B10 Predictions via 2009 Stats & Returning Starters
I do some amateurish statistical compiling from time to time for a couple of pools I'm in during the CFB season. In the last couple of days, I took a look at returning starters by unit in the B10 against the relative production of those units last year. Thought I'd throw it out there since I had it anyway.
A couple of notes.
- All of the data come from the NCAA's website
- I've listed the teams in order of retuning starters—used Adam Rittenberg's count from his post Spring Practice overviews of the B10 on espn.com.
- I've only looked at Total Offense and Scoring Offense, and Total Defense and Scoring Defense. There are tons of other categories obvs, but these to my mind give a pretty good sense of things.
- Also, for the offense, I've noted which teams have returning starting QBs because of the difference that makes in competency of the offense typically. E.g., both Michigan and PSU have 7 returning starters on offense but I would expect Michigan's unit to be much more efficient and productive given the respective options at QB.
On with it, then …
Scoring Offense and Total Offense
|
Returning Starters |
Returning QB Starter |
Yrds/Game |
Big 10 Total O Rank 2009 |
NCAA Total O Rank 2009 |
Pts/Game |
Big Ten Scoring Rank 2009 |
NCAA Scoring Rank 2009 |
Wisconsin |
10 |
Y |
416.92 |
1 |
30 |
31.77 |
1 |
25 |
OSU |
10 |
Y |
369 |
8 |
68 |
29 |
4 |
49 |
Minnesota |
9 |
Y |
306.46 |
11 |
109 |
20.92 |
11 |
100 |
Northwestern |
8 |
N |
404.08 |
4 |
40 |
25.92 |
7 |
71 |
Indiana |
8 |
Y |
365 |
9 |
72 |
23.5 |
9 |
84 |
Michigan |
7 |
Y |
384.5 |
7 |
59 |
29.5 |
3 |
41 |
PSU |
7 |
N |
406.92 |
2 |
37 |
28.85 |
5 |
52 |
Iowa |
6 |
Y |
336.31 |
10 |
89 |
23.15 |
10 |
86 |
MSU |
6 |
Y |
406.23 |
3 |
38 |
29.69 |
2 |
36 |
Purdue |
6 |
?(Marve) |
391.33 |
6 |
53 |
27.83 |
6 |
58 |
Illinois |
5 |
N |
393.5 |
5 |
47 |
24.17 |
8 |
81 |
Takeaways (in the corporatey bullshit bingo meaning of the word)
- Is it on Wisconsin or Wisconsin's on?Teams are going to have to put up considerable points to beat the Badgers. Slightly odd to think about them as a prolific offense, but with 10 starters coming back and Tolzien back under center, they are likely to put up better numbers than last year. And last year, they were good. They moved it and they scored it. What's is scary about this unit isn't shown here—they were ranked 3rd in Red Zone efficiency nationally last year (scoring 96% of their opportunities) and 2nd nationally in what I'll call Red Zone TD efficiency, scoring 42 TDs in 56 opportunities for a 75% clip. That is pretty sick efficiency.
- Sweater lets go of the reigns?OSU has a lot coming back from a team that was just so-so in total offense and scoring, though that's typical of a Tressel low risk offense, IMO, not necessarily a reflection of talent. I'm expecting that TP in Year Three will have this offense clicking. Under a different coach, this could be a Top 10 - 20 unit or better, I think. They have the pieces. But under the suffocating cotton of the Sweater, they might not get there. Nor need to get there.
- Good News, Bad News for Minny. The good? They have a lot coming back. The bad? They weren't very good last year. Substantial improvement would only see them as a middle of the road NCAA offense.
- Thin Green Line. MSU has only 6 returners but they were a Top 35-ish unit with a first-year starting QB in 2009. I'm expecting them to be comparable and likely better if their revamped line holds up. The skill players are in place. My guess is that they'll move and score even if the line is mediocre, which it likely will be.
- With a D like ours, who needs offense?Or so says Iowa. Their offense was pretty anemic last year, both in the B10 and nationally. Yet they played in a BCS game and soundly beat the ACC champ. (Anyone wish we could flip flop the relative strengths of Michigan's O and D? I do.)
