INFORMATION TO USERS

This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.

1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin Aiming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the Arst row and continuing on until complete.

4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department.

5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy.

University Microfilms International 300 N. ZEEB ROAD, ANN ARBOR, Ml 48106 18 BEDFORD ROW, LONDON WC1 R 4EJ, ENGLAND 8107310

C o v a u lt , Sa m u e l G r e g

COMPUTER ORDERED CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS OF INTERCOLLEGIATE FOOTBALL STRATEGIES

The Ohio State University PH.D. 1980

University Microfilms International300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106

Copyright 1980 by Covault, Samuel Greg All Rights Reserved PLEASE NOTE: In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark .

1. Glossy photographs ______2. Colored illustrations ______3. Photographs with dark background______4. Illustrations are poor copy ______5. °rint shows through as there is text on both sides of page______6. Indistinct, broken or small print onseveral pages

7. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine______8. Computer printout pages with indistinct print______9. Page(s) _____ lacking when material received, and not available from school or author 10. Page(s) ______seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows 11. Poor carbon copy ______12. Not original copy, several pageswith blurred type ______13. Appendix pages are poor copy______14. Original copy with light type ______15. Curling and wrinkled pages______16. Other ______

Iniversity Microfilms iter national

)0 N / E F B RD., ANN A R B O R . Ml 4B100 IH1BI 761 4706 COMPUTER ORDERED CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS OF

INTERCOLLEGIATE FOOTBALL STRATEGIES

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate

School of The Ohio State University

By

Samuel G. Covault, B.S.Ed., M.Ed.

* * * * *

The Ohio State University

1980

Reading Committee: Approved By

Dr. Edward Coates

Dr. Margaret J. Hines

Dr. Donald K. Mathews The research documented within these pages, and the effort it has demanded, is dedicated to my wife Linda and our soon to be born first child. It is through responsibility and love for this family that I have found the strength and determination'to guide this project to a success­ ful conclusion.

ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The analytic system presented in this research is a product of years of experimentation, evaluation and consultation. Over these years many individuals have had significant influence on both the system and its author.

The computer-ordered conceptual analysis model has evolved from manually prepared reports, executed while serving as the offensive back- field coach on Bill Hess's Ohio University football staff. The initial guidance and fine example provided by Coach Hess and the Ohio University staff is the impetus which led to development of the system presented in this treatise. I am indebted to the late Coach Hess for his faith in a young and unproven coach and for his strong example. He was a truly fine teacher and most importantly the finest of men.

As tremendous encouragement and invaluable advice played signifi­ cant roles in the early development of this system, the culmination of this research could not have been achieved without the assistance and support of The Ohio State University intercollegiate football coaching staff. Input, suggestions and criticisms by this group of outstanding coaches has been a major force in shaping the system detailed in this treatise. Resources and expertise generously provided by coaches Earle

Bruce, Dennis Fryzel, Glen Mason, Bill Myles, Nick Saban, Steve Szabo,

Wayne Stanley, Bob Tucker and Fred Zechman have aided both in the

iii development and the Implementation of the computer-ordered analysis now in operation at The Ohio State University.

In addition, the encouragement and counsel of my adviser and teacher Dr. Donald K. Mathews, and graduate committee members, Dr. Edward

Coates and Dr. Margaret J. Hines, has had significant impact on this final document.

Acknowledgement of those individuals who have played a major role in the development of this research would not be complete without the expression of a special debt to my family. To my mother, Beverly

Shoesmith Covault, who's support and encouragement have been a strength and source of inspiration throughout my life, and who's efforts in typing

the dissertation draft are a major contribution to the work within these pages, I express my heartfelt thanks, admiration and love. An equal debt is owed my father, Boyd G. Covault, who has taught me, through the example of his own strength, to seek and master challenges and responsi­ bility. I respect and love him not only as a father, but as a man of

integrity.

Finally and most importantly, the acknowledgement which cannot be fully expressed in the written word. To my wife Linda, who's sacrifice, hard work, dedication, humor and love have enabled me to complete this research. The achievement of this goal is shared, for without her efforts it would not have been accomplished.

iv VITA

February 2, 1952 ...... Born - Guthrie Center, Iowa

1975 ...... B.S.Ed., Miami University, Oxford, Ohio

1975-1976...... Graduate Teaching Assistant, Graduate Assistant Football Coach, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio

1976 ...... M.Ed., Ohio University, Athens, Ohio

1977-1979...... Instructor, Health and Physical Education, Assistant Football Coach, Head Tennis Coach, Otterbein College, Westerville, Ohio

1979-1980...... Graduate Teaching Associate, School of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, Graduate Assistant Foot­ ball Coach, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

PUBLICATIONS

"One of Wrestling's Finest, Karl Kitt." The Young Wrestler, September 1975, pp. 14-16.

The Ohio University Athletic Department Policies and Procedures Manual, 1976.

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Physical Education

Area of Specialization: Sports and Athletic Administration

v TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

DEDICATION ...... , . , ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... ill

VITA ...... v

LIST OF TABLES ...... viii

LIST OF FIGURES...... xi

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION...... 1

Hypothesis...... 1 Statement of the Problem...... 2 Fundamental Aspects of Research ...... 2

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE...... 4

History of Computer Analysis in Football...... 4 Application of Computer Analysis to Football...... 7 Advantages in Utilization of Computer Analysis in Football ...... 8 Limitations in Utilization of Computer Analysis in Football ...... 9 Impact of Related Research on Development of the Analytic System ...... 10 S u m m a r y ...... 12

III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES...... 14

Conceptual Analysis ...... 14 Determination of Essential D a t a ...... 15 Terminology ...... 18 Data Source ...... 18 System Methodology...... 20 Technical Programming Procurement ...... 51 Computer Program ...... 53

vi Page

IV. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... 54

Summary ...... 54 Conclusion...... 55 Recommendations...... 56

V. DISCUSSION ...... 58

Editing Programs ...... 59 Composite Evaluations ...... 60 Evaluations by Down, Distance and Field Position. . 61

APPENDIXES

A. Figures 4 - 5 ...... 64

B. Tables 5- 6 ...... 67

C. Tables 7-11 ...... 75

D. Table 12...... 82

E. Tables 13-21...... 85

F. Table 22...... ‘ ...... 125

G. Tables 23-30...... 128

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 158

vii LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Computer Ordered Conceptual Analysis of Inter­ collegiate Football Strategies; Presentation of the Relationship Among Data Gathering Instru­ ments and Final Print-Outs for Overall Offense ...... 22

2. Computer Ordered Conceptual Analysis of Inter­ collegiate Football Strategies: Presentation of the Relationship Among Data Gathering Instruments and Final Print-Outs for Offensive Evaluation by Down, Distance and Field Position ...... 35

3. Computer Ordered Conceptual Analysis of Inter­ collegiate Football Strategies: Presentation of the Relationship Among Data Gathering Instru­ ments and Final Print-Outs for Overall Defensive E v a l u a t i o n ...... 41

4. Computer Ordered Conceptual Analysis of Inter­ collegiate Football Strategies: Presentation of the Relationship Among Data Gathering Instru­ ments and Final Print-Outs for Defensive Evaluation by Down, Distance and Field Position ...... 52

5. Completed Data Gathering Form: Offense...... 68

6. Completed Data Gathering Form: Defense...... 72

7. Listing of Offensive Plays in Descending Order of Distance-Grouped by Down: First Down Plays...... 76

8. Listing of Offensive Plays in Descending Order of Distance-Grouped by Down: 2nd Down P l a y s ...... 77

9. Listing of Offensive Plays in Descending Order of Distance-Grouped by Down: 3rd Down P l a y s ...... 78

10. Listing of Offensive Plays in Descending Order of Distance-Grouped by Down: 4th Down Plays...... 79

11. Sequential List of Defenses...... 80

12. Overall Offense: Conceptual Categories...... 83

viii Table Page

13. Offenses: First Downs; Offensive Plays up to • +7 Yard Line ...... 86

14. Offensive 2nd Downs with More than 7 Yards to Go: Offensive Plays Up to +7 Yard Li n e ...... 92

15. Offensive 2nd Downs with 5 to 7 Yards to Go: Offensive Plays Up to +7 Yard Li n e ...... 98

16. Offensive 2nd Downs with Less than 5 Yards to Go: Offensive Plays Up to +7 Yard Li n e ...... 103

17. Offensive 3rd Downs with More than 6 Yards to Go: Offensive Plays Up to +7 Yard Li n e ...... 108

18. Offensive 3rd Downs with 4 to 6 Yards to Go: Offensive Plays Up to +7 Yard Li n e ...... 114

19. Offensive 3rd Downs with Less than 4 Yards to Go: Offensive Plays Up to +7 Yard Li n e ...... 118

20. Offenses: Fourth Downs: Offensive Plays Up to +7 Yard Line...... 121

21. Offenses: Within +6 Yard Line: Offensive Plays Within + 6 ...... 123

22. Overall Defensive Evaluation: Conceptual C a t e g o r i e s ...... 126

23. Defenses: First and Normal: All Defenses Up to +7 Yard Line ...... 129

24. Defenses: 2nd and 8 or More: All Defenses Up to +7 Yard Line ...... 135

25. Defenses: 2nd and 5 to 7: All Defenses Up to +7 Yard Line ...... 138

26. Defenses: 2nd and 4 or Less: All Defenses Up to +7 Yard Line ...... 142

27. Defenses: 3rd and 7 or More; All Defenses Up to +7 Yard Line ...... 145

28. Defenses: ' 3rd and 4 to 6; All Defenses Up to +7 Yard Line ...... 148

ix Table Page

29. Defenses: 3rd and 3 or Less: All Defenses Up to +7 Yard L i n e ...... 151

30. Defenses: From +6 to -Hi Yard Lines; All Defenses Within + 6 ...... 153

x LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Sample Computer Data Card Format...... 16

2. Sample Data Gathering Form...... 17

3. Offensive and Defensive Terminology K e y ...... 19

4. Sample Data Warning and Error Edit Report ...... 65

5. Clear Data Warning and Error Edit Report...... 66

xt CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The growth, in recent years, in the utilization of electronic

data processing has introduced computerization to fields heretofore

dependent upon the manual manipulation of statistics utilized in the

decision making process. One such field, the coaching of intercollegiate

football was, until the advent of computer analysis, forced to rely on

statistics produced through laborious hours of organization and prepara­

tion of data by coaching staffs. Data processing techniques have the potential to provide contemporary coaching staffs with fast, accurate and complete information in an efficient manner. An extensive review of literature dealing with computer analysis as it relates to intercolle­ giate football strategies (see chapter 2) suggests a tremendous potential

for the use of data processing techniques in this area. However, an exacting treatise which addresses the conception, development and imple­ mentation of a flexible manageable system of analysis, is not available.

Accordingly, it is the aim of this research to conceive, develop and implement a unique system of evaluation with respect to the computer- ordered conceptual analysis of intercollegiate football strategies.

Hypothesis

This study is based upon the hypothesis that a concise, easily interpreted system of electronic data processing can efficiently provide intercollegiate varsity football coaching staffs with valuable

information. This information is to be utilized in the decision making process, as it relates to intercollegiate football strategies.

Statement of the Problem

The purpose of this study is to develop, and place in operation, a unique system for the computer-ordered conceptual analysis of inter­ collegiate football strategies. The resulting analysis is to be utilized

in three major areas:

1. Allocation of preparation time

2. Development of game strategies

3. Self-analysis

Fundamental Aspects of Research

In the development of a substantively valuable system which pro­ vides the aforementioned benefits to the user, certain salient elements are addressed and achieved by this research. The first aspect to be addressed regards the selection of essential data to be analyzed. This process involves extensive examination of all prospective data for in­

clusion in the system. This aspect of the research alone has evolved over a period of seven years of study, experimentation and refinement.

The final determination of data to be included was made in consultation with the varsity football staff at The Ohio State University, a pro­

fessional group with over one hundred fifty years of combined coaching experience. Based upon this extensive experience, two inter-related

characteristics are paramount with respect to data which is utilized

in the analysis. First, only data essential to the decision making process, as it relates to the three major areas of system utilization previously discussed, is analyzed. Second, from the beginning of system development, flexibility, to allow for the later incorporation of cur­ rently unasked-for but ultimately desired forms of analysis, is an es­ sential characteristic to be maintained.

A conceptual approach to analysis, in which all aspects of the system are presented in a manner related to actual thought processes involved in decision making, is unique to this research. This approach is a cornerstone in the foundation of the analytic system.

In addition to the conceptual nature of the system, other aspects of this research fill a void heretofore existent in the literature. An important aspect of the methods and procedures utilized in this research is step by step detail of system development from conception through implementation. Included in this approach is the detailed explanation of the methodology utilized in conveying system requirements to computer programmers. This all-important exchange, when conducted successfully, results in the efficient development of programming aspects of the com­ puter-ordered system of analysis.

Final essential developmental elements involve the actual mechanics of developing, testing and refining the system. The adaptation of terminology to machine readable form, development of data gathering in­ struments as well as prospective print-out formats, and the gathering of data for test and development purposes are elements requiring precise attention to detail.

These key elements in the conception, development and implementa­ tion of the computer-ordered system of conceptual analysis are detailed in the dissertation which follows. CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

An extensive review of literature related to computer analysis of

intercollegiate football strategies reveals few exacting treatises.

While numerous references to subjects such as computer use in athletics, analysis and scouting; are available, these essays provide, for the most part, only rudimentary discourse. An exacting dissertation, the de­

sired end-product of this study, is not currently available in the lit­

erature researched.

While the crux of this study is the conception, development and

implementation of a unique system of evaluation, certain contributions

to a complete understanding of data processing analysis, as it applies

to strategies in football, are presented in currently available liter­ ature. A review of these contributions, concentrating for the most part on those subsequent to the dissertations of Nelson (1968) and Kerns

(1970), is presented in this chapter.

History of Computer Analysis in Football

Purdy (1977) offers a capsulization dealing with the evolution of

commercially available football play analysis systems. First address­

ing computer utilization in professional football, he sights William

Witzel as developer of an initial system for the Washington Redskins in

1968. Witzel later implemented his system for such professional organizations as the Chicago Bears, Dallas Cowboys, San Francisco 49ers and Atlanta Falcons. Purdy relates that most National Football League teams now utilize some form of computer analysis, usually programmed in either Fortran or Cobol languages. Purdy singles out two firms which specialize in this area, both of which receive significant attention elsewhere in the literature.

The first is an organization, founded by Mr. Joe Guardino, which

Purdy refers to as APEX. In more recent literature, Guardino*s enter­ prise is referred to as Sports Data, Incorporated (Bochner 1979). This sophisticated network, currently utilized by a significant number of professional coaching staffs, began in the mid-sixties when Guardino interested John McKay and George Allen, then head coaches of the University of Southern California and the Los Angeles Rams respectively, in compu­ terized game analysis. Bochner*s article reveals that Sports Data now provides over 300 programs from which subscribers may choose. As an illustration of the growth in computer applicability, Guardino explains that the Sports Data system, utilizing a Datapoint Corporation 1500 minicomputer system and on-site unit, provides coaching staffs with extensive computing power, intelligent data entry and concurrent com­ munications capability in one compact package (Bochner 1979).

The second enterprise receiving significant attention is the PROBE system, developed by former Cleveland Browns quarterback and mathemati­ cian Frank Ryan. As described by Ryan, Francia and Strawser,

PROBE was conceived as a means of utilizing the computer to process and evaluate football data. It is a generalized report generating system for application in football strategy analysis (1977,p.112).

As acknowledged by Purdy, PROBE is one of the most sophisticated play- analysis systems developed to date.

In addition to those programs of analysis commercially available to professional teams, attempts have been made to market football play- analysis programs at the college and high school level. These include

Sam Huff's Computerized Scouting System, Ed Flaherty's Scout-Aide System and COMPU-SCOUT, a system which utilizes a portable data card punch for its clients in Texas and northern California (Purdy 1977).

Coaching staffs at institutions such as Dartmouth College (Black­ man 1970), the University of Delaware (Kempski and Streeter 1976), Hope

College (Kraft and Knapman 1978), Idaho State University (Hampton 1978) and the United States Military Academy (Cahill 1967) have developed and later written about their individualized systems.

These discussions accentuate the growth in the use of computer analysis in recent years. The relatively recent marriage of computer technology to football statistical analysis has produced a dynamic and potentially invaluable device which not only provides a statistically sound basis for the development of strategies and allocation of pre­ paration effort, but can also provide the coach with the traditionally elusive ally, time. As currently existing literature sketches the brief history of computer use in football, it also addresses important questions with respect to the application of computer analysis. Application of Computer Analysis to Football

With the expressed overall purpose of securing as much information as possible, with respect to the specific strengths and weaknesses of an opponent (Ladany and Machol 1977), Ryan, Francia and Strawser offer cur­ rent literature’s best delineation of the general development and appl­ ication of a computer analysis system. The former Browns quarterback ahd his associates begin their discussion of application by defining the characteristics upon which PROBE's generalized report-generating system is based. In their words,

Football possesses a great number of easily identifiable char­ acteristics, such as down, distance, field position, relative score, offensive formation, defenses, weather, personnel, etc., all of which are directly related to the decision-making pro­ cesses of the game. These factors must be evaluated relative to one another in order that new information results (Ryan, Francia and Strawser 1977,p.112-13).

The PROBE system is effected as a multistep operation. Major plateaus are reached in the development of the instrument to be processed as the following essential conceptual cogs are fitted into the machinery of the overall analysis:

1. Precise and consistent definition, by the coaching staff, of complete terminology

2. Design of an input form allowing for gathering of all information in minimum time

3. Analysis of game films and recording of encoded information

4. Transformation of encoded information to machine-readable form, thus creating a football data base

Havingdiscussed the development of the system's input tools, Ryan and his associates provide the following general considerations which they feel are necessary in developing an output format which best fits the needs of the user; rather than fitting the user to the report:

1. Standard report showing overall tendencies, sophisticated enough to indicate the profile of a team's operational decisions

2. Special reports, to be requested according to special needs of the moment

3. Data bank accumulated with appropriate weighting factors for data acquired in nonstandard situations, resulting in standardization of all data accumualted on a specific team against all of its opponents

While Ryan, Francia and Strawser offer the best discussion of data processing as it applies to tendency and strategy analysis, there exist in related literature additional essays on the application of com­ puters in football. The extensive use of data processing techniques with player-selection systems (Purdy 1977), league statistics, intercollegiate recruiting organizations, equipment inventories, budgeting, injury preven­ tion, treatment and rehabilitation, as well as with conditioning programs

(Kraft and Knapman 1978) is detailed by numerous authors.

Advantages in Utilization of Computer Analysis in Football

Many authors, among them Kerns, Cahill, Bochner, Ryan, Francia and Strawser cite freedom from the time consuming drudgery of compiling analyses by hand as the major benefit to utilization of data processing.

Kraft and Knapman offer the additional advantages of perfect memory, error-free calculation and availability of multiple copy report forms upon request. Another key advantage, the generation of reports early in the week that are utilized in planning not only of strategy but also or practice time allocation,.is discussed by Kempski and Streeter.

Joe Guardino, founder and President of Sports Data, Incorporated, offers strong argument for the advantages of computer analysis when he 9

lists National Football League head coaches Chuck Knox of Buffalo,

Philadelphia's Dick Vermeil , Green Bay's Bart Starr, Detroit's Monte

Clark, Los Angeles' Ray Malavasi and Denver's Red Miller as Sports Data's

• most loyal adherents (Bochner 1979).

Perhaps, Witzel, cited by Purdy as a pioneer in the application of

computer analysis techniques to football, provides the best testimony

to the advantages of data processing. As noted in Kerns' 1970 disser­

tation, a Witzel article presents the following testimony from Dick

Nolan, then head football coach of the National Football League San

Francisco 49'ers:

The computerized reports give me fifty percent more informa­ tion twenty percent faster than any manual system ever used. I can get frequencies and tendencies on any set of situations I ask for. A coach who understands the power and the limita­ tions of the computer method has a definite edge over his opponent (Kerns 1970,p.21).

Limitations in Utilization of Computer Analysis in Football

While most related literature addresses primarily the advantages

inherent in systems of computer analysis, there is brief mention, by

some authors, of limitations which must be overcome.

Mehr (1967) sights several limitations encountered in the estab­

lishment of a data processing program at Amherst College. The multiple

stages of manual preparation involved in gathering data while on-sight

scouting, transposing data to tally sheets, translating tally sheet data

to punch cards and finally presenting punch cards to the computer, proved

inefficient for the Amherst College staff. Additionally, Mehr cites

limited availability of machines and personnel to assist in programming 10 and machine operation, relative cost of output, and finally general lack of knowledge with respect to the applicability of data processing, as restrictive factors with respect to the maximum utilization of data pro­ cessing techniques.

Another apparent limitation, which can be seen in most presenta­ tions in the literature and which is addressed by Kerns, is the "diffi­ culty encountered in deriving detailed information concerning defensive performance and alignment" (1970,p.20).

In discussing the program of computerized scouting at the Univer­ sity of Delaware, Kempski and Streeter cite the major problem confronting its developer as "a breakdown in communication between the coaching staff and the computer department" (1976,p.15).

A review of the advantages and limitations to computer managed analysis, previously encountered and documented in the literature, pro­ vides valuable insight into the goals to be achieved and pitfalls to be avoided in the development of an improved system.

Impact of Related Research on Development of the Analytic System

The literature, while generally bereft of analytic detail, does provide useful illustration, with respect to elements of possible in- corporative value as well as elements to be eschewed. Utilizing the map of previous research as a guide, pitfalls can be avoided and promising areas of research investigated, while managing maximum utilization of the precious resource, time.

Certain authors provide information which either agrees with the pre-literature review design of the computer-managed conceptual analysis 11 system, or which is incorporated to produce a maximally effective report- generating program. Blackman's use of score differential (1970,p.14) provides one means by which the essential weighting of data advocated by

Ryan, Francia and Strawser (1977) can be achieved. The design of a system with a broad and flexible base which allows for future expansion and adaptation is advocated by Guardino (Bochner 1979), Hampton (1978),

Kraft and Knapman (1978), and Ryan, Francia and Strawser (1977). Kempski and Streeter (1976) related the University of Delaware's simplification of computer data card punching through the use of identical format on both input sheets and key punch cards. Kerns, in his doctoral disserta­

tion (1970), provides considerable testimony advocating the reliance upon

game films as the primary source for data gathering.

As incorporative information effects the creation of a maximally

effective report-generating system, so too does the observation of undesirable factors existent in the literature, serve to shape the final

design of the system developed in this treatise. Nelson (1968), and to a lesser degree Kerns (1970), devote excessive attention to rudimentary areas, particularly with regard to the selection of variables to be ana­

lyzed. This attention results in the neglect of essential detail con­

cerning the conception, development and initiation of an operable system

of analysis. At no point in the literature does an author attempt to

explain the relationship between a system of analysis and the theories

and concepts of decision-making. System outputs presented in the liter­

ature are, for the most part, simply a reorganization of data. In addi­

tion, they are often presented in such a voluminous manner as to be im­

practicable with regard to application in the development of strategies, 12 or to the allocation of preparation resources. Hampton (1978) with ten, and Kempski and Streeter (.1976) with thirteen, offer systems of offensive print-outs in which the interrelationship of dependant variables is not clearly established. These essays fail to address the question of de­ fensive analysis, as do Kraft and Knapman (1978). Nor do Kraft and Knap- man provide illustration with regard to the print-outs of their lystem.

These examples of less than adequate presentation accentuate the need for attention to these areas in order to insure the development of a maximally effective report-generating system.

