[BostonCard]

What makes this all the more galling is this.

Kyle Wittingham, who is the closest to Shaw when it comes to style of play preferred of all the other Pac-12 coaches, is now running intellectual circles around Shaw with his analytics book, held by someone right by him the whole game. Of ALL the schools playing college football, shouldn't Stanford be leading the field in this department?  Totally ignoring the statistical realities of competition will get you beat by teams that don't.

If Wittingham has a book near him to be consulted for various situations, I'm convinced Utah used data to game plan and call plays against Stanford, and am further convinced one of the reasons they beat Stanford so soundly is precisely because they played the numbers against Stanford.  Shaw, not being willing to change his style, is especially susceptible to opponents using data to prepare for and play against his team.

I don't know when Utah started using advanced analytics, but in terms of impact on its win/loss record, it isn't immediately obvious.  They are 4-2 so far this year, which is an improvement over last year, but they were 9-4 in 2016, 10-3 in 2015, and 9-4 in 2014, so it is not immediately obvious to me that the technological embrace has made a big difference on the bottom line (winning and losing football games).

As for why Utah beat Stanford so soundly a couple weeks ago... a 4-0 difference in turnovers will do that (plus a bonehead running into the kicker on a punt that led to a touchdown).  Otherwise, the two teams were well matched by most metrics (total yards, 432-421, first downs 26-22, etc.). I don't think you needed advanced analytics to know that Stanford likes to throw the "box out" play to its big wide receivers when near the goal line.  Most teams couldn't do much about it, so credit Utah for converting that to two interceptions, one a pick six.

BC

[BostonCard]

What makes this all the more galling is this.

Kyle Wittingham, who is the closest to Shaw when it comes to style of play preferred of all the other Pac-12 coaches, is now running intellectual circles around Shaw with his analytics book, held by someone right by him the whole game. Of ALL the schools playing college football, shouldn't Stanford be leading the field in this department?  Totally ignoring the statistical realities of competition will get you beat by teams that don't.

If Wittingham has a book near him to be consulted for various situations, I'm convinced Utah used data to game plan and call plays against Stanford, and am further convinced one of the reasons they beat Stanford so soundly is precisely because they played the numbers against Stanford.  Shaw, not being willing to change his style, is especially susceptible to opponents using data to prepare for and play against his team.

I don't know when Utah started using advanced analytics, but in terms of impact on its win/loss record, it isn't immediately obvious.  They are 4-2 so far this year, which is an improvement over last year, but they were 9-4 in 2016, 10-3 in 2015, and 9-4 in 2014, so it is not immediately obvious to me that the technological embrace has made a big difference on the bottom line (winning and losing football games).

As for why Utah beat Stanford so soundly a couple weeks ago... a 4-0 difference in turnovers will do that (plus a bonehead running into the kicker on a punt that led to a touchdown).  Otherwise, the two teams were well matched by most metrics (total yards, 432-421, first downs 26-22, etc.). I don't think you needed advanced analytics to know that Stanford likes to throw the "box out" play to its big wide receivers when near the goal line.  Most teams couldn't do much about it, so credit Utah for converting that to two interceptions, one a pick six.

BC