One of the big factors in deciding who overachieved and underachieved during the year and who will rebound/regress the next is yardage. Turnovers and special teams touchdowns may be nice, but they're somewhat random occurences; yardage should, to an extent, show who outplayed who. Accordingly, I've gone through every I-A game this year, tabulated the yardage, and figured out the win-loss records based purely on yardage.
A note: There were three games where yardage was even, with Notre Dame oddly being involved in two: USC/Notre Dame, Notre Dame/Purdue, and TCU/Baylor. I rewarded each team 0.5 wins and 0.5 losses for each "tie."
Another note: Oh, and I didn't include conference title games, since they obviously depend on standings that may or may not be accurate in this model.
So, my so called "pure" yardage standings:
ACC Atlantic:
1. Clemson 10-2 (7-1)
2. Boston College 8-4 (5-3)
3. Florida State 7-5 (5-3)
4. NC State 6-6 (5-3)
5. Wake Forest 5-7 (2-6)
6. Maryland 1-11 (0-8)
ACC Coastal:
1. Miami 8-4 (5-3)
2. Virginia Tech 9-3 (5-3)
3. Georgia Tech 6-6 (4-4)
4. Virginia 5-7 (4-4)
5. North Carolina 5-7 (4-4)
6. Duke 2-10 (2-6)
Big East:
1. Louisville 10-2 (5-2)
2. West Virginia 10-2 (5-2)
3. South Florida 9-3 (5-2)
4. Cincinnati 7-5 (4-3)
5. Rutgers 8-4 (4-3)
6. Connecticut 6-6 (2-5)
7. Pittsburgh 6-6 (2-5)
8. Syracuse 2-10 (1-6)
Big Ten:
1. Ohio State 12-0 (8-0)
2. Michigan 10-2 (7-1)
3. Wisconsin 11-1 (7-1)
4. Iowa 7-5 (4-4)
5. Illinois 7-5 (4-4)
6. Penn State 7-5 (4-4)
7. Purdue 5.5-7.5 (3-5)
8. Northwestern 6-6 (3-5)
9. Indiana 4-8 (2-6)
10. Michigan State 5-7 (1-7)
11. Minnesota 3-9 (1-7)
Big 12 North:
1. Nebraska 7-5 (4-4)
2. Missouri 8-4 (4-4)
3. Kansas State 6-6 (4-4)
4. Kansas 6-6 (3-5)
5. Colorado 4-8 (3-5)
6. Iowa State 4-8 (1-7)
Big 12 South:
1. Texas A&M 11-1 (7-1)
2. Texas Tech 8-4 (6-2)
3. Oklahoma 8-4 (5-3)
4. Texas 8-4 (5-3)
5. Oklahoma State 7-5 (4-4)
6. Baylor 4.5-7.5 (2-6)
C-USA East:
1. Central Florida 7-5 (7-1)
2. East Carolina 8-4 (6-2)
3. Southern Miss 6-6 (4-4)
4. Marshall 3-9 (2-6)
5. UAB 3-9 (2-6)
6. Memphis 3-9 (1-7)
C-USA West:
1. Houston 9-3 (7-1)
2. Tulsa 9-3 (6-2)
3. UTEP 5-7 (4-4)
4. Tulane 5-7 (3-5)
5. Rice 4-8 (3-5)
6. SMU 6-6 (3-5)
MAC East:
1. Ohio 7-5 (6-2)
2. Kent State 7-5 (5-3)
3. Akron 5-7 (4-4)
4. Bowling Green 6-6 (4-4)
5. Buffalo 3-9 (2-6)
6. Miami of Ohio 3-9 (2-6)
MAC West:
1. Western Michigan 8-4 (6-2)
2. Toledo 7-5 (5-3)
3. Central Michigan 8-4 (5-3)
4. Northern Illinois 6-6 (4-4)
5. Eastern Michigan 3-9 (3-5)
6. Ball State 2-10 (2-6)
Mountain West:
1. Utah 8-4 (6-2)
2. TCU 9.5-2.5 (6-2)
3. BYU 10-2 (6-2)
4. Wyoming 9-3 (5-3)
5. Air Force 6-6 (4-4)
6. Colorado State 5-7 (3-5)
7. San Diego State 4-8 (2-6)
8. UNLV 3-9 (2-6)
9. New Mexico 4-8 (2-6)
Pac 10:
1. Oregon 10-2 (7-2)
2. USC 9.5-2.5 (7-2)
3. Cal 9-3 (7-2)
4. Washington State 8-4 (6-3)
5. Oregon State 7-6 (5-4)
6. UCLA 7-5 (5-4)
7. Arizona State 7-5 (4-5)
8. Arizona 3-9 (2-7)
9. Stanford 1-11 (1-8)
10. Washington 2-10 (1-8)
SEC East:
1. Georgia 8-4 (5-3)
2. South Carolina 8-4 (5-3)
3. Vanderbilt 7-5 (4-4)
4. Florida 8-4 (4-4)
5. Tennessee 7-5 (3-5)
6. Kentucky 3-9 (2-6)
SEC West:
1. LSU 11-1 (7-1)
2. Alabama 10-2 (6-2)
3. Arkansas 8-4 (5-3)
4. Auburn 7-5 (3-5)
5. Mississippi State 4-8 (2-6)
6. Mississippi 3-9 (2-6)
Sun Belt:
1. Troy 6-6 (5-2)
2. Florida Atlantic 5-7 (4-3)
3. Middle Tennessee State 6-6 (4-3)
4. Arkansas State 6-6 (4-3)
5. Louisiana-Monroe 7-5 (4-3)
6. Louisiana-Lafayette 6-6 (3-4)
7. Florida International 3-9 (2-5)
