Statistical Review: Navy #68

Navy's offense was 123rd nationally in sacks/pass allowed (13.95%) and 6th in TFL/run allowed (9.4%). In Navy's defense, their QBs were sacked only 24 times, but Reynolds and Miller combined threw only 167 passes. Just four fewer sacks would drop that sack rate down much closer to the league average. Also, Navy ran the ball 90% of the time on 2nd/3rd and short, but threw the ball 70% of the time on 3rd and 11 or more; if other teams only threw the ball on pin-your-ears-back-and-rush-the-quarterback downs, they'd have a poor sack allowed rate, too.

Navy was only 6th nationally in rushing yards. For most programs, that's quite good (obviously), but for Navy, who runs 80% of the time and gets sacked once every six passes, that's not good enough. They also fumbled over the ball on 1.6% of plays, which is a bigger deal when you tend to have longer drives and fewer possessions. Long drives are good, but every play of a drive is another opportunity to turn the ball over. Still, they eked out a respectable 2.3 points per possession.

Navy was able to maintain drives (6.2 plays per possession) and shortened the game by not stopping the clock, so their opponents got only 10.7 possessions per game and fairly bad average starting field position. This is a big deal, because the Navy defense was sieve-like. The defense helped themselves by being stout in the red zone (only 3.4 points per trip) and preventing explosive plays. In other words, as bad as the Navy defense was, they did exactly the right things to maximize their offensive strategy.

The Statistical Review breaks down teams along a number of performance categories, everything from red zone scoring to field goal percentage, and compares that performance against the rest of the FBS. All 124 teams will be reviewed from 124 to 1 by the hybrid rankings. You can find short descriptions of the stats used in the table below.

Statistical Review: SMU #69

I don't track opponent field goal percentage. I generally assume that any notable performance in this area would be little more than luck. In the case of SMU, it seems there might be more at play. Margus Hunt blocked 17 kicks in his time at SMU and, like any good shot-blocking center, undoubtedly altered others. But my hunch to ignore the stat seems to be valid. SMU is barely in the top quarter nationally in opponent field goal percentage, SMU opponents missed only six field goals all season. If opponents had missed field goals against SMU at the national average, they'd have made only 1.5 more field goals all season. That's negligible.

Good field goal defense was worth about 4.5 points, but turnovers by the defense were worth 127.  No team was better in that category. Oregon and Kent State forced more turnovers, but SMU's were more timely/valuable.

The SMU run game is something of a mystery. It is average in terms of yards per carry, and SMU runners are among the top 25 most likely to get caught in the backfield, but the expected points added per run is high - not elite, but very, very good. Zach Line has an unspectacular conversion rate and SMU faired poorly in the red zone. While I need to investigate further, my best lead right now is that SMU averaged almost 7 yards per carry on third down and over 10 yards on 16 attempts on 3rd and 7-9.

The Statistical Review breaks down teams along a number of performance categories, everything from red zone scoring to field goal percentage, and compares that performance against the rest of the FBS. All 124 teams will be reviewed from 124 to 1 by the hybrid rankings. You can find short descriptions of the stats used in the table below.

CFBTN in Lindy's Sports

Page 8 of Lindy's 2013 CFB preview:



Outkick the Coverage, Sport by Brooks, Footballscoop.com and EDSBS are elite company to keep in the college football digital universe. 

Statistical Review: Utah #70

Utah had an above average defense held back by poor play on 3rd down and in the red zone. The offense was below average on 1st and 2nd downs, but even worse on 3rd downs. I can only speculate, but performance along these lines usually points to inferior athletes on offense and defense, poor quarterback play on offense (Travis Wilson netted a negative EPA), and/or sub-par play calling.

Utah was not a very good football team, but this statement demands an important caveat. Before getting to that caveat, I want to again clarify that Utah was not good. They won five games, and two of those wins came against Colorado, who finished one spot below South Alabama in the power rankings, and Northern Colorado, who finished 2012 with a spectacular 5-5 FCS record. In week 4, they lost to Arizona State by 30 points; but in week 3 they beat BYU and in week 2 they lost by 7 in Logan (Utah State) after Jordan Wynn had to leave the game. Utah finished 61st in the power rankings, BYU 23rd and Utah State 14th. Moving to the Pac-12 was not the coup Utah fans thought it was, but at least they aren't getting embarrassed in state (see Colorado).

