FB: Old Dominion Athletic Conference

[jknezek]

Guys Pat is correct. If he was running a top 40, everyone would vote for 40 teams. In doing so, you'd get a top 40. But since people only vote for 25 teams, you can't be the 40th best based on the information. Just because 1 person put a team 24th doesn't mean enough people would put the team that high if it went all the way to 40 spaces you would get listed. You can interpret it however you want, but if people only list 25 teams then it is sloppy to add the Receiving Votes and slap a number on it. It's just bad methodology and bad math. Is it a big deal? No. But Pat is correct.

[tigerFanAlso2]

Week 2; HSC defense improved, offense still as a ways to go.

Congrats to BC on a nice win. Is SU better than expected ?

Lets see what week 3 brings. Good luck to all.

[HSCTiger fan]

Week 2; HSC defense improved, offense still as a ways to go.

Congrats to BC on a nice win. Is SU better than expected ?

Lets see what week 3 brings. Good luck to all.

I agree. But the biggest thing that needs improvement IMO is play calling. When the CNU anouncers are complimenting our team for slowing down the game in the 4th quarter something is wrong. It was frustrating to watch, our kids seem confused and if they were - how do you play with confidence?  I left the game very upset with the play calling - not the effort.

[tigerFanAlso2]

TigerFan

I really did not see much of the game as I was catching up with old friends, however I did note slow pace, rarely made a first down; too many turnovers; maybe the slow pace was to allow the defense to get a little rest/water.

I'd say the Tigers are better than last year; offense needs to improve (average 13.5 points per game), and they will; week 3 is a tough one for the Tigers. Interesting to see how the Platteville game plays out. 

[HSCTiger fan]

HSC got the ball back with 9 minutes to play down 20 to 0. They took over 5 minutes to drive 45 yards to turnover on downs. One "play" was a 15 yard penalty.  HSC once in that drive had to take a timeout to avoid a delay of game. No need to rest defense with 9 mins to go.

[tigerFanAlso2]

I'm not following your point; are you saying it is taking too much time to get the play called ?  Acting like time is not of the essence ?

[hasanova]

In case you missed this stat line by Guilford RB #5 De'Eric Bell versus Methodist:

Rushing 16 attempts for 78 yards
Receiving 4 passes for 75 yards
Kickoff returns 3 for 137 yards
Punt returns 11 for 138 yards (MU punted 17 times)

That's a school and ODAC record 428 all-purpose yards ... and he's a redshirt junior.  Thirty-four touches for 12.6 average.

[HSCTiger fan]

I'm not following your point; are you saying it is taking too much time to get the play called ?  Acting like time is not of the essence ?

Yes. No urgency.

[Bombers798891]

HSC got the ball back with 9 minutes to play down 20 to 0. They took over 5 minutes to drive 45 yards to turnover on downs. One "play" was a 15 yard penalty.  HSC once in that drive had to take a timeout to avoid a delay of game. No need to rest defense with 9 mins to go.

What's strange to me is this sequence:

1st and 10 at CNU27   Alec Cobb pass complete to Mike DeMasi for no gain to the CNU27 (Gavin Liepe).
2nd and 10 at CNU27   Alec Cobb pass complete to Mike DeMasi for 1 yard to the CNU26 (Gavin Liepe).
3rd and 9 at CNU26   Alec Cobb pass complete to C. Cunningham for 2 yards to the CNU24 (Gavin Liepe; Austin Brown).

Down 20-0 late in the 4th, why are you throwing passes barely past the line of scrimmage? I'm reading a box score, so maybe there's something about the offense I'm unaware of, but this seems...less than ideal from a strategy standpoint

[CNU85]

Week 2; HSC defense improved, offense still as a ways to go.

Congrats to BC on a nice win. Is SU better than expected ?

Lets see what week 3 brings. Good luck to all.

I didn't see HSC first game vs AU. Wondering what you saw in the D to say they improved. The stats don't show it, so I was wondering what you see that does not show up in the numbers. Cheers!

[tigerFanAlso2]

I'm comparing 2017 defense to 2016 defense; last year HSC gave up 444 yards per game/37.8 points.

Played a decent CNU team on the road; gave up 405 yards/20 points.

That's an improvement.

[HSCTiger fan]

Week 2; HSC defense improved, offense still as a ways to go.

Congrats to BC on a nice win. Is SU better than expected ?

Lets see what week 3 brings. Good luck to all.

I didn't see HSC first game vs AU. Wondering what you saw in the D to say they improved. The stats don't show it, so I was wondering what you see that does not show up in the numbers. Cheers!

Last year defense never held CNU on downs, created zero turnovers and gave up 40+ points. This year the defense kept HSC in the game when offense was either going 3 and out or turning the ball over.

[HSCTiger fan]

HSC got the ball back with 9 minutes to play down 20 to 0. They took over 5 minutes to drive 45 yards to turnover on downs. One "play" was a 15 yard penalty.  HSC once in that drive had to take a timeout to avoid a delay of game. No need to rest defense with 9 mins to go.

What's strange to me is this sequence:

1st and 10 at CNU27   Alec Cobb pass complete to Mike DeMasi for no gain to the CNU27 (Gavin Liepe).
2nd and 10 at CNU27   Alec Cobb pass complete to Mike DeMasi for 1 yard to the CNU26 (Gavin Liepe).
3rd and 9 at CNU26   Alec Cobb pass complete to C. Cunningham for 2 yards to the CNU24 (Gavin Liepe; Austin Brown).

Down 20-0 late in the 4th, why are you throwing passes barely past the line of scrimmage? I'm reading a box score, so maybe there's something about the offense I'm unaware of, but this seems...less than ideal from a strategy standpoint

Your asking wrong people. What the play by play doesn't show is the time it took to run each play. Very frustrating to watch live. Just as frustrating to read it.

[Bombers798891]

Guys Pat is correct. If he was running a top 40, everyone would vote for 40 teams. In doing so, you'd get a top 40. But since people only vote for 25 teams, you can't be the 40th best based on the information. Just because 1 person put a team 24th doesn't mean enough people would put the team that high if it went all the way to 40 spaces you would get listed. You can interpret it however you want, but if people only list 25 teams then it is sloppy to add the Receiving Votes and slap a number on it. It's just bad methodology and bad math. Is it a big deal? No. But Pat is correct.

Look, if Pat says there's no 26th ranked team in the poll his site puts out, fine. It's his poll. But we need don't to act like there's no precedent for the other interpretation. Pro sports award voting is done that way. Until 2010, Cy Young voting asked voters to pick three pitchers. But Google articles about Mike Mussina's Hall of Fame candidacy, and you'll see references to his finishing 6th or 5th or 4th place in voting, even though, as you point out, people weren't voting for six pitchers.

I'm not saying that's a better way of doing it or even the mathematically correct way. But it's incredibly common in sports journalism to consider someone to have finished in xth place even if the voters don't actually consider that many spots when voting. I've never seen anyone say "Actually Mussina didn't finish 5th because they only considered three spots. He just 'received votes'"

[HSCTiger fan]

Here's a first. I'm going to defend Pat.

What if all the voters wanted Team X ranked 26th. If that happened they would have zero votes in the top 25 and not be one of the others receiving votes.

So are they 26th or are they ranked behind all others that may have received a vote?  Neither they are just not ranked.