continuity within the program

[Bufffan68]

I don't care about penalties. It's not correlated to winning.

Similarly, I don't care about time of possession.

Turnovers have to change. Offense has to commit a lot fewer and the defense has to cause a lot more.

Beyond that, Buffs have to get the number of explosive plays and rushing attempts up on offense.

Buffs have to do better getting off the field on 3rd down on defense, limit explosive plays and be much better in the red zone.

I would say penalties do matter if you don't have the talent to overcome them. UCLA was horrible with penalties, but they are so loaded with talent it didn't matter except in games with similarly talented teams.

Agree with ToP and TOs...

Reducing the TOs, better front 7 play and a little more explosion on O will lead to more wins. I also like the staff continuity...Oregon is really the model here and it really worked for them.

 

[SBG]

Biggest difference between Oregon and bailer is that those teams have serious talent to also overcome holding calls. We look for check down receivers on 3rd and long. Penalties matter, but their importance is overstated. You can't just point to the supreme outliers with elite talent.

Tini run some stats for us.

 

[Buffnik]

Old article, but still valid, regarding the link between penalties and wins. NFL data. It's not just that penalties don't matter, it's that being penalized more may actually be a good thing.

If you need more proof of the mathematical type, there was a (very small) negative correlation coefficient between wins and net penalties (-.10) as well as wins and net penalty yards (-.08) in 2002.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2003/are-penalties-overrated

 

[Idot Buff]

Biggest difference between Oregon and bailer is that those teams have serious talent to also overcome holding calls. We look for check down receivers on 3rd and long. Penalties matter, but their importance is overstated. You can't just point to the supreme outliers with elite talent.

Tini run some stats for us.

He is working on it, but his computer locked up.....

 

[sackman]

Good teams overcome penalties. Bad teams don't. We're not a good team so we need to be as penalty free as possible. I remember seeing CU play Stanford a few years back when they had Andrew Luck. CU would put Stanford in 3rd and 15 after a penalty or two. Didn't matter. Luck would hit their TE for a 20-yard gain. The point being that if you're good, you can get away with playing an aggressive style of football that leads to a lot of penalties. For the time being, i'd prefer we do everything we can to keep the penalties to a minimum.

 

[Buffnik]

Good teams overcome penalties. Bad teams don't. We're not a good team so we need to be as penalty free as possible. I remember seeing CU play Stanford a few years back when they had Andrew Luck. CU would put Stanford in 3rd and 15 after a penalty or two. Didn't matter. Luck would hit their TE for a 20-yard gain. The point being that if you're good, you can get away with playing an aggressive style of football that leads to a lot of penalties. For the time being, i'd prefer we do everything we can to keep the penalties to a minimum.

Think of all the penalties that aren't called, though. Isn't a bad team better off holding on every pass play (whether on offense or defense) and dealing with it the 1/5 plays they get flagged instead of trying to play it straight against more talented opponents?

 

[Duff Man]

Should really only worry about pre-snap and dead ball penalties.

 

[patebuff]

Should really only worry about pre-snap and dead ball penalties.

Agreed

 

[sackman]

Sure. Who cares about holding penalties and pass interference calls anyway? Those kinds of penalties never hurt anybody. :rolling_eyes:

Seems like a lot of over-rationalization taking place to me.

 

[Duff Man]

There are much more important factors tied to winning.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

There are much more important factors tied to winning.

Like Time of Possession, right?? :lol:

 

[sackman]

There are much more important factors tied to winning.

Yes, that's true. But what I'm seeing in this thread is a lot of "penalties don't matter", which is a load of garbage, if you ask me. Penalties kill drives and/or keep drives alive for the opposition. There's a big difference between pointing out that there are more important factors that are tied to winning and discounting the impact of penalties altogether.

 

[Buffnik]

Yes, that's true. But what I'm seeing in this thread is a lot of "penalties don't matter", which is a load of garbage, if you ask me. Penalties kill drives and/or keep drives alive for the opposition. There's a big difference between pointing out that there are more important factors that are tied to winning and discounting the impact of penalties altogether.

