Well it will even out for Minnesota somewhat (and probably become more even generally for most teams) by the end of the year, after they play Penn State, Iowa, and Wisconsin.
But a legitimate ranking system has to take into account wins and losses combined with SOS in order to be complete, because the ultimate goal of the game is to win, not rack up PPD or any other stat.
Now, if you're talking about team strength instead of where they deserve to be ranked based on their record, I can see it. Those are two different things. But stats would have to incorporate special teams as well.
Ranking and SOS is an incredibly hard problem and why there are hundreds of computer ranking polls out there trying to solve the same problem. In @AE 87 defense, he makes it clear this is a raw stat, and meant only to highlight data.
If we are looking to only use PPD data for SOS, the simplest way would be to take the average of the opponent NET PPD and then use some weighting system to adjust rank. Another way would be to find the opponent adjusted PPD's based on the offenses and defenses faced that year and take the net of that. Other ranking algorithms will look outside their data set for SOS. Some will even use coaches/AP poll as their SOS indicator (no way Jose!!).
If anyone has the time to tackle some of those things, I'd love to see it.
Ranking and SOS is an incredibly hard problem and why there are hundreds of computer ranking polls out there trying to solve the same problem. In @AE 87 defense, he makes it clear this is a raw stat, and meant only to highlight data.
If we are looking to only use PPD data for SOS, the simplest way would be to take the average of the opponent NET PPD and then use some weighting system to adjust rank. Another way would be to find the opponent adjusted PPD's based on the offenses and defenses faced that year and take the net of that. Other ranking algorithms will look outside their data set for SOS. Some will even use coaches/AP poll as their SOS indicator (no way Jose!!).
If anyone has the time to tackle some of those things, I'd love to see it.
Well like I said, if it's a measure of strength, I can certainly see its value (with the caveat that there should be also a way to include the impact of special teams in order to make it a measure of team strength instead of just offensive and defensive strength).
But if it's a measure of who deserves a ranking (which is a horse of a different color), the only two factors that should be considered are wins and losses (because that is the object of the game) and who those wins and losses are against. Anything else is to make a measure of success something other than the actual goal of the game, which is to score more points against your opponent, not rack up PPD. And what if you had fewer drives? You'd have a big PPD but might come up short on the scoreboard. And what about those special teams? Why not just go by points instead of points per drive? Points on the scoreboard matter. Points per drive do not.
Well it will even out for Minnesota somewhat (and probably become more even generally for most teams) by the end of the year, after they play Penn State, Iowa, and Wisconsin.
But a legitimate ranking system has to take into account wins and losses combined with SOS in order to be complete, because the ultimate goal of the game is to win, not rack up PPD or any other stat.
Now, if you're talking about team strength instead of where they deserve to be ranked based on their record, I can see it. Those are two different things. But stats would have to incorporate special teams as well.
No worries. I don't want to drag this out, but let me just say a couple more things.
1) I don't understand how you distinguish between "a legitimate ranking system" and a ranking of "team strength." As I see it, as soon as you incorporate strength of schedule you're ranking something other than simply wins and losses. What is that if not a ranking of team strength? In my opinion, all ranking systems are trying to rank best to worst teams.
2) While I appreciate the impulse to press for wins and losses against any stat, I'm actually not sure it completely applies in this case. As you say, "the ultimate goal of the game is to win," but a team achieves that goal by scoring more points than it allows. Indeed, typically that means its offense scores more points than its defense allows. Since games can vary widely in number of drives, points/drive is a better relative measure of team strength than total points.
3) Again, if the goal is to rank teams best to worst, I question the value of W-L given that some wins and losses may not be strong indicators of which team is better. For example, in our win against d'oh U, we scored a TD on a strip sack. We average 1.5 sacks/game against conference opponents, 13th in the conference. So, was that win really an indicator of which team was better?
4) I've been doing these for several years, and the correlation with the traditional polling rankings are pretty good. So, it seems to me that the contribution of special teams are often cooked into the scoring efficiency numbers. FGs count in offensive efficiency. FG defense counts in defense efficiency. Punting contributes to def efficiency by making for longer drives. Punt Return contributes to offensive efficiency by making shorter drives.
