A Quick Look At Red Zone Offense In The Big Ten: The Five-Year View
NOTE: Because of impending realignment and our official expansion in 2014, I included data from Maryland and Rutgers for this one so we can look at what they’ll bring potentially.
SOME GENERAL STUFF:
The current and soon-to-be members of the Big Ten have, in the last five years, played 894 games and in those games, they have made a combined 3,285 trips to the red zone on offense. Among those trips, 2,741 of them resulted in some manner of scoring, which would equate to an overall success rate among 14 teams of 83.44%.
The overall distribution of scoring types is rather intriguing. There were 1,239 rushing touchdowns, 753 passing touchdowns and 749 field goals. In terms of percentages, this means that 45.20% of all red zone scoring among these teams was done on the ground. The split between passing touchdowns and field goals turns out to be nearly identical – 27.47% to 27.32% respectively.
A DEEPER LOOK:
The table below gives the five-year distribution of passing TDs, rushing TDs and field goals for each team:
Overall success rate is essentially the percentage of all red zone drives that resulted in some scoring for a team, and the table is sorted by that. The only current member of the Big Ten to sit below 80% is Indiana, and as you’ll note, our future members occupy the bottom of the table. Michigan’s score is in part hampered by a 2009 season where our success rate in that year was only 66.67%, and in 2008 and 2010, we also failed to reach 80% in red zone success. We jumped to about 84% in 2011, and well over 90% last year, so things are definitely on the mend. All the individual team data will be in another table.
I also included the passing TD versus rushing TD mix in this table, and while you can see the individual numbers above, it seems as if something in the neighborhood of a 60 / 40 split in favor of rushing is not uncommon at all in the conference. Perhaps that provides some insight into the playcalling proclivities of the average Big Ten offensive coordinator.
The other side of the table shows how touchdowns and field goals break down as a percentage of successful drives. It is interesting to note that, in the recent past, our new conference colleagues have to rely on just getting into field goal range on about 1/3rdof the occasions in which they score. Actually, Michigan State and Iowa are not far behind them in that respect either, so the trend might be that a few teams have their best scorer on the field only a few times each game.
Below is the individual team data by year for the five years looked at:
YEAR | Name | Pct | Rush TD % | Pass TD % | Rush TD / Drives | Pass TD / Drives | FG / Drives |
2012 | Wisconsin | 80.77% | 79.41% | 20.59% | 64.29% | 16.67% | 19.05% |
2011 | Wisconsin | 94.67% | 62.50% | 37.50% | 56.34% | 33.80% | 9.86% |
2010 | Wisconsin | 91.18% | 72.22% | 27.78% | 62.90% | 24.19% | 12.90% |
2009 | Wisconsin | 94.64% | 71.43% | 28.57% | 56.60% | 22.64% | 20.75% |
2008 | Wisconsin | 84.91% | 79.41% | 20.59% | 60.00% | 15.56% | 24.44% |
OVERALL | 89.80% | 71.49% | 28.51% | 59.71% | 23.81% | 16.48% | |
YEAR | Name | Pct | Rush TD % | Pass TD % | Rush TD / Drives | Pass TD / Drives | FG / Drives |
2012 | Rutgers | 71.88% | 25.00% | 75.00% | 17.39% | 52.17% | 30.43% |
2011 | Rutgers | 78.43% | 48.15% | 51.85% | 32.50% | 35.00% | 32.50% |
