SBNation: Most exciting CFB teams
SIAP (this is dated 20 June) but some guy over at SBNation has attempted to quantify exactly what makes a team exciting. Of course Oregon and Rich Rod (Peace Be Upon Him) take the top spots, but I think there is some interesting discussion re: how the rest of the list shakes out, as well as the methodolgy.
FWIW, Michigan comes in at 72, behind WMU and MSU. Thoughts?
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/6/20/4445294/college-football-2013-teams-to-watch
This about sums it up completely.
I found every single game of the RR era exciting and facinating.
I now like boring games.
So the alternative is to shut the site down during the off season and lay off your staff?
Subjective lists being stupid is also a matter of subjectivity.
i don't think anyone here would care if the score is 10-7 or 45-42. as long as we score more than the other team.
Yeah, I believe there are many people who care, (Especially Bo!). As exciting as that 67-65 2010 game against the Illini was, it was frustrating as hell watching our defense give up that much!
Bring the D!
Any win is better than any loss. The games against Iowa in '11 or ND last year were a lot more frustrating due to the final result, and similarly saw one side of the ball perform ineptly.
The defense/offense wins championships debate is the purview of idiots. The whole thing is a continuum. ND had a great D last year, but Bama smoked them. Stanford's D was good enough to beat Oregon and win the Rose Bowl, but their shitty offense cost them against UW and ND. Texas A&M gave up 57 points to Louisiana Tech last year but you don't hear anybody bitching about their coach. If Coach Hoke ever puts together a four year stretch like Chip Kelly just did at Oregon (46-7, two BCS bowl wins, four BCS bowl appearances) he'll have a statue on campus.
We gave up 42 points to OSU in 2006. I doubt you would have been bitching about the shitty defense (and it was bad) if we'd scored 43.
I love watching a dominating defense that constantly blows up running plays, gets pressure on the quarterback and generates turnovers, that's exciting. Also, you can't expect to be a championship contender when your defense is consistently giving up 40+ points to Illinois and Indiana.
For that matter, I like a punishing running game over a high flying passing attack. I remember there was a bowl game a few years ago, don't remember which, but it was Wisconsin vs. Auburn, Wisconsin had a one score lead with like 7 minutes left, they got the ball inside their own five and proceeded to drive the ball to inside Auburn's five and then kneeled to run out the clock. If that kind of domination isn't badass than I don't know what is.
Um, that's becase all of the teams in the Superbowl have good defenses. Teams without good defenses don't play in the Superbowl.
"Defense wins the right to play for Championships." doesn't sound as good, but it's true.
but when you have Alabama ranked behind Purdue and Duke, you have extended your metric beyond its useful purpose.
For the board's reference, here is how this index ranked the Big Ten. For kicks, I included Rutgers and Maryland in this list. I also put each teams 2012 win percentage on here as well for a random comparison.
| Rk | Team | CFBEI | Win Pct. |
| 7 | Nebraska | 214 | 0.714 |
| 23 | Ohio State | 259 | 1.000 |
| 31 | Northwestern | 272 | 0.769 |
| 39 | Indiana | 300 | 0.333 |
| 41 | Penn State | 302 | 0.667 |
| 53 | Michigan State | 328 | 0.538 |
| 56 | Purdue | 332 | 0.462 |
| 65 | Wisconsin | 352 | 0.571 |
| 72 | Michigan | 384 | 0.615 |
| 91 | Rutgers | 445 | 0.692 |
| 95 | Minnesota | 454 | 0.462 |
| 98 | Iowa | 467 | 0.333 |
| 106 | Maryland | 527 | 0.333 |
| 122 | Illinois | 630 | 0.167 |
I suppose I would question how, for example, Indiana and a 4-8 season manages to come out as more entertaining overall, but as the author admits, it rewards teams that played in several close, high-scoring games and ran quite a few plays. I could be wrong, but I think Indiana actually led the Big Ten in average offensive plays per game with something aroung 77 or 78. I know we averaged about 65 or so (which I think would have put us near the bottom of Division I), but when you adjust for something like efficiency, we used those fewer plays markedly better. To me, doing a better job of converting opportunities, for example, is what makes things exciting.
I tend to think there are stats which would paint a better picture than what the author has done here.
So I'm not too picky about how we get there. I never watched a Richrod team lose and thought "Well at least it was exciting!"
Those games were/are fun to watch because I was a neutral party. Not so much fun when he was coaching us to the losing side of those "exciting" games. It's the same way I feel about Oregon when they're not choking a late season, low-scoring game.
Why even play next year?
Is it just me or is their definition of excitement only defined by not even one half of the game...the offense? An aggressive, hard hitting, stifling defense is pretty exciting. I'll take a lower yardage output from the offense for a stout defense any day...and it's just as exciting. How exciting was Rich Rod's teams when we couldn't stop anyone?
If the list is defined by great offenses, how does it explain MSU placing 20 spots higher than Michigan on this list?
It seems like the list favors a team if they have one great unit and one poor unit over a team with two good units.
Interesting to note that of the top 20 "most exciting" teams in 2012, only one (Oregon) made a BCS game last year. For reference, the BCS teams ranked:
Alabama- #59
Notre Dame- #69
Oregon- #1
Kansas State- #36
Louisville- #42
Florida- #80
Florida State- #45
Northern Illinois- #28
Stanford- #70
Wisconsin- #65
And the final Coaches top 10
Alabama- #59
Oregon- #1
Notre Dame #69
Georgia- #46
Texas A&M- #3
Stanford- #70
South Carolina- #68
Florida State- #45
Clemson- #4
Florida- #80
I don't vote for Best Helmets, coolest uniforms, etc., because they haven't a fucking thing to do with winning. I didn't even take the time to see where Alabama might have come up on that list, but I can almost guarantee they're not in the top 40, or even 50 but I can guarantee winning bests level of excitement any day. Now if you were to put a great defense with RR or Kelly at Ore, than we'd be onto something. IMHO, of course.
It seems the criteria is which teams score a lot of points and play no defense are the most exciting. I would agree that high scoring offenses are exciting to watch but I would be more excited to watch 3 NCs in 4 years if I were an Alabama fan. If the dominant program in the country is only the 59th most exciting team to watch then I would rather just win.
Again, it's not even that rational. If offense is favored on this list, it wouldn't explain MSU's huge jump over Michigan's.
I guess this is just preference, but I like good defence just as much as "exciting" offense. To me, a sack on 3rd down is just as awesome as a touchdown.
I just don't see why people find that boring.
It's going to change pretty significantly starting in 2013 now that the Denard era is over.
Winning every game by a couple of scores except Ohio. Making most of our third down attempts since we will be about 3rd and 2 and grinding out 8-10 play drives while playing strong defense. It will be like the 80's and 90's again, boring winning football. If you don't think watching the line stuff a drive or plow the path for a 6 yard runis exciting you should watch 7 on 7 "football" or maybe arena football if that still exists and you can call that football.
This did not go as planned.