Ken Gordon Discovers That Water Is Wet

One of the major criticisms that Buckeye fans have with head coach Jim Tressel is that that is play calling is too conservative. I think it is, at times, certainly a valid criticism as he seems too often content to punt and play field position or go for a long field goal rather than opening things up a bit more. Ken Gordon decided to crunch some numbers to prove Tressel wrong and was surprised to learn that Tressel just might be right in his conservative approach. Here is Gordon's original premise.

My thought was that while Tressel successfully avoids turnovers, he also avoids giving his quarterbacks the confidence to air it out and use their natural talent to the full potential. So yes, he may win games by being careful with the ball, but has he lost games because he played too conservatively and denied his QB the chance to build a bigger lead (such as Penn State last year?)

And Gordon's numbers and summary.

OVERALL RECORD: 43-8 (.843)

WHEN OSU HAS A PLUS TURNOVER RATIO: 23-1

WHEN RATIO IS EVEN: 7-0

WHEN OSU LOSES TURNOVER RATIO: 13-7.

In 43 wins, OSU was plus-23 in turnovers (plus .53 a game)
In 8 losses, OSU was minus-13 (minus 1.63 a game)

In 43 wins, OSU threw 21 INTs (.49 a game)
In 8 losses, OSU threw 10 INTs (1.25 a game).

Bottom line: My premise was wrong. Tressel is right.

So there you go. Gordon has proven that a conservative approach wins more than not. This, of course, is why teams like Oklahoma, Texas and Florida struggle year after year to win games.

Ken Gordon's number crunching simply shows that the less turnovers a team commits the more likely the are to win. In other words, its the execution stupid. This analysis is about as groundbreaking as showing that the team that scores the most points wins more games.

Pay For Play

Yglesias is one of my favorite bloggers out there and I usually find myself agreeing with him, but I'm just not sold here.

I do, however, think that there could be a role for the Justice Department in looking at the larger issue of the NCAA cartel that enforces the “no wages for young professional athletes” rule governing big-time college football and college basketball programs. The rule makes no sense. Lots of people earn lots of money off big-time college football and college basketball programs. The unpaid players are adults, fully legally eligible to do paid work in the American economy. And colleges all across the country employ students as part-time workers in a variety of capacities. So why shouldn’t they pay the kids who are earning them big money playing football and basketball? No reason anyone should force schools to pay their players, but there’s also no reason colleges should be allowed to engage in cartel behavior that would be considered illegal in any other field just because they’re colleges.

Too often people seem to accept the idea that college athletes in big-time programs are making the university lots of money and getting nothing in return. This just isn't the case. First, and most important, they are afforded the opportunity of getting a college education for free. Simply because one and done players, for example Greg Oden, refuse to take advantage of this doesn't make it less valuable. And while it may seem small to some, the travel schedule (including things like bowl games and March Madness) on the university dime shouldn't be dismissed.

Something else to keep in mind is that while a number of schools make money off their basketball and football programs, a good deal of that money made goes back into the Athletic Department to fund the lesser programs like soccer and lacrosse. Paying student athletes would likely result in a good number of cuts to those programs if not their elimination and creating a small number of big-time programs that could actually pay their student athletes.

One thing that I wouldn't be against is for players to get a cut of merchandising profits from appearal tied to their number or likeness based on the condition that they graduate within a five year window.

Speaking of Sports

Better ink as been spent on the topic of an NCAA football playoff so I'll be brief. It is absolutely stupid that there isn't one. I would love to hear one good reason from somebody other than a university president as to why this system is better. It isn't because the regular season would be less exciting. It isn't because the regular season is the playoffs. The real reason is that the university presidents make lots of money from the bowl games and don't want to share.

Would the NFL be more exciting if the playoffs were eliminated and the league instead had some sort of bowl system set up? Would college basketball be better if we eliminated March Madness? If the regular season is the playoffs in college football, than why isn't Boise State and Ball State in the national title picture?

A true playoff system plus bowl games for those out of the playoffs would make tons of money. The problem is that the powers that be (the big conferences) would be forced to share the profits with the lesser thans. Anybody giving a reason other than that is stupid, full of it or both.

Ohio State Football

I think everybody can pretty much agree that this season has been a bit of a disappointment for the Buckeyes. While the finger pointing has calmed down a bit over the last couple of weeks I thought I would offer my two cents.

Much of the finger pointing seems to go towards the offense with the two main victims being Jim Tressel's play calling and a under performing offensive line. I think some of the criticism of Tressel's play calling is unwarranted and a lot of it has to do with people wanting a bigger show on the field offensively. They aren't going to get it, at least not on a consistent basis and even if Tressel hands over the playing calling duties (which I think he should). I would love to see the Buckeyes use the tight end more, run more crossing routes and do more play action. However, I think if you look back over the losses from the past couple of years you would have a hard time making the case that the play calling was to blame for the loss.

The biggest problem for me is the offensive line. A better performance from the offensive line and there would be a more aggressive approach to the Buckeyes offense. Most of the big plays on offense come from Chris Wells breaking contact at the line of scrimmage and from Terrelle Pryor making things happen on his own. The bottom line is that the offensive line just isn't good enough for the Buckeys to be an elite team.

One other thing that I think gets overlooked when the criticism of the Ohio State offense states flying is the lack of a true playmaker on the perimeter. Not to knock Robiskie and Hartline, but in order for Ohio State to reach that elite status they need a serious upgrade at wide receiver. Neither Robiskie or Harline are the type of wide receivers that you specifically game plan to get the ball in their hands. Until the Buckeye's are able to change that, not even a good offensive line will be able to bring home a NC.