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.