in the SEC?

Poll

Florida's domination of Georgia...

Is a statistical anamoly that will go away if we close our eyes and wait

3 votes

Will continue until we demand excellence from our Coaches

2 votes

Will end when global warming floods The Swamp

3 votes

8 votes | Poll has closed

Playoffs plus two ponies

34hawk — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:07:45 -0000

I appreciate Kyle's well conceived arguments in favor of a traditional bowl system. And the part of me that is concerned with the increasing commercialization of college football agrees with him. However, since the reality is that college football is essentially a professional league, I much prefer a playoff system.

Different constituencies will have different goals. University presidents, for example, will likely be concerned with the impact on athlete's academic performance, revenue, and alumni relations.

What I want is:

1.    To create exciting games
2.    To ensure that the best teams have a chance to compete for the national championship
3.    To establish a clear "national champion".

If I were in charge of the relevant policies I would make two simple changes.

1. I would shorten the regular season by two games, while allowing one preseason game and eliminating the conference championship games.

This would accomplish a number of goals.
First, teams like UGA could eliminate powder puff opponents like WKU and UAB. Second, national powerhouses could play unfamiliar opponents in a preseason matchup without risking their chances of winning a national title. Third, interested alum would have the opportunity to end their summers with visits to places like College Station, Ann Arbour, South Bend, and Pasadena. It would almost be like a preseason "bowl". Fifth, while the game wouldn't "count" for anything it would be a much more compelling matchup due to the caliber and novelty of opponent. Sixth, while the conference championships often offer compelling games, the first round playoff games would be equally if not more compelling.

2. Second I would have an eight team playoff coupled with an NIT style traditional bowl system.

An eight team playoff ensures that the best teams will have an opportunity to win a championship on the field. (I am unconcerned with the details of when and where playoff games will be scheduled, and leave that as an exercise for the reader - or in other words, I'm too lazy to think about it). The next best teams would be unaffected by the playoff system. They, and their fans, would continue to enjoy great games such as this year's Emerald Nut's Bowl pairing of UCLA and Florida State.

As to the 8 team playoff, one may certainly quibble over the details. I grant that there will be controversy as to which team is 8th best. Certainly one may reasonably believe that Notre Dame is a better team than Boise State. A more sophisticated fan may argue that a different playoff system would produce a different winner. SEC fans know well, for example, that it is not uncommon for Georgia to beat Tennessee to beat Florida to beat Georgia. In such a case the order of pairing in a playoff would be the decisive factor.

That said, most football players, coaches, and fans are not familiar with Arrow's Impossibility Theorem and it's consequences. They do not care that every ranking system of three or more objects will tradeoff conditions of fairness and consistency. Nor do they care that the 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th best teams in college football are excluded from the playoffs.

What they care passionately about is a simple criterion of fairness: the very best teams should have an opportunity to win a championship on the field.

Commercialization of College football & basketball

34hawk — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:29:29 -0000

The commercialization of college athletics is one of my favorite topics of discussion.

Football and basketball programs are essentially semi-pro leagues. Coaches and staff are paid in the 7 figures. Elite athletes are paid under the table. And the atletes are, all too often and perhaps usually, most certainly NOT student-athletes. This despite the fact that the vast majority of them will never graduate to the professional leagues, and far too many of them will never graduate from college.

How did we get in such a mess? As with any arms race, we may blame no one and everyone. The escalation necessary to "win" never stops. And in the end, everyone loses. The system, the rules of the game, are to blame. People acting rationally and honorably within the system have brought us to this point (the cheaters have only pushed us ahead at a faster pace) and will take us further towards commercialization and professionalization.

When you think student-athlete, do you think of Maurice Clarett? Reggie Bush? Matt Leinart? Certainly there are qualified student athletes playing Division 1 atletics, and I do not mean to demean them. They are, however, very much the exception. How many of them, for example, would you like to see representing your university as an exemplar of the institutions commitment to higher education?

I don't know how we can climb down from this commercialized abomination. I certainly don't advocate unilateral disarmament.

But I don't like it that my Georgia Bulldogs recruit lineman from JUCOs in Kansas. In my ideal world, the coach would travel to exotic locations on campus -- say Connor Hall -- where the big boys from places like Tifton and Cairo spend their time. They might even travel to Tifton and Cairo on an occasional recruiting trip, but probably not.

And I while I am glad that UGA spends a great deal of money supporting its atletetes with tutoring and academic support programs, I don't like it that such programs are necessary to raise grades and graduation rates to a respectable level.

Students lacking the preperation to be successful in college should not be admitted. Athletes whose first commitment is the pursuit of fame and fortune as a professional athlete should play in the professional minor leagues. College ball should be reserved for those qualified students who continue to play the game for love of the game.

I'm just saying.... Now back to reality.

Poll

Athletic Scholarships should

be prohibited

1 votes

include a large cash stipend

8 votes

remain the same

4 votes

13 votes | Poll has closed

Boo got shot

34hawk — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 21:41:39 -0000

I know this is way off topic. In my defense, we are playing UAB this week, and there is not much to say.

Anyway, back to Boo. A Charger's linebacker got shot a few weeks ago. This guy sums it up pretty well.

Basic facts: Aaron Mansker, an off duty and out of uniform cop driving a black Mazda sedan follows Charger's linebacker Micheal Foley, for over 25 miles. Then the officer says he "felt trapped" in Foley's cul de sac and shoots Foley three times. Foley was unarmed. Foley's companion then tried to run over Mansker. Mansker claims Foley was driving fast and eratically and that he tried to pull Foley over while stopped at 3 red lights along the 25 mile route. The incident happened between 3 and 4 in the morning. Recently the prosecutors have suggested -- without (by their own admission) one bit of evidence -- that Foley may have been suffering from steroid rage.

To be sure, Foley is certainly no poster boy. But the off duty cop seems like dot gamn idiot and the prosecutors seem to be engaging in misconduct by not only publicizing the case, but by publicizing wholly manufactured and completely unsubstantiated gossip. Of course Foley may be on steriods. The off duty cop might also be a member of the KKK or a drug crazed Raider's fan (is there any other kind?). If no evidence is required to advance a theory, anything goes. Geessssh they are reaching on this one.

Even Money at Tradesports

34hawk — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 21:29:40 -0000

Looks like Georgia is a slight favorite over at tradesports. There are no trades yet but the bid/ask spread spans 50%. That's even money folks.

For those of you who have never experienced the joy of tradesports I definitely recommend it. You can bet -- trade contracts, that is -- throughout the game. Look for me to be buying contracts for Georgia to win if Stafford is in the game early.