8. North Texas 3-9 (2-5)
WAC:
1. Hawaii 11-2 (7-1)
2. Boise State 9-3 (6-2)
3. Nevada 9-3 (6-2)
4. New Mexico State 9-3 (5-3)
5. San Jose State 7-5 (4-4)
6. Idaho 5-7 (4-4)
7. Fresno State 5-7 (3-5)
8. Louisiana Tech 3-10 (1-7)
9. Utah State 0-12 (0-8)
Independents:
1. Notre Dame 8-4
2. Navy 8-4
3. Army 1-11
4. Temple 0-12
Of course, this has some flaws. After all, within a certain range, the game's essentially up for grabs -- why should a team get a "win" just because they had the opportunity to gain, say, 3 more yards? Accordingly, I've used 50 yards as a benchmark -- if the difference in yardage was 50 yards or less, I gave each team a "swing win (SW)" or a "swing loss (SL)," and awarded each team 0.5 wins and 0.5 losses. Let me use Toledo as example of how I adjusted the records:
Toledo (Pure): 7-5 (5 SW, 2 SL)
Subtracting all the swing games, Toledo's record is 2-3. With 7 swing games, that should add 3.5 in each column, bringing their "swing" record to 5.5-6.5.
Now, obviously the system still isn't perfect -- Michigan vs. Central Michigan is a perfect example. Michigan forced 3 turnovers, so while Michigan would likely outgain the Chippewas, CMU had much more of an opportunity to gain yardage. The end result: Central Michigan outgained Michigan 397-260, and was therefore the only team besides Ohio State to "beat" Michigan under this system. But still, this way of looking at it generally shows who is overrated and who could surprise everyone by regressing to the mean next year.
Without further ado, 2006's TOP FIVE OVERACHIEVERS:
t-5. ARIZONA (Actual Record: 6-6, Projected Record: 3-9, Overachievement: 3 wins)
Wins: Stanford, Stephen F. Austin
Swing Wins: Oregon
Swing Losses: UCLA
Losses: Arizona State, BYU, Cal, LSU, Oregon State, USC, Washington, Washington State
The BYU "loss" could be kind of a wash, as Arizona was actually outgained by 5*1* yards. So the Wildcats winning that one, which they did, wasn't too far off. Them beating Wazzou in real life was just weird, however, as the Cougars outgained them by 60 yards and forced 2 more turnovers. Plus 78 of Arizona's 301 yards against Wazzou came on a TD pass in the first quarter. Arizona upsetting Cal was all due to Nate Longshore -- he threw 3 picks, and if one of those doesn't happen, Arizona would have probably lost as the stats show they should've.
t-5. BOISE STATE (Actual Record: 12-0, Projected Record: 9-3, Overachievement: 3 wins)
Wins: Fresno State, Louisiana Tech, Nevada, Oregon State, Sacramento State, San Jose State, Utah, Utah State
Swing Wins: Hawaii
Swing Losses: Wyoming
Losses: Idaho, New Mexico State
The Idaho game is like Arizona-BYU in that the disparity was 51 yards, just outside of the "swing" range. In contrast, Boise was in fact somewhat lucky in that Wyoming game, as a Broncos INT TD made the difference in the score. The NMSU pass attack somewhat breaks the system with their gobs of yardage -- Boise still gained 479 yards, though, so it's not like the Broncos' real-life win was all that inexplicable.
t-5. OHIO (Actual Record: 9-3, Projected Record: 6-6, Overachievement: 3 wins)
Wins: Buffalo, Eastern Michigan, Miami of Ohio
Swing Wins: Akron, Kent State, Northern Illinois, Tennessee-Martin
Swing Losses: Bowling Green, Western Michigan
Losses: Illinois, Missouri, Rutgers
Ohio beating Illinois in real life is the big outlier, mostly due to 5 Illini turnovers. Other than that, this is a typical lucky team - a bunch of close games, and they won all but Bowling Green.
