May 18, 2013

Final 2012 Offensive Efficiency Rankings for College Football

Sonny-Dykes

Below are our final offensive efficiency ratings for Division I College Football. Clemson ended up ninth and if you look at the teams above them it’s really hard to argue, with perhaps one exception (more on that in a minute).

The rankings are pretty self-explanatory and consist of two equally weighted factors. First, the number of plays run (tempo). The adjusted tempo is how your team compares to the “average” team. For example, Clemson’s adjusted tempo is 114.33. This means when the average team runs 100 plays Clemson runs 114.33. Another way to look at it is Clemson’s tempo is 114.33% of the average team.

The second factor is efficiency and equates to yards per play. Similarly to adjusted tempo, adjusted efficiency is how your team compares to the “average” team. In this ranking Clemson averages 109.60% of the average team in terms of yards per play.


eTempo 2012 Final2

We mentioned above that one team above Clemson is questionable and that team is Marshall. Marshall was first in adjusted tempo and 45th in efficiency, but that was good enough for the overall number 5 ranking. The disparity between those rankings makes me consider the possibility that some adjustment is needed.

I think we all know that the ACC is not currently a premier conference, but you have to wonder if strength of schedule was factored into this equation would Marshall, as a Conference USA member, fall and/or Clemson rise?

We are endeavoring to fix this issue in time for the 2013 season by incorporating strength of schedule into the algorithm.

That said, the current state of the ACC is not one that is going to generally improve a teams strength of schedule ratings no matter what metric you are measuring (offense, defense or special teams), so it remains to be seen if adding a strength of schedule component will help or hurt Clemson in this case.

Looking at the larger picture however, adding a strength of schedule will allow us to move towards a more level playing field, similar to what we have done with the tempo and efficiency rankings.

Clemson and the Big 12

big12_logo

Living in Austin for the last 20 years or so, I’ve learned a thing or two about big time college football, the power brokers and teams that make up the “Joneses”. I’ve learned that Clemson is not one of them, no matter how much some fans want it to be. I’m not saying Clemson can’t be one of them, I’m saying currently Clemson isn’t one of them. That ended sometime around 1990.

It’s true I’ve been half a country removed from the details of what happens at the ACC offices and the slights (both perceived and real) that Clemson fans feel. But I’ve been much closer to what has happened in the Big 12 Conference, and living in Austin and having a large number of acquaintances with University of Texas degrees, the Longhorns in particular.

I’ve watched Nebraska, Colorado, Texas A&M and Missouri leave the Big 12. Two of those teams probably did so for mostly financial reasons (Colorado and Missouri). The other two – very large, well established nationally recognized football programs were making plenty in the Big 12, but were overshadowed in a variety of ways by Texas (money, power and influence among those) and eventually found the situation untenable.

All that said, in some ways I understand the desire of some to get away from the ACC for a variety of reasons and agree with some of them. But I’m here to tell you that if you think trading the influence of North Carolina in the ACC for the power and influence of Texas (and Oklahoma for that matter) in the Big 12 is going to be a net “win” for Clemson, you are wrong. Dead wrong. Texas’ power and influence runs circles around UNC and makes the Tar Heels look like a proverbial “Mom and Pop” operation.

Four of 12 teams leave the Big 12, including Texas’ arch-rival of over 100 years. Two more (Oklahoma and Oklahoma State) would have left if they had a landing spot.   Even Oklahoma was not wanted by the PAC 12 without Texas.  The defectors are replaced by a small private school that has played in a weak conference and a team desperate to get out of a dying conference. The other 9 teams are cash poor and desperate enough to stay to feed off of the Texas brand, no matter what that means on the field (long-term). This is the conference that Clemson should join?

Ah yes, there would be more money. Many conveniently forget there would also be more travel which cost. Baseball and women’s basketball in Lubbock, Texas and Manhattan, Kansas. Basketball games in Stillwater, Oklahoma. Can’t wait for that road trip. For every Duke in the ACC there is an Iowa State in the Big 12. The Big 12 sees your Maryland Terrapins football and raises you with the Kansas Jayhawks football.

Just today there’s a piece in the Austin American-Statesman by Kirk Bohls (Texas graduate by the way) asking if the new Big 12 commissioner (who by the way called Texas the 800 pound gorilla of college athletics that can’t be ignored) was a “Texas man”.  A companion piece from Randy Riggs includes this quote from the new Commish: “They’re a big, muscular program and a big, muscular university, and we’re always going to have to make sure that we’re listening to that which they believe.”  Perhaps you favor this one:  ”I have been very impressed with their magnanimity in  terms of thinking of our league going forward.”  He might as well have said, Thank you, Texas for gracing our conference and allowing it to survive.  As hard as these guys try, you can’t read this without thinking “The Texas and Everyone Else Conference” or “Texas and the 9 Dwarfs”.  You can see where this is going.  Texas wanted 10 teams in the Big 12 (no chance of losing that pesky conference championship game this way).  Oklahoma wanted 12.  Guess who won that argument?

