One of the MSU linemen said that this was the most physical game in which he had ever played.

I think the mystification, and frustration, is born of the fact that this team does seem deeper, stronger, better than any since 2004. What is starting to worry one, however, is this question: do they know how to win? We’re making the mistakes that decide the games. I think the mistakes are strange, weird things that describe bad things going on in everyone’s head. Or they’re the mistakes of an overly familar scheme. The two conditions may be related. Perhaps Greene getting visibly pissed off in the Q4 will be the turning point on this season, and the herky-jerky tentativeness will be replaced by helpful anger, and someone will ask the OC for a play no one has seen before — you know, in the event you need one with a game on the line.

I think trying to play DI football with no effort at innovation, deception and surprise is very strange, but that is old news. I do think you can project the game-planning film study with the opposing defenses though:

"Okay, listen up. We’ve been over this. It’s first down. Iowa ball. What happens?

"That’s right. One of two things. One of ONLY two things. Zone read, probably left, especially now that they have Bulaga and where the fuck did they find that guy? he looks like he’s 30. Or fake Zone read, bootleg, TE drag route.

“What’s the fucking key? That’s right. If that fullback — and they are never throwing to him don’t ask me why — lead blocks, it’s a run: crash, seal, wrap. If he sets up to seal the back side, it’s pass and the weakside LB and corner have a free shot.”

“But, coach, what if they do something else?”

“Hey, smart guy, it’s been 10 years. And they NEVER do anything else, and if they DO do something else, it’s on me not you. Two plays. That’s it. Read your keys. I guarantee that if you do you will blow them up 2 or 3 times this game, and games are won or lost on a handful of plays. And if you arm tackle that guy Greene you may lose an arm, so I wouldn’t.”

It all comes down to ‘execution,’ haven’t you heard?

Schemes don’t matter, coaches don’t matter. It’s only the primal battle between OUR GUYS and THEIR GUYS that matters.

Bellanca, you hit the cow right on the head and killed it. There was only ONE play Saturday that didn’t work that I blamed on ‘execution,’ and that was the FB going the wrong way on 4th and inches.

Just about every other play either worked or went south for another reason that I refuse to call ‘execution’, excepting perhaps the Stanzi interception when about three bad things happened all at once.

HOWEVER, ‘execution’ isn’t going to make up for:

1. Painful predictability

2. Playing the wrong players in the 2nd half of close games

3. Calling the wrong plays at the wrong time

Personally, I have no idea why we cannot seem to run out of the shotgun—only pass from it. I further have no idea why we act so surprised when it seems like the opponent correctly predicts that a shotgun formation=pass play and blows it up.

I have no idea why we are still taking the ball to start games when our ‘D’ is a lot better than our ‘O.’

I have no idea why we pass four times from the 8 yd line when we have 1:30 left plus a timeout.

I have no idea why we keep losing to NW at home and why them playing us seems so much more important than us playing them (see ISU for more)

I have no idea why people have a problem with bringing up KF’s giant salary when we are under-.500 against BCS schools since the start of the 2006 season. Expectations were raised with that salary, and are not being met.

I have no idea why KOK is still the OC when we haven’t had even a 25th percentile offense since 2005.

I have no idea why people keep saying ’As long as we fill Kinnick…" when, in reality, Kinnick basically is NOT being filled anymore. Look around—there are PLENTY of empty seats, plenty of unsold scalper tix to be had.

The list goes on and on and on.

That being said, this team has talent—all it needs is experience, and better coaching.

Hell, I’m tired of typing.

On taking the first kickoff, I disagree. In the NFL, I recently read, the team that scores first wins 65% of the time, or some such figure.

Possessions (i.e., clock) are your scoring constraint in football. So it makes sense to maximize your scoring objective function by maximizing access to the ball.

Therefore I think you’re wrong and Ferentz is right!

I find it odd that Ferentz has abandoned his NFL-esque “take the points, and when in doubt, take the points” philosophy, which was automatic until this year, and he’s started going for it on 4th down in field goal range. This is a radical change, and so far, one that justifies pretty well his prior posture of taking the field goal. I didn’t realize how badly Austin Signor traumatized him.

I was doing the quant thing in regard to taking the ball first, not 4th down decisioning.

In regard to Romer, it’s a dumb paper that proposes ‘on average’ to go for it on 4th and 3 from your own 10. Reason is that it’s a stochastic optimization problem, not a function of average outcomes. In a stochastic optimization problem (i.e., will the wings fall off my airplane, will Lehman Bros. go broke, will my heart stop) it doesn’t matter at all what happens on average. Because if it does happen, you’re fucked — and you care more about you than the fictitious mean. He’s applying pricing optimization logic to a default model-related problem. I don’t know how to stick scientific notation in this box here, so that’s the best I can do.

This is college, not the NFL, so the rules do not always apply. There are MUCH more variations in talent on college squads, which is why a fairly poor team on O like us should not take the opening KO, instead letting our stellar D try and force a punt and establish field position. Field position is MUCH more important in the college game.

Fortunately, our O this year can move the ball, so we aren’t seeing Donohue punting from his own 1 yard line like last year. Still, part of the reason why we seem to start slow in the second half—and maybe why we’re a poorly closing team is this:

WE NEVER GET THE BALL TO START THE SECOND HALF.

I think if we did, we might establish more rhythm, tire their defense, and perhaps close a game or two the way we want.

Lastly, kicking FG’s on college is HIGHLY kicker dependent. We have a frosh kicker whose range KF clearly does not yet trust. Personally, I would have tried to kick on the 4th and 2 and run a QB sneak on the 4th and 1/2, but the way KF did it doesn’t bother me all that much. In the college game, few kickers are automatic over 40 yards.

All told, I don’t buy the whole “what’s good in the NFL is good in college,” since the games are different, talent levels very so much more, and motivation morale and experience are critical.

I didn’t say what is good for the NFL is good for college. I said:

a. you can’t score if you don’t have the ball (usually), and that’s the objective function to optimize. (The way the constraint in baseball is the out, so don’t waste outs?)

Iowa’s predictability on offense would result in a 4-12 team in the NFL. So I didn’t promote that trope either.

Lookit, if you think we’re going to score more by not taking the ball and trying to score, great. If you think we lost to Pitt because we run an NFL offense, great (and don’t watch the Skins). I’m sure you are right.

I will say that Ferentz record in regard to taking the ball in Q1 and kicking the three when in doubt is also good. My personal speculation is that he thinks Mossbrucker can be good — but he has wised up and doesn’t want to put too much pressure on the kid, too soon. Which I think is somewhat brilliant, actually, if my speculation has merit in his mind. If it doesn’t, then we’re just in random what-the-fuck mode, and, yikes, who knows what happens next.

Well, in terms of next, I predict a 13 point win at IU, and we beat Wesconsin by 5 or so. I’m jamming on that look of hate and disgust on Shonn’s face last week. That’s a football look.