yes plz
CollegeFootball13
By The Numbers: An In-Depth Look at Michigan vs. Virginia Tech in the 2012 Sugar Bowl
Brady Hoke's first season as Michigan's head coach will come to an end on Tuesday, and most fans would agree that his rookie season at the helm has been a success. A win against Virginia Tech in the Sugar Bowl would tie the 2006 team's 11-2 campaign for the best record since going undefeated in 1997. I decided to take a close look at the numbers that these two teams put up this season, and try to organize them and make some sense out of them.
Here's the summary in chart form, read on for a more detailed analysis.
| Michigan Wolverines | Virginia Tech Hokies | Advantage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Key Wins | Nebraska 45-17 (Were #16, Now 9-3 and #21), Notre Dame 35-31 (NR, 8-4 and #26) | Georgia Tech 37-26 (Were #21, Now 8-4 and #30), Virginia 38-0 (NR, 8-4 and #33) | Slight Michigan |
| Losses | Michigan State 28-14 (Were #23, Now 10-3 and #12), Iowa 24-16 (NR, 7-5 and NR) | Clemson 23-3 (Were #13, Now 10-3 and #14), Clemson 38-10 (Were #20) | Slight VT |
| Rushing Offense |
5.34ypc, 235.7ypg, 31 TDs |
4.53ypc, 188.7pyg, 25 TDs (#30) |
Michigan |
| Rushing Defense |
4.07ypc, 129.1ypg, 13 TDs (#34) |
3.32ypc, 107.8ypg, 15 TDs (#17) |
VT |
| Passing Offense |
8.6ypa, 187.4ypg, 20 TDs, 15 INTs (#90) |
7.8ypa, 227ypg, 21 TDs, 9 INTs (#66) |
VT |
| Passing Defense |
6.54ypa, 188.5ypg, 12 TDs, 8 INTs (#17) |
6.85ypa, 206.2ypg, 14 TDs, 15 INTs (#39) |
Michigan |
| Special Teams- Returns | 10.3yds punt return avg (#36), 19.8yds kick return avg (#99) | 9yds punt return avg (#51), 19.7yds kick return avg (#100) | None |
| Special Teams- Kicking | 33.7yds avg net punt (#107), 71.4% field goals (#70) | 33.6yds avg net punt (#108), 82.4% field goals (#46) | Slight VT |
| Turnovers | +6 TO Margin, 0.5pg (#25) | +6 TO Margin, 0.46pg (#29) | None |
| Penalties | 4.1 Penalties Per Game (#5) | 5.8 Penalties Per Game (#58) | Michigan |
| Red Zone |
84% RZ Offense (#48), 69% RZ Defense (#4) |
75% RZ Offense (#101), 68% RZ Defense (#3) |
Michigan |
| Sacks |
2.3 sacks per game (#27), 1.3 sacks allowed per game (#27) |
2.9 sacks per game (#11), 1.2 sacks allowed per game (#21) |
VT |
| 3rd Down | 48.4% 3rd Down Offense (#11), 36.1% 3rd Down Defense (#30) | 46.3% 3rd Down Offense (#22), 32.4% 3rd Down Defense (#11) | None |
| 4th Down | 56.3% 4th Down Offense (#32), 38.9% 4th Down Defense (#21) | 47.1% 4th Down Offense (#72), 31.6% 4th Down Defense (#8) | Slight Michigan |
Michigan Rush Offense vs. Virginia Tech Rush Defense
Michigan: #12 Rush Offense, 5.34ypc, 235.7ypg, 31 TDs
Virginia Tech: #17 Rush Defense, 3.32ypc, 107.8ypg, 15 TDs
Michigan has quite the two-headed rushing monster this season, with Denard being Denard -- leading the team with 1,163yds rushing at 5.6ypc, and Fitz finishing the season strong, giving the Wolverines two 1,000 yard rushers (1,011yds, 5.8ypc) for the first time in decades.
Virginia Tech, meanwhile, put up good defensive numbers against average teams, and not so great numbers against good ones. In a win over Georgia Tech they gave up 243 rushing yards, and in the two games that they lost to Clemson, they gave up 350 yards on the ground and looked bad in the process. With all the different looks they'll see from this Michigan offense, not to mention the fact that they'll be facing two legitimate running options on every single play, Michigan should be able to put up big numbers on the ground against this Hokie defense.
