Now that the season's over, it's time to review and rank.
The Matrix offers us rankings based on three basic ideas-efficiency, performance, and win/loss record. Efficiency is based on yards per play. the efficiency ratings presented here are adjusted for the strength of a team's competition and weighted appropriately. Performance is a team's capacity to score or prevent the scoring of points. Finally, the Elo rating is based exclusively on the win/loss record of a team and of its opponents. I use a hybrid rating that combines these three to rank all 120 D-IA college football teams.
Florida comes in at #1. USC, Oklahoma, Texas and Penn State fill out the top 5. Utah and TCU then represent the MWC at 6 and 7 despite having weak schedules (71 and 55, respectively).
Oklahoma scores the nation's best offense (with Florida coming in second) and USC the nation's best defense (TCU at number 2). Oklahoma had the best passing offense and Oregon the most effective run offense (just ask Oklahoma State about that offense).
Oklahoma also had the toughest schedule (playing in the Big 12 and national championship games bulked a schedule that already included the rest of the Big 12 South, TCU and the Big East champ). Washington had the second toughest schedule, but navigated it less well than OU.
The Apple Cup was everythign we thought it would be, including the two worst BCS conference teams in the country. Despite winning the game, Washington State still managed to wrestle the title of worst BCS conference team from Washington.
But is was a team in Texas that wrote the book on futility. North Texas had the nation's worst defense (again) and a really bad offense measured both in terms of scoring and efficiency.
BPR | A system for ranking teams based only one wins and losses and strength of schedule. See BPR for an explanation. |
EPA (Expected Points Added) | Expected points are the points a team can "expect" to score based on the distance to the end zone and down and distance needed for a first down, with an adjustment for the amount of time remaining in some situations. Expected points for every situation is estimated using seven years of historical data. The expected points considers both the average points the offense scores in each scenario and the average number of points the other team scores on their ensuing possession. The Expected Points Added is the change in expected points before and after a play. |
EP3 (Effective Points Per Possession) | Effective Points Per Possession is based on the same logic as the EPA, except it focuses on the expected points added at the beginning and end of an offensive drive. In other words, the EP3 for a single drive is equal to the sum of the expected points added for every offensive play in a drive (EP3 does not include punts and field goal attempts). We can also think of the EP3 as points scored+expected points from a field goal+the value of field position change on the opponent's next possession. |
Adjusted for Competition | We attempt to adjust some statistics to compensate for differences in strength of schedule. While the exact approach varies some from stat to stat the basic concept is the same. We use an algorithm to estimate scores for all teams on both sides of the ball (e.g., offense and defense) that best predict real results. For example, we give every team an offensive and defensive yards per carry score. Subtracting the offensive score from the defensive score for two opposing teams will estimate the yards per carry if the two teams were to play. Generally, the defensive scores average to zero while offensive scores average to the national average, e.g., yards per carry, so we call the offensive score "adjusted for competition" and roughly reflects what the team would do against average competition |
Impact | see Adjusted for Competition. Impact scores are generally used to evaluate defenses. The value roughly reflects how much better or worse a team can expect to do against this opponent than against the average opponent. |
[-] About this table
Includes the
top 180 QBs by total plays
Total <=0 | Percent of plays that are negative or no gain |
Total >=10 | Percent of plays that gain 10 or more yards |
Total >=25 | Percent of plays that gain 25 or more yards |
10 to 0 | Ratio of Total >=10 to Total <=0 |
Includes the
top 240 RBs by total plays
Total <=0 | Percent of plays that are negative or no gain |
Total >=10 | Percent of plays that gain 10 or more yards |
