Stats (and thoughts)

[307bball]

I'm making no distinction for the type of run or pass called...i'm just recording whether the play was a run or a pass when the ball was snapped (i.e. qb sack is a pass)

From the WSU game:

1st downs: 82% run 18% pass
2nd downs: 57% run 43% pass
3rd downs: 23% run 77% pass

Its a pretty small sample size and I would say the the only really interesting thing here is the 1st and 2nd downs since 3rd down is heavily influenced by what happened on the preceding plays. If I could read Bohl's mind it would probably say that 80/20 run/pass on first down and 50/50 run/pass on second is where he wants to be. I don't really have any grand conclusion to draw from this but i did notice as I went through the drives how bad penalties hurt us. Almost no drives not marred by penalties...really rough.

 

[calpoke25]

It has been demonstrated over and over at every level of football in the modern game, passing on first down is by far the most efficient form of offense in football. This is irrespective of whatever “style” offense you are playing, i.e. pro, spread, West coast, etc.

 

[307bball]

It has been demonstrated over and over at every level of football in the modern game, passing on first down is by far the most efficient form of offense in football. This is irrespective of whatever “style” offense you are playing, i.e. pro, spread, West coast, etc.

Your probably correct when analyzing pro style modern offenses....I really don't think that teams like Georgia tech or air Force (and teams like them) would see an increase in efficiency by passing more on first down. Furthermore... There are plenty of spread teams that prioritize running the ball... Look at some of Chip Kelley's Oregon teams. Those teams were some of the most "efficient" offensive teams in the history of college football and they were a 60/30 run/pass team. Football does not lend itself well to analytics... The number crunchers have impacted football some but not in the way it has/is changing baseball and basketball.

 

[fromolwyoming]

It has been demonstrated over and over at every level of football in the modern game, passing on first down is by far the most efficient form of offense in football. This is irrespective of whatever “style” offense you are playing, i.e. pro, spread, West coast, etc.

Your probably correct when analyzing pro style modern offenses....I really don't think that teams like Georgia tech or air Force (and teams like them) would see an increase in efficiency by passing more on first down. Furthermore... There are plenty of spread teams that prioritize running the ball... Look at some of Chip Kelley's Oregon teams. Those teams were some of the most "efficient" offensive teams in the history of college football and they were a 60/30 run/pass team. Football does not lend itself well to analytics... The number crunchers have impacted football some but not in the way it has/is changing baseball and basketball.

Yeah, but Oregon ran a lot of read option with Kelly. And the triple option teams, well, there's even variants of the triple option they use.

Even then, they did more than just run straight up the middle 80% of the time. They ran outside, options, draws, off the tackle, jet sweeps, etc.

The few times Vigen changed it up without running up the middle every play, we saw sustained drives. I'm not really advocating for throwing it on first down all the time, and especially not air raid or whatever. Just switching up the play calling to be less predictable. That's not asking a lot.

 

[307bball]

It has been demonstrated over and over at every level of football in the modern game, passing on first down is by far the most efficient form of offense in football. This is irrespective of whatever “style” offense you are playing, i.e. pro, spread, West coast, etc.

Your probably correct when analyzing pro style modern offenses....I really don't think that teams like Georgia tech or air Force (and teams like them) would see an increase in efficiency by passing more on first down. Furthermore... There are plenty of spread teams that prioritize running the ball... Look at some of Chip Kelley's Oregon teams. Those teams were some of the most "efficient" offensive teams in the history of college football and they were a 60/30 run/pass team. Football does not lend itself well to analytics... The number crunchers have impacted football some but not in the way it has/is changing baseball and basketball.

Yeah, but Oregon ran a lot of read option with Kelly. And the triple option teams, well, there's even variants of the triple option they use.

Even then, they did more than just run straight up the middle 80% of the time. They ran outside, options, draws, off the tackle, jet sweeps, etc.

The few times Vigen changed it up without running up the middle every play, we saw sustained drives. I'm not really advocating for throwing it on first down all the time, and especially not air raid or whatever. Just switching up the play calling to be less predictable. That's not asking a lot.

