I think we all know what was about to happen.
You got it, dad came through with a 30-14 to obliterate the rest of us by four games, marking the second time this season he's taken home first by crashing an ass-sucking party (it's not unprecedented in other aspects of his life; life as a trucker, you know). Sure, he's still in last, and these kinds of wacky picks could be the reason, but I've made that joke before and the bottom like is he's the winner and I'm the loser so no matter what I say the joke's on me.
Still, I don't think we've ever had the last-place person win two weeks in one season, so this is an occasion to be marked. What's next, a black president?
Speaking of black presidents, at this rate Lane - who undoubtedly was ruled by one at Hendersonville High - is going to mess around and get caught by a guy who missed a week, a feat previously accomplished only by, let's see here, yep, dad. Lane went a contest-worst 23-21 that has actually let dad get within sniffing distance. This is crazy! This is crazy! This is crazy!
And speaking of crazy, our overall race remains ridiculously tight. The top four people all went 26-18, and the only person who didn't - Chip - fell two spots to fifth simply by being a mere one game worse. Rob got to drop his 26-18, which allowed him to pull within one one-thousandth of point of me in second place, while Kristy is now in fourth - three games from first.
As you can see, accuracy is paramount. So I will, again, encourage you to double-check my work.
Here are the games and standings. Lots of good ones, again, this week, and we all have the added shame/humiliation/motivation of being crushed by dad. Let's go regain some pride! Well, except for Lonnie and Cheryl, who are once again contractually obligated to pick Central Florida.
Standings
Weekly winner in bold; worst week in red
- Chris 34-8, 37-14, 35-13, 28-19, 28-19, 32-10, 30-16, 29-17, 28-19, 26-18 (279-134, .676)
- Ron 33-9, 38-13, 37-11, 29-18, 27-20, 26-16, 27-19, 34-12, 27-20, 26-18 (277-136, .671)
- Rob 31-11, 37-14, 31-17, 29-18, 29-18, 30-12, 29-17, 34-12, 29-18, 26-18 (279-137, .671)
- Kristy 30-12, 39-12, 27-21, 31-16, 28-19, 31-11, 28-18, 32-14, 30-17, 26-18 (275-137, .667)
- Chip 33-9, 41-10, 32-16, 28-19, 30-17, 30-12, 25-21, 29-17, 28-19, 25-19 (276-138, .667)
- Cullen 35-7, 38-13, 31-17, 28-19, 26-21, 25-17, 27-19, 32-14, 31-16, 26-18 (273-140, .661)
- Bob 31-11, 34-17, 31-17, 34-13, 26-21. 28-14, 24-22, 28-18, 34-13, 26-18 (272-142, .657)
- Cheryl 29-13, 35-16, 33-15, 26-21, 27-20, 27-15, 27-19, 30-16, 33-14, 25-19 (266-147, .644)
- Amy 32-10, 40-11, 29-19, 30-17, 28-19, 25-17, 24-22, 26-20, 30-17, 26-18 (266-148, .643)
- Lonnie 30-12, 37-14, 28-20, 27-20, 26-21, 24-18, 28-18, 31-15, 28-19, 26-18 (259-154, .627)
- Lane 30-12, 34-17, 30-18, 28-19, 27-20, 28-14, 25-21, 25-21, 28-19, 23-21 (255-161, .613)
- Dad 28-14, 0-51, 30-18, 25-22, 32-15, 24-18, 22-24, 24-22, 29-18, 30-14 (244-165, .597)
Week 11
ACC
Maryland at Virginia Tech (Thursday)
Georgia Tech at North Carolina
Clemson at Florida State
North Carolina State at Duke
Virginia at Wake Forest
Notre Dame at Boston College
SEC
Georgia at Kentucky
Arkansas at South Carolina
Wyoming at Tennessee
Tennessee-Martin at Auburn
Alabama at Louisiana State
Florida at Vanderbile
SoCon
Samford at Georgia Southern
Western Carolina at Elon
Appalachian State at Chattanooga
Citadel at Wofford
Big 12/Pac 10 headliners
Kansas at Nebraska
Oregon State at California-Los Angeles
Oklahoma State at Texas Tech
Scratchers
Texas Christian at Utah (Thursday)
Nevada at Fresno State (Friday)
Illinois at Western Michigan
Bowling Green at Ohio
Louisiana-Monroe at Middle Tennessee
Western Illinois at Southern Illinois
New Hampshire at Villanova
Southern Mississippi at Central Florida
Hawaii at New Mexico State
Arkansas State at Florida International
Cincinnati at West Virginia
New Mexico at Nevada-Las Vegas
NFL
Denver at Cleveland (Thursday)
New Orleans at Atlanta
Tennessee at Chicago
Jacksonville at Detroit
Seattle at Miami
Green Bay at Minnesota
Buffalo at New England
St. Louis at New York Jets
Baltimore at Houston
Carolina at Oakland
Indianapolis at Pittsburgh
Kansas City at San Diego
New York Giants at Philadelphia
San Francisco at Arizona (Monday)
32 comments:
No comments from me today. I'm too uninspired. Lucky for me, I still have a UK residence visa.
Maryland at TECH
Georgia Tech at UNC
Clemson at FSU
North Carolina State at DUKE
Virginia at WAKE
ND at Boston College
SEC
UGA at Kentucky
Arkansas at USC
Wyoming at UT
Tennessee-Martin at AU
BAMA at Louisiana State - but i want LSU to win to screw up the BCS further.
UF at Vanderbile -- I hate Tebow.
SoCon
Samford at GSU
Western Carolina at ELON
ASU at Chattanooga
Citadel at WOFFORD
Big 12/Pac 10 headliners
KANSAS at Nebraska
Oregon State at UCLA
Oklahoma State at TTU
Scratchers
Texas Christian at UTAH
Nevada at BYE BYE PAT HILL
JUICE at Western Michigan
BG at Ohio
Louisiana-Monroe at MTSU
Western Illinois at SI
New Hampshire at NOVA
Southern Mississippi at UCF
Hawaii at NMSU
ASU at Florida International
Cincinnati at WVU
NM at Nevada-Las Vegas
NFL
DENVER at Cleveland (Thursday)
New Orleans at ATL
Tennessee at CHICAGO
DA VILLE at Detroit
SEATTLE at Miami
GREEN BAY at Minnesota
Buffalo at NEW ENGLAND
St. Louis at JETS
Baltimore at HOUSTON
CAROLINA at Oakland
Indianapolis at PITT
Kansas City at DIEGO
GIANTS at Philadelphia
San Francisco at ZONA
Cullen's picks, straight from App's word-processing class:
ACC
Maryland at VAGINA TECH (mark me down as someone who isn't ecstatic about Hotmail's new changes)
Georgia Tech at UNC (So apparently all white people are supposed to report to the nearest cotton field according to a text I got today. And it didn't even come from Joey Porter)
Clemson at FSU (On the flip side, I haven't seen this many angry white guys at work since they heard there'd be no more episodes of Seinfeld. Ooh, that's a good one. I'm gonna put it in my act)
NCSU at Duke (What's up with this pool? I haven't seen this many white guys not making comments since Furman lost their last game)
UVA at Wake Forest (Hulk Hogan's Celebrity Wrestling was a big letdown. It's so bad that it's not even comically bad. I expected better from CMT)
Notre Dame at BC
SEC
UGA at Kentucky (UGA needs KY after how hard they took it up the A from UF's spread attack)
Arkansas at S. CAROLINA (Why are the black people so angry? They got off good. Signed, A Native American)
Wyoming at TENNESSEE (this should be a busy offseason for coaching changes. Will any SoCon coaches go BCS?)
Tennessee-Martin at KNOBBURN (T-Mart! You're going to time out!)
AL OBAMA at Louisiana State
FLORIDA at Vanderbile
SoCon
Samford at GA SOUTHERN (Samford has acquitted themselves nicely but winning in Paulson is a whole different animal)
Western Carolina at ELON (will the Phoenix get caught looking ahead?)
ASU at Chattanooga (True story, App has won more games in Chattanooga since 2006 than UTC has)
Citadel at WOFFORD (I have to agree with Dean Hensley's Ghost that the Furman fans picking Wofford sure seems like sour grapes. It's a nice feeling when you can have a really off day and still beat your rival by two td's)
Big 12/Pac 10 headliners
KANSAS at Nebraska
ORGAN ST at ucla (it occurs to me that these two conferences could also be terms that porn actors use on their resumes)
Oklahoma State at TX TECH
Scratchers
TCU at Utah (Rob can recycle his comment from TCU v BYU here)
Nevada at FRESNO ST
ILLINOIS at Western Michigan
Bowling Green at OHIO
Louisiana-Monroe at MTSU
Western Illinois at S.ILLINOIS
New Hampshire at HECTOR VILLANUEVA
SO.MISS at Central Florida
HAWAII at New Mexico State
Arkansas State at FIU
Cincinnati at W.VA
NEW SEXICO at unlv
NFL
Denver at CLEVELAND
NEW ORLEANS at Atlanta
TENNESSEE at Chicago
JAX at Detroit
Seattle at MIAMI
Green Bay at MINNESOTA
Buffalo at NEW ENGLAND
St. Louis at NY JETS
BALTIMORE at Houston
CAROLINA at Oakland
Indianapolis at PITTSBURGH
Kansas City at SAN DIEGO
NY GIANTS at Philadelphia
San Francisco at ARIZONA
I apologize for not making many comments recently, but I'm going to try to come back with a vengence this week. Unfortunately, I'm in a hellacious stretch of school work, and on top of that I got strep throat somehow and I feel like shit.