Total >=25 | Percent of plays that gain 25 or more yards |
10 to 0 | Ratio of Total >=10 to Total <=0 |
Includes the
top 300 Receivers by total plays
Total <=0 | Percent of plays that are negative or no gain |
Total >=10 | Percent of plays that gain 10 or more yards |
Total >=25 | Percent of plays that gain 25 or more yards |
10 to 0 | Ratio of Total >=10 to Total <=0 |
Includes
the
top 180 players by pass attempts)
3rdLComp% |
Completion % on 3rd and long (7+
yards) |
SitComp% |
Standardized completion % for
down and distance. Completion % by down and distance are weighted by
the national average of pass plays by down and distance. |
Pass <=0 | Percent of pass plays that are negative or no gain |
Pass >=10 | Percent of pass plays that gain 10 or more yards |
Pass >=25 | Percent of pass plays that gain 25 or more yards |
10 to 0 | Ratio of Pass >=10 to Pass<=0 |
%Sacks |
Ratio of sacks to pass plays |
Bad INTs |
Interceptions on 1st or 2nd down
early before the last minute of the half |
Includes the top 240 players by carries
YPC1stD |
Yards per carry on 1st down |
CPCs |
Conversions (1st down/TD) per
carry in short yardage situations - the team 3 or fewer yards for a 1st
down or touchdown |
%Team Run |
Player's carries as a percent of team's carries |
%Team RunS |
Player's carries as a percent of team's carries in short
yardage situations |
Run <=0 |
Percent of running plays that
are negative or no gain |
Run >=10 |
Percent of running plays that
gain 10 or more yards |
Run >=25 | Percent of running plays that gain 25 or more yards |
10 to 0 | Ratio of Run >=10 to Run <=0 |
Includes the top 300 players by targets
Conv/T 3rd | Conversions per target on 3rd Downs |
Conv/T PZ | Touchdowns per target inside the 10 yardline |
%Team PZ | Percent of team's targets inside the 10 yardline |
Rec <=0 | Percent of targets that go for negative yards or no net gain |
Rec >=10 | Percent of targets that go for 10+ yards |
Rec >=25 | Percent of targets that go for 25+ yards |
10 to 0 | Ratio of Rec>=0 to Rec<=0 |
Includes the top 300 players by targets
xxxx | xxxx |
...
Includes players with a significant number of attempts
NEPA | "Net Expected Points Added": (expected points after play - expected points before play)-(opponent's expected points after play - opponent's expected points before play). Uses the expected points for the current possession and the opponent's next possession based on down, distance and spot |
NEPA/PP | Average NEPA per play |
Max/Min | Single game high and low |
Includes players with a significant number of attempts
NEPA | "Net Expected Points Added": (expected points after play - expected points before play)-(opponent's expected points after play - opponent's expected points before play). Uses the expected points for the current possession and the opponent's next possession based on down, distance and spot |
NEPA/PP | Average NEPA per play |
Max/Min | Single game high and low |
Adjusted | Reports the per game EPA adjusted for the strength of schedule. |
Defensive Possession Stats
Points/Poss | Offensive points per possession |
EP3 | Effective Points per Possession |
EP3+ | Effective Points per Possession impact |
Plays/Poss | Plays per possession |
Yards/Poss | Yards per possession |
Start Spot | Average starting field position |
Time of Poss | Average time of possession (in seconds) |
TD/Poss | Touchdowns per possession |
TO/Poss | Turnovers per possession |
FGA/Poss | Attempted field goals per possession |
%RZ | Red zone trips per possession |
Points/RZ | Average points per red zone trip. Field Goals are included using expected points, not actual points. |
TD/RZ | Touchdowns per red zone trip |
FGA/RZ | Field goal attempt per red zone trip |
Downs/RZ | Turnover on downs per red zone trip |
Defensive Play-by-Play Stats
EPA/Pass | Expected Points Added per pass attempt |
EPA/Rush | Expected Points Added per rush attempt |
EPA/Pass+ | Expected Points Added per pass attempt impact |
EPA/Rush+ | Expected Points Added per rush attempt impact |
Yards/Pass | Yards per pass |
Yards/Rush | Yards per rush |
Yards/Pass+ | Yards per pass impact |
Yards/Rush+ | Yards per rush impact |
Exp/Pass | Explosive plays (25+ yards) per pass |
Exp/Rush | Explosive plays (25+ yards) per rush |
Exp/Pass+ | Explosive plays (25+ yards) per pass impact |
Exp/Rush+ | Explosive plays (25+ yards) per rush impact |
Comp% | Completion percentage |
Comp%+ | Completion percentage impact |
