Stats

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Week 11 Duke Preview

I’m showing up flat this week. This might be the worst blog post all year.


Hoping to take the place of the team, so they don’t show up flat.


If we avoid that, I think we win. Duke is better than usual this year, but still not very good.


Additionally, they are a pretty good matchup for us. They don’t run the ball very well, at least not with much power. They have a pretty good passing attack, but our pass defense (usually) is pretty good against the pass.


Their defense is not real good. I would say that means we will score a lot, but I think we have proven by this point that all that matters is how we play. We can score on good defenses if we play well, and we get shut down by most anybody if we play poorly. Are you small, have lots of injuries, and terrible against the run? Who cares? On paper, we should kill you, but we make no sense, so you might really slow us down. Are you giving up 30+ points to everyone you play? Well, keep the faith, you might shut us down.


Meanwhile, 3 of our top 4 scoring performances in conference have come against UNC, Clemson and VT. Generally, 3 pretty good defenses, and 2 of those are top 10 teams.


Like I said, our offense makes no sense. At least, in terms of how we do compared to who we play. Its all about how we play.


With that said, Duke is not a good defense, so if we play well, one would think we would have little trouble scoring 35 or 40.


Here is hoping we are not flat, and we go into the UGA game 8-3.


For some reason, I have a good feeling about us being 8-3 when UGA is 9-2...

Week 10 VT Review

That hurt. Probably one of the tougher losses to take in recent memory.


It was so tough for me because it almost certainly decided the Coastal, and we really had a good chance to win it. I bet you at the end of the season, the record will show that a 6-2 GT team with a win over VT would have been playing in the ACC Championship game.


The most frustrating part is that we had chances, several chances, to establish a pretty good lead and take control of the game.


We just did not execute.


In terms of mistakes, this game was a lot like Clemson last year. We made a bunch, and most of them were not really forced by VT.


The difference in this game and the Clemson game last year is that in this game, when we were not making crucial mistakes, we actually played pretty well most of the time. Against Clemson last year, we generally did not play real well and we also mixed in several catastrophic mistakes.


To be fair, both teams made mistakes (Which happens in every football game.) VT had several stupid penalties and a lost fumble in GT’s red zone. So they made some big mistakes.


But, most of VT’s mistakes did not occur at critical points. They did not, for example, commit a personal foul after sacking our QB on 3rd and 19, giving up an automatic first down when it would have been 4th and more than 20.


I would say that VT simply had a good game, and we just had one of those games where we were not able to focus. But, VT has made a habit of doing this. At some point, you have to stop saying they had a good game, and just say this is what they do. I think its pretty clear that Beamer and the rest of VT’s coaching staff are simply good at getting their players to play smart, efficient football. Their players understand the situation, and they simply do not make many critical mistakes. They might hit a guy a half step out of bounds on 1st down (which they did, giving us a personal foul after a 7 yard run). But they rarely risk that kind of hit on third down. They know what they are doing. They understand the situation, and play accordingly.


We did a few things that were somewhat out of character. For example we missed a ton of tackles because we decided to spend long stretches tackling high and trying to strip the ball rather than wrapping up legs. But, for the most part, I thought we played well enough to win. Limit the mistakes to a more normal amount, and GT probably wins that game and the Coastal.


I do have to give VT credit. They executed very well, and made some really great plays at key moments. In particular, Thomas made some great throws, and their WR’s made some really excellent catches.


Well, no need to dwell on this game too much. I’ll just list the crucial mistakes and let that be that. We are still a very young team and I expect us to be even better next year. We return almost everybody. If we were good enough this year to challenge for the Coastal, I see no reason why we would not challenge for it next year. Hopefully next year, we can make the key plays we need to make.


