FB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[ExTartanPlayer]

My model's preseason predictions for the WIAC:

Team	Overall	Conference	Pool A Probability
Whitewater	8-1	(6-1)	46.18%
Oshkosh	8-1	(6-1)	36.64%
Platteville	7-2	(5-2)	13.20%
Stevens Point	7-3	(4-3)	3.62%
Stout	2-7	(2-5)	0.19%
LaCrosse	5-5	(2-5)	0.07%
River Falls	3-7	(1-6)	0.06%
Eau Claire	2-8	(1-6)	0.04%

No surprises at the top here, with the only three teams to make the playoffs for the last few years at the top.
The model has LaCrosse rated as the slightly better team than Stout, but home-field advantage factors tilt more in favor of the Blue Devils.
(Don't worry about the total wins not adding up too much. If I listed each team's average win-loss records, as opposed to their singular most likely record, the number of total conference wins would be equal to the number of conference losses. Its a trick of the rounding.)

Can I ask a question about how the model works?

I'm going to anyway. 

Does your model actually project the individual game results within a bunch of individual simulations, then average the whole works to spit out a projected average win-loss record?  Since you mentioned rounding, and also I see that UWW and UWO are both listed with a projected WIAC record of "6-1" that leads me to believe your projected records are derived from many simulations.  If I've understood correctly, I assume that this would be something like 1,000 simulations where UWW beats UWO 55% of the time, but the handful of other scenarios like UWP or UWSP beating UWW nudged it just over the halfway mark and gave UWW an "average" of more than 0.5 conference losses.

Basically, I'm trying to illustrate the distinction between "1 simulation says UWW will beat UWO but lose to someone else lower in the standings" vs. "over 1,000 simulations UWW beat UWO in 55% of scenarios, and that plus the small handful of losses by UWW to other teams in other scenarios tipped it such that both teams had a conference loss in 500+ of the 1,000 simulations, rounding us off to an average conference record of 6-1 for each."

[HansenRatings]

My model's preseason predictions for the WIAC:

Team	Overall	Conference	Pool A Probability
Whitewater	8-1	(6-1)	46.18%
Oshkosh	8-1	(6-1)	36.64%
Platteville	7-2	(5-2)	13.20%
Stevens Point	7-3	(4-3)	3.62%
Stout	2-7	(2-5)	0.19%
LaCrosse	5-5	(2-5)	0.07%
River Falls	3-7	(1-6)	0.06%
Eau Claire	2-8	(1-6)	0.04%

No surprises at the top here, with the only three teams to make the playoffs for the last few years at the top.
The model has LaCrosse rated as the slightly better team than Stout, but home-field advantage factors tilt more in favor of the Blue Devils.
(Don't worry about the total wins not adding up too much. If I listed each team's average win-loss records, as opposed to their singular most likely record, the number of total conference wins would be equal to the number of conference losses. Its a trick of the rounding.)

Can I ask a question about how the model works?

I'm going to anyway. 

Does your model actually project the individual game results within a bunch of individual simulations, then average the whole works to spit out a projected average win-loss record?  Since you mentioned rounding, and also I see that UWW and UWO are both listed with a projected WIAC record of "6-1" that leads me to believe your projected records are derived from many simulations.  If I've understood correctly, I assume that this would be something like 1,000 simulations where UWW beats UWO 55% of the time, but the handful of other scenarios like UWP or UWSP beating UWW nudged it just over the halfway mark and gave UWW an "average" of more than 0.5 conference losses.

Basically, I'm trying to illustrate the distinction between "1 simulation says UWW will beat UWO but lose to someone else lower in the standings" vs. "over 1,000 simulations UWW beat UWO in 55% of scenarios, and that plus the small handful of losses by UWW to other teams in other scenarios tipped it such that both teams had a conference loss in 500+ of the 1,000 simulations, rounding us off to an average conference record of 6-1 for each."

10,000 simulations actually.