Summary

No exacting treatise is currently available in the literature which details the conception, development and implementation of a computer-order­ ed conceptual analysis of intercollegiate football strategies. However, a review of literature dealing with the history of computer analysis in football accentuates the increasing utilization and sophistication of data processing. With this increased acceptability of data processing as an analytic tool, the advantages of a conceptually-based system which yields output designed to provide guideline for the adaptation of the theories and concepts of strategic decision-making are readily apparent.

The application of computer analysis to football has been attempted, and described in the literature, in varied manners. Guidelines for appli­ cation presented in technically sound essays, such as that by Ryan,

Francia and Strawser (1977), offer fine advice for prospective developers of report-generating systems. 13

The advantages Inherent In the utilization of computer analysis in football are well documented. Impressive testimony to the efficiency, accuracy and flexibility of computer-generated analysis exists in the literature. The limitations of data processing techniques are also dis­ cussed, and must be addressed during the development of computer assist­ ed programs.

Finally, the impact of related research on the development of a system of computer evaluation can be significant. While the literature is generally lacking in analytic detail, it does provide valuable insight with respect to elements of possible lncorporative value as well as ele­ ments to be avoided.

Thus, an investigation of the literature related to data processing in football provides a solid foundation upon which a program of concept­ ual analysis of intercollegiate football strategies can be built. CHAPTER III

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

Successful achievement with regard to the expressed purpose of this study, the development and placement in operation of a unique system for computer-order conceptual analysis, has been attained as the result of attention to key developmental elements. The step by step de­ tailing of this research, from conception to implementation, provides an illustrative model for solution of the aforementioned problem.

Conceptual Analysis

The quintessence of this research is the adaptatipn of statistical presentation to the thought process involved in strategic decision making.

While the literature provides substantive numbers of references to various forms of data organization, this is the first approach combining the ad­ vantages of contemporary data processing techniques with conceptual pre­ sentation. Concentration on factors which effect decision making rather than the simplistic acceptance of numerous and varied statistical displays, has resulted in the relatively concise conceptual approach. The basis of conceptual analysis is embodied in the organization of data in a manner which illustrates an opponent's tendency in terms which can be applied directly to the strategic decision making process. The presentation of past performance, in terms of concepts under which an opponent's offensive and defensive strategies have been executed, provides coaching staffs with

14 15 the best possible predictive tool. This cornerstone of conceptual analy­ sis, enables the coaching staff to build its plan for preparation and strategy upon a sound aggregate statistical foundation.

Determination of Essential Data

The first question to be addressed in system development is that of essential data. Analytic consideration of varied factors and statis­ tics distills the vast sea of possible statistical categorization into manageable, important elements. This continuous evaluation and adaptation is the process by which evaluative categories are established and specific data requirements determined. This research has maintained conjugate requirements with respect to the selection of essential data categories.

First, only data essential to the development of the conceptual analysis is gathered. However, the system is designed to provide for flexibility with respect to future incorporation of currently unasked-for but ulti­ mately desired report formats. The incorporation of these conjugate re­ quirements is evident in the structure of the basic data gathering in­ struments (see figures 1-2 and tables 5-6). Both the data gathering form and identically formated computer data card evidence categories for the recording of future forms of analysis, as well as categories essen- tail to the conceptual analysis detailed in this research. The evolution of the data gathering instruments, displayed in the figures and tables cited above, has taken place during years of research, experimentation and consultation. The resultant data categories are the products of these efforts. 0FF GAIN DEF is u. > r> YARD o w c o OR SCORE LINE FORMCODESPLAY ADJ M U Q u < LOSS DIFF

m

i + 1 1

2 B 2 2

3 3 4 4 5 5

6 6 11

9 9

Figure 1 Sample Computer Data Card Format OSU ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT CAIN OSU FOOTBALL COMPUTER ANALYSIS DATE: YAKD OPOK SCORE t/j A LINE FORM LOSS DIFF o c OFFENSE VS loll a y a m BUM ON ______

»■«» w» »itrt

0 o 0 o o c

Figure 2 Sample Data Gathering Form 18

Terminology

As_the determination of essential data to be analyzed is completed, a comprehensive terminology in machine-readable form must be developed

(see figure 3). It is essential that every attempt is made to construct a terminology as nearly identical as possible to that currently utilized by the coaching staff. Adherence to this guideline is a tremendous aid in the acceptance and utility of the computer-ordered system. This research evidences a system of terminology in which all possible offensive and de­ fensive schemes may be translated into a standard language. This language is easily adapted to machine-readable form (see tables 5-6). At the com­ pletion of data processing, the code is presented in the terminology of the user. As a result, the presentation of information to athletes and the study of tendencies and strategies by coaches is greatly facilitated.

Tables 1 through 4 provide detailed descriptions and elucidation of term­ inology utilized in data gathering as well as in the presentation of processed data. Tables 7 through 31 illustrate the final display of terminology in specific conceptual print-outs.

Data Source

The adaptation of computer-ordered conceptual analysis terminology to the offensive and defensive maneuvers of an opponent is achieved through the analysis of previous game films exchanged through agreement between competing schools. Generally, films of the three most recent games are exchanged. However, in some cases opponents may exchange all games. For this reason, as well as to facilitate utility of the computer- ordered system as a self-scouting tool, the program developed in this research is required to maintain analytic capability for at least twelve contests in a single analysis. 19

CONCEPTUAL SPECIFIC PLAY DESCRIPTORS INDIVIDUALIZED FORMATIONS MOVEMENT FORMATION 1st S, 2ND DIGITS PATTERNS -NONE JJ 12 20 ) O-TRAP Si CATCS-ALL -NONE P-PRO F-FLY 0-ROSCOE 0-NONE 0-NONE H-QB 15-BANANA 2-2 TE D-MID 1-RIGHT 1-OVER 1-OVER 32-TB 22-CHECK FLARE 3-TRIPS I-IN 2-RIP 2-TIGHT 2-TIGHT 33-FB 24-COMEBACK 4-SPREAD o-or s i t 3-RIPPER 3-TRIPS 3-TRIPS )4-LEAD DRAW/SPLIT TB 26-CROSSER 5-SLOT R-RETURN 4-REO 4-SPREAD 4-SPREAD 3 5-Z 28-CURL U-(JN BALANCED M-MOTION 5-LEO 5-POWER 5-POWER 36 - SPRINT OUT G-SHOTGUN J-JET 6 -LIZZARD 6 -Z 6 -Z J7-0UICK DROP 30-DELAY E-EMPTY S-SHIFT 7-LIZ 7-Y 7-Y 38-TACKLE POCKET N-NEW N-NEW 8 - LEFT 8 -UP 8 -UP 39-DROP BACK 42-FLAG 9-LOUIE 9-NEW 9-NEW 10-DASH 44-FLAT 11-SHOTGUN PLAY ADJUSTMENTS JO-NEW RUN 00-NONE 20-DAVE 40-LEAD 60-TEDDY ?9-HEW gAfiS 56-HITCH 01-ATOM 21-DELAY 41-LOADED 61-TEX 3RD DIGIT (PASS) 58-HOOK 02-AWAY 22-DIVE 42-OPPOSITE 62-THROWBACK 03-BLACK 23-DRAW 43-OPTION 63-TOM 64-OUT 04-BLOCK 24-ED 44-PASS 64-TRAP 6 6 -POST 05-BOOTLEG 25-FLOOD 45-PAUL 70-WAGGLE 06-BASE 46-PETE 71-YOU 72-SETTLE 47-PLAY PASS 72-YOURS 73-SHALLOW 0 12 0-3 48-PURPLE 90-NEW(0-9) 74-SHORT OUT 10-CARDINAL 30-GEORGE 50-READ 11-CAT 31-GOLD 51-RED 76-SLANT 12-CHARLEY 32-GREEN 52-REVERSE BACKFIELD 77-SPLIT 13-CHERRY 33-HIDE 53-ROLL -I 7 8 -SQUARE-IN 14-COUNTER 34-KEEP 54-SCREEN 1-STRONG 15-CRACK 55- SLAM 2-WEAK 81-IAKEOFF 56-SLAM FLOOD 3-SPLJX 3RD DIGIT (RUN) 83-UP 57-STAY 85-VEER 4-C0N( 5T" 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 58-STRONG 5-T 90-NEW (0-9) 9-NEVi

[■ADDITIONAL DEFENSIVE CONCEPTUALDEFENSE BSSgBHTgR 00-BASE 50-NICKEL NONE ’Ti^AfiAK ---- 10-SLIDE 60-BUCKEYE o T-a 31-KNIFE 61-WIDE 20-SPLIT 6 6 -W/T 6 02-ANGLE 32-LOOP 62-WIDE FIRE 30-SHADE 70-WOLF 03-AWAY 33-LOOSE 63-WILL 40-4/3 80-G.L. 04-AWAY FILL 34-LOOSE COBRA 41-6/1 90-NEW(0-9) 05-AWAY FIRE 35-LOOSE GAP 42-A&M 4/3 06-AWAY QB 36-PINCH 90— NEW (0-9) 07-B 37-QB 95-NEW STUNT 08-BINGO 38-RAMROD 96-NEW BLITZ 09-BLAZE 40-SAM 10-BLITZ 41-SAM DOG COVERAGE 11-COBRA 42-SHOOT ADJUSTMENTS 12-CRASH 43-SMOKE 13-DOUBLE B 44-SMOKE FILL -NONE 40-SHARK 14-DOUBLE BARREL 45-SMOKE FIRE 10-CAT 41-SKY 15-DOUBLE SHOOT 46-STRONG 11-COMBO 42-SPECIAL 16-DOUBLE SMOKE 12-COWBOY 43-SPECIAL 17-DOUBLE WIDE 50-T 13-CUSHION ZONE 20-FILL 51-TEXAS 44-STATE 21-FIRE 52-TIGER 20-HAMMER 45-STORM 22-GAP 53-TIGHT 21-HAWK 50-THUNDER 23-GO 54-TIGHT GO 22-HARD 60-WILDCAT 24-GUT 55-TIGHT SHOOT 23-HOT 61-ZONE 56-TWIST 26-IN 30-LIGHTNING 27-JET 31-MAN 90-NEW(0-9) 28-JUMP 32-POCKET 96-NEW 29-JUMP AWAY 33.-RUSH... ___ SLIXZ___

Figure 3 Offenelve and Defensive Terminology Key 20

While most programs still send observers, or scouts, to the most recent contests, only data substantiated through the objective evaluation of film is utilized in the computer-ordered conceptual analysis. Kerns

(1970) provides detailed justification and testimony to the use of game film as the best provenience of data. In quoting from The Language of

Football (Rote and Winter), Kerns provides articulation for the position of this research, with regard to data sources:

While the scouting report provides an intensive and subjec­ tive look, the latest and most complete, its conclusions and analysis, documentations and observations, only support the images recorded on motion picture film (1966,p.32).

System Methodology

The detailed explanation of methodology utilized in describing the system and its product is essential to the efficient development of the computer-ordered system of conceptual analysis. Fundamental in the establishment of parameters and requisites for the system, this organization of desired output, accompanied by definition of the means by which it is to be achieved, provides the blue-print for the construc­ tion of a unique program.

Tables 1 through 4, designed to convey system requirements to computer programmers, provide the aforementioned blue-print.

Overall offensive evaluation. General guidelines for the inter­ pretation of table 1 are as follows:

1. Sample data gathering sheet (figure 2 and tables 5-6), computer card (figure 1) and desired print-out (table 12) supplement the explanation of methodology provided in table 1

2. Conceptual formations are to be presented on print-outs in descending order, from the conceptual formation occurring most often to that occurring least often 21

3. Specific offensive plays, unique formation and play combinations, are listed on the print-out under their appropriate conceptual for­ mation, in descending order from the most to the least commonly occurring combination

4. Where no difference exists in the number of times plays are run, plays are listed in random order within the appropriate concept­ ual formation designation

5. Table 1 is organized so that designated pages within the table describe various aspects of the desired print-out. These pages are labeled with "print-out" spanner headings. Companion pages, labeled with "data card" spanner headings, describe the location of data on both computer card and data gathering sheets to be utilized in production of print-out information detailed on the corresponding preceding page

6. The arrangement of table 1 remains as described above unless explanatory notes are inserted in the table to better facilitate the conveyance of system requirements

Offensive evaluation by down, distance and field position. General guidelines for the interpretation of table 2, after adhering to those detailed for table 1, are as follows:

1. Sample data gathering sheet (figure 2 and tables 5-6), computer card (figure 1) and desired print-outs (tables 13 through 21) supplement the explanation of methodology provided in table 2

2. Data is initially separated into nine down and distance categories, to be determined for each opponent according to the analysis of an initial listing of offensive plays by down and distance (tables 7-10)

3. Specific distance limits are established according to the following general categories: a) 1st and normal (from -1 to +7 yard line) b) 2nd and long (from -1 to +7 yard line) c) 2nd and medium (from -1 to +7 yard line) d) 2nd and short (from -1 to +7 yard line) e) 3rd and long (from -1 to +7 yard line) f) 3rd and medium (from -1 to +7 yard line) g) 3rd and short (from -1 to +7 yard line) h) 4th down attempts (from -1 to +7 yard line) i)- All downs from +6 through +1 yard line TABLE 1 Computer Ordered Conceptual Analysis of Intercollegiate Football Strategies: 22 Presentation of the Relationship Among Data Gathering Instruments and Final Print-outs

Print-out

Heading Full Heading ?rinc-out Title Abbreviation Title Heading Function

Overall Offense •1 Plays Total Humber The total number of offensive plays evaluated of Offensive and recorded in the analysis (Final Statistics) Plays

*Kote: These 5 statistics are to be printed direct­ ly below the print-out title

'A Runs Humber of The total number of running plays evaluated Runs and recorded in the analysis

&

# Passes Humber of Total number of pass plays evaluated and Passes recorded in the analysis

Runs (___ 2) Run Percent­ age S The overall percentage of running and pass plays in the analysis Passes (___ Z) Pass Percent­ age 23

TABLE 1 (concinued)

Additional Comments

local Plays may ba calculated In two ways:

1. Sum of all calculacad values of Toe-Plays print-out column (This muse ba accomplished at the and of che program) or

2. The final number in daca card columns 3 & 4 for asch game. a. Columns 3 4 4 of che compucer daca card contain a consecutive tally number of offensive plays in che analysis of a particular game. b. Columns 1 & 2 of che compucer daca card contain a two digit number correspond­ ing Co che opponent of che ceam analyzed

Tocal Runs & Tocal Pass may be calculated in two ways:

1. Sum of all calculated values of It Run and It Pass print-ouc columns (This must be accomplished ac che and of che program) or

2 . Humber of all plays meeting che criteria for claasificacion as running plays and as pass plays respectively, as decailad under che Runs and Passes column explanations of chls presentation

Formulas for Calculation*.

1. Z Run ■ [( lt_ Run) ( tt_ Plays)] x 100

2. Z Pass - [( Passes) -r ( £_ Plays)] x 100 24

TABLE 1. (continued)

Print-out

Heading cull Heading Princ-out TicXe Abbreviation Title Heading Function

Overall Offense Con Fmt Conceptual Organization of specific formations of Formation similar concept (Column Headings: Evaluative Cate­ gories)

Tot-Plays Total Mumber Tocal of all plays within this conceptual 0 of Concep­ category (i.e. value equal to number of plays tual Plays listed which have the daca card column 16 nocatlon in question)

Tot-Plays Conceptual When considering all plays evaluated, chat (__x> Plays X represented by the conceptual cacegory Percentage (column 16) under evaluation

Runs Humber of Within che concept under evaluation, che 0 Runs in Con­ portion of Tot-Plays which are running ceptual plays Plays

Runs Conceptual Within concept under evaluation the X of ____ X Plays Run Tot-plays which are running plays

Passes Passes in Within concept under evaluation che portion 0 Conceptual of Tot-plays which are passing plays Plays TABLE L (couciuued)

Daca Card

Daca Card Column Information Column Notation

Col Nota­ translacad it T i d e Function tion Terminology Additional Comments

16 Con For Provldas 9 con­ E Empty 1. Designated conceptual form­ ceptual cacegor- P Pro ation is printed under Con laa under which 2 Two cighc-end Fmc column on print-out all formations 3 Trips may ba classified 4 Spread 5 Slot u Unbalanced c Shoegun N New

1. Example: if 20 of the data cards evaluaced have a "?" in column 16 then the Toe-Plays value of "2 0 " is aligned with che Con Fmc designacioa of "Pro"

1. Toc-Plays (__

(Toc-Plays -f- ‘t Plavs) x 100 •7

16 Con Fmc Columns 23-25 00-05 Run 1. Run indicated if columns 23-24 provide digies & 90 contain: "00,01,02,03,04,05" 6 6 which describe or "90" and columns 26-27 DO run or pass plays 06-11 Pass MOT contain: "05,44,47" or 3-25 Play & 99 "53"

6 6 Columns 26-27 05 Bootleg Pass 2. All columns 26-27 nocacions provide digits 44 Pass are noc listed here, as only 5-27 Adj indicating play 47 Play Pass "05,44,47 & "53" pertain to adjustments. 53 Roll Pass It Run and t Pass values Four of these adjustments change run to pass

1. S Run « (Runs — Tocal Plays) x 100 •> ' ')

1. Pass indicated if columns 23—24 contain: "07,08,09,10,11" or "99" or if columns 26-27 con­ tain "05,44,47" or 53"

2. Note: This value can also be derived from values previously determined with the following formula:

Passes • Tot-Plays - Runs ■) if it 26

TABLE 1 (continued)

Print-out

Heading full Heading Princ-ouc T i d e Abbreviation Title Heading function

Overall Offense Passes Conceptual Within concepe under evaluation, the Z of (_%) Plays Pass Tot-Plays which are pass plays (Column Headings: Percentage Evaluative Categories)

Movmt Movement Description of movement, by offensive backs or receivers, which changes che formacion prior to the snap

3 kid Backfieid Description of alignment of offensive backs Sec at che time of che 3nap

formation Specific formacion utilized within che conceptual Offensive formation category being analyzed and formation corresponding to che offensive play listed on che same line. These result in che total description of manuevers by the offensive team

Bndry/Field Boundary, Indication of whecher formacion strength, Middle field or che two receiver side, is aligned towards Middle the boundary, che field or when the ball is In che middle of che field TAGLG 1 (conciuued)

Daca Card

Daca Cacd Column Informacion Column Nocadon

Col No ca­ Translaced it T i d e Funcdon tion Terminology Addidonal Commencs

1. Z Pass “ (Passes -j- Toc-Plays) x 1 00 It it

2 . Note: This value can also be derived from values previously determined with che following formula: Z Pass • 100% - Z Run

14 Movmnc Provldaa 9 cate­ None 1. Designated movemenc, if noted. gories co describe F Fly is prlncad under Movmnc column movemenc by offen­ D Mid on prlnc-ouc sive backs or 1 In receivers which 0 Orbic 2. Blank space indicaces no changes che forma­ R Recurn movemenc cion prior co che M Mo do n snap J Jec S Shifc 9 New

15 Bkfd Provides 7 des­ I 1. Designated sac, if ocher chan criptions of back­ ~ r S Crong chan "I", is printed under fieid sec 2 Weak Bkfd column; ‘f no indication 3 Split is made then "I" backfieid is 4 Con assumed. No backfieid nota­ 5 T tion prlncad for "I” 9 New

13-20 Form Three digic da- Column Nocadon scrlpcor provides IS 19 2 0 llsclng for all 0-Roscoa 0-None 0-None possible forma­ 1-Right 1-Over 1 -Over cion deslgnadons: 2-Rip 2-Tlghc 2-Tighc Column: 3-Ripper 3-Trips 3-Trips 13: Primary des- 4-Reo 4-Spread 4-Spread crlpcor 5-Leo 5-Power 5-Power 19: Second des- 6 -Lizzard 6 -Z 6 -Z crlpcor 7-Liz 7-Y 7-Y 20: Third des­ 8 -Laft 3-Up 8 -Up crip cor 9-Louie 9-New 9-New

Additional Commencs

1 . 'None1' * No additional descriptors nacessarv. If "0" is punched in chls column no descriptor is printed and the following column is evaluated

2. Designated formacion descriptors are printed under Formation column on prlnt-ouc

2 1 3/F/M Provides 3 de­ M Middle of Field 1. "M" • No screngch alignmenc scriptors of for­ F Screngch to Field possible because ball in middle macion screngch B Scrength to of field alignment Boundary 28

TABLE 1 (continued)

Print-ouc

Heading Full Heading Print-ouc Title Abbreviation Title Heading Function

Overall Offense Pla Specific Listing of each type of play run within Offensive the concept under evaluation. Each play (Column Headings: Play notaclon is aligned with its unique forma­ Evaluative tion designation. Identical formatlon-play Catagorlea) combinations are not repeated, but indicated in the count under che Plays column on che far right side of che print-ouc 29

TABLE 1 (continued)

Daca Card

Daca Card Column Informacion Column Nocadon

Col No ca­ Translaced il TiCla Function tion Terminology Additional Commencs

23-24 Play First 2 digics of 00 Trap 6 Catch-Ail 3 digic play des- 01 QB cripcor provide 02 TB ball carrier o£ 03 FB cype of pass 04 Lead Draw/SpliC TB acclon descrip­ 05 Z tion 06 Sprint Ouc 07 Quick Drop 08 Tackle Pockec 09 Drop Back 10 Daah 11 Shocgun 90 New Run 99 New Pass

25 Play Third digic pro­ 3rd Digit (Pass; Pass Pactern (0-4): Receiver vides running pattern relationship as illus­ play hole or trated and pass acclon de­ pass play paccarn signated as right

Pass Paccarn (3-9): Receiver paccern relationship as illus­ trated and Pass Action desig­ A nated as left 0-3 Pattern Designations Action R Action L 0 aame as 9 1 same as 8 2 same as 7 3rd Plait (Run) 3 same as 6 6• 8 •• 7 6 •5 4 • 3 • 2 • If 4 same as 5

26-27 Adj Fourth and fifth Column Notation digits provide a two digit de­ PLAY .ADJUSTMENTS scriptor occasion­ 0 0 -None 15-Crack 41-Loaded 55-Slam ally used co fur­ 01-Atom 20-Dave 42-Opposite 56-Slam Flood ther clarify and 02-Away 2 1 -0 elay 43-Option 57-Stay specify plays in­ 03-Black 22-Dive 44-Pass 38-Strong itially described 04-Block 23-Draw 45-Paul 60-Teddy in columns 23-23 OS-Bootleg 24-Ed 46-Pete 61-Tax 06-Base 25-Flood 47-Play Pass 62-Throwback 10-Cardinal 30-Gaorge 48-Purpla 6 3-Tom 11-Cat 31-Gold 50-Reaa 64-Trap 12-Charlay 32-Green 51-Red 70-Waggle 13-Cherry 33-Hide 52-Reverse 71-You 14-Counter 34-Keep 53-Roll 72-Yours 40-Lead 54-Screen 90-New (0-9)

Additional Comments

1. Blanks in columns 26-27 No additional descriptors necessary

2. Designated adjustment printed under Adjustm column of print-out, following printing 1, 2 or 3 digit descriptor 30

TABLE 1 (continued)

Print-out

Heading Full Heading Print-out Title Abbreviation Title Heading Funccion

Overall Offense I R Intended Nocadon of intended receiver on pass plays Receiver (Column Haadlnga: Evaluative Catagorias)

R C Route Change Receiver vho's route changes from che basic routs designation

Pattern Designated Notation of route by receiver listed in Paccarn daca card column 30 Deviacion

• 31

TABLE 1 (conciuuttd)

Daca Card

Daca Card Column Informacion Column Notation

Col Nota­ Translaced 4 T i d e Funcclon tion Terminology Addiclonal Commencs

29 In Rec Provides 3 desig­ X Split end 1. Designated incended reclever. nations represent­ Y Tight end passer run or sack abbrevlacloc ing intended re­ Z Flanker printed under (IR) column of ceivers, passer T Tailback print-out runs or passer F Fullback sacks Q Quarterback R Passer ran for "0" of "+" yardage S Passer sacked cor loss

30 Rc Chng Provides 6 desig­ X Splic end 1. Receiver whose pattern changes nations represent­ Y Tight end from chat indicated by daca ing receiver who's Z Flanker card column 25 prlncad under route changes froc T Tailback (RC) column of prlnc-ouc che basic route E Fullback designation Q Quartarback

1-32 Psctem Individualized None 1. Blanks - No receiver patterns patterns which 15 Banana differ from basic pactern differ from basic 2 2 Check flare number assignments route designation 24 Comeback listed in data 26 Crosser 2. If a deviant pattern is noted card column 25 28 Curl ic is printed under Pactern 30 Delay column of print-out 42 Flag 44 Flat 56 Uicch 58 Hook 64 Out 66 Pose 72 Seccle 73 Shallow 74 Short out 76 Slant 77 Split 78 Square-in 31 Takeoff 83 Op 85 Veer 90 Sew (0-9) 32

TABLE I (continued)

Print-ouc

Heading Pull Heading Print-ouc Title Abbreviation Title Heading Function

Overall Offense Plays Humber of Within che concepc under evaluation, che Times a Spe­ number of times a unique formadon-play (Column Headings: cific Play designation occurs Evaluative Occurs Categories)

Plays Specific Within che concept under evaluation, che 7. Play Humber percentage of else unique mirror image play Percentage number designations occurs 33

TABLE 1 (couciuucd)

Daca Card

Daca Card Column Informacion Column Mocation

Col Moca- Translaced it Tide Funcclon d o n Terminology Addicional Commencs

13-25 Play Provlda play 1. After each unique airror-lmage nocaclon play concepc, che number of 26-27 Adj Provide addition­ times this unique concepc occurs in lisced under che it al adjustment or Plays column of princ-out: deacrlsclon 29 In Rec Provides incandad Example raceiver, passer P l a ...... **'/ Plays ** run or passer 33 2 sack 36 1 33 Option 1 ------207.

