the just released schedules were a flat-out statement that the B10 doesn't believe SOS will matter in playoff selection
2012 Turnover Analysis–Updated Thru MSU
Preseason Prediction: Michigan will end the year with a +8 Turnover Margin (TOM) or better (2011 was +7). The prediction for TOM for M for this year is based on the prediction that M will be a very good team again this year and is not based on the actual TOM of last year. (Very good teams will have a TOM of +5 or better.)
Denard Robinson Interception %: Except for a completely meaningless interception at the end of the first half (why in the hell was that play called and why in the hell did he even throw that pass?), Denard did not have an interception for the third game in a row. The chart shows a comparison of Denard's Int% for 2011 and 2012 subdivided by out-of-conference (OOC) and Big Ten games.
Back To Michigan Football: Michigan did not run the ball as much this week with 30 pass attempts and 32 rushing attempts for a 52% run play percentage. Overall M has a 63% run play percentage (ranked #10).
In 2011 M ranked #11 at 65% run play %.
Synopsis for Turnovers: The official statistics will reflect a TOM of zero for this game but since the M interception occurred with – 0 – time left in the half, it was completely meaningless and the effective TOM was +1 for Michigan.
M added 1 interception gained (Kovacs) for a total of 6 interceptions and is ranked #53. M had two forced fumbles (Ryan and Beyer) but could not recover either and remains at just 5 fumble recoveries for the year (ranked #68). The fumble recovery % remains at a paltry 38% (ranked #98). The total of 11 interceptions lost is still ranked at #113. M did not lose a fumble and the total of just 3 lost fumbles is ranked #17. Michigan now has 10 different defensive players that have either forced a fumble, recovered a fumble, or intercepted a pass.
Synopsis for Expected Point (EP) Analysis: Turnovers resulted in a net of 1.5 expected points benefitting Michigan and M kicked a field goal on the drive after the turnover. IMO, the Kovacs interception was a significant factor in Michigan winning the game.
The folks at Football Outsiders – FEI are also doing weekly "Revisionist Box Scores" that strips out TOs, Special Teams, and Field Position. For FEI, the Special Teams Advantage (Field Goals) was a determining factor in the M victory. FEI calculates the value generated by each drive and then lost on the drive up until the turnover, as if the drive had concluded at that spot on the field. Thru Week #8, FEI has 15% of games where TOs were significant.
(See the Section on Gory Details below for how the adjustment for Expected Points (EP) is calculated.)
National Rankings: All rankings include games between two FBS teams ONLY and are from TeamRankings except for forced fumbles which is from CFBStats. The four columns with *** show the best correlation to offense and defense (per Advanced NFL stats).
The Gory Details
Expected Point (EP) Analysis: Basically, the probability of scoring depends on the line of scrimmage for the offense. Therefore, the impact of a TO also depends on the yard line where the TO is lost and the yard line where the TO is gained. Each turnover may result in an immediate lost opportunity for the team committing the TO and a potential gain in field position by the opponent. Both of these components can vary dramatically based upon the down when the TO occurred, the yards the TO is returned, and whether the TO was a fumble or an interception.
Here are the details for the game.
The analysis is a bit tricky because: (A) the TO may directly result in lost EP for the offense but (B) only modifies the EP for the team gaining the TO because the team gaining the TO would have gotten another possession even without the TO (due to a punt, KO after a TD, KO after a field goal, etc.). The Net EP Gain must take into account the potential EP gain without the TO. The EP gain without the turnover is based on where the field position would have been for the next possession if the TO had not occurred.
The expected point calculations are based on data from Brian Fremeau at BCFToys (he also posts at Football Outsiders). Fremeau's data reflects all offensive possessions played in 2007-2010 FBS vs. FBS games. I "smoothed" the actual data.
Here is a summary of the smoothed expected points.