My local football team just upset a heavily favored team in the state playoffs. Down 17-7 at halftime, the coach made a number of adjustments detailed in the local paper, and came back to win 27-17. Even high school coaches realizes the necessity of half time adjustments. The ability to adjust is a job requirement of football coaches.

We frequently bandy about the claim that DB either is bad at making half time adjustments or does not realize it is allowed. While that certainly seems to be the case, I wonder if one of our statistical gurus has any interest in finding some data on how Rice performs in the second half versus the first half. This would be particularly useful for games which are competitive at half time. (Games that are over at half time would be less relevant because the other team usually takes it first team out for much of the second half.) I suspect that Rice performs much less well in the second half (if the blow out games are excluded.)

If that suspicion is correct, a number of factors could explain it - including inadequate conditioning or lack of depth. But a failure to make adjustments, while the other team makes them, would be a primary cause.

A related topic is the issue of adjustments during the season. When Tyrone Willingham coached Stanford, prior to his dismal tenure at Notre Dame, it seems that Stanford started the season on fire but quickly cooled by about game seven or eight. I read an article by a San Jose Mercury News writer who claimed that Willingham could/did not make in season adjustments.

For the more knowledgeable among us, how important are in season adjustments and is that an issue for the current Rice regime.

Lou Holtz once said something that made sense to me, to the effect that the first quarter tells how good your pre-game preparation is, the second quarter tells how good your in-game adjustments are, the third quarter tells how good your halftime adjustments are, and the fourth quarter tells how good your conditioning is. So here is total Rice scoring by quarter, compared to opponents, for the Bailiff era:

1st - Rice 736, Opp 903, -167, Rice has scored 44.9% of points
2nd - Rice 913, Opp 1093, -180, Rice has scored 45.5% of points
3rd - Rice 706, Opp 917, -211, Rice has scored 43.5% of points
4th - Rice 835, Opp 821, +14, Rice has scored 50.4% of points
OT - Rice 22, Opp 19, +3, Rice has scored 53.7% of points

The third is clearly the worst--worst offensively and second-worst defensively--but the margins are not huge. I think the fourth quarter is probably more influenced by our being involved in so many bench-clearing blowouts rather than by our superior conditioning. We outscored the opposition two years in the first and third quarters, three years in the second, and five years in the fourth. The two years where we outscored opponents in the first were the two 10-win seasons (2008 and 2013), the three years where we have outscored them in the second include those two plus 2012, and the last four years are among the five years where we have outscored them in the fourth. The two years where we outscored them in the third include one good year (2008) and one bad year (2011).

Holtz also said something yesterday that I found interesting. His principles of play calling are 1) focus on first downs, 2) force the defense to defend the entire field, both vertically and horizontally, and 3) favor base plays over trick plays or gimmicks. I would say our play-callers probably do a good job of 1, I don't think our scheme does a good job of 2, and I think a lot of the play calling criticism on here is 180 degrees out from 3.

(11-08-2015 09:09 AM)Ranger Wrote:  A related topic is the issue of adjustments during the season. When Tyrone Willingham coached Stanford, prior to his dismal tenure at Notre Dame, it seems that Stanford started the season on fire but quickly cooled by about game seven or eight. I read an article by a San Jose Mercury News writer who claimed that Willingham could/did not make in season adjustments.
For the more knowledgeable among us, how important are in season adjustments and is that an issue for the current Rice regime.

Without taking the time to research this in detail, I think that under Bailiff we have generally done better, at least in terms of wins and losses, during the latter part of the season. A lot of this probably results from generally easier second half schedule, but I have noticed that we generally look better to the eye test later in the season. I have been told (and this is clearly hearsay, as I have not had the chance to see for myself, but I believe my sources) that we don't hit much or otherwise work hard in practice, and that almost certainly minimizes our bumps and bruises late in the season. Bryant used to beat the crap out of his teams in spring and run their butts off in two-a-days, but once the season started he slacked way off. I think that is a reasonable approach.

With regard to the comments about Willingham, I have heard from a couple of sources (again hearsay, but from sources I believe) that Ty's in-season practices were pretty brutal, and that could very well have worn down his teams.