Michigan Rush Defense vs. Virginia Tech Rush Offense
Michigan: #34 Rush Defense, 4.07ypc, 129.1ypg, 13 TDs
Virginia Tech: #30 Rush Offense, 4.53ypc, 188.7ypg, 25 TDs
The front seven has made a pretty miraculous turnaround this season, a complete reversal of their performance last season, and has stopped some decent teams cold on the ground. We didn't have to face Wisconsin's dominant ground game this year, and Edwin Baker racked up 167yds on the ground against us in East Lansing, but other than that the run defense has been pretty solid.
The Hokies, on the other hand, have a quality talent in David Wilson, who ran for 1,627yds this season at 6.1ypc. He went off in his first meeting with Clemson, running for 123yds on 20 carries, but Clemson made some adjustments in the rematch and held him to just 32yds on 11 carries. I'm sure Mattison will be studying the film from that game very closely, and the Michigan defense should be able to keep Wilson under 100 yards on the day. Logan Thomas is somewhat of a threat out of the backfield as well, and will scramble if no one is open, but only ran for 416 yards on the year (3ypc) and is definitely no Denard.
Michigan Pass Offense vs. Virginia Tech Pass Defense
Michigan: #90 Pass Offense, 8.6ypa, 187.4ypg, 20 TDs, 15 INTs
Virginia Tech: #39 Pass Defense, 6.85ypa, 206.2ypg, 14 TDs, 15 INTs
Michigan's greatest weakness in the passing game is Virginia Tech's greatest strength defending the pass: interceptions. Denard has thrown 14 picks this season (Michigan is #97 in interceptions thrown), and Virginia Tech has picked off 15 passes this season, good enough to place them at #19 in the country in interceptions. If the Wolverines can keep a majority of their yardage on the ground, and make short, safe passes down the field to keep things mixed up, they'll be hard to stop. If Denard gets antsy and a couple of balls get thrown off his back foot, two or three interceptions might be too much for Michigan to overcome in what could end up being a close game.
Michigan Pass Defense vs. Virginia Tech Pass Offense
Michigan: #17 Pass Defense, 6.54ypa, 188.5ypg, 12 TDs, 8 INTs
Virginia Tech: #66 Pass Offense, 7.8ypa, 227ypg, 21 TDs, 9 INTs
Logan Thomas is kind of Denard Robinson Lite. He's thrown for almost 2,800yds, but has a completion percentage of 59%. He's thrown 9 interceptions, including three against Clemson, a two game series that saw him throw one total touchdown and barely completed 50% of his passes. His legs aren't anything to worry too much about, but he's an inconsistent player who shows flashes of greatness and follows them up with badly timed throws and a couple of dangerous passes into coverage.
This Wolverine Secondary isn't as much of a concern as it was early on in the season, as a couple of young players have stepped up big time, most notably Blake Countess. The safety positions have been a bit of a musical chair situation, but the players have settled into their roles and will be ready after weeks of preparation for the bowl game.
Michigan Special Teams vs. Virginia Tech Special Teams
Michigan: 33.7yds avg net punt (#107), 10.3yds punt return avg (#36), 19.8yds kick return avg (#99), 71.4% field goals (#70)
Virginia Tech: 33.6yds avg net punt (#108), 9yds punt return avg (#51), 19.7yds kick return avg (#100), 82.4% field goals (#46)
Both teams are comically bad at punting this season, and pretty average at punt returns. Kick returns are virtually identical as well (both terrible), and VaTech has the edge at the Kicker position, but not by much. VT's starting placekicker will not play in the bowl game and will split kicking duties between the back-ups, as the starting kicker was arrested and suspended (HT: MGoShoe). This isn't last year's kicking game for Michigan. Don't expect any major plays in either direction on special teams.
Michigan vs. Virginia Tech: Miscellaneous
Michigan: +6 TO Margin, 0.5pg (#25), 4.1 Penalties Per Game (#5), 84% RZ Offense (#48), 69% RZ Defense (#4), 2.3 sacks per game (#27), 1.3 sacks allowed per game (#27), 48.4% 3DO (#11), 36.1% 3DD (#30), 56.3% 4DO (#32), 38.9% 4DD (#21)
Virginia Tech: +6 TO Margin, 0.46pg (#29), 5.8 Penalties Per Game (#58), 75% RZ Offense (#101), 68% RZ Defense (#3), 2.9 sacks per game (#11), 1.2 sacks allowed per game (#21), 46.3% 3DO (#22), 32.4% 3DD (#11), 47.1% 4DO (#72), 31.6% 4DD (#8)
Lots of fun stats to look at here, make of them what you will. Expect to see both quarterbacks get sacked once or twice, and depending on which refs will be in the bowl, assuming trends hold, Michigan could continue to be one of the most disciplined teams in the country, averaging only 4 penalties per game, compared to almost six for Virginia Tech.