30 Rc Chng Provides re­ 2. All descriptors which combine ceiver who's pac­ co describe unique play con­ tern deviates cepc, and which are lisced at from basic rouce che left, are previously des­ designation cribed in che approprlace secclons of chis cable

31-32 Paccarn Provides In­ dividualized pac­ tern change no­ tation

1. Plays * [(Sum of unique mirror- __" image play number designations) 4 * (Toc-Plays)] x 100 34

4. Within the first eight analyses listed above (3a through 3h) data further categorized according to the following field positions: a) All plays of down and distance category in question b) Plays from -1 through -10 yard line c) Plays from -11 through -39 yard line d) Plays from -40 through +40 yard line e) Plays from +39 through +21 yard line f) Plays from +20 through +7 yard line

5. Data is gathered in the same manner for each of the first eight print-outs (tables 13-20). Only the particular down and distance cateogry subtitle notation changes with each print-out

6. Data for the ninth print-out, all downs from the +6 through +1 yard line, is gathered under column headings identical to all print-outs, but within restricted down and distance categories divided to acco­ modate for each possible combination in this goal line area (see table 21)

7. Each programming step, with regard to column heading evaluation, must first account for appropriate down, distance and field position. Having limited data within these parameters, appropriate data is pro­ cessed under the column heading requirements in question

8. Offensive plays are recorded in strong-right conceptual terms, as detailed in the appropriate section of table 2

Overall defensive evaluation. General guidelines for the interpre­ tation of table 3 are identical to those outlined for the overall offensive evaluation, except that presentation of data is accomplished in terms of conceptual defense rather than conceptual offensive formation. Table 22 provides a sample overall defensive print-out.

Defensive evaluation by down, distance and field position. General guidelines for the interpretation of table 4, after adhering to those detailed for table 3, are identical to procedures outlined with respect to the offensive evaluation by down, distance and field position, except as outlined below.

1. Where appropriate, defensive evaluative categories replace the offensive categories discussed with table 2 TABLE 2 Compucer Ordered Conceptual Analysis ot Incercollegiace Foocball Rcracegies: Presencacion of cha Relationship Among Data Gathering Instruments and Final Print-outs

Print-out

Heading Full Heading Princ-out T i d e Abbreviation Title Heading Function

Offensive Evalu­ Offensive ation by Down, Downs Distance and Field With ____ Position Yards co Go All Plays A complete list, organized by mirror-iaage Executed on play designation within conceptual formacion, (Page Tide: Down or che Down & of all plays run within che down and dis­ and Distance Distance in tance category lisced as the page's cl da. Range) Offenses: Question First Downs

Offensive Evalu­ Offensive Executed in ation by Down, Plays From Field Zone D is cance and Field — — in Question Position and within Within che down & distance limlcs in question, or Specified all plays which occurred when the line of (Subtitles: Field Down and scrimmage was becween specified yardlines. Position) Offensive Distance Plays Up Criteria to _ _

Offensive Evalu­ it Plays Humber of The total number of plays evaluated and ation by Down, Offensive recorded for the field zone, down and discance Distance and Plays in question. Field Position

(Statistics ? Runs Humber of The tocal number of Plays which are runs Printed below Runs Page Tide) &

It Passes Humber of The total number of Plays which are passes. Passes

Runs (___ 5) Run Percent­ The percentage of Plays which are runs age a

Passes (___2) Pass Percent­ The percentage of Plays which are passes age 36

TABLE 2 (continued)

Daca Card

Daca Card Column Information Column Mocacion

Col Noca- Translaced II T i d e Funcdon cion Terminology Additional Commencs

Down Provldas digics lsc down Liscings of plays wich che through 4 in- 2 nd down same or mirror image play dicadng lsc 3rd down numbers chroughouc chis anal­ chrough 4ch 4ch down ysis are lisced in descending down order of occurrence wichin chelr respective conceptual formacion

7-3 Disc Provides 2 digic 00 nocadon of dis­ througi tance needed by 99 che offensive team in order co secure a lsc down

9-11 Yard Line Provides line of Each heading in che analysis scrimmage loca­ muse be evaluated in cerms of che tion informacion: the specific down (daca card column 6 ) and distance (daca Column Blank Ball on 50 yard- card columns 7 4 3) in question line as che page title. Thus, every 9: + or - side programmed step must first cake • of 50 yard- Ball on defensive into account columns 6,7 4 3, line ceam's side of 50 chen che appropriate daca for yardline individual headings

Ball on offensive ceam's side of chei 50 yardline

Columns

10- 1 1 : yardline 00 Goalline location hrougi ranging 50 Mid-field from 00-50

1. Calculation of these staclsclcs, once daca has been limited co che field zone, down and dis- cance under evaluation, is accomplished in che same manner as described for final scacls- clcs in the "Overall Offense” print-out

Importanc Note

Each programmed seep for che execution of che following column heading evaluations must firsc cake inco account che approprlace data with respecc co che down (daca card column b), discance (daca card columns 7 4 3) and field position (daca card columns 9,10 4 11) criteria of che particular prlnc-out being analyzed. Having limited ics search for data co within chese parameters, che program can extract che appropriate daca required by che prlnc-ouc column heading in question.

As chis explanation continues, the aforementioned procedure is co accompany all pro­ cedures which discuss che gathering of daca for che analysis of princ-ouc column headings TABLE 2 (continued)

Print-out

Heading Full'Heading Print-out Title Abbreviation Title Heading Function

Offensive Evalu­ Tot-Plays Total Xumber Within the down, distance and field position ation by Down, of Plays criteria under investigation the total number Distance and Field of plays evaluated within each conceptual Position category

(Column Headings: Evaluative Categories )

Huns Humber of That portion of Tot-Plays which are running it Huns plays

&

Passes Humber of That portion of Tot-Plays which are passing It Passes plays

Huns Hun The percentage of Tot-Plays which are runs (____ Z) Percentage

&

Passes Pass The percentage of Tot-Plays which are passes (____ Z) Percentage 38

tAULE 2 (concinucd)

Data Card

Data Card Column Information Column Notation

Coli No ta- translated ') Titla Function tion terminology Additional Comments

Down Down in question 1-4 1st through 4th 1. tot-Plays » Sum of all plays downs of a common conceptual for­ mation (Con Fmt column nota­ tion) within the limits under investigation 9-11 Yard Lina Column: 9 Blank 50 yardlina only + defensive side

offensive side Columns: 10-11 00 hrougt 50

7-8 Disc Distance needed 00 for a 1 st down hrougr Yardage 99

23-25 Play Provides a crlple 000- Run Run indicated if columns 23 6 digic indicating 0504 24 contains "00,01, 02,03,04,05" run or 090 or "90" and if columns 26-27 do not concaln "05,44,47" or" "53^ Pass 060- Pass 0116 2. Pass indicated if column 23-24 99 contains "06,07,08,09,10,11" or "99" or if columns 26-27 contain "05,44,47" or "53"

26-27 Adj. Provides double 05 Bootleg digic Indicating 44 Pass play adjustments, 47 Play Pass the numbers "05, 53 Roll 44, 47" or "53" in these columns in­ dicate play action pass; even chough columns 23-25 con­ tain a run number indicator (000-005',

Z Runs - (Runs -4- tot-Plays ) x 100 » Z Passes - (Passes — tot-Plays) x 100 39

TABLE 2 (continued)

Print-out

Heading Full Heading Print-out Title Abbreviation Title Heading Function

Offensive Evalu­ Important Note ation by Down, All data presented, after adhering to the parameters previously detailed Distance and Field is evaluated in a manner identical co chat previously described with res­ Position pect to the "Overall Offense" print-out; unless procedural changes are detailed below. (Column Headings: Evaluative Data gathered from computer card as detailed with respect Co "Overall Categories) Offense" print-out but diversely analyzed and/or presented as described below

Con Fmc Important Note Unlike the "Overall Offense" print-out, individual specific formations are not recorded on the remaining 9 print-outs. Only the conceptual formation under which the appropriate specific formations are grouped is recorded

Pla-Adjustmt Important Note In order to consolidate similar offensive concepts, all plays and adjustments within a conceptual formadon are translated to the designation as if run from a strong right formation of the conceptual category. This is accomplished with information from columns 17 (scrong rlghc or left designation) and 25 (third olay descriptor digit) of the computer data card, under the following guidelines: 1. If data card column 17 reads "R" or "0” print play as recorded. 2. If data card column 17 reads "T," change the column 25 digit by the following formula and print play as changed: Desired Dlzlt ■ 9 - digit recorded in column 75 3. Example: a. If card columns: '/17 * R, #16 ■ 5 and ■'/23-#25 • 089 then print: "Slot 89" b. If card columns: #17 « L, #16 * S and #23—#25 - 089 then princ: "Sloe 30"

•'/ Plays Number of The number of times che unique conceptual Times Play formation and play designation occurs within Occurs in the field zone, down and distance criteria Zone under evaluation

'/Plays Percentage Percentage of time the unique conceptual ___ Z Play in Zone formation and play designation occurs within the field zone, down and distance criteria under evaluation

Offensive Evalu­ Important Note ation by Down, Evaluative categories of these print-outs are identical to those described Distance and Field for the goal line analysis portion of the "Overall Offense" print-out. Posicion Further decail is achieved, however, as subcicles for each page describe all unique goal line down and distance situations (Goal Line Analysis: All Downs from + 6 co - 1 Yardllnes) 40

TAULC 2 (^oiiduucd)

Daea Card

Daca Card Column Information Column Nocation

Col Nota­ Translated it Title Function tion Terminology Additional Commoncs

1. # Plays • (Tot-Plays -J- it Pla} X with identical "Pla designation) x 1 0 0 41 TABLE 3 Computer Ordered Conceptual Analysis of Intercollegiace Football strategies: Praaentatlon of the Relationship Among Data Gacherlng Instruments and Final Princ-outs

Print-out

Heading Full Heading Print-out Title Abbreviation Title Heading Function

Overall Defensive Total Plays: Total Number The total number of defensive plays Evaluation of Defensive evaluated and recorded in che analysis Plays (Final Statistics)

*Noca: These 3 statistics are to be printed direct- ly below the print -out title

Stunts: ft Number of Stunts <> The total number of stunts & total number of blitzes in the analysis Blitzes: it Number of Blitzes

Stunts: (__Z) Stunt Per­ centage i & The overall percentage of stunts £ blitzes in che analysis Blitzes: (__Z) Blitz Per­ centage TABLE 3 (continuad)

Add!clonal Comments

Toeal Dafenaaa nay ba calculacad la three ways:

1. Sum of all calculacad values la Flays prlac-ouc columa or

2. Sum of all calculated values In Plays print-out columa or

3. The final number In card columns 3 & 4 for each game

a. Columns 3 4 4 of compucar data card contain a consecutive tally of number of defensive plays In the analysis of a particular game b. Columns 1 A 2 of che card contain a two digit number Indicating che opponent of the team analyzed

Number of stuncs and blitzes may be calculated In two uays: >

1. Sum of all calculacad values In Stunts 4 Blitzes prlnc-out columns o£

2. Number of all defenses mssclng che criteria for classification as a stunt or a blitz decalled under che Stuncs 4 Blitzes column explanations of chis presentation

Formula for calculation:

Stunt % » [(Stunts: It ) -7- (Total Plays: it ) 1 x 100

Blitz S » [(Blitzes: it ) -f- Total Plays: it ) } x 100 TABLE 3 ^continued)

?rlne-ouc

Heading Full Heading Print-out T i d e Abbreviation Title Heading Function

Overall Defensive Conceptual Conceptual Organization of specific defenses by Evaluation Category Defensive -.oncept Category (Column Headings: Evaluative Catagories)

Plays Humber of Total number of specific defenses with the it Defenses In conceptual designation in question Conceptual Category

Plays Defenses ” of all plays evaluated which fall within ____ Z In Conceptual a conceptual category Cateogry Percentage

Stunts Humber of ■t Stunts In Conceptual Category Total number of specific defenses within conceptual category which are also stunts Blitzes Humber of or blitzes ■t Blitzes in Conceptual Category 44

TABLE 3 icouciuued)

Data Card

Data Card Column Information Column Vocation

Col Mo ca­ Translaced :) Title Function tion Terminology Additional Comments

37-’3 Con Oaf Provides 13 (po­ 0 0 Base 1. Designated conceptual defense tentially 1 0 0 ) 1 0 Slide is princad under conceptual conceptual cate­ 2 0 Split category column on princ-ouc gories under 30 Shade which all speci­ 40 4/3 fic defenses can 41 6 / 1 be classified 42 A6 M 4/3 50 Michel 60 Bucheye 6 6 W/T 6 70 Volf 30 G.L. 90 Mew (0-9)

1. Example: if 20 of che daca cards evaluated have "30” in column 37-38, then a value of 20 is aligned in che Flays column opposite che conceptual cate­ gory designation of "Michel"

1. E Plays - (Plays -7 - Total Plays: _£_) x 100 if

39-40 Specific Columns 39-40 pro­ Column Mocaclon Front vide additional Blitzes defensive de­ 0 1 -A 41-Sam Dog 15-Double 37-QB scriptors. All 07-B 42-Shoot smohe 40-Sam specific defenses 10-3 Litz 55-Tighc 16-Double 43-Smohe with scunt or 11-Cobra shoot wide 44-Smohe fill blitz•designations 13-Double 3 96-Mew 20-Fill 45-Smohe fire in columns 39-40 14-Double blitz 21-Fire 51-Texas will be counted barrel Stunts 23-Go 52-Tiger under che respec­ 15-Double 0 2 -Angle 28-Jump 54-Tighc go tive Stuncs or Shoot 04-Away fill 29-Jump away 56-Twist Blitzes columns 24-Gut 05-Away fire 31-Knife 61-Wide 27-Jet 06-Away QB 32-Loop 62-Wide fire 34-Loose 08-Bingo 33-Loose 63-Vill cobra 09-Blaze 35-Loose gap 95-Mew scunt 38-Ramrod 12-Crash 36-Pinch

Additional Comments

1. Definition of Stunt & Blitz

Stunt » 3 man or lass rush game

Blitz - 6 man or more rush game

2. Tocal number of all specific defenses within che concept evaluated also having indicated nocacions in column: 39-40 or 42-43 entered under Stuncs or Blitzes princ-ouc headings 45,

TABLE 3 (continued)

Print-out

Heading Full Heading Princ-ouc T i d e Abbrevlacion T i d e Heading Function

Overall Defensive Stunts Humber of Total number of specific defenses within it Stuncs in conceptual category which are also stunts (Column Headings: (continued) Conceptual Evaluacive Category Cacegorlea) & Blitzes Number of * Blitzes in (continued) Conceptual Category

Scunts Conceptual ____ Z Category Scunt Per­ Within che category of conceptual defense & centage evaluaced, che percentage of Plays value & which represenc stunts 4 che percentage which Blitzes Conceptual represent bliczes ____ 7. Category Blitz Per­ centage

R Rover or For­ Orientation of the defense either co position F mation De­ of che ball on che field (Rover) or to the fense offensive formation faced (Formation)

Specific Specific De­ Additional defensive descriptors utilized Front fensive Front within che conceptual defense cacegory being analyzed 46

TABLE 3 (couciuued)

Data Card

Data Card Column Information Column Notacion

Col No ra­ Translaced it Title Funccion d o n Terminology Additional Commencs

42-43 Covar Columns 42-43 1 2 Cowboy 1. Coverage adjustment termino­ Adj provide coverage 30 Lightning logy listed under the column adjustments. All 40 Shark notation category at left specific de­ 45 Storm Indicate blitzes fenses with blitz 50 Thunder adjustments in 60 Wildcat 2. Coverage adjustments contain columns 42-43 96 New secondary no stunt notations will be counted blitz as blitzes.

1. % Scunt * (Stunt -f- Plays) x 100 it it

2. 7. Blitz - (Blitz — Plays) x 100 it *

36 Provides 3 terms 0 Other Appropriate "R", ”7” or "0" co be used in che F Field printed under che R column of description of R Rover print-out c defensive orienta­ tion

39-40 Specific Two digit indi­ Blank-None 15-Double smoke 34-Loose cobra 53-Tighc Front cator of addition­ 01-A 16-Double wide 35-Loose gap 54-Tighc al descriptive 02-Angle 20-Fill 36-Pinch go terminology 03-Away 21-Fire 37-GB 55-Tignc 04-Away fill 22-Gap 38-Ramrod shoot 05-Away fire 23-Go 40-Sam 56-Twist 06-Away 0B 24-Gut 11-Sam dog 60-Weak 07-B 26-In 42-Shoot 61-Wide 08-Bingo 27-Jet 43-Smoke 62-Wide 09-Blaze 28-Jump 44-Smoke fill fire 10-Blitz 29-Jump Away 45-Smoke fire 63-Will 11-Cobra 30-Karate 46-Strong 90-New(0-9) 12-Crash 31-Knife 50-T 95-New 13-Double B 32-Loop 51-Texas Scunt 14-Double barrel 33— Loose 52-Tiger 96-New Blitz

Additional Comments

1. Blank • No additional descriptors necessary

2. Designated defense printed under the Specific Front column of print-out 47

TABLE 3 (continued)

Princ-ouc

Heading Pull Heading ?rinc-out Title Abbreviation Title Heading Function

Overall Defensive i> of Plays: Secondary Presentation, in chart form, of appropriate Evaluation Coverage Coverages secondary coverages played with che specific Within Con­ fronts in question within conceptual defen­ (Column Headings: ceptual De­ sive categories Evaluative fensive Cate­ Categories) gories

Adjustments Secondary Descrlpclve terminology for further detail Coverage in description of secondary coverages Adjustments 48

TABLE 3 (conciuued;

Daca Card

Daca Card Column Information Column Nocacion

Col Noca­ Translaced i Title Function cion Terminology Additional Commence

41 Cover Primary coverage Key rocaclon zona number designa­ 4 deep man (blicz) tion provided by 2 deep 3 under zone 1 0 numbers or left 3 deep 4 under zone blank 2 deep 5 under (strong rotation) 2 deep robber (Safecy free) 3 deep 4 under zone 3 deep man (blitz) 3 deep 3 under (prevent) 2 deep 4 under (stunt)

42-43 Cover Two digit number Blank-Nona 23-Hot 43-Special Zone Adj indicating addi­ 10-Cac 30-Lightning 44-State tional descrip­ 11-Combo 31-Man 45-Storm tive terminology 12-Cowboy 32-?ockst 50-Thunder with respect to 13-Cushion 33-Rush 60-Wildcat secondary coveragt 20-Hammer 40-Shark 61-Zone 21-Hawk 41-Sky 90-New(0-9) 22-Hard 42-Special 96-Mew blicz

Additional Comments

1. Blanks • No additional descriptors necessary

2. Designated adjustment printed under Adjmncs col mm of princ-ouc, following single digit coverage descriptor 49

TABLE 3 (continued)

Print-ouc

Heading Pull Heading Princ-ouc Tieia Abbreviation T i d e Heading Punction

Overall Defensive Number of Within the defensive concept under evaluation, Evaluation Plays Unique Defen­ the number of times defenses of a common sive Prone specific front and coverage adjustment occur (Column Headings: and Adjust­ Evaluative ment Combin­ Cacegories) ations

* Unique Spa­ Within che defensive concept under evaluation, Plays cific Prone che percentage of time chat unique specific ▼ Percentage front designations occur

TABLE 3 (continued)

Daca Card

Oaca Card Column Information Column Mocation

Col Mo ca­ Translated it Title Function tion Terminology Additional Commencs

37-38 Con Def Provides concep­ 1 . Within each conceptual defense, tual defense the number of times unique notation specific front and coverage adjustment designations occur is listed in the it Plays column of print-out 39-uC Specific Provides specific Front front description

41 Cover Provides primary coverage notation

42-4: Cover Provides addition­ Adj al coverage de­ scriptors

1 . it Plays * [Sum of identical Z specific front (column 39-40) plays within conceptual category-^- Plays] x 100

1. Z Coverage • ( it of times a par­ ticular coverage occurs within che conceptual cate­ gory -j- Plays] x 100 51

2. Tables 23-30 provide sample defensive evaluation by down, distance and field position print-outs

3. The strong-right conceptual analysis of offensive plays does not apply

4. The application of adjustments noted in table 4 to methodology described in tables 1-3 provides clear detail with respect to the structure and function of defensive evaluation by down, distance and field position

Technical Programming Procurement

As the aforementioned fundamental elements of the computer-ordered system for conceptual analysis are achieved, technical expertise is pro­ cured in order to translate the system into computer language. Several salient concerns are addressed in selecting the technical resources to be employed.

Technical consultants, retained as programmers, are responsible for the successful translation of the system into efficient computer language. Essential requirements of this programming, as well as res­ ponsibilities to be addressed by the technical consultants, are illus­

trated in the following guidelines for the implementation of the complet­ ed system.

