FB: Liberty League

[UfanBill]

"Union probably should have won this game"...wait, not MY words, it was said by Frank Rossi and agreed to by James Baker on Sunday's podcast of "In the HuddLLe". I give credit to Hobart for ACTUALLY winning the game. The Statesmen overcame a spirited Union effort and thanks to the seemingly unstoppable combo of Sweeney to Shed and a late possible Union TD pass that was ruled incomplete, JUST out of the endzone,  they came from behind to win. I'm proud of the game the Dutchman played Saturday. They put themselves in position to win the game by running the ball effectively, controlling the clock, keeping the Hobart offense on the sidelines. They had NO turnovers, only 5 penalties and had a 36:47 to 23:13 time of possession edge. They DID NOT stop Sweeney to Shed...6/106, 3 TD's.  The resurgence of Union football is progressing very nicely, thank you.

[ITH radio]

Thx for the feedback on this wkd's pod. As for Union, I agree that Behrman and his staff are doing a nice job for sure (hence why I picked them over WPI this wkd, who was my preseason pick to be 3rd place in the LL).

As for the podcast, I am having a little remorse about being tough on the Hobart D, who admittedly are missing some key players like Jemison. That said as a top 25 program I do think you are (and should be) held to higher standard.

Check out these NCAA stats (note there is some noise due to single game NESCAC teams / data) that kind of illustrates what I'm concerned about:

46th (out of 241) total defense (YPG)
66th scoring defense
121st rushing defense
36 defensive pass efficiency

To put into context, SLU is like 3 or 4 in the total and scoring stats, 20th in rush d and 3rd in pass eff.

Anyway, food for thought.

[Frank Rossi]

"Union probably should have won this game"...wait, not MY words, it was said by Frank Rossi and agreed to by James Baker on Sunday's podcast of "In the HuddLLe". I give credit to Hobart for ACTUALLY winning the game. The Statesmen overcame a spirited Union effort and thanks to the seemingly unstoppable combo of Sweeney to Shed and a late possible Union TD pass that was ruled incomplete, JUST out of the endzone,  they came from behind to win. I'm proud of the game the Dutchman played Saturday. They put themselves in position to win the game by running the ball effectively, controlling the clock, keeping the Hobart offense on the sidelines. They had NO turnovers, only 5 penalties and had a 36:47 to 23:13 time of possession edge. They DID NOT stop Sweeney to Shed...6/106, 3 TD's.  The resurgence of Union football is progressing very nicely, thank you.

I'm not sure if I should be honored or scared to be quoted on these message boards, especially now that I have a voice in "Quick Hits" on Fridays.  We've said a lot of things about Union over our first five shows -- mostly upbeat about the team and coaches and not-so-much about the administration.  I think any team that leads by 10 midway through the 3rd quarter should probably win a game (using the pro calculator, the percentage is 88% with nine minutes left in the 3rd on the road -- http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/win_prob.cgi?request=1&score_differential=10&quarter=3&minutes=9&seconds=00&field=opp -- I would've assumed closer to 70-75%, so I'm surprised by that number, although clock rules might make it closer to my guess).  Anyway, even as momentum dissipated late, Union still was in a position to win.  That's how I reached that conclusion.

One note -- I think the coach's card for two-point conversions is making itself obsolete, and moments like Saturday after the final Union TD show why.  Union was +4 with under 7 minutes left.  The likelihood is that the other team will have one quality possession with that amount of time left.  No matter what, that team needs a touchdown at -4.  The likelihood is also that the team ahead will get the ball back once.  As such, chasing points as the team ahead isn't wise.  Kick the extra point to go +5, placing the onus on the other team to make the two-point conversion to try to go up +3.  Worst-case scenario, the first team would need a field goal to win or tie, depending on the other team's two-point conversion, should their defense not hold.  The card is too rudimentary since the time left in the game and the potential for additional possessions and scores influence what the decision should be more than the actual lead margin.  I don't fault Behrman for making the call -- I just think you have to play your higher percentage options with the lead for insurance reasons unless and until it is obvious that the "two" is absolutely necessary.  I used to be much more liberal about the "two," and still think teams up by 7 after a touchdown late should go for two to put away the other team with a 9-point lead.  But I've become more conservative about other scenarios after watching them play out detrimentally over time.  Just my two cents.

[HansenRatings]

So I've been monkeying with a win-probability calculator like Frank mentioned for a couple weeks, but it takes into account pre-game team win probabilities and how the perceived team strength should change throughout the game. Using that, Hobart's chances never actually fell below 50%, bottoming out at 53% after their 32 yard punt early in the third quarter:



If you assume both teams are equal, that same point of the game would be a 17.5% chance for Hobart.