I'm merely pointing out that a simplistic analysis that shows passing on first down=success is not accurate. I'm just trying to inject a little bit of actual data into the discussion on playcalling. Wyoming's running plays are not all the same either (although two different running plays that get blown up in the backfield do look the same)...Do you know what correlates to success in college football? Execution...at a high level. Good teams do it and bad teams don't. The specific flavor of offense that a particular team runs will always matter less than how well the play gets executed. There are not a whole lot of stones left un-turned when it comes to football plays and play-calling...coaches get together and share plays and techniques nowadays. Bad spread teams (late DC era Wyoming for example) aren't bad because the spread offense is flawed, they are bad because they don't do the things that create positive plays within the system they are trying to run. Wyoming will win more than it loses in direct correlation to how well the players execute. I would be a lot more sympathetic to the people complaining about the playcalling if the other deficiencies were not so glaring.

 

[calpoke25]

It has been demonstrated over and over at every level of football in the modern game, passing on first down is by far the most efficient form of offense in football. This is irrespective of whatever “style” offense you are playing, i.e. pro, spread, West coast, etc.

Your probably correct when analyzing pro style modern offenses....I really don't think that teams like Georgia tech or air Force (and teams like them) would see an increase in efficiency by passing more on first down. Furthermore... There are plenty of spread teams that prioritize running the ball... Look at some of Chip Kelley's Oregon teams. Those teams were some of the most "efficient" offensive teams in the history of college football and they were a 60/30 run/pass team. Football does not lend itself well to analytics... The number crunchers have impacted football some but not in the way it has/is changing baseball and basketball.

Football is just more slow to come around to it, but believe me the analytics are there.

 

[WyomingAg]

It has been demonstrated over and over at every level of football in the modern game, passing on first down is by far the most efficient form of offense in football. This is irrespective of whatever “style” offense you are playing, i.e. pro, spread, West coast, etc.

Your probably correct when analyzing pro style modern offenses....I really don't think that teams like Georgia tech or air Force (and teams like them) would see an increase in efficiency by passing more on first down. Furthermore... There are plenty of spread teams that prioritize running the ball... Look at some of Chip Kelley's Oregon teams. Those teams were some of the most "efficient" offensive teams in the history of college football and they were a 60/30 run/pass team. Football does not lend itself well to analytics... The number crunchers have impacted football some but not in the way it has/is changing baseball and basketball.

Yeah, but Oregon ran a lot of read option with Kelly. And the triple option teams, well, there's even variants of the triple option they use.

Even then, they did more than just run straight up the middle 80% of the time. They ran outside, options, draws, off the tackle, jet sweeps, etc.

The few times Vigen changed it up without running up the middle every play, we saw sustained drives. I'm not really advocating for throwing it on first down all the time, and especially not air raid or whatever. Just switching up the play calling to be less predictable. That's not asking a lot.

I'm merely pointing out that a simplistic analysis that shows passing on first down=success is not accurate. I'm just trying to inject a little bit of actual data into the discussion on playcalling. Wyoming's running plays are not all the same either (although two different running plays that get blown up in the backfield do look the same)...Do you know what correlates to success in college football? Execution...at a high level. Good teams do it and bad teams don't. The specific flavor of offense that a particular team runs will always matter less than how well the play gets executed. There are not a whole lot of stones left un-turned when it comes to football plays and play-calling...coaches get together and share plays and techniques nowadays. Bad spread teams (late DC era Wyoming for example) aren't bad because the spread offense is flawed, they are bad because they don't do the things that create positive plays within the system they are trying to run. Wyoming will win more than it loses in direct correlation to how well the players execute. I would be a lot more sympathetic to the people complaining about the playcalling if the other deficiencies were not so glaring.

I wouldn't call DC's final Wyoming team as good either at 5-7 but I don't know if you can blame that on a bad spread offense. His final team had a total offense final season ranking of 22 out of 123 teams, a scoring offense ranked 51, and they were ranked 30 on offense for 3rd down conversion percentage. None of those really scream that the offense wasn't creating positive plays

 

[307bball]

It has been demonstrated over and over at every level of football in the modern game, passing on first down is by far the most efficient form of offense in football. This is irrespective of whatever “style” offense you are playing, i.e. pro, spread, West coast, etc.

