Complimentary second half issues

T

TheBeeman

25+ Posts
I just pulled all of our and our opponents scoring by quarter for 2022 and 23.
(Yes, I have too much time.)

In the first half of these games, we have scored 440 points.
In the second half we have scored 340 points.
This is a 23% reduction in scoring - first half vs second half.

In those same games, we have allowed opponents to score 206 points in the first half and then 256 in the second half.
This is an increase of 24%.

I was wanted to make sure it wasn’t just my perception that we are a poor second half team and have been for a while now.

I think this is pretty conclusive, no? Or is there something I’m missing?

And yes, maybe I’m just stating the obvious. Maybe Sark is aware and just can’t fix this issue. It just seems that he is in denial - from his responses in press conferences so I wanted to make sure the numbers backed up my perception.
 
Also, I tried to attach my excel sheet so as to save anybody the time of compiling the data themselves, but this web site tells me excel is not an accepted file type.
If anybody can tell me how to get around this, I will load the sheet up here so people can play with the data.
 
Beeman
thanks. The results are clear surprising and interesting.
Hard to believe every single opponent's coaches made better half time adjustments.
Just as hard to understand did every opponent come out in second half more fired up than Texas?
I am surprised the Texas coaches couldn't come up with something after it happened 2 weeks in a row
For it to happen 3 weeks in a row is mind boggling.
 
It reminds me of the "3rd and long" phenomenon from Sark's first year. Opponents were taught that we were friggin' terrible on 3rd and long, and it paid off because they believed they could convert on plays that otherwise would have been very risky or 1-in-10 kind of odds. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

Same thing when Texas is up in the 2nd half. With the exception of BYU, everyone going back to OU has taken advantage of this. It's almost like they should just "believe" they're down by a lot of points earlier and then play like they can against our secondary.

We've got to flip the script on these situations. That requires a killer instinct and taking more risks with offensive play calls and defensive scheming. We could... you know... throw the ball with a 2-TD lead. Or call a stunt or something. We need a little bit more Sun Tzu in our trickeration. Not like flea flickers or anything... just calling something outside the laminated play sheet.
 
Horn6721 said:
Beeman
thanks. The results are clear surprising and interesting.
Hard to believe every single opponent's coaches made better half time adjustments.
Just as hard to understand did every opponent come out in second half more fired up than Texas?
I am surprised the Texas coaches couldn't come up with something after it happened 2 weeks in a row
For it to happen 3 weeks in a row is mind boggling.
Click to expand...

Sorry. Maybe I was misleading here.
It’s not every single. It’s just “on average.”
If that makes sense.
Occasionally we do score more in the second half than the first! Yay us. Just not most of the time.

Let me figure a way to post the data. That will show it better than I can say it.
 
Horns11 said:
Same thing when Texas is up in the 2nd half. With the exception of BYU, everyone going back to OU has taken advantage of this. It's almost like they should just "believe" they're down by a lot of points earlier and then play like they can against our secondary.
.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It wasn’t until K state was desperate enough to actually throw a pass on first downs that they started to move the ball against us.
We got lucky that they didn’t feel desperate until the second half.
 
TheBeeman said:
Also, I tried to attach my excel sheet so as to save anybody the time of compiling the data themselves, but this web site tells me excel is not an accepted file type.
If anybody can tell me how to get around this, I will load the sheet up here so people can play with the data.
Click to expand...
What I do for my prediction contest stuff is to take a Print Screen and I open up Paint on my computer. Crop out what you want to use and save as a .jpeg file.

Then Upload a File here on the post.
 
Thanks Military. I should have thought of that.

Here is the data. Hopefully it is readable.
Scoring the end of the World.JPG
 
It’s interesting that in the 23 games, we have only lost the first half 3 times. While we have lost the second half 10 times.

And to be clear to all, I am a fan of Sark and PK. I’m not trying to pound on them here. Just trying to put some numbers behind some of our opinions that we turtle-up in the second half to make sure it’s not apocryphal thinking on our parts.
 
Wow, great work Beeman. My question is didn’t we say early in season 4th qtr was ours because of depth? What the heck happened to that is my question. Doesn’t make sense to me.
 
nashhorn said:
Wow, great work Beeman. My question is didn’t we say early in season 4th qtr was ours because of depth? What the heck happened to that is my question. Doesn’t make sense to me.
Click to expand...
Good question. It has worked in all but one game. The question is whether the coaching staff is relying on this when they make calls.
 
Looking only at this year's games (because last season was a different team) I don't see much of a correlation. Since (and including) OU, we have without fail scored less in the second half than the first. This is our scoring by half over the last 5 games.