4. RICE (Actual Record: 7-5, Projected Record: 3.5-8.5, Overachievement: 3.5 wins)
Wins: Army, East Carolina, UTEP
Swing Wins: SMU
Losses: Central Florida, Florida State, Houston, Texas, Tulane, Tulsa, UAB, UCLA
The big lucky wins were UCF, Tulsa, and UAB. The UCF game was basically even, Central Florida just handed it over with two turnovers. The UAB game was the outright luckiest win, since it was also pretty even statistically, but Rice actually turned the ball over more than the Blazers. Tulsa blew Rice out of the water, but turned it over 4 times, and still lost by only 3.
3. AUBURN (Actual Record: 10-2, Projected Record: 6-6, Overachievement: 4 wins)
Wins: Arkansas State, Buffalo, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Washington State
Swing Wins: Florida, Tulane
Losses: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, LSU, South Carolina
Auburn only had two drives of any note against LSU, but one of them was for a touchdown, which was enough to win the game. LSU was more consistent over the game and outgained Auburn by over 100 yards, but Auburn got lucky and held on. The SC game was a bit closer, but without a red zone INT, the Gamecocks would've tied it, and then who knows. Beating Alabama was all due to Crimson Tide turnovers.
2. WAKE FOREST (Actual Record: 10-2, Projected Record: 5-7, Overachievement: 5 wins)
Wins: Florida State, Liberty, Maryland, Mississippi, Syracuse
Losses: Boston College, Clemson, Connecticut, Duke, NC State, North Carolina, Virginia Tech
They beat Duke on a blocked field goal. I was at the UConn game, and the Huskies completely outplayed them outside of 2 DJ Hernandez interceptions (shock.), one of which was run back for a TD. They beat NC State on a SAFETY. The win over UNC was mostly turnovers, and BC had some at some inopportune times, too. Wake should've won maybe 1, 2, hell, maybe even 3 of those. But all five? Quite lucky.
1. MARYLAND (Actual Record: 8-4, Projected Record: 2.5-9.5, Overachivement: 5.5 wins)
Wins: William & Mary
Swing Losses: Boston College, Florida International, NC State
Losses: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Middle Tennessee State, Virginia, Wake Forest, West Virginia
The FIU and Virginia games were pretty close, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt there. MTSU, NC State, and Miami were all the same thing: Maryland got outplayed, not by much, but enough, and turnovers doomed the Blue Raiders/Wolfpack/'Canes. The Clemson game is a weird one: Maryland was the only team to turn the ball over, and got outgained by 80+ yards, but still managed to win it. FSU kicked the shit out of the Terps statistically in their game; however, Maryland apparently got some really great punt returns, and were able to score on 20-30 yard drives. Again, it's expected that Maryland could win some of those and go, say, 5-7, but for a team that only outgained one opponent all year to go 8-4? That's overachieving.
And on the other side of the coin, 2006's TOP FIVE UNDERPERFORMERS:
t-4. LOUISIANA-MONROE (Actual Record: 4-8, Projected Record: 7-5, Underachievement: 3 wins)
Wins: Alcorn State, Florida Atlantic, Florida International, Kansas, Louisiana-Lafayette, North Texas
Swing Wins: Kentucky
Swing Losses: Troy
Losses: Alabama, Arkansas, Arkansas State, Middle Tennessee State
Might as well start with the Kansas loss, since that's the weird one. Warhawks QB Kinsmon Lancaster actually outgained the entire Kansas team, Kansas turned it over 4 times to ULM's one, and Kansas still managed to eke it out. The FAU and Kentucky games were essentially the same script: ULM performs a bit better in a shootout, turnovers doom them.
t-4. OREGON (Actual Record: 7-5, Projected Record: 10-2, Underachievement: 3 wins)
Wins: Arizona State, Oklahoma, Oregon State, Portland State, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington, Washington State
Swing Wins: Fresno State
Swing Losses: Arizona
Losses: Cal
The USC game was another one of those 51-yard specials, so we'll just call it even. Even though Arizona outgained Oregon, the Ducks loss was mostly due to them turning it over 6 times. Oregon had some inopportune turnovers against Wazzou, although that plagued both teams. I'd argue Oregon was more consistent, but the Cougars were able to turn their big drives into more points. Oregon State game was also about even; the Beavers fumbled it over, but making one of Oregon's two missed field goals would've won it for the Ducks.
3. FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL (Actual Record: 0-12, Projected Record: 4-8, Underachievement: 4 wins)
Wins: Middle Tennessee State, North Texas
Swing Wins: Maryland
Swing Losses: Alabama, Bowling Green, South Florida
Losses: Arkansas State, Florida Atlantic, Louisiana-Lafayette, Louisiana-Monroe, Miami, Troy
The South Florida, Maryland, and Troy games (only a 53 yard disparity) were pretty much close. As was the UNT game, I suppose, but that all came down to whoever could make a FG before the 7th overtime. The Alabama game was pretty handily won by the Crimson Tide; they ran back TDs on special teams and on defense, still outgained FIU by 50, and pretty much just shut the Golden Panthers down -- this was a case of Bama's low yardage being due to a lack of chances rather than a lack of success. MTSU seemed pretty lucky to beat FIU, being outgained by 70 yards and turning the ball over, but neither team really did much and the Blue Raiders eked out the win 7-6. FIU probably should've won the BGSU game, however -- FIU won the yardage battle close, but turned it over 4 times to Bowling Green's 2. FIU had a bunch of close games that could've gone either way, but few losses that you could say they deserved to win. It still would've been a bad year, they just probably didn't deserve to go winless.
2. NEW MEXICO STATE (Actual Record: 4-8, Projected Record: 8.5-3.5, Underachievement: 4.5 wins)
Wins: Boise State, Fresno State, Louisiana Tech, New Mexico, San Jose State, Southeastern Louisiana, Texas Southern, Utah State
Swing Wins: UTEP
Losses: Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada
NMSU only lost to New Mexico by 6, but only after turning it over five times. I'd say that's a fluke loss. Same story pretty much with the Fresno game, with the Aggies losing by 5 after 4 turnovers. NMSU and UTEP were pretty much exactly even, while the SJSU and Boise games both reached shootout levels; outgaining a team by 80 yards is a lot less impressive when it's, say, 556-479.
1. ILLINOIS (Actual Record: 2-10, Projected Record: 7-5, Underachievement: 5 wins)
Wins: Eastern Illinois, Michigan State, Ohio, Penn State
Swing Wins: Indiana, Purdue, Syracuse
Swing Losses: Iowa, Ohio State, Wisconsin
Losses: Northwestern, Rutgers
The Indiana loss was about as even as two teams can be. The Wisconsin and Ohio State losses weren't far behind, with turnovers being even, the Illini being barely outgained (32 by Wisconsin, 21 by Ohio State), and the opponent winning by a touchdown or less. Those three were about even, but the Syracuse loss was slightly more undeserving. The Illini outgained the Orange by 48, but Illinois had one more turnover than Syracuse, who returned the lone Illini fumble for a TD. The rest of the games can all be chalked up to an insane amount of turnovers:
vs. Iowa: Iowa outgains Illinois 337-291, Illinois: 4 turnovers, Iowa: 1 turnover
vs. Ohio: Illinois outgains Ohio 441-264, Illinois: 5 turnovers, Ohio: 1 turnover
vs. Penn State: Illinois outgains Penn State 403-211, Illinois: 4 turnovers, Penn State: 2 turnovers
vs. Purdue: Illinois outgains Purdue 446-445, Illinois: 5 turnovers, Purdue: 2 turnovers
Illinois doesn't turn the ball over and wins those 4 games, and they're 6-6. Combined with those 4 even games above, that should add up to a record anywhere from, say, 7-5 to 9-3. So, I think that probably clinches it -- the biggest underperformer this year, and the team that's probably going to "come out of nowhere" and regress to the mean next season -- the Illinois Fighting Illini.
And for the record, the "swing" conference standings:
ACC Atlantic:
1. Clemson 10-2 (7-1)
2. Florida State 7.5-4.5 (5-3)
3. Boston College 6.5-5.5 (4-4)