Yards/Comp | Yards per completion |
Sack/Pass | Sacks per pass |
Sack/Pass+ | Sacks per pass impact |
Sack/Pass* | Sacks per pass on passing downs |
INT/Pass | Interceptions per pass |
Neg/Rush | Negative plays (<=0) per rush |
Neg/Run+ | Negative plays (<=0) per rush impact |
Run Short | % Runs in short yardage situations |
Convert% | 3rd/4th down conversions |
Conv%* | 3rd/4th down conversions versus average by distance |
Conv%+ | 3rd/4th down conversions versus average by distance impact |
Offensive Play-by-Play Stats
Plays | Number of offensive plays |
%Pass | Percent pass plays |
EPA/Pass | Expected Points Added per pass attempt |
EPA/Rush | Expected Points Added per rush attempt |
EPA/Pass+ | Expected Points Added per pass attempt adjusted for competition |
EPA/Rush+ | Expected Points Added per rush attempt adjusted for competition |
Yards/Pass | Yards per pass |
Yards/Rush | Yards per rush |
Yards/Pass+ | Yards per pass adjusted for competition |
Yards/Rush+ | Yards per rush adjusted for competition |
Exp Pass | Explosive plays (25+ yards) per pass |
Exp Run | Explosive plays (25+ yards) per rush |
Exp Pass+ | Explosive plays (25+ yards) per pass adjusted for competition |
Exp Run+ | Explosive plays (25+ yards) per rush adjusted for competition |
Comp% | Completion percentage |
Comp%+ | Completion percentage adjusted for competition |
Sack/Pass | Sacks per pass |
Sack/Pass+ | Sacks per pass adjusted for competition |
Sack/Pass* | Sacks per pass on passing downs |
Int/Pass | Interceptions per pass |
Neg/Run | Negative plays (<=0) per rush |
Neg/Run+ | Negative plays (<=0) per rush adjusted for competition |
Run Short | % Runs in short yardage situations |
Convert% | 3rd/4th down conversions |
Conv%* | 3rd/4th down conversions versus average by distance |
Conv%+ | 3rd/4th down conversions versus average by distance adjusted for competition |
Offensive Possession Stats
Points/Poss | Offensive points per possession |
EP3 | Effective Points per Possession |
EP3+ | Effective Points per Possession adjusted for competition |
Plays/Poss | Plays per possession |
Yards/Poss | Yards per possession |
Start Spot | Average starting field position |
Time of Poss | Average time of possession (in seconds) |
TD/Poss | Touchdowns per possession |
TO/Poss | Turnovers per possession |
FGA/Poss | Attempted field goals per possession |
Poss/Game | Possessions per game |
%RZ | Red zone trips per possession |
Points/RZ | Average points per red zone trip. Field Goals are included using expected points, not actual points. |
TD/RZ | Touchdowns per red zone trip |
FGA/RZ | Field goal attempt per red zone trip |
Downs/RZ | Turnover on downs per red zone trip |
PPP | Points per Possession |
aPPP | Points per Possession allowed |
PPE | Points per Exchange (PPP-aPPP) |
EP3+ | Expected Points per Possession |
aEP3+ | Expected Points per Possession allowed |
EP2E+ | Expected Points per Exchange |
EPA/Pass+ | Expected Points Added per Pass |
EPA/Rush+ | Expected Points Added per Rush |
aEPA/Pass+ | Expected Points Allowed per Pass |
aEPA/Rush+ | Expected Points Allowed per Rush |
Exp/Pass | Explosive Plays per Pass |
Exp/Rush | Explosive Plays per Rush |
aExp/Pass | Explosive Plays per Pass allowed |
aExp/Rush | Explosive Plays per Rush allowed |
BPR | A method for ranking conferences based only on their wins and losses and the strength of schedule. See BPR for an explanation. |
Power | A composite measure that is the best predictor of future game outcomes, averaged across all teams in the conference |
P-Top | The power ranking of the top teams in the conference |
P-Mid | The power ranking of the middling teams in the conference |
P-Bot | The power ranking of the worst teams in the conference |
SOS-Und | Strength of Schedule - Undefeated. Focuses on the difficulty of going undefeated, averaged across teams in the conference |
SOS-BE | Strength of Schedule - Bowl Eligible. Focuses on the difficulty of becoming bowl eligible, averaged across teams in the conference |
Hybrid | A composite measure that quantifies human polls, applied to converences |
Player Game Log
Use the yellow, red and green cells to filter values. Yellow cells filter for exact matches, green cells for greater values and red cells for lesser values. By default, the table is filtered to only the top 200 defense-independent performances (oEPA). The table includes the 5,000 most important performances (positive and negative) by EPA.
