Now that we're seriously into the season, I thought it might be time to see how we're doing as compared to last year. Some people around here like tables (called "charts"), but methinks charts are hard to read. In fact, that's why last year I started plotting the Hennegraphs and other related graphical views of data B. Cook has put together.
And hence, a graph of some key offensive statistics across the first ten games of the year, for both 2009 and 2010:
Click here for the full-sized graph, which is much easier to read.
The graph plots a number of statistics across each game of the season. On the left are all the number for 2009, and on the right the numbers for 2010. The bottom-most graph shows points scored in each game; the next graph up shows point differential (how many points we scored minus how many points the opposition scored); a similar set of graphs for how many yards our offense accumulated and yard differential (yards gained minus yards given up) are shown above those.
I also took some liberty of moving the 2009 Delaware St. game to before the Big Ten Season so that the comparable games are in the same part of the season.
These graphs I believe allow one to make a few observations about how much the team has progressed since last season. And so I do:
- In 2009, we were outgained in yardage, often significantly, in virtually every game against serious competition (the Big Ten team and Notre Dame). I think it is reasonable to make the case, and the record indeed shows, that we were just a bad Big Ten team.
- In 2010, there is only one game like this: the MSU game. We have thus made a jump, at least to the middle of the pack, and possible higher (which the next two weeks will play a significant role in determining).
- In 2009, a number of Big Ten games were quite close despite the yardage differentials. Is this a testimony to the fact that the team is actually pretty tough mentally, never quitting in games even though they were getting pushed around? It is pretty amazing how close the team was to having a pretty good seasonin 2009.
- In 2010, in many ways our record is worse than our yardage numbers. This has a lot to do with turnovers undoubtedly, and is a great sign for the 2011 season.
- Your observations go here.
A lot of this is well known and obvious for those who follow the team (i.e. mgoblog fanatics like myself), but I thought the visualization was a nice way to see the differences between 2009 and 2010. Certainly, it can be shown to any idiot who claims we haven't made much progress.
Enjoy! And please do suggest other items to include on said graphs; it is not hard to scrape the data from the espn box scores.
So, both Mack Brown & Colt McCoy would have us believe that the end of the game was not a cluster F#@K. Why? Cause it wouldn't look good for the Heisman resume for Colt to have come within 1 second of costing his team the game.
I went back at looked at the DVR. Texas ran 4 plays in 1:44 (which included a stoppage for a penalty). Colt hiked the ball with 6 sec and then 3 sec on the play clock and then 6 sec on the game clock.
On the second play with 1:14 on the clock, Colt could have thrown the ball away but instead slid down.
If Colt had let the ball go one second later (which he might have if not pressured), game over. What if he had completed the pass? -- probably game over.
This was a monumental F#@k Up and they just got lucky.
Just in case you were wondering, over the last 10 years (1999 thru 2008) the domers are the 30th best team of the 66 BCS teams. (based on their W/L record).
Mark Schlabach lists what he calls the "bottom 10." I don't know if he means that these are 10 teams that are just not playing well, or if he really thinks these are the 10 worst teams in NCAA. Either way, he has UM listed at #5. Does UM belong in the same list as WKU, EMU, and a host of other non-BCS conference teams that have 0 or 1 wins? Even though we've had some tough losses, I still don't think we deserve to make the list with those teams.
...and we've been losing. So why are we losing? Many people insinuate that coaching is the reason we are losing, and so we should entertain the idea of firing RR. But these people fail to realize that our personnel is not capable of being a great team yet. Usually this can also be blamed on the head coach for not recruiting the right personnel and then developing them into good players, but in only his second year, RR cannot be blamed for not having the right personnel. Coaching does influence execution, but in the end it is the players who have to make plays to win games. The coach cannot be blamed every time a freshman doesn't execute the way he should.
We have 89 underclassmen on the roster, which means we have to execute flawlessly in order to beat good teams. In 2 years, we will have 89 upperclassmen on the roster, and we won't have to execute flawlessly to win, but we will execute better because we'll have more experience. Until then, be patient my friends, because RR is building the type of program that will be to compete with the best teams in the nation (unlike the rest of the Big 10).