Anyway, the mistakes:


1) The entire second series. After starting off just about as well as you could ask for, we get the ball back leading 7-0 near the end of the first quarter and just shoot ourselves in the foot repeatedly. (To be fair, VT made a stupid error of their own to give up the TD, jumping offsides on 4th and 5. If they don’t do that, we probably call timeout and take a FG.) Anyway, on this possession, if we can move the ball and eat up some more clock, at the very least we play field position and get closer to taking a lead into halftime. If we score, we can take a 14-0 lead with what probably would have been less than 10 minutes remaining in the half. Instead, what we do is this:


First Down: Tevin misses a read (triple option, blocked well, they have one cornerback to take both Tevin and the pitch man. Tevin, for some reason, pitches immediately, making the cornerback’s decision easy. If Tevin holds the ball and makes the defender make a decision, we probably get 15 or 20 yards on this play. Very strange decision, pitching when the only defender is more than 5 yards away.)


Second Down: Fumbled snap, falls on it for no gain.


Third Down: Orwin drops a very easy catch that would have been a first down.


The significance of that third down drop can’t be understated. We were backed up inside our ten, and the resulting punt from our end zone gave VT the ball at our 35 yard line. If Orwin makes that catch, we have the ball at our 25 or maybe further, and even if we end up punting, VT would at least have to go on a real drive to score. That effectively is a turnover. Orwin makes the catch, GT ball at 25. Orwin drops it, VT ball at 35. Only a 10 yard difference there. Pretty much like throwing an interception downfield.


So essentially, this drive was basically a gift to VT. They did nothing to stop us on any of the 3 plays, and yet we gained 0 yards, at a juncture in the game when we had a real chance to take serious control. Instead, we use up no time really at all, and put our defense in terrible position. VT quickly scores, and we effectively threw away our great start.


(By comparison, in the 3rd quarter when VT faced a 3rd and long from inside its own 10 yard line, their WR, Coale I think?, made a great, acrobatic bobbling catch for a 30 yard gain. That great execution, by both QB and WR, allowed VT to avoid punting from its own end zone. They successfully execute a 30 yard deep pass into good coverage. We fail to execute a 10 yard wide open crossing route. Sigh.)



2) Busted coverage assignment on the ensuing drive. Even after the above mistakes, we could have held VT to a FG. Its 3rd and 7 from GT’s 20 or so, and we have everybody covered well. They have one WR running a deep route. Our cornerback is running with him, and we have one safety playing in the middle of the field. The corner overplays his WR to the inside, even though he has safety help there. As a result, when the WR cuts outside, our corner gets turned around and does not see Thomas release the ball. If he guarded against the outside cut, as he should have since he had safety help to the inside, Thomas probably does not even throw the ball.


3) Busted Coverage assignment on their second TD. Once again, we force 3rd down and long (this time 3rd and 9) and have a chance to force a FG. I am not sure what coverage we called, but we ended up with 3 guys standing right next to each other in the center of the field on the 2 yard line, watching the ball float over their heads to an open WR in the back of the end zone. Pretty sure Groh did not design that coverage to have 3 guys in the same place.


4) On our ensuing drive, we badly mismanaged the clock. I actually put this mistake on Coach Johnson, which I think is pretty rare. Anyway, once we got inside VT’s 40 yard line, there was around 3 minutes left and we had 3 timeouts. In other words, we have plenty of time. We need to be running as much time off the clock as possible.


Instead, we snap the ball with 18, 15, 12, 12 and 12 seconds on the play clock on 5 consecutive plays. That is a total of 69 seconds. After failing to convert 3rd down from VT’s 25 yard line, there was 1:30 on the clock. We run it down as far as we can, to about 1:00, and call timeout to try a FG. Had we been running the play clock down to 5 seconds, the clock would have been around 45 seconds left. At this point, we could have run the clock down to 15 or 10 seconds to try the FG (yes VT could have called timeout to stop it, but they chose not to do so with the clock at 1:30, and let us run it down to 1:00. I don’t see why they would have called timeout with 45 seconds, given that decision)


Note that with 45 seconds left, had we converted the third down, it is our ball inside VT’s 20 yard line with 3 timeouts. That is probably plenty of time to run 6 plays, especially if we make an effort to get out of bounds, and/or pass the ball some. So we can still make the full effort to score a touchdown.


If VT takes over with under 15 seconds left in the half, they almost certainly take a knee, and we would have been playing prevent defense anyway, so a long TD would have been very unlikely. As it was, with 1:00 left, they decided to try to attack, and of course hit the long TD pass. Our defense should have gotten a stop there, but we did not even need to put them in that position. Poor clock management.


