Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
44 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't understand why Vandy roaring back in Q4 counts against us, UGA running away from us in Q4 counts against us, but we don't get credit for a 20-0 second half against OU.  Be consistent, for fuck's sake.

Let’s be objective: Texas did (and still does) get credit for that. Last week Texas was the highest ranked two-loss team in the CFP  rankings, ahead of several one loss teams. Squarely in the field for the CFP, even with the ACC and G5 participants. In fact, it can be fairly said that the tOSU loss wasn’t punishing Texas, although it wasn’t rewarded as a win. Had that been the only L on the schedule Texas would maybe have been the highest 1L team, and in the bye. 

This week: Texas is the highest 3 loss team in the rankings. Ahead of name brands like Michigan with fewer losses. A small but existent path to the playoff. The 2L teams in front of you have excellent to good wins: USC, Bama, Mizzou, Notre Dame, Georgia, Tennessee, among others. All teams currently ranked in the CFP. They don’t have losses to sub-.500 teams, they don’t have non-competitive losses, they have mostly put away inferior teams in regulation. 

There’s no unfair treatment here. Texas is in the mix with teams that have fewer losses and well ahead any other 3 loss teams that are all well and truly out of the convo. They are getting credit foe that schedule. 

Edited by 956 Worldwide
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
8 minutes ago, immamac said:

So like idk what fucking planet you guys live on, but 14-3 isn't a close game. 14-10 isn't close when it becomes 21-10 on the next possession after 2 4th down conversions and 10 play 6 minute 75 yard drive as the answer. It was a 2 score game the entire night save that 7:51 seconds.

I don't know what point you're trying to make, but the game was within one score for the first 17+ minutes.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

I swear some of you must have broken brains. No one thought it was close. It wasn't statistically close or probable for Texas to win at any point in the game except for the time between kicking a FG and georgia scoring. 

Posted
5 minutes ago, immamac said:

I swear some of you must have broken brains. No one thought it was close. It wasn't statistically close or probable for Texas to win at any point in the game except for the time between kicking a FG and georgia scoring. 

I don't understand why our odds of winning were 25% after getting the score to 14-10, but I'm sure my brain is broken.  That looks like a very flawed metric to me, especially given the fact that anyone watching the second half acknowledged that Texas was shaking off the first half yips and starting to play to potential.

Care to explain that 25% number?  Perhaps without being an insulting ass?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't understand why our odds of winning were 25% after getting the score to 14-10, but I'm sure my brain is broken.  That looks like a very flawed metric to me, especially given the fact that anyone watching the second half acknowledged that Texas was shaking off the first half yips and starting to play to potential.

Care to explain that 25% number?  Perhaps without being an insulting ass?

Texas never had the ball in their possession. Being down and needing a TD for the lead and 2 possessions/scores to change anything. 

14-10 means nothing if the other team never gives you the ball back. Just like 3-0 means nothing if georgia just scores twice and you go 3 and out a bunch... 

Posted
5 minutes ago, immamac said:

Texas never had the ball in their possession.

What?  Your odds metric says we reached a 25% chance to win presumably the moment we tightened the score to 14-10 in the 3rd quarter.  Does down 4 in the 3rd quarter seem like a 25% chance of pulling ahead by the end of the game?  It's not a forward looking calculation, it doesn't know about the onside kick, etc.  You're reading it wrong.

Posted
1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't understand why Vandy roaring back in Q4 counts against us, UGA running away from us in Q4 counts against us, but we don't get credit for a 20-0 second half against OU.  Be consistent, for fuck's sake.

To be fair, outside of the OU game, we’ve had way too many close calls with inferior teams and got flattened by Georgia. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, jimmyjazz said:

What?  Your odds metric says we reached a 25% chance to win presumably the moment we tightened the score to 14-10 in the 3rd quarter.  Does down 4 in the 3rd quarter seem like a 25% chance of pulling ahead by the end of the game?  It's not a forward looking calculation, it doesn't know about the onside kick, etc.  You're reading it wrong.