Even though on paper the 2012 Sugar Bowl looks like a pretty evenly matched game, I like Michigan a lot. Clemson has given this defense plenty of film to watch, and has given Mattison the blueprint to stop both Thomas and Wilson. Michigan's ground game should be too much for the Hokies to handle, and I could see both Denard and Fitz going over 100yds on the ground, with maybe another 200 through the air.
Michigan wants to give it's seniors and first year coach a huge, program-changing victory in it's first BCS Bowl Game since 2007, and I think they're going to do it pretty easily. I'll say 38-14. What say you?
Heading into the home stretch.. the statistics story so far
So with two games left, home contests against Nebraska and Ohio State, we know Michigan will finish the regular season 8-4 at worst and 10-2 at best.
I think most of us would have been happy with being 8-2 after 10 at the beginning of the season, my pre-season prediction was 8-4, so I have to tell myself I can't be very disappointed no matter what happens to finish the season.
There's no doubt, however, that Michigan has been a pretty bi-polar team this season. Impressive wins over some decent teams and a couple of poor performances in our losses leave many fans wondering how good this team really is. I think we'll find out for sure in the next few weeks, but who wants to wait that long? Here's a statistical breakdown of the season so far:
___________________________
All stats are based on the last 9 games, the game against Western doesn't officially count.
Offense
PLAYER RANKINGS:
Total Offense: Denard Robinson- 1,611 yds passing, 864yds rushing, 275 total YPG (24th Overall, 1st in B1G)
Passing YPG: Denard Robinson- 99/189, 179ypg, 13 TDS, 13 INTs (71st Overall, 5th in B1G)
Passing Efficiency: Denard Robinson- 132.92 rtng (57th overall, 5th in B1G)
Receiving YPG:
Junior Hemingway- 27rec, 520yds, 19.3ypc, 1 TD (NR)
Jeremy Gallon- 23rec, 391yds, 17.0ypc, 2 TDs (NR)
Roy Roundtree- 14rec, 278yds, 19.9ypc, 2 TDs (NR)
Rushing YPG:
Denard Robinson- 151car, 864yds, 12 TDs, 5.7YPC, 96.0YPG (32nd Overall, 5th in B1G)
Fitzgerald Toussaint- 114car, 673yds, 5 TDs, 5.9YPC, 84.1 YPG (48th Overall, 6th in B1G)
TEAM RANKINGS:
Passing: 200.4ypg, 15TDs, 14INTs (84th Overall, 7th in B1G)
Rushing: 235.9ypg, 22TDs (11th Overall, 2nd in B1G)
Total Offense: 436.3ypg, 6.48 yards per play (33rd Overall, 3rd in B1G)
Scoring: 32.3ppg, 38TDs, 8 FGs (37th Overall, 3rd in B1G)
Turnovers lost: 19, 14 INTs (111th), 5 fumbles lost (9th) (T-78th Overall, 11th in B1G)
Red Zone Offense: 44 drives, 27 TDs, 8 FGs, 80% (T-69th Overall, 7th in B1G)
Not exactly the powerhouse that we were last year, but we have the 5th and 6th best rushers in the Big Ten in Denard and Fitzgerald. Denard is obviously not much of a passing quarterback and he gets a lot of flack for it, but with his legs factored in he's still the most productive player in the Big Ten. Toussaint is looking like the running back of the future. Our lack of a passing game means we don't have any receivers that stand out nationally, with none falling in the top 100. Our turnovers have been brutal this season, with our 14 INTs landing us 111th in the country. After a great start to the season in the red zone, we've fallen to an 80% in red zone scoring, putting us in the bottom half of the B1G.
All in all, not as impressive as many of us were hoping for, but plenty of glimmers of hope, the most productive player in the Big Ten, and a solid ground game make it a pretty decent season so far.
