Brian Kelly Revisited (RIP BOZO)

[tussin]

I think what Lax and others are saying is that Vegas used to operate to a 50/50 public split so regardless they made guaranteed money on commissions and occasionally outsized returns on unanticipated results. Now, it seems that they are using more advanced analysis to truly predict outcomes and set more profitable lines.

 

[Te'o4Heisman]

I thank you guys for answering - but I need to go back to class because I still don't understand how the money gets moved on betting. And I'm still unsure what happens when it's -11 and the score lands right on that. I assumed that's when the casino wins BOTH over/under side's money, but apparently it's a tie for all (casino included).

But I'll start a new thread about betting. Don't want to derail this one.

Now, as we were, FIRE LONGO!

Read my post above, I spelled it out for you.

 

[koonja]

Koon to better explain how the 50/50 line setting was intended to work...Vegas would set a line in an an attempt to get 50/50 action on each side. Their intent was not that the game would fall exactly on the spread though and they would win both sides...in that case the bet would be a push.

Betting lines would require a "vig", "commission" or "juice", normally at -110 or some instances -120.
At -110, if you bet $100 and you won, you would win $100. If you lost, you would lose $110.
At -120, if you lost you would lose $120.

The idea being that the winners and losers would cancel each other out and the casino would make their money on that extra 10 or 20% the losing bets paid.

Thanks! Would rep if I could. This makes sense.

 

[IrishLax]

But I know that your argument is that Notre Dame has exceed Vegas's expectations for o/u win total so basically everything I've said does still apply. You are using Vegas measurements to determine whether or not we've performed at a historic level. That's bogus. In your article you write:

What are you talking about here? Considering the opponents, which teams did you think we should have lost to outside of Clemson. Your argument is that we should be performing worse than we actually have. That is my issue with your argument. It's absolutely disingenuous to argue that you would expect a 5-2 record at this juncture against this schedule. As I said earlier, 6-1 is absolutely in the range of acceptable records. This is Notre Dame. We aren't Indiana University. We should never expect to lose to Navy or UMass or Virginia.

I think a big problem in our miscommunication is that there are two separate trains of thought:
1) The "historically" good part is Notre Dame's offense, which is truly on a historic pace for ND in many respects. When I say "should be performing given the circumstances" I mean "it's absolutely crazy how proficient the offense has been and what kinds of numbers Prosise has put up replacing Fuller... this is one of the best offenses ND has ever put on the field, and they lost their top 2 QBs and RBs from spring, as well as the starting TE, and substituted in completely unproven commodities."

2) Talking about ATS (and I've tried to clarify many times that while I'm citing that number because it's the most straightforward and easy to point at... I'm also talking about pretty much all statistical and pundit projections) I'm trying to showcase how ND isn't just winning, but exceeding expectations on a game-by-game basis. If I wanted to talk about "wins" I wouldn't even bring up something like that at all... I'd instead cite F/+ win probabilities or talk about how FPI projected ND at 8-4 pre-season or something. The whole point of citing ATS is that:
2A) It shows that each game since Zaire went down ND has done better than people thought they would.
2B) It sits in direct contrast to other Power 5 teams who have had far more "stinkers" where they don't look good winning this year. ND isn't just winning... they're winning by double digits in almost every single game and/or covering the spread.

 

[Free Manera]

That's pretty much a myth based on the antiquated way that lines used to be set. Books used to try to have all of their lines set such that even money was bet across the board and the casino would make their money on the "vig." These days, lines are basically set towards whatever the oddsmaker considers a "probable outcome"... it's not very uncommon to see 70% or 80% of public money on one side of a bet these days.

The evolution in how lines are set has been gradual and it's pretty complex. Casinos still adjust lines based on where the money is coming in if its exceeding their acceptable threshold for a particular game, and there still is an element of "perception" involved. But no, casinos do not set their lines in a direct attempt to achieve a 50/50 split, and sources that say they do are either 1) out of date 2) uninformed about the process.