Luckily, the doctor gave me some Dynamite purple pills from Malaysia so my comments this week are sponsored by Hydrocodone (because I'm high as a kite on it right now):
ACC
MARYLAND at Virginia Tech (I love how I hear all the rationalizations for why V-Tech will be alright. True, they can't get much worse than how Taylor and Glennon have been playing, but to expect the crappy QB's backup to do just as good a job??? I don't get it)
Georgia Tech at NORTH CAROLINA (Davis beat cancer, he can beat a bee sting. Although I'm pretty sure Tech is the better team)
Clemson at FSU (RIP the Bowden Bowl)
North Carolina State at DUKE (Do you hear that sound Cutcliffe?? That the sound of your fans making their way to Cameron Indoor. Football season is effectively over in Durham now)
VIRGINIA at Wake Forest (That's right. It took me just under 3 months of being a part of the Wagner family to become a Virginia homer)
NOTRE DAME at Boston College (Isn't there something in the Catholic school code about not beating Notre Dame for the good of the religion)
SEC
GEORGIA at Kentucky (I took unmitigated joy in Florida beating Georgia last week. Mark Richt is an asshole and he got what he deserved. I wish Meyer had 20 more timeouts to call. What Georgia did last year was bush.)
Arkansas at SOUTH CACKALACK (Two states that ironically didn't vote for Obama)
Wyoming at TENNESSEE (I wonder if BJ Laughter has had the press conference to say he's not interested in the Tennessee job, everyone else has)
Tennessee-Martin at AUBURN (Did anyone else see Tee Martin on the sidelines earlier this year at some Tennessee game? He weighed roughly 275 pounds. Incindentially, that is also the number of words in his vocabulary)
ALABAMA at Louisiana State (Maybe because I live in Alabama I'm losing my mind, but is there any reason why this game is a 3.5 point line? Didn't LSU give up a combined hundy to Georgia and Florida?)
FLORIDA at Vanderbilt (Bobby Johnson really screwed the pooch against Dook. Does that mean the ACC's crappy is better than the SEC's crappy?)
SoCon
Samford at GEORGIA SOUTHERN (On AGS, the Southern fans are predicting a 10-17 point win. I have no clue what that is based on, because Samford has acquitted themselves very well this year against everyone they've played and Southern needed overtime to beat Western and Citadel, both teams that Samford beat with relative ease. I know Paulson is a tough environment, but Georgia Southern hasn't beaten anyone of consequence handily. They just don't have it together yet this year. Maybe this is the game they do put it together)
Western Carolina at ELON (Bleh, who cares??)
APP at Chattanooga
Citadel at WOFFORD (Mike you've forced my hand on this one: Picking Wofford after watching App struggle to beat two teams which were statistically inferior to Wofford both offensively and defensively was rational pick. I can't help that you are blinded by your App affiliation, but seriously, going into it that game was set up to be a close affair. I had no idea that Wofford planned on bringing Citadel's slow defensive backs and Bobby Lamb's defensive scheme from 2004 with them to Boone.
And furthermore, Furman had a whole hell of a lot to do with App's "really off day." Deny that all you want to, but for once in his less than storied career, Bobby Lamb brought the right gameplan into a contest with App. They shut down Edwards run and forced App into the "bad" day. Like most App fans, you've become reluctant to give credit where credit is due. I mean, you DID hand James Madison that game this year, it had nothing to do with JMU making things happen. Same with Wofford and Southern last year. It wasn't that they did something well, it was that you did something bad. Zach Johnson's dad is proud of you. And Zach Johnson is open right now at aisle 5 with the blue light special)
Big 12/Pac 10 headliners
KANSAS at Nebraska (Bo Pelini needs to learn how to count to 5 before he reacts)
OREGON ST at California-Los Angeles
Oklahoma State at TEXAS TECH (Although this is the same kind of game you'd expect TTU to lose. By the way, SEC fans are 100% certain that LSU is better than Ok. St. That's the rationalization for saying that TTU doesn't deserve to jump Bama if TTU beats Ok. St. TTU may not deserve it yet, but if they pull of the Tx, Ok. St., Ok. trifecta (which they most likely won't) they'll jump Bama. I hate ALABAMA, the state and the school and the fans)
Scratchers
TCU at Utah (Thursday)
Nevada at FRESNO (Friday)
ILLINOYZ at Western Michigan (In honor of Colin Skidmore, "D.J. Noyz)
BOWLING GREEN at Ohio
Louisiana-Monroe at MTSU
WESTERN ILL at Southern Illinois
NEW HAMPSHIRE at Villanova
Southern Mississippi at UCF
Hawaii at NMSU
Arkansas State at FIU
CINCY at West Virginia (I guess)
New Mexico at UNLV (Nobody gets out of Vegas w/o getting their clock cleaned)
NFL
Denver at CLEVELAND (I've got the NFL Network and this is the bull shit first game they give me? Be careful what you wish for Cleveland fans, Quinn wasn't playing for a reason)
New Orleans at ATLANTA (NO is still looking for their first NFC South win)
TENNESSEE at Chicago
Jacksonville at DETROIT (I just want to pick Detroit the rest of the season so I can say I picked them when they won a game)
Seattle at MIAMI (I do hope the Fins are playoff bound. They are leading the division and but for a Favre fluke TD they would be undefeated in division play)
GREEN BAY at Minnesota (Brad Childress has not yet beaten Green Bay and he's not starting this week)
Buffalo at NEW ENGLAND (Although under Bill Simmons' theory that the team that needs the game the most wins, Buffalo should be the victor)
St. Louis at NYJ (I hope Favre gets booed again by the Jets fans)
BALTIMORE at Houston
CAROLINA at Oakland
Indianapolis at PITTSBURGH
Kansas City at SAN DIEGO
NYG at Philadelphia (This was the NFL line that stood out to me most this week. Philly is favored in this game. I don't understand why. Vegas is dead wrong.)
San Francisco at ARIZONA (Whew! Speaking of craptacular games on national TV... I'm sure all of about 15 fans will be tuning in to this affair)
It works both ways Brackett. Furman fans can't claim they "gave" ASU five turnovers. The Mounted had something to do with that. It works both ways. Indeed I feel that ASU was outcoached for three quarters against Furman. Then ASU decided to start passing the ball rather than have Armanti running every other play. Bottom Line: Bobby Lamb pulled out the gameplan of his life and still lost by 2 td's.
I was blinded enough by my App allegiance that I actually picked GSU to beat App because they always have a difficult time in Paulson. Remind me please who exactly has Wofford beaten this season? I wish I hadn't written my comments so early last week b/c by game day I was fully confident App would win by 2 td's against the Terriers. Of course not even the silliest App fan would have predicted to 46 point win. But was Wofford really going to go into a nationally televised game... in Boone... on Halloween... and beat a team that was looking for revenge for last season's loss and to bounce back from an off week against Furple?
I never said GSU and Wofford didn't hand App a beating last season. In fact, I cheered when I found out we didn't have to play Wofford again in the playoffs. But buddy boy if you think I'm not hoping to see Furman again in the playoffs this season, then you'd be sadly mistaken. The Paladins would get blown out this time in my opinion. I think you'll find most App & JMU fans are foaming at the mouth to see that as the championship game this season. Speaking of which... don't the Furman fans (or at least you and Ron) usually cry about how lucky App is? I guess ASU doesn't force things to happen unlike the legendary 2008 Paladins. Funny how it doesn't work both ways.
Mike,
I personally never said thing one about the turnovers. Those things happen because A) Good defenses make plays and B) coaches put players in positions that they can't handle. In this game A happened far more than B, if B happened at all.
For example, both redzone turnovers for Furman happened because App made plays. I have no problem admitting that, either now or at the game. It doesn't stop some people from playing the "what if" game, but that's a bullshit game to play because the "if" is in the past.
I also think that Furman was LUCKY to beat Samford last week. I think they were LUCKY to get whats-his-name, the Samford running back who is leading the conference in rushing, to fumble on both his own and Furman's 1 yard line. Furman hasn't shown the wherewithall to actually make those plays happen. So they were lucky.
And I think I've said this roughly 324,501 times, but teams can be lucky and good at the same time. And being lucky isn't an insult.
I'll rehash it AGAIN though: App was lucky against JMU last year because Mickey Matthews is a moron. However, it wasn't just luck that caused the fumble. That was a good player making a great play.