2010 | Rutgers | 75.00% | 57.14% | 42.86% | 29.63% | 22.22% | 48.15% |
2009 | Rutgers | 79.49% | 83.33% | 16.67% | 48.39% | 9.68% | 41.94% |
2008 | Rutgers | 78.43% | 60.00% | 40.00% | 45.00% | 30.00% | 25.00% |
OVERALL | 77.03% | 55.24% | 44.76% | 36.02% | 29.19% | 34.78% | |
YEAR | Name | Pct | Rush TD % | Pass TD % | Rush TD / Drives | Pass TD / Drives | FG / Drives |
2012 | Purdue | 77.55% | 38.71% | 61.29% | 31.58% | 50.00% | 18.42% |
2011 | Purdue | 84.62% | 59.38% | 40.63% | 43.18% | 29.55% | 27.27% |
2010 | Purdue | 81.25% | 53.33% | 46.67% | 30.77% | 26.92% | 42.31% |
2009 | Purdue | 88.24% | 52.00% | 48.00% | 43.33% | 40.00% | 16.67% |
2008 | Purdue | 82.93% | 60.00% | 40.00% | 44.12% | 29.41% | 26.47% |
OVERALL | 82.69% | 52.34% | 47.66% | 38.95% | 35.47% | 25.58% | |
YEAR | Name | Pct | Rush TD % | Pass TD % | Rush TD / Drives | Pass TD / Drives | FG / Drives |
2012 | Penn St. | 78.57% | 54.84% | 45.16% | 38.64% | 31.82% | 29.55% |
2011 | Penn St. | 76.19% | 80.95% | 19.05% | 53.13% | 12.50% | 34.38% |
2010 | Penn St. | 81.25% | 59.26% | 40.74% | 41.03% | 28.21% | 30.77% |
2009 | Penn St. | 87.76% | 58.62% | 41.38% | 39.53% | 27.91% | 32.56% |
2008 | Penn St. | 92.42% | 68.18% | 31.82% | 49.18% | 22.95% | 27.87% |
OVERALL | 83.91% | 63.82% | 36.18% | 44.29% | 25.11% | 30.59% | |
YEAR | Name | Pct | Rush TD % | Pass TD % | Rush TD / Drives | Pass TD / Drives | FG / Drives |
2012 | Ohio St. | 88.00% | 78.95% | 21.05% | 68.18% | 18.18% | 13.64% |
2011 | Ohio St. | 89.74% | 60.00% | 40.00% | 42.86% | 28.57% | 28.57% |
2010 | Ohio St. | 87.69% | 51.22% | 48.78% | 36.84% | 35.09% | 28.07% |
2009 | Ohio St. | 78.72% | 60.00% | 40.00% | 40.54% | 27.03% | 32.43% |
2008 | Ohio St. | 95.12% | 60.00% | 40.00% | 38.46% | 25.64% | 35.90% |
OVERALL | 87.60% | 62.34% | 37.66% | 45.28% | 27.36% | 27.36% | |
YEAR | Name | Pct | Rush TD % | Pass TD % | Rush TD / Drives | Pass TD / Drives | FG / Drives |
2012 | Northwestern | 87.72% | 73.53% | 26.47% | 50.00% | 18.00% | 32.00% |
2011 | Northwestern | 77.05% | 58.14% | 41.86% | 53.19% | 38.30% | 8.51% |
2010 | Northwestern | 84.62% | 63.64% | 36.36% | 47.73% | 27.27% | 25.00% |
2009 | Northwestern | 80.00% | 64.00% | 36.00% | 44.44% | 25.00% | 30.56% |
2008 | Northwestern | 85.19% | 51.85% | 48.15% | 30.43% | 28.26% | 41.30% |
OVERALL | 82.90% | 62.35% | 37.65% | 45.29% | 27.35% | 27.35% | |
YEAR | Name | Pct | Rush TD % | Pass TD % | Rush TD / Drives | Pass TD / Drives | FG / Drives |
2012 | Nebraska | 85.48% | 64.10% | 35.90% | 47.17% | 26.42% | 26.42% |
2011 | Nebraska | 86.54% | 78.79% | 21.21% | 57.78% | 15.56% | 26.67% |
2010 | Nebraska | 85.37% | 70.37% | 29.63% | 54.29% | 22.86% | 22.86% |
2009 | Nebraska | 80.85% | 64.00% | 36.00% | 42.11% | 23.68% | 34.21% |
2008 | Nebraska | 87.10% | 50.00% | 50.00% | 38.89% | 38.89% | 22.22% |
OVERALL | 85.23% | 64.46% | 35.54% | 47.56% | 26.22% | 26.22% | |
YEAR | Name | Pct | Rush TD % | Pass TD % | Rush TD / Drives | Pass TD / Drives | FG / Drives |
2012 | Minnesota | 82.93% | 48.00% | 52.00% | 35.29% | 38.24% | 26.47% |
2011 | Minnesota | 83.33% | 59.09% | 40.91% | 43.33% | 30.00% | 26.67% |
2010 | Minnesota | 83.78% | 63.64% | 36.36% | 45.16% | 25.81% | 29.03% |
2009 | Minnesota | 79.55% | 56.52% | 43.48% | 37.14% | 28.57% | 34.29% |
2008 | Minnesota | 87.80% | 66.67% | 33.33% | 50.00% | 25.00% | 25.00% |
OVERALL | 83.42% | 58.82% | 41.18% | 42.17% | 29.52% | 28.31% | |
