Road Trip Recovery

On September 20, 2008, #2 ranked Georgia beat Arizona State in Tempe, 27-10.  A week later, they came out flat at home against Alabama and lost 41-30.  Nick Saban's Tide was on its way to an undefeated regular season, but it still served as a crushing loss for Georgia, who was favored by 6 points in the game.  Georgia fans bandied about many excuses for the loss, some valid, (injuries early, Bama having a superior game plan, etc) and some not (uniform color), but in some circles, an unusual excuse was made: some fans blamed the trip to Tempe.

The idea was that a road trip multiple time zones away was too hard to get home and recover from.  Never mind that in 2010, Georgia took a similar trip to Boulder and came home to whip rival Tennessee 41-14.  The narrative of the 2008 Tempe trip causing the loss to Alabama did hold with some Georgia fans.  I don't presume Georgia fans are unique in this regard; it's just the first time I personally heard about this theory.  However, unlike many theories, this one seemed testable, so here we go.

The process:  I took every current BCS conference team (plus Notre Dame), and their schedules since 1992 (the beginning of the expansion age).  Only looking at home games immediately preceded by road trips multiple time zones away, I looked at how they performed against the spread (games without spreads were omitted).  The spread seemed the only logical way to go.  This way teams aren't unfairly rewarded or punished for their scheduling.

The results:  The sample size consisted of 215 games.  The average team was a home favorite by 11.69 points.  They beat the spread by 1.76 points per game.  It's not a surprise that the result was close to the spread.  It is a surprise that the number was positive.  Not only did the long road trips not significantly hurt team's performances against the spread when they came home, but teams actually tended to be better than the spread.  I did consider the idea that some teams are better against the spread than others.  To account for this, I looked at how these teams did against the spread in their other games to find an "expected ATS", and I compared these games to that number.  They still beat their ATS averages by 1.63 ppg.

"But wait - some teams take weeks off, right?" Yes, and those were included in the numbers you see above.  Separating them, however, doesn't change the outcome too much, though the week off certainly does help:

• With no week off: +1.66 ATS (+1.34 against expected)
• With a week off: +2.13 ATS (+2.72 against expected)

Overall, against the spread, they went 123-83-9.  I did notice a lot of volatility in terms of performance against the spread.  Only 51 outcomes were within 5 points of what the spread expected.  A whopping 44 were more than 20 points off the spread.  I don't know the normal volatility ATS, but 20% of games being off by more than 20 points seems like a lot.  The only conclusion I can draw is to avoid betting on these games, because Vegas and other bettors don't really know what to expect.

Does the road trip length matter?  It seems to:

• 2 time zones away: +2.21 ATS (+2.19 expected)
• 3 time zones away: +1.26 ATS (+1.04 expected)

And one last breakdown, this time by the road trip outcome:

• Won on road trip: +1.09 ATS (-0.03 expected)
• Lost on road trip: +2.12 ATS (+2.64 expected)

Any way you slice it, teams beat the spread when they come home from long road trips.  So, we can ultimately reach one of two conclusions:

1. Long road trips do not adversely affect a team's chances at home a week later.
2. If they do, it is already overcompensated for in the betting lines.

In other words, don't blame Tempe.

Special thanks to Tim Peacock for suggesting this study.

Brent Blackwell compiles the NEPA rankings for cfbtn.com.  Follow Brent on Twitter by mashing the pretty button below. Follow @brentblackwell

Week 1 Preview

I like to write the game previews, but it's especially difficult to do that the first week.  We have no current EPA numbers, and reliable ones are probably weeks away.  Still, we must have previews!

Thursday

• Liberty @ Kent State, 6 PM - Liberty is coached by Turner Gill.  Turner Gill's defense will probably be destroyed by Dri Archer, the only RB in 2012 with over 100 EPA.
• North Carolina @ South Carolina, 6 PM:
  2012 EPA+ advantages:
  UNC pass O (.19) vs. SC pass D (-.23)
  UNC rush O (.09) vs. SC rush D (-.13)
  SC pass O (.31) vs. UNC pass D (.00)
  SC rush O (-.01) vs. UNC rush D (.07)
  
  Last year, South Carolina almost certainly wins this game, with the best offensive and defensive units on the field (both involving passing).  SC returns QB tandem Connor Shaw and Dylan Thompson, along with 4 offensive linemen and 2 WRs.  Much ado has been made over replacing Marcus Lattimore, but last year's run O wasn't particularly efficient anyway.  Clowney is back, along with 3 members of the secondary and one fellow DL, so the D should once again be good.  How good depends largely on the five new faces in the front seven.  Clowney can be shut down - watch every play OTHER than "The Hit" from the Michigan game for reference - but in doing so, the rest of the D is freed up a bit to make plays.  Last year they were able to make those plays.
  
  It's hard not to really like what Larry Fedora is building in Chapel Hill, and they return most of the key pieces from the passing game.  Only one returning starter on the OL seems worrisome, especially for this game, but that starter is LT James Hurst, a 6-7 305 behemoth with 1st round potential.  Clowney isn't a cinch to be in the UNC backfield all day.  This is the matchup to watch, though - QB Bryn Renner and the UNC OL against the SC front 7, featuring a combined 9 new starters.  Defensively, the Tar Heels return the entire secondary and 3 of the front 7, so improvement is certainly possible on defense.
  
  This game is one of the top matchups to watch in week 1.  I think this one will be entertaining, much more so than the 12 point line suggests.  The Tar Heels can score, and the matchups could be ripe for an upset bid to start the year.
• Presbyterian @ Wake Forest, 6:30 - Wake struggled with Liberty in last year's opener, but Presbyterian is not as good, losing 59-3 to Georgia Tech last year.
• Indiana State @ Indiana, 7:00 - You should take the chance to watch Tre Roberson, a dynamic passer in Kevin Wilson's better-than-you-think offense.  He probably won't be healthy long.  That's not the end of the world, as their backup QBs should be capable.
• UNLV @ Minnesota, 7:00 - This, along with the Indiana game, is one of two 7:00 options for the Big Ten Network.  Hope that you get Indiana.
• Tulsa @ Bowling Green, 7:00 - Is it ok to just assume Tulsa will have a prolific offense?  If so, this could be a good CUSA vs. MAC matchup, because BGSU had a pretty stout defense last year. 
• Illinois State @ Ball State, 7:00 - Brady Hoke slowly made Ball State really good, Stan Parrish quickly made them really bad, and now Pete Lembo has quickly made them pretty good.  It'll be interesting to see if they can take that next step.
• Akron @ UCF, 7:00 - Terry Bowden vs. George O'Leary, a matchup that reminds me of being a Georgia fan in the 1990's.  It wasn't awesome.
• Southern Utah @ South Alabama, 7:30 - Loser has to change the first word in the school's name to match the other.
• Towson @ Connecticut, 7:30 - Towson HC Rob Ambrose was once UConn's OC for 7 years.  And you thought there was nothing more to this game than Paul Pasqualoni's mysteriously continued employment.
• Western Carolina @ Middle Tennessee, 7:30 - The NCAA recently said MTSU freshman Steven Rhodes doesn't have to sit out a year because he played some intramural ball while in the Marines.  So file this as one the NCAA NEVER SHOULD HAVE HAD TO "GET RIGHT".
• Utah State @ Utah, 8:00 - Lots of intrigue here.  It's time for Utah to finally start looking like a Pac-12 school.  How will USU look without former HC and program-builder Gary Anderson?  And most importantly, how will Fox Sports 1's first CFB broadcast go?  Rivalry games with names are cool, and demand to be watched, so that's reason enough to tune in to the Battle of the Brothers.  Yeah!
• Jackson State @ Tulane, 8:00 - I'd have no reason to watch Tulane play football, but Phil Steele thinks they'll be bowl eligible this year.  That I've gotta see.
• Ole Miss @ Vanderbilt, 9:15 - Drinking game for this matchup: Do a shot each time a cutaway interview shows James Franklin almost believably talking about how there's nowhere he'd rather coach than Vandy.  Do a shot if Ole Miss accidentally commits a recruiting violation on the field.  If still awake at halftime, drink until you're confident in your ability to pronounce Nkemdiche.  If serious about watching this game, watch the QBs.  Vandy breaks in a new one, Austyn Carta-Samuels, and Ole Miss features the 4th best returning QB in the SEC, Bo Wallace.
• Sacramento State @ San Jose State, 10:00 - David Fales is really good.  What kept him from being awesome last year was his propensity for lost yards on sacks.  He has 4 returning starters on the OL, so he could be awesome.  In this game, he most certainly should be.
• Rutgers @ Fresno State, 10:30 - Derek Carr is an NFL draft candidate that's getting a lot of love in the preseason.  I think he's good, but I know Rutgers had a really good D last year.  They only return 4 starters, but it's not like they lost a bunch of first round picks either.  Kyle Flood has been better than expected, mostly thanks to Dave Cohen's defense.  Seeing what they look like against an NFL prospect like Carr should give us an idea of how they'll carry the Knights this season.
• USC @ Hawaii, 11:00 - Lane Kiffin hasn't named a starting QB, but it doesn't matter.  They could win with Monte Kiffin behind center.