App was also lucky to have Bobby Lamb go for 2 whenever that was. But then again, they also still had to make the play...
So again, I don't see why being lucky is an insult. But as I've said so many times before, App took the good fortune and made something happen with it. And that is why they are a championship team. As a matter of fact, luck plus execution is usually what makes a championship team. Especially in a one and done tournament.
However, I've heard (again, not from you) one too many times that "App beat themselves." Sometimes other teams just play well, or execute better. And I try really hard not to be one that says "we beat ourselves" because that's a bullshit excuse.
Because I have very little experience in beating you guys, I admittedly don't have much to pull from, but the things I heard about the loss in 2001 and 2005 were "If Bratton didn't run that ball back..." and "If the refs weren't calling everyting your way..."
I know full well that you didn't say any of those things, but when you say you had an "off week" it's analogous. Give Furman some credit for having a great gameplan and executing it, causing the off week. You're acting like you guys should have just walked out there, Furman should have been intimidated, and you would have gone ahead and won by three or four touchdowns over lowly Furman.
Furman has some talented players too and they did their job well the whole game. App has talented players that were out-played into the fourth quarter. Have you seen that many 3 and outs in an App game in a while? And when was the last time App was outgained that deep into a game? That was more about what Furman did well than what you did poorly.
And the fourth quarter, after Furman took the lead, was about what App did well and not about what Furman did poorly.
Furman made the first three quarters plus happen. App made the fumbles and interceptions happen. Edwards and Quick made the big catch and the pass interefernce happen. I don't, and never have, had a problem admitting a team was better than mine, or when a team makes plays to win a game.
Except when it involves Ingle Martin getting tripped up by the carpet monster you guys have installed on that field up there. And even then I gave App credit for stuffing Jerome Felton 3 times from about a foot away. Again, luck meeting execution.
And in regard to Wofford, you've seen their game scores, right? They played Southern to the same one point win you guys did; they played South Carolina to a 10 point loss (which was a 3 point game I think with under 5 minutes left); and they had blown out Chattanooga, Western and #4 Elon leading up the the App game.
On top of that, App had one less day to prepare for a Wofford team that runs a quirky offense.
You're telling me that isn't at least a defensible pick? You just came off a win against Southern that mirrored what Wofford did and a game where you looked normal against Furman for all but about 10 minutes. Wofford just trounced the #4 team in the country.
If I'd seen Wofford play once this year, I might have picked the other way, but all I had to go on were the stats.
And as you know there are three types of lies: "lies", "damn lies" and "statistics". I got caught looking at numbers.
And based on what we all watched in person, you still don't think Furman could come out and do the same thing again against App? Furman would be motivated to win. They don't have the players to match up skill wise, but I still think it can be a ballgame that is exciting until the end.
Especially if someone told Bobby Lamb about how that thing beyond the endzone with the little numbers counting down works. Seriously, a fucking draw up the middle in a 12 point game with under three minutes left?
Is this what it was like with Jerry Moore as a coach before 2005 when he became a genius?
Lonnie's Week 11 Picks
Week 11
ACC
Maryland at VIRGINIA TECH (Thursday)
GEORGIA TECH at North Carolina
Clemson at FLORIDA STATE
North Carolina State at DUKE
VIRGINIA at Wake Forest
Notre Dame at BOSTON COLLEGE
SEC
GEORGIA at Kentucky
Arkansas at SOUTH CAROLINA
Wyoming at TENNESSEE
Tennessee-Martin at AUBURN
ALABAMA at Louisiana State
FLORIDA at Vanderbile
SoCon
Samford at GEORGIA SOUTHERN
WESTERN CAROLINA at Elon
APPALACHIAN STATE at Chattanooga
Citadel at WOFFORD
Big 12/Pac 10 headliners
KANSAS at Nebraska
Oregon State at CALIFORNIA-LOS ANGELES
OKLAHOMA STATE at Texas Tech
Scratchers
TEXAS CHRISTIAN at Utah (Thursday)
Nevada at FRESNO STATE (Friday)
ILLINOIS at Western Michigan
BOWLING GREEN at Ohio
Louisiana-Monroe at MIDDLE TENNESSEE
Western Illinois at SOUTHERN ILLINOIS
New Hampshire at VILLANOVA
Southern Mississippi at CENTRAL FLORIDA
HAWAII at New Mexico State
Arkansas State at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL
Cincinnati at WEST VIRGINIA
NEW MEXICO at Nevada-Las Vegas
NFL
DENVER at Cleveland (Thursday)
New Orleans at ATLANTA
TENNESSEE at Chicago
JACKSONVILLE at Detroit
Seattle at MIAMI
GREEN BAY at Minnesota
Buffalo at NEW ENGLAND
St. Louis at NEW YORK JETS
BALTIMORE at Houston
CAROLINA at Oakland
Indianapolis at PITTSBURGH
Kansas City at SAN DIEGO
NEW YORK GIANTS at Philadelphia
San Francisco at ARIZONA (Monday)
Bob,
I actually do credit Furman for the defense they played. The 4-2-5 seems to be working well to mask FU's limited athletes in the secondary. It wouldn't shock me to see Wofford try to utilize it in the future. Bobby Lamb had them doing the opposite of what App's coaches were expecting. And it took ASU three qtrs to figure out they could attack the middle in the passing game.
I have to fundamentally disagree with you though about teams having off weeks. No, the opponent isn't just going to roll over and play dead. That's obvious. But if your team goes into a game without focus and intensity, then they do not execute plays as crisply. I have seen that many times this year with ASU. Early in the season their WR's could not catch the ball. Open receivers dropping passes is beating yourself. A kicker missing a routine XP at home is beating yourself. Snapping the ball five feet over the QB's head is beating yourself. I don't care what you say... App was not executing and some of the time it was due to lack of focus rather than something FU did. It's akin to an unforced error in tennis.
I personally thing FU played at their peak and ASU did not. App appears to have things figured out and I would bet on them blowing out WCU, Elon and UTC plus whoever they get in the 1st round.
I will type more when I get the chance but I'm heading out to go try to catch the SCSU-Howard game.
Chris takes Denver, Virginia Tech and Texas Christian. And I'm not angry at him for refusing to use the blog, because he's in pro baseball and clinging to the past is part of baseball's charm.
Ron takes:
The Hokey Pokeys
Texas Real Americans
Denver
Lane takes:
Maryland
Utah
Cleveland
Amy's picks:
Week 11
ACC
Maryland at VT (Thursday)
Georgia Tech at NC
Clemson at FSU
North Carolina State at DUKE
Virginia at WAKE FOREST
Notre Dame at BOSTON COLLEGE
SEC
GEORGIA at Kentucky
Arkansas at SOUTH CAROLINA
Wyoming at TENNESSEE
Tennessee-Martin at AUBURN
BAMA at Louisiana State
FLORIDA at Vanderbile
SoCon
Samford at GEORGIA SOUTHERN
Western Carolina at ELON
APP STATE at Chattanooga
Citadel at WOFFORD
Big 12/Pac 10 headliners
KANSAS at Nebraska
OREGON STATE at California-Los Angeles
Oklahoma State at TEXAS TECH
Scratchers
Texas Christian at UTAH (Thursday)
Nevada at FRESNO STATE (Friday)
Illinois at WESTERN MICHIGAN
BOWLING GREEN at Ohio
Louisiana-Monroe at MIDDLE TENNESSEE
Western Illinois at SOUTHERN ILLINOIS
New Hampshire at VILLANOVA
Southern Mississippi at CENTRAL FLORIDA
HAWAII at New Mexico State
ARKANSAS STATE at Florida International
Cincinnati at WEST VIRGINIA
NEW MEXICO at Nevada-Las Vegas
NFL
DENVER at Cleveland (Thursday)
NEW ORLEANS at Atlanta
TENNESSEE at Chicago
JAX at Detroit
Seattle at MIAMI
Green Bay at MINNESOTA
Buffalo at NEW ENGLAND
St. Louis at JETS
BALTIMORE at Houston
CAROLINA at Oakland
Indianapolis at PITTSBURGH
Kansas City at SAN DIEGO
NY GIANTS at Philadelphia
San Francisco at ARIZONA (Monday)
Cheryl's Week 11 Winning Picks
GO UCF!!!!!