YEAR | Name | Pct | Rush TD % | Pass TD % | Rush TD / Drives | Pass TD / Drives | FG / Drives |
2012 | Michigan St. | 81.82% | 56.52% | 43.48% | 36.11% | 27.78% | 36.11% |
2011 | Michigan St. | 83.93% | 52.94% | 47.06% | 38.30% | 34.04% | 27.66% |
2010 | Michigan St. | 88.64% | 56.67% | 43.33% | 43.59% | 33.33% | 23.08% |
2009 | Michigan St. | 86.36% | 44.00% | 56.00% | 28.95% | 36.84% | 34.21% |
2008 | Michigan St. | 84.91% | 75.86% | 24.14% | 48.89% | 15.56% | 35.56% |
OVERALL | 85.06% | 57.45% | 42.55% | 39.51% | 29.27% | 31.22% | |
YEAR | Name | Pct | Rush TD % | Pass TD % | Rush TD / Drives | Pass TD / Drives | FG / Drives |
2012 | Michigan | 93.48% | 68.97% | 31.03% | 46.51% | 20.93% | 32.56% |
2011 | Michigan | 84.48% | 64.86% | 35.14% | 48.98% | 26.53% | 24.49% |
2010 | Michigan | 78.57% | 70.00% | 30.00% | 63.64% | 27.27% | 9.09% |
2009 | Michigan | 66.67% | 76.00% | 24.00% | 59.38% | 18.75% | 21.88% |
2008 | Michigan | 77.14% | 71.43% | 28.57% | 55.56% | 22.22% | 22.22% |
OVERALL | 80.25% | 69.74% | 30.26% | 54.36% | 23.59% | 22.05% | |
YEAR | Name | Pct | Rush TD % | Pass TD % | Rush TD / Drives | Pass TD / Drives | FG / Drives |
2012 | Maryland | 71.88% | 64.71% | 35.29% | 47.83% | 26.09% | 26.09% |
2011 | Maryland | 69.57% | 57.14% | 42.86% | 37.50% | 28.13% | 34.38% |
2010 | Maryland | 85.71% | 51.61% | 48.39% | 38.10% | 35.71% | 26.19% |
2009 | Maryland | 83.33% | 73.33% | 26.67% | 44.00% | 16.00% | 40.00% |
2008 | Maryland | 80.49% | 61.90% | 38.10% | 39.39% | 24.24% | 36.36% |
OVERALL | 78.28% | 60.00% | 40.00% | 40.65% | 27.10% | 32.26% | |
YEAR | Name | Pct | Rush TD % | Pass TD % | Rush TD / Drives | Pass TD / Drives | FG / Drives |
2012 | Iowa | 78.95% | 72.22% | 27.78% | 43.33% | 16.67% | 40.00% |
2011 | Iowa | 83.67% | 58.06% | 41.94% | 43.90% | 31.71% | 24.39% |
2010 | Iowa | 87.76% | 45.16% | 54.84% | 32.56% | 39.53% | 27.91% |
2009 | Iowa | 83.78% | 55.00% | 45.00% | 35.48% | 29.03% | 35.48% |
2008 | Iowa | 84.21% | 78.13% | 21.88% | 52.08% | 14.58% | 33.33% |
OVERALL | 83.91% | 61.36% | 38.64% | 41.97% | 26.42% | 31.61% | |
YEAR | Name | Pct | Rush TD % | Pass TD % | Rush TD / Drives | Pass TD / Drives | FG / Drives |
2012 | Indiana | 86.27% | 50.00% | 50.00% | 38.64% | 38.64% | 22.73% |
2011 | Indiana | 75.68% | 83.33% | 16.67% | 53.57% | 10.71% | 35.71% |
2010 | Indiana | 88.00% | 34.48% | 65.52% | 22.73% | 43.18% | 34.09% |
2009 | Indiana | 76.74% | 50.00% | 50.00% | 33.33% | 33.33% | 33.33% |
2008 | Indiana | 66.67% | 66.67% | 33.33% | 45.45% | 22.73% | 31.82% |
OVERALL | 79.91% | 53.39% | 46.61% | 36.84% | 32.16% | 30.99% | |
YEAR | Name | Pct | Rush TD % | Pass TD % | Rush TD / Drives | Pass TD / Drives | FG / Drives |
2012 | Illinois | 74.19% | 57.89% | 42.11% | 47.83% | 34.78% | 17.39% |
2011 | Illinois | 83.72% | 74.07% | 25.93% | 55.56% | 19.44% | 25.00% |
2010 | Illinois | 94.23% | 67.65% | 32.35% | 46.94% | 22.45% | 30.61% |
2009 | Illinois | 81.58% | 68.00% | 32.00% | 54.84% | 25.81% | 19.35% |
2008 | Illinois | 82.05% | 60.00% | 40.00% | 46.88% | 31.25% | 21.88% |
OVERALL | 84.24% | 66.15% | 33.85% | 50.29% | 25.73% | 23.98% |
SOME THOUGHTS ON EFFECTIVENESS:
The table below is an overview of the five-year averages for the individual teams, focusing this time on a potential measure of drive effectiveness. I left the overall success rate in here as I thought it might make for an interesting comparison.
