[slide]

[quote author=slide link=topic=10838.msg101482#msg101482 date=1412865882]
do you have an example of a non-option team where a 3 RB by Committee works?  tandems yes, but 3 or more?

Well, Alabama and Wisconsin have done it -- maybe not this year, but certainly in the past. But that's not the point. It's not whether the committee and success can coexist. It's whether the committee is the best option among the ones you have -- it may be that no configuration of backs will be successful with Stanford.

Anyway, might there be something to the idea that getting a lot of touches puts you into a rhythm or whatever. Sure -- I don't think that's crazy. But if there were, I'd think people would have more compelling evidence than what was offered in that FitzGerald article.
[/quote]

Alabama and Wisconsin largely rely on tandems of backs with a primary and then a secondary back, not a 3- or 4- or 5 headed RB by Committee approach.  even needle's Arkansas example bears the same relationship.  the absence of multiple triple headed RB by Committee success story is I think the answer FitzGerald was pointing to. 

Remound Wright commented about the lack of rhythm a couple of weeks.  he and you are onto something along these lines.

[slide]

[quote author=slide link=topic=10838.msg101482#msg101482 date=1412865882]
do you have an example of a non-option team where a 3 RB by Committee works?  tandems yes, but 3 or more?

Well, Alabama and Wisconsin have done it -- maybe not this year, but certainly in the past. But that's not the point. It's not whether the committee and success can coexist. It's whether the committee is the best option among the ones you have -- it may be that no configuration of backs will be successful with Stanford.

Anyway, might there be something to the idea that getting a lot of touches puts you into a rhythm or whatever. Sure -- I don't think that's crazy. But if there were, I'd think people would have more compelling evidence than what was offered in that FitzGerald article.
[/quote]

Alabama and Wisconsin largely rely on tandems of backs with a primary and then a secondary back, not a 3- or 4- or 5 headed RB by Committee approach.  even needle's Arkansas example bears the same relationship.  the absence of multiple triple headed RB by Committee success story is I think the answer FitzGerald was pointing to. 

Remound Wright commented about the lack of rhythm a couple of weeks.  he and you are onto something along these lines.