Here's a comparison from the end of last year:
I think it's an interesting conversation where the 9-4 Texas A&M is ranked 16 by the polls but falls out of the top 25 to #28 by PPD while the 9-4 Penn St is ranked 17 by the polls but goes up to either 11 or 5 by PPD. Are the pollsters' take on strength of schedule that much more accurate or just more biased? You see a similar thing comparing 10-3 LSU with 10-3 Michigan.
Well like I said, if it's a measure of strength, I can certainly see its value (with the caveat that there should be also a way to include the impact of special teams in order to make it a measure of team strength instead of just offensive and defensive strength).
But if it's a measure of who deserves a ranking (which is a horse of a different color), the only two factors that should be considered are wins and losses (because that is the object of the game) and who those wins and losses are against. Anything else is to make a measure of success something other than the actual goal of the game, which is to score more points against your opponent, not rack up PPD. And what if you had fewer drives? You'd have a big PPD but might come up short on the scoreboard. And what about those special teams? Why not just go by points instead of points per drive? Points on the scoreboard matter. Points per drive do not.
I answered the question of why points/drive rather than points in my previous post as well as its relationship to the final score and to special teams. For example, while yards/play is not a terrible estimate of offensive efficiency, ppd is better because it includes whether or not you have a good FG kicker. d'oh U's offense moved the ball pretty well against us but missing 3 FGs or whatever including 1 block meant that they scored fewer points/drive.
Ranking and SOS is an incredibly hard problem and why there are hundreds of computer ranking polls out there trying to solve the same problem. In @AE 87 defense, he makes it clear this is a raw stat, and meant only to highlight data.
If we are looking to only use PPD data for SOS, the simplest way would be to take the average of the opponent NET PPD and then use some weighting system to adjust rank. Another way would be to find the opponent adjusted PPD's based on the offenses and defenses faced that year and take the net of that. Other ranking algorithms will look outside their data set for SOS. Some will even use coaches/AP poll as their SOS indicator (no way Jose!!).
If anyone has the time to tackle some of those things, I'd love to see it.
Well like I said, if it's a measure of strength, I can certainly see its value (with the caveat that there should be also a way to include the impact of special teams in order to make it a measure of team strength instead of just offensive and defensive strength).
But if it's a measure of who deserves a ranking (which is a horse of a different color), the only two factors that should be considered are wins and losses (because that is the object of the game) and who those wins and losses are against. Anything else is to make a measure of success something other than the actual goal of the game, which is to score more points against your opponent, not rack up PPD. And what if you had fewer drives? You'd have a big PPD but might come up short on the scoreboard. And what about those special teams? Why not just go by points instead of points per drive? Points on the scoreboard matter. Points per drive do not.
I don't disagree with the premise of your post, but this particular statement "which is to score more points against your opponent, not rack up PPD" seems to indicate I didn't explain myself clearly. I was mentioning "Net PPD" for determining strength and by Net PPD I mean "offense ppd minus defense ppd". Since as you correctly state, the object is to score more than the opponent, then having a higher offensive a higher net ppd would be indicative of strength (the same way margin of victory indicates strength, but Net ppd adjust margin of victory to become a drive based stat).
"Points on the scoreboard matter. Points per drive do not."
Dividing points by the number of drives is just a way to normalize the data to help compare teams across games. I will try an example to explain.
In game 1. GT scores 21 points. The offense had the ball 10 times.
In game 2 GT scores 21 points. The offense had the ball 15 times.
If you only determine strength by total points, these two games would be counted the same, but the offense in game 2 scored the same number of points while needing 50% more possessions. I cannot imagine a scenario where you would prefer game 2 over game 1. This is only the offense of course, and defense plays a roll as well. If in game 1 the defense craps the bed and gives up 30, but in game two they give up 20, then of course we want game 2's result since it's a team game. But taking the offense in isolation, you would have to say game 1 is better offense in this example.
I hope that explains the thought process behind this.
I don't disagree with the premise of your post, but this particular statement "which is to score more points against your opponent, not rack up PPD" seems to indicate I didn't explain myself clearly. I was mentioning "Net PPD" for determining strength and by Net PPD I mean "offense ppd minus defense ppd". Since as you correctly state, the object is to score more than the opponent, then having a higher offensive a higher net ppd would be indicative of strength (the same way margin of victory indicates strength, but Net ppd adjust margin of victory to become a drive based stat).
"Points on the scoreboard matter. Points per drive do not."