Offensive Grade: B
Defense
PLAYER RANKINGS:
Passes Defended: JT Floyd- 6 PBU's, 2 INTs, .89 passes defended per game (T-78th Overall, 2nd in B1G)
Forced Fumbles: Thomas Gordon- 2FF (T-68th Overall, 4th in B1G)
Fumbles Recovered:
Thomas Gordon- 4FR (T-2nd Overall, 1st in B1G)
Jake Ryan- 2 FR (T-31st Overall, T-4th in B1G)
TEAM RANKINGS:
Passing Defense: 191.3ypg, 6.47ypa, 9 TDs, 6 INTs (22nd Overall, 6th in B1G)
Rushing Defense: 130.9ypg, 4.01ypc, 9 TDs (41st Overall, 5th in B1G)
Total Defense: 322.2ypg, 5.18yds per play, 19TDs (17th Overall, 6th in B1G)
Scoring Defense: 19TDs, 4 FGs, 16.1ppg (7th Overall, 3rd in B1G)
Turnovers Forced: 20, 6 INTs (T-94th), 14 FR (T-5th) (T-28th Overall, 2nd in B1G)
Sacks: 19 sacks, 2.11 per game (44th Overall, 6th in B1G)
Red Zone Defense: 27 drives, 16 TDs, 2 FGs, 67% (1st Overall, 1st in B1G)
First of all, we have the best red zone defense in the country!? I would not have guessed that. Second of all, the Big Ten is a defensive juggernaut of a conference. When we're 22nd in the country in passing defense and that's only good for 6th in the Big Ten, that's pretty ridiculous. But seeing that we're 17th nationally in total defense and that five other Big Ten teams are still ahead of us (MSU, Wisky, PSU, Illinois and OSU) is just obscene. There's not even a major statistic that our defense is outside the top 50 in (we're also 39th in 3rd down defense and 20th in 4th down defense). I think if you told me our defense would be this good a year ago I would have slapped you. We're lacking in interceptions but dominating in fumble recoveries. I love Greg Mattison and I love this defense.
Defensive Grade: A-
Special Teams
PLAYER RANKINGS:
Punting: Will Hagerup- 21 punts, 49 long, 35.8avg (NR)
Kicking: Brendan Gibbons- 8/11, 38 long, 37/37 XP (55th Overall, 6th in B1G)
Punt Returns: Jeremy Gallon- 14ret, 11.43ypr (18th Overall, 2nd in B1G)
TEAM RANKINGS:
Punt Returns: 16ret, 160yds, 10.0avg (39th Overall, 4th in B1G)
Punt Return D: 16ret, 142yds, 8.88ypr (78th Overall, 10th in B1G)
Net Punting: 33 punts, 37.73avg, 16ret, 8.8ypr, 32.82 net avg (112th Overall, 12th in B1G)
Kickoff Returns: 20ret, 388yds, 19.4ypr (102nd Overall, 10th in B1G)
Kickoff Return D: 37ret, 708yds, 19.1ypr (23rd Overall, 3rd in B1G)
Turnover Margin: 20 gained, 19 lost, +1 (51st Overall, 7th in B1G)
Penalties: 40 penalties, 39.22yds per game (T-12th Overall, 2nd in B1G)
Not really sure what to make of this. Pretty disheartening to see that we're one of the worst net punting teams in the nation, one of the worst kick return teams in the nation, and one of the worst punt return defense teams in the nation. It is, however, encouraging to see Gallon in the top 20 punt returners in the country, and our penalties are under control. Gibbons is Gibbons, and 8/11 is pretty good compared to last year. Still, I feel like Special Teams aren't a priority on this team.
Special Teams Grade: C+
_______________
So our offense has been a little underwhelming, our defense has been an extremely pleasant surprise, and our special teams have been business as usual, sadly. But that's just what the numbers say. What do you say?
Rich Rodriguez, Quarterback Archetypes, and Success
[Ed.: Many excellent diaries of late that all but demand bumps. Larsonlo's Football Fundamentals 101 series is a must-read that will hit the front page at some point and the Mathlete's back, plus Misopogon is analyzing Cam Gordon in crushingly detailed fashion. Here's a quick one that hints at the QB duel winner.]
The quarterback is obviously the single most important position in Rich Rodriguez's offense, so I decided to take a look at some numbers from his time at West Virginia up until this past season at Michigan. What I found, while not exactly scientific, is pretty damn interesting.
Before I get to the summary, let's take a look at the charts... [ed: charts.]