(Things are about to get a bit nerdy)
Each team starts with their preseason Offensive and Defensive ratings, from which I can make a score prediction for Week 1. Using a random number generator and the observed error distribution of score predictions from previous seasons, a game score is developed for each game in Week 1. In each simulation, the games are simulated sequentially, which means the simulated "results" of Week 1 affect the predicted score for Week 2, because each team's rating is updated after every week (this allows for a more realistic distribution of outlier results, i.e. teams dropping from the Top 25 in the preseason to 3-7 by season's end). Rinse & repeat 9,999 times.

So you're absolutely right about your assumptions about the UW-W/UW-O situation, and did a more concise job of explaining it than I probably would have.

[BoBo]

From Footballscoop.com,

"Lock Haven (D-II – PA): After 41 years in the coaching profession, assistant head coach / linebackers coach John Miech will retire at the end of the moth. Miech is the former head coach at UW-Stevens Point (D-III) where he went 156-84-2 before moving on to UW-Whitewater (D-III) where he helped win two national titles."

[badgerwarhawk]

Good luck Coach Miech and thank you for all the time and effort you put into the WARHAWKS program.  This supporter greatly appreciates it. 

[cubs]

Two other recruits, sort of, are Ryan Kruser and Kenny Finco, two players from the WIAC-champion UW-L men's basketball team. The pair played football in high school, and worked with the Eagles during spring practice.

Both of those guys come from well respected Wisconsin high school programs; Kruser from Waunakee and Finco from Arrowhead

[Brian R. Carroll]

I read that the NCAA is debating doing away with kickoffs, in order to reduce injuries. I suggest retaining the kickoff to begin each half in a bow to tradition. After each score the ball could be placed at the 25 yd. line to begin drives. What do others think ?

[BoBo]

I read that the NCAA is debating doing away with kickoffs, in order to reduce injuries. I suggest retaining the kickoff to begin each half in a bow to tradition. After each score the ball could be placed at the 25 yd. line to begin drives. What do others think ?

One reason we don't want to get rid of kickoffs is we need them for comeback victories. If your team is losing by a lot and score, the kickoff is your opportunity to attempt an onside kick, try to recover it and then score again. If the other team simply gets the ball at the 25 or whatever, it eliminates those come-from-behind wild victories that we love so much.

But without kickoffs there are some options:

1. After every touchdown, the scoring team has the opportunity to keep possession of the ball (thus retaining the illusion that comeback victories are possible) if they go for a 2 point conversion from, say, the 15 or 20 yard line. Make the conversion and you get the ball at the 50 yard line; miss it the opponent gets the ball from that spot. This would probably work around as often as onside kicks, and we'd get to see a regular football play decided by each team's offense and defense rather than that of the odd bounce of a football kicked by a 160 lb. soccer player in a football game.

2. Place kickers would be basically out of a job with no kickoffs.  So, if you intend to keep them from going extinct, we could have a similar idea, but with a 60-yard field goal with the ball spotted at midfield. No defense, just a kicker, holder and long snapper. I'm guessing that with kickoffs eliminated, teams will prioritize hyper-accurate kickers over strong-legged kickers, so there will be fewer kickers capable of hitting these. If you hit it, you keep the ball from midfield, if you miss, the opponent gets the ball at midfield. The spot can be adjusted if kickers are missing or making 60-yarders too frequently.  But kickers generally don't make 60-yarders too frequently so that seems like a good distance to start with in college.

3. Teams have the option to attempt onside kicks if they want to. Onside kicks don't have the same inherent dangers as regular kickoffs, so we could eliminate the dangerous type of kickoffs where teams sprint into each other at full speed like run-away bowling balls while still allowing teams to attempt the play where everybody chases a bouncing ball. There would be a rule in place against kicking it deep, or anywhere beyond 15-20 yards to prevent teams from abusing the rule to manipulate the loophole for field position.

Finally, I think if the NFL makes any changes towards the elimination of kickoffs first - then the NCAA and high schools (where the real need to eliminate kickoffs exists) will tend to follow suit. But, I just don't see it happening since the kickoff is one of the more exciting plays of the game despite being dangerous.