1. Concern for usable produce a) Develop and test programs b) Documentation c) Arrange operational procedures d) Provide for desired changes

2. Responsibilities with respect to system development a) Full knowledge of the problem b) Design of an efficient flexible system c) Select suitable language(s) d) Write programs e) Test system and verify operational status of all program parts f) Conduct acceptance test g) Complete documentation procedures TABLE 4 Computer Ordered Conceptual Analysis of Ineercollegiace Football Strategies: Presentation or che Relationship Among Daca Gathering Instruments and Final. Print-oucs

Princ-out

Print-ouc Title Important Noces

Defensive Evalu­ Field position, down and distance range categories (separate page titles ation by Down, and subdcles) in this defensive evaluaclon are identical, in format, Di3 Cance and Field to those which are discussed on the firsc page of che "Offensive Position Evaluation by Oown, Distance and Field Posicion" presencacion (see cable 2 )

(Page Tide: Down and Distance Bangs)

6 (Subdcle: Field Position)

Defensive Evalua­ Determined for each down, distance and field position category (unique tion by Down, Dis­ page tlcle-subdtla combinations) in a manner identical co chat utilized tance and Field in the "Overall Defensive Evaluaclon” print-ouc (sea table 3) Position

(Final Statistics)

Defensive Evalua­ Each program step for the execution of column heading evaluations tion by Down, Dis­ must firsc cake into account che appropriate daca with respecc co che tance and Field down (daca card column 6 ), distance (daca card columns 7 6 3) and Posidon field position (daca card columns 9, 10 6 11) criteria of che parti­ cular category being analyzed. Having llmiced its search for daca within (Column Headings: these parameters, the program can extract the appropriate daca Evaluative Cate­ required by che princ-ouc column heading in quesclon. The aforementioned gories) procedure is co be followed throughout this analysis

All daca, after adhering co che parameters above, are evaluated in a manner identical to chat previously described with respect co che "Overall Defensive Evaluation" print-ouc (see cable 3)

Defensive Evalua­ Evaluative categories of the "Defenses: From + 6 co +1 hardline” tion by Down, Dis­ princ-ouc are, with cwo exceptions, identical co chose of ocher princ- tance and Field oucs detailing defensive evaluaclon by down, distance and field Position position. The firsc exception is produced by incerchanging the relationship between page d t l e (now a field zone) and subtitles (now (Goal Line down 4 distance categories). Second, only plays occuring Ahalysis: in a goal line sicuadon (daca card columns 9-11 values of "+0 0 " Defenses from through "+06") are evaluated on chia print-ouc. As provided in che — 6 to + 1 evaluaclon of goal line offense, each unique down and aiscanca Yardlines) situation occurring on or inside che "+06" yardline is detailed 53

3. Responsibilities to operational procedures a) Establish reliable data entry techniques b) Arrange for computer time c) Establish operational budget d) Procure responsible individual to oversee completed system operation

4. Responsibilities to program maintenance a) Identity of programmer for future consultation b) Original provision in programs to facilitate future maintenance

5. Analysis of costs a) Development b) Operation c) Maintenance

Computer Program

Prodigious effort with respect to conception, development and implementation has resulted in the unique system for the computer- ordered conceptual analysis of intercollegiate football strategies embodied in this research. As the resultant technical programming represents a substantial investment in both time and money, and as the stated purpose of this research is to develop and place in operation this unique system, the verbatim presentation of computer programs is omitted from this dissertation.

The methods and procedures presented in this chapter, augmented by appropriate supplements, clearly address and resolve questions with respect to conception, development and implementation of computer-ordered conceptual analysis of intercollegiate football strategies. CHAPTER IV

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

As illustrated in preceding chapters, the expressed purpose of this

study, the development and placement into operation of a unique system

for the computer-ordered conceptual analysis of intercollegiate football

strategies, has been achieved.

The methods and procedures by which this research was conducted have been executed as the result of attention to key developmental elements.

The cornerstone among these elements is conceptual analysis, the ex­

clusive concentration upon factors which affect strategic decision making.

Having laid this cornerstone, the remaining fundamental elements which

comprise the foundation for this unique evaluative tool were established.

Determination of essential data, through a process of research, experi­ mentation and consultation over a number of years, has resulted in a

system which concentrates on gathering only data which can be utilized

in manipulating records of previous performance into more readily analyzed

conceptual terms. At the same time, the system is flexible and compre­ hensive in design, allowing for future incorporation of currently unasked

for but ultimately desired report formats.

Essential to the presentation of data, is the terminology by which

offensive and defensive schemes, observed during evaluation of film

54 55 of previous contests, are translated into machine-readable form. These maneuvers are, after processing, presented in the terminology of the user.

A key element in the computer-ordered system’s foundation, this termino­ logy facilitates the study of tendencies and strategies, as well as the presentation of information to athletes.

The blue-print for construction of the computer-ordered system of conceptual analysis is embodied in the methodology by which requisites of desired output are conveyed to computer programmers. This meticulous detailing of data gathering, processing and presentation techniques, pre­ sented in Chapter III, is essential to the successful achievement of this research.

Subsequent to the detailing of system methodology, technical pro­ gramming was accomplished. This translation of the computer-ordered sys­ tem into computer language and the subsequent evaluation, performed in establishing the desired system, were the final obstacles overcome with respect to the methods and procedures utilized in this research.

Conclusions

As the methods and procedures detailed in previous sections have surmounted inherent obstacles to research, the basic research problem has been addressed and solved. Important aspects of this solution in­ clude the following accomplishments:

1. Offensive and defensive strategic tendencies clearly illustrated in major areas that influence decision making

2. Clearly interpreted and easily utilized instruments developed, re­ sulting in accurate and efficient data gathering

3. The system of analysis, developed in this research and with the following output, placed in operation by The Ohio State University intercollegiate football program: 56

a) Complete editing programs to control and organize data for processing b) Composite offensive evaluation c) Nine offensive evaluation reports according to down, distance and field position d) Composite defensive evaluation e) Nine defensive evaluation reports according to down, distance and field position f) User and programmer documentation

As previously noted, the unique system conceived and developed

through research documented in this dissertation, is in full operation as the statistical basis for strategic decision-making in one of this country's most respected and successful intercollegiate football programs.

This acceptance is dramatic testimony to the significance and value of the system for the computer-ordered conceptual analysis of intercollegiate football strategies.

Recommendations

While the computer-ordered system of conceptual analysis documented in this treatise is a comprehensive one, its design is flexible, to allow for future refinement and expansion. Recommendations for further study include:

1. Expansion of the report generating phase to explore additional formats provided for in the foundation of this analysis. Formats deserving future attention include:

a) Offensive concepts analyzed in terms of defenses against which they were executed b) Defensive concepts analyzed in terms of offenses against which they were executed c) Selective data utilization determined by weighting factors such as score differential, gain or loss, and time remaining in the contest

2. Adaptation of the current data card information system to an on-line system, in which information can be coded, displayed and manipulated through an on-site unit. Advantages provided by an athletic depart­ ment-based terminal include: 57

a) Immediate inspection of data h) Elimination of technical personnel required for data card prepa­ ration c) Initiation of programs and printing from the athletic department site d) Program query capability e) On-site terminal availability for other athletic department business needs

Advances in information processing technology, are resulting in its increasing application in many fields. The application of computer analy­ sis to intercollegiate football decision-making is still in its infancy.

As its acceptance as a viable evaluative tool grows, coaches will in­ creasingly rely on computer analysis. The conceptual approach to computer- ordered analysis developed through this research, is at the forefront of what promises to be an essential ingredient in the future strategies of intercollegiate football. CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

The significance of this research and its potential value to inter­ collegiate football coaching staffs is clearly and dramatically demon­ strated with its recent adoption by one of the nation's foremost univer­ sities. The Ohio State University, long an academic and athletic leader, has unconditionally accepted the system developed in this treatise. Stra­ tegic planning and preparation time allocation for Ohio State's 1980 foot­ ball season are accomplished in conjunction with the application of this unique system for the computer-ordered conceptual analysis of intercolleg­ iate football strategies. The advantages of time savings, accuracy and conceptual analysis provided The Ohio State University by this system are available to any college, professional or other organized program willing to invest the time, money and expertise in its implementation.

Minor programming changes can adapt the system to the terminology of varied users. This dissertation provides, to the literature, a detailed blue print for establishing a sound, accurate and efficient system of analysis based upon concepts which illustrate the manner in which an opponent's total strategic tendencies are employed.

The following explanation of reports produced through the computer- ordered system of conceptual analysis serves to illustrate major advant­ ages offered the decision-maker by this system.

58 59

Editing Programs

Complete programs for the organization and verification of data and format insure that only properly coded information enters the report generating phase. Descriptive error and warning messages (see figure 4) are printed indicating data which is not in perfect agreement with pre­ determined format guidelines. Prior to the execution of remaining reports, an opportunity is provided to correct data omitted due to such error or warning messages. In addition, editing programs provide complete listings of all data entered into the system. The defensive editing program pro­ vides a sequential listing of all defenses executed, complete with play numbers which allow the user to find desired individual defenses in the original film record (see table 11).

The offensive editing program provides a listing of plays by down and distance in descending order, from the greatest to least distance re­ quired for the first down. This feature allows the defensive staff, if it desires, to select varying down and distance categories in each analy­ sis. For example, third down and long yardage, a classification in which an opposing offense is expected to rely primarily on the forward pass, may occur at third down and six yards to go for the first down with one opp­ onent while the same classification is best applied at third down and eight yards to go for the first down with another opponent. The ability to determine the most significant down and distance breaks for each opponent serves to enhance the value of this system as a tool for use in strategic planning. As with the defensive editing program, the offensive edit also includes play numbers which allow the user to locate each particular offensive play in the original film record (see tables 7-10). 60

Due to subtle differences in offensive, as opposed to defensive, decision-making, standard down and distance breaks are utilized by the offensive staff in their evaluation of the defensive report. However, if desired, the same procedure for selecting varying down and distance categories described in the offensive editing program can be employed in the defensive edit.

Composite Evaluations

After error-free editing programs have been achieved, the system proceeds to produce composite evaluations. These evaluations organize all data in terms of broad concepts.

The overall defensive evaluation first places defenses into one of twelve broad conceptual categories. While variation in defensive align­ ment and execution can be almost limitless, most alignments can be class­ ified under one of these categories. In addition, ten open categories have been provided for completely new concepts which may occur. Once categorized in conceptual terms, specific similar variations are grouped, listed and detailed within appropriate broad conceptual categories (see table 22). In this manner, a complete picture of defensive philosophy emerges, accompanied by indications of specific adjustments and variations.

Organization of the overall offensive evaluation is accomplished in a manner similar to that described for the overall defensive evaluation.

Eight conceptual categories serve to accomodate most offensive formation variations. Provision is made for formation classifications which cannot adequately be described by one of these categories. Once individual offensive formation-play combinations have been conceptually categorized, 61 plays are listed in descending order, from most to least commonly occur­ ring, within appropriate concepts. Significant information, with respect to individual plays, is detailed as illustrated in the sample overall offensive evaluation (see tahle 12).

Overall evaluations provide a statistical basis for the allocation of preparation time. A valuable resource, this time can be organized to concentrate instruction and repetition of selected skills and techniques in a manner directly related to that emphasis placed upon each concept by the opponent. In addition, overall evaluations provide a comprehen­ sive illustration of an opponent's prevailing offensive and defensive systems.

Evaluations by Down, Distance and Field Position

A reorganization of data produces eighteen specific reports which provide the statistical foundation upon which the strategic game plan is built. These reports detail previous performance in comprehensive down, distance and field position analysis.

Format for the nine defensive reports is identical to that utilized in the overall defensive report previously described (see tables 23-30).

Offensive reports (see tables 13-21), employed in the planning of defensive strategies, follow closely the format of the overall offensive report, with one important adjustment. In the development of this adjust­ ment, the following characteristics of offensive and defensive theory were applied. Defensive alignments are oriented in one of two basic ways, either in terms of offensive formation faced or with respect to lateral placement of the ball on the playing field. Defensive alignment 62 to the right or left is governed by these variables and hence is not a factor in itself. Offensive plays bear the characteristic of mirror imaging. That is, any unique formation-play combination to the right pos­ sesses a sister play, its mirror image, to the left. In light of these characteristics, a unique form of conceptual analysis is employed in the nine offensive evaluation by down, distance and field position reports.

First, conceptual formation categories, factors which effect defensive alignment and execution, only are presented. Specific formation designa­ tions, for each play, provided in the overall offensive report, are omitted. Second, all play numbers are converted to strong right formation terminology. For example, the unique formation-play combination "Right

20" is listed under the "Pro" conceptual formation category as "20".

The mirror image of this play "Left 29" is also listed under the "Pro” conceptual formation category as "20". In this format a unique concep­ tual picture is developed. One by which an opponent's offensive ten­ dencies are presented in a manner coinciding with factors which govern defensive strategy and execution. For example, in light of the system described above it is immediately clear to the defensive strategist whether an opposing offense executes a particular type of play toward or away from formation strength. Since formation strength can be a determining factor in the alignment and execution of defenses, this type of concept can be vital to the development of a winning strategy.

Another important benefit of this conversion to a strong right concept for evaluation is the consolidation of information. When mirror image plays, which are identical in their effect on defensive alignment 63 and execution, are combined the volume of information that must be visu­ ally inspected can essentially be reduced by fifty percent.

In accordance with the aforementioned format guidelines, offensive and defensive evaluations organize data through the combined factors of down, distance required in order to achieve the first down, and vertical position of the ball on the football field. Five predetermined field zones as well as an overall analysis are presented with each of eight down and distance categories (see tables 13-20 and 23-29). An evaluation of goal line performance, from the defensive six yardline to goal line area, is provided in a separate report resulting in a total of nine of­ fensive and defensive reports for each analysis (see tables 21 and 30).

As composite evaluations provide the statistical basis for the allocation of preparation time and comprehensive illustration of an opponent’s prevailing offensive and defensive systems, evaluations by down, distance and field position provide a clear illustration of specific game strategy. The application of reports which illustrate an opponent's tendencies on specific areas of the field and in specific down and dis­ tance situations, provide the basis for a game plan whose foundation is laid in accordance with the previously demonstrated strategies of the opponent.

The advantages provided coaches by computer-ordered conceptual analysis can be of tremendous value in best preparing athletes to meet the challenges and reap the rewards of participation in american inter­ collegiate football. APPENDIX A

FIGURES 4-5

64 OSU VS UM 7V R DEFENSE-NONc OFFFNSP—NONE 5-7 4-6 CTL <------COPT OF CONTROL CARO 1110 110,I1L K 1003477 OFF OFFN COVRGE ADJUSTMENT CODE INVALID ** ERROR ** 1115 213-2VM F2000U32 OFF OEFNS COVERAGE NOT NUMERIC OR = SPACE ** ERROR ♦ ♦ 1120 210-33M • K 10776 DEF SPECIFIC FRONT CODE INVALID *♦ ERROR ** 1125 317—3 IN F //03 DEF CONCEPTUAL DEFENSE CODE INVALID ♦ » ERROR ** 1125 317-31M F//03 DEF BLANK COVERAGE, BUT NOT NICKEL DEFN WARNING 1130 304-37R B20 6 ■ DEF ROVER /FORHTN CODE INADMISSIBLE *♦ ERROR ♦ ♦ PROCESSING OEFENSIVE CARDS CHPLETEU SORT— IN COMPLETEDiGOING TO SORT-OUT 1106 110»40L PKUOOF 032 OFF NON-NUMERIC SPEC—FORMTN CODF/OFFNSE ** ERROR *♦ 1104 110-42L PR 1007 037 OFF BOY/FLD/MDL CODE NOT = B, F OR M ** ERROR ** 1102 110-2UK PL BO OF 737 OFF PLAV DESCRIPTOR NOT A VALID CODE ** ERROR ** 1110 208-22R F 0P10CB 010 OFF OFFNS CONCPTUAL FORMTN CODE INVALID ♦ * ERROR *6 110R 309*39M F SM200M 08655 2 OFF RIGHT/LEFT DESIGNATION NOT - H OR L *• ERRUR ♦ * SORT-OUT PROCEDURES COUPLE ISO PROCESSING OFFENSIVE CAROS CNPLETEO NORMAL END— EOIT PROG/SCOUTING DATA DEFENSE : TOTALS = 51, STUNTS = 23 , BLITZES = 9 OFFENSE s TOTALS = 72, RUNS = 50, PASSES = 22

Figure 4 Sample Data Warning and Error Edit Report

O' Ln OSII VS OM 79 R l>=FFNSr-ALL OFFFNSE-ALL 5-7 5-6 CTL <------COPY OF CONTROL CARD PROCESSING DEFENSIVE CARDS CMPLFTFD SORT— IN COHPLETEDjGOING TO SORT-'JUT SORT-OUT PROCEDURES COMPLETED PROCESSING OFFENSIVE CARDS CMPLETED NORMAL END— EDIT PROG/SCOUTING DATA DEFENSE : TOTALS = 5«, STUNTS = 23, BLIT2FS = 10 OFFENSE s TOTALS = 77, RUNS = 55, PASSES = 23

Figure S Clear Data Warning and Error Edit Report APPENDIX B

TABLES 5-6

67 TABLE 5 Completed Data Gathering Form: Offense O s OSU ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT PHONE ?:1 u 'A a 5 hiX OSU FOOTBALL COMPUTER ANALYSIS 422-2531 ?! t- 3= o;o I CAIN :s t/ IT i _l U 1- DATE: •'I.A O l- Y/kit 3 *t o u:n < OR SCORE NTMlIER q r LIH; X X tx R»K» * i*I.AY \DJ M & a LOSS DIFF o c OFFENSE VS 7 7 89 I Ti K I n Wit XTi 731 IEi. if a i i s IBI 1 ON / si / / o - / 6 0 Z7 / 0 / / O - 2 8 R 0 3 7 Ht FFF / o; id 5 -33 1\ o 0 / Oj 11 0 - V z l 0 3 7 f / oi l o 6 - 7 L k i m i m o00 oI X F / oi It <3* Ho t p 1oof c3 2 / 0' Zo1* 3 7ft F p / 00 fi a 2 / 0( 30 3 ?*1 s * 206 ID 00 5 \ I / ? * f

/ oi / I0 - 2 oII 0 2 2 f / / 2o0 - Z z fi 0 / 0 f i / 36b -2 5R o8 Z % 6 6

/ i II 0- 0 t R />/. 0 od F o7 5 Ff / to0- 0 bR p* I(590 c 2 / / / 307 - 0 7R s c I 000 0 0 T 17 3 J / 1 10- 3z L F uR1fc/f o 0 / / si/ 5- 2 7 R 3RZ30C o■J3 5 I T / / 32 9- 33 R (II 3L13 C f 0 9 5 2 5 X X9 Z z 770 * 3 0 R PL803f o£B / i / M 3 7 0 PL0 <3 0*1 o3 3 7 3 /_ 30 6* 3 7R\ 3 L7 3Df o9 cr5 I Z ff

~ - 7 / S 1/1/ *MJI6W PR7 doji O 3 b m w m m o o o

oo (continued) OSU ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT PHONE (»FF OSU FOOTBALL COMPUTER ANALYSIS CAIN 422-75.IJ & DATE: ''LAY OR SCORE (n o S l>KF .'I'MBER FORM rLAY \uj I.OSS DIFF o c ^ CODES OFFENSE VS. DEFENSE 25 | W 1 IGI9 50152 71ZS:%nnh a) 1 i ON _ o r9 V / 4 f

0 e 0 *0 * 0 1 .•'CM 3 -J :i - p : m - .7IUO — »io >-iiO 0 y ? 1 M f p ^1^33213 11533223 o a 0 7 1 4 / f L ^lEsaBaaaliigasszG 0 3 3 ¥ 3 i i ? * n o - 1// a s 0 a 7 ■ l- U O D LL 33 H fj o-rrji Pp H I 0 3 6 *•11011 •••/tiS • ~ n u # L i m 7 1&f > -* w n .is Vi-JAil - • 'F e n c ( , 0 2 7 . 'f c a j 1\L IISQQS3L i t l i f t • 4-*WH s.. ;p i:-:\i9cut w-.tJBct M-tUft ii o n i l 2«iiz|om 0 3L H 3 7 9 0 f P )1- iOCS »-*» .•> uor acts '•S ?« T 0 9 I I5-* ilEMt ll-MM il-* O U i-WUt-P LL m m m m ¥ 7 i . - . j n ; n i J.-**££» »T?onc J-CJLACI > J - i u a •XU , - t u i o r r 0 9 i ~i 5 )»• sun nooe i - ir LLI p i i a Q n g 7 ? 0 f i-.-ia s*-$7ia»c

0 0 i> 5 5 :r;0)U il-uOSE m m 0 0 H 7 9 ^ 1P £ r } k l - M . --ut r:-.i raw /I • i- iu > s i o 2 H-fi'Kl l- U 7 7 9 ^ 1 K-vl IB'll'KO i l \ ? 0 0 H 7 9 0 1• £ •- SLkiJ •— iAfl ■ i S B a a s s •Jisn :*.n >■; ..-iW W T ?|*i 3 7 9 0 1 • ••.ti! LL i m m t 0 0 — >m _• OKI AKiUIS :.-oc»»ii u..»: • i-w a -:u 11 r n m m z 0 9 B 7 9 0 / s - i - s r r :!•>»«{ sv», n m n m : £ • -S90 •1-ifKU, :o- «tuj .1 - :?IC!AL i* *:m ' .;rt 1 0 8* & B | | n w m & 0 1 5 > 7 9 0 / ■ VMIM — * w rt • v-jpm :: ur r . - r t i a t iU.|U.|Nh. ‘f-rirrori - '-0 i~-;tzn j> tO-WIlCC*; is-r:*vr i»vt 0 3 3 7 9 0 1 ?)-WT jO-ujt'M'k o 3 0 7 ? ^ . o 3 ’0 y 3 7 90/ o l T 3

ON NO TABLE 5 (continued) OSU ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT CAIN OSU FOOTBALL COMPUTER ANALYSIS DATE: YARD OR SCORE LINE PLAY \DJFORMLOSS DIFF COOES OFFENSE VS DEFENSE 1011 ON _____

o

o o

0 3

Z o

o n o 9

o o

0 o o o

o TABLE 5 (continued) NflOGI OSU ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT H OSU FOOTBALL COMPUTER ANALYSIS X £3 § CAIN * CODES OFFENSE VS DEFENSE 1 2 54 67'8 9 jcil n (?ilft\t d m h w25 u 23 5 2 1 1 l l l l 0 2 0 R c 13

I 1 l l Z c ) 6 - 3 2 R P L 3 0 3 f 0 2 5 7 3

l l 0 - 3 7 R P L 3 O f 0 25 I 3 I 8 Z i - H 0 o n c L 64 )? z (ft P L 3 30 1 7 3<:5 - rt P t 33 o r 0 22 i 1 1 / fo 3 1 R 9 Le 0 3 f o 33 3 i> P L D o f 0 L H Z c >7 K 8 1 ? 5 0 i n i c 3 R u 8 o f 0 \ 1 i 74 1 f 3 1 (d L s R z 0 o f 0 36 i 5 L i 75 z c >9 Z s 2 R 1 z O f 0 20 3 2 2 L z O f o L 1 b I R 1 58 3 £ i