Week 1 picks and Vegas' interpretation of the offseason

A number of people have asked me about week 1 predictions. To make a long story short, I just haven't had the time; week 1 predictions have the lowest payout/effort ratio of anything I do on this site, and something had to give. 

Instead, as a compromise, I offer the table below. In place of unique predictions, I give the predicted margin if the two teams were to play at the end of last season and compare that to the line (from Tuesday). The final column is the implied change from 2012 to 2013. For example, the implication from the predicted scores relative to the line is that Virginia Tech got 16.3 points better relative to Alabama between last season and this season. Now, I don't believe that and I don't think you believe that, which is why the line has moved in Alabama's favor since I pulled these numbers. 

Others that stand out to me: Rice +12.9: the Owls returned almost everyone and the A&M offseason has been tumultuous to say the least, but I see the Aggies, with Hill and then Manziel, onloading this weekend - chips don't even began to describe what these folks have on their shoulders; Virginia +13.3: BYU will be better in 2013 than 2012 as they trade some defensive talent for a functional offense; Utah +16.4: it wasn't a great offseason for the Aggies, but that's a huge number; Iowa +17.7: wow; NC State +14.2: it's a big number, but Louisiana Tech was stripped clean.

Statistical Review: Alabama #1

We published the first statistical review on March 4 with the Idaho Vandals at #124. We finally arrive at #1.

Alabama is really good at football. That might not sound like useful insight or deep analysis, but it is. Alabama isn't just good on defense. They aren't just good at running the ball, forcing turnovers or kicking field goals. Alabama is very good in almost every aspect of the game, and they are elite in many.

For example: I bet you could guess that Alabama allowed few explosive plays, especially against the run, but did you know Alabama was one of only five teams that gained 25+ yards on more than 10% of pass plays? It might not surprise that only Army was stuffed less often when running the ball, but T.J. Yeldon was twice as likely to gain 10+ yards as he was to get stuffed. AJ McCarron threw interceptions on fewer than 1% of passes and Alabama was 7th in interceptions per pass attempt against. Finally, Alabama was tops nationally in points/possession allowed (.86), but you might not have realized that Alabama was 4th in TDs per possession on offense.

Projection:
Alabama was the best team in the country in 2012, and for most of the season they were in a league of their own (Texas A&M made a strong run at them at the end of the season). But even so, they needed a significant amount of luck to win a national championship, and they needed even more in 2011. Texas A&M gets their shot at the champs early, LSU late, and then 'Bama will have to hold of the East champ. If they lose any of those three, they'll need a ton of luck to get back into title contention. If we give them an 80% of winning each of those three, they'd have only a 50% chance of staying undefeated. In other words, as good as Alabama should be, I'll still take the field.

One more side note. The EPA+ has an incredible track record of picking Heisman quarterbacks (and identifying the top running back contenders). McCarron finished with 125. That's good enough for 17th overall, 100 points behind Tajh Boyd and about 40% of Manziel. I'm not saying McCarron can't win the Heisman, but it would be a significant deviation from recent Heisman voting trends.
-------------------- 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.

Overrated Quarterbacks

Writer's block is something I understand, and I understand it particularly well when the subject of the writing is football and the words atop the calendar page are July and August.  Nothing good can happen in these months.  Ok, that's hyperbolic - MSU's Micajah Reynolds helped save a teenager's life last week, and that is most certainly a good thing.  But let's face it.  For the most part, nothing good happens.  It is a time of year rife with suspensions, injuries, and autograph brokers.  We (people who write about football) feel a need to write about football, but there is no actual football to write about.  One way to combat that is to make pre-season lists and previews.  It's fun, and it's an instant reprieve from the writers block doldrums of summer.  Everyone loves a good list (or even a bad one).  One particular list from Athlon caught my eye: the 10 most overrated quarterbacks in college football.  The list, without comment:

1. Logan Thomas, Virginia Tech
2. David Fales, San Jose State
3. Clint Chelf, Oklahoma State
4. Keith Price, Washington
5. Zach Mettenberger, LSU
6. Aaron Murray, Georgia
7. Bo Wallace, Ole Miss
8. Johnny Manziel, Texas A&M
9. Blake Bell, Oklahoma
10. David Ash, Texas

Now, the phrase 'overrated' is a tricky one because it involves multiple factors.  The prerequisite is 'being rated' to begin with.  Last year, no one could have accused Johnny Manziel of being underrated, and no one would have said Dayne Crist was rated too highly (unless you considered him among the 120 best QBs in the sport, which surely you did not).  The other factor is effectiveness, obviously.  So, with both these factors in mind, let's take a look at this list, this time with comment.

1. Logan Thomas, Virginia Tech
How is he rated? Thomas was named to both the Maxwell and O'Brien Award watch lists.  He seems to be held in high esteem.
Google Monthly Searches: 14,800
Where should he be rated? Thomas accumulated 12.6 EPA last season against meager competition, ranking 101st in the country in EPA and 100th in EPA+.  What little value he had was tied to his rushing, but with no threat from his arm, his rushing wasn't particularly efficient either.  I have some optimism about his 2013 season, mostly due to Scot Loeffler breathing some life into the Hokie offense, but I see no reason he should be on these watch lists.  Excellent choice.

2. David Fales, San Jose State
How is he rated? Fales in on the watch list for both the Maxwell and O'Brien awards.
Google Monthly Searches: 2,400
Where should he be rated? No QB in the country did more damage to opposing defenses through the air last year than David Fales.  Not Johnny Manziel, not Teddy Bridgewater, not Geno Smith, not anyone.  Fales led the country in passing EPA, adding 179.1 points through the air.  His net contribution on the ground was a negative, but Fales still finished 5th overall in EPA.  He's dinged a bit when we account for competition, but not as much as you might imagine, still ranking 9th in EPA+, 6th in passing EPA+, and 11th in EPA+ per pass.  SJSU faced better defenses than you might think, matching Stanford, Utah State, BYU, and Bowling Green last season.  I made arguments last year that, with NIU's assault on the BCS, Fales had surpassed Jordan Lynch as the best QB most fans had not heard of.  And, given the paucity of searches for his name on Google even now, it's hard to suggest that's changed.  It's a bizarre selection for such a list.  Perhaps Athlon thinks he'll really miss Mike MacIntyre's leadership, despite MacIntyre's history as a defensive coach?  Even so, is a guy really that overrated if average fans read his name and say, "who?"