Week 11
ACC
MARYLAND at Virginia Tech (Thursday)
Georgia Tech at NORTH CAROLINA
Clemson at FLORIDA STATE
North Carolina State at DUKE
Virginia at WAKE FOREST
NOTRE DAME at Boston College
SEC
Georgia at KENTUCKY
Arkansas at SOUTH CAROLINA
Wyoming at TENNESSEE
Tennessee-Martin at AUBURN
ALABAMA at Louisiana State
FLORIDA at Vanderbile
SoCon
Samford at GEORGIA SOUTHERN
Western Carolina at ELON
APPALACHIAN STATE at Chattanooga
Citadel at WOFFORD
Big 12/Pac 10 headliners
KANSAS at Nebraska
OREGON STATE at California-Los Angeles
Oklahoma State at TEXAS TECH
Scratchers
Texas Christian at UTAH (Thursday)
NEVADA at Fresno State (Friday)
Illinois at WESTERN MICHIGAN
BOWLING GREEN at Ohio
LOUISIANA-MONROE at Middle Tennessee
WESTERN ILLINOIS at Southern Illinois
New Hampshire at VILLANOVA
Southern Mississippi at CENTRAL FLORIDA
HAWAII at New Mexico State
Arkansas State at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL
CINCINNATI at West Virginia
NEW MEXICO at Nevada-Las Vegas
NFL
DENVER at Cleveland (Thursday)
NEW ORLEANS at Atlanta
TENNESSEE at Chicago
JACKSONVILLE at Detroit
Seattle at MIAMI
GREEN BAY at Minnesota
Buffalo at NEW ENGLAND
St. Louis at NEW YORK JETS
Baltimore at HOUSTON
CAROLINA at Oakland
Indianapolis at PITTSBURGH
Kansas City at SAN DIEGO
New York Giants at PHILADELPHIA
San Francisco at ARIZONA (Monday)
Hmmmm - when App plays bad it's "beating itself," but when other teams lose fumbles inside App's red zone they're NOT beating themselves? I must protest.
I think we're (and have been) giving App a little too much credit for all of this "making the plays" with fumble forcing. I mean, if fumbles are the defense making the play, how come App doesn't force a fumble every time?
I still say App has benefited repeatedly from the luck of the other team fumbling at opportune times in recent years. I'm the first one to admit that Furman was lucky when App snapped the ball over Edwards' head, but by Cullen's logic it happened because Edwards and the center were so confused by Furman's defense that they were pressured into the mistake. In other words, the fumble was just the Paladins making a play.
I don't think that, mind you, I'm just pointing out the contradiction. The team that fumbles is the team responsible, period. Fumbles are like errors. Just because you hit the ball hard right at the shortstop doesn't mean that you get a hit if he boots it. The game says he fucked up and you were LUCKY to get on base. You don't get any credit. Fumbles are the same thing, and I guarantee you any football coach would agree with me. That means when the defense recovers one, it was LUCKY, because that's a mistake that's not supposed to happen.
Back to your regularly scheduled programming. I'm eagerly awaiting the tortured defense of App's fumble-causing skill by the Mounted on this board.
Maryland, Utah and Denver.
Guess whose picks these are? Hint: It's somebody educated at a state school who can't figure out how to get on the blog page. I know, I know, that doesn't really narrow it down in this pool, so I'll go ahead and tell you it's Rob.
Kowalske's picks
Week 11
ACC
Maryland at VIRGINIA TECH (Thursday)
Georgia Tech at NORTH CAROLINA
Clemson at FLORIDA STATE
North Carolina State at DUKE
Virginia at WAKE FOREST
Notre Dame at BOSTON COLLEGE
SEC
GEORGIA at Kentucky
Arkansas at SOUTH CAROLINA
Wyoming at TENNESSEE
Tennessee-Martin at AUBURN
ALABAMA at Louisiana State
FLORIDA at Vanderbile
SoCon
Samford at GEORGIA SOUTHERN
Western Carolina at ELON
ASU at Chattanooga
Citadel at WOFFORD
Big 12/Pac 10 headliners
Kansas at NEBRASKA
OREGON STATE at California-Los Angeles
Oklahoma State at TEXAS TECH
Scratchers
Texas Christian at UTAH (Thursday)
Nevada at FRESNO STATE (Friday)
ILLINOIS at Western Michigan
Bowling Green at OHIO
Louisiana-Monroe at MIDDLE TENNESSEE
Western Illinois at SOUTHERN ILLINOIS
New Hampshire at VILLANOVA
SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI at Central Florida
HAWAII at New Mexico State
Arkansas State at FI
Cincinnati at WEST VIRGINIA
NEW MEXICO at Nevada-Las Vegas
NFL
Denver at CLEVELAND (Thursday)
NEW ORLEANS at Atlanta
TENNESSEE at Chicago
JACKSONVILLE at Detroit
Seattle at MIAMI
GREEN BAY at Minnesota
Buffalo at NEW ENGLAND
St. Louis at NEW YORK JETS
Baltimore at HOUSTON
CAROLINA at Oakland
Indianapolis at PITTSBURGH
Kansas City at SAN DIEGO
New York Giants at PHILADELPHIA
San Francisco at ARIZONA (Monday)
Ron, I think that there are fumbles and then there are players that cause fumbles.
It wasn't a coincidence that Pierre Banks caused both of Furman's fumbles. I think he's got a knack for forcing them. Like the white dude had a knack for blocking field goals for them last year.
Ultimately though Mike, you point to two plays out of the entire game to say that App wasn't ready for the game. As BOTH teams came out they looked relatively unmotivated and I said as much to Rob. Neither team had players jumping around and getting hyped up. So I just don't think that argument holds much water.
Your two mistakes came because of miscommunication and poor execution. Not from being flat. What I was saying was that the multiple 3 and outs and drives that just stalled for App were due to Furman playing a good game. Which is the flat truth.
Wow. I didn't count on a fumble-causing-skill defense of App from a Paladin on this board.
For the record, Banks hadn't forced a fumble all season until the Furman game and hasn't forced one since. And while he does have seven in his college career (he's a senior), Marques Murrell had a total of 13 forced fumbles over his last two seasons alone. He matched Banks' career total in just his junior season. Now THAT'S a knack for forcing fumbles.
So I think it's pretty clear that despite what my esteemed colleague maintains Pierre got a little lucky to force two in one game - both inside his defense's red zone no less. But in case you still aren't convinced that fumbles and their effect are almost complete luck (assuming a team doesn't fumble an inordinately high or low number of times, which seems to be the case):
Over the last four seasons, App has fumbled approximately 20 more times than its opponents, which sort of shoots down the idea that the Mountaineers are exceptional at causing fumbles. The percentage they have lost, 49.0, is virtually identical to the loss percentage of their opponents (49.4), and the Mountaineers have been talented enough to easily overcome the slight deficit in turnovers. What if they'd been a little more unlucky, though? What if they'd lost, say, 55 percent of those fumbles? I'll wager they wouldn't be going for four.
Losing as many as you get back is pretty much what you would expect, though. Fumbles are random. App has 18 fumbles this year and has lost nine - right at the 50 percent mark again. Coincidentally, Furman's opponents have also fumbled 18 times and lost nine. But try this on for size:
The Furman offense this season has fumbled 17 times. Nothing weird about that. But this is really weird: They've lost a staggering 13 of them, or 76.4 percent. App, meanwhile, had forced only five fumbles all season before the Furman game and had recovered none - clearly another statistical anomaly (though it shows yet again that the team hasn't been at all adept at causing fumbles).
Yet the numbers moved to the center for only one team that day, as Furman fumbled three times and lost all three while App fumbled four times and lost just one. Statistically, that shouldn't have happened. No team can be good at recovering its own fumbles or bad at losing them. You can't practice that. The only thing you can practice is not fumbling at all, and by that measure App was a worse team than Furman. But being worse at fumbling isn't as important at being luckier in recovering them. And recovering them is totally, yes, random. App was luckier.
The odds say that Furman should have lost only one of those fumbles (or even none based on how unbelievable unlucky they've been with fumbles all season), while App should have lost at least one more. That certainly could have made for a different game, and only thing that kept it from being a different game were unpredictable and uncontrollable events. Which is all fumbles are.
Not saying Furman deserved to win or App deserved to lose. Furman didn't have to give up two long touchdowns and the Paladins had control of not fumbling at all. But App was still lucky. Sorry.
Ron, so then are penalties luck too? They can probably be called on every play but App got called for 5 more. No wait, Furman's penalties were bad luck and ASU's were bad execution right? Oh wise Ronald, why is there is stat for FORCED fumbles? Stripping the ball is a skill... look at Chris Harris for the Panthers. Not fumbling the ball is a skill... wouldn't you say that DeShaun Foster fumbled more than Stephen Davis? So while there is an element of luck to recovering a fumble, causing a fumble is not luck. So if you put the ball on the ground, then you open yourself up to getting beat "by luck". Basically you're wrong when you say fumbling is an unforced error as it is definitely forced. You have no more credibility on the subject so I am done with you. Thanks for chiming in though. Hope you didn't take too much time researching those stats. Maybe you can use your time debating with Rob about the merits of blogs vs hotmail while I focus on someone who can make a tangible point.
Bob, I know I pointed out only two plays where App beat itself pertaining to the FU game. My intent on giving particular instances was to show there are things that happen in football where a team can beat itself. Would you agree the examples I gave have nothing to do with the team you're playing? Ingle Martin slipping at the one was also an example of that. No one was around him and he didn't need to make a hard cut to get into the end zone. He tackled himself. Ok, so that's Point A.