Correct. Everyone who is saying Vegas wants 50-50 betting is incorrect. The betting is almost never 50-50 on a game. If Vegas wanted the betting to be even, it would be every time. However, bookmakers are not satisfied with just taking the vig. They prefer to have a majority of the betters fail to cover.

The primary reason lines move is that oddsmakers look at "sharp" bets (bets made early and for large amounts of money). Generally sharps are good gamblers who are highly selective on the games they play. If a lot of sharp money is coming in on one side, they need to adjust the line because sharps may actually beat the spread more often than not.

On the other hand, Vegas does not care how much "square" money (i.e. casual gamblers) goes on one side because squares are lucky to cover 50% of the time. So in other words, if the betting is uneven because a lot of squares are making bad bets, Vegas loves it.

 

[gkIrish]

It doesn't, or at least shouldn't, take a rocket scientist to guess that he is considering the injuries that have bitten ND this season.

My point is that considering the opponents nothing changed in terms of expectations of win/loss record at this point in the season. Therefore, nothing about Kelly's coaching should be praised other than "he's doing what he is supposed to do. Congratulations." He didn't do what he is supposed to do 3 out of 5 years.

Can you honestly say you think we should be 5-2 or worse?

For the record I am pleased with being 6-1 and find it to be acceptable. I think there are only 2 games we were capable of losing considering our talent compared to the opponent and I would expect to go 1-1 against those teams. We did. Therefore, I am pleased with Kelly so far.

Where I am not willing to go is to declare the performance historically good. It's exactly what we should be doing. Someone posted the link to the thread in here to try and make a point. I disagreed with the article, which didn't even mention our defense by the way, so I responded to it. That's all. I agree with 95% of Lax's opinions and respect his opinions 100% of the time.

 

[wizards8507]

oh boy...

At this point in the season.

 

[koonja]

GK is trolling you guys for vbucks. He secretly has a BK tattoo and believe BK invented chocolate milk.

 

[IrishLax]

I think what Lax and others are saying is that Vegas used to operate to a 50/50 public split so regardless they made guaranteed money on commissions and occasionally outsized returns on unanticipated results. Now, it seems that they are using more advanced analysis to truly predict outcomes and set more profitable lines.

Yes, if you go back to the Joe Namath super bowl (which is used often as a a great example of the "split the public" mentality) where the line was WAY off the final score but split the public's money right down the middle... the casino made roughly 10% on all the money wagered, because typically you have to bet $110 to win $100 on a "normal" point spread.

In today's world, they've basically come to the consensus that they make way more money over the long run setting lines towards a "projected outcome" even if it doesn't split the public money. It makes it much harder for sharks to lay down massive bets on a "bad" line at the 11th hour, it mitigates a lot of line movement (and line movement can be VERY BAD for casinos), and the casino generally considers themselves having "better" information than the average bettor and therefor in a positive position long term against the public. Couple all that with the fact that there are some events where it's impossible to balance the books 50/50 AND this approach generally encourages more action, and you have happy casinos that also run the risk of some very bad weekends. Oh, and they also still make their vig

 

[Whiskeyjack]

By the way, it's awesome to be told how wrong I am by the same people who told me we'd be throttled by Georgia Tech when I said they weren't that good; the same people who ripped me for criticizing Golson's pocket presence and mental capacity for the position after the Rice game; the same people who thought we'd be doomed without Malik and Folston when I argued that their backups would be competent replacements.

I'd say it gets old, but it does not.

This is the only one that applies to me, and it's not entirely accurate. You predicted (correctly) that GT was over-rated. I countered that Paul Johnson's offense has terrorized us for years, and having to face it being run by superior athletes should be a very frightening prospect for any ND fan who's been paying attention for the last decade or so. Nowhere did I predict a loss; I only cautioned that GT should not be taken lightly.