4. NC State 5-7 (4-4)
5. Wake Forest 5-7 (2-6)
6. Maryland 2.5-9.5 (1-7)
ACC Coastal:
1. Virginia Tech 9-3 (6-2)
2. Miami 8.5-3.5 (5-3)
3. Georgia Tech 6.5-5.5 (4.5-3.5)
4. Virginia 5.5-6.5 (4.5-3.5)
5. North Carolina 4-8 (3.5-4.5)
6. Duke 2-10 (1.5-6.5)
Big East:
1. Louisville 10-2 (5.5-1.5)
2. West Virginia 10-2 (5-2)
3. Cincinnati 7.5-4.5 (4.5-2.5)
4. South Florida 8-4 (4.5-2.5)
5. Rutgers 8-4 (3.5-3.5)
6. Connecticut 6.5-5.5 (2.5-5.5)
7. Pittsburgh 6-6 (2-5)
8. Syracuse 2-10 (0.5-6.5)
Big Ten:
1. Ohio State 10-2 (7-1)
2. Michigan 9.5-2.5 (6.5-1.5)
3. Wisconsin 10-2 (6.5-1.5)
4. Illinois 7-5 (4.5-3.5)
5. Penn State 7-5 (3.5-4.5)
6. Indiana 5-7 (3.5-4.5)
7. Iowa 6-6 (3-5)
8. Purdue 5.5-7.5 (3-5)
9. Northwestern 5.5-6.5 (2.5-5.5)
10. Michigan State 5.5-6.5 (2-6)
11. Minnesota 4-8 (2-6)
Big 12 North:
1. Nebraska 7.5-4.5 (4.5-3.5)
2. Missouri 8.5-3.5 (4.5-3.5)
3. Colorado 4.5-7.5 (4-4)
4. Kansas State 5-7 (3-5)
5. Kansas 6-6 (3-5)
6. Iowa State 4-8 (1-7)
Big 12 South:
1. Oklahoma 9.5-2.5 (6.5-1.5)
2. Texas A&M 9.5-2.5 (6-2)
3. Texas Tech 8-4 (5-3)
4. Texas 8-4 (4.5-3.5)
5. Oklahoma State 7.5-4.5 (4-4)
6. Baylor 3.5-8.5 (2-6)
C-USA East:
1. Central Florida 6.5-5.5 (6-2)
2. East Carolina 7-5 (4.5-3.5)
3. Southern Miss 6.5-5.5 (4.5-3.5)
4. Marshall 4-8 (3-5)
5. Memphis 4-8 (2.5-5.5)
6. UAB 3-9 (2-6)
C-USA West:
1. Houston 9.5-2.5 (7.5-0.5)
2. Tulsa 9-3 (6-2)
3. UTEP 5-7 (3.5-4.5)
4. Tulane 5.5-6.5 (3-5)
5. SMU 5.5-6.5 (3-5)
6. Rice 3.5-8.5 (2.5-5.5)
MAC East:
1. Ohio 6-6 (5.5-2.5)
2. Kent State 7.5-4.5 (5.5-2.5)
3. Akron 6-6 (4.5-3.5)
4. Bowling Green 6.5-5.5 (4-4)
5. Miami of Ohio 4.5-7.5 (3-5)
6. Buffalo 3-9 (2-6)
MAC West:
1. Western Michigan 7.5-4.5 (5.5-2.5)
2. Northern Illinois 7-5 (5-3)
3. Toledo 5.5-6.5 (4-4)
4. Central Michigan 7.5-4.5 (4-4)
5. Ball State 3.5-8.5 (3-5)
6. Eastern Michigan 2-10 (2-6)
Mountain West:
1. BYU 11-1 (7-1)
2. TCU 9-3 (6-2)
3. Wyoming 8.5-3.5 (5-3)
4. Utah 6.5-5.5 (4.5-3.5)
5. Air Force 6-6 (3.5-4.5)
6. Colorado State 5.5-6.5 (3-5)
7. New Mexico 4.5-7.5 (3-5)
8. UNLV 4-8 (2.5-5.5)
9. San Diego State 3-9 (1.5-6.5)
Pac 10:
1. Oregon 10-2 (7.5-1.5)
2. USC 9.5-2.5 (7-2)
3. Cal 7.5-4.5 (5.5-3.5)
4. Washington State 7.5-4.5 (5.5-3.5)
5. Arizona State 8-4 (5-4)
6. Oregon State 6.5-6.5 (4.5-4.5)
7. UCLA 6-6 (4-5)
8. Washington 4.5-7.5 (3-6)
9. Arizona 3-9 (2-7)
10. Stanford 1.5-10.5 (1-8)
SEC East:
1. Florida 9.5-2.5 (5.5-2.5)
2. Georgia 8-4 (4.5-3.5)
3. South Carolina 8-4 (4.5-3.5)
4. Kentucky 5-7 (3.5-4.5)
5. Tennessee 6.5-5.5 (3-5)
6. Vanderbilt 6-6 (3-5)
SEC West:
1. LSU 10.5-1.5 (6.5-1.5)
2. Arkansas 8.5-3.5 (5.5-2.5)
3. Alabama 8-4 (5-3)
4. Mississippi State 5.5-6.5 (3.5-4.5)
5. Auburn 6-6 (2.5-5.5)
6. Mississippi 2.5-9.5 (1-7)
Sun Belt:
1. Arkansas State 7-5 (5-2)
2. Troy 5.5-6.5 (4.5-2.5)
3. Louisiana-Monroe 7-5 (4.5-2.5)
4. Middle Tennessee State 5.5-6.5 (3.5-3.5)
5. Louisiana-Lafayette 6-6 (3.5-3.5)
6. Florida Atlantic 4-8 (3-4)
7. Florida International 4-8 (2-5)
8. North Texas 3.5-8.5 (2-5)
WAC:
1. Hawaii 12-1 (7.5-0.5)
2. Boise State 9-3 (5.5-2.5)
3. Nevada 8-4 (5.5-2.5)
4. New Mexico State 8.5-3.5 (5-3)
5. Fresno State 5.5-6.5 (4-4)
6. San Jose State 6-6 (3.5-4.5)
7. Idaho 4-8 (3.5-4.5)
8. Louisiana Tech 2.5-10.5 (1-7)
9. Utah State 0.5-11.5 (0.5-7.5)
Independents:
1. Notre Dame 8.5-3.5
2. Navy 7-5
3. Army 3-9
4. Temple 0-12
Showing posts with label statistics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label statistics. Show all posts
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Friday, November 24, 2006
USC-NOTRE DAME
#11 Notre Dame (10-1) @ #4 USC (9-1)
Hey, a fun test, for my education and yours. AN ANALYSES OF DEFENCES:
So, let's look at ND's opponents:
Georgia Tech: 258 net yards/124 pass yards vs. ND