Point B is yes I agree that BOTH teams came out to start the game looking flat. Take the fact that FU came out looking unmotivated. That leaves ASU coming out looking unmotivated. I believe that ADDS to my notion that it was an off day. I said that Booby Lamb (msp?) outcoached Jerry Moore for three quarters. Is that not giving credit? But Lamb did what he always does and stays with the same plan for all four quarters. ASU finally decided to start testing FU deep. And it worked swimmingly to the point that I think App built off that 4th qtr and that's why they were able to destroy Wofford. If ASU was lucky for Lamb deciding to "Go For Two" back in the day, then I guess that means that Furman was lucky that ASU's coaches kept trying to run up the middle even though it hadn't worked all day? Nevertheless it seems like semantics to me. So I'll change the comment to this...
Citadel at WOFFORD (I have to agree with Dean Hensley's Ghost that the Furman fans picking Wofford sure seems like sour grapes. It's a nice feeling when the other team can force you into having a "bad" day and you still beat your rival by two td's)
... getting back to one of the original topics. Here's why it seemed like sour grapes...
1) "They played Southern to the same one point win you guys did" makes the teams sound equal. Wouldn't you normally take the home team if all else is equal?
2) You just lost by 12 to ASU. Either that's unimpressive which means you don't think your teams is all that good this year. Or it was impressive which means that ASU would have been the logical pick.
3) Putting the shoe on the other foot: If App had lost to Furman and I picked Samford over FU, then I would consider that sour grapes even though it is completely defensible that Samford could have won the game.
If FU beats Wofford and GSU, then I will retract what I said about looking forward to playing you in the playoffs. However I still do not think the ASU of 10/25 is the same team as the ASU of 10/31 thru the rest of 2008.
Ron and Rob both take Fresno State.
"Ron, so then are penalties luck too? They can probably be called on every play but App got called for 5 more. No wait, Furman's penalties were bad luck and ASU's were bad execution right?"
I never said anything about penalties. You're the one drawing comparisons between penalties and fumbles. If you want this to mean anything you need to say what one has to do with the other.
"Oh wise Ronald, why is there is stat for FORCED fumbles?"
Because we're a stat-obsessed sports culture? That's not the point anyway. As I'll show you, again:
"Stripping the ball is a skill... look at Chris Harris for the Panthers. Not fumbling the ball is a skill... wouldn't you say that DeShaun Foster fumbled more than Stephen Davis? "
I already acknowledged that some players are probably better at forcing fumbles just like some are more likely to cough it up. But either way it's statistically insignificant, less likely one way or the other than mere chance. How can I say that? Well, there are an average of 125 plays in an NFL game, and I think we can all agree that five fumbles in a college game between two teams is a lot (even less in a pro game). That means in a fumble-heavy game there are fumbles a feeble 4 percent of the time. And "skillful" fumble causers or fumble-prone runners aren't responsible for all of these fumbles or even most of them. Your "skillful" fumble-causers are causing less than one percent of all fumbles, and even then they're greatly aided by players who are fumble prone. Think I'm wrong? Then how come eight different players have been responsible for forcing 10 fumbles for App this year?
As I wrote earlier, if App is so much more "skillful" at forcing fumbles than the teams it plays, why have the Mountaineers fumbled many more times than their opponents over the last four years? Why did they fumble more than Furman did two Saturdays ago? And if forcing fumbles is such a relevant skill to every App game, how does a team ever score on them? I'm sure all of App's skillful fumble forcers are trying their hardest every play to make one happen, yet they hardly ever do. So when one finally pops out, the explanation is skill?
Hmmm. Then either App defenders are terrible at this fumble-forcing "skill" or when they actually do force a fumble it's pretty much - you got it - luck. You can't have it both ways. Which is it, oh wise Cullen?
"So while there is an element of luck to recovering a fumble, causing a fumble is not luck."
It's pretty clear from basic math that forcing fumbles is much more luck than skill (feel free to show me how that's not true). But the real luck - and point - comes in the recovery.
By your own admission up there fumble recoveries are completely random in nature (though there is also a stat for recovered fumbles; does that make it a skill?). Who gets the fumble is much more important luck than the causing or the fumbling. Yet when App recovers three of three from Furman and loses just one of four to Furman that's not luck? What is it? I eagerly await your explanation.
"So if you put the ball on the ground, then you open yourself up to getting beat "by luck."
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. You greatly increase your chance of falling victim to bad luck, but it's still luck because you're not GUARANTEED of it happening. Teams frequently win even when they fumble a lot, though they more often lose when they fumble a lot. Your chance, the same as luck, of losing is greater if you fumble a lot. But not certain.
"Basically you're wrong when you say fumbling is an unforced error as it is definitely forced."
It might be forced in the sense that a defender has the LUCK of putting his hand or hit head or some other part of his body in the right place at exactly the right time, but since the defender cannot predictably duplicate this occurrence with any kind of consistency or control when it happens it's simply LUCK. Otherwise, it would happen every time. Yet, again, it almost never does. If it's a skill, it's basically a useless one.
In summary: App fumbles more than its opponents. It loses the same percentage. Its defenders try a hundred percent of the time to force fumbles yet are successful closer to one percent of the time. And as you yourself said, recovering what few fumbles there are is a hundred percent luck.
So please make your tangible point again how when App's defense recovers a fumble it's not complete chance - i.e. - luck? And remember, just because that's your opinion doesn't make it true.
Rob's picks. I'm out of App State-technology jokes. The fact that Cullen keeps insisting that recovering fumbles is a skill says everything for me anyway.
The ever important home stretch
ROY JONES JR over joe calzaghe tomorrow at the Madison Square Garden
ACC
gt UNC
clemson FSU
ncsu DUKE (what?)
VIRGINIA wf (hey ron, does Kristy have some appliance that needs replacing during the end of this game like last year?)
nd BOSTON COLLEGE
SEC
GEORGIA kentucky (repeat after me chip "Georgia has no place in national title conversations)
arkansas SOUTH CAROLINA
wyoming TENNESSEE (ahh to be a Tennessee fan. The only fans dumber than clemson)
tenn marton AUBURN
ALABAMA lsu
FLORIDA vanderbilt (vandy swings and misses at 6 wins again. Bobby Johnson is easily the best 5-7 coach in the history of college football)
SOCON
samford GA SOUTHERN
wcu ELON
APP STATE chatty
citadel WOFFORD
BIG 12 PAC
KANSAS nebraska (amy you pull for a bunch of losers. A team of Lane Coopers I call them)
OREGON ST ucla
ok state TEXAS TECH
SCREATCH
nevada FRESCA STATE
illinois WESTERN MICHIGAN
BOWLING GREEN ohioo
lo mo MTSU
w illinois SOUTHERN ILLINOIS
new hampshire NOVA
SOUTHERN MISS central florida
hawaii NMSU
ARKANSAS ST fiu
cincy WEST VIRGINIA
NEW MEXICO unlv
NFL
new orleens ATLANTA
tenn CHICAGO
JACKSONVILLE detroit
seattle MIAMI
green bay MINNESOTA
buffalo NEW ENGLAND
sl loiuessss JETS
BALTIMORE houston
CAROLINA oaklans
indy PITTSBURGH
kc SAN DIEGO
giants PHILLY
san fran ARIZONA (ooooh how exciting)
Chris Smith picks. Back in his day, they didn't wear batting helmets, and they LIKED it...
Maryland at VIRGINIA TECH
Georgia Tech at NORTH CAROLINA
Clemson at FLORIDA STATE
North Carolina State at DOOK
Virginia at WAKE FOREST
NOTRE DAME at Boston College
GEORGIA at Kentucky
Arkansas at SOUTH CAROLINA
Wyoming at TENNESSEE
Tennessee-Martin at AUBURN
ALABAMA at Louisiana State
FLORIDA at Vanderbilt
Samford at GEORGIA SOUTHERN
Western Carolina at ELON
APPALACHIAN STATE at Chattanooga
Citadel at WOFFORD
KANSAS at Nebraska
OREGON STATE at California-Los Angeles
OKLAHOMA STATE at Texas Tech
TEXAS CHRISTIAN at Utah
Nevada at FRESNO STATE
ILLINOIS at Western Michigan
BOWLING GREEN at Ohio
Louisiana-Martin at MIDDLE TENNESSEE
WESTERN ILLINOIS at Southern Illinois
New Hampshire at VILLANOVA
SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI at Central Florida
Hawaii at NEW MEXICO STATE
ARKANSAS STATE at Florida International
Cincinnati at WEST VIRGINIIA
NEW MEXICO at Nevada-Las Vegas
DENVER at Celveland
NEW ORLEANS at Atlanta
TENNESSEE at Chicago
JACKSONVILLE at Detroit
Seattle at MIAMI
GREEN BAY at Minnesota
Buffalo at NEW ENGLAND
St. Louis at NEW YORK JETS
BALTIMORE at Houston
CAROLINA Oakland
Indianapolis at PITTSBURGH
Kansas City at SAN DIEGO
NEW YORK GIANTS at Philadelphia
San Francisco at ARIZONA
Lane took FRESNO STATE. I have no idea how to underline it here in the comments box like he did in the e-mail.
