Support MGoBlog: buy stuff at Amazon
The NCAA tournament is right around the corner and there isn’t much of a secret sauce for winning six games in a single elimination tournament. Have a future NBAer or three, make your three pointers and hope you don’t face a team who goes on a shooting tear.
But this post isn’t about basketball. College football doesn’t have to face anything like a six game elimination tournament and tends to have a lower game to game variance than basketball does. Be in the top 2 after 12 or 13 games and then win a game after a month off. This year it becomes finish in the top 4 and win two games. What the system has done is create some common threads among its last ten champions.
I am approaching this look at what it takes to be a national champion in two phases. This article will focus on the talent portion and what the recruiting profile of past champions has looked like. Next week I’ll look into some of the advanced stats for on the field performance.
I’ll use a similar methodology as I have before for this work. All players are given a rating from 0 (anonymous 2 star) up to 99 (consensus #1). The ratings are based on all available services at the time of a players signing. The star breakdowns are approximately
5 Star: 70-99 points
4 Star: 40-69 points
3 Star: 20-39 points
2 Star: 0-19 points
The roster is then adjusted for age. First year players only get 25% of their total, second year players get 75% of their points and any players in at least their third year on campus get 160% of their recruiting points applied to the team roster total.* A three star who breaks out still counts for less than a five star who is busted. If you’re on the roster, you keep the points all the way through. It’s not perfect, but it is consistent and quantifiable.
*These numbers are based on historical usage/production of players.
Rosters are then added up based on the profile and age of all players still on the roster for a given season. Each team and unit is then ranked and those rankings versus other teams in that season is what I’ll be using to measure the quality of talent for a given group. A player that has a position change from recruiting keeps his points but they are applied to their roster position, not their recruited position.
I’ll be looking at the champions from the past 10 seasons, a nice round number that happens to correspond to the time period that the best information is available on.
Find out how high the beef (offensive line) ranks on the secret sauce
Offensive Line
Average Rank: 11th
Top 5: USC 2004 (2), Alabama 2011 (3), Florida 2008 (4), Alabama 2012 (4)
Outliers: Auburn 2010 (22), Florida St 2013 (24)
2013 Michigan Rank: 25th
Highest ranked Michigan roster: 2007 (1)
Offensive line is one of the toughest positions to project at the collegiate level, but the shear quantity of players on the roster still leads to a strong correlation between overall recruiting prowess at the position to team success. Four out of ten champions were top 5 level rosters for their seasons but this year’s Seminoles were the lowest rated offensive line unit to hold up the Crystal Football.
Wide Receiver & Tight Ends
Average Rank: 9th
Top 5: Alabama 2011 (2), Florida 2008 (5)
Outliers: Alabama 2009 (29)
2013 Michigan Rank: 34th
Highest ranked Michigan roster: 2009/10/11 (5)
Wide receivers are a tough position to differentiate the source and the cause but the more studies I do, the more I find wide receiver talent and experience to be highly underrated. Of the four position grouping on offense, none had a higher average rating than receivers and tight ends at 9th. In fact, the 2009 Alabama team was the only team ranked above 11th, even though only one team was higher than fifth.
Running Back
Average Rank: 15th
Top 5: Alabama 2011 (3), Auburn 2010 (4)
Outliers: Florida 2006 (24), Texas 2005 (25), LSU 2007 (27), Alabama 2012 (34)
2013 Michigan Rank: 14th
Highest ranked Michigan roster: 2006 (1)
Like the common theme of underrated receivers is the overrated nature of running backs. My working theory on this is that running back success is tied so much to athletic differentiation. As the level of play increases, the margins to exploit that athleticism decrease, as does the value of the position. An elite high school running back can win a lot of games without much help, in the NFL I think you could swap anyone between the 2nd and 20th best back in the league and not see much difference. In college, six teams have won the championship with top 10 running back talent while the other four weren’t even in the top 20.