3. Clint Chelf, Oklahoma State
How is he rated? Chelf isn't on either the Maxwell or O'Brien award watch lists.
Google Monthly Searches: 720
Where should he be rated? Fales, while being obscure to America, was at least highly rated and well respected by pre-season magazines.  Chelf wasn't named to any of Phil Steele's 4 Big 12 teams for 2013, and received little attention at the Big 12 media days.  If Big 12 quarterbacks were Beatles, Chelf might be Stuart Sutcliffe.  Chelf finished 61st in EPA, 45th in EPA+, and 22nd in EPA+ per pass, and 11th in EPA+ per rush.  He was very good when he played, but he clearly didn't play enough to really work his way into any serious watch lists.  To suggest he's overrated is to suggest he's a below average college quarterback.  That seems pretty preposterous to me.

4. Keith Price, Washington
How is he rated: Price is on both the Maxwell and O'Brien watch lists.
Google monthly searches: 9,900
Where should he be rated? Price is not a particularly good QB, and it's reasonable to question his inclusion on the watch lists above.  Price ranked 156th (of 180) in EPA, 126th in EPA+, 126th in EPA+ per pass, and 88th in EPA+ per rush.  He's an excellent selection for this list, though I would be careful about mistaking fame (entering his 3rd season as a starter at a Pac-12 school, played in 2 bowls) for acclaim.  Perhaps he'll rebound this year as a 10th year senior.

5. Zach Mettenberger, LSU
How is he rated? On Maxwell watch list, not on O'Brien.
Google monthly searches: 8,100
Where should he be rated? The Google stats would be higher if more people could spell Mettenberger.  Mett ranked 130th in EPA, 73rd in EPA+, 54th in EPA+ per pass, and 175th in EPA+ per rush.  He wasn't very good, and most people have heard of him because he plays QB for LSU.  I suppose this does make him overrated, but this is what makes lists like this so confusing: in the last 4 selections, we've had a QB everyone has heard of but few think is good (Mett), a QB few have heard of but everyone thinks is good (Fales), and a QB few have heard of but few think is good (Chelf).  In other words, everyone can be overrated!

6. Aaron Murray, Georgia
How is he rated? On both watch lists.
Google monthly searches: 27,100
Where should he be rated? Murray ranked 6th in EPA+ per pass last year.  If we limit to players with a minimum of 250 plays at the position (most QBs have well over 400), Murray ranks 4th.  UGA gained .334 points every time Murray threw the ball last year.  For comparison (unadjusted EPA per pass):
AJ McCarron: .324
Teddy Bridgewater: .300
Johnny Manziel: .279
Everyone else: < .334
He's also about to break every important individual QB record in the SEC, and he didn't even crack the 2nd team all-conference preseason list.  I would suggest he's adequately rated, usually as one of the ten best QBs in the country, but there's more evidence that he's underrated than the alternative.

7. Bo Wallace, Ole Miss
How is he rated? On both watch lists.
Google monthly searches: 4,400
Where should he be rated? 24th in EPA+, 21st in EPA+ per pass, Wallace is a very good quarterback who would likely be lighting up scoreboards if he played in a more forgiving conference or had some kind of level playing field in terms of talent within his own conference.  I personally didn't think he got enough attention last year, and pundits seem to focus too much on interceptions.  They're important, and he had 17, but they don't completely negate all the good a QB does with his arm - and Wallace did a lot of good last year.  For Wallace to be overrated, I'd have to see him listed as one of the 15 best quarterbacks in America, and that's nothing I've seen this year.

8. Johnny Manziel, Texas A&M
How is he rated? All-everything.
Google monthly searches: 246,000
Where should he be rated? Let's face it - this is just pandering for argument, and I won't bother getting deep into this one.  Suffice to say the best QB in the country, by definition, cannot be overrated.  I'll save analysis for the serious selections.

9. Blake Bell, Oklahoma
How is he rated? On Maxwell, not O'Brien.
Google monthly searches: 5,400
Where should he be rated? Bell attempted only 16 passes last season, so as a passer he's a virtual unknown.  He ranked 58th in EPA+ per rush (37th among QBs), but had no other notable stats.  He was named to more watch lists and all-conference teams than Chelf, which is absurd, so I can't disagree that he's overrated at this point.  I can't really agree either, however.  He's just an unknown as a full-time QB.

10. David Ash, Texas
How is he rated? On both watch lists.
Google monthly searches: 14,800
Where should he be rated? 26th in EPA, 25th in EPA+, 12th in EPA+ per pass, Ash hasn't gotten much preseason acclaim outside the watch lists.  He's probably one of the 20 best returning QBs in the country, and I don't think he really gets enough attention.  I'm not touting him for the Heisman, but neither is anyone else.  He's a good QB playing for a good team.

I know what you're thinking - if so many of these players aren't overrated, who is?  If I had to make my own top 10, without ordering the list in any way, it would be:
1. Logan Thomas, Virginia Tech
2. Keith Price, Washington
3. Zach Mettenberger, LSU
4. Braxton Miller, Ohio State - This Heisman candidate ranked 81st in adjusted EPA/pass, just between Corey Robinson and James Franklin.
5. Everett Golson, sandlot - On this list simply because many drastically changed their expectations for Notre Dame after he left the team.
6. Kevin Hogan, Stanford - Decent QB, but people are going to think he's responsible for Stanford's wins, and people are wont to do, and he's not even mostly responsible.
7. Jeff Driskel, Florida - Florida fans are to Driskel's production as Les Miles is to Jeremy Hill's obedience to the law.
8. Tyler Tettleton, Ohio - In The Departed, Frank Costello memorably said "I want my environment to be a product of me."   Tyler Tettleton is a product of his environment, and he's probably ok with that.
9. Keenan Reynolds, Navy - It may not have been accurate to name Reynolds to this year's O'Brien watch list, but was it ever patriotic!
10. Derek Carr, Fresno State - The ironic thing about Athlon's inclusion of Fales is that Fales is overshadowed in both NFL talks and pundit circles by his inferior conference mate.  Carr might very well be the better NFL prospect.  Fales is the better college passer.

Brent Blackwell compiles the EPA rankings for cfbtn.com.  Follow Brent on Twitter by mashing the pretty button below. Follow @brentblackwell

Statistical Review: Oregon #2

In many ways, Oregon's offense was at the back end of elite. They averaged 38 yards/possession, 19th most nationally. They were 5th in explosive plays per rush and 80th per pass. Oregon rushers were stuffed on almost 20% of attempts; 60 teams were better. And the 46.3% conversion rate on 3rd and 4th down was 14th best. The kicking game was atrocious.

Yet the Ducks were 2nd to Louisiana Tech in points/possession. The first key to success, obviously, is 6.33 yards/rush, second only to Texas A&M. Oregon didn't have the nation's most explosive rushing offense, but no one was better at getting more than 10 yards on a carry. Oregon had three players (Thomas, Mariota, and Barner) in the top 30 nationally among qualified players in carries for 10+ yards/rush. The second key is that Oregon scored touchdowns 81% of the time in the red zone. That's a lot. 

