FEI / S&P+ For Big 10 and Selected Others - Week 10
I apologize in advance as this thread does not speculate on Peppers' probability to be AD next year.
I tend to lean to FEI over S&P+, as I think the FEI strength of schedule adjustments in particular are more pertinent but I like both over the basic NCAA stats which adjust for nothing. FEI also just seems to work with the eye test more often than not the past few years I have followed these stats.
That said, I find both superior to NCAA stats which judge total offense and total defense on nothing more than yards gained or given up and don't adjust for SOS in any way.
NCAA Stats for comparison:
- Total Offense: 87 (up from 98, thank you Scarlet Knights) - 372.9 yds/game
- Total Defense: 2 (steady with last week) - 240.0 yds/game
Notes
- UM FEI defense fell off a few spots to #5 from #2 while the offense jumped from #58 to #41.
- UM's main weakness on defense on FEI is # of drives given up of 10+ plays which is just over 10% - about 30th in the country. Clemson is at 3% (damn) and Alabama 7% for comparison.
- UM FEI "special teams efficiency" fell from #1 to #5 (damn you Grant), and "field position advantage" fell from #19 to #30. I do think all the fair catches might have dinged us on the latter this week.
- The 2 teams most similar to UM in advanced stats are Florida and (drumroll) Utah. Both with 1 losses as we should be. Hat tip to McElwain who looks like a great hire as well.
| dFEI | dS&P+ | oFEI | oS&P+ | ||
| UM | 5 | 1 | 41 | 43 | |
| OSU | 12 | 9 | 28 | 17 | |
| MSU | 42 | 45 | 13 | 28 | |
| NWestern | 9 | 6 | 88 | 107 | |
| PSU | 13 | 16 | 77 | 62 | |
| Minnesota | 26 | 26 | 93 | 89 | |
| Maryland | 71 | 40 | 84 | 96 | |
| Indiana | 99 | 110 | 29 | 21 | |
| Rutgers | 114 | 117 | 67 | 88 | |
| Nebraska | 83 | 69 | 22 | 36 | |
| Wisconsin | 14 | 7 | 64 | 76 | |
| Iowa | 24 | 13 | 37 | 44 | |
| Purdue | 95 | 77 | 79 | 102 | |
| Illinois | 43 | 10 | 66 | 94 | |
| Utah | 10 | 19 | 47 | 42 | |
| BYU | 53 | 44 | 32 | 32 | |
| Oregon St | 84 | 100 | 109 | 109 | |
| UNLV | 108 | 98 | 87 | 100 | |
| ND | 30 | 38 | 4 | 6 | |
| Bama | 1 | 2 | 30 | 35 | |
| Clemson | 6 | 4 | 18 | 7 | |
| OK Staee | 18 | 42 | 39 | 16 | |
| Stanford | 51 | 41 | 5 | 14 | |
| LSU | 28 | 33 | 9 | 12 | |
| TCU | 75 | 70 | 10 | 3 | |
| Baylor | 59 | 79 | 3 | 1 | |
| Oklahoma | 2 | 20 | 17 | 11 | |
| Arizona | 103 | 114 | 21 | 33 | |
| Oregon | 90 | 96 | 20 | 18 | |
| Florida | 11 | 5 | 48 | 46 |
If you are curious how UM graded last year (sorry to bring back the ennui) its was 70s to 90s on offense and 30s to 40s on defense, depending which measure you used.
November 10th, 2015 at 9:28 AM ^
Definitions:
The Fremeau Efficiency Index (FEI) considers each of the nearly 20,000 possessions every season in major college football. All drives are filtered to eliminate first-half clock-kills and end-of-game garbage drives and scores. A scoring rate analysis of the remaining possessions then determines the baseline possession efficiency expectations against which each team is measured. A team is rewarded for playing well against good teams, win or lose, and is punished more severely for playing poorly against bad teams than it is rewarded for playing well against bad teams.
The S&P+ Ratings are a college football ratings system derived from both play-by-play and drive data from all 800+ of a season's FBS college football games (and 140,000+ plays).
The components for S&P+ reflect the components of four of what Bill Connelly has deemed the Five Factors of college football: efficiency), explosiveness, field position, and finishing drives. (A fifth factor, turnovers, is informed marginally by sack rates, the only quality-based statistic that has a consistent relationship with turnover margins.)