Penn State: 417/225
Michigan: 368/220
Michigan State: 356/109
Purdue: 493/398
Stanford: 264/154
UCLA: 277/217
Navy: 341/43
North Carolina: 298/213
Air Force: 425/205
Army: 150/92
Now, let's find out the...let's call it the performance gap, sure. Basically, subtracting those numbers from the opponents' average numbers on the year, to try and see the difference the defense (in this case, ND's) made. The more positive the number, the better UND's defensive performance:
GT: 78.6/46.7
PSU: -69.6/-24.8
Michigan: 6.9/-34.2
Mich St: 0.8/118.6
Purdue: -71.1/-111.7
Stanford: -35.5/9.5
UCLA: 52.3/-12.5
Navy: 50/14.8
UNC: -19.5/-40
Air Force: -83.9/-109
Army: 111.7/39.8
Which works out to an overall gap of Notre Dame being +20.7 overall, and -102.8 against the pass, or, on a per-game basis, Notre Dame giving up 1.8 less yards than average overall, but 9.3 more pass yards per game. Though without the Michigan State implosion, that stat jumps up to 22. But anyway, let's do the same analysis for USC!
Performance gap!
Arkansas: 95.6/-2
Nebraska: 194.9/105.3
Arizona: 146.5/41.7
Washington State: -37.9/-27.2
Washington: -76.2/-18.2
Arizona State: 93.5/72.7
Oregon State: -42.5/-31.4
Stanford: -11.5/-14.5
Oregon: 30.7/-11.2
Cal: 142.8/82.8
And that works out to 535.9/197.4 on the year, so USC gives up 53.6 less yards than average overall, and 19.7 less pass yards.
So, let's work out the numbers:
Notre Dame's offense:
397.5 yards per game on average - 53.6 = 343.9
273.7 passing per game on average - 19.7 = 254
USC's offense:
392.2 yards per game on average - 1.8 = 390.4
250 passing per game on average + 9.3 = 259.3
And that gives USC the advantage. And that's assuming they don't carry over the momentum from the Cal game. Though Notre Dame DID just shut down...Army. But not UNC or Air Force. God, you know, the stats show that Notre Dame really isn't that far below average, but I can't take them seriously with that strength of schedule. And, really, that about sums it up. Do I give UND a chance? Yes, though significantly less so at USC. Although part of me almost wants to see Notre Dame win just so the Ohio State-Michigan rematch becomes that much closer to a reality. But I really think USC's the better team, and as those stats show, they have the hotter defense. Notre Dame's best defensive performances were against Georgia Tech and Michigan State, an erratic team and one that imploded, at the beginning of the year, and comparing that to USC and Cal, just forget it.
My Pick: USC
Confidence (out of 5): 2
Hey, a fun test, for my education and yours. AN ANALYSES OF DEFENCES:
So, let's look at ND's opponents:
Georgia Tech: 258 net yards/124 pass yards vs. ND
Penn State: 417/225
Michigan: 368/220
Michigan State: 356/109
Purdue: 493/398
Stanford: 264/154
UCLA: 277/217
Navy: 341/43
North Carolina: 298/213
Air Force: 425/205
Army: 150/92
Now, let's find out the...let's call it the performance gap, sure. Basically, subtracting those numbers from the opponents' average numbers on the year, to try and see the difference the defense (in this case, ND's) made. The more positive the number, the better UND's defensive performance:
GT: 78.6/46.7
PSU: -69.6/-24.8
Michigan: 6.9/-34.2
Mich St: 0.8/118.6
Purdue: -71.1/-111.7
Stanford: -35.5/9.5
UCLA: 52.3/-12.5
Navy: 50/14.8
UNC: -19.5/-40
Air Force: -83.9/-109
Army: 111.7/39.8
Which works out to an overall gap of Notre Dame being +20.7 overall, and -102.8 against the pass, or, on a per-game basis, Notre Dame giving up 1.8 less yards than average overall, but 9.3 more pass yards per game. Though without the Michigan State implosion, that stat jumps up to 22. But anyway, let's do the same analysis for USC!
Performance gap!