Texas A&M and Baylor were more efficient on offense than Oregon at the end of the season, but Oregon finished higher on this list because they paired their elite offense with a top 15 defense. The Ducks were elite at preventing explosive plays - no team allowed fewer yards/completion - and top 10 against the pass. They were solid on 3rd downs, few forced more turnovers, and they were almost as good on defense in the red zone as they were on offense. 

Projection:

First on Mariota. He was really good last year; only he and Devin Gardner were in the top 10 in EPA+/pass and per rush among quarterbacks, and Gardner's rushing numbers are more fluke than real. But Manziel produced 45% more schedule-adjusted points (EPA+), a stat with an incredible track record of predicting Heismans. How? First, Manziel had 43% more attempts, but Manziel was still more efficient on a per play basis. How is that? Oregon only threw the ball on 37% of plays. Manziel was a more efficient runner than Mariota and he attempted 123 more passes than Mariota. Mariota won't win the Heisman in 2013 because 1) Manziel is still better but (and as I write this, still eligible) and 2) Oregon's offense won't let him rack up the necessary numbers.

For the team, as long as the coaching transition doesn't produce too much indigestion, Oregon should be playing again for the national championship against another SEC team (but definitely not Auburn). Oregon will be the best team not playing in the SEC, and they should have a loss to give and still be the top choice to get a shot at knocking off the SEC champ - as long as that loss isn't to Stanford (in case you're wondering, that does mean I am fairly confident that every major conference, non-SEC team outside of Oregon will lose a game). 

-------------------- 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: Texas A&M #3

Texas A&M had the best offense in college football. Oregon and Louisiana Tech scored more points per possession, but they did that against lesser competition (Oregon played one elite defense and flopped) and with significantly better average starting field position. A&M led the country with 44 yards/possession (6 more than Oregon). When we account for competition, field position, and points scored, and drop non-competitive drives (when the game is decided and backups are playing), Texas A&M was .33 points/possession better than any other team and a full half point better than Oregon.

Texas A&M led the country in yards per rush, .11 yards more than Oregon. Adjusting for competition, that gap grows to .78 yards per rush. Utah State had more explosive plays per rush than A&M, but adjusted for competition, there is a significant gap between the Aggies and everyone else (Florida, LSU and Alabama were among the best in the business at preventing big plays). The passing offense was also top 10 overall, by explosive plays, and by completion percentage after adjusting for competition. Manziel and crew were one of two teams to convert more than 50% of third downs.

And the scary part is that the Aggie offense didn't peak until the end of the season. A&M had 5 of the 8 best offensive performances by opponent-adjusted EP3 (the best available metric for a team's overall offensive performance) for the season in their last 5 games against FBS opponents. Let me put that another way. There were 732 games between FBS teams in the 2012 season. Five of the 8 best offensive performances in those 732 games came from Texas A&M, and all of those five came after October 26. The one weak link was the kicking game, which was really bad.

The defense was solid and half of what you'd really like to see paired with an uptempo offense. The Aggies were solid on 3rd downs and didn't allow a ton of explosive plays, but only against Alabama could they force a turnover. The A&M offense was deadly off turnovers and quick three-and-outs.

Projection:

Film on A&M will make opponents more confident?

If a few pieces fall in place, Texas A&M could have the best offense in the history of college football. The offensive line is littered with NFL talent. Mike Evans and Ricky Seals-Jones will give more defensive coordinators nightmares than any receiving duo in college football, and Manziel will have a half dozen other suitable options when he wants to mix things up. Christine Michael left a bigger hole than most realize because of his off-field issues in 2012, but Malena and Trey Williams were both top 30 runners in 2012 and Brandon Williams has the talent to break the top 10. And then there's Manziel. He was the best player in college football as a redshirt freshman in a new system. That, of course, is the biggest piece, but if he plays Texas A&M will be tough to stop.

The bigger questions are on defense. There is a load of young talent on campus, but little experience and not enough game-ready depth. If DC Mark Snyder can pull another rabbit out of his hat, A&M will be a coin toss against Alabama from a national championship. And if the offense is in the 3.6-3.7 points/possession range, Snyder will just need a small rodent, not the full-sized rabbit.
-------------------- 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: Notre Dame #4

Notre Dame was 27th in yards/possession allowed, 39th in average starting field position, but 2nd in touchdowns/possession allowed. The first two numbers are decent, but the last number is elite and the single most important variable that carried Notre Dame to the national championship game.

Notre Dame's formula for success had two key ingredients. First, Notre Dame didn't allow many explosive plays. Only South Carolina, Oregon, LSU and Alabama were better at preventing explosive plays against the run and pass, and only Oregon was better at limiting yards/completion. Second, the Domers allowed only 3.4 points/possession in the red zone. In other words, opponents were able to move the ball, but Notre Dame didn't allow them to score from near the end zone or far from it. Notre Dame also forced more turnovers than most.

The Notre Dame offense matched the defense's strengths with weakness - they struggled in the red zone and were far from explosive. They maintained long drives, ate up clock, and often reached the red zone, but from there they kicked a ton of field goals. Only a dozen teams scored fewer touchdowns per red zone possession. If they could have converted half of their red zone field goal attempts into touchdowns (which would still place them in the bottom half nationally in red zone points/possession), Notre Dame would have jumped from 59th to 25th in points per possession.

Projection:

The Notre Dame offense left a lot of points on the field, but a lot of offensive talent will not be on the field in 2013. If we assume some regression in red zone defense, Notre Dame could fall back to borderline top 25 status in 2013. Then again, they could pull off a series of improbable wins and ride the luck of the Irish to another showdown with the SEC in January, but I'd say the former is more likely.

-------------------- 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: Ohio State #5

One of these teams is not like the other. Only Ohio State is in the top 10 in the hybrid rankings but outside the top 10 in the power rankings for 2012. This is not to say that Ohio State is undeserving of a high ranking; they won football games and, ultimately, that's what this is all about. But it doesn't mean that Ohio State will knock out undefeated seasons with ease going forward.

Ohio State could roll their competition if Braxton Miller is the Heisman-caliber quarterback so many believe he is, but I think this is unlikely. In 2012, Miller finished 81st in EPA+/pass. To put that in perspective, that puts him six spots behind Trevone Boyking, TCU's backup quarterback. But he does it with his legs, right? Miller did accumulate rushing stats, but he was only 38th in EPA+/rush among quarterbacks and in a virtual tie with Josh Nunes. Johnny Manziel was more than .3 points per carry better. He completed 58% of his passes and 40% on 3rd and long, and he was sacked on more than 10% of pass plays. His yards per completion were decent, but he was 56th in explosive plays per pass among qualified quarterbacks. I'm sure he's probably a decent fellow, but Braxton Miller is hands down the most overrated player in college football.

To his credit, Miller was a force in the red zone (5.7 points/possession), which allowed the Buckeyes to finish just outside the top 25 in points/possession and EP3+.

The defense finished in a similar position in points/possession allowed. They allowed a fair share of explosive plays and did little in their opponents' backfields, but they were generally solid against the run and pass and were tough on 3rd downs.

Projection:
It's possible that Miller makes big strides in his second season with Urban Meyer, but if not, I don't see Ohio State coming close to some lofty expectations in 2013. The schedule is soft, but it was soft in 2012 as well and they still had a number of close calls. The model gives Ohio State a 5% chance of going undefeated again if they replayed their 2012 schedule (with the same 2012 team), and I would assume a similar probability of going undefeated in 2013.
-------------------- 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: Georgia #6

Georgia won 12 games, won the SEC East, took Alabama to the wire and was one big play from winning a national championship. (Of course, I'm assuming that they, too, would have rolled Notre Dame.)

