[CTcard]

Ouch.
I am a physicist. Years of training has made that sentence grate on me to an extent you likely cannot understand. 

I have little math on my own and just rely on it based on my medical journalism. So I'll happily admit I've probably been sloppy.

The observable bit is an old physics postulate that things that cannot be observed don't really exist - at least in any way that we can discuss in a scientific manner. On the other hand, a somewhat notable physicist named Albert Einstein (and many others) freaked out over quantum mechanics not because he thought it couldn't predict observables perfectly well, but because it implies something underlying about the universe that, though unobservable, he just couldn't handle [the whole God-dice-universe thing].

I admit it's probably not a relevant issue for the Golson vs Hogan discussion.

What I mean is, it's a bit strange that they have very similar statistics and yet their offenses have such variable outputs. It's not the running game -- N.D. only has 4.18 YPC. So what's the difference? Unsure. Other than the redzone issues. Which might be on... a lot of things, I guess. I'm a bit suspicious of anyone who thinks they've got an easy answer.

The difference isn't in the overall ability of the offenses to move the ball; adjusted for pace of play Stanford is perhaps better at that vs better opponents. The difference is the ability to score. That does seem to be the redzone (and near-redzone) issues, but as you noted that is not very specific and you shouldn't believe any proposed easy answers.

--------
And I should have caught the running TDs bit. Makes sense. I guess the denominator is number of throws plus number of rushing attempts?

[CTcard]

Ouch.
I am a physicist. Years of training has made that sentence grate on me to an extent you likely cannot understand. 

I have little math on my own and just rely on it based on my medical journalism. So I'll happily admit I've probably been sloppy.

The observable bit is an old physics postulate that things that cannot be observed don't really exist - at least in any way that we can discuss in a scientific manner. On the other hand, a somewhat notable physicist named Albert Einstein (and many others) freaked out over quantum mechanics not because he thought it couldn't predict observables perfectly well, but because it implies something underlying about the universe that, though unobservable, he just couldn't handle [the whole God-dice-universe thing].

I admit it's probably not a relevant issue for the Golson vs Hogan discussion.

What I mean is, it's a bit strange that they have very similar statistics and yet their offenses have such variable outputs. It's not the running game -- N.D. only has 4.18 YPC. So what's the difference? Unsure. Other than the redzone issues. Which might be on... a lot of things, I guess. I'm a bit suspicious of anyone who thinks they've got an easy answer.

The difference isn't in the overall ability of the offenses to move the ball; adjusted for pace of play Stanford is perhaps better at that vs better opponents. The difference is the ability to score. That does seem to be the redzone (and near-redzone) issues, but as you noted that is not very specific and you shouldn't believe any proposed easy answers.

--------
And I should have caught the running TDs bit. Makes sense. I guess the denominator is number of throws plus number of rushing attempts?