Dividing points by the number of drives is just a way to normalize the data to help compare teams across games. I will try an example to explain.
In game 1. GT scores 21 points. The offense had the ball 10 times.
In game 2 GT scores 21 points. The offense had the ball 15 times.
If you only determine strength by total points, these two games would be counted the same, but the offense in game 2 scored the same number of points while needing 50% more possessions. I cannot imagine a scenario where you would prefer game 2 over game 1. This is only the offense of course, and defense plays a roll as well. If in game 1 the defense craps the bed and gives up 30, but in game two they give up 20, then of course we want game 2's result since it's a team game. But taking the offense in isolation, you would have to say game 1 is better offense in this example.
I hope that explains the thought process behind this.
I don't disagree with any of that. Yes, I get the idea of ranking offenses and defenses in isolation by this method. What I don't get is ranking teams by this method, because winning is the goal of the game. The goal of the game is the standard by which the teams should be ranked.
I don't disagree with any of that. Yes, I get the idea of ranking offenses and defenses in isolation by this method. What I don't get is ranking teams by this method, because winning is the goal of the game. The goal of the game is the standard by which the teams should be ranked.
I feel like their are two ways to determine rank. This method is strength based and is more about who is more likely to win. So starting top to bottom, you could say the higher in the list, the more likely that team is to beat the teams below them.
The other way of ranking is more similar to your approach and that is based on wins. This ranking is more about "how good of a season is the team having". I believe for bowls/post season this is the best approach, but that doesn't mean I don't find strength based metrics interesting. If a team wins 13 games by 1 point, they obviously are very good. If another team was 11-2 where the 11 wins were by 30 and the two losses were by 1, I would say the 11-2 team was a stronger team, but that the 13-0 had a better season (we will assume same strength of schedule just to make the example easier).
As I mentioned earlier, there are a ton of these ranking algorithms. If you are interested in one that only cares about wins and losses (and includes a SOS metric) than this is probably the one you would be interested in: http://www.cpiratings.com/top25.html
It calculates opponents win % and opponents opponents win % to determine SOS.
If you want my ultimate opinion on all of this, I think the best way to rank teams is the aggregate approach (similar to old BCS but without the bias towards the human polls). I think if you take some human polls and some computer polls, tally all the ranks and average them, that is going to give the best results. Reddit /r/cfb does this where they take a bunch of user polls and aggregates them. They will then relegate polls that are statistically deviant over a long sample and promote other polls. It is an interesting take on it, and one that I always enjoy reading about when users explain how their voting system works.
I feel like their are two ways to determine rank. This method is strength based and is more about who is more likely to win. So starting top to bottom, you could say the higher in the list, the more likely that team is to beat the teams below them.
The other way of ranking is more similar to your approach and that is based on wins. This ranking is more about "how good of a season is the team having". I believe for bowls/post season this is the best approach, but that doesn't mean I don't find strength based metrics interesting. If a team wins 13 games by 1 point, they obviously are very good. If another team was 11-2 where the 11 wins were by 30 and the two losses were by 1, I would say the 11-2 team was a stronger team, but that the 13-0 had a better season (we will assume same strength of schedule just to make the example easier).
As I mentioned earlier, there are a ton of these ranking algorithms. If you are interested in one that only cares about wins and losses (and includes a SOS metric) than this is probably the one you would be interested in: http://www.cpiratings.com/top25.html
It calculates opponents win % and opponents opponents win % to determine SOS. View attachment 7077
If you want my ultimate opinion on all of this, I think the best way to rank teams is the aggregate approach (similar to old BCS but without the bias towards the human polls). I think if you take some human polls and some computer polls, tally all the ranks and average them, that is going to give the best results. Reddit /r/cfb does this where they take a bunch of user polls and aggregates them. They will then relegate polls that are statistically deviant over a long sample and promote other polls. It is an interesting take on it, and one that I always enjoy reading about when users explain how their voting system works.
I care about more than wins and losses. I also care about margin of victory and SOS. Margin of victory can be tricky because some team run up the score and some don't. Some teams might want to rest their players. Some opponents might be throwing in the towel. So although it is important in ranking teams, I know it's very tricky in terms of how it is viewed. But still it has to be considered. Hard to imagine how people can figure all that out, but harder still to imagine a computer doing it.