The Statistical Review breaks down teams along a number of performance categories, everything from red zone scoring to field goal percentage, and compares that performance against the rest of the FBS. All 124 teams will be reviewed from 124 to 1 by the hybrid rankings. You can find short descriptions of the stats used in the table below.

Statistical Review: East Carolina #71

East Carolina was 63rd nationally in yards per pass and 89th in yards per run, but they were 45th in points per possession. Why the discrepancy?

First the easy answers. Field position? - if a team starts with good field position they can score points with less than stellar per play performance. But East Carolina finished 61st in average starting field position.

Mistake free football? - Don't turn the ball over, don't kill drives with penalties, and a team can over-perform it's per play metrics. East Carolina was slightly above average in both cases, but not enough to explain the discrepancy between yards per play and points per possession.

Maintain drives? - If you get 2.6 yards per play on every play, you'll never lose a game. A high completion percentage allowed East Carolina to maintain drives longer than the per play statistics would suggest (5.5 plays per possession).

Red zone play? - Touchdowns are worth twice as many points as field goals, and often the difference between the two is a few yards near the end zone. This is especially important for teams that move the ball by maintaining drives and not with explosive plays. And East Carolina was very good in this department, scoring more than 5 points per red zone trip. The problem with this explanation is that red zone performance is not a unique skill. The best teams in the red zone tend also to be the best teams at the 50 yard line. Was East Carolina uniquely good around the end zone? Can't say for sure.

The Statistical Review breaks down teams along a number of performance categories, everything from red zone scoring to field goal percentage, and compares that performance against the rest of the FBS. All 124 teams will be reviewed from 124 to 1 by the hybrid rankings. You can find short descriptions of the stats used in the table below.

Statistical Review: Purdue #72

Purdue in 2012 stood out only for being incredibly average. The only quality that really stood out, and the reason for the below average overall ranking, is that Purdue had a painful knack for giving the ball to the other team.

The Statistical Review breaks down teams along a number of performance categories, everything from red zone scoring to field goal percentage, and compares that performance against the rest of the FBS. All 124 teams will be reviewed from 124 to 1 by the hybrid rankings. You can find short descriptions of the stats used in the table below.

Statistical Review: Arkansas #73

Quick quiz: What was the on-field difference between Arkansas 2011 and Arkansas 2012?

Answer? Arkansas 2012 was terrible.

Seriously, the differences are more contained than you might imagine.

First, Brandon Allen. Arkansas scored 13 fewer points per game in 2012 than in 2011, but Tyler Wilson, when playing, was virtually the same guy. He completed 63% of his passes in 2011, 62% in 2012. He averaged 8.3 yards on completions in 2011, 8.4 in 2012. He took a step back in the interception department, and his EPA fell from 108 to 70. Adjusting per play, Wilson was about 2.3 points per game better in 2011 than 2012. When you consider the receiving options Arkansas was rolling out for some games, Wilson's 2012 numbers are not bad at all. Brandon Allen, on the other hand, was on the very short list for worst quarterback in college football in 2012. I recognize that he did throw 18 of his 49 passes against Alabama, but he was even worse against La-Monroe on 20 throws. Arkansas would have been 29 points better in 2012 had Wilson attempted Allen's 49 passes, and that number grows to about 40 points if we consider Wilson's value in maintaining drives.

Second, turnovers. Arkansas was +1 on turnovers in 2011. In 2012, they were -19. Net, they were -55 points from turnovers (4.5 points per game; just under 5 points per game versus 2011). The INT margin alone went from +5 to -10. Half of this was that Wilson doubled his interceptions and Brandon Allen was almost as good at targeting the wrong colored jersey as he was his own, but the Arkansas defense failed to get their hands on passes as well. Then there was Knile Davis. Davis was more likely to drop then ball than any non-quarterback with at least 100 touches in the country; lucky for him, Arkansas recovered most of those fumbles. But, in a vacuum, I would propose that Arkansas would have improved its yards per carry if Mr. Butterfingers could get a grip.