West Virginia QB Charts
|
Year
|
Record
|
Player
|
Passing
|
Rushing
|
QB Rush%
|
Rush % Total
QB yds
|
Total Team
Offense Rush %
|
|
2001
|
3-8 (1-6)
|
Brad
Lewis
|
135/237
1,339yds
7TDs, 9INTs
|
54att,
41yds,
1 TD
|
18.6%
|
2.97%
|
52.4%
1,992 Rushing
1,811 Passing
|
|
2002
|
9-4 (6-1)
|
Rasheed
Marshall
|
139/259
1,616yds
9TDs, 5 INTs
|
173att,
666yds,
13 TDs
|
40.0%
|
29.2%
|
67.8%
3,687 Rushing
1,753 Passing
|
|
2003
|
8-5 (6-1)
|
Rasheed
Marshall
|
109/215
1,729yds
15 TDs, 8 INTs
|
101att,
303yds,
4 TDs
|
32.0%
|
14.9%
|
57.6%
2,762 Rushing
2,034 Passing
|
|
2004
|
8-4 (4-2)
|
Rasheed
Marshall
|
144/242
1,886yds
19 TDs, 9 INTs
|
169att,
861yds,
4 TDs
|
41.0%
|
31.3%
|
60.4%
3,034 Rushing
1,993 Passing
|
|
2005
|
11-1 (7-0)
|
Pat White
|
65/114
828yds
8 TDs, 5 INTs
|
131att,
952yds,
7 TDs
|
53.4%
|
53.5%
|
73.2%
3,269 Rushing
1,398 Passing
|
|
2006
|
11-2 (5-2)
|
Pat White
|
118/179
1,655yds
13 TDs, 7 INTs
|
165att,
1,219yds,
18 TDs
|
47.9%
|
42.4%
|
65.7%
3,939 Rushing
2,059 Passing
|
|
2007
|
11-2 (5-2)
|
Pat White
|
144/216
1,724yds
14 TDs, 4 INTs
|
197att,
1,335yds
14 TDs
|
47.7%
|
43.6%
|
65.1%
3,864 Rushing
2,067 Passing
|
Michigan QB Charts
|
Year
|
Record
|
Player
|
Passing
|
Rushing
|
QB Rush %
|
Rush % Total
QB yds
|
Total Team
Offense Rush %
|
|
2008
|
3-9 (2-6)
|
Steven
Sheridan
|
165/338
1,718yds
11 TDs, 12 INTs
|
118att,
293yds,
3 TDs
|
25.9%
|
14.6%
|
50.8%
1,771 Rushing
1,718 Passing
|
|
2009
|
5-7 (1-7)
|
Denard
Forcier
|
179/312
2,233yds
15 TDs, 14 INTs
|
187att,
591yds,
8 TDs
|
37.5%
|
21.0%
|
48.4%
2,234 Rushing
2,380 Passing
|
|
Year
|
Rush %
Total QB Yards
|
Record
|
| 2005 | 53.5% | 11-1 (7-0) |
| 2007 | 43.6% | 11-2 (5-2) |
| 2006 | 42.4% | 11-2 (5-2) |
| 2004 | 31.3% | 8-4 (4-2) |
| 2002 | 29.2% | 9-4 (6-1) |
| 2003 | 14.9% | 8-5 (6-1) |
| 2001 | 2.97% | 3-8 (1-6) |
Throwing the two seasons at Michigan into the mix wouldn't change much, either. The 2008 and 2009 campaigns would be two of the bottom four performances in terms of how many of the quarterback's yards came on the ground and two of the bottom three in terms of overall record.
Even beyond just the quarterback's performance in the offense, however, Rich Rod's offenses seem to thrive when the majority of the overall offense is primarily generated on the ground. From his last nine seasons:
|
Year
|
Total Team Offense Rush %
|
Record
|
|
2005
|
73.2%
|
11-1
(7-0)
|
|
2002
|
67.8%
|
9-4
(6-1)
|
|
2006
|
65.7%
|
11-2
(5-2)
|
|
2007
|
65.1%
|
11-2
(5-2)
|
|
2004
|
60.4%
|
8-4
(4-2)
|
|
2003
|
57.6%
|
8-5
(6-1)
|
|
2001
|
52.4%
|
3-8
(1-6)
|
|
2008
|
50.8%
|
3-9
(2-6)
|
|
2009
|
48.4%
|
5-7
(1-7)
|
And these aren't even necessarily based on the quality of the team. If this was ranked on team total rushing yards it would make sense that more yards would generally be correlated to a better record, but these are rushing percentages compared to the rest of the offense on a year-by-year basis, comparing one aspect of the team to another aspect of the same team.
Very interesting findings, if you ask me. Findings that point to Denard Robinson being the ticket to the promised land? Maybe. Clearly Rich Rodriguez's offense flourishes with a quarterback that can run, and run often. His best team had 73% of their total offense come on the ground. Its quarterback ran for 125 more yards than he passed for. Sounds like Denard to me.
Also notice that after White's first season--in which passing was sporadic and the team was heavily reliant on his rushing offense--his passing stats took off. As Denard's passing game develops, his rushing options will open up more, and as Steve Slaton got to experience, this opens the door for an unbelievable rushing attack from your running backs as well.
Agree? Disagree? Let me know what you see in these stats, or if they even matter to you at all. I look forward to hearing what you get out of these numbers. [Ed: /Ives.]
Thanks for reading,
CollegeFootball13
More Attrition Fun: Why We're Not So Good (Charts? Charts.)