Your probably correct when analyzing pro style modern offenses....I really don't think that teams like Georgia tech or air Force (and teams like them) would see an increase in efficiency by passing more on first down. Furthermore... There are plenty of spread teams that prioritize running the ball... Look at some of Chip Kelley's Oregon teams. Those teams were some of the most "efficient" offensive teams in the history of college football and they were a 60/30 run/pass team. Football does not lend itself well to analytics... The number crunchers have impacted football some but not in the way it has/is changing baseball and basketball.

Yeah, but Oregon ran a lot of read option with Kelly. And the triple option teams, well, there's even variants of the triple option they use.

Even then, they did more than just run straight up the middle 80% of the time. They ran outside, options, draws, off the tackle, jet sweeps, etc.

The few times Vigen changed it up without running up the middle every play, we saw sustained drives. I'm not really advocating for throwing it on first down all the time, and especially not air raid or whatever. Just switching up the play calling to be less predictable. That's not asking a lot.

I'm merely pointing out that a simplistic analysis that shows passing on first down=success is not accurate. I'm just trying to inject a little bit of actual data into the discussion on playcalling. Wyoming's running plays are not all the same either (although two different running plays that get blown up in the backfield do look the same)...Do you know what correlates to success in college football? Execution...at a high level. Good teams do it and bad teams don't. The specific flavor of offense that a particular team runs will always matter less than how well the play gets executed. There are not a whole lot of stones left un-turned when it comes to football plays and play-calling...coaches get together and share plays and techniques nowadays. Bad spread teams (late DC era Wyoming for example) aren't bad because the spread offense is flawed, they are bad because they don't do the things that create positive plays within the system they are trying to run. Wyoming will win more than it loses in direct correlation to how well the players execute. I would be a lot more sympathetic to the people complaining about the playcalling if the other deficiencies were not so glaring.

I wouldn't call DC's final Wyoming team as good either at 5-7 but I don't know if you can blame that on a bad spread offense. His final team had a total offense final season ranking of 22 out of 123 teams, a scoring offense ranked 51, and they were ranked 30 on offense for 3rd down conversion percentage. None of those really scream that the offense wasn't creating positive plays

Creating positive offensive plays is just one aspect of what makes teams good. I called DC's team a bad spread team because they were not good and they ran a spread scheme. So much of what makes football great is how distinct each part of the game is (special teams, offense, Defense), and yet they are very inter-related. If my memory serves, despite having an above average offense (statistically speaking), the DC-led Wyoming teams constantly put the defense in bad positions. Now no matter how good a team is at one particular facet of the game...if they are really bad at other facets it will eventually affect the whole team. I'm pretty sure that if Bohl/Vigen were to call the offensive game plan that some folks seem to want them to call and the team had as many false starts/holding/dumb penalties as they did then the result would be the same.

 

[307bball]

It has been demonstrated over and over at every level of football in the modern game, passing on first down is by far the most efficient form of offense in football. This is irrespective of whatever “style” offense you are playing, i.e. pro, spread, West coast, etc.

Your probably correct when analyzing pro style modern offenses....I really don't think that teams like Georgia tech or air Force (and teams like them) would see an increase in efficiency by passing more on first down. Furthermore... There are plenty of spread teams that prioritize running the ball... Look at some of Chip Kelley's Oregon teams. Those teams were some of the most "efficient" offensive teams in the history of college football and they were a 60/30 run/pass team. Football does not lend itself well to analytics... The number crunchers have impacted football some but not in the way it has/is changing baseball and basketball.

Football is just more slow to come around to it, but believe me the analytics are there.

Agreed, but Football is a different beast. In basketball and baseball there are numerical metrics that have been developed that strongly correlate to success. These metrics usually take the form of some sort of esoteric number that is arrived at by crunching the more obvious numbers like rebounding, steals, or shot attempts. The issue with football (especially college football) is that almost every number means something different depending on the team you are applying it to. For instance, yards per carry means one thing to a team like Air force and something totally different to a team like Washington State. Time of Possession is another one that, depending on the situation, carries a ton of weight or is secondary to other offensive concerns. I recognize the appeal of analytics and how powerful they can be when applied to sports. I just don't like the homogenizing affect that they tend to have on competition. College football is at it's best when you have air raid teams playing against ground and pound teams and everything in between. Maybe the three point revolution that has changed basketball will come to football one day and every team will just throw hail Mary passes on every down (i'm exaggerating here for effect), but I hope not.

