Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - jknezek

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 241
1
General football / Re: 2016 Playoffs
« on: December 01, 2016, 12:32:13 pm »
I mean, they certainly have a better chance of getting through Saturday. You have to admit that, right?
If you are asking whether beating Albright is easier than beating John Carroll, yes, that is right. But we both know that much more lies between Mount winning the Stagg Bowl than Albright.

If getting through Saturday is primary data in determining chances to win the Stagg Bowl, let's look at UW-O. They play St. Thomas and are given a 35.1% chance of winning that game. UW-W is given a 65.6% chance of beating John Carroll.  Yet, UW-O is given more than twice the chance to win the Stagg Bowl than UW-W. 

But it's all good. UW-W is the clear underdog. Less than 7% chance. Hmmm, who knew? If we manage to get lucky against the OAC champs on Saturday, we'll show up and try to give UW-O or St. Thomas a good enough workout to get them ready for the Stagg Bowl. If nothing else, they ought to be able to rest their guys for the second half against us.  ;)

I don't want to stand in the way of your righteous indignation, but you could at least get the teams right. They've probably earned that much this year. UMU plays Alfred. I know all East Region Teams look the same to you guys out West, but...

Isn't Albright technically in the South Region though? ;)

No. Albright is in the MAC. That's East Region.

2
General football / Re: 2016 Playoffs
« on: December 01, 2016, 09:16:31 am »
I mean, they certainly have a better chance of getting through Saturday. You have to admit that, right?
If you are asking whether beating Albright is easier than beating John Carroll, yes, that is right. But we both know that much more lies between Mount winning the Stagg Bowl than Albright.

If getting through Saturday is primary data in determining chances to win the Stagg Bowl, let's look at UW-O. They play St. Thomas and are given a 35.1% chance of winning that game. UW-W is given a 65.6% chance of beating John Carroll.  Yet, UW-O is given more than twice the chance to win the Stagg Bowl than UW-W. 

But it's all good. UW-W is the clear underdog. Less than 7% chance. Hmmm, who knew? If we manage to get lucky against the OAC champs on Saturday, we'll show up and try to give UW-O or St. Thomas a good enough workout to get them ready for the Stagg Bowl. If nothing else, they ought to be able to rest their guys for the second half against us.  ;)

I don't want to stand in the way of your righteous indignation, but you could at least get the teams right. They've probably earned that much this year. UMU plays Alfred. I know all East Region Teams look the same to you guys out West, but...

3
Men's soccer / Re: 2016 National Championship Contenders
« on: November 29, 2016, 02:11:59 pm »
unless there is a grass field that is flat and
not choppy. but that's very hard to find in december

This is the trick. Good grass is better than great turf. Good turf is better than bad grass. Somewhere in the middle i have a point of indifference.

4
Men's soccer / Re: 2016 National Championship Contenders
« on: November 29, 2016, 12:41:52 pm »
Do we know what the facilities are like at this Final 4? Or the surface? etc

There are pics of the Roanoke facility available on the school's Athletics website.  It is a field turf surface.

A national championship being contended on field turf is criminal.

I made this point when it was first selected, just like the Women's World Cup. That being said, the field is large, though I haven't found the exact dimensions it is also their lacrosse and field hockey field but not a football field since they don't offer it, and the field turf and lighting is very good. I'm not a huge fan of the stands, which can block a small part of the field depending on where you sit, but you are close to the action with no track surrounding the field. It's a good place to watch a game. Shame about the turf.

5
South Region football / Re: FB: Old Dominion Athletic Conference
« on: November 24, 2016, 02:06:17 pm »
Happy Thanksgiving to all my fellow ODAC followers. Be safe and be happy.

6
South Region football / Re: FB: Old Dominion Athletic Conference
« on: November 23, 2016, 06:32:30 pm »
Fair enough, but I'm arguing that Cobb was less efficient across multiple phases of the game, therefore on an individual basis, which this award measures, he wasn't any better of a candidate. I wouldn't have had a problem if he won, but I think Miller is a justifiable winner as well.

