Stats from Opening Weeked (CFB rule changes)

[Austiger]

"The missing plays were back. So was a good chunk of the missing yardage and scoring. Major-college games produced an average of 55 more yards and three more points than last season's openers."

USA Today Article

[MyTurn2Raise]

argh.....still significantly less than the 51.1 put up in 2005

No wonder I was crucified betting overs this week...scoring was 1.8 pts below what I thought

I told Thremp and maybe some others that I was projecting at least a 4.8 increase....BAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[dankhank]

decent article

my working thesis last season was that the increased athleticism overall meant that scoring would gradually decrease, due to defenses becoming the dominant, controlling element on the field.

even if that thesis is true, maybe this year's rule changes make the whole thing a wash, and totals will retreat to pre-2006 scoring.

a new possible thesis is that an increased number of plays especially benefits the elite teams (or just teams much better than their opponent), since they get more bang for their offensive buck overall. this might be offset by the weaker team getting more-better kickoff returns, however the article indicates, that maybe the rule changes to kickoffs won't have a tremendous impact on field position.

we'll see. i don't know what the overs vs unders record was in 2006, or in week one. so basically i am clueless. i would love to be a fly on the wall while the mathematicians for billy walter's group or some other million dollar betting operation are working overtime this month.

[MyTurn2Raise]

new kickoff rules will benefit the stronger teams much more often in general

[Nate_Dogg]

[ QUOTE ]
new kickoff rules will benefit the stronger teams much more often in general

[/ QUOTE ]

What is your reasoning here? (I'm not disagreeing, just curious)

[MyTurn2Raise]

stronger teams typically have

-more depth in talent level
---typically, they can use their non-starters and still have speed and size, while weaker teams usually struggle and are left with the dilemma of using starters on special teams and risking injuries/fatigue v using less skilled bench players

-highlight reel gamebreaking return men
--stronger teams are more likely to have the McFaddens, Jacksons, Harvins, Ginns of the world

-better kickers
--stronger teams usually have the kicker with the better leg


all-in-all, the rule is a boon for the stronger programs across the country

[iggymcfly]

While that may be true in terms of winning the game, it's the opposite in terms of covering the spread as the stronger teams score more often and therefore kickoff more and will be less able to take advantage of the good field position.

[NajdorfDefense]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
new kickoff rules will benefit the stronger teams much more often in general

[/ QUOTE ]

What is your reasoning here? (I'm not disagreeing, just curious)

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this blanket statement. You can only take it on a case-by-case basis. It benefits the team with better KO coverage and KO returners more. Anything else is purest speculation.

[GoldenBears]

Not really... in GENERAL, traditionally strong teams like USC, Florida, LSU etc. who stockpile talent will have much better kick coverage teams than teams like Boise State, WVU, Hawaii etc. - which are very good teams, but built around great coaching, offensive systems and a few extremely good players rather than an abundance of talent down the depth chart.

Exciting return men are pretty evenly distrubuted, as size is not as important as it is for a RB or WR position, so you find a lot of undersized good return men at schools of all calibers.

Also, I think that generally better schools probably have better kickers, it's very, very close to level. Often times you can find the BEST kickers at the WORST schools. (Mason Crosby, Daniel Sepulveda, etc.)

[MyTurn2Raise]

sidebar

ummmm....Mason Crosby signed onto Colorado in the midst of the program being good

2001 BigXII Champions
2002 BigXII North Champs
2004 BigXII North Champs
2005 BigXII North Champs

While not national title contender, definitely a solid program when he signed and for the few years he was there
and not too far removed from being a national power in the early to mid 90s