Finally, pass defense. Arkansas was significantly better against the run in 2012 than in 2011. And if you throw out Alabama and A&M, who averaged 5.0 and 6.8 yards per carry against the Hogs, the run defense was stellar. That would have been more important if teams had needed to run the ball. That was not the case. Teams improved their completion percentage against Arkansas by five percentage points, but more important, the yards per completion jumped from under 11 to 13.3.

In short, Arkansas 2011 would beat Arkansas 2012 by about three TDs on average. I would argue that more than two-thirds of that gap was a product of 1) Tyler Wilson getting knocked out of a couple of games, 2) the Arkansas secondary playing like Texas 2012 v. Oklahoma and 3) ball security issues for Wilson and Davis.

The Statistical Review breaks down teams along a number of performance categories, everything from red zone scoring to field goal percentage, and compares that performance against the rest of the FBS. All 124 teams will be reviewed from 124 to 1 by the hybrid rankings. You can find short descriptions of the stats used in the table below.

Statistical Review: Minnesota #74

Phillip Nelson attempted 154 passes in 2012 for Minnesota. He completed 48.7% of them. Only Dayne Crist attempted more passes for a lower completion percentage. But if you count passes he completed to the opposition, that completion percentage jumps to just under 54%, very similar to Max Shortell's 56% completions.

Minnesota didn't have much success throwing the ball, so they ran 61% of the time. But 3.8 yards per carry isn't good enough, either. It is little surprise, then, that they averaged 22 points per game and 1.7 points per possession.

The Minnesota pass defense was well above average. Opponents managed only 10.5 yards per completion, good enough to put Minnesota in the top 10 in that category, while also holding opponents to 57% completions. Porous run defense, though, offset any advantage the pass defense offered. All together, Minnesota fielded a very average defense that was aided, for appearance sake, by a slow-tempo offense that helped keep stats down.

The Statistical Review breaks down teams along a number of performance categories, everything from red zone scoring to field goal percentage, and compares that performance against the rest of the FBS. All 124 teams will be reviewed from 124 to 1 by the hybrid rankings. You can find short descriptions of the stats used in the table below.

Statistical Review: Duke #75

Duke won six of their first eight games. They lost their last five games, and in losing those games they allowed 246 points. If one of those five opponents had managed a touchdown instead of a field goal on one possession, Duke would have allowed 50 points per game over a five game stretch. That's the kind of thing you right epic poems about.

Did Duke collapse? The short answer is no. Their performance might have dropped a little, but the real reason for the collapse is that they replaced Wake Forest for Clemson. And I don't just mean the schedule got harder. If 246 is remarkable, so is 15.5; Duke allowed 15.5 yards per completion. They allowed plays of 25 or more yards on 7% of plays.

What did the 2012 variants of Florida State, Clemson, Miami, Georgia Tech and Cincinnati all have in common? They were all among Duke's final five opponents and they are all exceptionally explosive teams. The adjusted metrics that account for schedule have Duke as the country's worst team at preventing explosive plays, and they played a stretch of explosive offenses that was second to none. Matching Duke and Cincinnati in a bowl game must have been someone's sick joke.

The Statistical Review breaks down teams along a number of performance categories, everything from red zone scoring to field goal percentage, and compares that performance against the rest of the FBS. All 124 teams will be reviewed from 124 to 1 by the hybrid rankings. You can find short descriptions of the stats used in the table below.

Statistical Review: Nevada #76

Nevada lost six games. They lost three by one point and another by six. That's not to say Nevada was better than we thought; they lost that claim by allowing no fewer than 21 points in every game this season despite facing one of the nation's softest schedule. No, Nevada wasn't any better than we thought, but they're record could have been better.

How does a team go about winning or losing a lot of close games? They key is to have a big gap between the offensive and defensive units. In the case of Nevada, the offense is legitimately good while the defense is legitimately awful. They score easily against their mediocre opposition and their mediocre opposition scores easily against them. It is more likely that each scored will be matched on the next possession, so games tend to be close. Connecticut, at the other end, had 8 of 12 games decided by 7 points or less.

