• SPORTS
    AND
    GAMING
  • Welcome Guest!
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
  • Sports & Gaming Moderators: ghostfreak

The Official NCAA Football 2005 thread

It's Thursday afternoon, we're already out partying! :D

Yes it's a very big deal, Texas coming into town AT NIGHT is a huge deal. Their QB is tough, but I just hope Tressel makes the right decision and combats fire with fire and plays Troy Smith instead of Zwick.
 
LapDawg said:
But what numbers are you running? Just Peattie's or do you actually have NCAA stats ready to show that 45-49 is a <50% conversion rate on avg.? If so...please present them. Since you're so interested in Peattie...shouldn't you recognize that in your famed 45-49 zone he was 2-for-2 last year?

Maybe college kickers aren't as inaccurate as you suggest.
Click to expand...

Heh, you found the same stat sheet I did. Unfortunately I wasn't able to find any stat sheet breaking down the attempts into 5-yard increments.

That stat sheet only lists the top 100 kickers and of course there are 119 1-A teams I believe, but just running those sheer numbers produces a 57% conversion rate from 40-49, and 47% conversion rate from 50+.

Now given that the 19 or so worst kickers in those ranges are excluded from the sample (that stat sheet is sortable, thankfully), would it not be fair to eliminate the stats of some of the kickers from the top of the bell curve, say, the top 7 or so? I suggest only the top 7 instead of the top 19 because given that the worst 19 from those ranges were probably a good bit less likely to have been utilized by their teams in longer distance situations, eliminating the top 19 would unfairly skew the results imo...and I'd much rather be found to be just flat out wrong than for it to be bandied about that I wasn't more than fair in attacking your assertion, or that I was *gasp* a stat masseur. ;)

Now when you eliminate the top 7 kickers' stats, the 40-49 conversion rate drops to 54%. Tellingly though, the 50+ conversion rate drops to 37%.

Now given that most teams are unlikely to attempt 55+ field goals because of the lower probability of conversion AND the surrender of excellent field position, isn't it fair to assume that most of those 50+ attempts occurred, say, in the 50-54 range?

Similarly, just by the percentages alone, isn't it also fair to assume that more of the successful 40-49 attempts probably fell in the lower yardage range of that category, and further, that the conversion rate for 45-49 yarders probably fell somewhere in between the overall 40-49 conversion rate and the 50+ conversion rate? And isn't it further fair to assume, if you grant me the assumption in the paragraph above about the probable length of most 50+ attempts, that the 45-49 conversion rate is closer to the 50+ stat than the overall 40-49 conversion rate?

You're gonna argue to me that even though these college kickers are far more skilled than I apparently thought them to be, despite this far greater skill they're somehow magically "spooked" by the addition of one measly digit, to the extent that that one measly digit increment drops their conversion probability a whopping 17% or more?

What, is it a superstition like not stepping on foul lines in baseball? Do they rub a chicken foot on their holders' hands just before they kick 50+ yarders to ward off those "evil voodoo 50 yard spirits"?

"Coach, I can't go out there and kick that 50+ yarder today, the moon is in the second house and I forgot my lucky chicken foot! Those evil 50 yarder voodoo spirits will have their evil way with me for sure today!"

You've got to see the inherent contradiction in your argument here. "Kickers at the college level are far more skilled than you apparently thought, GB, but oh wait, the mental addition of one digit to their attempts magically and instantaneously produces a whopping 17% reduction in efficiency." I would grant you that the mental aspect may contribute to as much as an instantaneous 5-10% drop in conversion probability, but 17%? C'mon dude, if these kickers are as skilled as you're arguing, that just doesn't equate.

I stand by my assertion that the conversion rate most likely crosses over into <50% somewhere in the 45-49 range. I think it's far more logical to assume that the statistical progression is more uniform than suggested by your "voodoo economics" proposition. ;)

I will grant you that the stat sheet indicates Peattie is a below average college kicker, though.
 
but that one measly digit does mean something, and while you care to dismiss it as nearly being nothing or as some kind of evil spirit idea, I care to believe the psychological difference of knowing a field goal attempt is less than 50 rather than over 50 is present and noteworthy....whether it's 49 or 51. Are you denying there's a higher level of general expectancy for a field goal less than 50 yards to be converted vs. one over 50 yards?

So far, my personal belief of 50+ attempts having a <50% rate still stands and the numbers don't seem to say it's wrong. Plus, if you want to take away the top 7 kickers, you should also take away the bottom 7 kickers who attempted 50+ field goals and therefore your percentages should rise more in line with my thinking.

There's also the point that you'd have to break down the numbers regarding what misses were made within the 40-49 barrier. What about kickers like Peattie who miss below 45 more than from 45-49? How do you explain that? As exceptions to your rule?

Of course, the way you've butchered my view with your interpretation of it certainly works well in line with the ways of a smear campaign. I certainly have to assume a lot to make your view work. :)
 
Whoa whoa whoa, the worst 7 kickers were already removed from that list, remember. If memory serves, there are 119 1-A teams, and that list only included the top 100 kickers.

