This morning Todd on the franchise (in reference to the International SoccerBowl) talked about teams needing to know how to kill the clock to win.
It being a slow day at work and with all of the talk about OU’s clock management vs elite quarterback play being out problem, etc, I started to hypothesize and did a bit of statistical analysis.
The below may have been pointed out elsewhere, but I found interesting patterns that I believe say a lot about the institutional habits that Team 128 brought with them in January of this year.
I focused on 10-pts-or-less games, because as we all know, they account for our 4 straight-up, healthy qb losses. (Football is a game of inches, etc). And I like most of us, sit here in almost amazement at how this team has willed itself into such loses.
And in my opinion, our history in these games paints an objective picture of a team that for at least the last 8 years became very accustomed to winning a certain way, and for whatever reason hasn’t figured out how to win now that the engine of that old way of doing things was taken away overnight.
So what actually came before in similar circumstances?
From 2015 to 2021 OU was involved in 38 games decided by 10 points or less.
OU lost 9 of those games and won 29.
Loss/10pt-games by year:
‘15: 1/4
‘16: 1/5
‘17: 2/6
‘18: 1/6
‘19: 1/6
‘20: 2/4
‘21: 1/7
[as an aside, these account for 9 of 14 total loses during that same period]
In 28 of the 38 games, the victor (OU or opponent) was the last team with a score-able possession in regulation: ie has the ball with around 50 seconds or more on the clock: The Rule.
Of those 10 exceptions to the Rule, OU was the loser only twice. Meaning we had the ball with time to tie or win, and just didn’t.
Put another way: in 38 close games, there were only 2 instances where OU was down, but the offense had both the ball and a realistic chance to tie or take the lead late in the game and failed to do.
2020 KSU rattler throws an INT to end the game
2021 OSU, we don’t convert on downs.
On the other side of the ball:
OU’s defense “beat”the Rule in only 8 of these 38 games.
Ie, the opposing team was driving late but we got a last second INT, they ran out of time, they turned over on downs with like 7 seconds left, a 2 pt conversion failed, or we held on and won in OT. *(More on this below).
And by extension, opponents won by the Rule only 7 times. Ie controlled the ball late and either scored to win or were already winning and ran out the clock.
Thus OU’s offense ultimately “won” by this Rule 21 of 38 times. (38-7-2-8= 21).
*[but again see anomalies below]
More importantly, however: By my calculations the defense only straight up stopped an opposing offense from scoring to win or tie the game late, in regulation, 5 times in 7 years:
2017 Texas(downs) and OSU (INT)
2019 regular season Baylor (INT)
2021 Nebraska (Downs) and ISU (INT)
(The 3 other defensive “wins” are outlined at the end)*
Whereas in 2022:
KSU: bring it within 7, but with only 35 seconds left. (Check my work, but I don’t think something like this ever happened under Riley: a team bringing it within a score, but very little time left for the another scoring possession).
Kansas: won by the Rule
Baylor: lost by the Rule
WVU: lost by the Rule
TTU: lost by the Rule
So why does any of this matter?
To begin with, these statistics seem to be too overwhelming to be coincidental. And instead feel more like a modus operandi, otherwise known as a habit.
And I am a firm believer that habits, either on a personal or institutional level, are hard to reverse.
This is/was a team that is primarily made up of players that are accustomed to a system where 2 things were almost guarantees (and therefore basically the only ways they knew/know how to win by):
Either 1) Blowing teams out of the water on offense so that clock management doesn’t really matter late.
And 2) in close games being able to rely on an offense that could effectively score at-will to easily control the clock late in the game and not even give the defense the chance to **** it up.
This is not to say the coaches this year didn’t make poor choices, or couldn’t have done a better job to prepare the team.
I’m just trying to give objective context to the idea that they are also pushing back on some pretty incompatible outlooks and habits that seem to be entrenched and are evidenced by actual, on-field performance over an extended period of time.
The staff also doesn’t have the “advantage” of OU being terrible when they took over. It’s a lot easier to convince the 2-10 team that the old ways of doing things are trash. Especially when the new way of doing things is more demanding.
