UCLA Football Set to Improve Dramatically in 2011
Phil Steele's (in)famous simulators have UCLA as the 8th most improved offense and the 8th most improved defense in the country (points scored and allowed respectively). Overall, that puts UCLA as the third most improved team in the nation.
11 months ago
captainqtp
39 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
I'll believe it when I see it...
If I recall correctly from previous readings of his magazine, this is basically just a comparison of returning talent year on year.
The logic is, these guys took their lumps one year, have an additional year in the system and are now decently experienced.
What his simulators don’t do is say “you return your starting QB, but he didn’t play a full season last year, and the experience he had may not be fully transferable because he’s had a change at QB coach and offensive coordinator”. Etc.
While in general I love reality-based predictions, in this case I think the underlying connections may not apply so clearly to UCLA. And, as has been pointed out elsewhere, improvement may not help us much if our opponents are better than last year.
They also take into account schedule changes
so when you combine the fact that we are overall more experienced and the fact that we have an easier schedule, you get numbers that are much improved.
how much easier is our schedule?
we skip Oregon which is nice; but Texas and Houston should be improved, $c will probably be improved, Utah should be challenging (Vegas has them favored to win the division)… etc….
I gather Phil Steele has us finishing 3rd in the Pac-12 South. I guess maybe we have different takes on ‘dramatic’ improvement.
Read the article
It is a numbers game. Phil Steele feels that our numbers will be improved over last year more than almost any other program in total, because the schedule is significantly easier, and we have a lot of veteran players.
I read the article that you linked
I don’t see where it says our schedule is significantly easier. It is also unclear from that page whether the improvements in points scored and allowed will translate into wins.
And again, Phil Steele’s experience-based measurement may do a good job on average but may not capture our specifics. I read elsewhere that he projects the UCLA receiving corps #18 in the country; so our passing offense rates to be a massive improvement. But in our case, returning a bunch of starters in the receiving corps who spent most of last year learning how to block in the pistol and occasionally drop passes, and returning two halves of a starting quarterback rather than a full-year-starter from last year, may not translate to a national top-25 passing attack. Improvement for sure – the only way is up – but I think the system does not take into account some unusual circumstances for our team, particularly as it pertains to our QBs and receivers.
by VeniceBruin on Jun 30, 2011 11:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes, I assumed the significantly easier schedule
because the two factors are an overall rankings of the offense and defense and which teams they are playing with that offense and defense.
I have in-depth power ratings which rates each team’s rush offense, pass offense and points scored as well as all three categories for the defense. I have my computer match up each team vs all of their opponents and play the games out during the year.
Easier schedulte
Texas at home on a year they aren’t coming off of a National Championship game appearance, a year we beat them, and a year when they have major turnover coming off of their worst year in recent memory is easier or the same challenge, regardless of their improvement.
Houston away should be a bit of a challenge, but not any more than last year as we should be better and they lost some lineman and receivers.
We don’t play Oregon.
We don’t have to travel to the state of Washington, and we get Wazzou instead of the Huskies.
San Jose State @ home < Kansas State on the road
Colorado @ home in a down year for them, and their first adjusting to the style of play in a new conference (i may be way off, but do they have a new coach?)
u$c has major depth issues at a few key positions and should not, at the least, be any better than the beatable version we saw last year
color me optimistic, but I also don’t see Utah sticking it through an entire year against Pac-12 competition without showing chinks in its armor. We don’t play well in Utah, though. But this is the one lone point that you can point to as an uptick in difficulty. I just think that by the time we play them they will be well scouted out, and not the challenge everyone thinks they will be.
Agreed
Although you could call the $c game being in the ghetto this year as a slight uptick in difficulty, but this is possibly canceled out by our not having to play @ Cal, since we’re apparently biologicaly programmed to lose there.
haha, yeah
we have had an interesting track record at Cal. @$uc could be a tick harder. I still feel that I agree with Steele’s take that this season’s schedule is much easier, and we should be much improved. I hope the guys in the locker room put in the work, because there is so much talent and potential waiting to burst through the mire of mediocrity.
Can we please STOP calling it the ghetto?
That sort of elitist crap is what cements the idea in everyone’s heads in LA that UCLA doesn’t want inner city kids, but U$C understands them and accepts them better. I hate it when people call the area around U$C the ghetto. It’s Los Angeles, and it’s our city and we should represent it better than that.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
If $c was in Malibu
I’d probably still call it the ghetto, but I get what you’re saying. I shouldn’t hold the fact that I’m reasonably concerned for my safety whenever I’m down there against the surrounding areas, when it’s really a certain variety of trogan fan representing the threat.