5) Busted Coverage on the long TD pass before the half. Once again, our corner does not know where the safety help is. This time, we have 2 deep safeties, playing the outside of both sides of the field. Our corner overplays the WR faking a deep out, and when the WR cuts inside, he is open for a long pass. This was especially frustrating because in this case the DB was behind the WR, so he was looking down field, staring at the safety. The WR was running right at the safety. So I have no idea why the corner was guarding so heavily against the cut outside.


6) Personal Foul by Attaochu on 3rd and 19, as he is sacking Thomas. Looked like he got frustrated, lost his cool, and punched him. Attaochu said he was trying to punch the ball out. I guess that is possible. If he was, he missed by a significant margin. But maybe he was. It was during a tackle, and he was not exactly under control. If he was trying to punch the ball out, the best I can say is that was stupid to try to do in that situation. The ball was tucked away pretty tightly, the QB was almost down, and he was holding the ball so high that any punch attempt at the ball is likely to hit his shoulder or head. However, based on the video, I would say its more likely he was just trying to punch him. Either way, that was a crucial situation, and you simply have to understand how important getting the ball back is there. As soon as you get him wrapped up, you need to calm down, and basically stop everything. He is not going to drag the pile 20 yards. Nobody should be trying to throw him down or do anything that might possibly draw a personal foul. Just hold him in place, stack him up and wait for the refs to blow the play dead. Incredibly stupid play.


7) Two consecutive major execution errors by Tevin on 3rd and short and 4th and short from our own 30 yard line. I know a lot of people disagreed with Coach Johnson’s decision to go for it. Personally, I loved it. If we punt, and our defense can’t get a stop, VT can drive downfield, eat up almost the rest of the game, and score a TD. They do that, and we have maybe 3 or 4 minutes, maybe less, to come back. This way, its their ball at the 30, they can only eat up maybe 5 minutes at most, and worst case we have 6 or 7 minutes to come back. Only being down a point, it will be a 1 score game either way. So, the down side is not very bad, and you have to figure we’ll convert 4th and less than 1 75% of the time or more.


So, the mistake. Both times, we called the QB follow, where Tevin fakes the dive and follows the B-Back. Both times, Tevin panicked and cut in front of the B-Back. Neither time did VT really jump the play. They only had 1 guy there to hit Tevin. If he waits for the B-Back, and follows him, as the play is designed, I think he easily converts the first down either time. I believe that is why Coach called the same play on 4th down. He saw that it was there on 3rd. And it was. Tevin needs to execute the play the way its designed, not panic and rush it. But he rushed it, and he ran right into the only defender that had a chance to stop him. There were other defenders nearby, but they were not in position to stop Tevin from getting a half yard.


8) After we got the ball back down 34-26, Tevin missed a WIDE open Roddy Jones on a deep seam route. I mean he was wide open. We ran 4 guys on deep routes, and they only had 3 defenders. The safety took the other A-Back, and there was not a guy within 15 yards of Roddy. He might have scored an 80 yard TD, but at the least he gets 25-30 yards and then maybe runs for more. Tevin never saw him. What makes it worse is that, given how VT lined up, Tevin should have figured the corners would take the WR’s, so he should have simply watched the safety, and thrown to the other A-Back. It was fairly apparent that VT was not going to have all 4 covered, based on their pre snap alignment.




Now, I should add, both teams made a bunch more mistakes than this. That is normal. Every game you expect to make 15-20 mistakes at least. That is just football.


I would categorize these mistakes as more egregious, due to their nature, the situation, or both. You simply have to be able to focus in a big game, know the situation, and not blow these plays. VT did it. We did not.


I would say 2 or 3 mistakes of this magnitude are normal for a game. You can’t make 8 and expect to win.



We just have to execute better. I hope its youth. We are a young team, and usually experienced teams execute better than young teams.


Hope we learned from this.


Go Jackets!

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Week 10 Preview - VT (Part 2)

And, finally, it is almost time for the unofficial Coastal division Championship.