As far as determining who is likely to win, I don't doubt the PPD system could be useful to a bettor in Vegas as one factor to consider for any particular game. As for who deserves to be ranked higher, I think it's not as useful. I think they are two different things. And if you just went by who is more likely to win, why wouldn't you just let Vegas odds determine the rankings? That would be the best determinant of that, by far.
I don't disagree with any of that. Yes, I get the idea of ranking offenses and defenses in isolation by this method. What I don't get is ranking teams by this method, because winning is the goal of the game. The goal of the game is the standard by which the teams should be ranked.
I have a solution...have a 40 team Premiere level. Play a year-round Round Robin. At the end, of 40 games, have an 8-team playoff. That way everyone plays everyone and there is no subjectivity. Each year the bottom 10 teams drop off and the top 10 teams replace them for the next year. We can call it college football!
I have a solution...have a 40 team Premiere level. Play a year-round Round Robin. At the end, of 40 games, have an 8-team playoff. That way everyone plays everyone and there is no subjectivity. Each year the bottom 10 teams drop off and the top 10 teams replace them for the next year. We can call it college football!
I don't see why we cant have all fbs conference champions present with 6 at large. All the other divisions in CFB find a way to make a 16 team playoff work, I find it hard to believe Div 1 can't get their act together. No one complains about the 16 seeds making the basketball tournament, so who cares if a sun belt team goes. Just let the teams play and earn it on the field.
Even having all PWR5 guaranteed in with one G5 guaranteed and 2 at large would still be an improvement over what we have today.
Only a quick write up this week regarding FEI since we did not play last week.
Our strength of schedule improved from 24 to 18 during the bye week indicating our precious opponents have been playing well (despite Temple getting absolutely blown out by UCF). The improvement in our SOS led to us jumping from FEI 99 to 94. I would count that as a solid win against BYE.
Pitt is currently FEI 43. Their offense is actually *worse* than ours according to FEI (with an OFEI rank of 98 compared to our 94). Their D is their calling card coming in at DFEI rank 14. I think the PSU vs Pitt game is the perfect summary of the Pitt team. Their defense will keep them in the ball game, but their offense will struggle.
If we limit turnovers and three and outs, I think we have a legitimate shot of beating Pitt. Growing up a Penn State fan and having a father in law that went to Pitt, this game is probably the one I want to win most after the UGA game.
Only a quick write up this week regarding FEI since we did not play last week.
Our strength of schedule improved from 24 to 18 during the bye week indicating our precious opponents have been playing well (despite Temple getting absolutely blown out by UCF). The improvement in our SOS led to us jumping from FEI 99 to 94. I would count that as a solid win against BYE.
Pitt is currently FEI 43. Their offense is actually *worse* than ours according to FEI (with an OFEI rank of 98 compared to our 94). Their D is their calling card coming in at DFEI rank 14. I think the PSU vs Pitt game is the perfect summary of the Pitt team. Their defense will keep them in the ball game, but their offense will struggle.
If we limit turnovers and three and outs, I think we have a legitimate shot of beating Pitt. Growing up a Penn State fan and having a father in law that went to Pitt, this game is probably the one I want to win most after the UGA game.
Nothing improved by much. It has our OTD rate increasing by a decent amount, so I assume the data source includes our special teams touch down for the offense (otherwise we had two touch down on ten drives, which seems to low for the jump we had). Going forward I would really like our OFD to increase. We can't afford to have so many three and outs. 40% of our drives last week were three and outs. The two long drives in the second half certainly helped us keep the drives down, I'd like to see more of those (and hopefully some points from them as well).
Defense: View attachment 7046
General improvement overall, but nothing really noteworthy.
PPD Data.
We see a general bump in most of the stats. Hopefully the week over week improvement continues as it is great to see. My happiest offensive stat this week is the jump in PPD from short distance (less than 60 yards) as that was the game winning OT drive . Defense improved in each category. The PPD in short drives is still killing us. We gave up 3.5 ppd in short fields, which while much better than we've been, is still not great. Defense was helped by missed kicks, but that's part of the game.