After kickoffs, what next, slant passes?

Dennis Dodd of CBSsports broke the story a couple weeks ago  Link: http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/discussions-about-eliminating-kickoffs-in-college-football-have-begun/

[Just Bill]

My favorite "rule change that will never actually happen" also involves the elimination of kicking specialists.

Stipulate that any kick (PAT, FG, Punt, Kickoff) must be taken by one of the 11 players who was on the field on the previous play. You can't sub a guy into the game and have them kick the ball. Since sometimes scoring plays happen at unexpected moments (and even when you're on defense) teams would need to have a few different guys capable of kicking the ball. If you absolutely had to have your specialist, you'd have to use a roster spot to keep them, and you'd have to always sub them into the game one play before you needed to kick the ball, and you still likely wouldn't be able to use them when a team scored a long, unexpected touchdown. I doubt many teams would choose that option.

I like it because it adds a skill back into football that has been taken over by specialists, and it would make those PAT kicks far less certain. Might encourage teams to go for two more often depending on who is on the field to take the kick, and more going for two is always an improvement!

On the downside, it would probably also mean fewer touchbacks on kickoffs and therefore more kickoff returns and more danger to players.

[02 Warhawk]

D3 All Americans (preseason) released.

Kind of shocked Hudson is 1st team WR on that list.

[palum]

My favorite "rule change that will never actually happen" also involves the elimination of kicking specialists.

Stipulate that any kick (PAT, FG, Punt, Kickoff) must be taken by one of the 11 players who was on the field on the previous play. You can't sub a guy into the game and have them kick the ball. Since sometimes scoring plays happen at unexpected moments (and even when you're on defense) teams would need to have a few different guys capable of kicking the ball. If you absolutely had to have your specialist, you'd have to use a roster spot to keep them, and you'd have to always sub them into the game one play before you needed to kick the ball, and you still likely wouldn't be able to use them when a team scored a long, unexpected touchdown. I doubt many teams would choose that option.

I like it because it adds a skill back into football that has been taken over by specialists, and it would make those PAT kicks far less certain. Might encourage teams to go for two more often depending on who is on the field to take the kick, and more going for two is always an improvement!

On the downside, it would probably also mean fewer touchbacks on kickoffs and therefore more kickoff returns and more danger to players.

Back in the Lombardi years Jerry Kramer a guard kicked PATs and FGs would the Packers be able to substitute for Kramer?

[BoBo]

Back in the Lombardi years Jerry Kramer a guard kicked PATs and FGs would the Packers be able to substitute for Kramer?

It's a disgrace that Kramer isn't already in the Hall of Fame, as a guard. But that's another story. To call him a guard who kicked PATs and FGs is correct, but to say he kicked for the Packers during the Lombardi years should come with an asterisk * after his name.

The only reason he kicked in two and parts of a third season ('62, '63, '68) were to replace Paul Hornung and when Don Chandler retired.  In '62 & '63 the two main years that Kramer kicked were years Hornung had off-the-field issues that limited his involvement in Packer affairs. He had the tax issue and court case in '62 (only playing in 9 games) stemming from his acceptance and non- reporting on his tax return the Corvette he received for winning the MVP award (a case btw that he eventually won) in the '61 Championship game, and his suspension from the NFL (along with Alex Karras) in '63  by commissioner Pete Rozelle for betting on NFL games and associating with undesirable persons. When reinstated for the 1964 season, he, not Kramer, resumed kicking for the Lombardi Packers. In 1965, the Packers traded for Don Chandler from the Giants who kicked thru the '67 season, then retired following Super Bowl II. Even in the 1968 season, Kramer shared the kicking duties with Mike Mercer.

Kramers career stats (FGM 29, FGA 54 (53%) - 8 for 27 beyond 30 yards, 90-95 in XP) wouldn't even get him a UDFA spot in training camp today. So, to call him the PAT and FG kicker for the Packers during the Lombardi era is somewhat true, but requires some clarification.

