QB Gametime and running up the score. OU vs TX
by BoddickerIsClutch on Nov 25, 2008 2:42 PM CST
15 comments
I see it being brought up that Bob runs up the score, and that Mack is super classy, and while I dont disagree with either assessment, I thought it would be a good idea to actually get into the numbers of this season, and to see what we are looking at.
First, all the data was collected from ESPN, to the best of my ability. The time left in the game is representative of when the first offensive series started without the starting QB playing. Its my assertion that you usually see second team offense before you see second team defense, and that calling off the O is a better indicator of running up the score or not. Whether you agree with these assumptions or not, they are how I gathered my data, and I was consistant for each school.
First, lets look in the mirror, and see what Texas has done this year.
eminent.omgbbq.comA brief explanation. The first column is at what time I determined they left the field (time left in the game), the second column is that number fixed to a base 10 decimal in minutes (ie against UTEP Colt played for 50 minutes 37 seconds, or 50.62 minutes). Points scored is how many were on the board when the starter left followed by what the lead was at the time. Then comes final score, final margin of victory, and then the difference between those numbers.
On the bottom, we have a full average (every game), not full (only the games where less than 60 minutes were played) and then a 6 minute break point (only the games where the QB didnt start a drive with more than 6 minutes, or two possible offensive drives, hereunto called the meaningful games).
As you can see, we increased our point total after pulling Colt on 5 games, but in only two of these games did we increase our margin of victory. Against BU we gave up MOV points, and CU scored while we didnt.
Colt was meaningfully pulled (6 min row) with an average of 11:45 to go in the fourth, and a 31 point lead. On average in those games, we scored 5.4 more points, and increased our MOV by 1.4 before time expired.
Now lets look at OU's numbers:
OU scored in only 2 games after pulling Bradford, only once increasing their MOV. In 5 games, their MOV went down after taking Sam out.
If we use the same 6 min row, we see that Sam left basically at the start of the 4th, with a lead of 45 points, at which point the Sooners averaged an additional 2.8 points, while decreasing their MOV by 2.8.
I included a 4 min row here, in case people call my 6 minute point into question.
So what conclusions are to be drawn? Well, at first glance you could say that Bob runs it up, as he only takes Sam out when they have a lead of roughly 45 points. However, I would like to counteract that argument with the following points.
- Its my beleif, that you are always entitled to three quarters of football. I cant really find fault in letting your starting team play 75% of the game, no matter the score. The data indicates that when meaningfully pulled, Sam has averaged only 3 quarters of play. That would negate the lead argument in my eyes.
- The utter lack of scoring after Sam has been pulled. OU has had more time without Sam than we have without Colt, however they have scored less, and given up more. That is not indicitive of someone who is running up the score.
That said, I would also mitigate those points with these points:
- Its quite possible that Mack simply has a superior second unit on both sides of the ball. Neither team has excessive numbers after the QB has been pulled, the excuse for Texas' greater averages could just be the result talent or preparation.
- The average lead being lower for Texas could also be an indicator in faith in the defensive unit, or Bob's lack thereof. 4 meaningful games for Texas COlt was pulled with a lead in the high 20s, while Bradford was not pulled from a meaningful game without a lead in the 40s.
At any rate the final conclusion that I draw is that there is no conclusion. If you are in agreement that any team should be allowed to play for 3 quarters, then you should also agree that Bob has not run up the score this year. His starting QB has been pulled across the board fairly appropriately, and he failed to score afterwards.
Feel free to review and draw any other conclusions that I missed.
All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.
1 recs |
15 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Excellent Research
I agree, it is hard to say based on the facts whether Stoops runs up the score any worse than other teams. It wasn’t his fault, for example, that TTech kept turning the damn ball over; you can’t tell defensive players to take a knee after getting a pick or scooping a fumble.
The OU results after putting in their subs really tells the story- they obviously go conservative, unlike Urban Meyer kicking a late field goal (I think against Miami) for no damn reason.
Regardless of whether or not they run up the score, Stoops still looks and acts like a whiny, pouty bitch, which is good enough for me.
by Tackchevy on Nov 25, 2008 2:56 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Good work on the research
I fall on the side of Stoops doesn’t run up the score.
If you listen to gas bags like Lupica or read morons like Easterbrook, you’d be convinced that college teams run up the score all the time. I stopped reading Easterbrook after he called out Texas for “running up the score” in a game, with the only evidence being that UT had a big halftime lead, VY started the second half and actually tried one (yes, one!) of those forward pass thingies on the first possession of the second half. Literally, that’s all he justified it on.
And remember Lupica claiming that OU ran the score up on A&M in the 77-0 game — you know, the game in which OU took four knees in a row after getting a first and goal in the 4th quarter.