-

------

- - - ——-- o 0 o o 0 TABLE 6 Completed Data Gathering Form: Defense 3S Kl 1 33S I'd i IDNHO p -4 OSU ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT PHONE c X. 4l as 0FF OSU FOOTBALL COMPUTER ANALYSIS 422-2531 z t X H CAIN 3 v tr. z ►J k. iu t: p. J K ti P OKF DATE: O ♦“J YARD < I c o u _a O o c OR SCORE V> d PATTERN COVER 1 NUMBER Q C1 LINE MCVMNT 1 to u ft FORM m V1.AY U> i n: u n /> u. O LOSS DIFF O C COOKS r— 1 OFFENSE VS. DEFENSE l l 819 ia K I Tn XU U w s i 3 X 3/ 1J 57 S3S i ff HI % 71^0 % ’1 I VI i i =1 1 H1 s 2 i OH ______“ 2 n 5 0 5 F o'63 m m m T'f.r. B • -4At ii .» 1 1 0 - 3 O R i 0 03 y yy r-r*u T-.U J.iOiOl )«w5Nt R m m i o-tu t-«tcai i-rn n:r$ t:j 0 Mir f 3 3 /6 w m m . • i n u o M t r m u-tto MAW/'a?*.:? rs S-ilO I »-«TM -*to ' w 03 y l-/i(*UKO t-ttO »CK 1-fOVtl lar wt R I1 n s m m .-iittVX* :~>n i.-WtCS after -i» T T v -m rr »-u: )S-t*C3I W (IT R i- »nc n >• r . io-dam R ir-awrcts 1 1 tea 1 OCUf • l-U)dQ *1-13 '.n inai :-am IDMW •>-orr:oa i j - i r t 3 1 L / 0 0 y y H-RAiE »**ms •••iiir i /P* R 3 y n cJ-won^ -i-rtot c—*«u c It-Ult ••-rcn : ica ? - »CT7! 2 z o H* 2 5 L R / c 3 V yy ••••fUl >ut rt-'rwi 1-aiUU-W u -*-mm .f.-io.,, l, . -;ao«T x t M-UA* __ 3 0 y 4 2 5 L r 2 0 7 y5 h e SI-IO iM I T D M i)-* O U 0 4/ 1 I R I 0 03 yy y I- II n >4-iC2U3 ;po* ------>-ruct H -iL U l !-.X U ll-tvnorr ZC 74 0 8 L f o 0 55 !•- HAS -UOO i - m : ; li-i? I M U 1 r U-VF.31 K F 8 0 2 Z - 11 A cnctrrtAi -irc.sni ~ 11 M-ucix. so-w cirri l i - o r u i vti: M .-/T 4 I’-LOOf ro-aou D-iJOU LL 0 - 3ZL f I 0 2o 2 i.-ueji ;- *r. o-i| - 11D£ f •• r-i , 1C-4A.40O r - ii : t t u n - •i-M MC •I -MOOT (A f 3 0 3 / y • l->!CU LL o- Z0 — ->»xi ?; ■acii ; w a 10 1 - 2 1 R f 3 0 3 / 2 . i - i r r • d l t t l >*xn •4-iTrrac L J 11 u-.:-so o-inc:^. -:rc.fc ‘4-rJist - - atf-L!SIT>

o ~ a 0 D O 0

"**4 N) CO

o o o 0 o o 1 i*-- i i i**-:; r ] f-ui.O ;. ;-r* 5 ■ sr;;. Q u m o b --:* n i : . i c 9 7 j 5 1-9 2t 1/ « l l tm -?• jmr-*: 0C*.-r>-4i i ' - : t K Jtt4-9f rr isooi-tt »r«-l 34IL 2 2 I 7 91 i 8 2 7 - / 0 ? £ / 7 hij: « a m - M •i I f—«•? no*-®; >on< i m t > L 3 u O f * if.—n 2iw-:: //2 7 I r 'b hi / / S133M I-09 ~s-»ri».-09 J W - W l Amm £ I 1 2 7 i 7 £L- 0 / lUiiK TfSinMJ2 n \i L

• i-o' rJ*>-o* MNlf'l 3 6 hi \ A0 0 T * I / 7 CU'-lt m i - : it iif« •Otli nr?! u n n n i-ti na- HVH-1 11 n 1 W.1U1- K m r . -i *> Zfvtfrt-fc 1 W 1 Ifflt-tl h i \ 0 z 0 1 /) - 0 inis*. r r t I S Q U t- i a i r . - : t •ZTfr?.}-: 1 I 4 » a If 17 IMS-* cior-tt irr*-i: a m - t a?«n.-ct Tvtjcr:-: 4 b l 0 V i y AC-A O f 17 V u-ti*rj- -w iutv*k ? bjJ' iru # -:: ss»* txu■: 1U -» ll 0 z / i U7 7 -9 ctr lz1 7 Cl» fJ»-Ch iTTT diji*R-r 34l 2 I ?0 7 4 ui 0 7 - d 1 I 52 7 •f**!- 0 i i m 40t<3 (, 4'-* I C V t HJ» - iTxnrj-r xr- i2 A ’ -3 totz oint-i i J-* 2-9 8WT7r:v9 K.tlOTf-0 I K U.1 «*•-*< a*.*-; en-t WJ-.WW-I «33Brrriw-fi 1 ' 0 0 9 4 U 1£ -L i f 527 I n i ’-t l-K T7»2* -• 0V»4£< — 03«** a u 3 c WH £ G;so<-*t • j tnitM fi.' c'Ti-ti sets:-! S4i!!-i C«41t-( u n i -i OTJklt ! le t::-: 4lk‘ w : u 6 1 J h 7\ 0 7 4 7 1h -L 01? ht / 1 i m ; « n : - : : 0./-1 usit-i v i rvvvn - ‘ iM*-. J*Oi-t aejsot^t 0 * C i M i -■ h_J b_£ 0 0 1 a VI 9 r - c>/ / IZ / 7 •^OJFlR/F aivirnc!/.!! 7 0 7 0 J a 8 z -0 II 22 j ~ H O K OFti % Ii i K X U 7 % a n Rcel i 81 » Jl n 2 i Th £ 3a i C N K C RT I d a 1 % 19 !?£ *SA 3 S N 3 J J O 1 615 N R E T T A P KL 1 BKFLD S3CI0D £ jiia S S 0 1 > o n a n P-1 r a v AVIJ to 111103 » 3NI1 t 3 a 33311(11: 3 o □3S m o X □ > -i C 3 M 0 3 S 10 <5 o t>1 ss 'Ti r* z t/> aavA tO £ AVIJ : 3 1 V ( 1 < v. f 40 X J 3 ( l m 11 I-. •J z H I VI) U U - Z l * ? s i s a ' i v n v MainjHOD T ivuiooj nsu roW r*i J J 0 1- t i

3 N O H .I 1N3M.LUV<13Q D U 3lll.IV IISO _L 1 1 OK INNA 1 (panufauoo) g giaVI TABLE 6 (continued) HSVH 1 1 p u -i— ; OSU ATIH.ETIC DEPARTMENT PHONE s u w IM 0FF OSU FOOTBALL COMPUTER ANALYSIS 422-25 II o u. X. UJ X ■H t-» Pti a i CAIN 2 nc u J ^ u U3 DEF DATE: FLAY 3 YARD re2 u. u; S1: u. OR S C O R E p u o X l- O li| a- tx: o o c in P YEAR F~ PATTERN O i U Q U DIST to u NUMBER 5 LINE u o FORM m PLAY \DJ « n \ u LOSS I D I F F o c COUES

1 MGVMNT MGVMNT 1 1 a r ~ OFFENSE VS. DEFENSE 6 7e 9 lo // a ff li 16 « ff* 9 ?tn 25 ft'Zi g 31 % 5 E i:7i B W il ON — £ U r i J 7 0 ? n F Z c 3 3 ■ ■Ci.l Z 0 i - 1 0 {> 2 c, 2 Z r-fii J-IOSC9C W<«w 2 R. F 2 0-*U0 i-nc*r :-* ! I .-rtt -n:r* t-CS c b r :-nf :-::zzz I l- f f ' W l 3 0 3 - / £ R F 2 J V 3 2 i_ o-m siT )Htt9 i-mn -Nuun?':r *• a -iLor i' ii-unn wr 0 - A 5 R. £ i 1 2 2 / / F 2 1>nef • woian »-x i - t (7-J01CT. >ROP >-u: i - :* ca i n cxtt £ - n f 2 3 1 i f iu i-jwr ! 1»yp I 't-USO ;-5WtaT / 1 0 - 3 £ L R 1 0 4 3 4 V * v w W •o- t; na - (> L 0 0 3 'i-*;™ uorui • l-UMSO .33 jic: py s-i z 1 0 3 R » H vy \ i i m -J-WfrSiTC i * - 3 L c 2 . 3 :* -l0 -HU a n 3 3 / 11 b m w i-M*yn,z .'s-fi,*® • j-rm l»-*ASC •i-«n 1 7 0 3 0 I F / 3 1 0 l \ D t f - i - m / u j y, i • f i iar«i .1 - U-.CCBCK 10-iuo 1 / 3 3 D <1 a /0 1 3 |2 /^F>Ff :i-at n-iou It-UB r u •vun.r: *.:• ;u*3 0 0 2 L 3 is-acm M-awc 11-'Oil n-i-TOMi-; 3 3 R I 0 b 2 __J > --;c ie e » I- -- - W > i t H - ilM uaoir !** iUlt TVXft i:-»ui >4-iTMMC 5 3 / / £ - a 0 *] (2 1 6 3 5t n e f J* / / 0 - 3 3 Z 0 £ I 2 F y / *l I V t F Z £ R »■ U i( 0i 3 0 i-i- »u:m s o -* > c x n i »T « 11-*9111 ■: ■> i l i M t : - - : r c ' i u 3 5 Z >•> inADt ■9—JU St-.OOSC I--!!L 1 8 fl 5 t • J - / ) »-;. l u -.- ai *:n i-ijcit :.'tu V 0 - » wai t; u !?-L*JuSt A? • ; **n . / j *>-<.*. « j* -> r c s o -> r. •:» )--v« j • -t . . m r -r- u.:*: 0 1 5 L 0 0 8 Z C jH P t J -••U n L - - • • -:a* >■; : ILU : i u i / Z 1 0 2 5 L 0 0 8 I 0 i? n i f O.V • - . i l l - - » —->»»*. 1 ; •■K.iAM • - «r»: i: • ^ s o •i-if« c :A _ i-v-rot j ir i i : - i w ‘ ‘ - • t v - i . ; ; t ! - -.SrflCI ; c s l ; ; : tEE 5 i-: a A i - : : - v if 5 : r : o a • >- j ’ T tl .*r i -- V.--U.X s - i a i o u -i 'a - < u u •vo-. iieca : i* .» j : i no? ^I-.’CNC ;^ -i» >a uca-Mir. : ■ *«i i - « »o--r*(■)■** •'if - : ; - i v * r r >*-

^4 APPENDIX C

TABLES 7-11

75 TABLE 7

OSU VS UM 79 LISTING OF OFFENSIVE “LAYS IN OFSCFNOING ORDER OF DISTANCE — GROUPED 8Y DOWN 10/07/80 PG. 1

SEO. YRO DOWN C MOVE­ 8ACK- SPFCIFIC B ADJUST- R PATTERN I RUNS PASSES NBR.LIN 01 STANCF MENTFIFLD FORMATION F PLAY MENT C CHANGE R A T * • 1 115 -32 1 c FLY RIGHT 7 OVFR 1 112 -04 I 6 10 LEFT IS I 01 -15 1 C 10 FLY RIGHT 21 1 104 -20 1 C 10 LFFT 22 1 55 -17 1 C 10 LEFT 22 I 58 -31 1 c 10 LIZ 24 1 168 -39 1 c 10 LEFT 25 CHE°RY 1 127 -41 1 c 10 LZARO 27 1 118 ♦ 3P 1 G 10 LEFT 28 1 162 -*14 1 G 10 LEFT 23 11106 ♦ 40 1 G 10 R 1GHT 32 1 63 -44 1 C in LEFT 33 11 60 -42 1 G 10 FLY LEFT 33 i 149 ♦ 19 I G 10 LIZ 33 ii 66 -28 1 C 10 LEFT 33 li171 ♦ 34 1 G 1° LEFT 33 1 146 ♦29 1 C 10 FLY LFFT 33 i 141 -49 1 C 10 FLY LEFT 33 l 143 ♦ 39 1 G 10 FLYRIPPR 36 OPT ION i 21 ♦ 36 1 G 10 RIGHT 36 l 28 ♦37 1 G 10 RIGHT 36 i 30 ♦ 11 1 G 10 RIGHT TITF 36 OPTION ii 74 ♦26 1 G 10 RIP 36 LEAO i 02 -28 1 G 10 LEFT 37 i 04 -42 1 G 10 RIGHT 37 i 124 -25 1 G 10 FLY SPLT LFFT TITE TPPS 49 n 36 ♦ 29 1 G 10 RIPPR Y M 72 IYI SIIRT OUT Y n 35 ♦ 48 1 G 10 RIPPR Y F 84 (VI SHALLOW Z i 33 -20 1 G 10 RIPPR V M 86 SLAH IYI SHALLOW T 26 ( 40 XI 3 I 10 II 1139 ♦ 03 1 G 08 FLY LIZ SPPD M 98 IX| FLAG X 0 1 0 II I 1100 Cl 1151 ♦ 07 1 G 07 LZARD F 33 AWAY I I ICO Cl 0 1 0 TI 27 I 07 T| A I 13 Cl

^4 ON TABLE 8

OSU VS UM 79 LISTING OF nFFFNSIVF “LAVS IN DESCENDING ORDER OF DISTANCE GROUPED BY DOWN 10/07/80 PG.

SEQ. YRO DOWN C MOVE- B ACK- SPECIFIC a ADJUST­ RPATTERN RUNS PASSES NRR.LINDISTANCE MENT FIELD FORMATION F PLAY MENT C CHANGE 4 X * 4 1153 ♦ 13 ■» r. 13 FLY LIT TRPS F 95 FLOOD ! G 09 FLY RIGHT B 10 1113 -06 *> r. 03 RIGHT B 21 1166 ♦ 37 ? rt 08 FLYRIPPP F 22 1156 -19 ■> r. 08 LZARO F 33 1160 ♦oe 7 r. 08 FLY SPLT RIGHT TITE TRPS M 93 SLM-FLD 5 I 83 7 1 1 ( 17 71 1122 ♦ 33 ■> r. 07 RIGHTF 19 1172 ♦ 36 7 r. 07 LEFT F 19 1107 ♦ 3 7 7 r. 07 FLY RIGHT M21 1169 -62 7 1! 07 LFFT M 36 4 I 100 71 0 1 0 71 1167 -3 2 ■> r. 06 LEFTF 25 CHFRRY 1129 ♦ 33 ■7 r. 06 RIGHT F 27 1125 -29 7 r. 06 LEFT B 28 1105 -66 7 r. 06 IN RI GMT F 8 0 BLOCK 1171 ♦ 07 7 g 06 MOTION PIGHT TITE TRPS F 96 FLOOD (Z 1 FLAG 3 I 60 71 2 I 60 71 1103 -3 3 7 G C»5 FLY LFFT M 23 1 1100 71 0 ( 0 71 1152 ♦ 06 7 r. 06 IN LEFT TITE M 21 KEEP 1162 ♦ 65 ■» G 06 FLY RIGHT M 36 ____, ______2 (100 71 0 1 0 XI 1 15C ♦ 12 :» r. 03 LZAP.O F 27 1136 -2 7 7 G 03 RIPPR Y F 81 IZ) CROSSER 1 ( 50 71 1 ( 5 0 71

1159 -30 7 G 02 FLY LEFT F 25 116 7 ♦ 21 2 r. 02 LFFT F 32 2 I 100 71 0 1 0 71 20 I 71 71 8 I 29 Tl TABLE 9

OSU VS UM 79 LISTING OF OF FENS 1VF “LAYS IN DESCENDING ORDER OF DISTANCE — GROUPED BY DOWN 10/07/80 PG.

SEO. YRD DOWN C HOVE- BACK- SPECIFIC B ADJUST- R PATTERN I RUNS PASSES NBR. LIN OISTANCF MFNT FITLO FORMATION F PLAY KENT C CHANGE R « 1 * * 11*9 +18 1 C 1R MOTION L7ARO TRPS F 95 FLOOD (XI FLAG X ------0 1 0 7) I 1100 7) 1132 +12 3 f. 11 MOTION RIGHT TITE TRPS F 94 FLOOD 17) FLAG T ------0 C 0 7) I 1100 I) 1165 -49 3 C 10 LEFT F 45 1138 +29 3 C 10 RI<>PR Y M 03 X 1 I 50 7 1 1 I 50 *1

1100 *39 3 E 09 FLY RIP M 86 SLAM Z 1117 -33 3 E 0 9 MOTION LIZ TRPS F 95 FLOOD IX) FLAG X ------0 ( 0 ’.) 2 1103 {) 1123 *33 3 E 07 FLY RIGHT OVER F 63 R 1114 -07 3 C 07 FLY P.IP B B6 (Y) SHALLOW T ------f | OX) 2 1100 n 1173 *35 3 E 06 FLY LEFT OVER F 19 1176 +22 3 E 06 RIGHT TITE F 29 KEEP 1126 -29 3 E 06 RIPPR F 33 OPTION 1120 +34 3 E 06 MOTION LIZ TRPS F 96 _£^-FL0______£ 3 1 75 7) 1 I 25 7)

1170 -44 3 C 05 LEFT M 22 1111 -25 3 E 05 FLY RIGHT B 86 IZ) POST Z 1145 *34 3 E 05 MOTION RIP TRPS M 94 FLOOD (X) FLAG __ _T 1 I 33 ') 2 I 67 *)

1147 -24 3 E 03 MOTION LIZ TPP5 M 95___ FLOOD IX) FLAG __ _T 0 1 0 1) 1 1100 t)

1148 *20 3 £ PI IZARD F 33 LEAD ------1 (ICO 1) 0 1 0 1) ------4 I 35 7) 11 i 65 1)

^4 00 TABLE 10

OSU VS UM T*> LISTIN'-, OF OF FENS IVF PLAYS IN OF SC ENDING ORDER OF DISTANCE — GROUPED BY DOWN 10/07/80 PG.

SFO. YRO DOWN t MOVE- BACK- SPECIFIC B ADJUST- R PATTERN I RUNS PASSES NBR. LIN DISTANCE MENT FIELD FORMATION F PLAY MENT C CHANGE R i t * * 1177 *26 A C 10 RIGHT TITE F 10 I ICO 11 0 1 0 (1 (100 (I 0 ( 0 *1

■^4 VO TABLE 11

OFFENSIVE RFCURDS : I------1 1

PLAY nns-YLH tlFF-FQR H PL/A0 PCVR R/F criNC FRNT CVG A0J5T G/L-SOO OPYRCOE I 101 110-20M -F- -20- -6 3- -6- -co- OFF 1 102 U C - 3 6 R -R- -10- -03- -5- -55- OFF 1 103 200-37M -F- -30- -31- -6- -00- DEF I 105 1 K - 5 7 L -R- -10- -03- —5 — -00- OFF 1 105 207 50L -R- -10- -03- -5- -55- OFF 1 106 31G-57R -R- -10- -03- -5- -32- DEF 1 107 110*31L -R- -10- -03- -5- -55- DEF I 10B 205*251 -R- -10- -03- -5- -55- DEF 1 100 305+25L -F- -20- -00- -7- —55 — OFF I no 110 + 11L -R- -10- -03- -5- -55- OFF © © 1 1 111 207+ORL -F- 1 -5 5- -9- -00- OFF 1112 301+02R -F- -B0- -22- -00- UEF 1 113 5 0 1 + 12M -F- -00- -55- —9— -00- DEF 1 115 110-32L -F- -10- -20- -00- DEF 1115 21.3-29H -F- -20- -00- -5- -32- OFF 1116 110-20M -F- -30- -31- —5— -00- DEF 0 © 1 1117 209-21R -F- -30- -31- -2- 1 DEF 1116 301-29L -F- -60- -00- -6- -00- DEF 1110 110-3 IN -F- -3 0- -31- -5- -00- DEF 1 120 21G-33M -R- -10- -03- -6- -00- DEF 1121 307-363 -F- -50- -12- -00- DEF 1122 11 0-2 OR -F- -10- -20- -2- -00- DEF 1123 110-3e« -R- -10- -03- —5— -55- DEF 1125 20 7-51L -F- -20- -21- —5— —00— DEF 1 125 317-31H -F- -50- -03- — - —00— DEF

OO o

/ TABLE 11 (continued)

OFFENS IVF RECORDS : DSII VS IIM 79 1------1 10/07/80

“LAV UOS-VLH (JFF-FORM PL/AD RCVR R/F CONC FRNl CVG AOJST G/t-SDQ 0“VRC06 1 126 U P - 2 0 M -20- -61- -2- -00- OFF 1127 208-22M -F- -10- -20- -2- -00- UEF 1 12A 110-31L -F- -20- -11- -6- -22- OEF 1 129 21C-31L -F- -20- -61- -2- -00- UEF 1 130 306-37R -F- -20- -00- -6- -00- OEF 1 131 11P-61R -10- -20- -2- -00- OFF 1 132 110— 27R -R- -10- -06- -3- -00- OEF 1133 110— 13L -F- -20- -61- -3- -00- OEF 1136 206-19M -F- -20- -11- -6- -00- UEF 1 13*5 301-22R -F- -60- -16- -6- -00- OEF 1 136 llf-151 -F- -20- -50- -3- -00- OEF 1137 216— 151 -R- -1 0- -03- -5- -00- OEF 1 133 209*1RL -R- -10- -60- -1- -00- UEF 1 139 106+C6M -F- -00- -55- -9- -00- OEF CC 0 1 1 1 1 1160 202+02M -F- -22- --- 0 0 OEF 1161 301+01M -F- -80- -22- --- -00- DEF 1 162 11 f— 0“M -F- -20- -63- -3- -00- DEF 1 163 207-12R -F- -20- -62- -6- -22- OEF I 166 303-16P -F- -20- -61- -6- -32- OEF 1163 110-25R -F- -20- -11- -6- -22- OEF I 166 206-30M -F- -20- -61- -6- -00- OEF 1 16 7 110-36L -R- -10- -03- -6- -66- OEF 1 169 210-36L -R- -10- -03- -6- —6 6 — OFF I 169 30 9-3HL -F- -30- -31- -3- -00- OEF 1 150 110-30R -10- -20- -6- -00- UEF 1 151 210-3CM -R- -10- -00- -3- -32- UEF 1 152 3f 3-32L -R- -1 C- -00- -6- -32- UEF 1 153 110-20H -R- -10- -00- -3- -00- DEF OEF 1 156 U 0 - 3 3 R -F- -20- -II- -6- -22- 1155 200-35R -P- -10- -0 3- -7- -60- UEF 1 156 31 S-?!!'! -F- -50- -00- -- -00- DEF

1 1 OEF I 157 Ilf-2SL -R- -00- 0 -8- -20- 1 153 210-251. -F- -00- -oc- -8- -10- OEF APPENDIX D

TABLE 12

82 TABLE 12

TEAM: OSU VS UM 79 OVERALL OFFENSE 11 /03/EO

SUBTITLE: CONCEPTUAL CATEGORIES 77 PLAYS 54 RUNS I 70*) 23 PASSES I 301)

CON FMT *TOT—PL AYS* ****RUNS*** ***PASSES*** MOVMT BKFO FORMATION 6N0RY/FIELO/MIODLEPLA-AOJUSTMIRC) PATTERN (IK)

PRO 36— C 491) 35-« 921) 3 -I b*l LEFT CB 3F OM 33 ) 3 RIGHT OB CF IM 3b ) 1 RIGHTOB IF CM 36 ) 1 LEFT Ob CF IM 33 OPTION ) 1 LEFT OB OF 1M36 1 1 FLY RIGHT OB OF IM 36 ) 1 FLY LEFT OB OF IM 33 ) 1 FLY LFFT IB OF CM 33 ) t FLY LEFT 03 IF CM 33 ) 1 294 LEFT OB 2F OM 28 ) 2 FLY RIGHTOB OF ?M 21 ) 2 RIGHT lb OF OM 21 1 1 LEFT IB wF CM 28 ) 1 FLY LEFT OB OF IM 28 ) ----1 161 RIGHT OVER OB IF OM 19 ) 1 LEFT Ob IF OM 10 ) 1 LEFT 06 IF CM 19 ) 2 FLY RIGHT IB CF CM 10 > 1 111 LEFT OB OF ?M 22 > 2 RIGHT OB IF OM 27 ) 1 LEFT OB IF CM22 ) 1 111 RIGHT ub IF CM 32 ) 1 RIGHT OB IF OM 37 ) ' 1 LEFT OB IF CM 32 1 1 LEFTOB IF OM 37 ) 1 LEFT OB 2F OM 25 CHERRY ) 2 FLY LEFT uB IF OM 25 > 1 6* LEFT OB IF CM 15 ) 1 3 * LEFT OB IF OM 45 ) 1 34 IN RIGHT bB IF CM 80 BLOCK ) X 1 34 FLY RIGHT lb OF CM B6 I) POST Z 1 3* FLY RIGHT IB OF CM 85 Z) TAREUFF Z I 34 SLOT 19-C 251) ll-C 58*) 8 -( 42*) RIP Cb IF OM 36 LEAO ) 1 RIPPR OB IF OM 3 3 OPTION ) 1 LZAHO uB IF OM 33 AWAY ) 1 LIARD OB IF OM 33 LEAD ) 1 LIARD i>B IF CM 33 ) 1 LII OB IF CM 33 ) 1 FLY RIPPR OB IF OM 36 OPTION 1 1

RIPPR Y GB CF IM 66 SLAM Y) s h a l l o w T i RIPPR Y 09 OF IM 83 ) X 1 FLY RIP OB OF IM86 SLAM > Z 1 FLY RIP IB OF OM 86 Y) SHALLOW T 1 ------214 00 U> TABLE 12 (continued)

TEAM: OSJ VS UM 79 OVERALL OFFENSE 11/03/60

SUBTITLE: CONCEPTUAL CATEGORIES 77 PLAYS 54 RUNS C 70*) 23 PASSES I 30?)