 

[ItSucksToBeACSURam]

What made teams like DC's potent (and whats killing our current system) is that they were able to "scheme" away some of the disadvantage Wyoming will always have against P5 teams. We will never have the better athletes top to bottom when were playing P5 teams. The offense we currently run does very little to help close that gap and Vigen's refusal to change eliminates what little could be done. Every team we play will load the box and demand that we beat them through the air. If we refuse to change our play calling, teams that have better athletes and depth with beat us easily. Teams that we can push around, and create space we'll beat.

The few drives against WSU where we found success we got them moving across the field instead of up and down the field. Its way easier for superior athletes to leverage that talent when going north and south, you push forward with no thought or concern of having to adjust. Forcing them to move laterally introduces a whole other set of circumstances and dictates that they can't just pin their ears back and clog the middle of the field. As soon as we started the jet sweeps and quick outs we moved fairly easily and scored. Playing the downhill, cloud of dust football only played into their strengths, not ours.

 

[Asmodeanreborn]

The few drives against WSU where we found success we got them moving across the field instead of up and down the field. Its way easier for superior athletes to leverage that talent when going north and south, you push forward with no thought or concern of having to adjust. Forcing them to move laterally introduces a whole other set of circumstances and dictates that they can't just pin their ears back and clog the middle of the field. As soon as we started the jet sweeps and quick outs we moved fairly easily and scored. Playing the downhill, cloud of dust football only played into their strengths, not ours.

Yeah, if you go look at the play by play summary, the offensive success we had was all when we mixed things up a bit. Sure, the interception also came on such a play, but I'd rather our opponents actually know they can't stack the box on first and second down to force us into a third and long every bloody time.

 

[laxwyo]

It has been demonstrated over and over at every level of football in the modern game, passing on first down is by far the most efficient form of offense in football. This is irrespective of whatever “style” offense you are playing, i.e. pro, spread, West coast, etc.

Your probably correct when analyzing pro style modern offenses....I really don't think that teams like Georgia tech or air Force (and teams like them) would see an increase in efficiency by passing more on first down. Furthermore... There are plenty of spread teams that prioritize running the ball... Look at some of Chip Kelley's Oregon teams. Those teams were some of the most "efficient" offensive teams in the history of college football and they were a 60/30 run/pass team. Football does not lend itself well to analytics... The number crunchers have impacted football some but not in the way it has/is changing baseball and basketball.

Yeah, but Oregon ran a lot of read option with Kelly. And the triple option teams, well, there's even variants of the triple option they use.

Even then, they did more than just run straight up the middle 80% of the time. They ran outside, options, draws, off the tackle, jet sweeps, etc.

The few times Vigen changed it up without running up the middle every play, we saw sustained drives. I'm not really advocating for throwing it on first down all the time, and especially not air raid or whatever. Just switching up the play calling to be less predictable. That's not asking a lot.

I'm merely pointing out that a simplistic analysis that shows passing on first down=success is not accurate. I'm just trying to inject a little bit of actual data into the discussion on playcalling. Wyoming's running plays are not all the same either (although two different running plays that get blown up in the backfield do look the same)...Do you know what correlates to success in college football? Execution...at a high level. Good teams do it and bad teams don't. The specific flavor of offense that a particular team runs will always matter less than how well the play gets executed. There are not a whole lot of stones left un-turned when it comes to football plays and play-calling...coaches get together and share plays and techniques nowadays. Bad spread teams (late DC era Wyoming for example) aren't bad because the spread offense is flawed, they are bad because they don't do the things that create positive plays within the system they are trying to run. Wyoming will win more than it loses in direct correlation to how well the players execute. I would be a lot more sympathetic to the people complaining about the playcalling if the other deficiencies were not so glaring.

So, is it easier or more difficult to execute a pass or run when there’s 8 men in the box?