Use the yellow, red and green cells to filter values. Yellow cells filter for exact matches, green cells for greater values and red cells for lesser values. By default, the table is filtered to only the top 200 defense-independent performances (oEPA). The table includes the 5,000 most important performances (positive and negative) by EPA.
EPA | Expected points added (see glossary) |
oEPA | Defense-independent performance |
Team Game Log
Use the yellow, red and green cells to filter values. Yellow cells filter for exact matches, green cells for greater values and red cells for lesser values.
Use the yellow, red and green cells to filter values. Yellow cells filter for exact matches, green cells for greater values and red cells for lesser values.
EP3 | Effective points per possession (see glossary) |
oEP3 | Defense-independent offensive performance |
dEP3 | Offense-independent defensive performance |
EPA | Expected points added (see glossary) |
oEPA | Defense-independent offensive performance |
dEPA | Offense-independent defensive performance |
EPAp | Expected points added per play |
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Bowl Results
Things were going very well until I went 0 for 4 the last four bowl games. Still, the Matrix was 53% against the spread. It correctly predicted 67% of winners, which isn't too impressive until you recognize that the Vegas line only picked the winner 53% of the time. At times, the Matrix seemed prophetic, picking Utah over Alabama and hitting the Boise State/TCU game on the nose. But then it estimated that Oregon State and Pitt would combine for 56 points. All in all, it was a topsy turvy bowl season, but the Matrix weathered it relatively well.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Time for a Change-the MWC and the BCS
I asked at the beginning of the year how many wins the MWC could pull off against BCS conference teams. The answer was 9. They finished 9-5 against the BCS with wins over almost every team in the Pac-10 and traditional powerhouses Michigan and Alabama. And San Diego State, easily the worst team in the conference, almost pulled out a W against the Domers.
If we include Boise State (and the Mountain West should be working hard to net Boise as its 10th team), the MWC+Boise State would have wins over every team in the Pac-10 except Washington State (lack of opportunity), Cal (the only Pac-10 team to pull out a regular season victory against the Mountain West), and USC (lack of opportunity?).
And we should note that Utah beat Alabama not with trick plays or 8 Alabama turnovers, but because they were honestly the better team. All but 3 of Alabama's points came off Utah mistakes. Alabama's offense looked like, well, an SEC offense, racking up 200 yards while giving up 8 sacks. Utah moved the ball in the air and on the ground, picking up first downs from the wildcat formation late in the game. Utah was every bit as athletic as Alabama.
And why is this all important--because Utah won their conference by the hair on their chinny-chin-chins. They cashed in on some powerful karma against both TCU and BYU. The MWC was very good this year,
and that wasn't a fluke.
TCU is structurally advantaged compared to, say, Texas Tech. It's not a big school, but it's in the heart of the most dense football talent in the country, and they have been playing football well for quite some time. The true loyalists might be few in number, but they are rabid about their team (see Miami).
BYU can recruit nationally (and internationally). It is a large school with large numbers in attendance at the games-better than any team in the Big East. The Cougars won a title 25 years ago (more recently than just about every team in any of the major conferences). It has a long, strong tradition of potent offenses that quarterbacks and possession recievers want to be a part of and can now draw in Tongans/Samoans (who, except for Manti Te'o, seem to be criminally ignored by the major recruiting services) using the Mormon connection.