Arkansas: 95.6/-2
Nebraska: 194.9/105.3
Arizona: 146.5/41.7
Washington State: -37.9/-27.2
Washington: -76.2/-18.2
Arizona State: 93.5/72.7
Oregon State: -42.5/-31.4
Stanford: -11.5/-14.5
Oregon: 30.7/-11.2
Cal: 142.8/82.8
And that works out to 535.9/197.4 on the year, so USC gives up 53.6 less yards than average overall, and 19.7 less pass yards.
So, let's work out the numbers:
Notre Dame's offense:
397.5 yards per game on average - 53.6 = 343.9
273.7 passing per game on average - 19.7 = 254
USC's offense:
392.2 yards per game on average - 1.8 = 390.4
250 passing per game on average + 9.3 = 259.3
And that gives USC the advantage. And that's assuming they don't carry over the momentum from the Cal game. Though Notre Dame DID just shut down...Army. But not UNC or Air Force. God, you know, the stats show that Notre Dame really isn't that far below average, but I can't take them seriously with that strength of schedule. And, really, that about sums it up. Do I give UND a chance? Yes, though significantly less so at USC. Although part of me almost wants to see Notre Dame win just so the Ohio State-Michigan rematch becomes that much closer to a reality. But I really think USC's the better team, and as those stats show, they have the hotter defense. Notre Dame's best defensive performances were against Georgia Tech and Michigan State, an erratic team and one that imploded, at the beginning of the year, and comparing that to USC and Cal, just forget it.
My Pick: USC
Confidence (out of 5): 2
Saturday, November 18, 2006
MICHIGAN-OHIO STATE
So. It's a huge fuckin' game. Here we go:
I'll start with Michigan. In every game, Michigan has been able to accomplish two things: running the ball, and stopping the opponent from doing so. Two things result from this:
1) The gameplan is designed for close wins. This is why I don't really buy the argument for higher margins of victory making OSU's season more impressive. Of course it does, their whole strategy is to blow the other team out of the water.
2) It's on the opposing quarterback to beat Michigan.
Now, is Troy Smith that quarterback? Brady Quinn isn't, but the Notre Dame offense has allowed twice as many sacks as Ohio State's (and USC's, since I have a feeling I'll be repeating this stat in the BCS title game), 26 to 13. The answer is that Troy Smith definitely COULD be. Only two games that he's had prove otherwise:
vs. Penn State: 12/22, 115, TD, 2 INT
@ Illinois: 13/23, 108, INT
In the Penn State game, Smith was able to at least pull off enough big plays to win the game handily. But will those big plays be there against Michigan? If they weren't against Illinois, and they weren't, then they may not be.
Ohio State is #10 in the country in rushing yards allowed/game, but let's take a look at how the best running backs have done against the Buckeyes:
Northern Illinois's Garrett Wolfe: 172 yards, 6.6 yards per carry
Texas's Selvin Young: 94 yards, 8.5 YPC
Penn State's Tony Hunt: 135 yards, 5.6 YPC
Iowa's Albert Young: 48 yards, 4.4 YPC
Illinois's Pierre Thomas: 58 yards, 7.3 YPC
Northwestern's Tyrell Sutton: 57 yards, 4.8 YPC
The amounts may not be high, but those yards per carry aren't a good sign. It's suggesting that Ohio State's low rushing yards allowed aren't due to a good run defense, but the fact that teams need to play catch-up through the air.
For the record, let's look at how many of the same backs did against Michigan, who gives up 1.3 yards a carry to Ohio State's 3.2:
Notre Dame's Darius Walker: 25 yards, 2.5 YPC
Wisconsin's Pat Hill Jr.: 54 yards, 2.7 YPC
Penn State's Tony Hunt: 33 yards, 2.5 YPC
Iowa's Albert Young: 17 yards, 1.9 YPC
Northwestern's Tyrell Sutton: 6 yards, 0.9 YPC
Michigan's holding running backs to less yards, often overall and especially per carry, even though their gameplan allows more opportunities for the opposition to run the ball than Ohio State's. And on a side note, the fact that Michigan's overall numbers are so much lower, factoring in that Michigan had to play Wisconsin (another "rushing and defense" team and a bit of a mini-Michigan) where OSU didn't makes things that much more impressive.
So, what have we learned?
-Michigan has more consistently implemented their gameplan than Ohio State has been able to.
-Michigan has a gameplan focused on running the ball and not allowing the other team to.
-Ohio State has a vulnerable run defense when their opposition actually has the opportunity to run the ball with a good running back.
-Michigan has stopped many of the same backs from accomplishing anything.
And this is why I pick Michigan.