Aaron Murray was 6th among quarterbacks by EPA+/pass. Gurley was 13th among running backs in EPA+/rush and 5th in EPA+ rushing. Marshall finished 30th in EPA+/rush. Only Texas A&M, Texas, and Baylor also have two returning running backs in the top 30.

Given this individual efficiency on offense, Georgia's 2.78 points/possession (20th best) seems disappointing. Texas A&M was a full half point/possession better. In addition to raw efficiency, Georgia had the nation's most explosive pass offense and was 15th in explosive plays/rush (opponent adjusted). And the Bulldogs were dynamite on third downs and in the red zone - touchdowns on 76% of red zone possessions. But Georgia ran a play in the red zone on only 27% of possessions, rarely attempted field goals, and didn't have a great success rate when they did. The implication is that Georgia really struggled between the 20 and 40, but I couldn't say why.

Likewise, the defense was a respectable 15th in points/possession and EP3+, but from the outside, the talent was there for a top 10 defense. On the other hand, on a per play basis Georgia was outside the top 20, but they didn't have any major weaknesses offenses could exploit, so the whole was better than the sum of the parts.

Projection:
Georgia lost talent at wide receiver, but everyone else is back and Murray will still have quality targets to work with. Sans injuries, there's  no reason the Bulldogs can't push their way into the top 5 in points/possession. There are plenty of question marks on defense, but there are also potential answers. More important, the schedule is a bruiser. They start the season with Clemson and then play South Carolina and LSU in two of their next three. At this point the SEC East and Georgia's national title hopes could be settled.
-------------------- 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: Kansas State #7

In the chart below, the black dots are the yards/possession per game, the gray dots are the average yards/possession allowed for each opponent for the season, the green bars are the difference between the black and gray, and the red line is Kansas State's average yards/possession for the season. The conclusion is fairly obvious. For the first half of the season, Kansas State had the nation's most effective offense. Combined with good field position and a low turnover rate, they had the nation's highest scoring offense by points/possession. Over the last four games Kansas State was not only less good, they were significantly worse than each opponent's average opponent. 

What happened? The short answer is that Collin Klein got knocked on the noggin against Oklahoma State. Klein still finished the season as a top 5 quarterback in EPA+/pass, but his opponent-adjusted production fell 35% between the first 9 and last 4 games by expected points added per pass. Before Oklahoma State he was the nation's most efficient passer and, had he stayed on his first half pace, he would have finished the season in a virtual tie with Baylor's Nick Florence for the nation's top spot. Production per rush also fell in the last four games, but not as far and from a much lower starting point.

And this brings us to the great Kansas State myth. The perception among most is that Kansas State won with good defense, no mistakes, a solid running game, and then Klein made the necessary plays to put them over the top. Nothing could be further from the truth (almost). Few teams allowed more plays/possession and 76 teams allowed fewer yards/possession than Kansas State. The defense wasn't great, but they took advantage of good field position and prevented explosive plays fairly well (but were well short of elite), so teams were forced to move the ball down the field one play at a time. They were top 30 in turnovers forced per play but were 2nd nationally in turnovers per possession. As a result, the defense was able to return the favor of good field position to the offense (best in the country) despite allowing 33 yards per possession and finishing 39th in points/possession.

Kansas State ran the ball more than 60% of the time, but not because the running game was good. They were 73rd in opponent-adjusted yards per rush and 60th in explosive plays per rush; they were much better by EPA+/rush only because Klein was a conversion machine. The passing game, on the other hand, was top 10. They averaged only 35 yards/possession, but with good average starting field position that was enough to reach the red zone on 46% of possessions. The only part of the Kansas State myth that was really true is that they rarely turned over the ball (before Klein got bonked, at least).

Projection:
Like Boise State, I don't assume regression in turnovers for Kansas State. It is a skill these programs have mastered. But I do project regression offensively when they lose a Heisman caliber talent at quarterback. Remember, Kansas State was elite in only two areas in 2012. They threw the ball well and won the turnover battle. This resulted in good field position and allowed them to scored points while running 60% of the time. Without the field position, the defense allows more points and forces fewer turnovers, which then translates into worse field position for the offense, which leads to fewer points and more turnovers. Kansas State is forced to be more aggressive on offense and the game speeds up, playing right into the hands of the Baylors, West Virginias, and Techs of the world. Things unravel quickly. Assuming Kansas State gets post-noggin-bonking level play at quarterback in 2013, Kansas State could still be a solid team, but they will slip back into a muddy Big 12 pack.
-------------------- 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: South Carolina #8

Connor Shaw can be a very effective quarterback. He finished 2012 in 7th place in EPA+/pass among quarterbacks. He completed 68% of his passes, but was significantly worse when he needed to go downfield. And he wasn't great when he held on to the ball. He was sacked on 11% of pass plays and was just above average when he ran.

The differences between Shaw and Thompson are striking. Thompson completed only 52% of his pass attempts, but was just as good on 3rd and long as other downs. As a result, he was able to make up for the fewer completions with almost 3 yards more per completion. His interception rate was half Shaw's - 1.6% to 3.1%. The only importantly similarity between the two is that Thompson was also sacked on more than 10% of pass plays.

On the whole, the South Carolina passing game moved the offense. Even after adjusting for schedule, South Carolina was below average on running plays but top 15 on passing plays and top 10 in explosive pass plays (Lattimore was better than Miles, but neither cracked the top 60 in EPA+/run among running backs). On the whole, the offense was borderline top 25.

The defense was borderline top 10 and top 15 against both the run and the pass. The Gamecocks were 2nd in sacks/pass - Clowney's 13 was an important contribution, but South Carolina also had three players with 5 sacks or more and five with 3 sacks or more. They were slightly less impressive getting to the quarterback on passing downs. They prevented explosive pass and run plays, forced a high rate of negative runs, and allowed fewer than 4 points per possession in the red zone.

Projection:
The lack of a running game and the high sack rates for two different quarterbacks suggest that offensive line play was a problem in 2012. The group in 2013 should look similar to last year's version, but now a year older. South Carolina can only go as far as those five can push back the opposition. While Clowney has been the proud recipient of the ESPN hype machine, the fate of South Carolina's season, in my opinion, rests squarely on Connor Shaw's back (in the medical sense). If Clowney does his best impression of an '09 Ndamukong Suh, the South Carolina defense could slide up into top 5 territory. A decently proficient offense (which must include a viable running game) would put them in the SEC championship game and from there anything can happen.
-------------------- 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: Florida #9

When comparing defenses by EP3+, Alabama and Florida are in a tier unto themselves (within which Alabama had a slight lead). Florida had the country's best pass defense by both schedule adjusted EPA/pass and yards/pass. No team allowed fewer explosive plays/pass than Florida, and no team allowed fewer explosive plays/run. There are really only two areas where the Gators could have been much better: sacks and high leverage turnovers. They forced turnovers at a decent rate but didn't get big returns from those turnovers.

And then there's the offense. Where the defense was only above average on sacks/pass, the offense was 123rd (ahead of Auburn). They were 122nd on sacks per pass on passing downs (ahead of Auburn and Navy). When they did throw the ball they averaged 5.6 yards per attempt (110th) and an explosive play on 4.3% of attempts (105th). Jeff Driskel racked up a spectacular 4.2 expected points added for the season - and when I say spectacular, I mean to say that 4.2 is spectacular for a single play. For a season, 4.2 is good enough for 119th among qualified quarterbacks.