Quarterback
Average Rank: 18th
Top 5: Auburn 2010 (1), Florida 2008 (2), LSU 2007 (4)
Outliers: USC 2004 (52)
2013 Michigan Rank: 20th
Highest ranked Michigan roster: 2011 (7)
Quarterback is the one position that doesn’t really fit this study. Only one guy plays and depth is important in the long term but largely irrelevant in contributing to a championship season. More quality rated depth does increase the odds that not only do you have the best guy playing, but he is more likely to be a good option, not just the best guy on the roster. Outside of the top 3, no one else was higher than 10th.
Total Offense
Average Rank: 7th
Top 5: USC 2004 (1), Alabama 2011 (1), Florida 2008 (3), Alabama 2012 (5)
Outliers: Alabama 2009 (15)
2013 Michigan Rank: 22nd
Highest ranked Michigan roster: 2007 (1)
While none of the unit ranks averaged higher than 9th overall, the total for all offensive positions was higher at 7th overall. Having the best overall talent wasn’t necessary, but it was essential to be in the top tier. The first Saban championship at Alabama was the only one that featured an offensive unit ranked below 11th in talent.
Probably important to have some guys who can do this
Defensive Line
Average Rank: 5th
Top 5: Texas 2005 (1), Alabama 2009 (1), Alabama 2011 (1), Alabama 2012 (1), LSU 2007 (2), Florida St 2013 (3)
Outliers: Florida 2008 (14)
2013 Michigan Rank: 22nd
Highest ranked Michigan roster: 2008 (5th)
Throughout the SEC’s championship run, defensive line frequently came up as the key source of strength. The numbers certainly back that up as defensive line has the highest average roster talent ranking of any position group on the field. Half of the last ten BCS champions have had top two defensive line rosters and only Florida 2008 wasn’t among the top 9.
Linebackers
Average Rank: 9th
Top 5: USC 2004 (1), Alabama 2011 (1), Alabama 2012 (1)
Outliers: Auburn 2010 (26)
2013 Michigan Rank: 16th
Highest ranked Michigan roster: 2005 (6th)
Outside out the four units noted above, the remaining teams have all been between 7th and 12th in linebacker rating. Based on the rankings for linebackers, it’s imperative you’re at the very top, but being in the top 10-15 is critical.
Defensive Backs
Average Rank: 10th
Top 5: Florida St 2013 (2), USC 2004 (4), Alabama 2012 (5)
Outliers: Alabama 2009 (19), Auburn 2010 (29)
2013 Michigan Rank: 16th
Highest ranked Michigan roster: 2006 (1)
Like linebackers, the defensive back lineups of national champs is concentrated in a high second tier level. 7 out of 10 champs have been ranked between 4th and 9th.
Total Defense
Average Rank: 5th
Top 5: USC 2004 (1), Alabama 2011 (1), Alabama 2012 (1), LSU 2007 (3), Alabama 2009 (3), Florida St 2013 (3), Texas 2005 (4)
Outliers: Auburn 2010 (15)
2013 Michigan Rank: 18th
Highest ranked Michigan roster: 2006 (5)
Seven of the last ten national champions have had rosters rated in the top 5 with two more at 7th. The only team that wasn’t in the top 7 still had the 6th rated defensive line and had Gus Malzahn and Cam Newton on the other side of the ball. Recruiting is important, defensive recruiting is really, really important.
Average Rank: 5th
Top 5: USC 2004 (1), Alabama 2011 (1), Alabama 2012 (1), Florida 2008 (5), Florida St 2013 (5)
Outliers: Auburn 2010 (10)
2013 Michigan Rank: 16th
Highest ranked Michigan roster: 2007 (3)
You know recruiting is a good metric of national champions when your outlier is still ranked 10th. When you extend the group to BCS Championship participants, there is still only one team ranked higher than 11th (2010 Oregon) to even make it to the title game.