"I never said anything about penalties. You're the one drawing comparisons between penalties and fumbles. If you want this to mean anything you need to say what one has to do with the other."
So you're going with the douchey method of breaking down paragraphs rather than making a coherent point. Ok, I'll play by that method. Penalties versus fumbles... one has nothing to do with the other except for the fact that they both change a game. They both can end a drive. So you avoid the question, are penalties luck? If so, then ASU getting called for 5 more penalties than FU would be unlucky which basically goes against your main point of ASU is extremely lucky.
"Because we're a stat-obsessed sports culture? That's not the point anyway. As I'll show you, again"
You say it's not the point because it doesn't back up your theory. I'll tell you why there's a stat called FORCED fumbles. Because there are also fumbles that aren't forced such as a muffed punt.
"I already acknowledged that some players are probably better at forcing fumbles just like some are more likely to cough it up. But either way it's statistically insignificant, less likely one way or the other than mere chance. How can I say that? Well, there are an average of 125 plays in an NFL game, and I think we can all agree that five fumbles in a college game between two teams is a lot (even less in a pro game). That means in a fumble-heavy game there are fumbles a feeble 4 percent of the time. And "skillful" fumble causers or fumble-prone runners aren't responsible for all of these fumbles or even most of them. Your "skillful" fumble-causers are causing less than one percent of all fumbles, and even then they're greatly aided by players who are fumble prone. Think I'm wrong? Then how come eight different players have been responsible for forcing 10 fumbles for App this year?"
Sheesh, speaking of stat-obsessed culture you basically used a bunch of them to say nothing. Let's say your estimations were concrete and there were fumbles on 4% of plays in a game. Wouldn't that make fumbling even more significant if you had someone who could cause them? It wouldn't mean much if 50% of the plays were fumbles. For instance, in 2007 Chris Harris forced 8 fumbles in 15 games. That motherfucker must have a horseshoe up his ass! There's 125 plays in an NFL game. Half of those he wouldn't even be on the field. So I don't think a per play analysis holds weight. And then you get into a college game where it really doesn't hold weight because you have more players rotating in and out. Well at least that is the case on ASU... not sure what kind of depth Furman has.
"As I wrote earlier, if App is so much more "skillful" at forcing fumbles than the teams it plays, why have the Mountaineers fumbled many more times than their opponents over the last four years? Why did they fumble more than Furman did two Saturdays ago? And if forcing fumbles is such a relevant skill to every App game, how does a team ever score on them? I'm sure all of App's skillful fumble forcers are trying their hardest every play to make one happen, yet they hardly ever do. So when one finally pops out, the explanation is skill?"
I never said ASU was better than other teams at causing fumbles. I think you're the one who manufactured that in your sarcastic episode and you attributed it to me. But guess what, when App causes a fumble it is skill just the same as it is skill when another team causes them to fumble. Stats have nothing to do with that.
"Hmmm. Then either App defenders are terrible at this fumble-forcing "skill" or when they actually do force a fumble it's pretty much - you got it - luck. You can't have it both ways. Which is it, oh wise Cullen?"
No actually ASU has the same number forced as their opponents by your own admission so it sounds like they aren't terrible. Sounds like they're pretty normal. And thanks, I am wise.
"It's pretty clear from basic math that forcing fumbles is much more luck than skill (feel free to show me how that's not true). But the real luck - and point - comes in the recovery."
Math has nothing to do with it. There are plenty of other factors as to why fumbling doesn't happen more often. You know better than that. Someone could be a good writer and win more awards than other writers but that doesn't mean they're going to win an award for every article/work.
"By your own admission up there fumble recoveries are completely random in nature (though there is also a stat for recovered fumbles; does that make it a skill?). Who gets the fumble is much more important luck than the causing or the fumbling. Yet when App recovers three of three from Furman and loses just one of four to Furman that's not luck? What is it? I eagerly await your explanation."
Some of this is true. And actually relevant too. Good job. Who recovers a fumble is definitely the most important detail. And yes I did say that who recovers the fumble is more of a random happening. But this never becomes an issue if the fumble wasn't forced to begin with. You know what would have been cool and really made your argument was if you checked the stats a little deeper. Yes, App fumbled four times. Furman only FORCED two of them. So you guys recovered half of the ones you forced. I guess yes you were unlucky to not get the other one. App FORCED all three of FU's fumbles. The likelihood of recovering a FORCED fumble versus an unforced fumble is dramatically higher because it means that a defender was DEFINITELY near the ball when the fumble happened.
"Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. You greatly increase your chance of falling victim to bad luck, but it's still luck because you're not GUARANTEED of it happening. Teams frequently win even when they fumble a lot, though they more often lose when they fumble a lot. Your chance, the same as luck, of losing is greater if you fumble a lot. But not certain."
The same can be said of interceptions too. They're not guaranteed (unless your QB is Brett Favre) and you can still win if you throw more than the other team but your chances of losing are higher. Actually this is true for many aspects of football. I guess everything is luck.
"It might be forced in the sense that a defender has the LUCK of putting his hand or hit head or some other part of his body in the right place at exactly the right time, but since the defender cannot predictably duplicate this occurrence with any kind of consistency or control when it happens it's simply LUCK. Otherwise, it would happen every time. Yet, again, it almost never does. If it's a skill, it's basically a useless one."
If you can cause a fumble in every other game like Chris Harris, that's a useless skill? Like I already said, there are other factors which you seem to ignore including the fact that the offensive player actively tries not to fumble on each play.
"In summary: App fumbles more than its opponents. It loses the same percentage. Its defenders try a hundred percent of the time to force fumbles yet are successful closer to one percent of the time. And as you yourself said, recovering what few fumbles there are is a hundred percent luck.
So please make your tangible point again how when App's defense recovers a fumble it's not complete chance - i.e. - luck? And remember, just because that's your opinion doesn't make it true."
Hell, my point has already been made for me. From "The Hidden Game of Football": "Fumbles: Causing fumbles/fumbling is not luck, but largely skill, but recovering fumbles/failing to recover fumbles is largely luck. Once a ball is loose, where it bounces and who ends up with it is a very meaningful, but also almost entirely random. Some fumbles, like a botched snap, are more likely to be recovered by the offense, but as a rule of the thumb: fumbles/forced fumbles are a meaningful stat while fumbles lost/fumble recoveries are not."
Game. Set. Match.
Additionally, I have maintained that recovering a fumble after it's forced takes a measure of luck. But again, that's not what I was arguing. I said forcing a fumble was a skill which you apparently disagree with. But since you like stats so much, here is something for you...
I've been looking at tons of stats to prepare the Friday Super Bowl preview. One of them was "fumble luck," the percentage of fumbles recovered by each team. As regular readers know, fumble recovery rate will generally revert to league average over time.
So no... App isn't more lucky, it may just appear that way from your small sample size. No, that wasn't a joke about your tiny penis.
"So you're going with the douchey method of breaking down paragraphs rather than making a coherent point. Ok, I'll play by that method."
I thought the douchey method might help you focus. See? I was right.
"Penalties versus fumbles... one has nothing to do with the other except for the fact that they both change a game. They both can end a drive. So you avoid the question, are penalties luck? If so, then ASU getting called for 5 more penalties than FU would be unlucky which basically goes against your main point of ASU is extremely lucky.
"You say it's not the point because it doesn't back up your theory."
No, I say it's not the point because it has nothing to do with my point. My main point is not that App is extremely lucky. I haven't written that anywhere. But App is lucky sometimes, which you have continually denied by claiming that when App recovers a fumble it's because of skill. Do you not insist that App wasn't lucky to get that fumble from James Madison in the playoffs last year? Then you'd better stop arguing with yourself:
"I'll tell you why there's a stat called FORCED fumbles. Because there are also fumbles that aren't forced such as a muffed punt."
Because it's a stat doesn't make forced fumbles any more relevant than pure chance. Throwing no-hitters is also a stat that requires somebody to be very good at something, but nobody counts on it because your skill can't overcome the luck factor that means you'll almost never be able to throw a no-hitter. Nolan Ryan still gets official credit for, what?, seven of them, and he was lucky every time.
"Sheesh, speaking of stat-obsessed culture you basically used a bunch of them to say nothing. Let's say your estimations were concrete and there were fumbles on 4% of plays in a game. Wouldn't that make fumbling even more significant if you had someone who could cause them? It wouldn't mean much if 50% of the plays were fumbles."
Are you serious? Causing something good for your team a tiny percentage of the time is more valuable than if you could cause it half the time? That's like saying pitchers who hit two homers a year are more important than first basemen who hit 50. If you could cause fumbles 50 percent of plays, then players who could do that would be the highest paid players in the game. Fumbles would be caused in clear differentiation from chance. The skill would clearly be more than luck. But no coach anywhere signs a player because he's good at causing fumbles. It's nice if he can pop out two more a season than somebody else, but the coach would be just as happy to have him if he didn't because it happens so infrequently and so by chance it doesn't matter.