The Nevada offense was effective, but this was definitely not Colin Kaepernick's Nevada offense; their one shortcoming was a lack of explosiveness. In part, this lack of explosiveness is because they ran the ball 62% of the time - running plays are less likely to be explosive - but they averaged a pedestrian 11.7 yards per pass completion. They made up for this lack of explosiveness by maintaining drives. Nevada averaged 6.4 plays per possession, behind only Army and Marshall. They were tackled for a loss on just over 1 in 10 run plays and 5.2 yards per carry. They converted 40% of their possessions into touchdowns, and may have been even better if not for a below average turnover rate (13.3% of possessions) and a poor penalty rate (63 yards per game). 

On defense, they were fairly atrocious across the board.

The Statistical Review breaks down teams along a number of performance categories, everything from red zone scoring to field goal percentage, and compares that performance against the rest of the FBS. All 124 teams will be reviewed from 124 to 1 by the hybrid rankings. You can find short descriptions of the stats used in the table below.

xxxx

Statistical Review: Western Kentucky #77

Western Kentucky 2012 is the reason I use two metrics to measure strength of schedule. They played one team in the top 25, two in the top 50, and four in the bottom 25 plus Austin Peay. But that one team in the top 25 was Alabama. Fewer teams had an easier road to six regular season wins - six by my count - but almost 100 teams had a better chance of going undefeated based on schedule alone.

They also demonstrated the value of focusing on points per possession instead of points per game. With only 11.8 possessions per game, Western Kentucky was in the bottom 10 nationally. As a result, they scored only 28.2 points per game (70th nationally) but scored 2.38 points per possession (46th best).

In all other ways, the Hilltoppers violated my best rules of thumb. For example, on defense they had a high TFL and sack rate and were average at preventing explosive plays, yet they were poor on 3rd down. Usually, the ability to get in the backfield while also preventing explosive plays adds up to good 3rd down defense.

On the other side, they allowed a high sack rate, they were not explosive, and yet 3rd down offense was a strength. Go figure.

The Statistical Review breaks down teams along a number of performance categories, everything from red zone scoring to field goal percentage, and compares that performance against the rest of the FBS. All 124 teams will be reviewed from 124 to 1 by the hybrid rankings. You can find short descriptions of the stats used in the table below.

Statistical Review: Rice #78

The Rice defense is a mystery that demands attention. They were terrible in the red zone (5.4 per possession, 116th worst nationally), terrible at preventing explosive plays (119th per pass and 110th per run), terrible at defending the run (5.6 yards per attempt, 107th Expected Points Added per rush), and yet they allowed fewer points per game than 45 other teams and fewer points per possession (2.2) than 50 teams. Thirty points per game is not good, but 4.9 yards per carry (5.6 when we exclude sacks), 14.4 yards per reception, and 72% TDs in the red zone should add up to more. A high fumble rate - 1.8% - helps (opponents coughed up the ball once every 55 plays, which is more than most). More important, Rice allowed 56.3% completions, which was critical in holding opponents to 5.5 plays per possession (4.8 if we include special team turnovers as possessions). In short, Rice kept scoring down by forcing turnovers on 15% of possessions (including special team turnovers) and by allowing field goals on only 4.4% of possessions.

On offense, Rice was plain. They ran the ball 61% of the time, rarely broke long plays, and kicked a lot of field goals. If they had converted field goals into touchdowns they would have been top 15 in points per game, but instead the Owls were 41st.

The Statistical Review breaks down teams along a number of performance categories, everything from red zone scoring to field goal percentage, and compares that performance against the rest of the FBS. All 124 teams will be reviewed from 124 to 1 by the hybrid rankings. You can find short descriptions of the stats used in the table below.

Statistical Review: Connecticut #79

Connecticut was fairly hopeless with the football. They averaged less than 18 points per game and got 30% of those from the special teams.