Now, to play devil's advocate. In order for Ohio State to win, I believe they need to jump out to an early lead, get momentum on their side, and force Michigan to deviate from their run-based offensive gameplan. The likeliest way this could happen is if Michigan beats themselves. If the Wolverines are too amped up, if the Wolverines make a mistake early resulting in a failed drive or a turnover, and OSU is able to score in one of their first two or so drives, I could see the game being lost for the Wolverines right there. I'm not sure how much of a factor the death of Bo Schembechler will be -- it should be extra motivation for the Wolverines, although it seems somewhat counterintuitive that the team will be even more excited and amped up because someone died.
So, in conclusion, this is...well, obviously, quite the intriguing game. Based on statistics and really, just who I think the better team is, I give Michigan about a 75% chance of winning. However, could I see the scenario outlined above, where Michigan gets the yips and loses the game before the end of the first quarter? Easily. Hence that 25 percent. So, finally:
My Pick: Michigan
Confidence (out of 5): 2
And, just for shits and giggles...
Michigan 24, Ohio State 13
Why not?
I'll start with Michigan. In every game, Michigan has been able to accomplish two things: running the ball, and stopping the opponent from doing so. Two things result from this:
1) The gameplan is designed for close wins. This is why I don't really buy the argument for higher margins of victory making OSU's season more impressive. Of course it does, their whole strategy is to blow the other team out of the water.
2) It's on the opposing quarterback to beat Michigan.
Now, is Troy Smith that quarterback? Brady Quinn isn't, but the Notre Dame offense has allowed twice as many sacks as Ohio State's (and USC's, since I have a feeling I'll be repeating this stat in the BCS title game), 26 to 13. The answer is that Troy Smith definitely COULD be. Only two games that he's had prove otherwise:
vs. Penn State: 12/22, 115, TD, 2 INT
@ Illinois: 13/23, 108, INT
In the Penn State game, Smith was able to at least pull off enough big plays to win the game handily. But will those big plays be there against Michigan? If they weren't against Illinois, and they weren't, then they may not be.
Ohio State is #10 in the country in rushing yards allowed/game, but let's take a look at how the best running backs have done against the Buckeyes:
Northern Illinois's Garrett Wolfe: 172 yards, 6.6 yards per carry
Texas's Selvin Young: 94 yards, 8.5 YPC
Penn State's Tony Hunt: 135 yards, 5.6 YPC
Iowa's Albert Young: 48 yards, 4.4 YPC
Illinois's Pierre Thomas: 58 yards, 7.3 YPC
Northwestern's Tyrell Sutton: 57 yards, 4.8 YPC
The amounts may not be high, but those yards per carry aren't a good sign. It's suggesting that Ohio State's low rushing yards allowed aren't due to a good run defense, but the fact that teams need to play catch-up through the air.
For the record, let's look at how many of the same backs did against Michigan, who gives up 1.3 yards a carry to Ohio State's 3.2:
Notre Dame's Darius Walker: 25 yards, 2.5 YPC
Wisconsin's Pat Hill Jr.: 54 yards, 2.7 YPC
Penn State's Tony Hunt: 33 yards, 2.5 YPC
Iowa's Albert Young: 17 yards, 1.9 YPC
Northwestern's Tyrell Sutton: 6 yards, 0.9 YPC
Michigan's holding running backs to less yards, often overall and especially per carry, even though their gameplan allows more opportunities for the opposition to run the ball than Ohio State's. And on a side note, the fact that Michigan's overall numbers are so much lower, factoring in that Michigan had to play Wisconsin (another "rushing and defense" team and a bit of a mini-Michigan) where OSU didn't makes things that much more impressive.
So, what have we learned?
-Michigan has more consistently implemented their gameplan than Ohio State has been able to.
-Michigan has a gameplan focused on running the ball and not allowing the other team to.
-Ohio State has a vulnerable run defense when their opposition actually has the opportunity to run the ball with a good running back.
-Michigan has stopped many of the same backs from accomplishing anything.
And this is why I pick Michigan.
Now, to play devil's advocate. In order for Ohio State to win, I believe they need to jump out to an early lead, get momentum on their side, and force Michigan to deviate from their run-based offensive gameplan. The likeliest way this could happen is if Michigan beats themselves. If the Wolverines are too amped up, if the Wolverines make a mistake early resulting in a failed drive or a turnover, and OSU is able to score in one of their first two or so drives, I could see the game being lost for the Wolverines right there. I'm not sure how much of a factor the death of Bo Schembechler will be -- it should be extra motivation for the Wolverines, although it seems somewhat counterintuitive that the team will be even more excited and amped up because someone died.
So, in conclusion, this is...well, obviously, quite the intriguing game. Based on statistics and really, just who I think the better team is, I give Michigan about a 75% chance of winning. However, could I see the scenario outlined above, where Michigan gets the yips and loses the game before the end of the first quarter? Easily. Hence that 25 percent. So, finally:
My Pick: Michigan
Confidence (out of 5): 2
And, just for shits and giggles...
Michigan 24, Ohio State 13
Why not?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
