The Official Bell Helicopter Armed Forces Bowl Thread

[Moliere]

[pelagius]

Obviously, Riley struggled. This is still a pretty good win. Tulsa based on a MOV computer model is a top 35 team (excluding the BYU game ... note Utah excluding BYU data is not a top 40 team ... they are barely top 60). So it is a top tercile win. So the team under Riley lost to the top 20 team they faced (TCU is 18th in a MOV model that removes BYU data from the modeling), and beat the top 40 team they faced. That's basically what we expect for good but not great BYU teams and not a low probability outcome for the great BYU teams. This is not to say this BYU team is great. It's not; but I think people are way too quick to discount Tulsa as a quality opponent.

Note, historically (during and after the Edwards era) BYU has only beat MOV based top 20 teams about 25% of the time.

[Viking]

Obviously, Riley struggled. This is still a pretty good win. Tulsa based on a MOV computer model is a top 35 team (excluding the BYU game ... note Utah excluding BYU data is not a top 40 team ... they are barely top 60). So it is a top tercile win. So the team under Riley lost to the top 20 team they faced (TCU is 18th in a MOV model that removes BYU data from the modeling), and beat the top 40 team they faced. That's basically what we expect for good but not great BYU teams and not a low probability outcome for the great BYU teams. This is not to say this BYU team is great. It's not; but I think people are way too quick to discount Tulsa as a quality opponent.

Tulsa had good speed and reasonable talent. They were better than I had expected.

[Scorcho]

Obviously, Riley struggled. This is still a pretty good win. Tulsa based on a MOV computer model is a top 35 team (excluding the BYU game ... note Utah excluding BYU data is not a top 40 team ... they are barely top 60). So it is a top tercile win. So the team under Riley lost to the top 20 team they faced (TCY is 18th in a MOV model that removes BYU data from the modeling), and beat the top 40 team they faced. That's basically what we expect for good but not great BYU teams and not a low probability outcome for the great BYU teams. This is not to say this BYU team is great. It's not; but I think people are way too quick to discount Tulsa as a quality opponent.

What is Utah, if you exlude USC, Washington, ASU, Colorado and Cal data?

[Surfah]

Obviously, Riley struggled. This is still a pretty good win. Tulsa based on a MOV computer model is a top 35 team (excluding the BYU game ... note Utah excluding BYU data is not a top 40 team ... they are barely top 60). So it is a top tercile win. So the team under Riley lost to the top 20 team they faced (TCU is 18th in a MOV model that removes BYU data from the modeling), and beat the top 40 team they faced. That's basically what we expect for good but not great BYU teams and not a low probability outcome for the great BYU teams. This is not to say this BYU team is great. It's not; but I think people are way too quick to discount Tulsa as a quality opponent.

I am reticent to call Tulsa good because Tulsa was like BYU. They lost to every decent team they faced and beat the crap out of lots of bad teams. The bowl game was a coinflip.

[pelagius]

What is Utah, if you exlude USC, Washington, ASU, Colorado and Cal data?

I don't think you understand the empirical exercise. All I want to do is judge different BYU opponents based on all data except the game they played against BYU. Including the BYU scores induces a bias in the comparison. That Utah destroyed BYU is relevant and important for ranking Utah in general, but it is problematic in a comparison like this. I'm not excluding certain data because I don't like it.

[Coach McGuirk]

I am reticent to call Tulsa good because Tulsa was like BYU. They lost to every decent team they faced and beat the crap out of lots of bad teams. The bowl game was a coinflip.

I was about to post the same thing, I think the best team they beat was SMU.

[pelagius]

I am reticent to call Tulsa good because Tulsa was like BYU. They lost to every decent team they faced and beat the crap out of lots of bad teams. The bowl game was a coinflip.

You can, of course, make these kinds of arguments. And there may be something to it. On the other hand, a profile like that is pretty consistent with Tulsa being a top 40 team and not a top 20 team (which is what the computer model implies).