The defense was another story. Connecticut averaged only 2.5 yards per rush attempt but allowed only 2.7, and they held opponents under 100 yards rushing per game. The pass defense was less stout but still capable. The only real weakness was a painful inability to force turnvovers - only 7.2 per 100 possessions.

The Statistical Review breaks down teams along a number of performance categories, everything from red zone scoring to field goal percentage, and compares that performance against the rest of the FBS. All 124 teams will be reviewed from 124 to 1 by the hybrid rankings. You can find short descriptions of the stats used in the table below.

Statistical Review: Iowa #80

Iowa began the 2012 season at 4-2 with wins over Northern Illinois and Michigan State and two losses by a combined four points. They finished the season 4-8. Why?

Oddly, according to the numbers, Iowa's performance didn't trend down, or up, during the 2012 season. A combination of tougher opponents and a little bit of bad luck - three losses to Indiana, Purdue and Nebraska by a combined 13 points - haunted the Hawkeyes. Speaking of haunting, AIRBHG also made an appearance in 2012, but probably wasn't a critical factor.

Iowa's defense was solid . . . well, average . . .  outside of an inability to get in the backfield. On offense, the only thing the Hawkeyes really had going for them were the turnovers. 

The Statistical Review breaks down teams along a number of performance categories, everything from red zone scoring to field goal percentage, and compares that performance against the rest of the FBS. All 124 teams will be reviewed from 124 to 1 by the hybrid rankings. You can find short descriptions of the stats used in the table below.

Statistical Review: Indiana #81

The Indiana defense was not good, but the data suggests that all of their problems really revolved around one particular issue: 5.0 yards/carry. That's not very good. More specifically, the Hoosiers were average at getting runners in the backfield, so the real issue was second level run defense. The problem was compounded by an inability (bad luck?) to force fumbles - Indiana recovered a fumble twice for every 300 plays.

Because opposing offenses could pick up chunks of yards by running forward, they avoided throwing more than they absolutely had to. As a result, even though Indiana allowed 63% completions and 12.5 yards per completion, they "only" allowed 231 passing yards per game (versus 232 yards per game on the ground). Despite a decent sack rate, they only picked off 7 passes all season (less than 2% of pass attempts).

Despite average third down defense and above average sack and TFL rates, Indiana allowed 2.5 points per possession, a touchdown on a third of possessions, and still gave their offense terrible field position (inside the 28 on average).

I have an untested theory that turnovers are contagious. Obviously weather and other factors play a factor, but I also believe that when a team sees its opponent playing fast and loose with the football, they are more likely to do the same. Indiana seems to agree. Over the course of 12 games, only nine times did a team fumble away the ball; Indiana lost only three fumbles all season. One reason for this, in Indiana's case, is that they were among the nation's 25 best at protecting the quarterback - sacks and fumbles often go hand in hand. Indiana quarterbacks were sacked on only 3% of pass attempts (remember Auburn had a sack rate over 15%).

By avoiding sacks and fumbles, Indiana was able to convert a slightly below average yards per play into an average EPA per play. As for the defense, the good news is that this guy's not around anymore:

The Statistical Review breaks down teams along a number of performance categories, everything from red zone scoring to field goal percentage, and compares that performance against the rest of the FBS. All 124 teams will be reviewed from 124 to 1 by the hybrid rankings. You can find short descriptions of the stats used in the table below.

Statistical Review: Central Michigan #82

After getting off to an encouraging 2-5 start, Central Michigan four of five and their last three to slide into a prestigious day-after-Christmas bowl game, which they won. As the schedule suggests, this is a team that got better as the season progressed. That being said, this was not a good team at the beginning or end of the season, and they sneaked into a bowl game despite having the nation's 5th softest schedule for earning bowl eligibility.

The biggest weakness for the Chippewas was that they were still required to play defense, something the coaching staff and players were apparently trying very hard to avoid. They were terrible at getting in the opponents' backfields, they allowed 5.8 plays per possession so, despite starting with decent field position, they allowed TDs on a third of the opponents' possessions. Fewer than 20 teams allowed more points per possession.