If Clemson ends up in the Big 12, which I don’t believe will happen, that’s great news for me personally – I’ll get to see the Tigers in person more often.  But – if you think it’s going to be the end of being in a conference dominated by one or two “800 pound gorillas” you’re mistaken.  Sure, the Big 12 didn’t hire a Texas grad to run the Big 12, but you can bet they hired someone who will “always listen to that which they (Texas) believe”.

Do Yards Matter?

Over the last few years I’ve noticed multiple web sites, blogs, and other publications state their case as to why total yards gained don’t matter. The usual argument goes something like this: “It doesn’t matter how you score, as long as you score. A team doesn’t get any yards for scoring on defense or special teams, so yards aren’t important – scoring is”.

While that statement is true, at least to a point, the real answer is of course yards matter. Gaining yards does not guarantee points, but it sure increases the odds of scoring. Sure teams score in all kinds of ways every year, some of them not involving offense. But the vast majority of the time touchdowns are scored by offenses and the way offenses score is by gaining yards. It may be a few yards or it may be a lot of yards, but the offense has to gain yards in the large majority of cases for the team to score.

Just because it’s not a one-to-one relationship or a relationship that can be easily defined (i.e. 400 yards = 30 points, for example), doesn’t mean that yards aren’t important.

If you need further evidence that yards matter, the chart below will help clarify the relationship between yards gained (total offense) and scoring. 8 of the top 11 scoring teams are in the top 10 in total offense (total yards gained) and 9 of the top 10 in total offense are in the top 13 in scoring. That’s not a coincidence.

Team Total Offense Scoring Offense
Houston 1 1
Baylor 2 6
Oklahoma State 3 2
Oklahoma 4 10
Nevada 5 31
Oregon 6 3
Texas A&M 7 11
Toledo 8 8
Boise State 9 7
Northern Illinois 10 13

 

There are absolutely outliers and exceptions to this rule, but that doesn’t mean that yards don’t matter statistically speaking. Naysayers can point to a game or perhaps even a team, such as LSU, where yards really don’t matter, but those are few and far in between.

Still not convinced? Even with all of their defense and Tyrann Mathieu seemingly returning a fumble or punt every week LSU still scored 86% of their touchdowns on offense and all of those involved gaining some number of yards. For all of the talk about Oklahoma State’s “opportunistic” defense, 93% of their touchdowns were scored on offense. 94% of Clemson’s touchdowns were scored on offense.

The point is that in the vast majority of cases (90%+) touchdowns are scored by the offense and the only way for an offense to score a touchdown is to gain yards.

Yes, yards matter.

Week 13 Picks

A 4-3 week in week 12 means we are clicking along at a 37-36 on the year and 8-4 picks of the week.  Maybe you noticed no pick in the Clemson – South Carolina game.  There’s a reason for that.  My analysis (more on that tomorrow), done without the benefit of the spread, came out exactly the same as the spread, therefore we went with the over/under for the game.

The Georgia – Georgia Tech game is an interesting one to me, as is the Clemson – South Carolina game for obvious reasons – Clemson and Georgia have championship games next week, while their rivals don’t.

Favorite Dog Spread O/U
South Carolina (H) Clemson (A) 4 50
Texas A&M (H) Texas (A)
-7.5 53.5
LSU (H) Arkansas (A)
+12 52
Georgia (A) Georgia Tech (H)
+6 54.5
Wisconsin (H) Penn State (A)
-14.5 49
Alabama (A)
Auburn (H)
+21 47
Florida State (A)
Florida (H)
+2.5 45
Virginia Tech (A)
Virginia (H)
+5 67

Pick of the week: Take the Over 52 in the LSU – Arkansas game.

Week 10 Picks

The Luck of Stanford having to go for two (and making it) moves my overall record to 27-27 on the season, but still rocking 7-2 on picks of the week.  I’m out on a limb this week with the over in the Alabama-LSU game, but you know the old saying – when everyone is going one way (the under), go the other.

Point spread winners are bolded. Entertainment purposes only.

Favorite Dog Spread O/U
Arkansas (H) South Carolina (A) -5 52.5
Oklahoma St. (H) Kansas State (A) +21 68
Oklahoma (H) Texas A&M +13.5 68.5
Oregon (A) Washington (H) +16.5 74
Alabama (H) LSU (A) +5 42

Pick of the week: Take the Over 42 in the Alabama-LSU game.

Week 7 Picks

Another not so great week leaves my season record at 21-19 (52.5%). On the bright side, my picks of the week are now sitting at 5-1 (83.3%) after unbelievably hitting the over in the Nebraska-Ohio State last game.

This week’s pick of the week may be just as challenging as I take the over 49 in Blacksburg, but remember this – every score counts, not just offensive scores.