If we dont jump offsides in the 4th quarter on 4th and 5, that game was winnable, so I agree with your assessment that we were undervalued in terms of win percentage. We had momentum and Kirby knew it, which is why he dropped his nutsack on Sarks's face with the 4th down conversions and the onside kick. That was the game. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

What?  Your odds metric says we reached a 25% chance to win presumably the moment we tightened the score to 14-10 in the 3rd quarter.  Does down 4 in the 3rd quarter seem like a 25% chance of pulling ahead by the end of the game?  It's not a forward looking calculation, it doesn't know about the onside kick, etc.  You're reading it wrong.

No I'm not, it's saying that they had a 25% chance to win the game. Meaning if georgia punted and they did good things and scored they could score a fg or a TD, they are doing the probabilities of each. The probability of texas scoring enough go take a lead and the subsequently keep georgia from scoring was very low (25%)

When georgia scored on their 6m grinder of a 10 play 6 minute drive. They had less than 5% of a chance to win and stayed there. 

This is what a blowout looks like. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, The_Great_Hornsby said:

If we dont jump offsides in the 4th quarter on 4th and 5, that game was winnable, so I agree with your assessment that we were undervalued in terms of win percentage. We had momentum and Kirby knew it, which is why he dropped his nutsack on Sarks's face with the 4th down conversions and the onside kick. That was the game. 

I haven't spoken to Kirby about this (lol) but I'm pretty sure he was trying to draw us offsides, and it worked.  I suspect he would have punted had Simmons not done his typical neutral zone bullshit.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, Js1 said:

JUST LET IT GO ITS NOT THAT DEEP
THE GAME IS OVER

But people are wrong on the internet and that has to be rectified. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, The_Great_Hornsby said:

If we dont jump offsides in the 4th quarter on 4th and 5, that game was winnable, so I agree with your assessment that we were undervalued in terms of win percentage. We had momentum and Kirby knew it, which is why he dropped his nutsack on Sarks's face with the 4th down conversions and the onside kick. That was the game. 

They may have called the time out instead of snapping the ball. They may have thrown it to a receiver that was open in the flat for shorter yards and broken a tackle. Gunner Stockton wasn't under duress and could have run out of the pocket for 5. 

There was a lot that could have happened on the 4th and 5, but Collin Simmons DID JUMP OFFSIDES, and they knew that a hard count to draw him off would likely work because he's shown the propensity to do that. It was good coaching and a great gameplan. It wasn't Georgia just getting bailed out from a bonehead. 

Posted
30 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I was referring to @UTEE97's pearl-clutching, not the rankings.

I find it fascinating that you take some absurd positions from time to time and then double and triple down and pick fights with the rest of the board. Please don't ignore your mental health. Go see a professional before you blow something or someone up!

Posted
1 minute ago, immamac said:

No I'm not, it's saying that they had a 25% chance to win the game. Meaning if georgia punted and they did good things and scored they could score a fg or a TD, they are doing the probabilities of each. The probability of texas scoring enough go take a lead and the subsequently keep georgia from scoring was very low (25%)

I don't buy it.  I'm not saying it should be 45%, because (a) it was UGA ball and (b) we were down, but 25% just doesn't pass the sniff test.  Regardless:

 

Quote

When georgia scored on their 6m grinder of a 10 play 6 minute drive. They had less than 5% of a chance to win and stayed there. 

This is what a blowout looks like. 

I'm not arguing that point whatsoever.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I haven't spoken to Kirby about this (lol) but I'm pretty sure he was trying to draw us offsides, and it worked.  I suspect he would have punted had Simmons not done his typical neutral zone bullshit.

Agreed 100%

3 minutes ago, immamac said:

They may have called the time out instead of snapping the ball. They may have thrown it to a receiver that was open in the flat for shorter yards and broken a tackle. Gunner Stockton wasn't under duress and could have run out of the pocket for 5. 

There was a lot that could have happened on the 4th and 5, but Collin Simmons DID JUMP OFFSIDES, and they knew that a hard count to draw him off would likely work because he's shown the propensity to do that. It was good coaching and a great gameplan. It wasn't Georgia just getting bailed out from a bonehead. 

I never said it wasnt. Kirby outcoached us. 