17/13
21/10
21/14
17/13
26/3

No result save TCU was particularly lopsided. There is a clear trend in place, but if Sark is going for the strategy of bleeding the clock throughout much of the second halves of games it can explain most of those results.

Frankly, I'd rather go for the kill rather than bleed the clock, but I'm not being paid millions to make such decisions.
 
Sangre Naranjada said:
I don't see much of a correlation.
Click to expand...
I think the problem is scoring - as in, we aren't scoring quite enough overall to pull away. Now, I'm not complaining about a 9 win team, but compared to our peers in the top 10 or so - overall, we don't score as much as they do with the exception being Ohio State (if I remember correctly).

Oh, and thanks for the spreadsheet, Beeman. That's an interesting read.
 
Sangre Naranjada said:
Looking only at this year's games (because last season was a different team) I don't see much of a correlation. Since (and including) OU, we have without fail scored less in the second half than the first. This is our scoring by half over the last 5 games.

17/13
21/10
21/14
17/13
26/3

No result save TCU was particularly lopsided. There is a clear trend in place, but if Sark is going for the strategy of bleeding the clock throughout much of the second halves of games it can explain most of those results.

Frankly, I'd rather go for the kill rather than bleed the clock, but I'm not being paid millions to make such decisions.
Click to expand...
another thought is that Sark wants to protect the ball in the second half due to the lead, being more conservative, less passes, less chance of interceptions, hence, less scoring.
 
Pomspoms said:
another thought is that Sark wants to protect the ball in the second half due to the lead, being more conservative, less passes, less chance of interceptions, hence, less scoring.
Click to expand...
Yes. If your team leads by 4 points, has the ball, and there is 2:00 left, then of course you run the clock conservatively, maybe even forfeiting the chance for a passing first down to punt with 20 seconds left. The other team has a “chance” to win, but a poor one. By extension, if you are up by 11 points with 6:00 to go, and can play offense and defense conservatively to burn 4 minutes, maybe give up the slow score, and be in position “A” above, it’s the same decision, to get the same result. Up by 18 with 10:00 to go is also a win—90% of the time.
What is this conservative play? Runs, easier passes, such as screens that keep the clock going but only make first downs with missed tackles, passes that can’t be tipped, so outside the defender’s reach and can only be caught by the WR, taking sacks and punting rather than throwing an uncertain pass, and on defense giving the 8-12 yard completion in a long drive to kill 25 seconds per play. The goal is winning on the scoreboard. All the deep balls and trick plays and QE scrambling around to keep a play alive, and true mystery about whether we pass or run —the things done to get the 18 point lead in the first place, are no longer the best strategy to get the W.
Giving up some, but not all of the lead, is not reflective of the other team being “better” in the 4th quarter. Compare it to a boxer with a three round lead going into the last round; just don’t get knocked out and you win.
 
Some nice thoughtful analysis on this thread but my feeling is if you’re better than the team you’re playing the score (and the ability to score) should reflect it. No way would I believe Sark deliberately’holds’ back in attempting to move the ball enough to prevent scoring. Yes the defense has degradation out 2nd half play vs the first half but the offense has totally disappeared, at least it did vs TCU / completely.
 
The only valid reason to this would be sticking in 2nd stringers for the 4th quarter in large lead games. Obviously, that's not the situation frequently with Sark. I think it's more his strategy is to get a large 1st half lead then play extremely conservatively on offense in the 2nd half. We don't have a killer D so the lead slowly erodes over 2 quarters.
 
guy4321 said:
The only valid reason to this would be sticking in 2nd stringers for the 4th quarter in large lead games. Obviously, that's not the situation frequently with Sark. I think it's more his strategy is to get a large 1st half lead then play extremely conservatively on offense in the 2nd half. We don't have a killer D so the lead slowly erodes over 2 quarters.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I agree with the "we don't have a killer D". In the first half of the TCU game, they were held to six points and that was in the first five minutes of the game. It was a shutout for the rest of the half. That seems "killer" to me. I'm of the opinion that the defense (and offense) are called much more conservatively in the second half. It's hard to blame because the results have been good. But it makes the game hard to watch for a Texas fan. With the pace that some offenses move now, there isn't 25 seconds between every play. Offenses that are behind play even faster. If you're going to play conservative defense, you can't allow the opponent to keep moving the chains. If you're playing conservative offense, it's not enough to go three and out and burn two or three minutes off the clock. You still have to get some first downs. Those are the parts that seem to me to be missing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top