To the extent it matters, you were "more right" than I was, so kudos for that. And to be fair, you aren't being criticized for a definite prediction here; you're being criticized for cynicism and pedantism, which is really f*cking obnoxious to read in the midst of a great season.

 

[IrishLax]

Correct. Everyone who is saying Vegas wants 50-50 betting is incorrect. The betting is almost never 50-50 on a game. If Vegas wanted the betting to be even, it would be every time. However, bookmakers are not satisfied with just taking the vig. They prefer to have a majority of the betters fail to cover.

The primary reason lines move is that oddsmakers look at "sharp" bets (bets made early and for large amounts of money). Generally sharps are good gamblers who are highly selective on the games they play. If a lot of sharp money is coming in on one side, they need to adjust the line because sharps may actually beat the spread more often than not.

On the other hand, Vegas does not care how much "square" money (i.e. casual gamblers) goes on one side because squares are lucky to cover 50% of the time. So in other words, if the betting is uneven because a lot of squares are making bad bets, Vegas loves it.

This. All of this. Well explained.

 

[kmoose]

For the record I am pleased with being 6-1 and find it to be acceptable. I think there are only 2 games we were capable of losing considering our talent compared to the opponent and I would expect to go 1-1 against those teams. We did. Therefore, I am please with Kelly so far.

But here is the problem with your contention:

CJ Prosise had never played RB, nor had DeShone Kizer taken a single DI-A snap. So we didn't know what our talent level would be. You can say that you "knew", and so it was expected by you....... but that's nothing more than either a lucky guess on your part, or an outright fabrication to try to bolster your position.

Sometimes in life you do get credit for doing what you are supposed to do. And that's almost always when life throws conditions at you that SIGNIFICANTLY hinder your ability to accomplish what you are supposed to accomplish. Swimming a half mile is nothing. But swim a half mile through a hurricane, with 40ft seas? THAT is a tremendous accomplishment.

If you are pleased with Kelly, then why are you looking around to see who else might be a candidate? Or was that just venting?

 

[gkIrish]

This about sums up everything that is wrong with the genesis of this thread.

I've noticed guys like gk like to set this trap quite often. He starts an utterly embarrassing, petulant, and sorry thread and when people push back he claims everyone else are just blind supporters and he's the prescient one making legitimate criticisms.

Oh but he's not calling for Kelly to be fired so I guess everything is fine. I feel so bad for people who think gk's full of all this wisdom.

I'm also consistently amazed at how the gk and wizards of the world try so hard to go out of their way to piss on the teams parade and suck all the joy out of this season. It's the epitome of NDNation.

1) Not many people agree with me so I don't think my wisdom has been praised like you seem to think.

2) I'd like to piss in your cheerio bowl but I'm actually a nice person so I wouldn't do that. You seem incapable of avoiding a thread you don't like. No one is putting a gun to your head to read my thoughts in this thread. While I do sometimes leak my thoughts into other threads, it's pretty rare.

3) I actually started this thread because I knew it would get a lot of responses and I need vbucks to feed my gambling addiction. So yes, you're right that it was a trap.

 

[gkIrish]

But here is the problem with your contention:

CJ Prosise had never played RB, nor had DeShone Kizer taken a single DI-A snap. So we didn't know what our talent level would be. You can say that you "knew", and so it was expected by you....... but that's nothing more than either a lucky guess on your part, or an outright fabrication to try to bolster your position.

Sometimes in life you do get credit for doing what you are supposed to do. And that's almost always when life throws conditions at you that SIGNIFICANTLY hinder your ability to accomplish what you are supposed to accomplish. Swimming a half mile is nothing. But swim a half mile through a hurricane, with 40ft seas? THAT is a tremendous accomplishment.

If you are pleased with Kelly, then why are you looking around to see who else might be a candidate? Or was that just venting?

First, your obsession with the OP is borderline creepy.