Utah draws on the same Tongan/Samoan population and many of the top notch athletes in the region that are not interested in the lifestyle at BYU. They, like BYU, can also nip players from California. Utah, along with BYU and TCU, have sent many notable athletes to the NFL.
Conclusion-the top three teams of the MWC are more legitimate than the top three teams of the Big East. The bottom six of the MWC are every bit as legitimate as the rest of the Big East. There is no rational explanation why the Big East has an automatic spot and the MWC does not.
I propose two solutions. First, the MWC should steal Boise State. Boise State has been succesful everywhere, regardless of the coach and despite the Mickey Mouse field, and they have a BCS bowl win. That top four has been as successful as the top four in any other conference over the last few years. The MWC could then demand inclusion in the BCS.
Second, the MWC champ and the WAC champ play for the bi-conference championship and an automatic spot in the BCS. I have been championing this idea for years. The conferences do not now have championship games, and there is a natural rivalry between the two. If this had been in practice last year, BYU and not Hawaii would have played Georgia and we would have had a better game. If this had been in practice this year, and Utah had beat Boise State, they would have as legitimate a claim as anyone else to the national championship.
If we include Boise State (and the Mountain West should be working hard to net Boise as its 10th team), the MWC+Boise State would have wins over every team in the Pac-10 except Washington State (lack of opportunity), Cal (the only Pac-10 team to pull out a regular season victory against the Mountain West), and USC (lack of opportunity?).
And we should note that Utah beat Alabama not with trick plays or 8 Alabama turnovers, but because they were honestly the better team. All but 3 of Alabama's points came off Utah mistakes. Alabama's offense looked like, well, an SEC offense, racking up 200 yards while giving up 8 sacks. Utah moved the ball in the air and on the ground, picking up first downs from the wildcat formation late in the game. Utah was every bit as athletic as Alabama.
And why is this all important--because Utah won their conference by the hair on their chinny-chin-chins. They cashed in on some powerful karma against both TCU and BYU. The MWC was very good this year,
and that wasn't a fluke.
TCU is structurally advantaged compared to, say, Texas Tech. It's not a big school, but it's in the heart of the most dense football talent in the country, and they have been playing football well for quite some time. The true loyalists might be few in number, but they are rabid about their team (see Miami).
BYU can recruit nationally (and internationally). It is a large school with large numbers in attendance at the games-better than any team in the Big East. The Cougars won a title 25 years ago (more recently than just about every team in any of the major conferences). It has a long, strong tradition of potent offenses that quarterbacks and possession recievers want to be a part of and can now draw in Tongans/Samoans (who, except for Manti Te'o, seem to be criminally ignored by the major recruiting services) using the Mormon connection.
Utah draws on the same Tongan/Samoan population and many of the top notch athletes in the region that are not interested in the lifestyle at BYU. They, like BYU, can also nip players from California. Utah, along with BYU and TCU, have sent many notable athletes to the NFL.
Conclusion-the top three teams of the MWC are more legitimate than the top three teams of the Big East. The bottom six of the MWC are every bit as legitimate as the rest of the Big East. There is no rational explanation why the Big East has an automatic spot and the MWC does not.
I propose two solutions. First, the MWC should steal Boise State. Boise State has been succesful everywhere, regardless of the coach and despite the Mickey Mouse field, and they have a BCS bowl win. That top four has been as successful as the top four in any other conference over the last few years. The MWC could then demand inclusion in the BCS.
Second, the MWC champ and the WAC champ play for the bi-conference championship and an automatic spot in the BCS. I have been championing this idea for years. The conferences do not now have championship games, and there is a natural rivalry between the two. If this had been in practice last year, BYU and not Hawaii would have played Georgia and we would have had a better game. If this had been in practice this year, and Utah had beat Boise State, they would have as legitimate a claim as anyone else to the national championship.
Friday, January 2, 2009
2008 Bowl Picks
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)