CON FMT *T0T-PLAYS* ****RUNS*** ***PASSES*** HOVMT BKFD FORMATION BNDRY/F1ELD/MIDOLEPLA—ADJUSTMIRC ) PATTERN (Ik ) **»PLAYS**

LZARD CB 2F CM 27 I ) 2 f l y RIPPR OB IF OM 22 I )_ ____1_ RIPPR Y CB OF IM 84 IZ ) P C S T RIPPR Y CB IF CM 84 c y ) :h a l l g «i ll* LIZ OB OF IM 24 ( ) 5* RIPPR Y OB OF IM 72_ I 1 ) Si kT G J T 5* RIPPR Y OB IF cM 81 (Z ) CROSSE* 5* TRIPS 11-1 14?) 1-1 9?) 10 -( 91*) FLY LIZ TRPS OB IF CM 45 FLOOD IX) FLAG MOTION RIGHT TITE TRPS .OB IF CM 94 FLOOD (Z) FLAG MOTION RIGHT TITE TRPS UB IF CM 94 FLOOD 11 ) FLAG MOTION RIP TRPS OB OF IM 44 FLOllO i x ) f l a g MOTION LZARD TRPS OB IF CM 45 FLOOD (/.) f l a g MOTION LIZ TRPS OB IF OM 45 FLOOD (X) FLAG MOTION LIZ TRPS OB OF IM 95 FLOOD IX) F l a g 64* KIP TRPS IB OF CM 93 SLAM FLDI ) f l y s p l i t r i g h t t i t e t r p s OB OF IM 93 SLAM F Lu ( ) MOTION LIZ TRPS OB _1F OM 96 SLAM FLDI » 27* FLY SPLIT LEFT TITE TRPS CB IF CM 49 I > 9* 2 Tt 5-C 6*) 5-C100*) ■I 0*) RIGHT TITE OB IF OM 2e KtEP I ) RIGHT TITE OB IF CM 28 I ) IN LEFT TITE OB OF IM 21 KEEP I ) 6C< RIGHT_TITfc UB IF CM 10 _l )_ 2C* RIGHT TITE OB IF OM 36 OPTION I ) 2c* UNBALNCO 3— ( 4*) 2-( 671) 1 -( 33*) FLY RIGHT Z OVER CB IF CM 1C I I FLY LEFT OVER CB IF CM 19 I ) 67* FLY RIGHT OVER CB IF CM 63 I I 33( SPREAD 1-1 II) 0—( 01) 1 -(ICO*) FLY LIZ SPRD CB OF IM 9B ix) f l a g

oo -O APPENDIX E

TABLES 13-21

85 TABLE 13

TEAM: OSU VS UM 79 OFFENSES: FIRST DOWNS 11/03/80

SUBTITLE: OFFENSIVE PLAVS U P TO *7 YARD LIN 31 PLAYS 27 RUNS ( 87%) A PASSES I 13%)

CON FMT »TOT-PLAYS* ****RUNS*** ***PASSES*»* MOVMT BKFD FORMATION BNORY/FIELD/MIDDLEPLA—AOJUSTMIRC) PATTtRN IIK) **»PLAYS»*

PRO 18-1 581) 18— 1 ICO'!) 0 -I Oil 08 AF OM 36 OB OF IM 36 FLY OB OF IM 36 FLY IB GF OM 36 FLY OB IF OM 3 6 AA1 CB 2F CM 21 FLY 03 cF IM 21 171 CB 2 F OM 32 OB IF CM 37 171 CB CF IM 27 OB IF OM 2 7 111 OB IF OM 1A I 6% OB IF OM 2A CHERRY < 6i SLOT 9-1 29%) 6— 1 67%) -I 33%) OB IF CM 36 AWAY ) Ob IF CM 36 LEAD I OB IF GM 36 ( FLY OB IF GM 36 OPTION I ------AA'1 OB IF CM 22 ( 111 OB OF IM 25 _ I 11% CB OF IM 72 ( Y SM^T OUT Y 11% OB OF IM 86 SLAM I Y Sh a l l o w T IU OB IF OM 6 A ( Y Sh a l l Lw I - _ 1 U 2 TE l-( 3%) 1-1100%) 0 -( 0%) OB IF OM 36 0°TI0N I . _ _ _ t t-

TRIPS l-l 3%) 1-1100%) 0 - 1 0%) FLY SPLIT OB IF CM AO (

SPREAD 1-1 31) 0—I 0%) 1 -1100%) FLY CB oF IM 91 I X FI AS X 1 -1C01 UNBALNCO 1-1 31) 1-1100%) 0 -t 0%) FLY Ob IF GM 10 l" — 10C1

00 CT> TABLE 13 (continued)

TEAM: OSH VS UM 7*» . OFFENSES: FIRST DOWNS 10/07/03

SUBTITLES OFFENSIVE PLAYS FROM -1 AND -10 I PLAYS I RONS I100T.I 0 PASSFS I 0? I

CON FMI *TOT-PLAYS* ****RIJHS*** ***PASSES*** HOVHT BKFD FORMATION 8NDRY/FIFLD/MIODLEPL A-ADJOSTHIRCI PATTERN IIRI ***PL*YS**

PRO I-I100II I-Iiro-Sl O -I 0?l______0B__ IF 0H_ IA_ I }_ 1 ^

00 "4 TABLE 13 (continued)

TEAM: OSU VS UM 79 OFFENSES: FIRST DOWNS 11/03/00

SUBTITLE: OFFENSIVE PLAVS FROM -11 AND -39 10 PLAYS 9 RUNS I 90?) 1 PASSES ( 10?)

CON FMT *TOT-PLAYS* ****KUNS*** *9*PASSES*** MOVMT BKFD FORMATION BNORY/FIELO/MIDDLbPLA—ADJUST Ml RC ) PATTcRN I Ik ) ***?LAYS**

PRO 6-1 06?) 6 - U C 0 7 ) 0 - 1 C?) OB OF 1M 27 OB IF CM 2 7 33? FLY _0B OF 1M 21 17? OB IF OM 29 CHERRY 17? uB IF CM 32 17? OB I f" OM 36 17? SLOT 2-( 20?) i-t 5C?) -» SC?) 08 OF 1M 25 50? OB OF 1M B6 SLAM SHALLOW 50? 0 -I 0?) FLY OB IF OM 90 TRIPS 1-1 10?) 1- 1100?) SPLIT 10 u 7 UNBALNCD l-« 10?) 1- 1100?) 0 -I 0?) FLY CB IF OM 10 IOC?

oo 00 TABLE 13 (continued) t e a k : USii VS UK 79 OFFENSES: FIRST DOWNS ll/uj/fco

SUBTITLE: OFFENSIVE PLAYS FROM -40 AND 440 7 PLAYS 6 RUNS I 867) 1 PASSES I 147)

CON FMT ♦TOT-PLAYS* ****RUNS*** ***PASSES*»* HOVMT EKFD FORMATION BNURY/FIELD/MIODLEPLA—ADJUSTKIRCI PATTtRN UKl **«Pl ATS»»

PRO 5-1 7I'd 5-11007) 0 -I 07) OB IF OM 36 7”) I FLY OB OF 1M 36 I ) 1 FLY IB OF OM 36 ( ) I CB IF OM 32 I ) 1 ______OB _IF _ GM_ 37 ______l______I__

SLOT 2-1 297) l-I 50X) 1 -( 50 7 ) ______0 8 _ IF 0M_ 2 2_ _ 7 t_ ~ _ 7 ~

»B i f c m B4 i y ) Sh a l l o w z i

oo VO TABLE 13 (continued)

TE* n : JSU VS UN 79 OFFENSES: FIRST DOWNS ll/C3/fcO

SUBTITLE: OFFENSIVE PLAYS FROM *39 AND *21 8 PLAYS 7 RUNS ( 88X1 1 PASSES ( 13X1

CON FMT *TOT-PLa YS* ****RUNS*** ***PASSES*»* MOVMT BKFD FORMATION BNORY/FIELO/MIOOLEPLA-AOJUSTMIRCI PATTERN IIRI

PKU 5-1 63X) 5-llOOX) 0 -I OX) CB 2F CM 36 I ) 2 OB OF 1M 36 I I 1 FLY OB IF OM 36 I ) 1 _OB_ IF OM_ 2 1 ______I Jl_ 1__

SLOT 3-C 3 8 0 2-1 67X) I -I 33X) Ob IF OM 36 LEAD 7 ) 1 FLY OB IF OM 36 OPTION I ) 1 _06 OF 1M_ 72 _ I Y I _ S k r 7 LUl__Y_____ ~ i ~ ~

vO O TABLE 13 (continued)

TEAM: osu VS UM 7° OFFENSES: FIPST DOWNS 10/07/80

SUBTITLE: OFFFNSIVF PLAYS FROM *20 AND »7 5 PLAYS A RUNS i 80*1 1 PASSES I 205)

CON FMT *TOT-PLAYS* ♦♦♦♦RUNS*** ***MASSES**♦ MOVMT BKFD FURHATION BNDRY/FIELD/MIDDLEPLA-ADJUSTMIRC» PATTERN (IRt

SLOT 2-1 AOTI 2 - 11 GC'i I 0 -1 OS I OB IF OM 36 AWAY I I 1 _0B IF OM 36_ I l_ 1

PRO l-« 20*1 1-1100*) 0 -I 0*» OB IF OM 21 I I 1 __ _ -- 100* 2 TE 1-F 20*1 1-1100*1 0 -T 0*7 OR IF OM 36 OPTION I 7 1 __ __ _ — — — - 100 * SPREAD 1-1 20*1 0-1 0*1 1 -1100*1 FLY ______OB____ OF 1M_ 91_ _ ~IX^_FLAt X 7 ~ ~

VO I-1 TABLE 14

TEAM: OSU VS UM 79 OFFENSIVE 2ND DOWNS WITH MOK F THAN 7 YARDS TO GO 10/07/80

SUBTITLE: OFFFNSIVF PLAYS UP TO *7 YARD LIN 12 PLAYS 7 RUNS I 587) 5 PASSES I 9271

CON FMT *TOT- PLAYS* ♦ ♦♦♦RUNSA** ♦♦♦PASSES*** MOVHT PKFD FORMATION UNORY/F IFLO/Ml DDLFPL A-AO JtlSTMIRC 1 PATTERN IIP.) *+*PLAYS**

PRO 5- I 9 2 * ) 9-7 9071 I -I 2o 77 OB IF OM 19 T FLY IB OF OM 10 I i» 907 IB OF OM 21 1 1 1 OB OF 1H 36 OPTION I ) 1 FLY IB OF OM 85 17) TAKEOFF 2 I

TRIPS 3-1 2511 0-1 0 7 1 3 -11007) IB OF OM 93 SLAM FLDI I FLY SPLIT OB OF 1M 93 SLAM FLDI ) J { FLY OB IF OH 99 FLOOD I X I FLAG X 1

SLOT 3-1 2 571 2-1 67t) FLY OB IF OM 22 1 ) 1 337 OB IF OM 36 1 1 1 337 OB OF 1M 84 12) POST 2 1 337

2 TE 1-1 H?I 1-11007) 0 - I 0 7 ) OB IF OM 28 I ) -1007

VO NJ TABLE 14 (continued)

TEAMS OSII VS IM 79 OFFENSIVE 2ND DOWNS WITH MORE THAN 7 YARDS TO GO 10/07/80

SUBTITLES OFFFNSIVF. PLAYS FROM -I AND -IP 1 PLAYS I RUNS 1100*1 0 PASSES I OT)

CON FMT ♦TnT-PLAYS* **>*RUNS*»* *»*PASSES*** MOVMT PKFO FORMATION 8NUR Y/FIFLD/M1OOLFPLA-AOJIISTMIRCI PATTERN UR! ♦♦APLAYS**

PRO 1 — 1100*1 I-1100'M 0 -I 0*1______1B____ OF 0M_ 21 I »_ 1______^

VO LO TABLE 14 (continued)

TEAM: nsu VS UM 7® OFFENSIVE ?NO DOWNS WITH MORE THAN 7 YARDS TO GO 10/07/60

SUBTITLE: OFFFNSIVc PLAYS FROM -11 AND -3«> 3 PLAYS 2 RUNS I 677.1 1 PASSES I 3311

CON FMT *T0T—PLAYS* ****RUNS*** ***PASSES*** MOVMT BKFD FORMATION 3NURY/FIELD/MI0DLEPLA—AUJUSTHIRCI PATTERN (IR) **«PLAYS**

PRO l-I 3371 l-l10011 0 -I 0*1 FLY _ IB OF OM 10 II 1

TRIPS l-l 3371 0-1 071 I - U 0 0 7 I IB OF OM 93 SLAM FLDI I T 1 ~ ~

SLOT l-l 3371 l-l 10(i7l 0 -I 0*1 OB IF ON 36 I I 1 TABLE 14 (continued)

TFAM: OSU VS IM 7° OFFENSIVE 2ND DOWNS WITH MORE THAN 7 YARDS TO GO 10/07/60

SUBTITLE: OFFENSIVE PLAYS FROM -AO AND *A0 ? PLAYS 1 RUNS I 5071 I PASSFS I 50*1

CON FMT *TOT—PLAYS* ****RUNS*** ***PASSES*** MOVMT BKFD FORMATION BNDR Y/F IELO/MIDDLEPL A—AOJUSTMIRCI PATTERN URI

PRO 2 - 1100II 1-1 50'fl 1 -I 501) _ _0BIF __ OH 1 9 ______I l_ I FLY ” _ _ i 8 __ 0F 0U______*5______IZI_TAKEUFF I I__

VO Ln TABLE 14 (continued)

TEAM: OSU VS UM 79 OFFENSIVE 2NO OOWNS HITH MORE THAN 7 YARDS TO 00 10/07/60

SUBTITLE: OFFpfJSI Vp PLAYS FROM ♦39 AND ♦ 21 « PLAYS 3 RUNS 1 75*1 1 PASSES 1 25*1

CON FMT *TOT-PLAYS* ♦ ♦♦♦RUNS*** ♦♦♦ p a s s e s *** MOVMT PKFD FORMATION BNOR Y/F IELD/MIODLEPL A-AOJUSTMIRC ) PATltPN 1IRI

SLOT 2-1 5071 l-l 507) 1 -1 507 I FLY OB IF OM 22 || 1 OB OF 1M BA 17 1 POST 2 1

FRO l-l 2571 l-lI COT) 0 -1 0*1 OB OF 1M 36 OPTION 1 1 1 ! i h» u. 2 5 11 1-11007.1 0 -1 0*1 OB IF OM 28 1 ) i

VO Ov TABLE 14 (continued)

TEAMS OSU VS UM 7<» . OFFENSIVE 2NO DOWNS WITH MORF. THAN 7 YARDS TO GO 10/07/80

SUBTITLE: OFFENSIVE PLAYS FROM »20 AND *7 2 PLAYS 0 RUNS I 0*1 2 PASSES 1100*1

CON FMT *TOT-PLAYS» ****RIINS*** ***PASSES + ** MOVMT BKFD FORMATION UNDRY/FIFL0/M100LEPL A-AOJUSTMIRC) PATTERN IIR)

TRIPS 2—11 CO'S I 0-1 OtJ 2 -1100*1 FLY SPLIT _ OB OF 1M_ 03 SLAM FLOI I Y I FLY OB IF OM 9A_FL000 IXI FLAG X I TABLE 15

TEAM! OSU VS UM 79 OFFENSIVE 2ND DOWNS WITH 5 TO 7 YARDS TO GO 11/03/80

SUdTITLE: OFFENSIVE PLAYS UP TO ♦7 YARD LIN 10 PLAYS 8 RUNS 1 80*) 2 PASSES ( 20*)

CON FHT *TOT-PLAYS* ****RUNS*** ♦•♦PASSES*** MOVMT BKFO FORMATION ENDRY/FlfcLD/MIDDLEPLA-AOJUSTMIRC)

PRO 9-1 90*) 8-1 89.1) 1 -1 U S ) FLY 08 OF 2M 21 1 ) 2 IB OF CM 21 ( ) 1 OB IF CM 10 I > OB IF CM 19 1 ) ---- 22* OB IF OM 27 1 ) ---- 11* 08 IF OM 29 CHERRY C ) ---- 11* 08 OF 1M 33 1 ) ---- 11* IN 08 IF OM 60 BLOCK I ) X 1 ---- 11* TRIPS l-l 10*) 0-1 0*1 I -1100*1 MOTION 08 IF CM 99 FLOOD (7) FLAG Z 1

VO 00 TABLE 15 (continued)

TEAM: OSU VS UM 79 OFFENSIVE 2ND DOWNS WITH 5 TO 7 YARDS TO GO 10/07/60

SUBTITLE: OFFENSIVE PLAYS FROM -11 AND -39 3 "LAYS 3 RUNS I 1007) 0 PASSES I 071

CON FMT ♦TO?-»LAYS* ****RUNS**<= ***?ASSCS*** MOVMT BKFO FORMATION BNDR Y/FIFLD/MIODLEPLA—AOJUSTMIRCI PATTERN IIRI

PRO 3-110071 3-11005! 0 -I 071 16 OF OM 21 | I 1 FLY OB OF 1M 21 | | 1 08 IF 0M_ 24 CHERRY I I 1 ^

VO VO TABLE 15 (continued)

TFAM: OSU VS UM 79 OFFFNSIVF 2ND DOWNS WITH 5 TO 7 YARDS TO GO 10/07/80

SUBTITLE: OFFENSIVE PLAYS FROM -40 ANI) *40 2 PLAYS 1 RUNS I 50YI 1 PASSES I 5071

CON FMT ♦TOT-PLAYS* ♦♦♦♦RUNS*'** ***PASSES*** MOVMT BKFO FORMATION RNDRY/F IELD/MIDOLEPLA-Ad3uSTm7rc7~PATTERN TTrT **i(PLAYS**

PRO 2-110071 l-l 5071 I -I 507 1 OB OF 1M 33 7 ) 1 ------507 IN OB IF OM BO BLOCK ( I X I TABLE 15 (continued)

TEAM: OSU VS UM 79 OFFENSIVE 2ND DOWNS WITH 5 TO 7 YARDS TO GO 11/03/80

SUBTITLE: OFFENSIVE PLAYS FROM *39 AND *21 A PLAYS A RUNS 1100*) 0 PASSES ( 0X1

CON FMT *TOT—PLAYS* ****RUNS*** ***PASSES*** MOVMT BKFD FORMATION BNDRY/FIELD/MIODLEPLA—ADJUSTMCRC ) PATTERN UR) *»*PLAYS**

PR O A-11007) A-(IOOX) 0 -< 07) OB IF CM 10 ( ) 1 08 IF OM 19 I I 1 TABLE IS (continued)

TEAM: OSU VS in 71 OFFENSIVE 2ND DOWNS WITH 5 TO 7 TAROS TO GO 10/07/00

SUBTITLE: OFFENSIVE PLAYS FROM *20 AND *7 I PLAYS O RUNS t .0*1 I PASSES 1100*1

CON~FMt ""*TOT —PLAYS* ****RUNS*** ***«>ASSeS*** MOVHT BKFO FORMATION HNOR Y/FIFLI1/MIODLEPLA—ADJUSTMIRCI PATTERN IIRI **»PLAYS**

TRIPS 1 - 0 0 0 * 1 0-1 0*1 1 -1100*1 MOTION OB IF OM «>4 FLOOD IZI FLAG I 1 100* TABLE 16

TEAMS OSU VS UM 79 OFFENSIVE 2ND DOWNS WITH LESS THAN 5 YARDS TO GO 10/07/80

SUBTITLF: OFFFNSIVF PLAYS IIP Til *7 YARD LIN 5 PLAYS A RUNS I 80*1 1 PASSES I 20*1

CON FMT *TOT-I>LAYS* <;»*■> ’♦♦♦p a s s e s *** MOVMT RKFD FORMATION BNDR Y/F IELD/MIOULEPL A-ADJUSTMIRC 1 PATTERN

PRO 3-1 60*1 7-1100X1 0 -I 0*1 FLY OP IF OM 2A | | 1 08 IF fM 37 I 1 I FLY OB OF 1M 36 1 ) I ----33* SLOT 2-1 AO*I I-( SOTI 1 -1 50*) OB IF OM 22 I I 1 OB IF OH 11 IZI CROSSER I 1 TABLE 16 (continued)

TEAM! OSU VS UM 79 OFFENSIVE 2ND DOWNS WITH LESS THAN 5 YARDS TO GO 10/07/80

SUBTITLE! OFFENSIVE "LAYS FROM -II ANO -19 2 PLAYS 1 RUNS I SO*» 1 PASSES I SOX»

CON FHT *TDT—PLAYS* ♦* **>«HN ***PASSES*** MOVMT (IKFD FORMATION BNl'RY/F IELO/HIODLFPLA-ADJUSTMIRCI PATTERN IIRI **»PLAYS**

PRO l-l SOtI 1-I1C9I) 0 -I 0T» FLY __ _£B _ lF _ 2 — 1 L L l0Ot

SLOT l-l SOt I O-l 071 I -I iOG'J I OB IF OM 81 IZI CROSSER 2 1 ------loot 104 TABLE 16 (continued)

TFAM: OSU VS UM 79 OFFFNSIVF 2ND DOWNS WITH LFSS THAN 5 YARDS TO GO 1O/07/BO

SUBTITLE: OFFENSIVE »LAYS FPfl -AO AND *40 1 PLAYS 1 RUNS I 10071 0 PASSES I 0*»

CON FMT *TOT-PL AYS* *♦ **RU»IS**♦ *«*PASSFS*** MOVMT BKFO FORMATION BNDRY/FIELD/M1DDLEPLA—ADJUSTMIRC ) PATTFRN IIR1 ***PLAYS** pro i-TiootT 1-7 1nm:i o -( oil fly_ _ _ •” J3B cf Im~~36 * ~~~ TABLE 16 (continued)

TEAM: OSU VS UM 79 OFFENSIVF 2ND DOMNS WITH LESS THAN 5 YARDS TO GO 10/07/80

SUBTITLE: OFFENSIVE PLAYS FROM *39 ANO +21 1 PLAYS 1 RUNS I 100!) 0 PASSES I 0*1

CON FMT *T ITT-PL AYS* ♦♦**KU'JS*** **»PASSES**+ MOVMT BKFO FORMATION RNDRY /FI ELD/MI DDLEPLA-ADJUSTMIRCI PATTERN TIRI **<

PRO 1-1100(1 1-11000 0 -« Dtl " OB IF OM 37 II I -100? 106 TABLE 16 (continued)

IEAM: OSU VS UM 7«> OFFENSIVE 2ND DOWNS WITH LESS THAN S YARUS TO GO 10/07/80

SUBTITLES OFFENSIVE ‘♦LAYS FROM *20 ANO *7 1 PLAYS I RUNS I 1007.1 0 PASSES I OT |

CON FMT *TOT-PLAYS* ♦♦♦♦RUNS*** ***PASSES*** MOVMT BKFO FORMATION BNDRY/FIELD/MIDDLFPLA—ADJIJSTMIRCI PATTFRN UR) ♦

SLOT 1-I1P0T) 1 — 11 OP'S) 0 -| 0«l OB IF CM 22 I I 1 100* 107 o V V o r* 0 O

SUBTITLE! OFFENSIVE PL AYS IIP TO *7 YARD LIN R PLAYS 1 RUNS I 13*1 7 PASSES I PB*I Z I I I U. I C I h*i *• I I > I I * | i i* a I II z I Iw’ c I I I I O j Z \ V/ I< l »/>l <✓) a I v* I Ii * (♦ I « I IS I i i£ * I I I Z * I I c u. I I . u I Il a < I ( fr-12 Z I I I 0 I i 3 l or i iS t a I I.J o I I 1 1^ 3 I iQ. < i a* Z I ? I IUi I& I.J i ^ is I I-J < I

I > t a.

