Past opponents

Non-Tulane Sports Discussion
Anything that doesn't belong on the main YOGWF Sports forums e.g. Saints, Hornets, BC$, High School, etc.
User avatar
OGSB
Emerald Circle
Posts: 16866
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 4:00 pm

Re: Past opponents

Post by OGSB »

Team of the Month: Auburn (1). The Tigers are The Dash’s No. 1 team right now, and frankly they should feel insulted about being No. 7 in both the AP and USA Today Coaches’ polls. If you average the Sagarin Rating of every team that the top eight unbeatens have played thus far, Auburn’s is by far the highest at 42nd. The Tigers are the only team in Sagarin’s Top 10 that has beaten another member of that Top 10 (Oregon, on a neutral field). Throw in three more Top 50 wins (Texas A&M, Mississippi State and Tulane) and this is the best résumé to date. Auburn’s start is all the more impressive when you factor in a true freshman quarterback (Bo Nix) and the fact that Gus Malzahn began the season coaching to keep his job.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/forde-yard-dash-10-key-college-football-developments-ahead-of-october/ar-AAI2B9V?ocid=spartandhp
Past performance is no guarantee of future results

User avatar
OGSB
Emerald Circle
Posts: 16866
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 4:00 pm

Re: Past opponents

Post by OGSB »

Auburn will lose their 1st game of the season. Down 24-13 at Florida, late 4th.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results

gerryb323
Regent's Circle
Posts: 6934
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2010 11:18 am
Location: Wichita

Re: Past opponents

Post by gerryb323 »

OGSB wrote:Auburn will lose their 1st game of the season. Down 24-13 at Florida, late 4th.

And Whitlow out 4-6 weeks
hashtagStopbunting
hashtagStopPUNTING!

User avatar
tulaneoutlaw
President's Circle
Posts: 3927
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Greeneville, TN

Re: Past opponents

Post by tulaneoutlaw »

Why did Army go for two after scoring a touchdown late but still being down two scores? There was some discussion here about that and WF talked about mid week in an interview as well. The Athletic has a great piece out about the thinking behind it:

https://theathletic.com/1284371/2019/10/11/college-football-two-point-conversion-decisions-manny-diaz-pat-fitzgerald/?source=dailyemail

Since it's behind a paywall, the general gist is this. If you are down by two+ scores, going for two early gives you a better chance at winning the game in regulation. You have to assume you have about a 50% chance of converting a two point try. If you make the two points and then score a follow up touchdown, you win with a PAT (50%). If you don't make the try the first time, you can try again the on the second touchdown to tie the game and head to OT (25%). If you don't make it either time, you lose in regulation (25%). Again assuming a 50% shot at winning in OT (OT happens 25% of the time, so 12.5% win in OT, 12.5% L in OT), you have a 62.5% chance to win the game by going for two early as opposed to a 50% chance by waiting until the final play.

The catch here is assuming 50% splits in the outcomes. Teams are converting two point attempts at 43% right now and there's nothing saying that OT is truly a 50% split. Still, it's an interesting concept and one I think we might see WF use at some point.

User avatar
OGSB
Emerald Circle
Posts: 16866
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 4:00 pm

Re: Past opponents

Post by OGSB »

Army trails at W Kentucky 7-0, halftime.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results

User avatar
OGSB
Emerald Circle
Posts: 16866
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 4:00 pm

Re: Past opponents

Post by OGSB »

Army in danger not just of losing, but being shut out. 10-0 WKU under 5:00 to play
Past performance is no guarantee of future results

User avatar
OGSB
Emerald Circle
Posts: 16866
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 4:00 pm

Re: Past opponents

Post by OGSB »

17-0, so Army is going to fall to 3-3.

FIU appears to be on their way to 3-3 as well, up 41-23 vs Charlotte.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results

User avatar
PeteRasche
Emerald Circle
Posts: 23456
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:52 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Re: Past opponents

Post by PeteRasche »

Our record looks a lot better against what people thought of our opponents before the season started than it does now that we're seeing how good (or not) those teams actually are.