This is not to say that there is a lack of buy-in, I frankly have no idea. I’m not a wannabe “insider.”
But to my point, I imagine many of us on this board have, for example, tried to live healthier and struggled to do. So to me it’s just a matter of human nature that these sort of radical changes are hard and take time, with or without great attitude. The difference is simply in the execution.
I will leave it to you to decide if you think the problems this year are lack of elite offensive play willing a team to victory like it used to, bad clock management by the coaching staff, or some other incompetence.
To me, it feels like a chicken or the egg mixture of everything. That to control the clock, you have to be in control of yourself first, but also proper choice in adverse circumstances maybe shouldn’t be made purely off of what you want to happen.
So I believe these are things that can ultimately be fixed with better defense, the coaching staff learning from mistakes, and more entrenched institutional habits that align with what BV and co are trying to do.
BUT at the end of the day problems can be pointed out to no positive result: TBD if these reforms work or are worth it.
You’re welcome to believe OU should have done their best to stick with what was working, that BV shouldn’t have made such radical changes, that this staff is just objectively incompetent and not able to fix this situation, or that OU just won’t have players that are good enough to compete at a national level. But then none of this really matters anyways, and why are you wasting your time and money on the matter.
You are also welcome to declare all of the above as “correlation not meaning causation,”or simply the mad ravings of a lunatic. I pay for this site primarily so I can say shit like this to strangers and not my friends and coworkers.
Let the “sir this is a Wendy’s” reactions commence.
*Notable anomalies alluded to above:
2018 Army: OU has the last score-able possession, misses the winning FG but wins in OT;
2015: tcu failed a 2 Pt conversion but there was still 50 seconds left on the clock, didn’t recover the onside. OU therefore still wins by the Rule.
There are many other instances where the loser scored last, and the victor just killed the clock.
There are also other instances of the victor getting an interception late but with time to score, but simply killing the clock.
2020 Texas ties it last second, loses OT;
2019 ISU missed 2 pt conversion.
2019 Big12 championship, Baylor kills the clock and takes their chances in OT, loses.
It being a slow day at work and with all of the talk about OU’s clock management vs elite quarterback play being out problem, etc, I started to hypothesize and did a bit of statistical analysis.
The below may have been pointed out elsewhere, but I found interesting patterns that I believe say a lot about the institutional habits that Team 128 brought with them in January of this year.
I focused on 10-pts-or-less games, because as we all know, they account for our 4 straight-up, healthy qb losses. (Football is a game of inches, etc). And I like most of us, sit here in almost amazement at how this team has willed itself into such loses.
And in my opinion, our history in these games paints an objective picture of a team that for at least the last 8 years became very accustomed to winning a certain way, and for whatever reason hasn’t figured out how to win now that the engine of that old way of doing things was taken away overnight.
So what actually came before in similar circumstances?
From 2015 to 2021 OU was involved in 38 games decided by 10 points or less.
OU lost 9 of those games and won 29.
Loss/10pt-games by year:
‘15: 1/4
‘16: 1/5
‘17: 2/6
‘18: 1/6
‘19: 1/6
‘20: 2/4
‘21: 1/7
[as an aside, these account for 9 of 14 total loses during that same period]
In 28 of the 38 games, the victor (OU or opponent) was the last team with a score-able possession in regulation: ie has the ball with around 50 seconds or more on the clock: The Rule.
Of those 10 exceptions to the Rule, OU was the loser only twice. Meaning we had the ball with time to tie or win, and just didn’t.
Put another way: in 38 close games, there were only 2 instances where OU was down, but the offense had both the ball and a realistic chance to tie or take the lead late in the game and failed to do.
2020 KSU rattler throws an INT to end the game
2021 OSU, we don’t convert on downs.
On the other side of the ball:
OU’s defense “beat”the Rule in only 8 of these 38 games.
Ie, the opposing team was driving late but we got a last second INT, they ran out of time, they turned over on downs with like 7 seconds left, a 2 pt conversion failed, or we held on and won in OT. *(More on this below).
