Looking at successful play % and explosive play % differentials (+ successful plays by O vs D) and damned if FSU isn't looking a good bit like... Georgia and Alabama?
I posted this yesterday and people used it to mock advanced stats but... both FPI and SP+ have FSU at No. 24. (@bcfremeau's F+ has them at 35)
Obviously the W-L is what it is, but perhaps we are overlooking something with FSU's input because the output has been frustrating.
@bcfremeau The next 3 games will decide Mike Norvell's future. I get that, and I'm not suggesting 1 win vs Wake should change anyone's mind. But...
The advance metrics like FSU (at least, a lot more than the fans do) and this year's team is night/day better than last year...
@bcfremeau It's worth doing a head-to-head comparison beyond just wins and losses. Yes, part of this is because last year was SO bad... but this is MAJOR improvement.
FSU lost in OT to 8-1 UVA
FSU lost by 3 to 7-2 Pitt (5-0 w/new QB)
FSU lost by 8 to 7-2 Miami
Yes, Stanford was AWFUL but FSU also had 150 > yards than the Cardinal & didn't turn it over. Insane they lost.
Again, the last 3 games will tell us a lot. Beat Clemson & Florida -- down as they are -- and I think that speaks volumes. Lose and a change seems inevitable. But there is real improvement here & FSU should be careful not to throw that away when there's no guarantee of better.
And yes, I acknowledge that if the underlying stats say you're good and you're still losing games, that's probably not good for the coaches. I'm not making the case one way or the other... just suggesting there's context worth considering.
And yeah, last FOUR games. Clemson, VT, NCSU & UF. My brain hurts from looking at ACC standings. My apologies.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Let's do a quick 🧵summing up the implications of yesterday's ACC settlement and what it means for the near and long-term future... Come along on a journey with me. (No, not you FSU fans.)
1) Did FSU & Clemson "win"?
Short answer: Yeah, mostly. If the ultimate goal was to exit the ACC as soon as possible and land a full share in the SEC or B1G (as Okla, Tex, UCLA and USC did) then, no, this isn't the ideal outcome. But... everything else is pretty great for them.
Financially, if Clemson/FSU (or another school) hit benchmarks for ratings & postseason play, they'll earn $ in the ballpark with the SEC/B1G (give or take $5-7M) & they've secured some certainty on what exit costs would be if/when they choose to leave.
Who's up for another college football 🧵 detailing some incomprehensible topic at great length?
Oh, come on -- it's too early to start drinking, so you might as well learn something.
Let's dig in on revenue sharing! Because it's coming and it's still a mystery even to many insiders.💰💰💰
1) What is rev share and why should I care?
As part of the House settlement, expected finalized in July, schools will be allowed to directly pay athletes up to $20.5 million annually. This basically cuts out the collectives as the middle man, freeing up schools to negotiate directly with players.
If your school struggled to get collective donations (See: Forest, Wake) this is great news because you'll have access to cash to retain/sign players you prob didn't have before. Now, that $ still needs to come from somewhere, but it's much easier for the school to get it than collectives.
Lot of ACC news yesterday & a lot of Qs still remain. Let's unpack it all w/a 🧵. Hold on to your 🍑. This could be a long one.
1. Is this the end of the ACC's troubles?
For now, mostly. It's worth noting no deal on rev distribution is done yet, but from the folks I've talked to, it certainly is strongly trending in that direction.
One key sticking point, however, is FSU and Clemson's ask that the cost of breaking the GoR is decreased beginning in 2031, when TV deals for other conferences expire.
I don’t wanna keep revisiting this because there’s no point, but I so wish the dialogue on strength of schedule could be a bit more nuanced and informed, so a quick 🧵 and then I promise I’m done…
Should SoS matter? Of course! But it’s ridiculous to suggest it is a qualifying metric. In fact, it’s an independent variable and therefore should be ancillary to the convo, not the basis of the convo.
What SoS measures, for our purposes, is certainty, not quality. If a team has a good record vs a tough sched, we are more certain they’re good than if they did not play a tough schedule. Ex: If the KC Chiefs played in the Sun Belt, they’d still be the Chiefs… we just might not know how good they really are from watching games vs ULM.
So seemingly big steps in the FSU/Clemson vs ACC battle, but it's a pretty complex (and very preliminary) conversation right now. Wrote about the specifics of what's happening, but let's do a quick 🧵to hit on the more nuanced issues, too...
Clemson/FSU offered a proposal to the ACC -- the details of which are VERY preliminary -- that would effectively allow brand awareness/ratings to be a component of the league's success initiatives, thus giving a larger slice of the revenue pie to the schools with the biggest viewership. The idea is this money -- along with success initiatives -- could bridge the gap between the ACC's biggest brands and the SEC/B1G, thus allowing Clemson/FSU to drop lawsuits, address financial concerns, and call it a win, while the ACC gets immediate membership security and welcomes its two biggest football brands back into the fold.
Why is this happening now?
Neither side seems eager to concede defeat, but for Clemson/FSU there's a realization that an exit strategy is far from guaranteed, will be expensive and could take years to play out in court; For the ACC there's a clear brand issue when two members are suing (and others could follow eventually). Pac-12 was a case study and no one wants that. Ratings-based revenue distro was discussed years ago but had been a non-starter but there's a sense that it could buy some security now. It's a feasible end game (at least for now) amid a world with few other palatable outcomes.
I’ve said this before but it warrants repeating: The portal thing is a red herring with Clemson. The problem is an overestimation of it’s own players. Dabo has kicked the tires in the portal. He just never finds players he likes more than the ones he has, and that’s bad.
🧵
DJU and Cade Klubnik were both elite recruits so Clemson obviously wasn’t the only one to misevaluate. But when you recruit like Clemson - small classes, few targets - you can’t miss at that position back to back.
And not sure what about Christopher Vizzina would be diff.
The WR development has been brutal. Where were the freshmen we heard so much about? Dabo said he wouldn’t take a transfer because he didn’t want anymore more than Moore and Wesco, but then those guys barely saw the field and finished w/2 catches for 12 yards.