Where is there any correlation between penalties (# of them or yardage) and winning football games? There isn't.

 

[Duff Man]

Yes, that's true. But what I'm seeing in this thread is a lot of "penalties don't matter", which is a load of garbage, if you ask me. Penalties kill drives and/or keep drives alive for the opposition. There's a big difference between pointing out that there are more important factors that are tied to winning and discounting the impact of penalties altogether.

In the grand scheme of things, they really do not matter.

 

[Bufffan68]

Where is there any correlation between penalties (# of them or yardage) and winning football games? There isn't.

Not disputing, but that is counter-intuitive. There is much more parity in talent level in the NFL than in CFB, so I'd be interested to see those stats.

 

[Buffnik]

Not disputing, but that is counter-intuitive. There is much more parity in talent level in the NFL than in CFB, so I'd be interested to see those stats.

Definitely counter-intuitive.

But it's what the data says. Coaches know it. It's why they talk about pre-snap and dead ball penalties but don't talk about limiting penalties in general. Delays of game and false starts are boneheaded plays that show poor discipline and get a team off schedule. Coaches do worry about those and it is a reflection of how well a team is coached.

Similarly in basketball, free throw percentage being almost irrelevant is completely counter-intuitive to fans. Like penalties in football, they drive us crazy and are an easy thing to focus upon. But the coaches only talk about getting to the line and hitting FTs to close out games.

Coaches know the metrics and what to focus upon.

 

[sackman]

Where is there any correlation between penalties (# of them or yardage) and winning football games? There isn't.

Well then, I suppose that pass interference against OSU didn't have any impact on the game at all. Crazy. I could have sworn it mattered.

 

[Shldr2Shldr]

Well then, I suppose that pass interference against OSU didn't have any impact on the game at all. Crazy. I could have sworn it mattered.

obviously there are outliers. However statistically, penalties are insignificant overall. In NCAAFB, most times you take the PI vs the resulting play anyway. 15yds vs a 30yd catch is a win for the D. In certain situations it can bite you, but that isn't the norm.

 

[Buffnik]

Well then, I suppose that pass interference against OSU didn't have any impact on the game at all. Crazy. I could have sworn it mattered.

Come on, man. We can always pick out exceptions when something costs a team on an individual play or even in a particular game. Time of Possession could even be pointed to in that way with particular cases. But we're talking about penalties in the aggregate and what a team should emphasize, what points to a good coaching job. And, simply put, how many penalties or penalty yards a team has in a season doesn't mean squat.

 

[sackman]

obviously there are outliers. However statistically, penalties are insignificant overall. In NCAAFB, most times you take the PI vs the resulting play anyway. 15yds vs a 30yd catch is a win for the D. In certain situations it can bite you, but that isn't the norm.

When you're 2-10, the outliers become the norm. That's my point. We can't afford to discount anything. It all matters.

 

[Shldr2Shldr]

When you're 2-10, the outliers become the norm. That's my point. We can't afford to discount anything. It all matters.

True, but I would rather the coaching staff focus on eliminating pre-snap penalties and late hits than worry about fixing PI.

 

[Buffnik]

When you're 2-10, the outliers become the norm. That's my point. We can't afford to discount anything. It all matters.

How about the point I made earlier: most penalties are not called. Therefore, it's better for an under-talented team to hold, chop and interfere on every single play because it's going to help you more than it hurts you. Good coaching would be teaching the team to play outside the rules.

 

[sackman]

If your entire point is that correlation does not equate to causation, I can buy that. The Raiders for years were the most penalized team in the NFL. They were also the worst team in the NFL. Last year, Seattle was one of the most penalized teams in the NFL, but were also one of the best.

My point is that for a team that's already the worst, we can't be discounting penalties as being meaningless. Penalties move your team back. The idea of football is to move the ball forward. Therefore, penalties matter. Some teams can overcome them. We haven't shown that ability. Until we do, penalties matter.

