Has any team ever given up 798 yards or more and still won the game.
(Excluding overtime games). I have no idea but I have to believe it is at least close to a record.

Texas Tech gained 854 yds in a 66-59 loss to Oklahoma in 2016. Coincidentally, Oklahoma also gained 854 yds.

I bet we set a record for combined fourth down conversions in a game.

(10-19-2020 10:23 AM)Browning Hall Wrote:  Texas Tech had 854 yds in a 66-59 loss to Oklahoma in 2016. Coincidentally, Oklahoma also had 854 yds.

Pat Mahomes (734 yards passing) vs. Baker Maysfield (545 yards passing). Mahomes also had 85 yards rushing and accounted for 819 of their total 854 yards. Wonder if Mahomes can make it in the NFL some day...

(10-19-2020 11:03 AM)holyterror Wrote:  I bet we set a record for combined fourth down conversions in a game.

5-5, that was crazy. Another crazier stat is that we went for it closer to our goal line than theirs. We had 4th and 4 from our own 18. Our closest 4th down play in UCF territory was at their 20.

Looks like we will be seeing more of that as the game evolves.

(10-20-2020 04:28 AM)holyterror Wrote:  Looks like we will be seeing more of that as the game evolves.

It seems that Silverfield might be using more game-day analytics than his predecessors - evidenced by on-side kicks, 4th down attempts, and 2-point conversions. I support this.

I read a university study a few years ago (wish I had saved it). I think it may have been MIT. They studied risk-reward in football. Their conclusion was that teams should go for the 2-pt conversion most times. And that teams should go for it on 4th down way more than they do. Made a lot of sense.

(10-20-2020 11:13 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(10-20-2020 04:28 AM)holyterror Wrote:  Looks like we will be seeing more of that as the game evolves.

It seems that Silverfield might be using more game-day analytics than his predecessors - evidenced by on-side kicks, 4th down attempts, and 2-point conversions. I support this.

I read a university study a few years ago (wish I had saved it). I think it may have been MIT. They studied risk-reward in football. Their conclusion was that teams should go for the 2-pt conversion most times. And that teams should go for it on 4th down way more than they do. Made a lot of sense.

The decision that everyone is talking about was Houston's decision to go for 2 points against the Titans. Most are blasting it, but it was absolutely the right decision. They had a chance to make it a 9 point game, which would have ended it. They had a 50% chance of making it and ending the game. If they kick the point after, Tennessee has a 50% chance of tying it by making a 2 point conversion of their own.

It's a no brainer. You have a 100% chance of winning the game if you go for 2 points.

(10-20-2020 12:38 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(10-20-2020 11:13 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(10-20-2020 04:28 AM)holyterror Wrote:  Looks like we will be seeing more of that as the game evolves.

It seems that Silverfield might be using more game-day analytics than his predecessors - evidenced by on-side kicks, 4th down attempts, and 2-point conversions. I support this.

I read a university study a few years ago (wish I had saved it). I think it may have been MIT. They studied risk-reward in football. Their conclusion was that teams should go for the 2-pt conversion most times. And that teams should go for it on 4th down way more than they do. Made a lot of sense.

The decision that everyone is talking about was Houston's decision to go for 2 points against the Titans. Most are blasting it, but it was absolutely the right decision. They had a chance to make it a 9 point game, which would have ended it. They had a 50% chance of making it and ending the game. If they kick the point after, Tennessee has a 50% chance of tying it by making a 2 point conversion of their own.

It's a no brainer. You have a 100% chance of winning the game if you go for 2 points.

??? They went for 2 and lost the game.

(10-20-2020 02:04 PM)selleg1 Wrote:  

(10-20-2020 12:38 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(10-20-2020 11:13 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(10-20-2020 04:28 AM)holyterror Wrote:  Looks like we will be seeing more of that as the game evolves.

It seems that Silverfield might be using more game-day analytics than his predecessors - evidenced by on-side kicks, 4th down attempts, and 2-point conversions. I support this.

I read a university study a few years ago (wish I had saved it). I think it may have been MIT. They studied risk-reward in football. Their conclusion was that teams should go for the 2-pt conversion most times. And that teams should go for it on 4th down way more than they do. Made a lot of sense.

The decision that everyone is talking about was Houston's decision to go for 2 points against the Titans. Most are blasting it, but it was absolutely the right decision. They had a chance to make it a 9 point game, which would have ended it. They had a 50% chance of making it and ending the game. If they kick the point after, Tennessee has a 50% chance of tying it by making a 2 point conversion of their own.

It's a no brainer. You have a 100% chance of winning the game if you go for 2 points.

??? They went for 2 and lost the game.

Essentially...They went for 2 making a it a 7 point game

It all depends on who you believe in more...

Your offense or your defense.

You either force them to go for 2 or you go for 2. Either way the game is going to hinge on a 2 point conversion.

Some will say but hey if you get it you win...But if you don't they can go for 2 and you lose.

(10-20-2020 02:04 PM)selleg1 Wrote:  

(10-20-2020 12:38 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(10-20-2020 11:13 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(10-20-2020 04:28 AM)holyterror Wrote:  Looks like we will be seeing more of that as the game evolves.