"For instance, in 2007 Chris Harris forced 8 fumbles in 15 games. That motherfucker must have a horseshoe up his ass!"
He must have. He didn't force a single fumble in his first two seasons over 23 games and has only two halfway through this season.
"There's 125 plays in an NFL game. Half of those he wouldn't even be on the field. So I don't think a per play analysis holds weight. And then you get into a college game where it really doesn't hold weight because you have more players rotating in and out. Well at least that is the case on ASU... not sure what kind of depth Furman has."
This is your opinion, and it's nice, but maybe you should show WHY the number of plays hold weight. The more plays that are run without fumbles lowers their statistical significance and gives more credence to the idea that luck is more important to fumbles than skill. Over nine games, let's say App's opponents have run 1,125 plays. App's defenders have forced 10 fumbles. Assuming all are the result of "skill," this skill has accomplished something less than one percent of the time. And the aforementioned Pierre Banks, presumably their most "skilled" fumble forcer, has been responsible for two of those 10 - meaning his skill has resulted in a fumble forced a whopping .002 percent of the time.
That matters more the luck? I mean, Christ, Ingle Martin falls down for no reason about that often.
"I never said ASU was better than other teams at causing fumbles. I think you're the one who manufactured that in your sarcastic episode and you attributed it to me."
I agree - it's clear that if anything App is worse than other teams at causing fumbles. But I didn't manufacture you saying more than once that when recovering those fumbles helps App win, it's part of them being a better team because of their skill in this area.
"But guess what, when App causes a fumble it is skill just the same as it is skill when another team causes them to fumble."
See.
"No actually ASU has the same number forced as their opponents by your own admission so it sounds like they aren't terrible. Sounds like they're pretty normal. And thanks, I am wise."
Yes, they do have the same number forced - against nine different opponents. The point is everybody's terrible at the "skill" of forcing fumbles. Either all have the same skill at App, or fumbles are pretty much chance that evens out over a football season no matter who's playing. Which is it? Luck, of course, as you say yourself later on.
"Math has nothing to do with it. There are plenty of other factors as to why fumbling doesn't happen more often. You know better than that. Someone could be a good writer and win more awards than other writers but that doesn't mean they're going to win an award for every article/work."
This completely proves my point. Winning awards is hugely luck. And you keep saying "math has nothing to do with it," but you've yet to say why. I say math has everything to do with it, because the tiny probability of there being a fumble, and an even tinier probability that someone made it happen on purpose, shows that luck is more important to whether or not a team fumbles than anything any player does. Any offensive player can fumble. Any defensive player can cause one. Even the best fumble-causers almost never cause fumbles. Eight different players have forced 10 fumbles for App this year. The math shows the occurrence is simply more random than skill.
"Some of this is true. And actually relevant too. Good job. Who recovers a fumble is definitely the most important detail. And yes I did say that who recovers the fumble is more of a random happening. But this never becomes an issue if the fumble wasn't forced to begin with."
But the bottom line is the outcome of the marriage between forcing a fumble, almost totally luck (I'm giving you a tiny amount of skill there), and recovering, totally luck, is - luck. When App recovers a fumble, it's luck. So I'm right?
"You know what would have been cool and really made your argument was if you checked the stats a little deeper. Yes, App fumbled four times. Furman only FORCED two of them. So you guys recovered half of the ones you forced. I guess yes you were unlucky to not get the other one. App FORCED all three of FU's fumbles. The likelihood of recovering a FORCED fumble versus an unforced fumble is dramatically higher because it means that a defender was DEFINITELY near the ball when the fumble happened."
Offensive players recover fumbles all the time. Since overall fumble recovery rates for all teams gravitate toward 50 percent, I'm guessing there's no better chance a defender will get a forced fumble than anybody else. And rather than dispute my argument you've only bolstered it by showing that App fumbled four times but Furman forced only two. If Furman had recovered the two it didn't force, they still would have gotten the ball, right? It didn't matter if they were forced or not. They would have been lucky. And what if App hadn't recovered the three it forced, which is entirely possible? They would have been unlucky, much more important than any "skill" that caused the fumbles.
Luck matters much more.
"The same can be said of interceptions too. They're not guaranteed (unless your QB is Brett Favre) and you can still win if you throw more than the other team but your chances of losing are higher. Actually this is true for many aspects of football. I guess everything is luck."
Yes, sports are largely dependent on luck. Otherwise they wouldn't be fun to watch or much fun to play. But in most aspects of sports your particular skill has much more direct control of what happens to you than fumble causing. We could go on and on about this, but in pro baseball, if you hit the ball hard consistently enough you'll get a hit 30 percent of the time. That means the skill of hitting has a noticeable and tangible effect on the game. Luck is still involved, but skill nearly as much so. The same can't be said for fumble forcing. Luck is much more important. Nobody would watch baseball (or play) if your skill only got you on base .002 percent of the time.
"If you can cause a fumble in every other game like Chris Harris, that's a useless skill?"
Not if you could really do that. But like I already said, he can't and nobody else can either. They're like a hole-in-one. Nobody's on tour because they're good at holes-in-one.
"Like I already said, there are other factors which you seem to ignore including the fact that the offensive player actively tries not to fumble on each play."
I don't ignore this, but maybe you should have since it doesn't do much for your argument. The offensive player trying not to fumble makes it much more likely that when you force a fumble you got lucky. You can't control him not protecting the ball well or where he's not going to protect it well. What if you're about to break out your patented fumble-forcing ninja move, but he moves the ball to his other hand? You're fucked by not fault of your own. Chance. You're dependent on the chance that he won't protect the ball - at exactly the same moment you're in exactly the right spot.
"Hell, my point has already been made for me. From "The Hidden Game of Football": "Fumbles: Causing fumbles/fumbling is not luck, but largely skill, but recovering fumbles/failing to recover fumbles is largely luck. Once a ball is loose, where it bounces and who ends up with it is a very meaningful, but also almost entirely random. Some fumbles, like a botched snap, are more likely to be recovered by the offense, but as a rule of the thumb: fumbles/forced fumbles are a meaningful stat while fumbles lost/fumble recoveries are not."
With all due respect to "The Hidden Game of Football," I have a feeling this is an opinion that can't be backed up by numbers or game film (how many times have you seen a defender fly into a ballcarrier with his head down - no idea where the ball is - but his helmet hits it and pops it out? Not lucky?), but let's say he's right about the causing - all are skill none are luck. Here's the next sentence:
"...but recovering fumbles/failing to recover fumbles is largely luck. Once a ball is loose, where it bounces and who ends up with it is a very meaningful, but also almost entirely random."
What matters when it comes to fumbles is who recovers them. I've said all along the end result of the marriage between cause and actual fumble is luck. You've said the same thing, and now the trusted periodical "The Hidden Game of Football" agrees as well.
Still, I notice in your next post that you back into a corner and say that all along you've been merely arguing forcing fumbles is a skill. No. 1, what's the point of arguing that? If you don't recover them it's pretty much irrelevant. Why waste time separating one from the other? The game doesn't (remember, there's a stat for fumbles forced just as there's one for fumble recoveries). But, No. 2, I've shown repeatedly why it's not a meaningful skill anyway. Some players might be a little better than others at forcing fumbles, but nobody's good enough at it for it to have any more effect on play than luck.
"Game. Set. Match." Thanks for playing.
Jesus, Cullen has sapped all of my comments energy with his argument about App's skill at making the wind blow at Kidd-Brewer when the other team is kicking field goals. I know, he hasn't actually said that, but give it time.
Week 11
ACC
Maryland at HOKEY POKEYS
GA TECH at North Carolina Damn, the only thing these teams have in common is they can’t beat Virginia.
Clemson at FSU I wonder if Tommy will be a special assistant in Tallahassee this afternoon.
North Carolina State at PUKE
CAVS at Wake Forest Virginia has been on each end of both the biggest blowout win and the biggest blowout loss in the ACC this year. That's about right.
Notre Dame at BC
SEC
UGA at Kentucky
Arkansas at COCKS
Wyoming at VOLS Rob, I still can't believe Death Sentence denied us the best death blow last night.
Tennessee-Martin at KNOBBURN
BAMA at Louisiana State I really wouldn't mind if LSU won.
GATORS at Vanderbilt
SoCon
Samford at SOUTHERN
Western Carolina at feELONme
THE MOUNTED at Chattanooga The Mocs are desperate for this game, because the attendance revenue will save their men's soccer team.
Citadel at WOFFORD I wonder if Mike Ayers has been released from the asylum yet.
Big 12/Pac 10 headliners
KANSAS at Nebraska
ORGAN STATE at California-Los Angeles
Oklahoma State at RUGBY RAIDERS Who knew that in addition to being a man who is 40, Mike Gundy is a good coach?