< < + i, s > V < 0 0 -i 3 1

I . — | _

i I ESS!15 r I I 000 I i i n I 11. 11 11 .

'I I 108 TABLE 17 (continued)

TEAM: OSU VS OM 70 OFFENSIVE 3R0 DOWNS WITH MORE THAN 6 YARDS TO GO 10/07/B0

SUBTITLE: OFFENSIVE PLAYS F RIJN -1 AND -10 1 PLAYS 0 RONS I 0*1 1 PASSES UOOtl

CON FMT ♦TOT-PLAYS* ****RONS**» ***PASSES*»* MOVMT BKFO FORMATION BNDRY/FIFLD/MIOOLEPLA—ADJUSTMIRC I PATTFRN IIRI

SLOT l-(100tl 0-1 lit I I -IToo*I FLY IB CF CM 86 T y »_SHALLOW T I -----lOCit TABLE 17 (continued)

TEAM! OSU VS UM 7<» OFFENSIVE 3RD DOWNS WITH WORT THAN b YARDS TO GO 10/G7/80

SUBTITLE: OFFENSIVE PLAYS FROM -II AND -3« I PLAYS 0 RUNS I 0*1 I PASSES IIOO'II

CON FMT noT-PLAYS* ♦ ••♦RIJNS*** ♦ ♦*PASSFS*** MOVMT BKFO FORMATION BNDRY/FIFLD/MIDDLEPL A-ADJUST Ml RCI PATTERN IIRI **<

TRIPS 1-IIOOtl O-l Oil I —1100*11 MOTION OB IF OM 9* FLOOD IX) FLAG X 1 -100T 110 TABLE 17 (continued)

TE AH! OSU VS UM 79 fIFFFNSlVE 3HO' IWWNS HI TH HOPE THAN 6 YARDS TO GO 10/07/80

SUBTITLE: OFFENS1VF PLAYS FROM -*.0 AND *90 1 PLAYS 1 RUNS C 100M 0 PASSES I 0*1

CON FMT *TOT-PLAYS* ****RUNS*** ***PASSES*+* HOVHT BKFO FORMATION 8N0RY/FIFLO/HIDDLFPL A-AOJUSTMIRCI PATTERN (IK)

PRO • 1-1100*1 I-llOOt) 0 -I 0*1 OB IF OM 99 I I 1 TABLE 17 (continued)

fEAM: OSU VS UM 79 0FFFNS1VE 3RD DOWNS WITH MORE THAN 6 YARDS TO GO 10/07/80

SUBTITLES OFFcNSIVF PLAYS FROM +39 AND ♦? I 3 PLAYS 0 RUNS I 0311 3 PASSFS 11007)

CON FMT *TOT-PLAYS* ♦♦♦♦RIJNS*** ***PASSES*** MOVMT BRFD FORMA T ION UNllRY/F 1 ELD/M I DOLE PL A-AD JUST MIR C I PATTERN IIRI ***PLAYS**

SLOT 2-1 673) 0-1 03) 2 -11007) OB OF 1M 83 I I X I FLY ______. OB O F ____ 1M_ 86_SLAM____ ( Z___ 1 ^

UNBALNCO 1-1 337) 0-1 0*) 1 -I100T) FLY J?B_ IF____ OM__6 3 _ ____ I R _ 1 112 TABLE 17 (continued)

TEAMS OSU VS UM 79 OFFENSIVE WO DIIHNS WITH MORF THAN 6 YARDS TO GO 10/07/80

SUBTITLE: OFFENSIVE PLAYS FROM *20 AND «7 ? PLAYS 0 RUNS I Of! 2 PASSES 1100*1

CON FHT *TOT—PLAYS* ****RUNS*** ***PASSES*** MOVMT RKFtl FORMATION BNORY/FIFLO/MIOOLEPL A-A0JUSTM1RC) PATTERN IIRI ***PLAVS**

TRIPS 2* 110 0 * 1 0-1 O'SI 2 -Iino-M MOTION OB IF OH 9* FLOOD IXI FLAG X 1 MOTION OB IF OM 9A FLOOD tZ1 FLAG T _l ^ TABLE 18

TEAMS OSU VS IN 79 OFFFNSIVF 3Rt> DOWNS WITH 4 TO 6 YARDS TO GO IO/07/BO

SUBTITLES OFFENSIVF PLAYS UP TO *7 YARD LIN 7 PLAYS A RUNS I 5711 3 PASSES I 4371

CON FWT *TOT—PLAYS* ****'«UMS*** ***PASSES*** MOVMT BKFD FORMATION 8NURY/FIFLD/MIDDLFPL A-AD JUSTMIRC I PATTFRN IIRI ***PLAYS**

PRO 2-1 29TI 1-1 50 tl 1 -I 507 1 OB OF 1M 27 1 1 1 FLY IB OF OM e6 IZI P0ST 2 * 507 TRIPS 2-1 2*»71 o-i ( d 2 -110071 MOTION OB IF CM 93 SLAM FLDI 1 2 1 MOTION OB OF 1M94 FLOOD (XI ------FLAG T 1 50)t

2 TE 1-1 14:: 1 l-IIOI 71 C -1 071 OB IF OM 2B KEEP 1 1 1 ------1007 SLOT 1-1 1471 l-I IOC SI 0 -1 071 OB IF OM 33 OPTION 1 1 1

UNBALNCD l-I 1471 1-1 100 ’.1 0 -I 071 FLY OB IF OM 10 1 1 1 114 TABLE 18 (continued)

TEAMS OS'J VS OM 79 OFFcNSIVE 3RD OOWNS WITH A TO 6 YARDS TO SO 10/07/B0

SUBTITLE: OFFENSIVE PLAYS FROM -11 AND -39 2 PLAYS 1 RONS I SOU 1 PASSES I 50% I

CON FMT *TOT-PLAYS* *A**RIINS*** ***PASSES**A MOVMT RKFO FORMATION ONORY/FIELO/MIDDLFPL A-AOJUSTHCRCI PATTERN IIR? ♦ ♦VPLAYS**

PRO I-l 50%I 0-1 CM 1 -(10071 FLY ___ _ _ iB_ 0P CM *ZI P0£I 1 _ i lQQt TABLE 18 (continued)

TEAM: nsu VS UM 79 OFFENSIVE 3RD DOWNS WITH 4 10 6 YARDS TO GO 10/07/80

SUBTITLE: OFFENSIVE PLAYS F R O M -40 AND *40 I PLAYS I RUNS 110071 0 PASSES I 021

CON FMT *TUT-PLAYS* ***»RUNS**» ***PASSES*** MOVMT PKFO FORMATION ONUKY/FIELU/HIODLEPL A—AOJUSTMIRC I PAITERM H R 7~"77*PLAYS**

PRO l-UOOII 1-IICG2I 0 -I Otl OB OF 1M 27 II 7 ------1007 116 TABLE 18 (continued)

TFAM: OSII VC U" 7" OFFENSIVE 3RD DOWNS HI TH S TO h YARDS TO GO 10/C7/U0

SUBTITLES OFFENSIVr PLAYS FROM ♦ 39 AND »21 '• PLAYS 2 RUNS I SOT) 2 PASSES I SOT I

CON FHT ♦rf1T-PLAYS» ****RU'»c*»« ***I»ASSES**» MOVMT PKFD FORMATION UNDR Y/FIFLD/MIDDLFPL A-AD JUSTHIRC1 PATTERN IIRI **»PLAYS*»

TRIPS 2-1 SOT) n-i o n 2 -I100T.I MOTION OB IF OM *>3 SLAM FLO! 1 I 1 - 50* MOTION 00 OF 1M 99 FLOOO 1X1 FLAG T 1 SO*

2 IF I-l 25TI i- i lo c n 0 -1 O M OB IF OM 28 KEEP II 1 100* UNHALNCU l-I 2*YI l-I |t?.T| 0 -1 OT) FLY OB IF OM 10 1 I 1 1 DO* TABLE 19

TFAM: OSU VS UM 79 OFFENSIVE 390 DOWNS WITH LESS THAN A YARDS TO GO 10/07/60

SUBTITLE: 0FFENS1VF PLAYS UP TO *7 YARD LIN 7 PLAYS 1 RUNS I 50X) I PASSES I 50X1

CON FMT ♦TOT-PLAYS* ****«UNS*** ***PASSES*»* MOVMT FKFD FORMATION 0NURY/F1FLD/MIDDLFPL A-ADJUSTMIRCI PATTERN UR) ♦♦APLAYS**

TRIPS' ~~ 7-7~5o77 0-7 0x7 ~7 -7100*7 MOTION ______0B_ OF____ 1M__94 FLOOD __7x »_FL*G T_____ 7 TABLE 19 (continued)

TEAMS HSU VS UM 79 OFFENSIVE ?R0 DOWNS WITH LESS THAN 9 YARDS TO GO 10/07/80

SUBTITLES IIFFFNSIVE PLAYS FROM -II AND -39 1 PLAYS 0 RUNS I O'tl 1 PASSES (100SI

CON FMT *TOT-PLAYS* ♦♦♦♦RUNS*** ♦♦♦PASSES*** MOVNT RKFD FORMATION BNDRY/FIELD/MIDDLEPLA-ADJUSTMIRCI PATTERN IIRI **#PLAYS**

TRIPS 1-llOOTI 0-1 Oil 1 —(10071 MOTION _ _£B_ 0F 1H *J_F*.OOD __CXI_FLAG T 1 119 TABLE 19 (continued)

TFAM: OSU VS UM 79 OFFENSIVE 3PO OOWNS MITH LESS THAN 9 VARUS TO GO 10/07/80

SUBTITLE: OFFENSIVE PLAYS FROM *20 AND *7 1 PLAYS I RUNS I100*1 0 PASSES I 0*1

CON FMT *TOT-PLAVS+ ♦♦♦♦Rll'IS*** >**PASSES»** MOVMT PKFD FORMATION BNURY/F IELD/MI ODLFPLA—ADJUSTMIRCI PATTFRN II RI ♦♦rfPLAYS**

SLOT l-UOOM 1-1100*1 0 -7 Of? 00 IF OM 36 LEAD I » I 100* TABLE 20 team: nsu vs um 7 9 offfnsfs: FOURTH OOWNS 10/07/60

SUBTITLE: OFFENSIVE PLAYS UP Til *7 YARD LIN I PLAYS I RUNS 110071 0 PASSES I 071

CON FMT *TI1T—PLAYS* ****RUNS*** ***PASSES*** MdVMT RKFD FORMATION BNDRY/FIELD/MIODLFPLA-ADJUSTMIRC I PATTERN M R I

2 TE 1-110071 1 — 11 COT I 0 —I 07 1 TABLE 20 (continued)

TEAM! OSU VS UM 79 OFFcNSES! FOURTH DOWNS 10/07/60

SUBTITLE! OFFENSIVE. PLAYS FROM *39 AND *21 I PLAYS 1 RUNS IIOOTI 0 PASSES I 0*1

CON FMT *TOT—PLAYS* ***+IUINS*** ***PASSES*** MOVMT RRFD FORMATION BNORY/FIFLD/MIOULEPL A-AOJUSTMJRCI PATTERN IIRI

2 IE 1-UOOTI 1-IlOOTI 0 -I OTI _ _ _0B IF ___ CM 10_ I |_ _1 122 TABLE 21

TEAM! USU VS UM 79 OFFENSES! W I THIN *h YARDLINE 10/07/80

SUBTITLE! (IFFENSIVF PLAYS WITHIN ♦<> I PLAYS 1 RUNS I 100'tl 0 PASSES I Oil

CON FMT *TOT-PL AYS* ♦*♦♦RUNS*** ♦•♦PASSES*** MOVMT "KFD FORMATION BNURY/FIELD/MIDOLEPLA—ADJUSTMIRC I PATTERN 1 IRI **«PLAYS**

2 TE 1— 11001? I-IIOOC) 0 -1 0?T IN TABLE 21 (continued)

TEAM: USU VS U-1 79 OFFENSES: WITHIN *6 YARDLINE 10/07/60

SUBTITLE: SFCONO A'll) A 1 PLAYS 1 RUNS I 10071 0 PASSES I 0X1

CON FMT *T OT -PL *V S* ♦♦♦♦RUNS*** *>♦ PASSE S*»* MOVMT OKFO FORMATION 8NDRY/FI FLO/M I ODLFPLA-ADJUSTMIRC I PATTERN IIRI

2 TF 1-IIOOXI 1-Iin0?l O -I PTI IN OB OF IN 28 KEEP I I 1 ----- 100X 124 APPENDIX F

TABLE 22

125 TABLE 22

DA 1l": lo/W/i".'i OVERALL DFFFNSIVF EVALUATION USD VS IIM 79

TOT At "LAY";: 5 H STUNTS: ?3 -1 A O'*.) BLIT2ES s 10-1 I 77)

SUBTITLF: CONCEPTUAL CATFCnRlTS c o n c e p t u a l p l a y s s t u n t s r l i t ?f s 1 SPFCIF IC ADJUST­ « OF PLAYS.: COVERAGE n CATEC.URY F FRFIMT MENTS :N : 0 : 1 : ? :3 : A :5 :6 : 7 : B :9 PLAYS SL IDF 27- A" 7 7- to > i- a ; R AWAY STATF 8: A 8 R AWAY l:A 1:5 1:6 3 R AWAY POCKET US 1 R AWAY SHARK U 7 1 - 577 FILL a : 2 1:6 5 - 2 2 7 R POCKET U 3 1:6 2 R 1:3 1 - | 3 7 R AWY FILL 1:3

R SAM 1 : 1 1 0* 07 AT 177 137 397 97 137 AT 07 07

SPLIl 17- 29Y o - =5-(-' s — 2 9 - wine 2 : 2 1:3 1:6 <• WIDF POCKET UA I COBRA HARO 3:6 3 CO«PA 1:6 1 1:6 1 POCKET UA 1 STORM 1:7 — 187 WILL 1:3 1:6 2 FIPF U A 1 T 1 :3 1 WO FIPF HARO 1:6 1

07 07 07 1 2 7 1 8 7 1R7 07 A 77 6 7 07 0 5 * M **I

BASF o- n'i no't T SHOOT 3:9 O O i I CAT 1 :8 R HAMMER 1 :P

0 7 0 7 0 7 07 07 07 07 07 OT A 07 601

SHADF A - H S - i n o r f’~ 0 7 KNIFE 1:2 U 3 2: A U 6 5

07 0/. 07 207 207 A 07 07 207 0 7 07 07 NICKFL l- j?.-r r- o-.’ 1 :N 1

AWAY l:N 1

CRASH UN 1

1007 07 F'J 07 07 07 07 0 5 07 07 07

G . L . » - !i ’ 0- O ’ (J- 0" 0 A ° 3 :N 3 126 1007 OT r r 07 OT 07 07 0 t I't 07 u t. TABLE 22 (continued)

DATE: 10/07/(10 OVERALL DEFENSIVE EVALUATION OSU VS UM 79

TOTAL PLAVSS 53 STUNTS: 73-1 A0T1 BLITZES: 10-1 17*1 s u b t Tt l e : CONCEPTUAL CATEGORIES

CONCEPTUAL PLAYS STUNTS BLITZES R SPECIFIC ADJUST- * OF PLAYS: COVERAGE I CATEGORY F FRONT MENTS :N :0 tl :2 :3 :A :5 :6 :7 :8 :*♦ PLAYS __ 1:6 1 buckeye p- v: ,- soy o- ot “ IZ 0* O'f OT OT OT OT OT 100T 0* OT O'C 127 APPENDIX G

TABLES 23-30

128 TABLE 23

DATE: 10/07/R0 DEFENSES: FIRST AND NORMAL USU VS UM 79

TOTAL PLAYS: 23 STUNTS: 11-1 9B*I BLITZES: 9-1 17*1

SURTITLF: ALL DEFENSES UP TP *7 YARULINE

CONCEPTUAL PLAYS STUNTS BLITZES R SPECIFIC ADJUST- * OF PLAYS: COVERAGE A CATEGORY F FRONT HENTS :N :0 :1 :Z :3 :5 :5 :6 :7 :8 :9 PLAYS SLIDE 1?- 52* 5- 92T 0- O f R AWAY STATF 5:9 5 R AWAY 1:9 1 ------50* FILL 3:2 1:6 9 33* R 1:3 _ 1 R AWY FILL 1:3 1 OS OS Of 25* 17* 50* 0* 8* 0! 0* 0* 4 SPLIT H — 35 * 9- 50* 3- 38* COBRA HARD 3:6 3 ------38* WIDF 1:2 1:3 2 WILL 1:3 1:6 2 T _____ 1:3______1 0* 0* (I* 13* 38* 0* 0* 50* 0* 0* Of SHADE 2- 9* 2-1OOT 0- OT KNIFE 2:5 2 0* 0* C* 0* 0* 100* 0* 0* 0* Of OS BASF 1- 9* 0- 0■' 1-lOOS R HAMMER 1:8 1 0* OS OS 0* OS 0* 0* 0* Of 100* OS 129 TABLE 23 (continued)

OATH: 10/07/PO OFFFNSFS: FIRST AND NORMAL

TOTAL •’LAYS: 1 STUNTS: -(100%) BLITZES: 0—I 0»)

SUBTITLE: ALL D CFENSFS FROM -I ANO -1G

CONCEPTUAL PLAYS STUNTS BLITZES R SPECIFIC » OF PLAYS: COVERAGF CATEGORY F FRONT :N :0 : 1 :2 :3 tt, :5 SPLIT 1-lCC.'. I-lOOr (.- O! MILL TABLE 23 (continued)

DAT £ s 10/07/90 DEFENSES: FIRST AND NORMAL OSU VS UM 79

TOTAL PLAYS: 19 STUNTS: 9-1 SOTI BLITZES: A-l 22X1

SUBTITLE: ALL P=FFNSFS FROM -11 ANO -39

:ONCEPTUAL PLAYSSTUNTSBLITZES P SPECIFIC ADJUST­ H OF PLAYS: COVERAGE « CATEGORY F FRONT MENTS :N :0 : 1 :2 :3 :4 :5 :6 : 7 :8 : 9 PLAYS ! ! SI u.I SLIDF B- 4'.T 9- 50 1 0- OX R A VI AY ------3: A ------FILL 2:2 1:6 R 1 :3 R AWY FILL 1:3 OX OX OX 25T 25X 3BX OX 13'J Ot OX OX SPLIT 7- 39X J- Art 3- 43T COBRA HARO 3:6 WIDE 1:2 1:3 T 1 :3

OX OX OX 14X 291 OX OT 57X OT OX CX SHADF 2- UM 2-1 or' 0- OX KNIFE 2:A _ 2 OX OX CX OX OX 100X OX OX OT OX Ot BASE I- OT 0- OX 1-100T fi HAMMER 1:B 1^ OX OX CX OX OX OX OT OT OX lOOX OT TABLE 23 (continued)

DATE: 10/07/BO DEFENSES: FIRST AND NORMAL USU VS UM 79

TOTAL PLAYS: 2 STUNTS: I-l 50*1 BLITZES: 0-1 021

SUBTITLE: ALL DEFENSES FROM -50 AND *50

CONCFPTUAL PLAYS STUNTS BLITZES R SPECIFIC ADJUST- * OF PLAYS: COVERAGE • CATEGORY F FRONT MENTS :N :0 :l :2 :3 :A :5 :6 :7 :B :v PLAYS SLIDE 2-1007 I- 507 0 - 07 R AWAY 1:4______FILL 1:2 __ 1 0* 07 07 501 Ot 50t Ot Ot 05 Ot Ot 132 TABLE 23 (continued) iiArr: IlFFFtJSFS: F IKS T Af|[i NUKMAL USII VS UM /V

1'IIH °LAYS: STUNTS: n-i nti BLITZES: 0-1 9 0

SUBTITLE ALL l)rFrMS>-S FH'"1 AND *21

CONCEPTUAL pLAVS STUNTS BLITZFS R SPECIFIC AOJUST- A OF PLAYS: COVERAGE * CATFGOKY F FRONT MFNTS :N :0 :1 :2 :3 «* t5 sA :7 :8 :9 PLAYS SLIOE l-10'i r. 0- C ' 0- 04 K AWAY STATE 1:4 1 ■I OCT 01! 0% 04 04 04 1004 04 04 CT 04 04 TABLE 73 (continued)

DATE: 10/07/nP DEFENSES: FIRST AND NORMAL USU VS UM 79

TOTAL PLAYS: I STUNTS: O-I OTI "LIT7ES: O-I Ot|

SUBTITLE: ALL OFFENSES FROM *20 AND *7

CONCEPTUALPLAYS STUNTS ~ R l 7 i 7ES_R SPFCI f T c ADJUST- * OF PLAYS: COVERAGE * CATEGORY F FRONT HENTS :N :0 :l :2 :3 :* :5 :6 :7 :8 :9 PLAYS slide i-iot: a- 01 o- o: r away state •_ i:*______1 1001 0* OT 0* 0* OT 100T 0* 0* OT OT Ot 134 TABLE 24

UATF: 10/07/b0 OFFENSES: 2ND AND 8 UR MORE OSU VS UM 79

TOTAL PLAYS: 1? STUNTS: 5-1 4271 BLITZES: l-I 87)