Very possibly. More so the latter than the former, but still. We're not good. Not even that close, really. We'll get better and better, but if the attrition rates continue to be what they are, it might be some time before we're going to have a double-digit win season.
I know the issue of attrition has been beat to death lately, but I figured I'd take one more whack at that dead horse with some colorful, insightful-
Charts?
Charts.
Original table and rankings is derived from Scout's ranking service, and the Modified Rankings I did by myself. If you don't agree, that sucks. Make your own damn diary.
NC stands for "Not Contributing" and can mean anything from "transferred" to "kicked off the team" to "buried so deep on the depth chart we're not even sure he still plays for us".
2006 Recruiting Class
Not a bad class by any means, half of the 20-man class was 4 and 5 star prospects. Then this happened:
|
Schilling- 5* to 4* |
|
Graham- LB to D-Line |
|
Slocum- NC |
|
Mouton- 5* S to 4* LB |
|
Boren- NC |
|
Brown- 4* DB to 4* LB |
|
Patterson- NC |
|
Mixon- NC |
|
Cone- 3* to 2* |
|
Mathews- 3* to 4* |
|
Banks- NC |
|
Patilla- NC |
|
Ezeh- 3* RB to 4* LB |
|
Dorrenstein- NC |
|
Wright- 2* to 3* |
|
Kates- NC |
|
Woods- NC |
Andddd we got this:
We lost nine players, including four 5*s and both secondary players. Some pretty good foreshadowing for a few years down the line. And this is after both Greg Mathews and Obi Ezeh were bumped from 3*s to 4*s.
2007 Recruiting Class
Another pretty darn good recruiting class, with 14 of the 20 prospects rated 4* or higher. I wonder how this could get messed up. I mean even losing a few players here and there.. we had 12 4* prospects for god's sake- OH DEAR GOD
|
Mallett- NC |
|
Helmuth- NC |
|
Williams- 4* to 3* |
|
Clemons- NC |
|
Watson- NC |
|
Webb- 4* to 3* |
|
Rogers- NC |
|
Herron- 4* to 3* |
|
Babb- NC |
|
Panter- NC |
|
Evans- NC |
|
Chambers- NC |
|
Horn- NC |
|
Huyge- 2* to 3* |
|
Sagesse- 2* to 3* |
And that led to this:
We dropped from fourteen total 4 and 5*'s to FOUR. I mean jesus. That's just awful. Half of the entire 2007 recruiting class is either gone or not being used. And besides Donovan Warren, the last two recruiting classes have now combined for a grand total of two 3* players in the secondary. Again, I am starting to see why we're not doing too well this season.
2008 Recruiting Class
Again, not a bad class at all. Fourteen 4* prospects alone in this one. And a nice, big 25 player class. Things are looking up in Ann Arbo- SWEET JESUS NOT AGAIN.
|
Cissoko- NC |
|
Smith- 4* to 3* |
|
McGuffie- NC |
|
Fitzgerald- 4* to 3* |
|
Wermers- NC |
|
O'Neill- NC |
|
Witherspoon- NC |
|
Robinson- 4* RB to 3* WR |
|
Mealer- NC |
|
Cox- 4* to 3* |
|
Hill- NC |
|
Floyd- 3* to 4* |
|
Morales- NC |
|
Feagin- NC |
I don't want to look at it, either. But that led to..
Ten fewer players yet again, zero 5*s (thanks, Boo-Boo) and six 4*s. And that's because I gave JT Floyd a fourth star. Just horrendous stuff.
So in those three recruiting classes (I'm not doing '09 just yet), the eight 5*s are now two, the thirty-one 4* players are now sixteen, and the 65 players total are now 36. Not exactly what anyone had in mind when the classes were actually coming in.
If the '09 class turns out to be a good one, and we lock up a few high-caliber players in 2010, I think we'll be alright in a few years. For this season (and potentially next), however, it's kind of easy to see why we're struggling against the likes of Indiana and Illinois.
We don't have the depth that we should because our stellar signing day lists are down to almost nothing a few years down the line. I don't know what RichRod or any of the coaching staff can do to make sure future players stay out of trouble and on the field, but if these numbers don't improve significantly over the next few years, it's going to be a while before we're playing in January.
Any and all comments are welcome. Thanks for reading.
Behind the Numbers - Rushing Stats
Today's Focus: Rushing Stats (Rush YPG)
(Full NCAA Rankings)Why It's Important:
Because.. it tells you how many rushing yards a player has per game, on average. Pretty self-explanatory here. Generally the more yards a player rushes for per game, the better they are.Why It's Flawed:
It just measures yards. A big, bruising back that gets the ball on third and short situations or inside the ten yard line can be just as valuable as a quick running back who gets big yards but can't break tackles. What would you rather a running back's stat line be -- 6att, 25yds and 3 TDs or 30att, 200yds and no scores? One gets you points, the other gets you valuable field position that can turn into yards.Also, it doesn't take into account the number of rushing attempts. YPC does this, but you'd have to look into two or three different stat lines to really see the effectiveness of a RB.
