Streak for the Cash

My current record in the streak for the cash is 14-7-1. They are pretty easy, in general. There are often one or two gimmes, like last weeks Oregon vs. UCLA game. So I'm pretty happy with my record.

I'm also getting more interested in this "coaching tree" idea where I simply track the movement of assistant coaches and head coaches from one college or pro team to another. When that happens, there is an information imbalance favoring the team that "acquired" the coach from the enemy. They essentially had a spy, or bought out a traitor, and are now using him for information.

Lastly, thoughts on Pete Carroll hyping and using his freshman QB. Before the season Carroll really hyped him and people thought it would be just another USC dynasty in the making. The reality is that instead of a three year redshirted back-up who is ready to take the reins, Caroll's best QB was a kid right out of highschool.

It speaks a lot about his QB recruiting and the pool of talent they had at the position. And it is a negative for the USC program.

Thoughts on the weekend

First thought is that we decided to make no picks regarding the Pac-10 challenge.

So our record stands at 2-4-0. Essentially, worse that .500

Other thoughts regard the big Pac-10 news, the upset of USC at Washington. All one needs to know is that they were starting a substitute QB and Washington's coach was USC's offensive coordinator. What was it I told myself about this stuff last season? That coaches tend to do above average against their old teams. They know the team, the staff, the playbook, the signals, the audibles, etc. So it shouldn't be a surprise that this happened.

The second is regarding the Jets-Patriots game this weekend. That PATS were three point favorites. In the game preview, I read that a defensive player said that this game was their "superbowl". They had lost seven straight at home to New England. They had a new coach, and had failed to make the playoffs last year.

A true regular season "superbowl game" can't be had by a team with legitimate superbowl aspirations. If they made the playoffs the previous season, or are looking like they will make them this year, then its tough to have a regular season "Super bowl" game.

Anyways, "Superbowl" games, as labeled by the players, usually mean a big performance by the underdog. And of course, it happened again this time. Nice work by the Jets.

Lastly, earlier posts by me predicted that Mike Singletary would lead the 49ers to new heights (relatively). I wrote that his physical style of play would increase the level of play of the 49ers and bump them up to the 6 to 12 win range. It won't get them higher than that, and even 12 is a stretch. What is most likely is 10 wins as the ceiling. The team will struggle against teams with sophisticated attacks and physical defenses. But they will defeat less physical teams and teams with simple schemes.

Why was Ohio State ranked #1?

The college football season is halfway over. Predictions have proven worthless. Upsets have occurred. We are gaining clarity about the relative strength of teams.

And the question is: why are we so bad at pre-season rankings? Why are we so bad at determining the strength of a team without seeing them at least a half dozen teams.

The first reason is the method of rankings. Lose one game and the team drops about eight spots. Lose badly and you drop about double the spots. Its an elaborate dance done by the coaches and voters determined to provide stability and a small measure of job stability.

But why was Ohio State the pre-season #1? They had just been blown out the second consecutive time by a physical SEC team. That has proven definitely that a top-tier Big-Ten team will not have the physicality to compete with a top-tier SEC team.

Nearly all their starters were returning. Which is not necessarily a good thing. A fourth-year junior will not suddenly leap as a fifth-year Senior into a dominant player. They are essentially a known quality by the time they are twenty-two.

So this Ohio State team we saw was a known quantity: well coached, disciplined, veteran, knowledgeable. Not overly physical. So it shouldn't have been a suprise when they lost to USC. USC was fast and slippery on offense, physical and well coached on offense. They only time Ohio State looked good was with Terrelle Pryor in the game because he was fast enough to stretch USC's defense.

And as we saw in the Rose Bowl (Texas) and against the Ducks last season, USC struggles against running quarterbacks. Meaning Pete Carroll struggles against running quarterbacks.

To conclude, Ohio State will get pounded the next time they play a really physical team. And it will happen all season. Might Penn State put a hurtin' on OSU?

Three cognitive biases are seen here:

1) Tendency to assume that players who return will be better than they were last season. They will be more knowledgeable about the schemes but likely won't make a jump in physicality. This helps returning starters for complex offenses (Urban Meyer 2005) or coaches with undisciplined teams with tons of physicality (Mark Richt this season).

2) Ranking system that works incrementally. To use a systems engineering term, college football needs to pump up the gain. Their system simply works to slow. It is accurate but must work faster. This can be exploited in sports betting, when a weak or strong team will take weeks to get the valuation it deserves.

3) Can't remember the third.

Whats the deal with the Trojans?

I watched the Trojans beat down Virginia and Ohio State this season. They look great. A dominant defense, electrifying offense, a smart coach, good QB, etc. They had all the tools and every picked them to cruise to the national championship game.

And what happened? They completely chocked the next game in a classic "trap" game. I read the Pete Carroll even saw the game in Oregon as a trap game months ahead of time and still couldn't prevent it from happening. This has happened each of the last two years, when USC lost to UCLA and Stanford, each time keeping them from the national championship game.

They basically have one game (at least) a season where they just don't show up offensively. They lost 13-9 to UCLA, 28-27 to Stanford (4 picks by Booty), and didn't score in the first half of this recent debacle.

So whats the deal? Why can't they win? I think the reason lies in Pete Carroll. I don't think he has the manic desire to win that is requried to stay at the top of the mountain. I remember reading that the thing he liked about college football was that if he lost, nobody cared. If they didn't win the national championship the attitude was "oh well, maybe next year".

This is related to what I think it takes to win consistently at the very top of the class, to beat all challengers again and again: an unhealthy, irrational, manic desire to win above all else. It is so extreme it is almost a character flaw.

Sam Walton, the founder of Wal-Mart and a multi-billionaire, was so obsessed with his company that even on his deathbed he was busy working on prices and figuring out a way to better his company and make more money.

The book I read applauded him for this. But really, doesn't that seem irrational? To be worrying about the price of deodorant in one's store while family members are crowded around you, seems insane to me. And thats why Pete Carroll likely won't win another national championship, unless he does so by accident. He's not insane. He is human.