Recruiting isn’t everything but this is a pretty conclusive look that if you are picking title contenders, you can shorten the list very quickly. All champions were in the top 10 in roster talent and all but Florida 2006 and Auburn 2010 had least one side of the ball in the top 4.
With the field expanded to four that at least theoretically opens the door to a more diverse group of candidates. Of teams ranked 3rd and 4th in the final BCS standings, 8 of 20 met the same criteria as the eventual champs. The average roster of the remaining 12 was over 30 about in line with last year’s Michigan State squad that ranked 26th. With four teams in the final playoff, there are certainly more opportunities for an non-elite talent team to win the title, but it will likely take two wins as an underdog to make it happen. I would expect over the next ten years to have a team or two outside of the mold to win a title, but the trend to remain largely intact.
Also clear from this study is the reinforcement that recruiting rankings mean more for defensive players and that the having highly touted and experienced players on the defensive line is the most critical position group on the field.
From a talent perspective, getting closer but still probably another year away. The 2014 team is projected to be #12 overall in roster rankings, with the offense coming in at #14 and the defense ranked #10. The critical defensive line spot is projected at #13. Oregon 2010 is the only team to make the National Championship without better rankings, but 11 additional teams have cracked the top 4.
Michigan’s projection is still climbing. 2015 will be the year that upperclass is dominated by the stronger Hoke classes and overall talent ranking should have a good shot at cracking the top 10. There are still plenty of other issues to be addressed, but from a purely roster stand point, 2015 should be the first year that Michigan’s roster fits the National Champion profile for the first time since Lloyd Carr left in 2007.
Next Week: the on-field metrics strongest correlated to BCS Champions
I think it weights experience well, along with straight recruitment ratings etc. Also makes me think a lot about contender or championship chance ratings in NCAA 14 etc. Curious if they use a similar formula.
I think we all know 2015 looks to be a good year, if we can stay firmly on the tracks of improvement.
Yup, if they can keep it together and move forward this year then 2015 and 2016 I think will be prime years.
This is awesome and interesting. Thank you so much for all your work. Can you share with us all the individual position group rankings for 2014?
saucy!
I can't agree more about the 2015 team being a top ten team. I believe we can come to expect these rankings every year after that as well. This is IMO what coach Hoke has in store for UM, top ten teams being the rule and not the exception. People who are not honest enough want to see this 2014 team be world beaters or we should let coach Hoke go. I disagree, let his players become seniors and then let the chips fall where they may. Meaning a 7-6 season is unexceptable and would be cause for letting coach Hoke go. I am not sure though where to draw the line in saying the '15 class is exceptable or what would constitute a failure of a year. I guess any BCS bowl would be good enough up to winning the B1G outright or even the NCG of course. I say he must win the B1G or at least come in second with a very close chance at winning the B1G game. Then we can all say UM is back where it belongs a favorite to win the B1G and maybe NCG or at least a close 2nd in the B1G.
... the 2013 Michigan offensive line had performed like the 25th best in the land.
NIce. Thanks for doing this.
1) Why look at average instead of median, since the distubition is going to be uneven, and outliers only on one side.
2) How would oversigning play into this analysis? I know class size is accounting for in overall ranking, but is there incremental benefit not considered from the reduction in deviation that oversigning gets you?
Oversigning won't really affect this analysis, since he's going by the roster, rather than recruiting classes (IOW he's looking at 85 scholarship men for every school, give or take a couple).
If a school oversigns, either the "overage" never makes the roster, or he gets "cut" at a later year, thus replacing an "experienced" player (using Mathlete's metric) with a frosh. Signing 30 guys doesn't help you here if you can't put them all on the roster.
Oversigning might actually hurt this score - if Saban cuts a bust of a junior 4 star to make room for a new 4 star guy, Bama's score in this metric goes down.
This is one of the coolest posts I've seen on here, Mathlete.
