Miners and Miners fans gather here to discuss all things UTEP related.
As a public service, I am posting some of the information I find regarding UTEP Miners football and the Preseason Prediction Challenge (read more here) http://www.kyyotesden.com/preseaon-prediction-challenge-championship/ and enter here http://kyyotesden.com/den/index.php?topic=5.0 to better prepare you for the Challenge. We have talked before about lies, damned lies, and statistics so each of us can use the information as they see fit.
This time I looked at offense. In particular, I looked at three areas, total offense, passing offense and scoring offense all over the past 4 seasons. Some of you will immediately notice the missing rushing offense. So, let me tell you why I chose the areas I did. Total offense tells me how steady Kugler’s offense has been overall. The scoring offense is where the rubber meets the road. The passing offense will tell me if the passing has changed much as I believe the passing offense is a key factor. It tells me the rushing offense at the same time, but I already know Kugler is going to run on every down he can.
Let’s start with total offense. The Miners have been amazingly consistent in this area over he past 4 years. In the 2013-14 season the Miners averaged 347.9 yards a game, ranking them 103rd in the nation. The next two seasons saw the team ranked 105 and 107 giving up 350.7 and 342.3 respectively. Last year UTEP battled back up to the 102nd ranked spot. But, as we saw when looking at the defensive side in my prior analysis, it isn’t how many yards that determines wins and losses.
The passing offense is a bit of a mixed bag once you get past the fact that it is ranked very much toward the low end of yards per game average and yards per pass. This is no surprise to Miners fans familiar with Kuglers offensive philosophy. In the 13-14 season UTEP was ranked 110. The next year it changed to 118. The 2015-16 season saw it change somewhat dramatically to 94th ranked, 24 point difference. The 2016-17 season saw the team return to the triple digits with a ranking of 103. Now, I want to point out that this area also has little to do win wins and losses. A team could certainly win every game without ever completing a forward pass-in theory.
So, here comes what I said is where the rubber meets the road. It doesn’t determine wins and losses, either, but it may get a little closer. I have to say that scoring offense is where we might get some clues. The 2013 campaign ranked the Miners scoring offense at 101., scoring 21.8 points a game. The next season it moved to 81 scoring 26.6 points per game. The 2015=16 season saw it move right back the other way to a 112th ranking, scoring 20.7 points per game. The, last season it was back 82nd rank, scoring 26.3 points a game. Keep in mind that when you look at wins and losses, this doesn’t guarantee anything. What it does tell me is that during the past four seasons the scoring offense is perhaps the most subject to change. For what it is worth.
So, there you have just a touch more information to help you as you think about the upcoming football season.
I was thinking about watching the Miners play football this season and so I looked to find out and found an announcement about the schedule of upcoming games and an alliance with the Stadium network. Now, having a foggy memory of something like this before where finding games was some kind of quest I thought that perhaps the whole football/media thing might be worth a discussion.
Part of the discussion will have to include the subject of viewer age. It is critical! The nexus between age of viewer, and the form of media used to deliver the game cannot be understated. More on that later.
In the past, nationally known teams would fill the few televised games on the three networks. Generations would sit and watch football rooting for a team that they connected with. Those conferences struck it rich, as the money television was willing to pay for games was big because the costs were low. Then came cable television. Soon, ESPN realized that this was the perfect business model for television. The public loved watching sports and it was cheap to produce, especially with satellites able to bounce beams around. At first they filled time showing other teams from the major conferences. That worked so well they began adding more channels. After filling time with other teams from the major conferences, more channels came and more money for some what were called mid-majors. The money was huge. It meant much more than money though. It meant power. It meant rivalries were born or cemented. It put places on the map and in people’s minds. It meant recruiting gold. It meant that the best players could go anywhere and still be seen by Mom, Dad, Gramma and Grampa, and all of the rest of the family IF they went to play at the right schools.
Then came the internet. Geez, what a God send/cluster fuck it is. Remember that I said age of the viewer is critical. You know what’s coming. But, it isn’t just about old farts not being technology savvy. You have to add to it the fact that the internet has had an enormous impact on what younger generations watch and it’s impact on sports in general. The major conferences still have a stranglehold on most of the money coming in and thus being shoveled back through the networks. But, there is till money to be made, pocket change for the big boys, but for all of the rest about all it means is that their fans may have a chance to see game they would not have before.
What I wonder is will the internet eventually be the demise sports. Yep, I said it. You see, much of sports had traditionally individual competition such a prize fights. Eventually schools and organizations such as the YMCA found that team sports provided many positive aspects in helping channel the energy of young men, developing teamwork and leadership skills, and a esprit de corps. What else followed naturally was spectators, rivalries, and an unexpected money stream for the organization. Cars made it possible to carry players from one town to others near by. Professional teams sprang up, with players made famous in the area and who people would pay a little to see play against others they had known. Rivalries based on teams representing communities grew and huge stadiums were built to accommodate the crowds that wanted to pay to watch teams play. Television allowed to get involved without having to pay to watch as commercials to care of that, and to see games in which we would not have been able to travel to.
But cable television brought many other choices of something to watch than sports. The media that has helped sports grow had also given more choices of what to spend viewing time on. For children. You see, the three generations watching a team together on a Saturday had changed over the years to the point that now, the youngest generations may not even look up from the smart phones. There is always a delay in these things. They don’t show up immediately. But ask yourself if the current generation has the same attachment to sports as their grand parents or great grandparents? Now, throw in the growth in internet universities and the move away from brick and mortar. Much of the regional connections are fading due to it and it will only increase.
It won’t happen in the next few years, but I believe it is possible that it will show up at some point and when it does it may come shockingly quick.
Let me know what you think here at the Den; http://kyyotesden.com/den/index.php?topic=14.0
Ask yourself, what is a rival. I think, if you get down to it, it is a competitor with an emotional connection. There are competitors who compete against each other without a thought about it other than winning, losing, technique, form and such. They may not have ever met the competition before. They are rivals in a seemingly distant way. There are one-sided rivalries in which one team regularly beats the other and the records are lopsided. In these, the competitive event may mean little more than an opportunity for the two emotional sides to meet in battle. Often, there is a regional component to these rivalries. Then there are rivalries that are competition based. Rivalries can spring up overnight or they can grow slowly over decades. Rivalries can sometimes develop around other things first and then be seen in competition and vice versa. The competition between El Paso and San Antonio is a whole lot older than football. But, when UTEP and UTSA met of the football field it all had a focal point in competition. So, here is my assignment for you to contemplate. List in order and give your reasons why for your Top Three UTEP Miners rivals. Post your list here on the Den message board http://kyyotesden.com/den/index.php?board=1.0 .