Offensively, relative to their competition, they were able to sling the ball around decently well. They were decent to quite good at the leverage points - turnovers, red zone, penalties, field goals - but terrible on third down. All together, this is a team that exploited a terribly soft schedule - five teams in the bottom 25 or FCS - to cover a multitude of sins (sins being poor performance on the football field).

The Statistical Review breaks down teams along a number of performance categories, everything from red zone scoring to field goal percentage, and compares that performance against the rest of the FBS. All 124 teams will be reviewed from 124 to 1 by the hybrid rankings. You can find short descriptions of the stats used in the table below.

Statistical Review: Temple #83

Temple averaged only 121 passing yards per game. More than 50 teams averaged twice that. The Temple total is partially excusable because they ran the ball almost 70% of the time so they didn't have many opportunities to amass passing yards. And they ran the ball fairly effectively; they averaged 4.7 yards per attempt. But Temple quarterbacks completed just over half of their passes, averaged less than 12 yards per completion, and were sacked once every 10 pass attempts.

The Temple offense was partially redeemed by avoiding costly turnovers (they turned the ball over more than most but those turnovers were relatively painless), making field goals and generally performing well in the red zone. Still, this was not an incredible effective offense.

Things were worse on the other side of the ball. Opponents completed just under 70% of their passes and averaged almost 15 yards per completion. That's a deadly combination. That followed that up by allowed 200 rushing yards per game. Temple was 8th nationally in fumbles recovered per play but 8th worst in interceptions per pass, and on the whole under performed at forcing turnovers, erasing their advantage from avoiding turnovers on offense.

The Statistical Review breaks down teams along a number of performance categories, everything from red zone scoring to field goal percentage, and compares that performance against the rest of the FBS. All 124 teams will be reviewed from 124 to 1 by the hybrid rankings. You can find short descriptions of the stats used in the table below.

xxxx

Statistical Review: Troy #84

Troy finished the season at 5-7, but they actually outscored their opponents over the course of the season (by .1 points per game). They were within one TD in every game but one this season, joining an elite group of 27 teams that lost no more than 1 game by more than 7 points (9 teams won or were within 1 TD in every game).

But outscoring Sun Belt opponents by .1 points per game isn't exactly elite.

Like many teams closer to the bottom of this list, Troy was haunted by turnovers. Total, turnovers cost Troy almost 40 points (47.48 gained on defense - 86.90 lost of offense; the average team broke even on turnovers); in other words, that .1 point per game advantage could have blossomed to more than 3.5 points per game and, given the tight margins in their losses, a much better record. They were almost equally bad at holding on to the ball as they were taking it away from others. And they compounded turnovers with 67 penalty yards per game.

Offensively, Troy was quite good at keeping defenders out of the backfield and completing passes (two things that tend to go together), but were at or below average in yards per rush and yards per completion. They were fairly good at extending drives, but often had a long, long ways to go. 

Defensively, they just weren't very good. Opponents had a sub-par completion percentage against them, 56%, but got almost 15 yards per completion Troy nipped only 6 passes all season. 

The Statistical Review breaks down teams along a number of performance categories, everything from red zone scoring to field goal percentage, and compares that performance against the rest of the FBS. All 124 teams will be reviewed from 124 to 1 by the hybrid rankings. You can find short descriptions of the stats used in the table below.

Statistical Review: Virginia #85

It seemed through 2011 that Mike London was orchestrating a turnaround in Virginia. The Cavaliers doubled their win total from 2010. Meanwhile Richmond, London's old stomping grounds, fell from national FCS power to 6-5 in 2010 and closing out 2011 with an 8 game losing streak (though they did beat the mighty Blue Devils of Duke earlier in the season). Then 2012 happened.

Offensively, Virginia was consistently bad in virtually all aspects. They finished between 75th and 95th nationally in 90% of the performance stats I track. This outrageously unsatisfying experience on offense encouraged a season long QB battle between Michael Rocco and Alabama transfer Phillip Sims (or, perhaps, I have confused cause and effect). The stats show that Rocco was, unequivocally, the better performer, but he has since decided to head out to the greener pastures in Richmond. Sims 56% completions and .013 EPA per play is not a real positive sign for things to come.