I’m sure $c coaches spin this angle when recruiting, but do you think this is a pervasive misconception on the part of people not affiliated with either school?
About ten years ago I attended a conference at U$C
and the consensus was the area around U$C is so depressing & dangerous that they should never hold a conference at that campus again.
by KnudsenRockne on Jul 1, 2011 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions
In all instances
at least personally, I only refer to the campus. And I usually call it a cesspool. I call the area South Central. I don’t put any connotation on that, it’s geographically correct. If others do, that’s their problem. I don’t like the term ghetto for the area. We can just call the campus a shit hole and that should be enough.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
I like your terms
I will make an effort to only use your more politically correct terms from now on. =)
vs our schedule from last year
Non-conference:
I expect Texas to be a tougher game than last year; last year was an aberration by their standards, and I would expect them to be much better. We’re playing at home rather than away, which should help, but Texas traditionally travels well. I have this as harder or at best a wash.
Houston away seems like a challenge to me – our general record away from home has been pretty poor (the win against Texas notwithstanding), they are returning their star QB who went down early – followed by his backup – in our game last year.
SJSU definitely much easier game than KSU on the road.
Conference play: we get Utah and Colorado instead of Washington and Oregon. I would call last year’s bad UW on the road (but on a Thursday) vs a reportedly good Utah on the road as a wash. Clearly missing Oregon is a huge boon compared with playing Colorado.
Other home/away changes pretty much cancel out; but which teams do we expect to improve or be worse? Stanford definitely worse without Harbaugh and some key players; but I would be shocked if $c isn’t better at the end of the season this year than they were at the end of the season last year. Not sure what to expect collectively from the other teams, whether they net out positive or negative.
Overall, I think our schedule change is good for about 1 win extra if we don’t improve much.
Why should Texas be better?
They were bad last year, and now they’ll have a whole host of new coaches. By that logic, we should be much better this year too. I am however worried about Houston as you are. With their QB in the game, they would have been much tougher to beat last year. But, as I said in my preview, good things usually happen to us in Texas.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
well, according to this source
a guy named Phil Steele tabs Texas as one of his ‘most improved’ teams here (with huge amounts of detail – he expects them to be improved at pretty much every position, either through greater experience or through infusion of very talented freshmen)
http://www.philsteele.com/Pdf/2011Top30Countdown/18Texas.pdf
I will make this point again
No one is asking anyone to delude themselves into thinking we are going to make BCS runs or win conference championships. But if folks have nothing to offer but attack any shred of positivity with constant negativity, then relax and take a breath.
I take your point
and if that is directed fairly specifically at me, I apologize for a running theme of negativity in recent comments. In this particular case, I am trying to be objective about (a) exactly what it is that Phil Steele is saying and (b) whether his models are applicable to us. I mean it in the spirit of BN’s tradition of actual objective analysis rather than the empty smoke-blowing you see on some other fan-based sites. I admit to being on much shakier ground in other things I have argued that are based more on opinion and less on facts.
Appreciate that
As always when the results come out, we will have the opportunity to take it in – week by week – and then quarter by quarter – to assess we are. I am confident folks on the frontpage and elsewhere will offer their takes based on numbers, facts and context around our program.
QB injuries
Wayne Cook was injured and didn’t play much in 1992…but we did win the Pac-10 with him in 1993. An unknown is not necessarily a negative.
Also, Steele doesn’t predict any injuries, and if that’s the case (knockonwoodrubrabbitfood) I’m fully on board with this kind of improvement.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
I agree in part
when you say
An unknown is not necessarily a negative
I think that is totally accurate. Goes for players, goes for coaches, etc.
However, Phil Steele’s methodology is treating our QB situation – all our starts last year were made by people still on the roster this year – as something that is necessarily positive , which I don’t agree with.
I am not saying “add negative points to his model for our QB situation, it’s bad”, I’m saying “don’t add positive points – our QB situation is unknown”
Well
In theory, even if KP does not play, the QB situation will be better than last year. Even if it is Brehaut who ends up playing, he’ll still have last year under his belt.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
sure
but you can see why this isn’t the same as having a stable QB situation with a more fully experienced returning starter.