It is interesting that the Big Ten exists in something of a narrow band, if you will, when it comes to some of these numbers. Including Maryland and Rutgers mainly for comparison purposes again, the teams in the conference have 3-5 red zone drives per game basically.
I put two columns in here as a point of discussion because I was wondering what the board might think about this. Average Points Per Successful Drive seems to basically say that a majority of the scoring comes on touchdowns, which you already knew. Average Points Per Drive (regardless of success) seems to dig into the idea that some teams do spend an inordinate amount of time setting up for a field goal, and perhaps this is a better measure of overall effectiveness. I would think that if your team is barely above 4 on this measure, there is some thinking that needs to be done about how your offense views the end zone really.
Below is the year-by-year data for this. You will note that Michigan, while making fewer trips to the red zone, is better about capitalizing on them. There are a few individual instances of teams actually having a sub-4.0 average, which if this is any measure of red zone effectiveness, means that there were problems to address, to say the least.
YEAR | Name | Drives | Scores | Points | Avg. Points Per Successful Drive | Avg. Points Per Drive | Drives Per Game |
2012 | Wisconsin | 52 | 42 | 260 | 6.19 | 5.00 | 3.71 |
2011 | Wisconsin | 75 | 71 | 468 | 6.59 | 6.24 | 5.36 |
2010 | Wisconsin | 68 | 62 | 400 | 6.45 | 5.88 | 5.23 |
2009 | Wisconsin | 56 | 53 | 325 | 6.13 | 5.80 | 4.31 |
2008 | Wisconsin | 53 | 45 | 271 | 6.02 | 5.11 | 4.08 |
OVERALL | 304 | 273 | 1724 | 6.32 | 5.67 | 4.54 | |
YEAR | Name | Drives | Scores | Points | Avg. Points Per Successful Drive | Avg. Points Per Drive | Drives Per Game |
2012 | Rutgers | 32 | 23 | 130 | 5.65 | 4.06 | 2.46 |
2011 | Rutgers | 51 | 40 | 225 | 5.63 | 4.41 | 3.92 |
2010 | Rutgers | 36 | 27 | 137 | 5.07 | 3.81 | 3.00 |
2009 | Rutgers | 39 | 31 | 167 | 5.39 | 4.28 | 3.00 |
2008 | Rutgers | 51 | 40 | 236 | 5.90 | 4.63 | 3.92 |
OVERALL | 209 | 161 | 895 | 5.56 | 4.28 | 3.27 | |
YEAR | Name | Drives | Scores | Points | Avg. Points Per Successful Drive | Avg. Points Per Drive | Drives Per Game |
2012 | Purdue | 49 | 38 | 233 | 6.13 | 4.76 | 3.77 |
2011 | Purdue | 52 | 44 | 257 | 5.84 | 4.94 | 4.00 |
2010 | Purdue | 32 | 26 | 138 | 5.31 | 4.31 | 2.67 |
2009 | Purdue | 34 | 30 | 189 | 6.30 | 5.56 | 2.83 |
2008 | Purdue | 41 | 34 | 200 | 5.88 | 4.88 | 3.42 |
OVERALL | 208 | 172 | 1017 | 5.91 | 4.89 | 3.35 | |
YEAR | Name | Drives | Scores | Points | Avg. Points Per Successful Drive | Avg. Points Per Drive | Drives Per Game |
2012 | Penn St. | 56 | 44 | 255 | 5.80 | 4.55 | 4.67 |