Teams are ranked in the table below by net points scored per drive (NPD), the difference between points scored per offensive drive (OPD) and points allowed per opponent offensive drive (DPD). Points per drive from long starting field position for the offense (OLD) and opponent offenses (DLD) are calculated on possessions that begin inside the offense's own 20-yard line. Points per drive from middle starting field position for the offense (OMD) and opponent offenses (DMD) are calculated on possessions that begin from the offense's own 20-yard line to its own 40-yard line. Points per drive from short starting field position for the offense (OSD) and opponent offenses (DSD) are calculated on possessions that begin less than 60 yards from the end zone.
107 Georgia Tech
Net point score per drive: -1.14 (107)
The Fremeau Efficiency Index (FEI) is a college football rating system based on opponent-adjusted possession efficiency, representing the per possession scoring advantage a team would be expected to have on a neutral field against an average opponent. Unadjusted possession efficiency (PE) is calculated as a function of offensive, defensive, and special teams game splits. Schedule strength is represented by each team's average per possession opponent adjustment (OA). Opponent-adjusted offense ratings (OFEI), opponent-adjusted defense ratings (DFEI), and opponent-adjusted special teams ratings (SFEI) are calculated in a similar manner as overall FEI ratings.
Back in action after a bye week that saw us jumping 5 spots, we found a way to jump from FEI rank 94 to rank 90. This is largely due to our defensive improvement from 83 to 68 over the bye+Pitt game weeks.
Offense:
OFEI Offense Ratings (OFEI) represent the per possession scoring advantage a team's offense would be expected to have on a neutral field against an average defense. Unadjusted offensive possession efficiency (OPE) is calculated as a function of offensive game splits. Schedule strength is represented by each team's average per possession offensive opponent adjustment (OOA). Touchdown rate (OTD) is the percentage of offensive drives that result in a touchdown. First Down rate (OFD) is the percentage of offensive drives that result in a touchdown or at least one first down. Available Yards percentage (OAY) is the total yards earned by the offense divided by the total yards available to be earned based on starting field position. Explosive Drive rate (OED) is the percentage of offensive drives that average at least ten yards per play. Busted Drive rate (OBD) is the percentage of offensive drives that earn zero or negative yards. Turnover rate (OTO) is the percentage of offensive drives that result in a fumble or interception.
Overall our unadjusted offensive score has continued to decline (down 0.1 from from before bye) but the overall strength of defensive schedule is keeping it steady. Now having faced the FEI second hardest strength of defenses in the country. Coupling a transition year with these defenses is a recipe for disaster. At this point the stat I want to see improve is OTO which is our turnover rate. There are plenty of reasons why we are struggling to move the ball, but we can't be continually shooting ourselves in the foot with turnovers.
Defense:
DFEI Defense Ratings (DFEI) represent the per possession scoring advantage a team's defense would be expected to have on a neutral field against an average offense. Unadjusted defensive possession efficiency (DPE) is calculated as a function of defensive game splits. Schedule strength is represented by each team's average per possession defensive opponent adjustment (DOA). Touchdown rate (DTD) is the percentage of opponent offensive drives that result in a touchdown. First Down rate (DFD) is the percentage of opponent offensive drives that result in a touchdown or at least one first down. Available Yards percentage (DAY) is the total yards surrendered by the defense divided by the total yards available to be earned based on starting field position. Explosive Drive rate (DED) is the percentage of opponent offensive drives that average at least ten yards per play. Busted Drive rate (DBD) is the percentage of opponent offensive drives that earn zero or negative yards. Turnover rate (DTO) is the percentage of opponent offensive drives that result in a fumble or interception.
Biggest improvement on the team by far. Our overall strength of offenses faced has gone down, but we are over performing. Every single stat increased after our game against pitt (not surprisingly the turnover rate sky rocketed). To me "mayhem" should be indicated by the DTO, DBD, and DFD. If we are attempting to make turnovers and negative plays a priority, then these are the stats that I hope to see making the biggest improvements (we obviously want all stats to improve, but coaching philosophy should dictate which ones are better than others).
Special Teams
I haven't included these in previous weeks. We had some interesting discussion about it in another thread, so if people are interested, I can include them here as well.
SFEI Special Teams Ratings (SFEI) represent the per possession scoring advantage a team's combined special teams units would be expected to have on a neutral field against an average opponent. Unadjusted special teams possession efficiency (SPE) is calculated as a function of special teams game splits. Schedule strength is represented by each team's average per possession special teams opponent adjustment (SOA). Field Goal efficiency (FGE) and Opponent Field Goal efficiency (OFG) are the average values generated per field goal attempt as compared with national success rates in proximity to the end zone. Kickoff Return efficiency (KRE) and Kickoff efficiency (KE) are the average values generated per kickoff based on field position at the conclusion of the play. Punt Return efficiency (PRE) and Punt efficiency (PE) are the average values generated per punt based on the field position of the punt team and the field position at the conclusion of the play.