Every single year that the Coastal division has existed, the winner of the GT-VT has represented the Coastal in the ACC Championship Game.


In fact, most years, the loser of the this game would have won the Coastal had they won the game.


So really, it basically is the Coastal division Champ game.


And don’t look now, but it will probably decide the Coastal again this year.


If VT wins and beats UVA later in the year, they win the Coastal.


If GT wins, beats Duke, and UVA loses once more, GT wins the Coastal.


Technically, UVA still controls its own destiny, but they have to play at FSU and VT still, and I do not think they will win out.



So, in my opinion, this is it, although there will be a few loose ends to tie up after this game.



Both teams are coming off a bye. If you buy into conventional wisdom, you might think that would be disastrous for GT. Teams with a bye week always beat us right?


Well, see my post below. Or don’t, and just take my word for it. The bye week is not that big of a deal.


Virginia Tech may well beat us, but it will be because they are a good team, not because they are off a bye week. (They were off a bye week last year, and we came out blazing, scoring 14 1st quarter points and getting to their 5 yard line in the 2nd quarter before Nesbitt threw a pick and then got injured...)



They are making a number of changes to their defense, many of which have been necessitated by injury.


I have not followed VT and their personnel as well I should have. So I do not know all of the names. But they have injuries to several defensive linemen and linebackers. (where have we heard this before? Hmm... NC State.. Miami... forgive me for not getting real excited).


A couple of things make these injuries not a huge deal. First, the replacements are guys with some experience at those positions (at least if “MaroonBird” from the scout boards is to be trusted... that poster has a detailed description over on the Hive message board, detailing who is moving where and how much they have played there).


Second, Bud Foster is a very good coach, and he consistently gets their defense to perform well regardless of who is playing where, or who they lost from last year, etc.


Third, most of the changes are designed to get more speed on the field. I think Bud Foster is a great defensive coordinator, and I expect he has picked up on the fact that undersized but quick defenses can give us problems. Wake Forest in both 2009 and 2010, NC State in 2010, Maryland and Miami in 2011, etc. These defenses were all relatively small but fast, and in some cases (Miami) they had injuries and replaced some guys with smaller faster players. For example they moved Sean Spence, their extremely fast linebacker who may play safety in the NFL, over to middle linebacker, which typically is played by a bigger, slower player.


The reason undersized speed guys are better suited to defend us is simple. We are not terribly big, and we don’t overpower teams. So, big strong guys are not necessary against us. What you need are guys that avoid cut blocks, and pursue the ball quickly.


Of course, if you have fast guys, it won’t hurt if they are also big and strong. See: Iowa, LSU, some of the Clemson and Miami teams we have faced, etc.


But, the point is you don’t need big and strong. That is why Wake in 2010 had so much success against us even though they could not stop anybody else (yes we eventually won but our offense struggled mightily for 3 quarters).


So, VT will be undersized Thursday night, but I expect a very good effort from them defensively.



If they play us how Bud Foster typically plays us, they will allow us to get some yards, but they do a good job limiting the points.


Here is a look at the past 3 years, their defense against our offense.



Year

GT Average Yards Per Game

GT Yards Against VT

GT Average Points Per Game

GT Points Against VT

2008

372.5

387

24.4

17

2009

422.1

360

33.8

28

2010

407.2

426

26.0

21





So you can see, for the most part, we get our yards against VT but they hold us below our season average.


On the whole though, the game is always very close.


I expect it to be no different this year.


It will be close. Both teams are good teams. Both have had bye weeks to get focused and motivated. Nobody will be tired or flat. Both teams should give a good effort.


I think we win for 2 main reasons. 1 - we are at home. 2 - we are a more complete team.


#2 is only true if we are playing well on special teams and not shooting ourselves in the foot.


That is basically what VT does. They area always good on defense. They play well on special teams, they make few mistakes, and they do enough on offense to get the job done.


This year, actually, VT has not been so good on special teams. But that is generally their M.O.


The main reason I call us a more complete team is that we have a good offense. VT has a collection of some pretty good players on offense, but it is not a good offense. Their coaching and scheme leaves a little to be desired.