2011 | Penn St. | 42 | 32 | 180 | 5.63 | 4.29 | 3.23 |
2010 | Penn St. | 48 | 39 | 223 | 5.72 | 4.65 | 3.69 |
2009 | Penn St. | 49 | 43 | 244 | 5.67 | 4.98 | 3.77 |
2008 | Penn St. | 66 | 61 | 359 | 5.89 | 5.44 | 5.08 |
OVERALL | 261 | 219 | 1261 | 5.76 | 4.83 | 4.08 | |
YEAR | Name | Drives | Scores | Points | Avg. Points Per Successful Drive | Avg. Points Per Drive | Drives Per Game |
2012 | Ohio St. | 50 | 44 | 287 | 6.52 | 5.74 | 4.17 |
2011 | Ohio St. | 39 | 35 | 203 | 5.80 | 5.21 | 3.00 |
2010 | Ohio St. | 65 | 57 | 336 | 5.89 | 5.17 | 5.00 |
2009 | Ohio St. | 47 | 37 | 210 | 5.68 | 4.47 | 3.62 |
2008 | Ohio St. | 41 | 39 | 214 | 5.49 | 5.22 | 3.15 |
OVERALL | 242 | 212 | 1250 | 5.90 | 5.17 | 3.78 | |
YEAR | Name | Drives | Scores | Points | Avg. Points Per Successful Drive | Avg. Points Per Drive | Drives Per Game |
2012 | Northwestern | 57 | 50 | 286 | 5.72 | 5.02 | 4.38 |
2011 | Northwestern | 61 | 47 | 314 | 6.68 | 5.15 | 4.69 |
2010 | Northwestern | 52 | 44 | 259 | 5.89 | 4.98 | 4.00 |
2009 | Northwestern | 45 | 36 | 207 | 5.75 | 4.60 | 3.46 |
2008 | Northwestern | 54 | 46 | 243 | 5.28 | 4.50 | 4.15 |
OVERALL | 269 | 223 | 1309 | 5.87 | 4.87 | 4.14 | |
YEAR | Name | Drives | Scores | Points | Avg. Points Per Successful Drive | Avg. Points Per Drive | Drives Per Game |
2012 | Nebraska | 62 | 53 | 313 | 5.91 | 5.05 | 4.43 |
2011 | Nebraska | 52 | 45 | 268 | 5.96 | 5.15 | 4.00 |
2010 | Nebraska | 41 | 35 | 213 | 6.09 | 5.20 | 2.93 |
2009 | Nebraska | 47 | 38 | 213 | 5.61 | 4.53 | 3.36 |
2008 | Nebraska | 62 | 54 | 330 | 6.11 | 5.32 | 4.77 |
OVERALL | 264 | 225 | 1337 | 5.94 | 5.06 | 3.88 | |
YEAR | Name | Drives | Scores | Points | Avg. Points Per Successful Drive | Avg. Points Per Drive | Drives Per Game |
2012 | Minnesota | 41 | 34 | 200 | 5.88 | 4.88 | 3.15 |
2011 | Minnesota | 36 | 30 | 175 | 5.83 | 4.86 | 3.00 |
2010 | Minnesota | 37 | 31 | 180 | 5.81 | 4.86 | 3.08 |
2009 | Minnesota | 44 | 35 | 198 | 5.66 | 4.50 | 3.38 |
2008 | Minnesota | 41 | 36 | 218 | 6.06 | 5.32 | 3.15 |
OVERALL | 199 | 166 | 971 | 5.85 | 4.88 | 3.16 | |
YEAR | Name | Drives | Scores | Points | Avg. Points Per Successful Drive | Avg. Points Per Drive | Drives Per Game |
2012 | Michigan St. | 44 | 36 | 200 | 5.56 | 4.55 | 3.38 |
2011 | Michigan St. | 56 | 47 | 279 | 5.94 | 4.98 | 4.00 |
2010 | Michigan St. | 44 | 39 | 236 | 6.05 | 5.36 | 3.38 |
2009 | Michigan St. | 44 | 38 | 212 | 5.58 | 4.82 | 3.38 |
2008 | Michigan St. | 53 | 45 | 249 | 5.53 | 4.70 | 4.08 |
OVERALL | 241 | 205 | 1176 | 5.74 | 4.88 | 3.65 | |
YEAR | Name | Drives | Scores | Points | Avg. Points Per Successful Drive | Avg. Points Per Drive | Drives Per Game |
2012 | Michigan | 46 | 43 | 243 | 5.65 | 5.28 | 3.54 |
