Bercich dropped what should have been an INT. I’ll never forget it.
Yes. Games can be won with STs. Games can be won with offense and defense. Since an overwhelming majority of plays involve offense and defense, offense and defense are much more likely to decide games than special teams. That’s the whole point. As Neil puts it, less than 5% of plays involve STs. Obviously, then, in doling out time resources on offense, defense, and special teams it makes sense to devote the least amount to STs. Right? That’s all anyone has said. You keep pretending that some are advocating for not practicing STs at all. You use the term “ignore” a lot. Everyone would like to have better STs. Nobody says “I hope STs sucks.” The issue is allocation of resources, most specifically time resources. They are very limited in the college game. I do agree that good STs is a plus. Nobody would disagree with that. Many would disagree with diverting limited resources to ST to the detriment of offense or defense or both. I think Kelly would disagree. I think Dabo would disagree. He somehow managed to win a NC in dominant fashion with statistically worse STs (FEI efficiency) than ND. Surely you’d agree that offense and defense determine the outcome of a far higher percentage of games than STs. Right?
As for “wow you really care about this.” YOU are the one who keeps starting this up again and again. I jump in because I do find it interesting. I, without giving it much thought, also generally cursed the lack of STs performance under Kelly. After reading that thread I linked, I was persuaded by Neil and cheeks information. It seems to me you have never even considered what they stated. You just vent, spin, and misrepresent.
And just a suggestion: when inevitably ND does win or lose a game because of special teams, don’t “be an asshole.” You won’t be vindicated. The best analogy I can come up with is blackjack. Some friends of mine go to an Indian casino 4 or 5 times a year. We always play blackjack. One of the guys refuses to learn statistically correct play. It results in him frequently standing on 15 and 16 when the dealer has a 9 or 10 showing. He doesn’t want to hear about how statistics play over time. He just doesn’t want to bust. He’s making an objectively bad play. But, of course, sometimes it works out. Sometimes the dealer busts from 10 when you are sitting on 16. My friend used to make a point of saying “see I knew I should stand.” It was dumb. He was still making a statistically bad play even though he won on a particular hand. That is a rough equivalent of you patting yourself on the back the one time STs does actually turn a game. It won’t make you “right” in any big picture sense. For every game that comes down to a STs play, many, many more don’t. When it is all boiled down, that is really the point.