FIU expected to challenge in CUSA. Pphht.
Houston expected to be borderline top 25 and challenging in the AAC. Pphht.
Army expected to be like last year, maybe losing only one or two games. Pphht.

Oh well. Just keep winning.

windywave
Emerald Circle
Posts: 22225
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 12:13 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Past opponents

Post by windywave »

PeteRasche wrote:Our record looks a lot better against what people thought of our opponents before the season started than it does now that we're seeing how good (or not) those teams actually are.

FIU expected to challenge in CUSA. Pphht.
Houston expected to be borderline top 25 and challenging in the AAC. Pphht.
Army expected to be like last year, maybe losing only one or two games. Pphht.

Oh well. Just keep winning.


We can go 1-5 the rest of the regular season and while disappointed I could live with it.
Using big words is not a personal attack

User avatar
PeteRasche
Emerald Circle
Posts: 23456
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:52 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Re: Past opponents

Post by PeteRasche »

windywave wrote:
PeteRasche wrote:Our record looks a lot better against what people thought of our opponents before the season started than it does now that we're seeing how good (or not) those teams actually are.

FIU expected to challenge in CUSA. Pphht.
Houston expected to be borderline top 25 and challenging in the AAC. Pphht.
Army expected to be like last year, maybe losing only one or two games. Pphht.

Oh well. Just keep winning.


We can go 1-5 the rest of the regular season and while disappointed I could live with it.

Sad that going 1-5 would still result in an historic run by Tulane standards (meaning, consecutive bowl games).

User avatar
OGSB
Emerald Circle
Posts: 16866
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 4:00 pm

Re: Past opponents

Post by OGSB »

windywave wrote:
PeteRasche wrote:Our record looks a lot better against what people thought of our opponents before the season started than it does now that we're seeing how good (or not) those teams actually are.

FIU expected to challenge in CUSA. Pphht.
Houston expected to be borderline top 25 and challenging in the AAC. Pphht.
Army expected to be like last year, maybe losing only one or two games. Pphht.

Oh well. Just keep winning.


We can go 1-5 the rest of the regular season and while disappointed I could live with it.


Charlie Strong approves this message!
Past performance is no guarantee of future results

ml wave
Emerald Circle
Posts: 11085
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 4:19 pm

Re: Past opponents

Post by ml wave »

tulaneoutlaw wrote:Why did Army go for two after scoring a touchdown late but still being down two scores? There was some discussion here about that and WF talked about mid week in an interview as well. The Athletic has a great piece out about the thinking behind it:

https://theathletic.com/1284371/2019/10/11/college-football-two-point-conversion-decisions-manny-diaz-pat-fitzgerald/?source=dailyemail

Since it's behind a paywall, the general gist is this. If you are down by two+ scores, going for two early gives you a better chance at winning the game in regulation. You have to assume you have about a 50% chance of converting a two point try. If you make the two points and then score a follow up touchdown, you win with a PAT (50%). If you don't make the try the first time, you can try again the on the second touchdown to tie the game and head to OT (25%). If you don't make it either time, you lose in regulation (25%). Again assuming a 50% shot at winning in OT (OT happens 25% of the time, so 12.5% win in OT, 12.5% L in OT), you have a 62.5% chance to win the game by going for two early as opposed to a 50% chance by waiting until the final play.

The catch here is assuming 50% splits in the outcomes. Teams are converting two point attempts at 43% right now and there's nothing saying that OT is truly a 50% split. Still, it's an interesting concept and one I think we might see WF use at some point.
That's all great, but Army was down by 15 when they scored to make it 9 and then went for two. The analysis should be on the TD they scored down 21 and the decision to go for 2 to make it 13. I guess the same analytics apply roughly, but still makes no sense to me.