Second, I personally scout the college coaching landscape all the time. Literally from the first day I started as a student at ND I was scouting. Scouting doesn't mean you are advocating a change. It means you are keeping an eye on things. I've never said I wanted Kelly fired, and he is doing a nice job of improving on a few of things I mentioned in the OP. Kudos to him. But the dude is not God. He is not beyond criticism. Far from it. The sheer amount of devotion to a guy that's won 9 regular season games ONCE since he began here is really crazy IMO.

Everyone needs to relax. Brian Kelly does not write your checks. He does not cook you dinner. He doesn't even know you. I'm allowed to criticize him (and praise him when he deserves it) without getting attacked by 12 different people every time I do it. And 11 of the 12 people have nothing substantive to say.

 

[Rocket89]

Except I am happy. General happiness is not the same as "everything is perfect." Can't I be generally happy while discussing those things that I think could be better?

I think you do a poor job of discussing those things, FWIW.

For example, everyone should think the YPP this year is awesome. On a macro-level there's nothing to nit pick. But you came swooping in with the "well we live too much off the deep ball and don't grind it out enough" based off nothing but your own bias, which was wrong.

You do a good job of masking your happiness a lot of the time.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

My point is that considering the opponents nothing changed in terms of expectations of win/loss record at this point in the season. Therefore, nothing about Kelly's coaching should be praised other than "he's doing what he is supposed to do. Congratulations." He didn't do what he is supposed to do 3 out of 5 years.


Where I am not willing to go is to declare the performance historically good. It's exactly what we should be doing. Someone posted the link to the thread in here to try and make a point. I disagreed with the article, which didn't even mention our defense by the way, so I responded to it. That's all. I agree with 95% of Lax's opinions and respect his opinions 100% of the time.

You're reaching trollish levels of stubbornness, man.

EVERYTHING changed when the injuries surmounted. Not one rational person will claim that their W/L projections did not change once Golson+Jaron+Malik+Crawford+Bryant+Smythe+Folston+Tranquill ALL either left or suffered a season ending injury. When you lose that much firepower, expectations will change...and they did. However, ND is still where most people projected pre-attrition (even you). Why are you still negative?

Also, the offensive performance IS HISTORICALLY GOOD. It's been statistically proven to you. You're unwillingness to acknowledge stats and facts is very Koon-ish. Stop. No one in their right mind would have expected Kizer to lead an offense that is among the best in the country. No one would have expected a first-time RB to be on pace to fucking SHATTER a rushing record at ND and be on the cusp of Heisman contention. No one. Why in the hell are you still arguing this?

 

[koonja]

BleedBlueGold, I always forget to shoutout to you when talking about my haters!

I don't refuse facts - I'm not as dumb as people like you wish I were. I refuse opinions that are force fed to everyone else. I stand on my own two feet and see things with my own eyes.

 

[ab2cmiller]

You're reaching trollish levels of stubbornness, man.

EVERYTHING changed when the injuries surmounted. Not one rational person will claim that their W/L projections did not change once Golson+Jaron+Malik+Crawford+Bryant+Smythe+Folston+Tranquill ALL either left or suffered a season ending injury. When you lose that much firepower, expectations will change...and they did. However, ND is still where most people projected pre-attrition (even you). Why are you still negative?

Also, the offensive performance IS HISTORICALLY GOOD. It's been statistically proven to you. You're unwillingness to acknowledge stats and facts is very Koon-ish. Stop. No one in their right mind would have expected Kizer to lead an offense that is among the best in the country. No one would have expected a first-time RB to be on pace to fucking SHATTER a rushing record at ND and be on the cusp of Heisman contention. No one. Why in the hell are you still arguing this?

He's already told you why, he started this thread for the vbucks.

 

[Luckylucci]

Can I just say that you guys have made this thread remarkably entertaining while I was away! I'm not even sure which conversation I've enjoyed the most.