ALSO, it doesn't take into account fumbles. 200yds in a game is all well and good, but if all that field position is wasted because he fumbled 3-4 times, it doesn't help at all.
So any one stat for a RB will be leaving out a lot of the story.
Applying this to Current Statistics
Ralph Bolden, Purdue: 178.5ypg (#1)Definitely a great YPG average, good enough to be #1 in the nation after two games, but a look at his YPC tells a different story. Bolden averages 7.14ypc, still a respectable number, but not nearly #1 in the nation. In fact, second through sixth leading rushers in terms of YPG have a higher YPC average than Bolden. His 50 carries are the second highest in the top 10.
It's pretty obvious that between two equally talented rushers that have the same YPC average, whoever gets more carries per game will have the higher YPG average. Hence the flaw.
Robert Turbin, Utah St: 148.0ypg (#4)
Obviously an extremely small sample size here, as Turbin has only played one game so far (Utah), but he's listed here for another reason. That 148yds was garnered on only 13 carries, earning him a 11.38ypc average, the best of anyone in the Top 25 of YPG.
Reggie Arnold, Arkansas St: 104.5ypg (#25)
Arnold, while not dominant in either YPG or YPC (8.04), is extremely efficient in terms of points earned with his carries. He's had 26 carries thus far, and has scored 5 touchdowns. Almost 20% of the time this guy's had his hands on the ball out of the backfield he's been in the endzone.
So three different stat lines, all pretty damn good in their own way.
An Alternative
Along the lines of my Quarterback Efficiency Rating, I've come up with a Rushing Efficiency Rating (RER). It's much more than YPC or YPG, it's a combination of the major aspects of a running back's game that is contributes to their overall efficiency.Here's the first draft of the formula:
(Yards) + (Touchdowns x 10) + (Fumbles x -10)
Attempts
So a big bruiser who might not rack up 8-9ypc but is solid with ball control and in the red zone who's usually good for a few scores:
10att, 40yds, 3 TDs (RER: 7.00)
Has an RER that's similar to a speed back who might rack up the yards, but is prone to a mistake here and there and might not always get the ball on the goal line:
28att, 170yds, 2 TDs, 1 Fumble (RER: 6.79)
Applying the RER to Last Season's Backs
| Rank (YPG) | (YPC) | Player | YR | TDs | YPC | YPG | RER* | Rank |
| 1 | 7 | Donald Brown, Connecticut | JR | 18 | 5.68 | 160.23 | 6.17 | 6 |
| 2 | 5 | Shonn Greene, Iowa | JR | 20 | 6.03 | 142.31 | 6.68 | 5 |
| 3 | 1 | Jahvid Best, California | SO | 15 | 8.14 | 131.67 | 8.92 | 1 |
| 4 | 10 | Javon Ringer, Michigan St. | SR | 22 | 4.20 | 125.92 | 4.76 | 10 |
| 5 | 8 | MiQuale Lewis, Ball St. | JR | 22 | 5.39 | 124.00 | 6.07 | 8 |
| 6 | 6 | Chris Wells, Ohio St. | JR | 8 | 5.78 | 119.70 | 6.17 | 6 |
| 7 | 2 | Kendall Hunter, Oklahoma St. | SO | 16 | 6.45 | 119.62 | 7.12 | 2 |
| 8 | 3 | Vai Taua, Nevada | SO | 15 | 6.44 | 117.00 | 7.08 | 3 |
| 9 | 4 | Tyrell Fenroy, La.-Lafayette | SR | 19 | 6.08 | 114.58 | 6.92 | 4 |
| 10 | 9 | LeSean McCoy, Pittsburgh | SO | 21 | 4.83 | 114.46 | 5.51 | 9 |
Quite the shakeup in the YPG rankings when the number of carries is taken into account, as well as the number of touchdowns. YPC numbers, on the other hand, are nearly identical. If the fumbles were taken into account, this would surely be a bit different, but until I can find those stats this is all we have to go by.
Thoughts? Comments? Fumble statistics? Let me know.
___________________
Behind the Numbers will be back soon with another look at a stat from the world of College Football. Any stats you want to be examined a little closer? Or even just a stat you've been interested in for a long time? Let me know in the comments and I'll do my best to get to it in the next few installments of BtN. Thanks for reading!