Last year, GT had a worse defense and VT had a better offense than this year, and still Groh managed to engineer a gameplan to largely shut down Stinespring (VT’s offensive coordinator).


Logan Thomas and David Wilson are good players. Especially David Wilson. He may be the best individual player we play against all year. (for those that do not know, he is VT’s running back, and the player who took the kick back last year to win the game).


He is an all around good running back, but has tremendous speed. I mean tremendous. He is just an athletic freak.


And VT likes to use him between the tackles in what is a decent power running game. Power run defense is our weakness, so I expect him to do some damage. VT hurt us in that area last year, and I expect the same this year. However, I don’t expect much more than 21 or 24 points.


So, that will be the challenge. Can we score 28 or so on offense, and then not give the game away elsewhere?


In 2008, despite a bad offensive performance for much of the day, we were about to get the ball back with 5 minutes left in a tie game, but an untimely personal foul gave VT’s offense new life. We cannot afford mistakes like that Thursday.


In 2010, we had a chance to win at the end, but we allowed a VT kickoff return TD with 2 minutes left to put them ahead 28-21. We cannot afford mistakes like that Thursday.



VT may have a slight talent edge, but only slight, if at all.


We have a clear edge in offensive coaching in my opinion, and we can match their defensive coaching (both are very good). If we can hold our own in special teams and overall mistakes like turnovers and penalties, then I like our chances.


I think we do. I think we play well, and get the win by a touchdown. GT 28, VT 21. Perfectly symmetrical revenge from last year.


Let’s Go Jackets.

Week 10 Preview - Virginia Tech (Part 1 - the Effect of "Extra Time")


As you have probably heard (if you follow college football even passively) it is a big advantage to have extra time to prepare for GT’s offense.


What we do is pretty unique, but if a team has more than the standard 1 week to get ready, we tend to struggle.


In fact, many fans go so far as to say that is all a team needs to beat us.



So, how much truth is there to this claim.


Well, here is a look at Coach Johnson’s record at GT




Overall

Opponent has 1 week

Opponent has Extra Time

BCS Conference Opponent has Extra Time (Reg. Season only)

W/L Record

33-16

22-5

11-11

7-8

Win Percentage

67.35%

81.48%

50%

46.66%





So, that settles it right?


When the opponent only has 1 week, we play much better. We win 81% of the time. When the opponent has more than one week to prepare, we win only 50% of the time.


Hmm... Well, maybe, maybe not.


Could it be just a coincidence? Is it possible that the games where opponents have extra time just so happen to have fallen against the better teams on our schedule?


I guess its possible.


So I decided to take a look. I compared the results of the games where opponents had extra time with the expected result of that game, according to Sagarin’s end of year ratings. For 2011 games, I used the most current Sagarin ratings.


Basically, I figure as follows. Sagarin’s poll simply compares all games played by all teams, based upon who won, who lost, and the margin. Your ranking is the summation of what you have done, weighted against how good your opponents are, as calculated by what they have done against their opponents, based upon how good they are, etc.


Sagarin does not factor in anything else. There is no adjustment to his poll for having extra prep time, or any other factor besides who you played and what the score was.


So, for example, our 2008 game against UNC was a bad loss by this metric. According to Sagarin’s poll, we should have lost by only 8, but instead we lost by 21. UNC had a bye week before this game, so this supports the argument that extra time allows the defense to “solve” our offense.


However, UGA in 2010 had also had a bye week. According to Sagarin, they were supposed to win by 12. They only won by 8. We still lost, but this was a better loss. Even though UGA had a bye week, we performed better than the computer expected us to perform, based upon our results for the rest of the season. That cuts against this extra prep time argument.


The 2008 UGA game is even worse. They had a bye week there, and according to Sagarin they also should have won by 12 (just like 2010... strange) but instead, they lost by 3. That really cuts against this extra time argument.


So, here is a look at all the data for all 22 games where an opponent had any kind of extra time (in this, I am including the first game of the season, as well potential “extra time” where a team plays an “Easy” game the week before us, and might use extra practice time that week to prepare for GT):




Expected GT Won/Loss According to Sagarin

Actual Won/Loss

GT Record in Games Where Losing Team Was the Team That Sagarin Expected to Win

10 Wins, 12 Losses

11 Wins, 11 Losses

4 Wins, 3 Losses






Well, now we see something interesting.