EDIT: Interesting side note - that dip at the end (73% W for Hobart) is due to Hobart's personal foul penalty on Union's last drive to put Union on the 36. Four incompletions later and the Win Prob climbed back above 90%.

[Frank Rossi]

Of course, the circular conundrum this raises is whether the perceived strength you use as an initial variable may have been overstated in the first place.  I think going into the game, your probability was extremely low for a Union win -- if the game were played again this Saturday in Geneva, one would assume the probability would be higher for an "upset," and, as such, would change the in-game probabilities to something a little closer to the second set.

[Bartman]

"Union probably should have won this game"...wait, not MY words, it was said by Frank Rossi and agreed to by James Baker on Sunday's podcast of "In the HuddLLe". I give credit to Hobart for ACTUALLY winning the game. The Statesmen overcame a spirited Union effort and thanks to the seemingly unstoppable combo of Sweeney to Shed and a late possible Union TD pass that was ruled incomplete, JUST out of the endzone,  they came from behind to win. I'm proud of the game the Dutchman played Saturday. They put themselves in position to win the game by running the ball effectively, controlling the clock, keeping the Hobart offense on the sidelines. They had NO turnovers, only 5 penalties and had a 36:47 to 23:13 time of possession edge. They DID NOT stop Sweeney to Shed...6/106, 3 TD's.  The resurgence of Union football is progressing very nicely, thank you.

I'm not sure if I should be honored or scared to be quoted on these message boards, especially now that I have a voice in "Quick Hits" on Fridays.  We've said a lot of things about Union over our first five shows -- mostly upbeat about the team and coaches and not-so-much about the administration.  I think any team that leads by 10 midway through the 3rd quarter should probably win a game (using the pro calculator, the percentage is 88% with nine minutes left in the 3rd on the road -- http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/win_prob.cgi?request=1&score_differential=10&quarter=3&minutes=9&seconds=00&field=opp -- I would've assumed closer to 70-75%, so I'm surprised by that number, although clock rules might make it closer to my guess).  Anyway, even as momentum dissipated late, Union still was in a position to win.  That's how I reached that conclusion.

One note -- I think the coach's card for two-point conversions is making itself obsolete, and moments like Saturday after the final Union TD show why.  Union was +4 with under 7 minutes left.  The likelihood is that the other team will have one quality possession with that amount of time left.  No matter what, that team needs a touchdown at -4.  The likelihood is also that the team ahead will get the ball back once.  As such, chasing points as the team ahead isn't wise.  Kick the extra point to go +5, placing the onus on the other team to make the two-point conversion to try to go up +3.  Worst-case scenario, the first team would need a field goal to win or tie, depending on the other team's two-point conversion, should their defense not hold.  The card is too rudimentary since the time left in the game and the potential for additional possessions and scores influence what the decision should be more than the actual lead margin.  I don't fault Behrman for making the call -- I just think you have to play your higher percentage options with the lead for insurance reasons unless and until it is obvious that the "two" is absolutely necessary.  I used to be much more liberal about the "two," and still think teams up by 7 after a touchdown late should go for two to put away the other team with a 9-point lead.  But I've become more conservative about other scenarios after watching them play out detrimentally over time.  Just my two cents.

I think the Union coach made the right call to go for 2, on the logic that the Hobart kicking game sucked on Saturday and had already missed 2 extra points(one missed and one blocked and the week before against Ithaca they had hit the upright twice missing a field goal and an extra point). So, if Hobart scores a comeback TD, that would force Hobart to make the extra point to win the game( ), otherwise the potential Hobart comeback TD would be  a winner if Union had gone for the single point earlier. Of course throwing the ball away would have been better than throwing it right to Hobart's best db in D'Antonio....it did pump up the Statesman , for sure, to see it taken all the way for 2 points....which then put Hobart in a position to win with a field goal. But, I can tell you on the final drive, Cragg wanted no part of going for a FG win. Actually, Will McCool(St.Lawence game winning kicker in 2014) came in for the final extra point and probably would have kicked the FG. He made it, which makes your argument valid. But, I think Union was thinking ahead and took a ~40% chance on a 2 pointer to give them a chance to stay tied in the case of a Hobart comeback TD, especially when Hobart had only made 33% of their extra points before the last TD. I think a good decision based on game dynamics by Union to go for 2, just bad execution....check that, REALLY bad execution.

[Frank Rossi]

We'll agree to disagree on that one.  I'll say NFL coaches use that conversion much less than college coaches for a reason (except for Del Rio)... There's a good reason for that despite the LOS being one yard closer in the pros.