User avatar
tulaneoutlaw
President's Circle
Posts: 3927
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Greeneville, TN

Re: Past opponents

Post by tulaneoutlaw »

ml wave wrote:
tulaneoutlaw wrote:Why did Army go for two after scoring a touchdown late but still being down two scores? There was some discussion here about that and WF talked about mid week in an interview as well. The Athletic has a great piece out about the thinking behind it:

https://theathletic.com/1284371/2019/10/11/college-football-two-point-conversion-decisions-manny-diaz-pat-fitzgerald/?source=dailyemail

Since it's behind a paywall, the general gist is this. If you are down by two+ scores, going for two early gives you a better chance at winning the game in regulation. You have to assume you have about a 50% chance of converting a two point try. If you make the two points and then score a follow up touchdown, you win with a PAT (50%). If you don't make the try the first time, you can try again the on the second touchdown to tie the game and head to OT (25%). If you don't make it either time, you lose in regulation (25%). Again assuming a 50% shot at winning in OT (OT happens 25% of the time, so 12.5% win in OT, 12.5% L in OT), you have a 62.5% chance to win the game by going for two early as opposed to a 50% chance by waiting until the final play.

The catch here is assuming 50% splits in the outcomes. Teams are converting two point attempts at 43% right now and there's nothing saying that OT is truly a 50% split. Still, it's an interesting concept and one I think we might see WF use at some point.
That's all great, but Army was down by 15 when they scored to make it 9 and then went for two. The analysis should be on the TD they scored down 21 and the decision to go for 2 to make it 13. I guess the same analytics apply roughly, but still makes no sense to me.


They were just using down two scores as an example. The math still works even down more than two scores, although it is all based on a 50% conversion rate which often doesn't apply.

User avatar
OGSB
Emerald Circle
Posts: 16866
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 4:00 pm

Re: Past opponents

Post by OGSB »

Auburn bouncing back. Helps that the opponent is Arkansas. 17-0 late 2nd.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results

User avatar
OGSB
Emerald Circle
Posts: 16866
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 4:00 pm

Re: Past opponents

Post by OGSB »

Auburn just converted their 303rd straight PAT, new record. Haven’t missed since 2013. 24-3.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results

User avatar
OGSB
Emerald Circle
Posts: 16866
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 4:00 pm

Re: Past opponents

Post by OGSB »

Auburn wins, 51-10.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results

AO Sig
Regent's Circle
Posts: 8027
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 5:42 am
Location: Kingsport, Tennessee

Re: Past opponents

Post by AO Sig »

OGSB wrote:Auburn wins, 51-10.


They were lucky they were playing a patsy team from outside the vaunted SEC (like one from the AAC) to be able to run the score that high. Oh wait...
What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?

User avatar
OGSB
Emerald Circle
Posts: 16866
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 4:00 pm

Re: Past opponents

Post by OGSB »

Army may be in danger of losing at home again. Down 17-7 to San Jose St, mid 2nd quarter.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results

User avatar
long green
Cornerstone
Posts: 26157
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2004 10:34 am
Location: New Orleans

Re: Past opponents

Post by long green »

We broke Army Football.
The gap between the top of the big leagues and their bottom is now bigger than the gap between their bottom and us - P.R. told me to do this

User avatar
OGSB
Emerald Circle
Posts: 16866
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 4:00 pm

Re: Past opponents

Post by OGSB »

Army loses their 4th in a row, 34-29. Now 3-5.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results

User avatar
PeteRasche
Emerald Circle
Posts: 23456
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:52 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Re: Past opponents

Post by PeteRasche »

long green wrote:We broke Army Football.

Um, no, it turns out that they are just worse than us and we're not really that good.

User avatar
OGSB
Emerald Circle
Posts: 16866
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 4:00 pm

Re: Past opponents

Post by OGSB »

Auburn and LSU are tied at half, 10-10.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results

User avatar
OGSB
Emerald Circle
Posts: 16866
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 4:00 pm

Re: Past opponents

Post by OGSB »

Starting the 3rd quarter, FIU leads @ MTSU, 17-14
Past performance is no guarantee of future results

User avatar
OGSB
Emerald Circle
Posts: 16866
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 4:00 pm

Re: Past opponents

Post by OGSB »

FIU down now 37-27, looking at 4-4.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results

User avatar
OGSB
Emerald Circle
Posts: 16866
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 4:00 pm

Re: Past opponents

Post by OGSB »

Auburn falls to 6-2. 23-20 LSU
Past performance is no guarantee of future results

Post Reply