Scratchers
TCU at Utah Maybe the real Americans should have had an open tryout for a kicker
Nevada at FRESNO STATE Good to see the Bulldogs have been emulating Furman’s defense circa 2007
Illinois at BRONCOS I make fun of the Big 10, but I have to give them credit for starting every game at noon so we can all just get them the fuck out of the way and get on with our day.
Bowling Green at OHIO
Louisiana-Monroe at THE ONLY PART OF TENNESSEE TO VOTE FOR OBAMA I’m just yankin’ ya. Obama got his ass kicked from one end of I-40 to the other.
Western Illinois at SOUTHERN ILLINOIS I have carefully studied all aspects of the direction Illinoises and decided on this.
New Hampshire at VILLANOVA
Southern Mississippi at UCF I can’t believe I’m being sucked into Lonnie and Cheryl’s vortex of death.
HAWAII at New Mexico State
ARKANSAS STATE at Florida International
Cincinnati at WEST VIRGINIA
NEW MEXICO at Nevada-Las Vegas The battle of the Pac-10 killers
NFL
DENVER at Cleveland God, I'm so glad I used my third fantasy draft pick on Braylon Edwards. I'm also glad that ESPN's fantasy experts keep putting them in their weekly projections top 10, so I never have the guts to bench him.
SCREW ORLEANS at Atlanta
Tennessee at CHICAGO
JACKSONVILLE at Detroit
Seattle at MIAMI
Green Bay at MINNESOTA
Buffalo at SCREW ENGLAND
St. Louis at NEW YORK JETS
Baltimore at HOUSTON
CAROLINA at Oakland
Indianapolis at SHITTSBURGH
Kansas City at SAN DIEGO
New York Giants at PHILLY
San Francisco at ARIZONA
Ron, basically you're arguing with Football Outsiders. Their job is to deal in football related stats. Write them a letter and tell them why you feel their stats are wrong. I'm sure they'll be shocked to find out that App had 1125 plays run against them in only 9 games. That would definitely shatter all records. The wind direction only changes at KBS when you're there because it's the hot air you spew with your whining that changes it. Ok, so it's not sour grapes that Bob picked Wofford but it was for you. Glad we got that settled.
This is what happens when you butt into a debate that two other people are having. You confuse the points that the people made. For instance, I never said anything about Pierre Banks' fumble-causing ability. That was Bob who made that comment. Yet you incorrectly attributed it to me. You've been debating Bob for most of this actually because you confused the original point. Seriously, go back and read how the whole conversation started. My main points have been that I believe ASU had an off day versus Furman and they'd kill them in a rematch. You didn't bother touching this one so I'd assume you agree. And the other was that actually forcing a fumble is a skill. You brought in the whole argument about recovery being luck. And I actually agreed with you on that. There's a 50% chance a team can recover the fumble they forced. Correct. However, with your stats you have yet to show your argument that actually forcing (not recovering) a fumble is luck over skill.
So here, let me break down the play that seems to be in question:
-Was ASU lucky that Mickey Matthews decided to run the ball rather than kick the FG? Debatable. It depends on if you can call a coaching decision luck. I don't believe you can. Matthews either did not have enough confidence in his kicker to make the FG or didn't have enough confidence in his defense to stop ASU with any time left on the clock. We know how it turned out but who is to say that the kicker would have actually hit the FG if they tried it? Therefore the coaching decision isn't luck because he may have been screwed either way.
-Was JMU's freshman RB's fumble an example of luck? Forcing the fumble wasn't luck. Forcing a fumble is a skill.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/panthers/story/204053.html
-Ok then, was recovering the fumble luck? Once the ball was fumbled, there was a 50% chance to recover it. Yes there was an element of luck to recovering the fumble once the ball was skillfully forced free. Both teams happened to lose two fumbles.
-So this last fumble won the game for ASU? Yes, it did ice the game.
-But would ASU have lost without causing the fumble? Not necessarily. JMU's kicker was just 3-5 in FG's from that distance during the season and ASU showed a propensity for blocking FG's last season.
Well it's Saturday so I'm gonna watch football. Hope Harvey "Two Face" Dent, er, Ronnie Wagner can enjoy the games even though everything in sports is luck according to him.
First of all, if this debate is special alone time for you and Bob maybe you should stick to personal e-mail rather than a public blog. Then again, being an App grad you probably aren't aware that the rest of us can read it. If that's the case, I apologize for "butting in."
I should have written 1,125 plays in App's nine game between both teams. I made a mistake. That means there have been fumbles 2.7 percent of the time, which doesn't fundamentally change anything I wrote. I think you knew that's what I meant, but nice attempt to change the subject. Be sure to point out any misspelled words, too.
I never attributed the Banks comment to you. Bob is actually the one who responded to me, so I was responding to him. After that I believe it was YOU who butted in - after you accused me of "crying" that App was lucky all the time before I wrote anything at all. Maybe go back and read again?
I haven't participated at all in you and Bob's special time argument except to point out the ludicrousness of you saying that every time App does something bad it's beating itself but when it recovers another team's fumble, that's not the other team beating itself, that's App's skill. Maybe I misunderstood you, but if that's your assertion it's ridiculous.
Let me say this again: I've conceded that forcing a fumble is SOMETIMES a skill. But who cares? Even when it is, the recovery of the fumble is all luck. When you recover a fumble, you are lucky no matter where the fumble comes from. When App recovers a fumble it is lucky, and even more lucky when that fumble recovery comes inside its own 10 at the end of a playoff game when the other team is about to score the winning points.
Why the hell is that so hard to admit?
Nope my assertion has always been that if Bob claims that FU forced ASU to have an off day, then it works both ways. Therefore ASU had something to do with those fumbles since FU wasn't just being charitable. I am correct in that statement right?
Initially it was Bob and I debating and you chimed in. I am correct in that statement. Be smarmy and call it special time all you want but that doesn't change the fact that you inserted yourself into the conversation.
"except to point out the ludicrousness of you saying that every time App does something bad it's beating itself but when it recovers another team's fumble, that's not the other team beating itself, that's App's skill" -- Nope I never said that. Never even insinuated it. AGAIN I said if FU caused ASU's off day, then it works both ways.
I can accuse you of "crying" before you ever wrote anything because I have previously had a conversation with you. An actual quote from your mouth is that "App State is the fuckin' luckiest team on the face of the Earth!" That sounds like crying to me. And you never disputed that your pick of Wofford was sour grapes so I guess I was correct about that. Maybe read back.
I don't agree with you that JMU's fumble was luck. That is my opinion just as your stance is also opinion. There is no fact that can prove one of us to be correct... Why would I admit something I feel is incorrect? That's not me being a homer. I say that Ingle slipping was indeed luck. If I said ASU forced him to slip, then I could understand why you are so rabidly trying to prove me wrong.
That's fine. We can agree to disagree. I'm done. Now you can go ahead and post something so you can get the last word. I know that you will.
"Nope my assertion has always been that if Bob claims that FU forced ASU to have an off day, then it works both ways. Therefore ASU had something to do with those fumbles since FU wasn't just being charitable. I am correct in that statement right?"
Of course.
"Initially it was Bob and I debating and you chimed in. I am correct in that statement. Be smarmy and call it special time all you want but that doesn't change the fact that you inserted yourself into the conversation."
You're the one who seemed to be so offended that I had anything to say to begin with. And you're seriously claiming I inserted myself into the conversation in the same post where you admit you inserted me into the conversation? And that's not even counting you bringing up the whole sour grapes thing again completely unsolicited. I mean, you threw the first grenade and now you're shocked somebody threw one back? C'mon, dude. This is like Sam Malone beating Robin Colcort in chess. "Yeah, well sometimes incredibly stupid is smart enough for me." The same goes for you accusing someone else of being smarmy.
"And you never disputed that your pick of Wofford was sour grapes so I guess I was correct about that. Maybe read back."
I never knew you were talking about me. I thought it was a joke. I guess you're serious, but sorry to disappoint you: I picked Wofford because I thought Wofford was better than Furman, and if Furman gave App so much trouble Wofford might have been able to pull out the win that Furman almost pulled out. Where are the sour grapes? I haven't said once to anybody that App didn't deserve to beat Furman, because they did. You're inventing this conflict, with me at least.
"I don't agree with you that JMU's fumble was luck. That is my opinion just as your stance is also opinion. There is no fact that can prove one of us to be correct... Why would I admit something I feel is incorrect?"
You already did admit that recovering fumbles is luck. That's a fact, not an opinion.
"That's not me being a homer."
If you say so ...
"If I said ASU forced him to slip, then I could understand why you are so rabidly trying to prove me wrong."
I'm certainly not trying any harder than you are.
"That's fine. We can agree to disagree. I'm done. Now you can go ahead and post something so you can get the last word. I know that you will."
Reverse psychology. Almost worked. But I really don't care about the last word. Go ahead. Be my guest. Recovering fumbles is luck, but App isn't lucky when it recovers fumbles because then it's skill. Makes perfect sense. I was wrong.
This is the last word:
BOOBIES!
Post a Comment