Bulls ranked #2 in fewest penalties

[puc86]

Just now, E.T. said:

So do penalties have anything to do with losing? 

No it makes zero difference at all to if you are more likely to win or lose, it is a completely worthless thing to focus on and is only the focus of coaches that have no idea what it takes to actually win

[puc86]

12 minutes ago, Brad said:

I'm all for penalties.  I remember people ******** about our past defenses under Leavitt that through over-aggression would pick up penalties.  We didn't have tackling problems.  However, there are penalties that have a critical impact such as a false start on 4th and goal from the 1.  Hate those.  So, if I had a choice to be winless without 150 yards in penalties or winless with 150 yards in penalties, I'll take the former.  Same for being undefeated.  I thought it was the usual cynical, Leavitt haters that kept pointing out penalties as a reason we could only win 8 or 9 games.  

I might have to read your single source.  As stated above, I am somewhere in between.  There have been games severely impacted by a single penalty.  But season over season analysis, it probably washes out.

I found when I did it 

 

On 10/1/2020 at 9:23 PM, puc86 said:

I just did the rank of teams in penalties last season against wins and just as I suspected the average penalty rank by wins does not show any correlation between not having penalties and winning

Game Won	Average of Rank
0	92.00
1	81.33
2	52.33
3	48.38
4	68.11
5	64.50
6	67.90
7	54.36
8	74.39
9	61.20
10	65.86
11	63.17
12	76.40
13	81.00
14	51.00
15	78.00
Grand Total	65.50

 

And it is the same thing if you do it by number of penalties per games

Games Won	Average of Penalties Per Game
0	6.70
1	6.40
2	5.70
3	5.50
4	6.22
5	6.11
6	6.23
7	5.79
8	6.27
9	5.80
10	6.14
11	5.94
12	6.32
13	6.35
14	5.60
15	6.40
Grand Total	6.07

 

[E.T.]

Penalties are drive killers . . . and it's made us #2 in the country.

In 2007 winning made us #2 in the country.

I sense a correlation  

[BulledOver]

59 minutes ago, Brad said:

I'm all for penalties.  I remember people ******** about our past defenses under Leavitt that through over-aggression would pick up penalties.  We didn't have tackling problems.  However, there are penalties that have a critical impact such as a false start on 4th and goal from the 1.  Hate those.  So, if I had a choice to be winless without 150 yards in penalties or winless with 150 yards in penalties, I'll take the former.  Same for being undefeated.  I thought it was the usual cynical, Leavitt haters that kept pointing out penalties as a reason we could only win 8 or 9 games.  

I might have to read your single source.  As stated above, I am somewhere in between.  There have been games severely impacted by a single penalty.  But season over season analysis, it probably washes out.

Under CJL we did have an aggressive D and yes, it led to more penalties but normally they were from roughing the QB or missed timing. We use to beat the QB's to death made them gun-shy and make mistakes. Fun football.. We haven't had those kinds of players in a while nor, big rushes off the corner. Yes, it's the drive killer penalties that set us back. Will say, we have showed some restraint and discipline lately. Liked seeing the Keg get in there at byu.  

[Triple B]

2 hours ago, E.T. said:

So do penalties have anything to do with losing? 

Penalties have nothing to do with losing or winning until they do ....

[BullyPulpit]

I am with Brad on this. There are certain penalties that are a sign of a lack of discipline and care (false start, offsides, illegal substitution, delay of game) and certain penalties born of aggressive play (pass interference, unnecessary roughness, roughing the passer). I would like to see a deeper dive by a journalist or academic into the type of penalties and whether or not they impact games. Certainly, not all penalties are equal. 

When I highlighted this as a way that CJS has improved, it was to highlight the improvement over CCS. Whether or not that translates to winning, it does at least support the argument of a team that is more disciplined and dialed in. Not having an offside or false start call against BYU the other night is pretty remarkable and speaks to a commitment by the players and coaches to that objective. 

[Triple B]

2 hours ago, puc86 said:

No it makes zero difference at all to if you are more likely to win or lose, it is a completely worthless thing to focus on and is only the focus of coaches that have no idea what it takes to actually win

If you don't think penalties can affect the outcome of individual games, you're being delusional. Coaches talk about penalties because some are a lack of discipline, false starts, offsides, etc, and lack of discipline can bleed over into other parts of play. It's natural to want to cut down on them .........but if CJS has somewhere along the line said that as soon as we start getting less penalties we'll start winning, you're right that the data doesn't support it. So has he actually said that to warrant all this righteous indignation from you?

[DELdaBull]

Penalties is probably the most nuanced part if the sport. It is not how but when. It is not why but where. 

1st and 10 at your own 25? False start? So what. 

4 and Goal from the 1? False start? That's HUGE

Get beat over the top no pass interference = TD.

About to get beat over the top and you lasso the WR = 15 yards and live to fight another day. 

[Bull94]

42 minutes ago, Triple B said:

If you don't think penalties can affect the outcome of individual games, you're being delusional. Coaches talk about penalties because some are a lack of discipline, false starts, offsides, etc, and lack of discipline can bleed over into other parts of play. It's natural to want to cut down on them .........but if CJS has somewhere along the line said that as soon as we start getting less penalties we'll start winning, you're right that the data doesn't support it. So has he actually said that to warrant all this righteous indignation from you?

Pretty simple thinking to take total penalty yards and compare them to record.

there are different types of penalties and different situations that can clearly impact the result of a game.

a holding call negating an 80 yard TD pass would show up as a 10 yard penalty when in reality it is much more damaging to a teams chance of winning.

as others have said aggressive defensive penalties can actually save TDs( 15 yard PI instead of long TD) and are a sign of a good aggressive defense and might actually increase your chances of winning.

pretty lazy just looking at total penalties and comparing them to win-loss record.

[puc86]

1 minute ago, Bull94 said:

Pretty simple thinking to take total penalty yards and compare them to record.

there are different types of penalties and different situations that can clearly impact the result of a game.

a holding call negating an 80 yard TD pass would show up as a 10 yard penalty when in reality it is much more damaging to a teams chance of winning.

as others have said aggressive defensive penalties can actually save TDs( 15 yard PI instead of long TD) and are a sign of a good aggressive defense and might actually increase your chances of winning.

pretty lazy just looking at total penalties and comparing them to win-loss record.

I think everyone has agreed that there are definitely some penalties that a team is better off without, but what is typically presented is that we have less penalties and that equals good. The only reason anyone is talking about the nuances of penalties is because of my take that it’s not a good in and of itself in response to the lazy and factually untrue take that not having penalties is somehow good and leads to winning.