OT: Iowa State’s 12% rule - all
- Thread starter RaleighPittFan
- Start date
I'm not seeing much correlation between this metric and results on the field, probably because the spread between the best and worst team is pretty small.
Also, why not aim for 0%?
Seems dumb all around.
Also, why not aim for 0%?
Seems dumb all around.
So the fewer mistakes you make the better chance you have at winning the game. We are truly in the age of enlightenment.
Funny.
But in business (and college football is clearly a business) there is a need to quantify metrics.
I expect a Pat Narduzzi team to finish in the bottom half of any category of which discipline and fundamentals is the focus.
PN never ceases to live down to my low expectations.
QB sneak every play, baby!
Nah, I don't think this thing is entirely without merit. Obviously there are going to be some outliers - like playing Iowa ball is going to produce good results for something like this but maybe not good offensive results overall. But Campbell is a good coach, and if you're running a successful balanced offense I'm sure this is a solid benchmark.
It also proves just how real Miami'ing is. They're #2 on this list, and they led the nation in total yards. They also finished #29 (i.e. not bad at all) in total defense. Yet, they found a way. Don't they always?
Nah, I don't think this thing is entirely without merit. Obviously there are going to be some outliers - like playing Iowa ball is going to produce good results for something like this but maybe not good offensive results overall. But Campbell is a good coach, and if you're running a successful balanced offense I'm sure this is a solid benchmark.
It also proves just how real Miami'ing is. They're #2 on this list, and they led the nation in total yards. They also finished #29 (i.e. not bad at all) in total defense. Yet, they found a way. Don't they always?
I like this mentality a lot for schools with fewer resources using an aggressive offense. The key is execution. If you can execute an aggressive offense well, that means limiting mistakes. The exact opposite of this would be Pitt's offense with Cignetti. Not aggressive, didn't execute well and made far to many mistakes. We saw how that turned out. Bell would be wise to adopt this metric.
well you are stating the obvious. everyone wants to be aggressive and limit mistakes. the problem is, in theory, the more aggressive you are, the more likely you make a mistake.. and vice versa...
So this metric is flawed because you can simply be simplistic to avoid mistakes, aka conservative and have a very ineffective offense with low numbers and still suck. Look no further than our beloved Pittsburgh steelers..
you have to find that balance between being aggressive enough that it outweighs the mistakes. We hear in the NFL how you need your qb to be aggressive and if he throws an interception or two, so what, DONT LIVE IN YOUR FEARS. throw it downfield, go vertical, it's worth it even if you get picked off...
this metric is basically the opposite of that.
The misleading thing about this is the rule is per game not per season. The rule is if you can keep negative plays below 12%, it gives you a 90% chance of winning the game. Since there are other factors involved (personnel, play calling, officiating, etc) that number may not be exactly 12% for every team. One example would be a team who is totally stacked with 5 stars. They may only need to be at 14 or 15 percent to have a 90% chance of winning. And yeah, there will be outliers just like every other statistic, as the smooth brains like to point out.
I don't disagree, which is why I think the metric only really applies to teams with an aggressive offense. Obviously, 3 yards and a cloud of dust is going to have fewer mistakes, but also be less successful.
On the flip side, I once did an analysis of college football teams and looked at turnovers, penalties and controlling the clock. Surprisingly, the most successful teams tended NOT to win the battel of those three phases. More often than not, the more successful teams only won 1 or 0 of those three areas. That was when I concluded that the Wanny/Cav offense wasn't going to be successful.
I think teams that bring in the best players can have some more flexibility here. But most of the other teams, like Iowa St and Pitt for example, need to be as aggressive as they can be while staying under a certain mistake threshold.
I see this "12% rule" as more of a justification for conservative football than any sort of brilliant statistical discovery.
Obviously this is something Iowa State uses for their program, and that’s all it was intended for. Parker Fleming is the one who expanded it to all P5 programs for a discussion point on his social media page. It’s not any more than that.
It’s the off season, and slow for everyone in the football universe; I think he was just trying to make conversation, not suggest it was appropriate for all programs.
It’s the off season, and slow for everyone in the football universe; I think he was just trying to make conversation, not suggest it was appropriate for all programs.
There is a better rule..... the 10% rule. If the opening snap of an offensive possession results in pre-snap penalty, your percentage chance of winning the game drops by 10 percent. Amazing we won any games at all last season.... but an easy area for improvement!
It's one of those ridiculous things coaches (and really any boss) do and say that sound prophetic and smart but are really pretty meaningless. At least he's trying to quantify it into a real number, which most people don't bother to do.
You're closer to coaching so I'm asking this with good intentions. Is it more difficult to sustain long drives or to bust big plays? If you had a preference, would you choose the explosive plays or steady ball control?
That seems to be the philosophies at odds with one another. I used to think ball control was better but it seems easier to score if you get some big plays.
i feel like in today's football, college and pros, you are ok with giving up a long drive vs a quick hitter big play. i know that sounds weird and wrong but i look at it like this..
The reasoning is quite simple. it's REALLY hard to put together a long 14-16 play scoring drive. way too many things can go wrong in that span, holding, pre snap penalty, mistakes by an offense so as a defensive coach, you take away the big plays and make them drive down the field in a long drive.
Yes, it sucks when it happens, those 7/8 minute drives but in reality, it's not going to happen often. I honestly think that is Tomlin's philosophy and well that kind of blows up my argument lol.
I know it "sounds" wrong but I'm not sure it is. I look at it like this, a team is going to stop you a certain number of plays per game. You obviously cannot beat yourself with mistakes but even if there is something to this 12% rule, it means that your average 14-16 play drive is going to get shut down at some point if you make a mistake 10% of the time. If you're only taking 9 plays to score, statistically, there's a good chance that mistake won't haunt you as often.
It's more difficult to sustain long drives. More plays = more execution.
Personally - I want to play like Steelers did in Ben's 2nd playoff run - explosive passing early on, take a 2 TD lead, and break their backs by milking the clock. That's what I want, but right now we have more a basketball team on turf then a grind it out type squad, so I abide by the "left lane, hammer dahn" logic of the Notorious Todd Graham. But, truly great teams have the ability to use both approaches. The lost variable in this is the level of your defense. If you have a great defense, you can be as aggressive as you want imo
Long drives worked when the Steelers had Ben running the show. There many games where the Steelers had the ball to start the game and used up half the clock in that initial drive.
Question wasn't directed to me and the answer is probably obvious but the philosophy behind the no-huddle, up-tempo offenses is basically that: the more plays you run = the more explosives you're likely to have = the more points you will score. So the emphasis is on maxing out the number of offensive snaps you can squeeze into a game, as opposed to the traditional time of possession metric.
The counter to that is if the other team is utilizing tempo too, it just boils down to talent and execution.
The other counter to that is the lesser talented team can sit on the ball and limit offensive possessions. The more talented team usually wins anyways but intstead of losing 38-10, you lose 21-7.
I'm aware that there are pros and cons and there is no perfect mousetrap. But, when Nick Saban completely overhauled his offense and went to tempo/spread right after winning multiple nattys with the game manager McElroy-type QBs, run heavy offenses, etc., that pretty much speaks for itself. As he himself said, it was getting harder and harder to coach defense due to the evolution of the offenses. Adapt or die.
There has never been any downside to scoring a lot of points.
Similar threads