And by extension, opponents won by the Rule only 7 times. Ie controlled the ball late and either scored to win or were already winning and ran out the clock.
Thus OU’s offense ultimately “won” by this Rule 21 of 38 times. (38-7-2-8= 21).
*[but again see anomalies below]
More importantly, however: By my calculations the defense only straight up stopped an opposing offense from scoring to win or tie the game late, in regulation, 5 times in 7 years:
2017 Texas(downs) and OSU (INT)
2019 regular season Baylor (INT)
2021 Nebraska (Downs) and ISU (INT)
(The 3 other defensive “wins” are outlined at the end)*
Whereas in 2022:
KSU: bring it within 7, but with only 35 seconds left. (Check my work, but I don’t think something like this ever happened under Riley: a team bringing it within a score, but very little time left for the another scoring possession).
Kansas: won by the Rule
Baylor: lost by the Rule
WVU: lost by the Rule
TTU: lost by the Rule
So why does any of this matter?
To begin with, these statistics seem to be too overwhelming to be coincidental. And instead feel more like a modus operandi, otherwise known as a habit.
And I am a firm believer that habits, either on a personal or institutional level, are hard to reverse.
This is/was a team that is primarily made up of players that are accustomed to a system where 2 things were almost guarantees (and therefore basically the only ways they knew/know how to win by):
Either 1) Blowing teams out of the water on offense so that clock management doesn’t really matter late.
And 2) in close games being able to rely on an offense that could effectively score at-will to easily control the clock late in the game and not even give the defense the chance to **** it up.
This is not to say the coaches this year didn’t make poor choices, or couldn’t have done a better job to prepare the team.
I’m just trying to give objective context to the idea that they are also pushing back on some pretty incompatible outlooks and habits that seem to be entrenched and are evidenced by actual, on-field performance over an extended period of time.
The staff also doesn’t have the “advantage” of OU being terrible when they took over. It’s a lot easier to convince the 2-10 team that the old ways of doing things are trash. Especially when the new way of doing things is more demanding.
This is not to say that there is a lack of buy-in, I frankly have no idea. I’m not a wannabe “insider.”
But to my point, I imagine many of us on this board have, for example, tried to live healthier and struggled to do. So to me it’s just a matter of human nature that these sort of radical changes are hard and take time, with or without great attitude. The difference is simply in the execution.
I will leave it to you to decide if you think the problems this year are lack of elite offensive play willing a team to victory like it used to, bad clock management by the coaching staff, or some other incompetence.
To me, it feels like a chicken or the egg mixture of everything. That to control the clock, you have to be in control of yourself first, but also proper choice in adverse circumstances maybe shouldn’t be made purely off of what you want to happen.
So I believe these are things that can ultimately be fixed with better defense, the coaching staff learning from mistakes, and more entrenched institutional habits that align with what BV and co are trying to do.
BUT at the end of the day problems can be pointed out to no positive result: TBD if these reforms work or are worth it.
You’re welcome to believe OU should have done their best to stick with what was working, that BV shouldn’t have made such radical changes, that this staff is just objectively incompetent and not able to fix this situation, or that OU just won’t have players that are good enough to compete at a national level. But then none of this really matters anyways, and why are you wasting your time and money on the matter.
You are also welcome to declare all of the above as “correlation not meaning causation,”or simply the mad ravings of a lunatic. I pay for this site primarily so I can say shit like this to strangers and not my friends and coworkers.
Let the “sir this is a Wendy’s” reactions commence.
*Notable anomalies alluded to above:
2018 Army: OU has the last score-able possession, misses the winning FG but wins in OT;
2015: tcu failed a 2 Pt conversion but there was still 50 seconds left on the clock, didn’t recover the onside. OU therefore still wins by the Rule.
There are many other instances where the loser scored last, and the victor just killed the clock.
There are also other instances of the victor getting an interception late but with time to score, but simply killing the clock.
2020 Texas ties it last second, loses OT;
2019 ISU missed 2 pt conversion.
2019 Big12 championship, Baylor kills the clock and takes their chances in OT, loses.