Ferchrissake, do I have to cheat my assertion even MORE than I already have by not only just eliminating 7 supporting your view (instead of the 19 that I by rights could), but eliminating 7 MORE kickers' stats supporting MY assertion?

Of course there is a higher general expectancy for <50 yard attempts as opposed to 50+ attempts...that's a given from the probabilities. And I've already stated my agreement that there is SOME value to be assigned to the 50+ mental barrier. I just don't think it's the 17% as suggested by the numbers, and if you accept that the mental block's value is a good bit less than that percentage, then your assertion is going to fail.

I agree that a more precise breakdown of the 40-49 range is needed to settle the issue...I'm still more than willing to wager that it supports my view, though. ;)

As far as Peattie's 40+ anomalies are concerned, I don't think we have to worry ourselves over that...we're addressing overall percentages remember, and that would be addressed by the total sample, not individual anomalies.

Dawg, you wound me with your assertion that I butchered your view...I thought I was being more than fair with how I conducted the exclusions in the bell curve. :( ;)

I think the issue needing clarification in this instance is what you deem to be a "consistent" kicker in terms of conversion, not my massaging. ;) It can easily be remedied though with the simple adjustment of your definition of consistency in the instance of 45-49 yarders to mean something less than 50%. ;)
 
Last edited:
Just a quick numbers crunch...

with kickers ranked 50-70 by field goal percentage, the conversion rate of 40-49 is approx. 60%, whereas their percentage for 50+ is approx. 56% w/ 6 of the kickers used in this sample never attempting a FG at that range. Going with your game of assumption, let's assume these 6 would miss from that range given 1 attempt (judging from the opportunity never given to them) and with that factored in, the percentage is just above 47% for 50+.

I rest my case. :D
 
Now wait a minute. You can't simply assume that it's fair to assign an 0-1 value to those 6 kickers' 50+ attempts, because their KNOWN 50+ value is infinity. It could just as easily be 0-4, 0-5, whatever.

Moreover, you're mixing too many variables into that one assumption. It's even more likely that those average kickers would have higher than a 0-1 50+ rate...it could easily be assumed that despite having been presented with numerous opportunities from that range, the coaches declined all of those chances because they KNEW their average kicker sucked in that category.

I call stat massaging foul. ;)
 
and your stats massaging is better since you took it to wannabe-Rob Neyer levels?

I was adding in those misses to HELP your case...but if we leave them out altogether and just go with the number presented w/ the kickers who basically represent the avg. level, then perhaps we're both wrong and they're better than we thought.

Add in more misses if you want...it doesn't really hurt my position. :)
 
I didn't massage the actual stats with anything other than excluding the top 7 kickers, which I think is justified in light of the exclusion of the worst 19 from that list...you, otoh, ADDED numbers that weren't originally there to the actual stats.

The rest of my assumptions were logical inferences based on what we both know about the tactical decisions of the game. Were those inferences about the game's tactical decisions unfair?

I think we may have to submit this dispute to stat arbitration. ;)
 
leave out the "voodoo economics" claim, as well as the grave exaggerations of how my position could be viewed and your argument seems better, but my use of kickers who rank right around where one would logically consider "average" (out of 119 teams using kickers ranked 50 to 70 would be fair, yes?) greatly differs from your assumption, since your assumption is not presented in the numbers before us...we have to use these assumptions to make your numbers work correctly.

The reason I said you should eliminate the bottom 7 kickers who attempted 50+ FGs was to balance out the usage of the 50+ range stat since you eliminated a big chunk of the FGs made without taking out any attempts from the bottom when taking from the top. There are only so many kickers who tried a 50 yard attempt, all of them listed on that stats page. Wouldn't it be fair to take out the same number of worst kickers who attempted that range when you take away the best, that is, if you want a true representation of that statistical range?

and in regards to your claim of the kickers ranked 50-70 having the POTENTIAL to go 0-4, 0-5, etc. from 50+, I was simply judging the addition of one (or two if you like) missed FG as logical since the worst stat from that sample, by far, was 2-7 and for those who didn't make it, 0-2.
 
Last edited:
huntmich said:
Yea great, but the only reason ND won last year was because we had a true-freshman quarterback playing his first road game ever. Our offense is going to walk all over ND, and all our D needs to do is make a couple stops. If I were a gambling man, I'd bet the farm.
Click to expand...

your d is going to have to make more then a couple of stops. did you watch the michigan game last week? you d let up over 400 yards to a very poor niu team. nd gained over 500 yds against what was suppose to be a good pitt d. if niu hadnt turned the ball over 5 times michigan very well could have lost that game. 13 of michigan's points came off of turnovers with drive's of less then 30 yards. nd might not win this game but i'm a betting man and i'm taking nd and the points
 
LapDawg said:
leave out the "voodoo economics" claim, as well as the grave exaggerations of how my position could be viewed and your argument seems better, but my use of kickers who rank right around where one would logically consider "average" (out of 119 teams using kickers ranked 50 to 70 would be fair, yes?) greatly differs from your assumption, since your assumption is not presented in the numbers before us...we have to use these assumptions to make your numbers work correctly.