I think your data and conclusions do a good job of supporting the way Coach Hoke has gone about rebuilding the Michigan Team on both sides of the ball, which is the time-tested method of building from the interior on out. In other words, make sure you concentrate first on rebuilding/strengthing the offensive and defensive lines and then gradually shift the focus to one of bringing in the skill players. Sure, that sounds a little over-simplified, but skill position players, whether they're 3*, 4*, or 5*, only can perform consistantly well if they have a strong, cohesive unit doing the job in front of them.
Obviously there are other variables that come into play along the way, the most important of which is coaching, but also includes a large dose of avoiding devastating injuries, a favorable home vs. road schedule, and some amount of good luck, among other things.
We're all painfully aware of how things don't work well without those basic building blocks being in place on the offensive and defensive lines; now we need to see the fruits of a few years of successful recruiting ripen into a top level unit on both sides of the ball. If we can get and stay healthy there, the more recent recruits in the skill positions will have a much better chance of also being successful, and that, in turn, will translate to more wins.
That was a great look into the roster and confirmed my belief that we are still a few years away, hopefully not perpetually. I am still concerned about the talent of the defensive line but I'm hoping names like Charlton, Ojemudia, Wormley, Pipkins, etc. as juniors and seniors in 2015 should be pretty good...not totally sure about '14 however.
Also, on paper if UM is that high, it's hard to believe that any other team they play on the schedule for the next two years not named OSU or ND is ranked as high. If we go by numbers that means UM should only lose no more than 2 games in each of the next two years. But, I'd be more than surprised if UM loses 2 or fewer games in '14.
I noticed a recurring theme in your analysis. The last three years of Coach Carr's career had all the pieces to contend for National Titles. And what did we get? Inconsistency, and a team that was out-coached when it played against peer-level programs. Going 1-7 in four games against OSU and four Bowl games was not bad luck. It was a trend, and talent was decidedly not the issue. (Please note I have not yet mentioned how little he accomplished with TOM EFFING BRADY as his QB.)
Don't get me wrong. I love Coach Carr. He is a fine gentlemen and for most of his career a fine coach. But those last four seasons were butt-ugly, and the game had clearly passed by him and his minions.
Yes, Rich Rodgriguez was an inexplicable and unmitigated disaster on every level you could imagine (Although, I dissent from the view he was a bad guy. He failed, profoundly, but he did so with his heart in the right place.) But Lloyd absolutely had to go, and I wonder what might have been if his last senior class in their senior season has a coaching staff that was...well, competent.
I'm not sure that's a fair assessment. In 2005 they lost all 5 games by less than 7 points. They did beat the #3 team in the nation in PSU. The 2006 team was undefeated going into the OSU game...not exactly inconsistent and could have beaten OSU (damn you Crable). And, the 2007 team dealt with injuries to both Henne and Hart throughout the year. BTW they held OSU to 14 points that year, so their defense wasn't so bad. I'll agree that with the talent they had for those 3 years you'd expect at least one B1G title and possibly a NCG appearence, but they got pretty close in '06 and if Henne & Hart were healthy in '07 they could have too. Plus they beat a pretty good Florida team led by Tebow, Harvin, Spikes, etc.
is an key element in the winning formula that needs to be quantified somehow as well. Clearly, it seems that a small and select group of the same coaches continually elevate their teams to the NC level. Interesting that Auburn in 2010 was a ranking outlier in the O-line as well as several defensive positions, but then they had Cam Newton who came out of left field to win the Heisman and lead Auburn to the NC title higlighting the importance of this key position. 2015 will be a pivotal year for the Michigan program as expectations will be skyhigh. They will be starting a new QB but almost every other postion will be loaded with 4-5 star seasoned talent.
So a reasonable bet for this year's playoff participants is team's with talented defenses, especially on the D-line. You could probably make a pretty good guess on the teams that will be in it right now (unless some scrappy mid-major makes it)
