How Big Is The Big Ten?

One thing that jumps out immediately is the weight of the freshmen class. They are big boys.

Very nice work!

But I must add this -- the sky is falling! -- we're tied with Northwestern for average height! :-)

I like "triangle_M's" comment -- the freshman are big boys.  But that's in keeping with Hoke's professed strategy of tough, physical football.

Now ... the real proof in the pudding (hmmm, pudding) is going to be how that size is utilized towards other statistics.  Wins, of course ... but it makes me wonder what other stats would show size utilized effectively towards the ultimate goal of victory.

The other thing I wish for -- and I don't know how to derive this -- is how to factor in other metrics such as speed and athleticism.  Big for big's sake is one thing; big coupled with speed, agility and athleticism is one way to describe ... Alabama defensive lineman.

Looking forward to the position group breakdown because I have a hard time believing that the average of all 100 guys on a team is a valid statistic.  Further, within each position group, it'd be interesting to focus on the two-deep rather than all players at that position -- some are being redshirted to gain mass, others are walk-ons that have little chance of seeing the field, etc.  However, then you'd run into a problem with the lack of data points -- your results may not be significant (except for OL/DL, perhaps).

Also, I'm guessing that for Michigan your "team" averages include the freshmen -- it'd be interesting to see the non-Freshmen average to highlight how much the Freshmen are deviating from the rest of the group.  Your FB numbers, most likely, contain 2 or 3 guys, one of which is a freshman, so Houma's stats largely affect the "Team" numbers.

This is not a bash RR comment, just a statement of the obvious: we are still very much a roster in transition. This is not from a talent standpoint (well, that too) but rather a reflection of the change in philosophy back to pro style offense and defense. I am shocked that our roster is so light. We are smaller than indiana fergodsakes.
I hate to be a pessimist about this season, but from a roster standpoint--particularly with the schedule we have--I am afraid this will be a tough season. Our d line is tiny and unproven, our o line is seriously depth deficient, our wrs don't fit the system, we don't really have a te...who would have thought we would be looking at our defensive back 7 as the strongest group on the team?
Looking at the numbers, its hard to see how we can compete with bama. The only reasons we can get to 8 or more wins this year are the coaching staff and the Denard. Yes, we have other good players, but on the whole we need at least one more cycle to wash out the RR.

Focus on the 2 deep for team to team and positional comparisons. Subtract out the walk-ons not on the 2 deep for team, position and developmental comparisons. Lastly development is hindered by position change on defense. If you dig to many years back or even report out current data without regard to the actual coached plan for players you are doing yourself a disservice.

As I'm sure you can attest not all teams report out or play to the same position naming formats. Sometimes this is due to nomenclature but other times it is due to scheme. This is interesting as well and should show in your positional analysis, but you need to pay attention to that. It goes deeper than spread vs. manball or 34 43 DL techniques.

An example - I did a rough comparison of Mich vs. Alabama and ran into issues with their roll down of the safeties and lb play. They have different types of athletes playing different roles. The H back position is another issue on offense as some teams are bought into the Joe Gibbs "H" back idea while others are using different personnel, formations and match ups.

I'm interested in your categorization - which is why I suggest focusing on the 2 deep above.

This analysis leads to a finer appreciation for the game, players and year to year the coaches. Football is tribal. However nothing is secret on the field. If bigger is better then it shows on team rosters and 2 deeps. Since the 70s bigger has been better. However we are at the limilts to the human body at many poisitions. The exceptions are truly worthy of the NFL.

Football isn't Baseball. Coaches want so much beef here and so much there to get it done. Football is like Baseball in that stats aren't shown for so much that is really relevant. What is shown is height, weight and an approximate position. I applaud this anlaysis and look forward to the position breakdown.

...you might want to check on your variance formula for weight. I'm afraid something is a bit askew.

I love statistical analysis.  There's always a little surprise in store for everyone!  My surprise has to do with our freshman class.  The average height of 74.2 and weight of 234.3 makes them as big and tall as anyone in the current B1G.

That's a pretty quick transition from the RR era.

who on our roster is 66"? this is the shortest of all B10G players