[Just Bill]

My favorite "rule change that will never actually happen" also involves the elimination of kicking specialists.

Stipulate that any kick (PAT, FG, Punt, Kickoff) must be taken by one of the 11 players who was on the field on the previous play. You can't sub a guy into the game and have them kick the ball. Since sometimes scoring plays happen at unexpected moments (and even when you're on defense) teams would need to have a few different guys capable of kicking the ball. If you absolutely had to have your specialist, you'd have to use a roster spot to keep them, and you'd have to always sub them into the game one play before you needed to kick the ball, and you still likely wouldn't be able to use them when a team scored a long, unexpected touchdown. I doubt many teams would choose that option.

I like it because it adds a skill back into football that has been taken over by specialists, and it would make those PAT kicks far less certain. Might encourage teams to go for two more often depending on who is on the field to take the kick, and more going for two is always an improvement!

On the downside, it would probably also mean fewer touchbacks on kickoffs and therefore more kickoff returns and more danger to players.

Back in the Lombardi years Jerry Kramer a guard kicked PATs and FGs would the Packers be able to substitute for Kramer?

If Kramer was on the field when the TD was scored, or on the 3rd down play before the FG, then yes he could kick it. If he was on the sideline, then no.

[emma17]

My favorite "rule change that will never actually happen" also involves the elimination of kicking specialists.

Stipulate that any kick (PAT, FG, Punt, Kickoff) must be taken by one of the 11 players who was on the field on the previous play. You can't sub a guy into the game and have them kick the ball. Since sometimes scoring plays happen at unexpected moments (and even when you're on defense) teams would need to have a few different guys capable of kicking the ball. If you absolutely had to have your specialist, you'd have to use a roster spot to keep them, and you'd have to always sub them into the game one play before you needed to kick the ball, and you still likely wouldn't be able to use them when a team scored a long, unexpected touchdown. I doubt many teams would choose that option.

I like it because it adds a skill back into football that has been taken over by specialists, and it would make those PAT kicks far less certain. Might encourage teams to go for two more often depending on who is on the field to take the kick, and more going for two is always an improvement!

On the downside, it would probably also mean fewer touchbacks on kickoffs and therefore more kickoff returns and more danger to players.

Back in the Lombardi years Jerry Kramer a guard kicked PATs and FGs would the Packers be able to substitute for Kramer?

If Kramer was on the field when the TD was scored, or on the 3rd down play before the FG, then yes he could kick it. If he was on the sideline, then no.

I'd vote for this rule in a heartbeat.

[wsuc/wiac fan]

Testing- registration issues solved?

[bleedpurple]

My favorite "rule change that will never actually happen" also involves the elimination of kicking specialists.

Stipulate that any kick (PAT, FG, Punt, Kickoff) must be taken by one of the 11 players who was on the field on the previous play. You can't sub a guy into the game and have them kick the ball. Since sometimes scoring plays happen at unexpected moments (and even when you're on defense) teams would need to have a few different guys capable of kicking the ball. If you absolutely had to have your specialist, you'd have to use a roster spot to keep them, and you'd have to always sub them into the game one play before you needed to kick the ball, and you still likely wouldn't be able to use them when a team scored a long, unexpected touchdown. I doubt many teams would choose that option.

I like it because it adds a skill back into football that has been taken over by specialists, and it would make those PAT kicks far less certain. Might encourage teams to go for two more often depending on who is on the field to take the kick, and more going for two is always an improvement!

On the downside, it would probably also mean fewer touchbacks on kickoffs and therefore more kickoff returns and more danger to players.

Back in the Lombardi years Jerry Kramer a guard kicked PATs and FGs would the Packers be able to substitute for Kramer?

If Kramer was on the field when the TD was scored, or on the 3rd down play before the FG, then yes he could kick it. If he was on the sideline, then no.

I'd vote for this rule in a heartbeat.

Emma, I thought of you immediately when JB posted this idea. I can't remember, were you a back-up kicker and only kept from kicking by a dang "specialist"? Or are you just a purest and want all roles to be filled with all around football players?