-CollegeFootball13
Behind the Numbers (9/16) Part II - A Possible Alternative to Efficiency Rating?
So quite a bit of discussion has opened up in the original post about the Efficiency Rating only taking into account the passing efficiency, and in today's College Football world, quarterbacks are much, much more than that.
In this post I'll take a closer look at the current efficiency rating and how it turned out last year in terms of ranking the quarterbacks, as well as taking a stab at my own Quarterback Efficiency Rating, which will hopefully take into account the broader, tangible aspects of a quarterback's game.
Last Season's Results
Top Ten in Passing Efficiency - 2008| Rank | Player, School | YR | PER | QER | Rank* |
| 1 | Sam Bradford, Oklahoma | SO | 180.84 | 10.02 | 1 |
| 2 | David Johnson, Tulsa | SR | 178.69 | 8.9 | 2 |
| 3 | Colt McCoy, Texas | JR | 173.75 | 8.07 | 6 |
| 4 | Tim Tebow, Florida | JR | 172.37 | 8.23 | 5 |
| 5 | Zac Robinson, Oklahoma St. | JR | 166.84 | 7.43 | 9 |
| 6 | Mark Sanchez, Southern California | JR | 164.64 | 8.29 | 4 |
| 7 | Chase Clement, Rice | SR | 163.92 | 8.31 | 3 |
| 8 | Graham Harrell, Texas Tech | SR | 160.04 | 7.97 | 7 |
| 9 | Case Keenum, Houston | SO | 159.91 | 7.96 | 8 |
| 10 | Chase Daniel, Missouri | SR | 159.44 | 7.11 | 10 |
(For comparison's sake, Pat White's QER was a 6.3)
Most of the names on the list are pretty obvious ones. The who's who of College Football Quarterbacks last year. Bradford, McCoy, Tebow, Robinson, Sanchez, Harrell, and Daniel all had phenomenal seasons and were in the spotlight of College Football because of it.
Johnson, Clement, and (to an extent) Keenum, however, weren't mentioned too much. They don't play at high-profile programs, and don't play against Grade-A competition, but you can't make an argument that they had great seasons. is David Johnson a better quarterback than McCoy, Tebow, and Sanchez? Almost certainly not. He is a good passing quarterback, however, and his rating shows that.
Key Players Not in Passing Efficiency Top 10
| 26 | Pat White, West Virginia | 142.35 |
| 39 | Michael Desormeaux, La.-Lafayette | 135.01 |
| 75 | Julian Edelman, Kent St. | 118.83 |
Maybe a bit of a stretch to call White, Desormeaux and Edelman "Key Players", but there's a method to my madness. Edelman, Desormeaux, and White had the 11th, 32nd, and 52nd highest rushing yards per game, respectively.
Obviously this didn't suddenly make them some of the best quarterbacks in the nation, as none of the three were invited to the Heisman Ceremony, but it's just an example of the aspects of the game that Passing Efficiency doesn't take into account.
Quarterback Efficiency Rating?
So if Passing Efficiency isn't a great way to evaluate the overall quality of a quarterback, what other ways are there?Well.. there aren't too many.
So I took a stab at my own Quarterback Efficiency Rating. It has its flaws but it's a more comprehensive, all-encompassing look at what a quarterback does and evaluates them based on a multitude of other statistics, beyond just passing.
Quarterback Efficiency Rating (QER)
(Completions) + (Passing Yards x 0.5) + (Passing Touchdowns x 50) +
(Interceptions x -25) + (Rushing Yards x 0.5) + (Rushing Touchdowns x 50)
__________________________________________________________________
(Rushing Attempts) + (Passing Attempts)
In this formula, not only is the best possible rating just over 100 (no one would ever realistically reach over 100, or even close to 100) for an easier analysis of the rating, but a pocket passer:
26/32, 280yds, 3 TDs (QB Rating: 9.875)
Has a comparable rating to a dual threat or even a running quarterback:
14/21, 150yds, 1 TD, 10att, 96yds, 2 TDs (QB Rating: 9.26)
There's no arguing that, in this example, the pocket passer had a better game, but at least with the QER they were about on the same level, whereas the Passing Efficiency Rating would have given the pocket passer a 185.7 rating, and the dual threat quarterback a 142.4.
Again, not perfect. But neither is the Passing Efficiency Rating. It might not make it into NCAA Recordkeeping, but it might help us in the bloggosphere rate quarterbacks on more than just their passing ability.
________________
That's all for this installment of Behind the Numbers, please feel free to let me know if you have any constructive advice for the QER. Thanks for reading!