According to Sagarin, we were supposed to be 10-12 in these games. So, maybe it is true that, just by chance, the tougher teams on our schedule have been the ones getting extra time.


We have actually performed slightly better in those games than we should have.


Here is a look at just the games against BCS conference opponents, where the “Extra Time” is literally extra time. I’ll use regular season only for this table, so we are looking at games where opponents have 9, 10, or 14 days instead of the usual 7 (the 30+ days for a bowl game would make this a little misleading I think, I have given the bowl games their own chart at the end).




Expected GT Won/Loss According to Sagarin (Regular Season, BCS conference opponents Only)

Actual Won/Loss

GT Record in Games Where Losing Team Was Team Sagarin Expected to Win

5 Wins, 10 Losses

7 Wins, 8 Losses

4 Wins, 2 Losses





So, does the opponent having extra time actually help us??


Kidding. I don’t think that is possible. More likely, the fact that we have done slightly better in those games than we should have is a matter of mere chance. The difference is only 1 or 2 games.


And in fact, I suspect the extra time does give the opponent an edge. But I think its only a slight edge. Our offense is unique, and so having a little extra time logically should help. But I don’t think it helps very much.


In short, I think this is just another myth trumped up by Paul Johnson’s many detractors. They want to find something to use against this offense, because they don’t like it. This makes logical sense, and in fact our record is actually much worse (see the first table above). If you don’t bother to look any deeper, this seems to be true.


I think another big part of this myth is the effect of perception. A lot of things in college football are easy to perceive the way you want to.


A great example is the NC State game in 2010. At the time we were favored by 9 points. Then we lost the game by 17. Many ACC fans used that game as further proof to argue the effects of “extra time”. NC State played on Thursday the week before, so they had two extra days. This must have been why they managed to beat us by 17 when we were supposed to win by 9.


Of course, Sagarin’s poll at the end of the season, based upon how the two teams played the rest of the year, concluded that NC State should have beaten us by 13 points on the road (and 19 had the game been in Raleigh). They were actually the better team. Its just that, 3 games into the season, nobody knew that. And, most people did not take the time to go back and look either.



Here is a look at the average Sagarin rank of teams we have played, beaten, and lost to, in various circumstances during Coach Johnson’s tenure:







GT Wins

GT Losses

Average Sagarin Rank - No Extra Time

61.01 (21 Wins)

37.2 (5 losses)

Average Sagarin Rank - Opponent off a Bye week

59.2 (5 wins)

28.5 (6 losses - only 1 team ranked worse than 34th)




So you can see, our record is actually fairly similar in terms of how good the teams are that we beat, on average, and how good the teams are that beat us, on average. Apparently, a higher percentage of the teams that get extra time before us just so happen to be good teams. Strange.


Additionally, 9 of the 11 losses we have suffered against teams that had extra time to prepare have come with a team off a bye week or in a bowl game.


Here is a look at those games:



Average Sagarin Rank of GT Opponents that Have a Bye Week Before GT, or play us in a Bowl Game

Average Sagarin Rank of All GT Opponents that play GT with no Extra Time

39.14 ( GT 5 wins, 9 losses)

56.46 ( GT 21 wins, 5 losses)






In summary, I would say that extra prep time probably helps our opponents, but the effect does not appear to be terribly significant. In fact, over a sample size of 22 games, the effect appears to be helping GT. That does not make any sense, but if the effect is small enough that after 22 such games, fluctuations due to random chance can make it appear to be working in the other direction, then I don’t think its something we should worry about too much.


The one exception to this may be the bowl games. Which does make logical sense. “Extra time” during the season just allows a few extra hours of repetitions. In season, teams still spend time practicing their base formations, and doing what they normally do. However, for a bowl game, you have 5 weeks to play 1 game, and then you get spring practice and preseason practice to prep for next year. So, in preparing for a bowl game, there is no reason for a team to waste any time practicing their base defense. Plus, 5 weeks is much more “extra time” than they would get for any other game.