Posted
20 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't understand why our odds of winning were 25% after getting the score to 14-10, but I'm sure my brain is broken.  That looks like a very flawed metric to me, especially given the fact that anyone watching the second half acknowledged that Texas was shaking off the first half yips and starting to play to potential.

Care to explain that 25% number?  Perhaps without being an insulting ass?

ESPN has a vast set of data and it updates algorithmically. A huge portion is historical data— similar scores, similar points on field at gametime, home vs away and also includes FPI data for relative team strength/weakness. 25 percent is probably about right for a team that has trailed most of the game, away, late in the 3rd.

I understand the analytics geeks admit that models collapse in tight games late in the 4th through overtime. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

As best as I can tell, ESPN accounts for momentum by updating their model in-game based on previous plays/drives as they happen. What fans and even players feel as “momentum” is a descriptive feeling of what has happened and doesn’t have predictive power. 
 

Which makes a lot of sense, as we all can remember when our team had ALL the “momentum” and then suddenly the other team “grabbed it back” with an ill-timed INT, or fumble, or explosive play, or ST mistake, or great defensive stand, or soul-crushing long drive. The models can’t account for momentum but they come closer at explaining how likely it is that the other team does something like the above. 

Posted
2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

The bright side will be a year in which we beat OU, A&M, and Arkansas.  Small consolation, but not nothing.

Dude's giving us the branding iron special here. Your predictions haven't panned out so well lately, tap the brakes!

Posted
Just now, Brian Fantana said:

Dude's giving us the branding iron special here. Your predictions haven't panned out so well lately, tap the brakes!

The predicate was a 9-3 regular season.  I'm not predicting anything at this point.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Lol I'm just giving you shit about your OU/Alabama prediction 😜

Yeah, I definitely blew that one.  Good thing I don't gamble.

Posted

1st time listener, long time caller.

Everyone rags on Texas Tech’s schedule - the OOC is weak for sure

However, they do have 3 CFP team wins and the lone loss is to a team that is ranked as well

Sitting at #5, Tech is getting love and barring a catastrophic meltdown in WV they are safely in so let’s move on to the bubble teams.

And more specifically, Oregon

Can someone explain Oregon’s ranking? Why are they not a bubble team?

A case could be made that OU, ND, Bama, Utah, BYU, and Miami all have a better resume

No, you say, all those other teams have 2 losses (except BYU)

Ok, you see where I’m going with this, BYU has the win over #12 Utah and a loss to #5 Tech

Make the case for Oregon.

They have the loss to #2 Indy and what else???

Posted
31 minutes ago, BluTechsan said:

1st time listener, long time caller.

Everyone rags on Texas Tech’s schedule - the OOC is weak for sure

However, they do have 3 CFP team wins and the lone loss is to a team that is ranked as well

Sitting at #5, Tech is getting love and barring a catastrophic meltdown in WV they are safely in so let’s move on to the bubble teams.

And more specifically, Oregon

Can someone explain Oregon’s ranking? Why are they not a bubble team?

A case could be made that OU, ND, Bama, Utah, BYU, and Miami all have a better resume

No, you say, all those other teams have 2 losses (except BYU)

Ok, you see where I’m going with this, BYU has the win over #12 Utah and a loss to #5 Tech

Make the case for Oregon.

They have the loss to #2 Indy and what else???

Wat

Posted
38 minutes ago, BluTechsan said:

1st time listener, long time caller.

Everyone rags on Texas Tech’s schedule - the OOC is weak for sure

However, they do have 3 CFP team wins and the lone loss is to a team that is ranked as well

Sitting at #5, Tech is getting love and barring a catastrophic meltdown in WV they are safely in so let’s move on to the bubble teams.

And more specifically, Oregon

Can someone explain Oregon’s ranking? Why are they not a bubble team?

A case could be made that OU, ND, Bama, Utah, BYU, and Miami all have a better resume

No, you say, all those other teams have 2 losses (except BYU)

Ok, you see where I’m going with this, BYU has the win over #12 Utah and a loss to #5 Tech

Make the case for Oregon.

They have the loss to #2 Indy and what else???

Because they have USC left. 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...