The Gators were much more effective when they chose to run the ball, but even Gillislee was 87th among qualified running backs in EPA+/rush. Ironically, while Driskel was a below average passer even after adjusting for schedule, he alone boosted Florida's rushing efficiency numbers up to respectability.

Projected:
Florida had four huge wins in 2012 and one major dud. You probably couldn't design a better defense to face Texas A&M, and they got Manziel in his first ever collegiate game. They scored 44 points on 183 yards against SC; turnovers might have had something to do with that, and they also had half as many yards on special teams returns as on offense, but did it with three plays. Florida State gave the ball away five times. And against LSU they rushed for 176 yards while allowing 1.7 per carry. In other words, what Florida did best in 2012 was win; we'll see if that carries over to 2013.
-------------------- 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: Florida State #10

Florida State shut out two opponents and held five in single digits. Only two opponents topped 22, and both of those scored 37 points. One was Clemson. Clemson was 9th nationally in points/possession and 19th in possessions/game. The Tigers often scored a lot of points in 2012. The other was Florida. Florida was 75th in points per possession. They equaled or topped 37 three times - Florida State, Tennessee and South Carolina. I'm not really sure where this is going, but it's definitely weird.

Florida State scored 40 or more in seven games, 30 or more in 10 games, and 20 or more in 13. And they scored 16 and lost to NC State. Outside of having the odd distinction of having the lowest plays/possession allowed in college football, the NC State defense was not special . . . except on that day they were.

Florida State was a very good team. They were in the top 11 in points/possession on offense and defense; Alabama is the only other team that can say that. They allowed the fewest yards/possession. They were second in schedule-adjusted yards/rush. EJ Manuel was decent but not overwhelming (30th among quarterbacks in EPA+/pass), but I'm starting to suspect that may have had more to do with QB development than EJ Manuel himself. They did everything well . . . except one day they couldn't score and another day they couldn't keep the other team from scoring.

Projection:
Florida State will need to break in a freshman quarterback but 1) they have the running game and defense to steamroll lesser opponents and 2) if 2012 taught us anything it's that we shouldn't underestimate the redshirt freshman. So the questions are 1) will Winston be able to keep up with Tajh Boyd on Oct. 19th, 2) will he be able to channel his inner Bridgewater and throw it around enough to beat Florida and 3) will the Seminoles be able to avoid whatever it was that happened against NC State.
-------------------- 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: Stanford #11

Stanford had an elite defense. They were 12th in points/possession and 5th in EP3+. Teams running against the Cardinal crossed the line of scrimmage on only 75% of attempts. They were also 5th in sacks per pass; no team forced more negative plays than Stanford. Against the pass they allowed less than 10 yards per completion, but, on the flip side, they did allow a fairly high completion percentage. As a result, they allowed more plays/possession than you'd expect from an elite defense. Florida and Notre Dame had the same problem, but all three kept the yards/possession low.

The Stanford offense was not good. They scored less than 2 points per possession (78th nationally) and were 81st in yards/possession. They were 64th in yards/pass and 69th in yards/rush. They were well above average at avoiding TFLs, but the Cardinal were not elite in any area offensively.

Which brings us to the quarterbacks. No surprise, Hogan is leaps and bounds better than Nunes. Statistically, Hogan looked a lot like Everett Golson: a slightly less efficient passer, a slightly more efficient runner. And given that Stanford and Notre Dame were similar defensively - very similar EP3+ allowed, relatively high plays/possessions, Notre Dame was much better close to the end zone - it is reasonable to say that Stanford with Hogan for the season may have looked very much like Notre Dame.

Projection:
After just saying that Stanford could look very much like Notre Dame, and recognizing that Notre Dame just played for a national championship, I still think Stanford is coming in to 2013 overrated. Hogan was 38th in passing efficiency among qualified quarterbacks, and the team was 33rd in EPA+/rush. Last year, Alabama scored higher than Stanford in EP3+ allowed and Kansas State, Oregon, Florida State and Georgia were all within in spitting distance, and all had much better offenses. We did see what happened to Notre Dame against Alabama, right?
-------------------- 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: Clemson #12

Clemson was a really, really good football team with one terrible flaw. And this one flaw defined their season. It explains why they gave up 49 points to Florida State, were poorly matched against South Carolina, and we had to like their chances against LSU. And if you go back and read Monday's post on LSU, you might be able to guess where this is going.

Clemson allowed 7.4 explosive pass plays per 100 passes, which is top 20 bad. They allowed an explosive play on 4.4% of run plays, which is top 5 bad. Adjusting for schedule, they are sandwiched between Colorado and New Mexico. Those two powerhouses combined for four wins against FBS opposition (Texas State, New Mexico State, Hawaii and Washington State). Florida State and South Carolina were both top-level explosive offenses in 2012 while LSU was not. 

This break-but-don't-bend approach to defense makes some sense for Clemson. If you have an explosive, up-tempo offense yourself, you want the other team's offense to get off the field in a hurry. The Tigers didn't force a ton of turnovers, but they were quite good on 3rd downs. That being said, Clemson was in the defensive dysfunction range in the number of big plays they allowed.

The offense was good, 9th in points per possession. They outplayed their peripherals, which were generally in the 10-20 range, by being very efficient the in red zone: 5.6 points per red zone possession, 5th best nationally. Tajh Boyd was obviously a big part of that success, and he finished 3rd in EPA+ (behind Manziel and Florence) and 8th in EPA+/pass. He was a healthy combination of efficiency - 67% completions - and explosion - 7th among quarterbacks. But he had a disappointingly large drop off on 3rd and long.

Projection:

The good thing about having one major flaw is that one flaw is easier to address. And with Boyd back, the offense should be rolling along. But even if the defense had been able to keep more plays in front of them, Clemson was not uber-elite. The offense would still need to be top 3, not just top 10, to overcome defensive insufficiencies against the country's best. With Hopkins gone (the nation's leading receiver by EPA+), unless Boyd grows Manziel legs during the offseason, that probably won't happen. 

-------------------- 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: Oklahoma #13

When I reviewed Texas, I mocked their inability to stop the run and included a video of Oklahoma's Damien Williamson running 95 yards for a touchdown against Texas as evidence. This is somewhat ironic. This is ironic because, statistically, Oklahoma was just as bad.

Now, this is one case where using statistics to find the forest through the trees can lead us to miss the massive redwoods in the middle of an otherwise normal forest. Outside of two games, the Oklahoma run defense was normal. Against West Virginia and Texas A&M, they were non-existent. West Virginia rushed for 458 yards on 47 carries. That's a lot. Tavon Austin alone racked up an EPA of 27.1 on 25 touches - more than a point per touch. Texas A&M averaged more than 10 yards per carry on their way to 326 yards, and turned in the fifth best performance by EPA/rush of the season (the opponents in the top 4 were Savannah State, Florida A&M, Eastern Michigan, and New Mexico State). I'll leave it to the Xs and Os guys to tell you why Oklahoma struggled in these games.

On the other hand Oklahoma had an elite pass defense (except against Texas A&M and Notre Dame; you should, by now, have noticed a pattern: the OU defense wasn't very good against Texas A&M).

The Oklahoma offense was very good. Landry Jones was elite. Second in schedule adjusted EPA on pass plays and 10th in EPA+/pass. As a team, Oklahoma was 10th in EPA+/pass (but 4th in their conference). They lacked explosive plays in the pass game, but were top 10 in schedule adjusted sacks/pass and completion percentage. As a result, they enjoyed a healthy success rate on 3rd downs.