November 10th, 2015 at 12:02 PM ^
Great stuff. I'd like to see Special Teams defined, and given equal time to O & D, and more time than NCAA stats. That phase of the game is equally important, and has been a marked advantage in most games. It will need to be that way over the next three games as well, if UM is going to play Iowa in December. Thanks.
November 10th, 2015 at 9:36 AM ^
November 10th, 2015 at 9:49 AM ^
Whittingham was my non harbaugh choice (if you couldn't go get a Patterson type - which seemed the case) I didn't feel we had enough data on McElwain as he had a short tenure at Colo State. But their AD - which received a lot of hell for the choice - must be loving it.
http://mgoblog.com/diaries/cc-evaluating-kyle-whittingham-plan-b-option
My only hesitency is the Brady Hoke first year of success at UM rule. Let's see what he does in years 2 and 3. That said considering he lost his QB and they wallopped GA and Ole Miss and lost a close one on the road to LSU with a backup QB I don't think its a Hoke parallel.
Very good chance to go 10-2 this year with 2 easy games before hosting FSU. 11-1 could be probable. You do need some good fortune as well - barely got by Vandy and TN.
November 10th, 2015 at 10:03 AM ^
McElwain scares me in a Brian Kelly kind of way. He knows how to coach, but his methods are a bit old school.
Oops - that was Will Muschamp. Never mind, but McElwain still explodes on players.
November 10th, 2015 at 10:26 AM ^
I think what would usually scare Florida fans more, however, at least with regard to Muschamp, is the prospect of another game where you would get a field goal on the opening drive and then watch Will try to run the clock for the next 55 minutes of regulation play because they might never be that close again.
November 10th, 2015 at 9:53 AM ^
Let's not get too bold here. We have 2 losses. We should have 2 losses. Just to different teams.
November 10th, 2015 at 11:59 AM ^
The 2nd loss had everything to do with not catching a snap, not falling on the ball, not running around instead of trying to punt, having officials not making a call, and not having the universe turn all of that into the 0.00001% outcome that happened. The 6th win had everything to do with UM and MN trading plays, mistakes and luck until a goal line stand was dominated by UM D. Those two games are not close as tradeoffs.
November 10th, 2015 at 10:01 AM ^
Oklahoma has the lowest combined Off and Def rating. They have been off the radar since they laid an egg against Texas but based on the stats they may be the team to back in the Big 12 coming down the stretch.
November 10th, 2015 at 10:31 AM ^
I think Clemson is #1 combined but OK is #2.
Yes if they did not have that loss I could see them ahead of Clemson in the rankings or at least @ #2. They look like OSU mid year last year but have that wacky rivalry loss - they've been destroying teams. And any B12 team with a top 20 D makes you go huh.
With games vs Baylor, TCU, Ok State ahead and their blue blood status I think they'd be the one 1 loss B12 team with a real chance to get in. Baylor SOS is so horrid 1 loss and they are out IMO. At least OK played TN. But 2 of those 3 remaining games are on the road for Oklahoma so very tough task - if they win out I think you have to put them in playoffs.
Also what they did to KSU was interesting in a transative way - OK State beat KSU by 2, TCU beat them by 7, Baylor by 7. Oklahoma beat them by 55.
Ok- Baylor is the big game of the week.
November 10th, 2015 at 10:44 AM ^
Baylor's schedule has been soft but the next four games are:
vs Oklahoma
@ Oklahoma St
@ TCU
vs Texas
They didn't do themselves any favors with SMU, Lamar and Rice to open the season. The Big 12 might be about to bludgeon themselves to death right here and no one will get into the playoff.
November 10th, 2015 at 11:10 AM ^
November 10th, 2015 at 11:01 AM ^
Good points Alum96.
Oklahoma is getting points vs Baylor and their backup qb. I'm not saying lock or anything like that, but I really like the setup here for Oklahoma. I'm wagering on the Sooners.
November 10th, 2015 at 11:03 AM ^
What caught my attention is that IU's statistical profile on offense is very similar to OSU and PSU's defensive profile is very close to OSU. We should actually learn a lot over the next two weeks about what The Game will look like.