Point spread winners are bolded. Entertainment purposes only.

Favorite Dog Spread O/U
Clemson (A) Maryland (H) +8.5 54
Oklahoma St. (A) Texas (H) -8 64.5
Virgina Tech (H) Wake Forest (A) +7 49
Michigan State (H) Michigan (A) +1 48.5
Texas A&M (H) Baylor (A) +9.5 75

Pick of the week: Take the Over 49 in the Wake Forest vs. Virginia Tech game.

Week 5 Picks

I’m noting a trend and it’s not a good one – mediocrity.  I went 3-3 last week to bring my overall record to a pedestrian 15-13 (53.71%), but did hit my pick of the week to move to 3-1 (75.00%) on picks of the week for the year. 

This week we’re taking the Tigers against the spread, but will we pick them to win outright?  You’ll have to come back tomorrow when we post our game analysis and prediction to find out.

Point spread winners bolded. Entertainment purposes only, please don’t bet the mortgage.

Favorite Dog Spread O/U
Virginia Tech (H) Clemson (A) +7 50
Alabama (A) Florida (H) +3.5 44.5
Texas A&M (N) Arkansas(N) +3 62.5
Wisconsin (H) Nebraska (A) +9 56.5
South Carolina (H) Auburn (A) +10 59.5

Pick of the week: Take the Over 44.5 in  the Alabama vs. Florida game.

Week 4 Picks

Not a great week, but thats what I get for picking against the Tigers.  Lets hope this weeks turns out similarly on both accounts.  I’ll gladly sacrifice my record for another Tiger win.

We went a horrible 1-6 in week 3, losing our pick of the week for the first time in the process.. That puts our season mark at 12-10 (54.55%) and 2-1 (66.67%) on picks of the week.

Here are our picks for week 4.

Point spread winners bolded. Entertainment purposes only, please don’t bet the mortgage.

Favorite Dog Spread O/U
Clemson (H) Florida State (A) +2   50.5 
Alabama (H) Arkansas (A) +12.5   50.5 
South Carolina (H) Vanderbilt (A) -16   52.5 
Texas A&M (H) Oklahoma State (A) +4   69 
LSU (A)  West Virginia (H) +6  50

Pick of the week: Take the Over 50.5 in Arkansas vs. Alabama

CWS Day 4 Thoughts (the rest of the story)

The flights back to Texas have been full the last two days as both the Longhorns and Aggies waved goodbye shortly after saying hello.  Let’s ponder this for a moment:  The Aggies led the defending national champions 4-0 before they ever took the field to play defense in their opening game, but quickly unraveled and lost in the 9th, before kicking and throwing the ball around the park in an elimination game loss to Cal.  Wow.  From a very high high, to a very low low in 17 and 1/2 innings.  Ouch.

Not to be outdone, Virginia, the team that came in ranked 5th in fielding, resembled the Bad News Bears at times during their 7-1 loss to South Carolina.  On top of that the Cavs batters flailed away and, with one notable exception, didn’t accomplish much at all against South Carolina.  I warned a few days ago, even after their first round victory, that Virginia looks listless at the plate, not at all like the 27th ranked batting average in the nation.  Is the opponent pitching?  Is it Omaha?  Is it the stress of being top seed?  Who knows, but what I do know is that they need to turn it around and quickly or they will be labeled a huge disappointment.

Baseball is a funny game.  A bad hop error with two outs can turn into a 3 run first inning, so it’s not totally absurd to think Virginia has something left and that a victory in an elimination game with some solid at bats could turn them around.  Hope springs eternal in a game where the clock never runs out and you always have a chance as Virginia proved in the Super, but the problem is they didn’t look like they had a chance last night and they swung like they knew it.

CWS Day 2 Thoughts

Speaking as someone who thinks Virginia has the talent to win the CWS I have to admit I am a tad surprised at the lack of offensive output over the last 3 games, 2 against Cal-Irvine in the Super and in their opener in Omaha against Cal.  Just not impressive at all.  And lets face it, they weren’t facing Taylor Jungmann or Michael Roth.  Something to keep an eye on going forward.  Can the Cavs ride pitching and defense against the defending champions who thrive on pitching, defense and clutch hitting?  Should be an interesting game. 

South Carolina’s bullpen was lights out while A&M’s bullpen got lit up.  I had the feeling that once Stripling was removed the game would soon be over and I was more correct than I could have imagined.  Prior to the start of the CWS I mentioned that Florida and Texas A&M were on the verge of being contenders if their defense improved slightly.  Well, guess what?  The Gators won despite giving up 3 unearned runs on back to back boots while A&M was not so lucky as Andrew Collazo airmailed one from second base in Omaha to College Station and Stripling balked a run home.

Here’s an interesting note – everyone, including myself, has been talking about pitching and defense being the difference makers and while that may be true, each of the four winners have better batting and slugging rankings than the teams they beat.  Interesting.