Projection:
Oklahoma threw the ball a lot. The Sooners were one of 14 teams to attempt passes on more than 58% of their plays, and one of 26 teams to run the ball less than 57% of the time in short yardage situations. When they chose to run the ball, they were less effective; not bad, barely inside the top 40. They will need to do a better job running the ball in 2013.

And they better learn to stop the run. Baylor and Texas will be dynamic on the ground, Kansas State will be Kansas State, and I'm guessing Kingsbury has picked up a few pointers from his old pals in College Station.
-------------------- 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: LSU #14

One of the great mysteries in college football in this: how does LSU not have an explosive offense? First, I should establish the premise. LSU was 47th in explosive plays per pass and 51st per rush in 2012. Some of that is schedule induced, but after adjusting for schedule they are still outside of the top 30.

Now, why do I think LSU should have an explosive offense. 1) LSU has athletes. Athletes=explosive plays. The two go hand in hand. 2) Les Miles ain't scar'd. And I don't just mean he'll call the fake field goal. He's hired innovative characters to run his offense. And LSU's defensive philosophy is far from conservative. 3) Alabama and Georgia Tech have explosive offenses. Yes, LSU wants to establish the run - and they should. Elite programs should exploit the advantage of being able to recruit more and bigger football players. But Alabama also runs the ball, and Alabama had the country's second most explosive pass offense (schedule adjusted, 4th not adjusted).

And this isn't a new phenomenon. Adjusting for schedule, LSU worked their way into the top 30 in explosive plays in 2011 and 2010, but never inside the top 20, and they've been outside the top 40 since at least 2008 without adjusting for schedule.

Unlike 2011, LSU just wasn't that good across the board on offense, and they allowed way too many sacks.

The defense, on the other hand, was elite. They, Alabama and Stanford were the only teams in the top 10 in both EPA+/pass and EPA+/rush, which makes their 7th place finish in EP3+ allowed a little of a disappointment. They forced turnovers and kept teams out of the red zone, but were actually below average once teams made it in the red zone. The game against Texas A&M was probably the best defensive performance of the season by any team.

Projection:

If the players on roster play the same as they did last year, LSU could be looking at a disappointing season. On the other hand, there is enough talent to compete with the best if one piece can fall in to place. In 2012, Mettenberger turned in a negative EPA for the season but a 13.9 against Alabama. If the latter Mettenberger shows up consistently in 2013, LSU will be a tough out.
-------------------- 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: Utah State #15

Utah State almost doubled its opponents in yards/rush allowed, 5.6 to 3.0 Those numbers are a little misleading because sacks are counted as rushes in college football and Utah State was 9th in schedule adjusted sacks/pass and 8th in sacks/pass on passing downs. After we pull out sacks, Utah State was only 50% better, 6.0 to 4.0. Utah State also had one of the country's largest gaps in completion percentage 0 67.9% to 54.1%.

Some of this advantage was a product of a fairly soft schedule: Southern Utah, Idaho, Texas State, UNLV, Colorado State and New Mexico State. But the Aggies beat Louisiana Tech in Ruston, they hammered San Jose State, and lost to Wisconsin and BYU by 5 combined points; Utah State was a couple plays from playing with the big boys, not Toledo, in their bowl game.

Projection:
Utah State is a tough team to get a solid read on because of the level of competition they faced. Chuckie Keeton is 17th nationally in EPA, but drops 49 points and 23 spots in the rankings when we adjust for schedule. Kerwynn Williams drops 21 points from 88.2 to 67.2 when we adjust for schedule, and is 69th among running backs in EPA+/pass (although his production from catching passes survived schedule adjustment). In almost every category, Utah State drops from near-elite based on performance on the field, to good but not special when adjusted for the quality of the competition they faced. In 2011, Utah State was rated as a having a legitimate, elite ground game.

My second point of concern is that Utah State in 2012 had the nation's best red zone defense. They allowed 3.0 points per possession (e.g., a field goal on average). The second best was Notre Dame at 3.3 points. They were the only team that allowed touchdowns on fewer than 30% of possessions, and were even 2nd in turnovers on downs in the red zone. The problem here is that red zone defense isn't really a unique skill. Certain qualities may help a team be good in the red zone - strong against the run, allow a low completion percentage - but outside of these qualities, there's no reason to believe that a team can repeat strong red zone defense from season to season. Utah State should regress in this area in 2012. If they were drop to a respectable 20th (which is still better than their EP3+), that would cost them .3 points/possession, and would drop them from 3rd to 13th in points/possession allowed. That would cost them a game or two in 2013.

Finally, they lost Gary Andersen. I don't pretend to have any special insight, but anyone that could make Utah State competition in football at a national level is unique.
-------------------- 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: Oregon State #16

When Oregon State started the season 4-0 I didn't think much of it. Wisconsin looked like a bad team at the time (and at the time they were a bad team), but they did have the talent to win the Big 10(+2-2*). UCLA would win the South and Arizona had a quality team as well. Washington State was terrible. Then the Beavers hung 42 on BYU and I didn't know what to think. After that, they lost 3 games by 4 points or less (and they also lost to Oregon) and were largely forgotten. I would argue that Oregon State was one of the country's more underappreciated teams.
*Ineligible

On defense, Oregon State wasn't great on the peripherals - not a ton of sacks or TFLs, allowed too many explosive plays - but on the whole they were solid against the pass and run and very good on 3rd downs. Though not elite on defense, the Beavers were in the next tier and 14th in schedule-adjusting EP3 allowed.

On offense, the Beavers could run and throw, but they were terrible on 3rd downs. Oregon State was fairly explosive and great in the red zone and kicking field goals. In other words, they often needed just one play to get them in scoring range and then they were dynamite once they got there, but they should have been better at maintaining drives.

Projection:
The Mannion/Vaz thing still isn't settled (as of writing). Vaz was the more efficient passer (25th in EPA+/pass), but statistical difference between the two can be traced back to one start, Vaz's first, when he thrashed BYU. Oregon State needs someone to step up and excel behind center, because those areas where they did succeed in 2012 are less predictive of future success. But the defense should be good enough that a decent offense will keep them competitive.
-------------------- 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: San Jose State #17

David Fales was the most productive passer in college football (0.3 points more than Nick Florence). He drops to 11th in efficiency per play when you adjust for schedule, but all 10 quarterbacks ahead of him were playing on elite offenses in BCS programs. He completed an astounding 73% of his passes on 3rd and long, 3 percentage points better than any quarterback with at least 100 attempts. Only seven players gained 10 yards more often on pass plays (including sacks) than no or negative yards. The second best was Case McCoy with a 1.13 10 to 0 ratio. Fales had a 1.28 10 to 0 ratio. He did not generate a ton of big pass plays and threw INTs on 2% of passes (almost all of which were early downs), but otherwise he was arguably the best passer in college football.

Which was important for San Jose State, because while Fales was the most productive passer in college football, the run game was abysmal. Before adjusting for schedule, they were 113th in yards/rush, gained no yards 23.1% of carries, 111th nationally, and 114th in EPA/rush. Adjusting for schedule and they drop a few spots in each category. It was the biggest run/pass imbalance in college football, yet, I assume in response to deep, passionate self-loathing, they ran the ball 49% of the time. 

The defense was very good against the schedule they faced, but much less impressive when you adjust for schedule. They faced three competent offenses. They held Stanford to 20 (before Stanford figured out what they were doing offensively), but Utah State and Louisiana Tech topped 40. San Diego State added 34. 