So, Bowl Games could well be a unique case. And we certainly have not played well in bowl games. (understatement) Then again, a sample size of 3 does not prove a whole lot. And there are other factors that could explain our flops. We did not matchup well with LSU or Iowa (both had tremendous D-Lines while we had average at best O-Lines), plus there was reason to think we might have been a little flat against LSU. Everybody thought we would win easily. We had just beaten UGA, who beat LSU that year pretty easily, in Baton Rouge. And finally, we lost the Air Force game largely due to a bunch of special teams fumbles. I don’t know how “Extra time” could have affected that.


I would say this extra time phenomenon is largely a myth during the season, but may be a serious factor for the Bowl Game. Hard to say with any certainty concerning the bowl games with only 3 data points, but we have 19 regular season games to evaluate, and there not much support that extra time has a significant effect.



Below are charts showing all of the raw data, for every conceivable “extra time” scenario - 1) season opening game 2) opponent played a very weak team the week before 3) opponent had a bye the week before 4) opponent played a mid week game the week before 5) and the bowl game.


The charts show what result the end of season Sagarin ratings would expect in the game, what the actual result was, and the difference.


You can see some games make it look like extra time helps, some make it appear it hurts, but overall, there is not much of an effect.





GT Opponent

Extra Time (Season Opener)

What Result “Should Have” Been According to End of Year Sagarin

Actual Result with Extra Preparation Time

Difference

2008 Jax St.

Season Opener

GT by 24

GT by 27

GT +3

2009 Jax. St

Season Opener

GT by 25

GT by 20

GT -5

2010 SC State

Season Opener

GT by 21

GT by 31

GT +10

2011 Western Carolina

Season Opener

GT by 39

GT by 42

GT +3





Total = GT +11








GT Opponent

Extra Time (Bowl Game)

What Result “Should Have” Been According to End of Year Sagarin

Actual Result with Extra Preparation Time

Difference

2008 LSU

Bowl Game

LSU by 8

LSU by 35

GT -27

2009 Iowa

Bowl Game

GT by 1

Iowa by 10

GT -11

2010 Air Force

Bowl Game

Air Force by 7

Air Force by 7

0





Total = GT -38







GT Opponent

Extra Time (Easy game the week before)

What Result “Should Have” Been According to End of Year Sagarin

Actual Result with Extra Preparation Time

Difference

2008 Boston College

Kent. St.

BC by 7

GT by 3

GT +10

2008 VT

Furman

VT by 10

VT by 3

GT +7

2010 Kansas

N. Dakota St (although Kansas lost this game...)

GT by 12

Kansas by 3

GT -15

2011 Maryland

Towson

GT by 14

GT by 5

GT -9





Total = GT -7







GT Opponent

Extra Time (Mid Week Game week before)

What Result “Should Have” Been According to End of Year Sagarin

Actual Result with Extra Preparation Time

Difference

2008 Clemson

Wake Forest on a Thursday

Clemson by 9

GT by 4

GT +13

2009 Miami

FSU on Labor Day before GT on Thurs

Miami by 1

Miami by 16

GT -15

2010 NC State

Cincinnati the Thursday before

NC St. by 13

NC State by 17

GT -4

2010 MTSU

Troy the Tuesday before

GT by 19

GT by 28

GT +9

2011 NC State

Cincinnati the Thursday before

GT by 5

GT by 10

GT +5





Total = GT +8







GT Opponent

Extra Time (Full Bye Week)

What Result “Should Have” Been According to End of Year Sagarin

Actual Result with Extra Preparation Time

Difference

2008 UNC

Bye Week

UNC by 8

UNC by 21

GT -13

2008 UGA

Bye Week

UGA by 12

GT by 3

GT +15

2010 UNC

Bye Week

UNC by 10

GT by 6

GT +16

2010 VT

Bye Week (but game was on a Thursday, so not a full 2 weeks)

VT by 19

VT by 7

GT +12

2010 UGA

Bye Week

UGA by 12

UGA by 8

GT +4

2011 UVA

Bye Week

GT by 2

UVA by 3

GT -5





Total = GT +29