SUBTITLE: ALL DEFENSES UP TO ♦7 YARDLINE

CONCEPTUAL PLAYS STUNTS BLITZES R SPFCIFIC ADJUST­ * OF PLAYS: COVFRAGE » CATEGORY F FRONT MENTS :N :0 :l : ? :3 :4 :5 :6 :7 :8 :4 PLAYS SLIDE 7- SOT ?.- 29 •' 1- 147 R AWAY 1:5 116 2 R ANA Y SHARK 1:7 R AWAY STATE 1:4 I R POCKET 1:3 1 FILL 1:2 1 - { 4 7 R SAM 1:1 - 147 07 07 147 147 147 147 147 147 147 07 07 SPLIT 2- 17 7 1- 597 0- 07 POCKET 1*4 1 HI OF 1:2 1 07' 07 07 507 07 507 07 07 07 07 07 SHADE 2- 177 2-10C 7 0- 0* KNIFE 1:2 1:6 2 -1007 07 07 07 507 07 07 07 507 07 07 07 BASE 1- BA 0- 07 0- 0 C CAT 1:8 1 -1007 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 1007 07 135 TABLE 24 (continued)

DATE: 10/07/00 OFFENSES: 2ND ANO 0 OR MORE OSU VS UM 79

TOTAL PLAYS: II STUNTS: 4-1 365) RLITZFS: l-I 9*1

SUBTITLE: a l l DEFENSES FROM -11 AND -39

CONCEPTUAL PLAYS STUNTS BLITZFS R SPECIFIC ADJUST- » OF PLAYS: COVERAGE * CATEGORY F FRONT MENTS :N 10 :1 :2 :3 :4 :5 :6 :7 :B :n PLAYS SLIDE 6- 5S -K 1- 17* 1- 17* K AHAY 1:5 1:6 2 R AHAY SHARK 1:7 1 R AHAY STATE 1:4 1 ------67* R POCKET _ 1:5 _ _ _ }7t

0* 07 Ot 177 17* 17* 17* 17* 17* 0* 0* SPLIT 2- 117 I- 50". 0- 04 POCKFT 1:4 | ------SetH?DF 1:2 1 Ot 0? 0* 50* 0* 50* 0* Ot Ot Ot Ot SHAOr 2- IB* 2-100* 0- 0* KNIFF 1:2 1:6 100 2 * OX 0 * OX 50X OX OX O t 5 0 * 0 * OX 0 * TABLE 24 (continued)

DATF: 10/07/RC OFFENSES: 2ND AND B OR MORE OSU VS UM 79

TOTAL PLAYS: I STUNTS: IIOOXJ BLITZES: 0-| 0X1

SUBTITLE: ALL DFFFNSFS FROM +’0 AMO *7

CONCEPTUAL PLAYS STUNTS BLITZFS R SPFCIFIC ADJUST- A OF PLAYS: COVERAGE * CATEGORY F FRONT MENTS :N :0 :1 :2 :3 :4 :5 :6 :7 :B :9 PLAYS SHOE I-lOOt 0- O J R SAM 1:1 _ _ _ _ OX OX IOOX ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox TABLE 25

DATF: 10/07/60 DFFFNSFS: 2ND AND i> Tfl 7 USU VS UM 79

TOTAL PLAYS: 5 STUNTS: 3-( 6071 RLITZFS: l-l 2031

SUBTITLE: ALL DEFENSES UP TO *7 YARDL1NE

CONCEPTUAL PLAYS STUNTS BLITZES R SPECIFIC ADJUST- » OF PLAYS: COVERAGE * CATEGORY F FRONT HENTS :N 10 :1 :2 :3 :6 :5 :6 :7 :B :9 PLAYS SPLIT 3- 60S 3-1007 0- O’! FIRF _ 1:6 _ 1 WIDE------1:6 333 l3* HO FIRE HARD 1:6 ______03 01! 07 07 07 3 37 07 673 03 07 03 BASF 1- 207 0- 07 1-1007 T SHOOT _ 1:9 _ __ 1 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 1007 SL IDF 1- 20 7 0- TT 0- 07 R AHAY STATE 1:6 1 03 07 UT 03 07 1003 07 OZ 03 03 07 TABLE 25 (continued)

DATF: 10/07/BP OFFENSES: 2ND AND 5 TO 7 OSU VS UM 79

TOTAL PLAYS: STUNTS: 2-110071 BLITZES: 0-1 Otl

SUBTITLE: ALL DFFFNSFS FROM -11 AND -39

CONCEPTUAL PLAYS STUNTS BLITZES R SPECIFIC ADJUST­ ¥ OF PLAYS: COVERAGF CATECflRY F FRONT MENTS :n :0 : 1 :2 S3 :* :5 :6 : 7 :B :9 PLAYS SPLIT 2-100": 2-1007. 0 0 : WIDE 1:6 ------501 T WO FIRF HARD _ __U6 1 OT OT (IT 01 OT Ot 0% 100T 01 OT OT 139 TABLE 25 (continued)

DATF: lfi/07/i'O DEFENSES: 2ND AND S TO 7 IISII VS UM 19

TOTAL PLAYS: ? STUNTS: T-l 50*1 RL1I7FS: C-l 071

SUBt T t l E: ALL DEFENSES FP.OM - A C AND +A0

CONCEPTUAL PLAYS STUNTS RL1T7FS R SPFCIFIC ADJUST- . # OF PLAYS: COVERAGF * CATEF.ORY F FRONT MFNTS :N :0 :i :2 :3 :A :5 :6 :7 :8 :9 PLAYS SLIDF 1- ft: 0- o : o - O'. R AWAY STATF 1:4 1

07 ox 0'< 0* 01 loon OS! OS OT Ot Ot SPLIT I- 5.17 I-lOf 7 f- 07 FIRF 1:4 1 ------loot OT 07 C't 07 07 1 007 0 7 07 OT Ot 07 140 TABLE 25 (continued)

DATE: 10/07/RC DEFENSES: 2N0 AND 5 TO 7 OSII VS U H 7 V

TOTAL PLAYS: 1 STUNTS: D-l O'M BLITZES: I-l 10071

SUBTITLE: ALL DEFENSES FROM *?n AND ♦7

CONCEPTUAL PLAYS STUNTS RL1T7FS « SPECIFIC ADJUST- * OF PLAYS: COVERAGE » CATEGORY F FRONT MENTS :N :0 :i :2 :3 :A :5 :6 :7 :8 :9 PLAYS BASF 1-100"! 0— 07 1-1007 T SHOOT 1:9 1 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 Ot 07 1007 141 TABLE 26

DATES 10/07/nn DEFENSES: 2ND AND A OR LESS OSU VS UM 79

TOTAL PLAYS: 2 STUNTS: 0-1 071 BLITZES: 1-1 5071

SUBTITLE: ALL OFFFN'FS UP TO tl YAROLINF

CONCEPTUAL PLAYS STUNTS r*Hf2ES » SPFCIFIC ADJUST- » OF PLAYS: COVERAGE • CATEGORY F FRONT MENTS :N :0 :1 :2 :3 :* :5 :6 :7 :8 :9 PLAYS SLIDE 1- 50'S 0- 07 0- 07 R AWAY STATE _ _ l:A_ 1 07 07 07 07 07 1007 07 07 07 07 Ot - ^ — - SPLIT I- 5 0 1 O- 07 1-1007 COBRA ------1007 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 1007 07 07 07 142 TABLE 26 (continued)

OATES 10/07/90 DEFENSES: 2ND AND A OR LESS GSU VS UM 79

TOTAL PLAYS: 1 STUNTS: 0-1 07) HL1T7ES: 1-11007)

SUBTITLE: ALL OEFFNSFS FROM -11 AND -39

CONCEPTUAL PLAYS STUNTS BLITZES R SPECIFIC ADJUST- A OF PLAYS: COVERAGE » CATEGORY F FRONT MFNTS :N :0 :1 :Z :3 :4 «5 :6 :7 :8 :9 PLAYS SPLIT 1-1007 0- 07 1-10P7 COBRA 1:6 1 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 1007 OX 07 07 143 TABLE 26 (continued)

OATE: 1O/O7/P0 DEFENSES: 2ND AMI) A OR LESS

TOTAL PLAYS: 1 STUNTS: O-l Otl BLIT7FS: 0-1 0*1

SUBTITLE: »LL OFFENSES FROM AND *21

CONCEPTUAL PLAYS STUNTS BLITZES R SPECIFIC ADJUST- « OF PLAYS: COVERAGE CATEGORY F FRONT MFNTS :N :0 :I :2 :B :4 :S SLIDE 1-100 I 0- 01 0- Cf. P AWAY _ STATF______1:4______o? or or or or 100* or TABLE 27

DATES 10/07/80 OFFENSES: TRO AND 7 OR MORE USU VS UM 79

TOTAL PLAYS: A ST'INTS: 2-C 33*1 BLITZES: 0-1 0*1

SUBTITLE: ALL OFFENSES UP TO *7 YAROLINE

CONCEPTUAL PLAYS STUNTS BLITZES R SPECIFIC ADJUST­ * OF PLAYS: COVERAGE » CATEGORY F FRONT MENTS :N :0 :1 :2 :3 :A :5 :6 :7 :B :9 PLAYS . NICKEL 3- 50* 1- 33* 0- OS ISN 1 33* AHAY ISN 1 33* CRASH i:N* 1 100* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0* O* SLIDE 2- 33* 0- 0* 0- Ot R POCK FT 1:6 50* P AHAY POCKET 1:5 1 50* Ot Ot 0* 0* 0* 0* 50* 50* 0* 0* 0* SHADE I- 17* l-l00* 0- OS KNIFE 1 :3 __ 1 -100 * O * 01 C* 0 * 1 0 0 * 0* 0 * ox ot ox ot TABLE 27 (continued)

DATE: 1O/07/UO DEFENSES: 3RD AND 7 OR MORE OSU VS UM 79

TOT At PLAYS: 5 STUNTS: 2-1 9071 BLIT7ES: 0-1 071

SUBt7 tLe 7-ALL-OFFFMSES FROM -11 ANn -39

CONCEPTUAL “LAYS STUNTS NLIT7ES R SPFC1FIC ADJUST­ » OF PLAYS: COVERAGE CATEGORY F FRONT MENTS :n :0 : 1 :2 :3 :9 :5 <6 : 7 :9 PLAYS NICKFL A— 607 1- 33; c- or. 1 :N I 337 AHAY 1*N_ I 337 CRASH 1 :N I 337 1037 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07

SLIOF l- 20 ; 0- 0" V- 0 7 R POCKET 1(6 1 -1007 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 1007 07 07 07

Sh a d e I- 70 1-1007 O- 07 KNIFE 1 :3__ 07 07 C7 07 1007 07 07 07 0 7 07 07 l00* TABLE 27 (continued)

DATE: 10/07/80 DEFENSES: 3RD AND 7 OR MORE OSD VS UM 79

TOTAL PLAYS: 1 STUNTS: 0-1 0X1 BLITZES: O-C 0/1

SUBTITLE: ALL DEFENSES FROM -AO AND +A0

CONCEPTUAL PLAYS STUNTS nLITZFS R SPFCIF1C ADJUST- » OF PLAYS: COVERAGE » CATFGORY F FRONT MENTS :N :0 :l :2 :3 :A :5 :& :7 :B : 9 PLAYS SLIDE I-100-1 0- 07 0- OX R AWAY POCKFT 1:5 1 100T OT OT GT OT OT OT TOOT OT OT 01 OT 147 TABLE 28

UATF! 10/07/P0 OFFENSES: 3RD AND A TO 6 OSU VS UN 79

10TAL PLAYS! ? STUNTS! O-I Dill BLITZES: I-I 5011

SUBTITLE! ALL OFFENSFS UP TO *7 YARDL1NE

CONCEPTUAL PLAYS STUNTS ULITZFS R SPECIFIC ADJUST- « OF PLAYS: COVFRAGE I CATEGORY F FRONT MENTS :N :0 :1 :2 :3 :A i5 :6 !7 :8 :9 PLAYS s p l Tt 2-100'; 0- 0 7 1- 50:’ 1:6 1 STORM 1:7 1 100* OT 07 0* 07 07 07 07 507 507 07 07 148 TABLE 28 (continued)

DATE: 10/07/90 DEFENSES: 3RD AND 9 TO 6 OSU VS UN 79

TOTAL PLAYS: 1 ST1INTS: o-l oil BLIT7ES: n-I o n

SUBTITLE: ALL DEFFNSFS FROM -II ANO -39

CONCEPTUAL PLAYS STUNTS BLITEES R SPECIFIC ADJUST- » OF PLAYS: COVERAGE A CATEGORY F FRONT MENTS :N :0 :l :2 :3 :4 :5 :6 :7 :S :9 PLAYS s p l i t i-lon* n- or o- cr l z_ ii z z iz z z zrz z loor or or or or or or or toor or or or 149 TABLE 28 (continued)

DATE: 10/07/80 DEFENSES: 3RD AND A TO 6 OSU VS UM 70

TOTAL PLAYS: 1 STINTS: 0-1 0*1 BLITZES: 1-11007!

SUBTITLE: ALL DFFFNSES f r o m +3« AND *21

CONCEPTUAL^AYS STUNTS ALIIZESR SPECIFIC ADJUST- » OF PLAYS: COVERAGE » CATFGORY F FRONT MFNTS :N :0 :l :2 :3 :* :5 :6 :7 :8 :9 PLAYS split i-ioos n- o: 1-1007 storm 1:7 __ 1 1007 07 07 07 07. 07 07 07 07 1007 07 07 150 TABLE 29

DATF: 10/07/00 DFFFNSFS: 3RD AND 3 flR LESS OSU VS UM 79

TOTAL PLAYS: 3 STUNTS: 2-1 67X1 BLITZES: 0-1 OS!

SUBTITLE: ALL OFFENSES UP Til *1 YAP0L1NE

CONCEPTUAL PLAYS STUNTS BLITZES R SPECIFIC ADJUST- * OF PLAYS: COVERAGE 0 CATEGORY F FRONT HENTS :N :0 :1 :2 :3 :* :5 :6 :7 :B :•» PLAYS BUCKEYE 2- 67* 1- 50* 0-0* 1^6 1 0 SMOKE 1:6 1 o*' o* ot ot ot or ox toot ot ot ot SPLIT I- 33X 1-100* 0- 0* HIDE POCKET l:A 1 01 0% Ct Ot OX lOOt Ot OS 0* OS OX 151 TABLE 29 (continued)

DATF: 10/17/1-0 nFFcN5 = S: 3R0 ANU 3 OR LFSS (JSU VS UM 79

KITAl. PLAYS: 3 STUNIS: 2-C 67tl BLIT2ES: 0-1 Ctl

SUBTITLE! ALL DFFFNSFS F51M -11 AMO -39

CONCEPIUAL PLAYS STUNTS RLTF/FS R SPECIFIC ADJUST- # UF PLAYS: COVERAGF V CATEF.ORY F FRONT MFNTS :N :0 : 1 :2 :3 :4 :5 :6 :7 :B :9 PLAYS BUCKFYF 2- til'. 1- SOX 0------1:6 501 I D SMOKE l!6 _ _ __ ot ot ot ot ot ot ot loot ot ot ot SPLIT 1- 33'. 1-1 Ou"! u — 0! MIOF POCKFT 1:4 1 0* Ot Ot Ot Ot lOOt Ot Ot Ot Ot Ot 152 TABLE 30

OATIS 10/07/110 OFFENSES: FROM +6 TO ♦ ! YARULINF OSU VS UM 79

TOTAL PLAYS: •> STUNTS: 0-( OT| BLITZES: 2-1 A07I

SUBTITLE: ALL OFFENSES WITHIN *6 ~ '

CONCEPTUAL PLAYS STUNTS BLITZES R SPECIFIC ADJUST- * OF PLAYS: COVERAGE * CATEGORY F FRONT MENTS :N :o :1 :2 :3 :A :5 :6 :7 :8 :9 PLAYS

C-.L. 3- 60 7 0- 07 0- 07 GAP 3:N 3 1 0 0 7 1007 OS 07 07 07 07 07 0 7 0", 07 07 BASE 2- AO I o- 0". 2-1007 T SHOOT 2:9 2 10C7 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 *07 _07~Io07 153 TABLE 30 (continued)

DATE! 10/07/00 flFFFNSF St FROM *6 TO *1 YAROLINF OSU VS UM 79

TOTAL PLAYS: 1 STUNTS: 0-1 Ot I BLITZES: 1-1 lOOtl

SUBTITLE: FIRST ANO 4

CONCEPTUAL PLAYS STUNTS Bl Tt ZFS R ioECIFIC AOJUST- * OF PLAYS: COVERAGE » CATEGORY F FRONT MENTS :N :0 :l :2 :3 :4 :5 :6 :7 :8 :9 PLAYS BASE 1-1OOS 0- C" 1-100™ T SHOOT 1:9 1 100't Ot Ot Ot Ot Ot Ot Ot Ot Ot Ot loot 154 TABLE 30 (continued)

OATC: 10/07/HO D FFFNSFS: f r o m +6 T*l *1 YARDLINF

TOTAL PLAYS: 1 STUNTS: 0-1 0*1 BLITZES: 0-1 OTI

SUBTITLE: SFCOND AND 2

CONCEPTUAL PLAYS STUNTS BLITZES R SPECIFIC AOJUST- « OF PLAYS: COVERAGE CATEGORY F FRONT HENTS :N :0 :l :2 :3 >4 :5 : G.L. I-10TT 0- OT C - OT GAP 1:N lOOt OT OT OT OT OT OT TABLE 30 (continued)

DATE: 10/07/'<0 DEFENSES: FROM *6 TO *1 YARULINE USU VS UH 79

TOTAL PLAYS: 2 STUNTS: 0-1 0*1 RLIT7ES: 0-1 0*1

SUBTITLE: THIRD AND 1

CONCEPTUAL PLAYS STUNTS BLITZES R SPECIFIC AOJUST- » OF PLAYS: COVERAGE * CATEGORY F FRONT MENTS :N :0 :1 :2 :3 :* :5 :fc :7 :8 :9 PLAYS

G.L. ~ 2-100"t 0- CZ 0- 0? GAP______2^N______l irv _ 100{ too* 0* 0* 07 07 07 0 7 0 7 07 O* 07 TABLE 30 (continued)

DATE : 10/07/H0 DEFFNSES: FROM *b TO *1 YAROL1NE OS U VS UM 79

TOTAL PLAYS: I STIIMTS: 0-1 Oil RLTTZES: l-UOOTI

SUBTITLE: FOURTH AND 1

CONCEPTUAL PLAYS STUNTS BLITZES R SPECIFIC ADJUST- * OF PLAYS: COVERAGE • CATEGORY F FRONT MENTS :N :0 :I :2 :3 :A :5 :6 :7 :8 :v PLAYS BASE ~ I-100’’ 0- 0? 1-IOO-r T SHOOT 1:9 1 IOOT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT 100't BIBLIOGRAPHY 159

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. BOOKS

Ecker, T. and P. Jones. Football by Twelve Great Coaches. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1962.

Ladany, Shaul P. and Robert E. Machol (eds.). Optimal Strategies In Sports. New York: North-Holland Publishing Co., 1977.

McKay, John. Football Coaching. New York: Ronald Press Co., 1966.

Ralston, John and Mike White with Stanley Wilson. Coaching Today's Athlete, A Football Textbook. Palo Alto, California: National Press Books, 1971.

Rote, K. and J. Winter. The Language of Football. New York: Random House, 1966.

B. UNPUBLISHED WORKS

Bisland, Ralph B. "An Interactive Computer-Assisted Instruction Simulation Model for Use by Play Callers in Learning Strategies in Football." Ph.D. dissertation, Mississippi State University, 1977.

Blackman, Bob. "Altering the Defense in Preparation for Your Next Opponent." Presentation recorded in the proceedings of the 47th annual meeting of the American Football Coaches Association, Washington, D.C., January 13, 1970.

Cahill, Tom. "Electronic Equipment for Scouting and Development of Game Plans." Presentation recorded in the proceedings of the 44th annual meeting of the American Football Coaches Association, Jan­ uary 1967.

Hall, J.H. "CAA: Computer Assisted Athletics." Paper presented at the 13th annual meeting of the Association of Educational Data Systems, Virginia Beach, Va., 29 April - 2 May 1975.

Kerns, Thomas L. "Computer Analysis of Football Scouting Information." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Utah, 1970. 160

Leonard, Theodore M. "An Original Method for Analyzing Game Strategy Based Upon Data Processing Techniques." Master's thesis, University of California, Los Angeles, 1962.

Nelson, Niles H. "A Design for the Preparation of Football Scouting Reports by Using Data Processing Techniques." Ph.D. dissertation Florida State University, 1968.

C . PERIODICALS

Benson, Cy. "Computer Approach to Percentage Football," Scholastic Coach, January 1967, p. 56.

Bochner, Peter. "NFL Coaches Use Minis to Make Big Game Decisions," Minicomputer News, January 1979, pp. 14,18.

Hampton, Garland. "Computer Scouting," Coaching Clinic, June 1978, pp. 31-32.

Kempski, Ted and Barry Streeter. "Computerized Scouting at the University of Delaware," Coach and Athlete, November 1976, pp. 14-15.

Kraft, George C. and Douglas Knapman. "The Computer and Its Uses in Football," Coaching Clinic, April 1978, pp. 2-6.

Means, Edward H. "More on Football Strategy," Management Science- Applications, 15, (1968): B15-16.

Mehr, Tracy. "Data Processing in College Athletics," Scholastic Coach, January 1967, p. 30.

Patterson, James H. and Richard A. Wolfe. "An Application of the Assignment Algorithm to Football Player Position Selection," Operations Research, Supplement 1 (1972): Bill.

Parac, Tom. "Computerized Football Scouting," Scholastic Coach, January 1967, pp. 34, 38.

Simonetti, J. L. and F. L. Simonetti. "Pro Football's MIS," Journal of Systems Management, 26, (December 1975): 20-21.

Thompson, M. "On Any Given Sunday: Fair Competitor Orderings with Maximum Likelihood Methods." American Statistical Association Journal, 70, (September 1975): 536-41.

Winkler, R. L. "Probabilistic Prediction: Some Experimental Results," American Statistical Association Journal, 66, (December 1971): 675-85. 161

Witzel, W. "Computer Programs in Professional Football," Modern Data, February 1962, pp. 24-28.

Zientora, Marguerite. "Net Aids NFL's Pregame Planning," Computer World, December 1978, pp. 49, 52.

D. ARTICLES IN EDITED WORKS

Carter, Virgil and Robert E. Machol. "The Value of Field Positions." In Optimal Strategies in Sports, pp. 94-96. Edited by Shaul P. Ladany and Robert E. Hachol. New York: North-Holland Publishing Co., 1977.

Haberman, Shelby J. "Analysis of Scores of Ivy League Football Games." In Optimal Strategies in Sports, pp. 106-08. Edited by Shaul P. Ladany and Robert E. Machol. New York: North-Holland Publishing Co., 1977. ^ —

Porter, Richard C. "Extra-Point Strategy in Football." In Optimal Strategies in Sports, pp. 109-11. Edited by Shaul P. Ladany and Robert E. Machol. New York: North-Holland Publishing Co., 1977.

Purdy, J. Gerry. "Computers and Sports. From Football Play Analysis to the Olympic Games." In Optimal Strategies in Sports, pp. 196-205. Edited by Shaul P. Ladany and Robert E. Machol. New York: North-Holland Publishing Co., 1977.

Moestellar, Frederick. "Collegiate Football Scores, U.S.A." In Optimal Strategies in Sports, pp. 97-105. Edited by Shaul P. Ladany and Robert E. Machol. New York: North-Holland Publishing Co., 1977.

Ryan, Frank, Arthur J. Francia, and Robert H. Strawser. "Informational Analysis and Professional Football." In Optimal Strategies in Sports, pp. 112-15. Edited by Shaul P. Ladany and Robert E. Machol. New York: North-Holland Publishing Co., 1977.