The Virginia D was in the top half nationally in most areas, but fell short in two critical areas. First, they recorded only 17 sacks all season, or 4.3 sacks per 100 passes. Because pressure often leads to bad decisions, it makes sense that Virginia picked off only 4 passes all season. On the other hand, they were among the very best at preventing yards after the catch, clearly a bend but don't break strategy to pass defense. They were also very good at getting stops on 3rd downs.

When reviewing teams, consistent sub-par performance is discouraging. While a team can focus on and correct one major flaw, it is harder to resolve across-the-board mediocrity. This is where Virginia has set up camp.

The Statistical Review breaks down teams along a number of performance categories, everything from red zone scoring to field goal percentage, and compares that performance against the rest of the FBS. All 124 teams will be reviewed from 124 to 1 by the hybrid rankings. You can find short descriptions of the stats used in the table below.

Statistical Review: Wake Forest #86

Wake Forest's offensive ineptitude knew few bounds. A few stats to demonstrate: on average, teams cross midfield 56% of the time when they start the drive on the wrong side of the 50 yard line; Wake Forest crossed midfield 41% of the time. Teams reach the 30 yard line 41% of the time, but Wake Forest only did so 25% of the time. On a positive note, if Wake Forest did get that far they scored TDs 75% of the time. Besides playing tough in the red zone, Wake Forest avoided turnovers and penalties.

Wake Forest was almost uniformly bad on offense; they were uniformly bad on defense.

All-in-all, Wake Forest was a bad team that managed to squeeze out five wins by avoiding stupid mistakes and making the most of their opportunities.

The Statistical Review breaks down teams along a number of performance categories, everything from red zone scoring to field goal percentage, and compares that performance against the rest of the FBS. All 124 teams will be reviewed from 124 to 1 by the hybrid rankings. You can find short descriptions of the stats used in the table below.

Statistical Review: California #87

Cal did a lot of things poorly in 2012: 83 penalty yards/game, 3.6% INTs/pass, 2.8% fumbles/play, 11.2% sacks/pass, 18.6% TFL/run, 4.8 plays/possession. In case you're wondering, each of those is among the worst nationally. Offensively, they did one thing well, 4.9 yards per carry, but those yards translated into a no better than average EPA/rush (EPA converts a play's impact into points). The simplest explanation for this disparity in yards/rush and EPA/rush is that Cal's running game failed to convert in crucial situations, so the yards didn't translate into points. This is consistent with the poor red zone performance and high fumble rate.

Defensively, no team in the country was worst at getting stops on third down than California. This, as you might imaging, makes winning tough.

In short, Cal in 2012 was a classic case of a poorly coached football team (but that doesn't necessarily mean that getting a new coach will translate into more wins).

The Statistical Review breaks down teams along a number of performance categories, everything from red zone scoring to field goal percentage, and compares that performance against the rest of the FBS. All 124 teams will be reviewed from 124 to 1 by the hybrid rankings. You can find short descriptions of the stats used in the table below.

Statistical Review: Marshall #88

The Marshall offense is abuzz with contradictions. They averaged only 4.2 yards per rush and 7.2 yards per pass, below average nationally, but scored 3 points per possession, scoring TDs on 39% of the time, both 8th best nationally.

There are two ways a team can score at a high clip despite averaging relatively few yards per play. The first is to start possessions close to the other team's end zone. That is not the case with Marshall. The second is to be consistent on first and second down to get short 3rd downs (e.g., completing 70% of pass attempts), and converting on those 3rd downs. In fact, without adjusting for strength of schedule, no team in the country was better at converting on 3rd down than Marshall. This allowed them to extend drives; 6.5 plays per possession was the second most nationally. Combined with a super fast tempo, Marshall was able to score 41 points per game.

But they allowed 43. The Marshall defense was bad in almost every way, but also symmetrically so with the offense: high completion percentage, many plays per possession, etc.

The Statistical Review breaks down teams along a number of performance categories, everything from red zone scoring to field goal percentage, and compares that performance against the rest of the FBS. All 124 teams will be reviewed from 124 to 1 by the hybrid rankings. You can find short descriptions of the stats used in the table below.