7
South Region football / Re: FB: Old Dominion Athletic Conference
« on: November 23, 2016, 03:51:55 pm »
I simply do not agree.  Had Cobb completed 2 more passes his completion percentage would have been identical to Miller's. Had Cobb thrown for 71 more yards his Y/A would have been identical. These are the statistical categories that I called a virtual tie.  I get it, turnovers killed his chance to be all-ODAC. Slinging the ball around has always been Favret's game plan. Guilford's game plan may have been more balanced but the effectiveness of the plan was not very good.  If you want to penalize Cobb for the turnovers that's fine.  He has to own them.  I'm sure he's done nothing more than congratulate his teammates that were all ODAC and not think twice about his being left off the team.  I am not Cobb.  If we are to hold his turnovers at such high regard then why not Nelson's?  He had 10 turnovers in just 138 touches.  9 fumbles in just 82 carries!  Had he had as many touches as Cobb he would have had 24 turnovers in 7 games.  Nelson earned all-ODAC 2nd team for his team going 5-2.  Had WL finished 1-6 he's not even a consideration.  He had a much better year statistically in 2014 (WL went 2-5) than this year.  He was not even a thought when it came time to vote for all-conference. 

So don't tell me wins don't matter.  I'll bet there's NEVER been a QB with only 1 conference win to earn all-ODAC.  Miller's slight edge in efficiency over Cobb is out weighed by 3 wins and thrown touchdowns.  If Cobb's turnovers were a disqualifier then so should Nelson's. 

By the way last year WL goes 10-0 and Nelson makes all-ODAC with 17 turnovers!

First off we all know option teams have lots of fumbles. That's part and parcel of being an option team and the high risk pitch. Yes he had 82 rushes, but many of those fumbles came on pitches, which don't count as carries unless the QB keeps. So your touches comparison is not apples for apples. Nelson touched the ball on every play from center where he was in the game, just like every other starting QB in the league. The other flaw in your thinking is Nelson LOST 4 fumbles. And had 1 pick. He had 5 TOs. Not 15 like Cobb. Again, Cobb ended 15 drives versus 5 for Nelson, that's apples for apples. That's important and there is simply no way to gloss that over.

Now, to go back to your beginning statement, IF he had completed 2 more passes. He didn't. IF he had 70+ more yards. He didn't. It goes both ways. If Miller had thrown for 261 more yards he would have had the same amount as Cobb. But he didn't. At 6.9 ypa, and 60 more attempts to EQUAL Cobb's attempts, Miller would have had 420 more yards. So IF he had thrown as many passes as Cobb, theoretically he would have throw for 159 more yards than Cobb. So those IF games you are playing are a waste of time because they work both ways. Sorry.

Wins do matter to an extent. I don't love the idea, but they do. However, they aren't the trump card. Again, we don't see Viera anywhere near these awards. Yes 3-4 is better than 1-6. But neither QB's team covered themselves in ODAC glory. So I think the coaches just didn't worry too much about wins this time around.

A good QB on a dominant team hits these honors. A mediocre QB on a strong team doesn't (Viera). With the rest of the teams snarled up, wins mattered less than actual performance (despite 10-0 and the best rushing attack in the nation last year, not one member of W&L's backfield was first team All-ODAC. Wins matter, but not all important), and clearly the coaches looked more at efficiency than raw numbers. Rail against that all you want, but that is what happened and I don't have any problem with it.

8
South Region football / Re: FB: Old Dominion Athletic Conference
« on: November 23, 2016, 12:29:37 pm »
I have no problem with Miller over Cobb. Those TOs are brutal. And I think it's funny that wherever Miller does better you say it is a "virtual tie". When you go with the averages instead of raw, sling it around the most, numbers, Miller has an advantage.

Cobb out threw Miller? Awesome. He got more chances and completed fewer on average. He got more yards? Great, he also threw more times. I get that you want this to read virtual tie, but it's not. Cobb did better in terms of efficiency. If you want to say your guy is better because he slung the ball around the most, that's one way of looking at it. But Cobb simply wasn't as efficient. He didn't take care of the ball very well. He didn't have better ypa. He didn't have a better completion rate. These are facts, not "virtual ties." If Cobb took care of the ball he would have completed a few more passes and I think he'd have been here. But he didn't.

As for points, I do think Cobb has a slim advantage. For the head to head, I don't think that matters as much. Guilford's offense actually put up more yards than H-SC's and had more TOP. Granted that offensive advantage was rushing, but if that was the game plan, then so be it. Both QBs were pretty hapless in that game, 7-27 for Guilford, 13-31 for H-SC. Better for Cobb, but not really good on either side. Guilford took 10 penalties for 110 yards, H-SC 2 for 10 yards. Unless those were mostly on Miller, I'm just not laying the head to head on him. H2H is a team thing, not solely a qb thing. Don't like this measure.