Scoring Defense and Total Defense
|
Returning D Starters |
Yrds/Game 2009 |
Big Ten Total D Rank 2009 |
NCAA Total D Rank 2009 |
Pts/Game 2009 |
Big Ten D Scoring Rank 2009 |
NCAA D Scoring Rank 2009 |
Michigan |
8 |
393.33 |
9 |
82 |
27.5 |
8 |
77 |
Iowa |
8 |
276.54 |
3 |
10 |
15.38 |
3 |
8 |
Wisconsin |
6 |
305.69 |
4 |
17 |
21.77 |
4 |
33 |
MSU |
6 |
380.85 |
8 |
73 |
26.31 |
7 |
77 |
Purdue |
6 |
376.58 |
7 |
69 |
29.5 |
9 |
89 |
Illinois |
6 |
403.25 |
11 |
91 |
30.17 |
11 |
96 |
OSU |
5 |
262.31 |
1 |
5 |
12.54 |
2 |
5 |
Northwestern |
5 |
350.46 |
5 |
47 |
24.46 |
6 |
55 |
PSU |
5 |
274.46 |
2 |
9 |
12.23 |
1 |
3 |
Indiana |
4 |
401 |
10 |
88 |
29.5 |
10 |
91 |
Minnesota |
2 |
369.15 |
6 |
63 |
23.77 |
5 |
51 |
Takeaways
- Right, about that crappy offense. If you had your choice, whose 8 starters would you want back on defense, Iowa's or Michigan's? (Rhetorical) The Hawkeyes were Top 10 in both total and scoring D in '09. While their Red Zone D overall efficiency was only middle of the pack (76th in the country ... teams scored on 83% of their opportunities), they didn't give up many Red Zone chances (only 29 all year, which was 8th best in the country), and their red zone TD defense was stout, giving up only 14 TDs in those 29 Opportunities for a 48% clip and 21st best in the country.
- The Numbers for Wisconsin, PSU and OSU. All of these units were pretty damn good last year. OSU and PSU have to replace 6 spots, but we know these teams, (especially OSU) lose guys annually and rarely see production drop off with new starters. Wisconsin doesn't have that same track record, but they have a good core coming back. While improving on 2009 performances would be tough, even status quo would be pretty good, and I'm expecting pretty much that.
- Face lift. Minnesota will have a bunch of new guys running around. Typically not a good thing when you were an average NCAA defense the prior year.
- Hoosiers will be generous. Indiana wasn't terribly gifted on D last year, lost a couple of the better defensive ends in the conference, and only return four starters. In other news, the world is round.
- The rest of 'em. The balance of the conference had mediocre or poorer defenses last year. Other than Michigan, most are replacing at least 5 starters. I don't see any quantum leaps in improvement here.
Enjoy your hot dogs, potato salad and parades this weekend.
"Enjoy your hot dogs, potato salad and parades this weekend."
We know Elno will be enjoying one of those.
What i would love to know is 2008 stats and returning players and how that translated to 2009 season performance. It would give you a better indicator as to what should/could happen the next season. And keep track and see if a pattern starts to occur.
historical perspective here is, well, totally absent. Plus injuries between now and kick-off, or even early in the season, make the "returning starters" measurement somewhat fluid. Drew Henson's foot, for example. Or David Molk's knee.
I do plan to pull the data going forward, though, so maybe in two or three seasons, there will be some historical trends to look at. The NCAA/Conference stats are pretty easy to grab going back a few years. I'll have to look for a quick source for "returning starters" in previous years. If I find them, I might put it together for the last 2-3 years.
Good stuff. I expect PSU's offense to struggle without Robinson, but the defense should keep them in games. I do think that people overrate the OSU offense a bit because of that Rose Bowl game against a pretty bad Oregon defense, but I agree that the pieces are there to compete. Iowa is going to be good on defense all year, but it also strikes me as the type of defense that is more system-dominant than palyer-dominant, so the right type of offense (i.e. UM's) might have more success if they can just out-athlete them.
you mean Daryll Clark, but point taken.
I agree with you about Iowa's defense; it's mostly a bunch of mediocre guys who do one or two things really well and because they execute their assignments properly, the right player makes the right play. They still might have two very dominant players in Adrian Clayborn and Tyler Sash, but after the game last year, I feel pretty good.
Personally I don't think Sash is a superstar, Clayborn is, no doubht about it, but Sash is like the rest of the defense, good at one or two things. One of them is just being in the right place at the right time. (See interception during Indiana game.)
with the Exits of Juice from Illinois and Clark from PSU... it will be an interesting season. Im just hoping the G Rob can get all the ducks in a row and we can stop the bigger plays
One problem with our defense last year was the fact that we would give up the big play. We seemed to do okay, but get worn down. With the improved depth in the secondary, is it unrealistic that we could eliminate one touchdown a game? If we did that, we would be giving up just over 20 points a game and be in the top half of the conference. If we still score 30 a game, we would be in pretty good shape. Any thoughts?
Exactly what I was thinking
I sure hope we can improve on defense as you said. The last two years have really been hard on a fan.
I expect us to improve those numbers on offense, but defense is still really iffy. Definitely won't have problems moving the ball against Indiana. I can't even name a player on their defense to begin with.
defense.
The best defensive team in the Big Ten ends up with the conference championship hardware. Two ingredients are really important:
1. leading rushing defense and
2. leading scoring defense.
Interestingly, having the best pass defense in the league doesn't correlate with winning a Big Ten title quite as strongly as rushing defense and scoring defense do.
OSU and PSU are not just doing things right on defense. They are doing the right things (stop the run and keep opponents out of the end zone).