But maybe with a more stabel QB situtation
UCLA’s offense would be like the 5th most improved instead of only the 8th most.
by KnudsenRockne on Jul 1, 2011 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions
not in his model; it would be the same
which really is what is telling me that we are unlikely to be the 8th most improved offense.
Can you provide me any details of his model?
I poked around and couldn’t find out exactly how he did his simulations. For all I know he has some factors for how much game time the 1st str QB and 2nd str QB got last season.
by KnudsenRockne on Jul 1, 2011 1:37 PM PDT up reply actions
Does he actually explain his model or is it proprietary?
E.g. like Football Outsiders’ models/calculations.
I have doubts that he’d publish the details of his models – that’d be like Google publishing everything about their search algorithm. And without knowing how he simulates the teams we don’t know -maybe he is considering ‘QB stability’ even if he doesn’t know it.
by KnudsenRockne on Jul 1, 2011 1:46 PM PDT up reply actions
he provides something like an overview of a number of different models that he mashes togethr
but I don’t recall how much detail he goes into beyond that. He also does gather signfiicant amounts of anecdotal detail that goes into his narrative team descriptions, but his discussions of his models gave the impression he is trying to do complicated analysis of blunt data rather than simple analysis of complicated data.
In a vacuum
if you just look at UCLA last year vs. this year, we should be better. I don’t know how we’ll fare against the competition, but our stats, etc., should be better.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
totally agree we should be better
though obviously with question marks – e.g. we figure to be better on the D-line, but lost one of our only defensive gamechangers from the linebacking corps, how do these things interact? or, we figure to get more from our receivers than last year, but how good will the O-line be?
I am in total agreement that we should be better. The question is how much better. 3rd most improved team in the country better? I am skeptical. Improve enough to better meet the eye test, pick up a couple more wins? Highly doable. But I imagine there will be teams improving by 4 or 5 wins next year, and I have a hard time imagining us doing that even with a slightly easier schedule. 8-4 seems like a very tall order (though not ridiculous if we are expecting competing for the Pac-12 title the following year).
The nature and value of (scientific) predictions
Predictions can only be based on available data so, by their nature, they are really just statements of current potentialities (with some probability mixed in, if they’re really good predictions). Predictions also depend on the quality of models, which are limited by the data as well as our understanding of it so, with this in mind, we take predictions for what they’re worth. Based on my (anecdotal) experience with sports predictions they generally have a 50-50 chance of being right ;)
I don’t understand Steele’s model well enough to make any intelligent comments about it – which is why I wrote this post instead – but he seems to feel the same way about UCLA football as I do: we have a lot of room for improvement and the potential for achieving it this season. Anything beyond that is just him trying to sell magazines.
and importantly
models that are ‘on average’ correct cannot necessarily claim to being correct for all individual cases. ‘other factors’ may wash out over a large sample for his model’s abstractions, but those ‘other factors’ are not randomly distributed across teams – anecdotally, we know some things are different.
In his discussion of the validity of his model he picks out two convenient anecdotes; he doesn’t give a list of all last year’s ‘most likely to improve’ teams and how much they improved…
Right! Models are limited by the data and understanding which went into them
But without knowing the details of Steele’s models we might as well be discussing
a dinner eaten by four people we never met in a restaurant we’ve never heard of.
by KnudsenRockne on Jul 1, 2011 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions
Right! Models are limited by the data and understanding which went into them
But without knowing the details of Steele’s models we might as well be discussing
a dinner eaten by four people we never met in a restaurant we’ve never heard of.
Some clarifications
I picked up a copy of the magazine last night (at what seems an expensive $8.95)
A couple of points worth making in support of people were saying (against my views) above:
1) Phil Steele had us with a top-5 difficulty of schedule last year, but only a top-25 difficulty this year, so he certainly does think we have a much easier schedule this year (albeit with an extra Pac-12 road game compared with last year)
2) he has numerous different models he combines into his final predictions, some of which just incorporate his opinions (e.g. he will say “I expect UCLA to get more from their QBs this year” and enter that as an input). So, my claim that he doesn’t take specifics into account is an unfair characterization.
However, on some level this makes his ‘models’ subject to the quality of his subjective predictions and his grasp of detail. In some places in the magazine he explains he expects UCLA to have great special teams next year because of Frank Gansz Jr, in other places he explains that UCLA will struggle on special teams next year because of the loss of Frank Gansz Jr… so, we shall see whether his inputs play out. Let’s hope so!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
Related FanShots on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