As mentioned in another thread, the KRE is the lowest rank in FEI's 12 year history. Punting efficiency (PE) has to be the most disappointing stat here. Our regression here is killing us. No idea if it's scheme or athletes, but we'd be better off with shorter punts out of bounds right now. OFG is hilarious because I'm pretty sure Miami is solely responsible for our rank.
PPD Data.
Nothing too crazy has changed offensively. We are still really struggling to score on drives 80 yards and longer. We have seen improvements in our short distant drives, which is about the only improvement there. The defense has finally answered my call regarding short drives. After Miami we were still giving up 4.2 PPD on drives 60 yards or less. With the Pitt game this got reduced to 3.47 (rank 66) which is what I've been asking for for quite some time. The rest of the stats have marginally improved taking our defensive PPD rank from 85th to 72nd.
Teams are ranked in the table below by net points scored per drive (NPD), the difference between points scored per offensive drive (OPD) and points allowed per opponent offensive drive (DPD). Points per drive from long starting field position for the offense (OLD) and opponent offenses (DLD) are calculated on possessions that begin inside the offense's own 20-yard line. Points per drive from middle starting field position for the offense (OMD) and opponent offenses (DMD) are calculated on possessions that begin from the offense's own 20-yard line to its own 40-yard line. Points per drive from short starting field position for the offense (OSD) and opponent offenses (DSD) are calculated on possessions that begin less than 60 yards from the end zone.
110 Georgia Tech
Net point score per drive: -1.08 (110)
Speaking of Minnesota, they are having a good year but to date their P-5 schedule has consisted of Nebraska, Illinois, Purdue, Maryland, and Rutgers, whose combined Big 10 record is 6-19. Without the context of SOS other than just "P-5", those stats can be quite misleading. While imperfect, at least the pollsters take SOS more into consideration. We'll find out what Minnesota is made of when they run up against Penn State in a couple of weeks.
The Fremeau Efficiency Index (FEI) is a college football rating system based on opponent-adjusted possession efficiency, representing the per possession scoring advantage a team would be expected to have on a neutral field against an average opponent. Unadjusted possession efficiency (PE) is calculated as a function of offensive, defensive, and special teams game splits. Schedule strength is represented by each team's average per possession opponent adjustment (OA). Opponent-adjusted offense ratings (OFEI), opponent-adjusted defense ratings (DFEI), and opponent-adjusted special teams ratings (SFEI) are calculated in a similar manner as overall FEI ratings.
Back in action after a bye week that saw us jumping 5 spots, we found a way to jump from FEI rank 94 to rank 90. This is largely due to our defensive improvement from 83 to 68 over the bye+Pitt game weeks.
Offense:
OFEI Offense Ratings (OFEI) represent the per possession scoring advantage a team's offense would be expected to have on a neutral field against an average defense. Unadjusted offensive possession efficiency (OPE) is calculated as a function of offensive game splits. Schedule strength is represented by each team's average per possession offensive opponent adjustment (OOA). Touchdown rate (OTD) is the percentage of offensive drives that result in a touchdown. First Down rate (OFD) is the percentage of offensive drives that result in a touchdown or at least one first down. Available Yards percentage (OAY) is the total yards earned by the offense divided by the total yards available to be earned based on starting field position. Explosive Drive rate (OED) is the percentage of offensive drives that average at least ten yards per play. Busted Drive rate (OBD) is the percentage of offensive drives that earn zero or negative yards. Turnover rate (OTO) is the percentage of offensive drives that result in a fumble or interception.
Overall our unadjusted offensive score has continued to decline (down 0.1 from from before bye) but the overall strength of defensive schedule is keeping it steady. Now having faced the FEI second hardest strength of defenses in the country. Coupling a transition year with these defenses is a recipe for disaster. At this point the stat I want to see improve is OTO which is our turnover rate. There are plenty of reasons why we are struggling to move the ball, but we can't be continually shooting ourselves in the foot with turnovers.