The reason I said you should eliminate the bottom 7 kickers who attempted 50+ FGs was to balance out the usage of the 50+ range stat since you eliminated a big chunk of the FGs made without taking out any attempts from the bottom when taking from the top. There are only so many kickers who tried a 50 yard attempt, all of them listed on that stats page. Wouldn't it be fair to take out the same number of worst kickers who attempted that range when you take away the best, that is, if you want a true representation of that statistical range?

and in regards to your claim of the kickers ranked 50-70 having the POTENTIAL to go 0-4, 0-5, etc. from 50+, I was simply judging the addition of one (or two if you like) missed FG as logical since the worst stat from that sample, by far, was 2-7 and for those who didn't make it, 0-2.
Click to expand...

Okay, the "voodoo economics" thing was simply a play on what seemed to be your "superstitious" 50+ mental barrier. Geez, you're goin' all Skip Bayless on me here...I'm shooting for Rome Is Burning status, and you're shooting for Cold Pizza? What gives? ;)

And no, I don't agree that it's fair to limit the sample to kickers #50-70 when we've got an even more representative sample of 1-A kicking acumen right there in the list, namely those 100 listed. Further, as I stated earlier, the reason it's unfair to eliminate 7 more of the bottom kickers from the sample is that the list itself already eliminated the 19 worst. Sure, selecting 7 of the top kickers for elimination to balance out the list's omission of the 19 worst is a somewhat selective decision I'll admit, but I tried to balance it out fairly, and here's how I went about it. I chose arguably the best aggregate long-range kicker, Mike Nugent of OSU, and compared his 40-49 conversion rate (78% ) with that of the worst 40-49 conversion rate on that list (25% ), which yields a rough coefficient of 3. I therefore deducted roughly 1/3 of 19, or 7, of the top kickers to compensate for the omission of the bottom 19.

What you're advocating against my assertion by pressing for eliminating 7 more is essentially that the top 7 kickers are almost 4 times better than the worst 26, when imo I've already been more than generous in granting you the assumption that the 19 worst were essentially only 1/3 as good as the top 7.

Why? Because if you were to average out the conversion rates of the worst 26 from, say, the 40-49 range, I virtually guarantee you that the average would be higher than the 25% worst-case scenario figure I assumed in order to grant you the benefit of the best-case scenario for calculating how many top kickers to exclude. The 40-49 conversion rate of the worst 26 would probably be somewhere around 33% at worst I'm guessing, and the conversion rate of the best 7 from 40-49 is probably somewhere around 90%, which doesn't yield a coefficient topping 3.

Are you seriously contending that the best (arguably) aggregate long-range kicker on that list, Mike Nugent, is almost 4 times better than the worst 26 1-A kickers in light of the above coefficients by the numbers? If anything, I think the argument supports the elimination of one more top kicker, not another 7 of the worst.

As far as your assumption about the infinity stat of those 6 kickers in your sample, assigning an 0-2 50+ value to all 6 instead of 0-1 yields a 50+ conversion rate of 41%, which is a pretty big difference from the 56% result in your selective sample. See where I'm coming from about the selective stat massaging? ;)
 
^but see how no matter what you do, the stats still match up with my original percentage claim.

It's not like what I was saying was stretching as far as you make it out to be. You could use the 41% and when you match it with the 60% for 40-49, my opinion of the 50-yard barrier being a better indicator for <50% conversion holds perfectly fine. How does it not?

And if we're looking for the "average kicker", I'm not sure why you don't accept my usage of kickers who are percieved as the "average" through their FG %, in a more focused group that matches the supposed query of what we're discussing. Instead, you want to eliminate the best kickers for stats you assume are far worse when the stats simply aren't available.

Again...I'm talking about 50+ yard field goal attempts in regards to taking the bottom 7 out. Not all of the kickers even tried that range, so you can only go with who DID. And from that alone, the 50+ range is more accurate than what you keep claiming since you refuse to acknowledge your manipulation of that stat by eliminating the best kickers who attempted that range without equally balancing the usage of that stat by taking out the bottom kickers regarding that stat alone.

I see no reason from kickers 80-100 to believe there's a significant drop-off in the 45-49 range for kicker 101-119 when compared to them. Seems like you're reaching for straws when you keep having to claim the lack of those stats being such a significant missing piece.
 
p.s. agree to disagree...and recognize your own stat massaging when trying to call others out for it. :D
 
I'm gonna call it....

Vince Young is gonna throw 3 int's against the Buckeyes, and the Silver Bullets D is gonna get 4-5 sacks.

It's gonna be close, Young will prolly get 150 yards rushing, but it's gonna come down to special teams. I picture in my head this scenario:

Texas just got the lead back in the 4th quarter and is kicks it off to Ginn with 2:12 to go in the 4th, leading 25-19. And then Ginn, who will be virtually shut down the whole game, will return it to the house. It will be Ginn's only big play of the day, but it will also be the biggest play of the game too.
Ohio State 26 Texas 25
 
^Are you expecting 10 combined field goals? Maybe a safety apiece for each team? Perhaps a couple of missed extra points or 2-point conversions?
 
I hope Nate Salley or Donte Whitner blasts Vince Young into next week.

I'm going for a 20-17 OSU win.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top