Projection:

San Jose State was a relatively unimpressive 30th in points per possession and 50th in EP3+. It's impossible to know from this perspective if they could have improved on this by handing the reins over more to Fales. No doubt that will happen in 2013 unless Caragher feels the need to put his stamp on the program immediately. Fales will have all of his favorite targets back and the know-how to get them the ball.

The Spartans get another shot at Stanford, and though they almost pulled off the upset last year this should be a better team, and the game at Nevada should make Spartan fans nervous as they have an offense that could hang a big number in a hurry.

-------------------- 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: Texas #18

We use stats at cfbtn because we believe that teams and players should be evaluated based on their entire body of work. Traditionally, we watch a game, remember a few key plays, and draw broad conclusions from those plays. This is the way our brains naturally function, and it's a flawed approach. It's a source of superstition, prejudice and (non-clinical) irrational phobias. Those are bad. 
But there is a reason our brains work that way. With limited resources we have to filter out the bulk of what we see, enhance a few things, and use those as markers. It's called stereotyping. It's the root of prejudice, which leads to discrimination, which can be a really bad thing, but when you're a caveman deciding whether or not to hug the tiger, discrimination is a really good thing. 
Which brings us to the Longhorns. While I would usually eschew using film to sum up hundreds of plays over the course of the season, I need only one play to explain Texas' defensive woes:  
Texas was fairly good at catching runners in the backfield. They were top 10 in sacks per pass. The schedule adjusted completion percentage was top 20. But they were 80th in schedule adjusted explosive plays per rush and 103rd in EPA+/rush.
The offense was one of the best we've seen so far in our countdown; not quite elite, but very good. The single most important quality that kept them short of elite is inconsistency. David Ash was a top 25 player by EPA+ and was the country's 12th most efficient passer by EPA+/pass. Texas scored a 20+ EPA in two games (Ole Miss and Iowa State) and +15 in another three (Tech, Oklahoma State and New Mexico). But they paired that with negative performances against TCU, Oregon State and Kansas(!) and sub-3s against Kansas State and Oklahoma (games that could have redefined the season). 
Projection: If Ash grows up a little more and Texas spends time on tackling drills in practice, there's no reason they're not the class of the Big 12.  --------------------

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: Northwestern #19

Statistically, Northwestern has the look of a team that did the important things well, were neither exceptional nor terrible in any one area, and thus were able to win a lot of games without folks really taking notice. They avoided turnovers, especially costly turnovers, top 20 on third downs, and they ran the ball fairly well offensively. On defense they were average or a little above average across the board, but they were surprisingly bad on 3rd downs.

Generally, this makes Northwestern a little boring statistically even if that was far from the case in real life. One major exception is Kain Colter. I love Colter for three reasons. First, I can never remember which is his first name and which is his last. Second, I can never remember if his first or last name begins with a "C" or a "K". Third, He has a negative schedule adjusted EPA when passing but is still 46th among quarterbacks in EPA+. Not only does he have an EPA+ on rushing plays of 52.3 (which would rank him 14th among running backs), but he also scored double digit EPA receiving.

Projection:
Does "more of the same" count as analysis? If so, I expect more of the same.
-------------------- 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: Nebraska #20

Nebraska. I'll take a blind shot in the dark. Offensively, I'd guess they were explosive, efficient when running, less efficient when throwing. They turned the ball over way too often. On defense, strong against the pass, but generally inconsistent.

How I'd do?

I could spend this time discussing the nitty gritty details that defined the 2012 variant of the Nebraska Cornhuskers, but instead I'm going to do that with a single narrative. Nebraska played Wisconsin twice. In the first game they scored 30 points; in the second they scored 31. They won the first by 3 but lost the second by 39. Why? Nebraska allowed a .14 opponent-adjusted EPA/rush in game 1 and a -.24 in game 2. To put that in perspective, the performance in the first game was one of the best 150 all season; the performance in the second was outside the top 1,400 of 1,540. That's really, really bad.

Projection:
Turns out Taylor Martinez still has a year of eligibility. Not sure how he did it, but apparently he convinced the NCAA to grant him a full decade. Nebraska gave away 96 points in turnovers in 2012, so if they can improve there and avoid meltdowns, they could have a real nice season. If not, at least they have this to look back on.

-------------------- 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: Louisville #21

Louisville scored more than 33 points four times in 13 tries in 2012. One of those came against Missouri State. They were projected to 17 points by Vegas and this site in their bowl game. But they scored 33. Teddy Bridgewater was anointed as a superstar in waiting and the preseason accolades started rolling in for the 2013 variant of the Cardinals.

Only one problem. Louisville wasn't that good. In the three games before Florida, Louisville lost to UConn, lost to Syracuse by 19 and beat Rutgers by 3. They finished 44th in the power rankings. Bridgewater was a respectable, but not elite, 16th in schedule adjusted EPA/pass. He was 11th in situation adjusted completion percentage and 8th on 3rd and long, but he averaged less than 13 yards per completions. The offense was slow but efficient: 15th in EP3+, 11.8 possessions per game; it was not elite. Louisville played defense, they just didn't do it well (68th in EP3+ allowed).

The reason for the late season struggles is straightforward, even if the explanation is incomplete. For three straight games, Louisville couldn't run the ball. The correlation with RBs Senorise Perry's injury is strong. Mr. Perry wasn't that good (66th in EPA+/rush), but Jeremy Wright was even worse (156th of 180 qualifying running backs in EPA+/rush). Whatever the cause, Louisville was mindbogglingly inept.



Projection:
The love for Louisville is based on a belief that they finished the season strong, but that couldn't be further from the truth. Texas A&M finished the season strong. So did Baylor. I'd even accept Stanford. But not Louisville. The receiving corp should be better. Teddy Bridgewater could be better. The line might be worse and the running backs will not inspire. The defense will be average by national standards. If things go well, Louisville could be a top 25 team. I mean this as no slight to Louisville, but folks putting them in the top 15 are either moronic or click-baiting.
-------------------- 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: Northern Illinois #22

Jordan Lynch led the country for most of the season in EPA, and he finished at 180, 4th behind Tajh Boyd, Nick Florence and Johnny Manziel. But Lynch's production was "inflated" by opportunity and weaker competition. For example, Lynch had 50% more carries and Manziel, and Manziel's EPA on running plays was 20 points higher, and almost double Lynch's when we adjust for schedule. Overall, he was 53rd in EPA/rush and 62nd in EPA/pass.

But Lynch deserves a lot of credit for leading a very productive offense even if he, himself, was not overly efficient. Northern Illinois was one of eight teams to top 3 points per possession. They did this by compounding good starting field position (66.4 yards from end zone) with 38.4 yards per possession (15th best nationally) and 70% TDs in the red zone. The formula for success was an efficient running game (6th in EPA/rush, 12th in negative run rate) joined by some explosive pass plays (11th nationally). Akeem Daniels turned in an EPA of 31.2 on only 68 carries. He was 2nd among running backs in schedule adjusted EPA per carry. And he didn't have more than four carries until game 11.

The defense was adequate, 25th in points per possession, but could have been better. It excelled in the red zone, prevented explosive plays, and was generally solid across the board (more so against the pass than the run), but they didn't get stops on 3rd down and allowed a whopping 6.5 plays per possession. Among other things, this allowed opponents to run off 2:40 per possession, keeping Lynch and Co. on the bench.

Projection:
There's no reason to believe Northern Illinois can't replicate their 2012 success. And Jordan Lynch has room to improve and will get 600 opportunities to make that improvement pay off. On the other hand, 12-1 and a BCS bowl berth demands some lucky bounces and close 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.