No I don't understand how 3 Quaker lineman made all-ODAC. I'm with you there. And while QB is important, I'm not willing to put team wins as the deciding factor in QB play. Otherwise we should have Viera on the board somewhere and I'm glad that didn't happen. Don't like this measure.

As for making those around you better, Miller took a freshman WR to second team all-ODAC. That's pretty good. Is that more impressive than taking a senior to first-team? And would we not give Miller some credit for being a threat that allowed Causey to rush for so many yards? Something that Cobb apparently didn't do as well with his running game? I really dislike this reasoning by the way. It's not measurable.

This is all slippery slope stuff. And I just don't think the coaches went that route. I think they looked at efficiency. Cobb just didn't quite measure up, and I think the vast majority of that is in the TOs.

9
North Region football / Re: FB: North Coast Athletic Conference
« on: November 23, 2016, 11:57:00 am »
Holy cow! Enrollment is a fact, but if enrollment were a real thing then we'd be comlaining about TCNJ, U Mass-Dartmouth, and William Paterson.


Not so much TCNJ.  With only 7 or 8K students they are big, but not really big. I think you mean Montclair State. With 20K I believe they have the biggest enrollment in DIII. Or at least used to.

10
South Region football / Re: FB: Old Dominion Athletic Conference
« on: November 23, 2016, 09:16:03 am »
The All-ODAC team is odd to say the least. Nearly half of GCs staters made all-conference.  GC placed 10 players on the 3 teams yet somehow they went 1-6 in league play finished 7th in ODAC, AND lost their last 6 games of the season.  By comparison, EH finished 2nd in ODAC and went 5-2 in ODAC had only 7 players.

6 RBs made the 3 teams. The top 5 rushers in league play made all ODAC. But for some reason the league skipped the 6th place rusher (HSC DeMasi) and went to 7th (WL Hinkle). In addition to being 6th in the league in rushing DeMasi was 8th in the league in all purpose yards. (Hinkle was 13th)  DeMasi and Kube (EH) were the only players in top 10 in all-purpose yards to not make All Conference.

The league gave all-ODAC first team honors the the QB that finished 2nd in attempts, 2nd in completions, 2nd in yards thrown, and 2nd in yards per game to a very deserving Bauserman (SU). The QB that finished first in those categories did not even make the team (HSC's Cobb).

All-Conference matters to the kids. If for no other reason, the coaches should take the time to get it right.

DeMasi's YPC were well below anyone else on the list. Hinkle averaged 6.4 ypc, more than anyone else in the top 6, while DeMasi averaged 4.1, more than a half a yard less than anyone else in the top 14. It's not just a matter of how often you get the ball, but  how effective you are with it. He does add more passing yards, but again, with about 7.8 ypc, it was the lowest effectiveness in the top 30+ receivers in the league. So yeah, a lot of targets and therefore a lot of yards, but not very efficient this year. (Just using conference stats, I don't think they should be using non-conf numbers for the all-conf team because it's not apples to apples)

As for Cobb, again you have to look at all the things a QB does. Yes he out passed everyone in the league. More yards, more attempts, and a very acceptable completion percentage. But with 14 interceptions, only Catholic's QB, A Ros with 8, had half that many! Bauserman and Miller, the two QBs that are closer to apples to apples with Cobb had 4 and 5 INTs respectively in conference. That matters. Killing 14 drives in a 7 game conference season is two a game. That's painful. Add in that Miller's completion percentage was marginally better in conference, as were his yards per attempt, and I think you see the coaches going with efficiency as opposed to pure volume. W&L's Nelson, second team all-ODAC, is a different animal.

As for pure numbers per team, I tend to really only look at the First Team when seeing if it lines up with team performance. In that case it is pretty close though 3 at Guilford looks a bit high until you realize they are an offensive lineman, a defensive lineman, and a LB. Not exactly the glory positions that shift a team's win percentage too much all by themselves.

With 6 selections on the second team I think Guilford is probably over-represented based on their play, but I'm just not going to sweat it. W&L had the best rushing attack in the league, one of the best in the country, and yet no first or second team All-ODAC selections went to W&L running backs. Why? Because they spread out the carries. So W&L has 3 on the third team. I'd take Hollerith and Hinkle with anyone in the league except Delaney. But stats wise? They were sunk by sharing so much. Hunter Causey at Guilford and Malivai Barker at Bridgewater had the second and third most carries in the league behind Frederick. Hollerith was more efficient than Frederick and Barker, but with 11 fewer carries than Barker, and almost 30 fewer than Causey, he just didn't get the numbers. Delaney was actually my pick for best in the league, with a large number of carries, 114, and still a 6.2 average. Hinkle was more efficient, with 6.4ypc, but with only 76 carries it's just not enough.