 

[IrishLion]

The best time to revisit BK will be after Pitt. How he coaches DeShone in terms of attacking Narduzzi's defense will be a huge indicator as to how much of the success in light of attrition is due to his work with the players, and how much is simply because CJ and Will are amazeballs.

If DeShone can make Pitt's secondary pay for press coverage by taking the appropriate shots down field, it would be hard to argue how BK has handled the current need for rapid development. If DeShone struggles and Pitt grinds out an ugly win against a stagnant offense, maybe we really are relying a bit too much on guys just being super fast at the right time.

Think of how Tommy gave MSU their only loss in 2013, vs how ND lost to Pitt in '13. Pitt is quietly pretty good this year. I look forward to seeing how BK coaches/calls that game.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The best time to revisit BK will be after Pitt. How he coaches DeShone in terms of attacking Narduzzi's defense will be a huge indicator as to how much of the success in light of attrition is due to his work with the players, and how much is simply because CJ and Will are amazeballs.

If DeShone can make Pitt's secondary pay for press coverage by taking the appropriate shots down field, it would be hard to argue how BK has handled the current need for rapid development. If DeShone struggles and Pitt grinds out an ugly win against a stagnant offense, maybe we really are relying a bit too much on guys just being super fast at the right time.

Think of how Tommy gave MSU their only loss in 2013, vs how ND lost to Pitt in '13. Pitt is quietly pretty good this year. I look forward to seeing how BK coaches/calls that game.

Kelly's 4-1 against Narduzzi's defense, with the only loss coming in his first year (and being largely attributable to a trick play).

 

[irishfan]

Kelly's 4-1 against Narduzzi's defense, with the only loss coming in his first year (and being largely attributable to a trick play).

Not many points against Narduzzi D though. Don't think there's any thing to take away with us shutting down MSU offense during those years.

2013: 17
2012: 20
2011: 31 (7 due to kick return)
2010: 31 (3 in OT)

 

[IrishLion]

Kelly's 4-1 against Narduzzi's defense, with the only loss coming in his first year (and being largely attributable to a trick play).

Correct, and I expect another win. If BK can coach DeShone to attack Narduzzi's defense effectively, the way he coached Rees and Golson to do so, it will go to show that his development and coaching should be commended, and will be another mark against criticism of his game day coaching. If ND struggles and can't take opportunistic shots down field, I think it would be cause for concern.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Not many points against Narduzzi D though. Don't think there's any thing to take away with us shutting down MSU offense during those years.

2013: 17
2012: 20
2011: 31 (7 due to kick return)
2010: 31 (3 in OT)

MSU's defense ranked 29th, 6th, 2nd and 2nd respectively in each of those years. Scoring enough points to win four years in a row against an elite defense is quite an accomplishment.

 

[irishfan]

MSU's defense ranked 29th, 6th, 2nd and 2nd respectively in each of those years. Scoring enough points to win four years in a row against an elite defense is quite an accomplishment.

We had 220 yards of offense in 2013 against MSU. 300 total yards in 2012. 275 total yards in 2011. 2010 we aired it out all game and moved the ball quite well. I'll give us credit for limiting turnovers and for playing great defense in the years we won (2011-2013), but we certainly didn't have to do much to score enough to win. We put up 17 a game against them when you take away a return TD (from 2011-2013). We are probably in trouble if we score 17 against Pitt in a couple weeks and can't crack 300 yards of offense.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

We had 220 yards of offense in 2013 against MSU. 300 total yards in 2012. 275 total yards in 2011. 2010 we aired it out all game and moved the ball quite well. I'll give us credit for limiting turnovers and for playing great defense in the years we won (2011-2013), but we certainly didn't have to do much to score enough to win. We put up 17 a game against them when you take away a return TD (from 2011-2013). We are probably in trouble if we score 17 against Pitt in a couple weeks and can't crack 300 yards of offense.

Our current offense is far more effective than the Rees led iterations in 2011 and 2013. I'd say the 300 yards Golson put up in 2012 should be the floor for what to expect.

