That's the thing, we gotta be better in the redzone against legit defenses to do the slow play on offense and I'm not too confident there. Otherwise the defense gets a lot of pressure on not giving up points if the offense takes a super long drive for only 3 points (or in several cases no points at all). And playing with very slow tempo on offense is leaving defenses with plenty of time to sub and diagnose what is in front of them.
When we face an offense that is worth a damn and plays with tempo, we've gotta be able to move the ball quicker and be efficient playing at a higher tempo. IU was the only one we played this year that has an offense that exposed the problem with the slow play on offense, so even if we start with that approach I hope we're ready to adapt with a higher tempo of play if the circumstances dictates it.
All that being said, I like the match ups here on paper nearly everywhere except our OL vs their defensive front. We've got a good OL but we need elite play now. My very early prediction is OSU 27 - Miami 17.
We should probably have a separate thread on this.
Tempo and execution are two completely different things and people are mixing them up. You can go fast and execute, you can go slow and execute. Efficiency is how well you execute, tempo is just the speed with which you do it.
The other logical fallacy is more reps = more opportunity for success. That is true if risk in actual football was linear, it is not. If you somehow had a per flip advantage in coin flips then yes, you want more flips. That is not true in football because when you, by rule of the game, have to play defense after being on offense, the risk is no longer linear in your favor, it's asymmetrical. Every rep on defense, no matter how good you are, introduces a little more opportunity for random variance to work in favor of your opponent and that is exactly what the less talented team needs, more opportunity to get lucky.
Bottom line is if you think going up tempo gives you some kind of tactical advantage (substitution packages or whatever) then it's ok to do it in situational applications (early in game, before the half, late if trailing) but that isn't what people here are saying.
People here saw the one time the efficiency strategy failed,
because of poor execution, and confuse result (poor execution) with process (efficient offense). So it becomes "if we went slow and lost, then if we went faster we win" then because they give no credence to the downside of going faster (still failing because of poor execution-the real problem) they create this "faster = win" fallacy.
It's this simple, every play has an outcome, that outcome is comprised of skill + luck. That's it. When you have more skill, you want to suppress luck.
When you are on defense in football, no matter how skilled-luck is there and is your enemy. It is the oxygen the less skilled opponent needs to breathe enough to possibly win the fight. When you rob them of those offensive possessions, you rob them of the oxygen they need to have a chance to beat you.
TL;DR- Your ideal path to victory as the more skilled team is to have as many offensive possessions (not plays) in which you have the ball as long as possible and score some points. Empty TOP is like a turnover (in the red zone it should be counted as a turnover because it has the same effect on the game shape)...SO THAT....you play defense as few amount of times as possible.
If otoh, you are the underdog or are behind then you need the random variance (luck) opportunities and you have to go fast to get more plays.
So remember the old saying that when your opponent is making a mistake, don't stop him.
If the more skilled team is going faster while struggling with execution then don't stop them. They are helping you out, which is exactly what some people here are advocating. They just don't know it.