W&L had 6 of the top 19 rushers. Take J Malm's 7 carries, Matt Sgro's 21 carries, and Brand's 49 carries and split them among Hollerith and Hinkle and you have 77 more carries for Hollerith and Hinkle. Split them evenly, with those guys ypc, and both are going to be either first or second teamers instead of third team.

11
South Region football / Re: FB: Old Dominion Athletic Conference
« on: November 22, 2016, 04:23:46 pm »
All ODAC teams are out. RMC dominates with 8 selections to the first team offense and defense, followed by 4 each at W&L and E&H, 3 at Shenandoah and Guilford, 2 each at H-SC and Bridgewater.

Of RMC's 4 offensive selections, only the senior kicker isn't coming back. All 4 of the RMC defensive selections are seniors. W&L's 4 total first team selections are a pair each of Juniors and Seniors, E&H sports 3 seniors and a sophomore, Shenandoah's 3 selections are all on offense (surprise, surprise) but include soph QB Hayden Bauserman, while this is senior RB Tre Frederick's last year paired with a junior WR.

Guilford's 3 selections are 2 juniors and a senior, while H-SC placed a senior WR and punter onto the team. Bridgewater's 2 selections are a senior tight end and a sophomore on defense. Catholic was shut out of the first team in their final year in the conference.

Frederick is a sophomore.

Yeah. I paired the line wrong. Shenandoah's Senior RB is Cedric Delaney. I put the wrong name down on the comment.

12
South Region football / Re: FB: Old Dominion Athletic Conference
« on: November 22, 2016, 03:27:31 pm »
At least there will be addition by subtraction.  ???

Perhaps. Depending on if NNA becomes a defacto 8th team.

13
South Region football / Re: FB: Old Dominion Athletic Conference
« on: November 22, 2016, 03:26:47 pm »
All ODAC teams are out. RMC dominates with 8 selections to the first team offense and defense, followed by 4 each at W&L and E&H, 3 at Shenandoah and Guilford, 2 each at H-SC and Bridgewater.

Of RMC's 4 offensive selections, only the senior kicker isn't coming back. All 4 of the RMC defensive selections are seniors. W&L's 4 total first team selections are a pair each of Juniors and Seniors, E&H sports 3 seniors and a sophomore, Shenandoah's 3 selections are all on offense (surprise, surprise) but include soph QB Hayden Bauserman, while this is senior RB Tre Frederick's last year paired with a junior WR.

Guilford's 3 selections are 2 juniors and a senior, while H-SC placed a senior WR and punter onto the team. Bridgewater's 2 selections are a senior tight end and a sophomore on defense. Catholic was shut out of the first team in their final year in the conference.


14
Men's soccer / Re: World Cup and European leagues
« on: November 22, 2016, 12:27:59 pm »
Other than the options mentioned, could they possibly have looked at the college level or would they not be good enough to lead a national team?

Arena, Sampson and Bradley all had D-1 college coaching experience before moving on to the professional level, but it would be unprecedented (I think) to pluck someone straight out of the college ranks.  Is there some present college coach that you think is qualified to manage the USMNT?

In this day and age, I can't imagine anyone making that leap. It's pretty difficult for college coaches to jump to MLS, though Caleb Porter has done OK. Most of the MLS coaches are MLS assistants first, though the recent preference for recently retired players is somewhat baffling to me.

I have to admit, I was tired of Klinsi, think the team was tired of him, and he needed to go. But I don't think there were any realistic and obvious replacements. Arena seems like the only logical stop gap while I'm sure Gulati will look for a bigger name after this cycle. I do think one thing is now absolutely obvious. One cycle is it for these guys. After that the message starts to get tuned out. Arena got 2 in a row and it wasn't pretty. Bradley couldn't get 2, neither could Klinsi. So no more of these stupid, money wasting, contract extensions. Hell, even the Spanish couldn't make it work.

15
Men's soccer / Re: Rankings
« on: November 22, 2016, 11:00:45 am »
For the first time I can remember, the football National Committee released the final, super secret, never released, rankings that are actually used to choose Pool C and help rank teams. You might at least get them to go that far.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 241