 

[307bball]

The few drives against WSU where we found success we got them moving across the field instead of up and down the field. Its way easier for superior athletes to leverage that talent when going north and south, you push forward with no thought or concern of having to adjust. Forcing them to move laterally introduces a whole other set of circumstances and dictates that they can't just pin their ears back and clog the middle of the field. As soon as we started the jet sweeps and quick outs we moved fairly easily and scored. Playing the downhill, cloud of dust football only played into their strengths, not ours.

Yeah, if you go look at the play by play summary, the offensive success we had was all when we mixed things up a bit. Sure, the interception also came on such a play, but I'd rather our opponents actually know they can't stack the box on first and second down to force us into a third and long every bloody time.

Actually the stronger correlation here is whether or not an offensive penalty occurred. Look at the drive summaries ... all of Wyoming's scoring drives were penalty free. I'm open to the possibility that play-calling is the primary cause of the offensive woes versus WSU but the simplest explanation is that the offense was hamstrung by penalties.

 

[307bball]

It has been demonstrated over and over at every level of football in the modern game, passing on first down is by far the most efficient form of offense in football. This is irrespective of whatever “style” offense you are playing, i.e. pro, spread, West coast, etc.

Your probably correct when analyzing pro style modern offenses....I really don't think that teams like Georgia tech or air Force (and teams like them) would see an increase in efficiency by passing more on first down. Furthermore... There are plenty of spread teams that prioritize running the ball... Look at some of Chip Kelley's Oregon teams. Those teams were some of the most "efficient" offensive teams in the history of college football and they were a 60/30 run/pass team. Football does not lend itself well to analytics... The number crunchers have impacted football some but not in the way it has/is changing baseball and basketball.

Yeah, but Oregon ran a lot of read option with Kelly. And the triple option teams, well, there's even variants of the triple option they use.

Even then, they did more than just run straight up the middle 80% of the time. They ran outside, options, draws, off the tackle, jet sweeps, etc.

The few times Vigen changed it up without running up the middle every play, we saw sustained drives. I'm not really advocating for throwing it on first down all the time, and especially not air raid or whatever. Just switching up the play calling to be less predictable. That's not asking a lot.

I'm merely pointing out that a simplistic analysis that shows passing on first down=success is not accurate. I'm just trying to inject a little bit of actual data into the discussion on playcalling. Wyoming's running plays are not all the same either (although two different running plays that get blown up in the backfield do look the same)...Do you know what correlates to success in college football? Execution...at a high level. Good teams do it and bad teams don't. The specific flavor of offense that a particular team runs will always matter less than how well the play gets executed. There are not a whole lot of stones left un-turned when it comes to football plays and play-calling...coaches get together and share plays and techniques nowadays. Bad spread teams (late DC era Wyoming for example) aren't bad because the spread offense is flawed, they are bad because they don't do the things that create positive plays within the system they are trying to run. Wyoming will win more than it loses in direct correlation to how well the players execute. I would be a lot more sympathetic to the people complaining about the playcalling if the other deficiencies were not so glaring.

So, is it easier or more difficult to execute a pass or run when there’s 8 men in the box?

That is the wrong question to ask...The answer is (obviously) that if everything were equal (which it never is btw) it is easiest to run or pass or whatever as long as the defense is expecting or scheming for the opposite. This does not mean that it is the correct call. Look at the Super Bowl that Seattle lost to the Patriots because the alignment of the defense dictated that the highest probability of success was a quick slant pass that ended up getting picked to seal the win for the Patriots. All of the analytic types said (and I believe them) that it was the correct call if you go by the numbers.

The best teams keep opponents guessing as much as they can but even then many times the defense knows what is coming and still can't stop them. The Chip Kelley era Oregon teams did a lot of innovative things but it wasn't like teams did not know what to expect against them...they just did what they did so well (and they had world class talent) that it didn't matter. The offensive display that Wyoming put out on the field against Washington State was not good...that's not the issue though...the reason it was no good, in my opinion, is better explained by penalties and lack of execution. Could play-calling improve?..Of course! The bottom line is that the perfectly scripted offensive game-plan will not do much good with a team that shoots itself in the foot with penalties and dropped passes and missed blocking assignments.