2011 | Michigan | 58 | 49 | 293 | 5.98 | 5.05 | 4.46 |
2010 | Michigan | 56 | 44 | 291 | 6.61 | 5.20 | 4.31 |
2009 | Michigan | 48 | 32 | 195 | 6.09 | 4.06 | 4.00 |
2008 | Michigan | 35 | 27 | 162 | 6.00 | 4.63 | 2.92 |
OVERALL | 243 | 195 | 1184 | 6.07 | 4.87 | 3.86 | |
YEAR | Name | Drives | Scores | Points | Avg. Points Per Successful Drive | Avg. Points Per Drive | Drives Per Game |
2012 | Maryland | 32 | 23 | 134 | 5.83 | 4.19 | 2.67 |
2011 | Maryland | 46 | 32 | 178 | 5.56 | 3.87 | 3.83 |
2010 | Maryland | 49 | 42 | 250 | 5.95 | 5.10 | 3.77 |
2009 | Maryland | 30 | 25 | 136 | 5.44 | 4.53 | 2.50 |
2008 | Maryland | 41 | 33 | 184 | 5.58 | 4.49 | 3.15 |
OVERALL | 198 | 155 | 882 | 5.69 | 4.45 | 3.19 | |
YEAR | Name | Drives | Scores | Points | Avg. Points Per Successful Drive | Avg. Points Per Drive | Drives Per Game |
2012 | Iowa | 38 | 30 | 162 | 5.40 | 4.26 | 3.17 |
2011 | Iowa | 49 | 41 | 248 | 6.05 | 5.06 | 3.77 |
2010 | Iowa | 49 | 43 | 252 | 5.86 | 5.14 | 3.77 |
2009 | Iowa | 37 | 31 | 171 | 5.52 | 4.62 | 2.85 |
2008 | Iowa | 57 | 48 | 273 | 5.69 | 4.79 | 4.38 |
OVERALL | 230 | 193 | 1106 | 5.73 | 4.81 | 3.59 | |
YEAR | Name | Drives | Scores | Points | Avg. Points Per Successful Drive | Avg. Points Per Drive | Drives Per Game |
2012 | Indiana | 51 | 44 | 270 | 6.14 | 5.29 | 4.25 |
2011 | Indiana | 37 | 28 | 157 | 5.61 | 4.24 | 3.08 |
2010 | Indiana | 50 | 44 | 247 | 5.61 | 4.94 | 4.17 |
2009 | Indiana | 43 | 33 | 187 | 5.67 | 4.35 | 3.58 |
2008 | Indiana | 33 | 22 | 124 | 5.64 | 3.76 | 2.75 |
OVERALL | 214 | 171 | 985 | 5.76 | 4.60 | 3.57 | |
YEAR | Name | Drives | Scores | Points | Avg. Points Per Successful Drive | Avg. Points Per Drive | Drives Per Game |
2012 | Illinois | 31 | 23 | 145 | 6.30 | 4.68 | 2.58 |
2011 | Illinois | 43 | 36 | 216 | 6.00 | 5.02 | 3.31 |
2010 | Illinois | 52 | 49 | 283 | 5.78 | 5.44 | 4.00 |
2009 | Illinois | 38 | 31 | 190 | 6.13 | 5.00 | 3.17 |
2008 | Illinois | 39 | 32 | 195 | 6.09 | 5.00 | 3.25 |
OVERALL | 203 | 171 | 1029 | 6.02 | 5.07 | 3.27 |
TL;DR CONCLUSION:
Admittedly, I went through this data out of sheer curiosity. I wanted to see what the scoring type distribution looked like and to see if there was a way to think about effectiveness in the red zone in terms of drives and points. It seems like there might be, at least on a broad level. I believe the next step might be to correlate these averages to other offensive data and see if there is a relationship between, for example, overall record (likely in terms of winning percentage) and average points per red zone drive.
OBLIGATORY:
Our newest additions to the Cook madness -
Tied with 2008 Indiana for worst performance in a given year by any team. Actually it's not very nice at all...