One thing I want to point out -- I was in transit during this and listened to it closely after the recording -- is how dlippin' impressed I was with the interview of Wiley Martin from MMA James did Sunday.  It's rare for us to risk interviews with freshmen and sophomores, but he handled it with poise, humility, and maturity that makes me proud of the men and women we have in our military institutions these days.  We're going to miss Merchant Marine on ITH when they leave for the NEWMAC, and interviews like that one are much of the reason why.  Brandon Shed did great, as well -- love promoting these tremendous student-athletes each week with James.

[HansenRatings]

Of course, the circular conundrum this raises is whether the perceived strength you use as an initial variable may have been overstated in the first place.  I think going into the game, your probability was extremely low for a Union win -- if the game were played again this Saturday in Geneva, one would assume the probability would be higher for an "upset," and, as such, would change the in-game probabilities to something a little closer to the second set.

Based on the outcome, I agree. I've tried to account for the possibility of pregame probabilities being way off by adjusting each team's rating in-game based on the score. I plugged my pregame spread into the calculator you linked to, and my model had Union's peak win probability about 5% higher than they did. The truth is probably somewhere in between.

As for the 2 point call, if they convert that, Hobart's odds would have gone waayyy down. Somewhere near 14% or 26% depending on my pregame spread. If they merely fail to convert instead, the odds would have been ~25% or 34% Hobart. As it is, after the INT, Hobart's odds improved to more than 50% in both models. If this is Union's MO, and they don't practice PAT's very frequently, the odds of a blocked PAT returned for 2 are probably right on par with the INT. It's just easier to defend the more conservative play after the fact. There's obviously more that goes into this (Hobart's PAT/FG crew, having the right play call if you go for two, etc.)

One last thing. I don't venture over to the East Region boards much, but is

dlippin'

really a word you all use over here???

[Pat Coleman]

Dlip is a poster who is renowned for dropping four-letter words (which the board bleeps out). So some time ago, people started using "dlip" as a four-letter word.

[AUPepBand]

Dlip is a poster who is renowned for dropping four-letter words (which the board bleeps out). So some time ago, people started using "dlip" as a four-letter word.

It's become part of the "culture" of the East Region, along with the Gatto-inspired Empire 8 custom of exiting Saterdays!

On Saxon Warriors!

[Bombers798891]

We'll agree to disagree on that one.  I'll say NFL coaches use that conversion much less than college coaches for a reason (except for Del Rio)... There's a good reason for that despite the LOS being one yard closer in the pros.

Of course they do. NFL kickers were capable of hitting XPs from that distance at better than 99%. So not only are they giving up essentially a free point going for two, they almost never felt the pressure to "chase" a missing point on a subsequent touchdown.

[ITH radio]

Dlip is a poster who is renowned for dropping four-letter words (which the board bleeps out). So some time ago, people started using "dlip" as a four-letter word.

That's dlipping right. I realized I may have dlipped up and spoken too harshly re the Hobart D. Did some research and it seems like I may have been a little overly critical.

Wrote about it on http://gohobart.blogspot.com

[Bartman]

We'll agree to disagree on that one.  I'll say NFL coaches use that conversion much less than college coaches for a reason (except for Del Rio)... There's a good reason for that despite the LOS being one yard closer in the pros.

Of course they do. NFL kickers were capable of hitting XPs from that distance at better than 99%. So not only are they giving up essentially a free point going for two, they almost never felt the pressure to "chase" a missing point on a subsequent touchdown.

+k for fact based analytics

[Bartman]

So I've been monkeying with a win-probability calculator like Frank mentioned for a couple weeks, but it takes into account pre-game team win probabilities and how the perceived team strength should change throughout the game. Using that, Hobart's chances never actually fell below 50%, bottoming out at 53% after their 32 yard punt early in the third quarter:



If you assume both teams are equal, that same point of the game would be a 17.5% chance for Hobart.



EDIT: Interesting side note - that dip at the end (73% W for Hobart) is due to Hobart's personal foul penalty on Union's last drive to put Union on the 36. Four incompletions later and the Win Prob climbed back above 90%.

This is fascinating. So, would this model also help a head coach determine probable outcomes before making Dlipping decisions?

[Bartman]

This weeks predictions(Home in CAPS):

   RPI      35        Rochester  14 ( Not a problem for the Engineers )
  WPI     24       Union        21  (A close battle could go either way)
  SLU     28       Springfield 10 (Saints win with confidence as defense stiffens)
  Hobart  28       Mariners    24 ( Rain helps the Mariners scare the hell out of the Statesmen as turnovers cause issues for both teams)