The standard for “running up the score” is ridiculously lower in college football than it is in other sports. Apparently teams must essentially stop playing the game if they have a particular lead anytime in the second half. No other sport has such a standard. If other sports were held to the same standard. the equivalents would be:
- In basketball, if you have a 40+ point lead, you are not allowed to take any shots. You must let the shot clock run out each time. If fouled, shoot airballs for your free throws.
- In baseball, if your team as a 10+ run lead in the 8th or 9th inning, you’re not allowed to swing. If you swing, you cannot make contact. And if you make contact, you can’t try to advance safely to base. Oh, and your pitchers can only groove fastballs.
- Tiger must two-putt, at least, if he’s winning a tournament by 10+ strokes, no matter how closes he leaves it to the pin.
To me, it’s about style. You’re really only running up the score if you’re calling trick plays in the last couple of minutes, if you send 10 to block a punt, etc. The worst specific example I can think of which would qualify as running up the score occurred when Buddy Ryan was coaching the Eagles against the Cowboys back some point in the 80s. Pissed at some perceived slight by Landry in the previous game, he instructed Randall Cunningham to take two straight knees. On the third play, he had Cunningham fake a knee and throw a bomb.
Now that’s running up the score.
by Hopkins Horn on Nov 25, 2008 3:27 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Running it up is...
Keeping the points rolling when the game is decided… ie Bradford slung a play action bomb with 1:38 in the 3rd quarter against tech to make the score 58 to 14. Why when running the ball so well do you chuck it for the endzone… Why was Bradford still in the game up 52-14? Maybe tech had a 38 pt play in the book? Me I take to the ground and run the clock… Then again Bradford throws another TD in the 4th quarter with 13:54 to go to make the score 65 to 14. Throwing TD’s with the first team up by 44 in the 4th quarter is close to being called running it up… Houston scoring 90+ against a hapless SMU is running it up…
In basketball, if you have a 40+ point lead, you are not allowed to take any shots. You must let the shot clock run out each time. If fouled, shoot airballs for your free throws – No but raining 3’s up by 40 is pushing it…
In baseball, if your team as a 10+ run lead in the 8th or 9th inning, you’re not allowed to swing. If you swing, you cannot make contact. And if you make contact, you can’t try to advance safely to base. Oh, and your pitchers can only groove fastballs. – no but swinging for the fence on every swing may run the risk of being called a sore winner… A pitcher throwing high and inside to back batters off when up by 10+ may get you called a poor sport.
Tiger must two-putt, at least, if he’s winning a tournament by 10+ strokes, no matter how closes he leaves it to the pin. – Again if a golfer is swinging at par 5’s in 2 and taking the risk of a low percentage shot… That golfer runs the risk of being the butt of the game. John Daily vs Tiger
by longhorn35 on Nov 25, 2008 4:09 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Can never be too sure
Why was Bradford still in the game up 52-14? Maybe tech had a 38 pt play in the book?
by Hopkins Horn on Nov 25, 2008 4:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
you seriously just did that?...
wow…comparing Minnesota to OU…wow.
by vy til i die on Nov 25, 2008 4:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No, I seriously just showed that Tech is capable of miraculous comebacks
by Hopkins Horn on Nov 25, 2008 4:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
so are we...
…but do you think that we could get down to ou like we used to always do against okie-st. and still comeback from it?
by vy til i die on Nov 25, 2008 5:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
My opinion
The losing team should be the one make the first move. Let them take out their starting defenders and I’ll take out my starting offense. Same on the other side of the ball. No way do I play my backups against their starters.
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. If they get mad, you're a mile away AND you have their shoes.
by Caradoc on Nov 25, 2008 7:06 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I'm ok with this for evenly matched teams.
I would want Mack to take starters out early against obviously overmatched teams, regardless of what they do.
by billb on Nov 26, 2008 8:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with this practice
Im not going to dive into the data to see if/when that was done though, but a good point. It could be as much on the opposing coach wanting his starters in for whatever reason than it could be for the winning coach as well.
by BoddickerIsClutch on Nov 26, 2008 8:34 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Why not?
If you play your back-ups on thier starters doens’t it help your team by expierence and level of play when they do come in? I would so take advantege of it by putting in my 2nd team even before they do if the game is pretty much decided.
by Ryan2907 on Dec 6, 2008 1:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
OU ran score up vs OSU also...
There was less time on the clock then the play clock when they ran that last TD instead of nealing the ball. Shoot, they could have just nealed it twice with time running down against Ok St. But what did they do? They ran a well designed running play where no one on Ok St. even touched the runner. If you don’t think that’s running up the score, then you don’t deserve to watch any type of football.
by Ryan2907 on Dec 6, 2008 1:04 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