I think the most important number is that Points Per Trip. I redid your math, using 8 as the max possible points per trip, to find where Michigan's offenses ranked among all of these. Result:
Rk | YEAR | Name | Games | Trips | Points | Possible | PPTrip | Conv% | Trips/G |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2011 | Wisconsin | 14 | 75 | 468 | 600 | 6.24 | 78% | 5.36 |
2 | 2010 | Wisconsin | 13 | 68 | 400 | 544 | 5.88 | 74% | 5.23 |
3 | 2009 | Wisconsin | 13 | 56 | 325 | 448 | 5.80 | 73% | 4.31 |
4 | 2012 | Ohio St. | 12 | 50 | 287 | 400 | 5.74 | 72% | 4.17 |
5 | 2009 | Purdue | 12 | 34 | 189 | 272 | 5.56 | 69% | 2.83 |
6 | 2010 | Illinois | 13 | 52 | 283 | 416 | 5.44 | 68% | 4.00 |
7 | 2008 | Penn St. | 13 | 66 | 359 | 528 | 5.44 | 68% | 5.08 |
8 | 2010 | Michigan St. | 13 | 44 | 236 | 352 | 5.36 | 67% | 3.38 |
9 | 2008 | Nebraska | 13 | 62 | 330 | 496 | 5.32 | 67% | 4.77 |
10 | 2008 | Minnesota | 13 | 41 | 218 | 328 | 5.32 | 66% | 3.15 |
11 | 2012 | Indiana | 12 | 51 | 270 | 408 | 5.29 | 66% | 4.25 |
12 | 2012 | Michigan | 13 | 46 | 243 | 368 | 5.28 | 66% | 3.54 |
13 | 2008 | Ohio St. | 13 | 41 | 214 | 328 | 5.22 | 65% | 3.15 |
14 | 2011 | Ohio St. | 13 | 39 | 203 | 312 | 5.21 | 65% | 3.00 |
15 | 2010 | Michigan | 13 | 56 | 291 | 448 | 5.20 | 65% | 4.31 |
16 | 2010 | Nebraska | 14 | 41 | 213 | 328 | 5.20 | 65% | 2.93 |
17 | 2010 | Ohio St. | 13 | 65 | 336 | 520 | 5.17 | 65% | 5.00 |
18 | 2011 | Nebraska | 13 | 52 | 268 | 416 | 5.15 | 64% | 4.00 |
19 | 2011 | Northwestern | 13 | 61 | 314 | 488 | 5.15 | 64% | 4.69 |
20 | 2010 | Iowa | 13 | 49 | 252 | 392 | 5.14 | 64% | 3.77 |
21 | 2008 | Wisconsin | 13 | 53 | 271 | 424 | 5.11 | 64% | 4.08 |
22 | 2010 | Maryland | 13 | 49 | 250 | 392 | 5.10 | 64% | 3.77 |
23 | 2011 | Iowa | 13 | 49 | 248 | 392 | 5.06 | 63% | 3.77 |
24 | 2011 | Michigan | 13 | 58 | 293 | 464 | 5.05 | 63% | 4.46 |
25 | 2012 | Nebraska | 14 | 62 | 313 | 496 | 5.05 | 63% | 4.43 |
26 | 2011 | Illinois | 13 | 43 | 216 | 344 | 5.02 | 63% | 3.31 |
27 | 2012 | Northwestern | 13 | 57 | 286 | 456 | 5.02 | 63% | 4.38 |
28 | 2012 | Wisconsin | 14 | 52 | 260 | 416 | 5.00 | 63% | 3.71 |
29 | 2008 | Illinois | 12 | 39 | 195 | 312 | 5.00 | 63% | 3.25 |
30 | 2009 | Illinois | 12 | 38 | 190 | 304 | 5.00 | 63% | 3.17 |
31 | 2011 | Michigan St. | 14 | 56 | 279 | 448 | 4.98 | 62% | 4.00 |
32 | 2010 | Northwestern | 13 | 52 | 259 | 416 | 4.98 | 62% | 4.00 |
33 | 2009 | Penn St. | 13 | 49 | 244 | 392 | 4.98 | 62% | 3.77 |
34 | 2011 | Purdue | 13 | 52 | 257 | 416 | 4.94 | 62% | 4.00 |
35 | 2010 | Indiana | 12 | 50 | 247 | 400 | 4.94 | 62% | 4.17 |