And while he definitely has Pitt headed in the right direction, this Panthers defense isn't nearly as dominant as Narduzzi's recent units at MSU. They're currently rated 19th by S&P and 43rd by FEI.

 

[IrishLion]

*I think a better way of stating my point is that if you must judge and revisit BK, the best time to do it will be Pitt. He is a proven commodity coaching against Narduzzi's defenses. Despite the lack of total yards, he knows how to attack the secondary and get results when needed. Whether or not he can coach Kizer to do the same as he's done in the past, IMO, will be great evidence one way or another in this revisit "debate."

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Everyone needs to relax. Brian Kelly does not write your checks. He does not cook you dinner. He doesn't even know you. I'm allowed to criticize him (and praise him when he deserves it) without getting attacked by 12 different people every time I do it. And 11 of the 12 people have nothing substantive to say.

You are allowed to criticize him. But, with all due respect, those 12 people are also allowed to criticize your point of view.

I still believe that some of your foundational points are not accurate. You argued that teams like Florida State, Ohio State, Auburn, Michigan State, and Alabama (can't recall all of the teams you mentioned...might have added or left one out) do not struggle to beat teams with inferior talent like we do. That's been wrong since you said it and has continued to be proven wrong this year as well. Michigan State struggled against Purdue and Rutgers. Florida State struggled against Wake Forest, Miami, and Boston College. Alabama lost to Ole Miss and struggled some with Arkansas. Ohio State struggled against Northern Illinois (at home) and Indiana. Auburn is a hot mess. Teams with elite talent struggle with inferior teams nearly every week.

You also noted that Brian Kelly teams don't adjust well at halftime. People brought stats to refute that point. It has continued to be untrue this year. We have outscored every single opponent in the second half this year. That includes garbage time points for Georgia Tech, nearly coming back to beat Clemson on the road in a monsoon, a game in which you lost your starting quarterback, and a huge defensive adjustment to beat one of the most talented offenses in the country.

You make some very fair points. You also sometimes imply that anyone who disagrees with one of your criticisms is a blind homer. That's not always true.

People in this thread find their corners and like to stay there. You said that you avoid the political thread...this thread is pretty much the same thing.

 

[ThePiombino]

Kelly's 4-1 against Narduzzi's defense, with the only loss coming in his first year (and being largely attributable to a trick play).

And an expired clock. And a missed holding call.

 

[Cackalacky]

I think a big problem in our miscommunication is that there are two separate trains of thought:
1) The "historically" good part is Notre Dame's offense, which is truly on a historic pace for ND in many respects. When I say "should be performing given the circumstances" I mean "it's absolutely crazy how proficient the offense has been and what kinds of numbers Prosise has put up replacing Fuller... this is one of the best offenses ND has ever put on the field, and they lost their top 2 QBs and RBs from spring, as well as the starting TE, and substituted in completely unproven commodities."

2) Talking about ATS (and I've tried to clarify many times that while I'm citing that number because it's the most straightforward and easy to point at... I'm also talking about pretty much all statistical and pundit projections) I'm trying to showcase how ND isn't just winning, but exceeding expectations on a game-by-game basis. If I wanted to talk about "wins" I wouldn't even bring up something like that at all... I'd instead cite F/+ win probabilities or talk about how FPI projected ND at 8-4 pre-season or something. The whole point of citing ATS is that:
2A) It shows that each game since Zaire went down ND has done better than people thought they would.
2B) It sits in direct contrast to other Power 5 teams who have had far more "stinkers" where they don't look good winning this year. ND isn't just winning... they're winning by double digits in almost every single game and/or covering the spread.

Can't rep you, but this makes very good sense and it makes me real happy. In all my years as a fan I have been waiting for ND to exert their will on both sides of the ball.
I would be interested in what ND was like ATS for the other years of BK and for other coaches. That would be interesting.