Big Ten Champions & Defensive Performance |
|||||||
Year |
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
2006 |
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
Conference Champ |
UM |
Iowa, UM |
OSU, PSU |
OSU |
OSU |
OSU, PSU |
OSU |
Best Scoring Defense |
UM |
UW |
OSU |
OSU |
OSU |
PSU |
PSU |
Best Rushing Defense |
OSU |
Iowa |
OSU |
UM |
OSU |
PSU |
OSU |
Best Passing Defense |
PSU |
UW |
OSU |
UW |
OSU |
OSU |
Iowa |
throughout entire CFB landscape. A couple weeks ago, I'd pulled AP Top 25 from last year (Final Poll) and looked at how they finished in several respective statistical categories as a collective group. No surprise which categories where the average was highest. 7 of the first 8 were defensive categories, and 8 of the first 10.
For fun, take a look what Alabama did in these same categories. And for not so fun, have a look at Michigan's.
NCAA "AP Top 25" Year End 2009 Ave. Rank |
Alabama's 2009 Rank |
Michigan's 2009 Rank |
|
Scoring Defense |
20.72 |
2 |
77 |
Total Defense |
22.96 |
2 |
82 |
Rushing Defense |
30.4 |
2 |
91 |
Scoring Offense |
30.8 |
22 |
41 |
Pass Defense |
32.2 |
10 |
67 |
3rd Down Conv. % Defense |
32.24 |
6 |
40 |
Sacks |
33.52 |
40 |
68 |
Red Zone TD Defense |
33.76 |
2 |
50 |
Tackles for Loss |
34.92 |
20 |
20 |
Red Zone Efficiency |
35.4 |
29 |
116 |
Turnover Margin |
37.68 |
4 |
115 |
Red Zone Defense |
39.24 |
2 |
98 |
NCAA Rushing Offense Rank |
41.72 |
12 |
25 |
Total Offense |
43.36 |
42 |
59 |
3rd Down Conv. % |
43.56 |
62 |
60 |
Red Zone TD Efficiency |
45.58 |
108 |
37 |
Sacks Allowed |
44.44 |
36 |
83 |
Tackles for Loss Allowed |
49.96 |
24 |
114 |
NCAA Passing Offense Rank |
60.16 |
92 |
81 |
throughout entire CFB landscape. A couple weeks ago, I'd pulled AP Top 25 from last year (Final Poll) and looked at how they finished in several respective statistical categories as a collective group. No surprise which categories where the average was highest. 7 of the first 8 were defensive categories, and 8 of the first 10.
For fun, take a look what Alabama did in these same categories. And for not so fun, have a look at Michigan's.
NCAA "AP Top 25" Year End 2009 Ave. Rank |
Alabama's 2009 Rank |
Michigan's 2009 Rank |
|
Scoring Defense |
20.72 |
2 |
77 |
Total Defense |
22.96 |
2 |
82 |
Rushing Defense |
30.4 |
2 |
91 |
Scoring Offense |
30.8 |
22 |
41 |
Pass Defense |
32.2 |
10 |
67 |
3rd Down Conv. % Defense |
32.24 |
6 |
40 |
Sacks |
33.52 |
40 |
68 |
Red Zone TD Defense |
33.76 |
2 |
50 |
Tackles for Loss |
34.92 |
20 |
20 |
Red Zone Efficiency |
35.4 |
29 |
116 |
Turnover Margin |
37.68 |
4 |
115 |
Red Zone Defense |
39.24 |
2 |
98 |
NCAA Rushing Offense Rank |
41.72 |
12 |
25 |
Total Offense |
43.36 |
42 |
59 |
3rd Down Conv. % |
43.56 |
62 |
60 |
Red Zone TD Efficiency |
45.58 |
108 |
37 |
Sacks Allowed |
44.44 |
36 |
83 |
Tackles for Loss Allowed |
49.96 |
24 |
114 |
NCAA Passing Offense Rank |
60.16 |
92 |
81 |
EDIT: Crap. Can't figure out how to fix the table. Apologies.
I didn't thank you for posting youranalysis of both B10 offenses and defenses. Very good stuff.
As for Alabama defense vs. Michigan defense performance in 2009, holy Christ, the GERG has major work to do without B. Graham, S. Brown and w/o Donovan Warren covering 1/3 of the real estate in the defensive backfield. Double crap!!!!!
Good stuff, l agrre withwhat Bixler said above about the D (3ed and long). I'm also of the camp of runball/stop run=win. This could be a heck of a year for the runball part. Come on GREG.
I was watching NFL Total Access on friday and Mike Lombardi commenting on how Bill Parcells looks at O as you need to get to at least 50(rushes+comp) per game to go deep in the playoffs. Alright I'm rambling its 6am on Sunday and I only have 1 up of coffee. but I thought it was an interesting way to look at O.
Comments