36 | 2008 | Purdue | 12 | 41 | 200 | 328 | 4.88 | 61% | 3.42 |
37 | 2012 | Minnesota | 13 | 41 | 200 | 328 | 4.88 | 61% | 3.15 |
38 | 2010 | Minnesota | 12 | 37 | 180 | 296 | 4.86 | 61% | 3.08 |
39 | 2011 | Minnesota | 12 | 36 | 175 | 288 | 4.86 | 61% | 3.00 |
40 | 2009 | Michigan St. | 13 | 44 | 212 | 352 | 4.82 | 60% | 3.38 |
41 | 2008 | Iowa | 13 | 57 | 273 | 456 | 4.79 | 60% | 4.38 |
42 | 2012 | Purdue | 13 | 49 | 233 | 392 | 4.76 | 59% | 3.77 |
43 | 2008 | Michigan St. | 13 | 53 | 249 | 424 | 4.70 | 59% | 4.08 |
44 | 2012 | Illinois | 12 | 31 | 145 | 248 | 4.68 | 58% | 2.58 |
45 | 2010 | Penn St. | 13 | 48 | 223 | 384 | 4.65 | 58% | 3.69 |
46 | 2008 | Michigan | 12 | 35 | 162 | 280 | 4.63 | 58% | 2.92 |
47 | 2008 | Rutgers | 13 | 51 | 236 | 408 | 4.63 | 58% | 3.92 |
48 | 2009 | Iowa | 13 | 37 | 171 | 296 | 4.62 | 58% | 2.85 |
49 | 2009 | Northwestern | 13 | 45 | 207 | 360 | 4.60 | 58% | 3.46 |
50 | 2012 | Penn St. | 12 | 56 | 255 | 448 | 4.55 | 57% | 4.67 |
51 | 2012 | Michigan St. | 13 | 44 | 200 | 352 | 4.55 | 57% | 3.38 |
52 | 2009 | Maryland | 12 | 30 | 136 | 240 | 4.53 | 57% | 2.50 |
53 | 2009 | Nebraska | 14 | 47 | 213 | 376 | 4.53 | 57% | 3.36 |
54 | 2008 | Northwestern | 13 | 54 | 243 | 432 | 4.50 | 56% | 4.15 |
55 | 2009 | Minnesota | 13 | 44 | 198 | 352 | 4.50 | 56% | 3.38 |
56 | 2008 | Maryland | 13 | 41 | 184 | 328 | 4.49 | 56% | 3.15 |
57 | 2009 | Ohio St. | 13 | 47 | 210 | 376 | 4.47 | 56% | 3.62 |
58 | 2011 | Rutgers | 13 | 51 | 225 | 408 | 4.41 | 55% | 3.92 |
59 | 2009 | Indiana | 12 | 43 | 187 | 344 | 4.35 | 54% | 3.58 |
60 | 2010 | Purdue | 12 | 32 | 138 | 256 | 4.31 | 54% | 2.67 |
61 | 2011 | Penn St. | 13 | 42 | 180 | 336 | 4.29 | 54% | 3.23 |
62 | 2009 | Rutgers | 13 | 39 | 167 | 312 | 4.28 | 54% | 3.00 |
63 | 2012 | Iowa | 12 | 38 | 162 | 304 | 4.26 | 53% | 3.17 |
64 | 2011 | Indiana | 12 | 37 | 157 | 296 | 4.24 | 53% | 3.08 |
65 | 2012 | Maryland | 12 | 32 | 134 | 256 | 4.19 | 52% | 2.67 |
66 | 2009 | Michigan | 12 | 48 | 195 | 384 | 4.06 | 51% | 4.00 |
67 | 2012 | Rutgers | 13 | 32 | 130 | 256 | 4.06 | 51% | 2.46 |
68 | 2011 | Maryland | 12 | 46 | 178 | 368 | 3.87 | 48% | 3.83 |
69 | 2010 | Rutgers | 12 | 36 | 137 | 288 | 3.81 | 48% | 3.00 |
70 | 2008 | Indiana | 12 | 33 | 124 | 264 | 3.76 | 47% | 2.75 |
TOTAL | 894 | 3285 | 16126 | 26280 | 4.91 | 61% | 3.67 |
Suggestion for further study: I bet you this correlates to experience of the starting quarterback.
...as an indicator of offensive efficiency. Simpler, but in many ways more clear and less skewed towards particular offensive styles than FEI.
Would be great to come up with a sufficient weight from average starting position
Comments