It seems that Silverfield might be using more game-day analytics than his predecessors - evidenced by on-side kicks, 4th down attempts, and 2-point conversions. I support this.

I read a university study a few years ago (wish I had saved it). I think it may have been MIT. They studied risk-reward in football. Their conclusion was that teams should go for the 2-pt conversion most times. And that teams should go for it on 4th down way more than they do. Made a lot of sense.

The decision that everyone is talking about was Houston's decision to go for 2 points against the Titans. Most are blasting it, but it was absolutely the right decision. They had a chance to make it a 9 point game, which would have ended it. They had a 50% chance of making it and ending the game. If they kick the point after, Tennessee has a 50% chance of tying it by making a 2 point conversion of their own.

It's a no brainer. You have a 100% chance of winning the game if you go for 2 points.

??? They went for 2 and lost the game.

Houston scored a touchdown and took a 7 point lead with 1:50 left. If they kick the point after, they lead by 8. If they make the 2 point conversion, they lead by 9 and the game is essentially over.

It was totally the right call.

(10-20-2020 02:04 PM)selleg1 Wrote:  

(10-20-2020 12:38 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(10-20-2020 11:13 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(10-20-2020 04:28 AM)holyterror Wrote:  Looks like we will be seeing more of that as the game evolves.

It seems that Silverfield might be using more game-day analytics than his predecessors - evidenced by on-side kicks, 4th down attempts, and 2-point conversions. I support this.

I read a university study a few years ago (wish I had saved it). I think it may have been MIT. They studied risk-reward in football. Their conclusion was that teams should go for the 2-pt conversion most times. And that teams should go for it on 4th down way more than they do. Made a lot of sense.

The decision that everyone is talking about was Houston's decision to go for 2 points against the Titans. Most are blasting it, but it was absolutely the right decision. They had a chance to make it a 9 point game, which would have ended it. They had a 50% chance of making it and ending the game. If they kick the point after, Tennessee has a 50% chance of tying it by making a 2 point conversion of their own.

It's a no brainer. You have a 100% chance of winning the game if you go for 2 points.

??? They went for 2 and lost the game.

Houston scored a touchdown and took a 7 point lead with 1:50 left. If they kick the point after, they lead by 8. If they make the 2 point conversion, they lead by 9 and the game is essentially over.

It was totally the right call.

(10-19-2020 11:26 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(10-19-2020 11:03 AM)holyterror Wrote:  I bet we set a record for combined fourth down conversions in a game.

5-5, that was crazy. Another crazier stat is that we went for it closer to our goal line than theirs. We had 4th and 4 from our own 18. Our closest 4th down play in UCF territory was at their 20.

I loved the call to go for it there. We were reeling & not stopping them. I felt like if we punted, they were gonna score in a few plays anyway. We just couldnt give them the ball back.

(10-20-2020 06:56 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(10-20-2020 02:04 PM)selleg1 Wrote:  

(10-20-2020 12:38 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(10-20-2020 11:13 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(10-20-2020 04:28 AM)holyterror Wrote:  Looks like we will be seeing more of that as the game evolves.

It seems that Silverfield might be using more game-day analytics than his predecessors - evidenced by on-side kicks, 4th down attempts, and 2-point conversions. I support this.

I read a university study a few years ago (wish I had saved it). I think it may have been MIT. They studied risk-reward in football. Their conclusion was that teams should go for the 2-pt conversion most times. And that teams should go for it on 4th down way more than they do. Made a lot of sense.

The decision that everyone is talking about was Houston's decision to go for 2 points against the Titans. Most are blasting it, but it was absolutely the right decision. They had a chance to make it a 9 point game, which would have ended it. They had a 50% chance of making it and ending the game. If they kick the point after, Tennessee has a 50% chance of tying it by making a 2 point conversion of their own.

It's a no brainer. You have a 100% chance of winning the game if you go for 2 points.

??? They went for 2 and lost the game.

Houston scored a touchdown and took a 7 point lead with 1:50 left. If they kick the point after, they lead by 8. If they make the 2 point conversion, they lead by 9 and the game is essentially over.

It was totally the right call.

It’s an interesting concept. There’s an 80% chance of rain so I take an umbrella. It didn’t rain.

Was bringing an umbrella a bad idea? No. The end result doesn’t make the decision bad. I will still take an umbrella the next time there is an 80% chance of rain.

These "Quality Control" guys are becoming more common on college staffs. I think we have 5-6 of them on staff. Sometimes, the hire is just helping out another coach who got fired somewhere else. But a lot of these positions are being used for analytics. Again, I support this. There is a place in football for "gut feel" calls. But the sport can absolutely be improved by more advanced analytics.

(10-21-2020 06:44 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  These "Quality Control" guys are becoming more common on college staffs. I think we have 5-6 of them on staff. Sometimes, the hire is just helping out another coach who got fired somewhere else. But a lot of these positions are being used for analytics. Again, I support this. There is a place in football for "gut feel" calls. But the sport can absolutely be improved by more advanced analytics.