 

[Buffnik]

If your entire point is that correlation does not equate to causation, I can buy that. The Raiders for years were the most penalized team in the NFL. They were also the worst team in the NFL. Last year, Seattle was one of the most penalized teams in the NFL, but were also one of the best.

My point is that for a team that's already the worst, we can't be discounting penalties as being meaningless. Penalties move your team back. The idea of football is to move the ball forward. Therefore, penalties matter. Some teams can overcome them. We haven't shown that ability. Until we do, penalties matter.

My point is that there is no correlation. Whether you are a good team or a bad team has zero to do with how often your team is penalized. Seattle wasn't winning in spite of penalties. Oakland wasn't losing because of them. They were incidental to the performance of those teams.

 

[Darth Snow]

If your entire point is that correlation does not equate to causation, I can buy that. The Raiders for years were the most penalized team in the NFL. They were also the worst team in the NFL. Last year, Seattle was one of the most penalized teams in the NFL, but were also one of the best.

My point is that for a team that's already the worst, we can't be discounting penalties as being meaningless. Penalties move your team back. The idea of football is to move the ball forward. Therefore, penalties matter. Some teams can overcome them. We haven't shown that ability. Until we do, penalties matter.

Apparently not.

 

[sackman]

Apparently not.

Apparently you're not paying attention.

Again.


I can agree that there are a lot of other factors that are more important. I'm not disupiting that. But simply taking some statistics and saying that penalties don't matter ignores the situation we're in. Our margin for error is very, very thin. One ill-timed penalty can - and has - directly cause us to lose. In light of that fact, we can't be discounting penalties. Simply put, we need every advantage we can get.

 

[Buffnik]

Apparently you're not paying attention.

Again.


I can agree that there are a lot of other factors that are more important. I'm not disupiting that. But simply taking some statistics and saying that penalties don't matter ignores the situation we're in. Our margin for error is very, very thin. One ill-timed penalty can - and has - directly cause us to lose. In light of that fact, we can't be discounting penalties. Simply put, we need every advantage we can get.

Are you saying that MacIntyre should tell Tumpkin's DBs not to hold or Bernardi's OLs not to grab or Walter's WRs not to run picks or Lingren's screen design not to have OLs releasing downfield a bit early... all to make sure that CU doesn't have to deal with the setback of some penalty calls? Because if MacIntyre was coaching that way -- coaching scared -- with any team (but especially one that was at a talent disadvantage)... I'd want him fired yesterday.

 

[Bufffan68]

My point is that there is no correlation. Whether you are a good team or a bad team has zero to do with how often your team is penalized. Seattle wasn't winning in spite of penalties. Oakland wasn't losing because of them. They were incidental to the performance of those teams.

I agree with Nik...the data clearly show there is no correlation...and of course it's in aggregate. Sure, there are outliers etc, but if you are trying to build a program, it is important to focus the limited time and energy that will give the biggest payback. Seems to me turnovers is where the focus should be, it's where Mac is and why Baer got fired (IMO).

 

[sackman]

Are you saying that MacIntyre should tell Tumpkin's DBs not to hold or Bernardi's OLs not to grab or Walter's WRs not to run picks or Lingren's screen design not to have OLs releasing downfield a bit early... all to make sure that CU doesn't have to deal with the setback of some penalty calls? Because if MacIntyre was coaching that way -- coaching scared -- with any team (but especially one that was at a talent disadvantage)... I'd want him fired yesterday.

Is that a serious question? I mean, honestly, is that what you're getting from my posts?

 

[Buffnik]

Is that a serious question? I mean, honestly, is that what you're getting from my posts?

Yes and yes.

There is no statistical evidence to support being a team that commits fewer penalties. So why coach to it? I do make the concession on pre-snap and dead ball penalties. Those are just stupid. The rest are penalties of aggression and I don't care whether CU is #1 or #120 on that, though I'd feel better if the team was closer to #120 since I'd know they were playing with aggression and simply weren't good enough to avoid obvious penalties.