[Pheidippides]

I'm just watching the game right now, halfway through the third. I know the outcome (thanks, Deadspin ). Through 2.5 quarters, here are my thoughts:

1. Eason and Uale are the worst CB/Safety tandem we've had that I can remember. Good riddance.

2. J.J. DiLuigi has a great name and no ability to get north-south. We missed Alisa in this one.

3. Through 2.5 quarters, Riley has been Riley. Threw the one interception (horrid throw), should have been another but for the offsides penalty (right guy, overthrown), and two more were damn close. On the bright side, he overthrew a few people deep (!) and completed a screen pass (!). Edit: Just saw the second pick. What the hell, Riley? On the flip side, you're not going to get the first half TD unless Riley is Riley either.

4. But the offensive woes are not all Riley's fault by any stretch. A few bad plays (reverse to Apo jumps to mind).

5. Defense is awesome, outside of Uale and Eason.

6. Tulsa's D-line is really disciplined at staying in lanes to control Riley.

You guys bagging on Riley for his prowess against sucky teams and struggles against good teams are hilarious. Go look at who Heaps' wins last year. Go look at every game we've played in the last seven years, for that matter. I think the better statement is that we win against sucky teams and struggle/lose against good teams. That statement in and of itself is almost a truism. Riley's who we've got and I don't think our wins and losses are going to change that much - just the crazy things that happen along the way.*

*Riley does need to learn how to (a) take a sack and (b) throw the ball away, however. When he learns these things I'll be much more comfortable. I wonder if a QB coach would be able to teach these things....

[MarkGrace]

I am reticent to call Tulsa good because Tulsa was like BYU. They lost to every decent team they faced and beat the crap out of lots of bad teams. The bowl game was a coinflip.

I think Tulsa was a fairly quality opponent, and, as expected, Nelson was the shits against them. This game felt like an early season game won on defense and field position.

Riley against all the shitty teams we faced = good
Riley against anything other than shitty = shitty

Looks about like Heaps to me, all things considered. Maybe there's an argument to the degree of shitty and good relative to the competition, but nothing of consequence. But again, I still think we had somewhere to go with Heaps and no more considerable downside to playing him.

[Viking]

I think Tulsa was a fairly quality opponent, and, as expected, Nelson was the shits against them. This game felt like an early season game won on defense and field position.

Riley against all the shitty teams we faced = good
Riley against anything other than shitty = shitty

Looks about like Heaps to me, all things considered. Maybe there's an argument to the degree of shitty and good relative to the competition, but nothing of consequence. But again, I still think we had somewhere to go with Heaps and no more considerable downside to playing him.

Tulsa was not a shitty opponent. You need a third option

[MarkGrace]

Tulsa was not a shitty opponent. You need a third option

Agreed. I said at the beginning of that comment that they were a quality opponent. And Riley was terrible against them. That left me with the two options.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Let me see if I have this right. So you're telling me that BYU plays better against poor teams and worse against good teams?

It is just this kind of incredible insight that makes CUF such a valuable message board.

[Surfah]

I think Tulsa was a fairly quality opponent, and, as expected, Nelson was the shits against them. This game felt like an early season game won on defense and field position.

Riley against all the shitty teams we faced = good
Riley against anything other than shitty = shitty

Looks about like Heaps to me, all things considered. Maybe there's an argument to the degree of shitty and good relative to the competition, but nothing of consequence. But again, I still think we had somewhere to go with Heaps and no more considerable downside to playing him.

Which is why like Woot said, I believe are coaching staff has made personnel and development errors. We have Riley and no capable backup on the roster currently. Going into 2013 we have little depth at QB and nobody who has thrown a pass in a college game.

[Pheidippides]

Let me see if I have this right. So you're telling me that BYU plays better against poor teams and worse against good teams?

It is just this kind of incredible insight that makes CUF such a valuable message board.

Bingo.