Out of all the by the book moves in sports, the one that bothers me the most is with baseball. Your starting pitcher has given up 1 or 2 runs and is cruising through the 6th or 7th inning. He gives up a seeing eye single or a broken bat hit and then gets pulled by the genius manager. So stupid.

(10-21-2020 08:30 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 06:44 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  These "Quality Control" guys are becoming more common on college staffs. I think we have 5-6 of them on staff. Sometimes, the hire is just helping out another coach who got fired somewhere else. But a lot of these positions are being used for analytics. Again, I support this. There is a place in football for "gut feel" calls. But the sport can absolutely be improved by more advanced analytics.

Out of all the by the book moves in sports, the one that bothers me the most is with baseball. Your starting pitcher has given up 1 or 2 runs and is cruising through the 6th or 7th inning. He gives up a seeing eye single or a broken bat hit and then gets pulled by the genius manager. So stupid.

And on cue...

Quote:ARLINGTON -- Tampa Bay Rays manager Kevin Cash's decision to pull starter Blake Snell in the sixth inning of Game 6 of the World Series on Tuesday night might be one that'll be questioned for a long time.

With the Rays leading 1-0, Snell was throwing arguably his best game of the season as he had struck out nine Los Angeles Dodgers hitters in just 5 1/3 innings while giving up just two hits.

To the dismay of many, his second hit allowed -- to catcher Austin Barnes with one out in the sixth -- brought Cash to the mound. Cash opted for reliever Nick Anderson, who promptly gave up a double, a game-tying wild pitch and then an RBI ground out, putting the Rays behind in the game for the first time.

So stupid.

(10-21-2020 08:30 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 06:44 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  These "Quality Control" guys are becoming more common on college staffs. I think we have 5-6 of them on staff. Sometimes, the hire is just helping out another coach who got fired somewhere else. But a lot of these positions are being used for analytics. Again, I support this. There is a place in football for "gut feel" calls. But the sport can absolutely be improved by more advanced analytics.

Out of all the by the book moves in sports, the one that bothers me the most is with baseball. Your starting pitcher has given up 1 or 2 runs and is cruising through the 6th or 7th inning. He gives up a seeing eye single or a broken bat hit and then gets pulled by the genius manager. So stupid.

Most annoying move in baseball today. Bob Gibson would have stared the manager down before he got halfway to the mound. Then he would have struck out the side.

(10-20-2020 10:18 PM)aardWolf Wrote:  

(10-20-2020 06:56 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(10-20-2020 02:04 PM)selleg1 Wrote:  

(10-20-2020 12:38 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(10-20-2020 11:13 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  It seems that Silverfield might be using more game-day analytics than his predecessors - evidenced by on-side kicks, 4th down attempts, and 2-point conversions. I support this.

I read a university study a few years ago (wish I had saved it). I think it may have been MIT. They studied risk-reward in football. Their conclusion was that teams should go for the 2-pt conversion most times. And that teams should go for it on 4th down way more than they do. Made a lot of sense.

The decision that everyone is talking about was Houston's decision to go for 2 points against the Titans. Most are blasting it, but it was absolutely the right decision. They had a chance to make it a 9 point game, which would have ended it. They had a 50% chance of making it and ending the game. If they kick the point after, Tennessee has a 50% chance of tying it by making a 2 point conversion of their own.

It's a no brainer. You have a 100% chance of winning the game if you go for 2 points.

??? They went for 2 and lost the game.

Houston scored a touchdown and took a 7 point lead with 1:50 left. If they kick the point after, they lead by 8. If they make the 2 point conversion, they lead by 9 and the game is essentially over.

It was totally the right call.

It’s an interesting concept. There’s an 80% chance of rain so I take an umbrella. It didn’t rain.

Was bringing an umbrella a bad idea? No. The end result doesn’t make the decision bad. I will still take an umbrella the next time there is an 80% chance of rain.

When one carries an umbrella, do they still get wet, or does the umbrella keep one completely dry....What are the odds/percentages that even with the use of an umbrella, one still becomes wet....

(10-21-2020 08:30 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 06:44 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  These "Quality Control" guys are becoming more common on college staffs. I think we have 5-6 of them on staff. Sometimes, the hire is just helping out another coach who got fired somewhere else. But a lot of these positions are being used for analytics. Again, I support this. There is a place in football for "gut feel" calls. But the sport can absolutely be improved by more advanced analytics.

Out of all the by the book moves in sports, the one that bothers me the most is with baseball. Your starting pitcher has given up 1 or 2 runs and is cruising through the 6th or 7th inning. He gives up a seeing eye single or a broken bat hit and then gets pulled by the genius manager. So stupid.

A friend of mine who pitched for the Devil Rays and the White Sox married my business partners daughter (Derek Rodriguez). He and I text each other all the time during games. Last night we had the exact conversation you're talking about.

I texted: "why the F did they pull Snell?" He said: Analytics and that F****** manager. what a dumb***." I then went on to say, why don't they just let Google manage everyone.