Defense: View attachment 7146
Biggest improvement on the team by far. Our overall strength of offenses faced has gone down, but we are over performing. Every single stat increased after our game against pitt (not surprisingly the turnover rate sky rocketed). To me "mayhem" should be indicated by the DTO, DBD, and DFD. If we are attempting to make turnovers and negative plays a priority, then these are the stats that I hope to see making the biggest improvements (we obviously want all stats to improve, but coaching philosophy should dictate which ones are better than others).
Special Teams
I haven't included these in previous weeks. We had some interesting discussion about it in another thread, so if people are interested, I can include them here as well. View attachment 7147
As mentioned in another thread, the KRE is the lowest rank in FEI's 12 year history. Punting efficiency (PE) has to be the most disappointing stat here. Our regression here is killing us. No idea if it's scheme or athletes, but we'd be better off with shorter punts out of bounds right now. OFG is hilarious because I'm pretty sure Miami is solely responsible for our rank.
PPD Data.
Nothing too crazy has changed offensively. We are still really struggling to score on drives 80 yards and longer. We have seen improvements in our short distant drives, which is about the only improvement there. The defense has finally answered my call regarding short drives. After Miami we were still giving up 4.2 PPD on drives 60 yards or less. With the Pitt game this got reduced to 3.47 (rank 66) which is what I've been asking for for quite some time. The rest of the stats have marginally improved taking our defensive PPD rank from 85th to 72nd.
110 Georgia Tech
Net point score per drive: -1.08 (110)
Happy game day! Sorry for the late post. I usually do these during a lunch break, but work this week has been out of line.
We go up another two places in overall. Our offense made significant jump week over week. I would love to see that trend continue. Defense continues its downward skid.
The Fremeau Efficiency Index (FEI) is a college football rating system based on opponent-adjusted possession efficiency, representing the per possession scoring advantage a team would be expected to have on a neutral field against an average opponent. Unadjusted possession efficiency (PE) is calculated as a function of offensive, defensive, and special teams game splits. Schedule strength is represented by each team's average per possession opponent adjustment (OA). Opponent-adjusted offense ratings (OFEI), opponent-adjusted defense ratings (DFEI), and opponent-adjusted special teams ratings (SFEI) are calculated in a similar manner as overall FEI ratings.
Offense:
OFEI Offense Ratings (OFEI) represent the per possession scoring advantage a team's offense would be expected to have on a neutral field against an average defense. Unadjusted offensive possession efficiency (OPE) is calculated as a function of offensive game splits. Schedule strength is represented by each team's average per possession offensive opponent adjustment (OOA). Touchdown rate (OTD) is the percentage of offensive drives that result in a touchdown. First Down rate (OFD) is the percentage of offensive drives that result in a touchdown or at least one first down. Available Yards percentage (OAY) is the total yards earned by the offense divided by the total yards available to be earned based on starting field position. Explosive Drive rate (OED) is the percentage of offensive drives that average at least ten yards per play. Busted Drive rate (OBD) is the percentage of offensive drives that earn zero or negative yards. Turnover rate (OTO) is the percentage of offensive drives that result in a fumble or interception.
We increased our touch down rate while lowering our turnover rate. Pretty good key to success there OTO was the offensive stat I asked to improve this week and the offense listened. This was definitely our best offensive performance of the year, and I look forward to more weeks of continued success. Four of our ten drives were still three and outs (or less since one interception on second play of a drive). I don't expect this offense to score points on drives starting inside our 5, but we have to get better at getting a first down or two in those situations.
Defense:
DFEI Defense Ratings (DFEI) represent the per possession scoring advantage a team's defense would be expected to have on a neutral field against an average offense. Unadjusted defensive possession efficiency (DPE) is calculated as a function of defensive game splits. Schedule strength is represented by each team's average per possession defensive opponent adjustment (DOA). Touchdown rate (DTD) is the percentage of opponent offensive drives that result in a touchdown. First Down rate (DFD) is the percentage of opponent offensive drives that result in a touchdown or at least one first down. Available Yards percentage (DAY) is the total yards surrendered by the defense divided by the total yards available to be earned based on starting field position. Explosive Drive rate (DED) is the percentage of opponent offensive drives that average at least ten yards per play. Busted Drive rate (DBD) is the percentage of opponent offensive drives that earn zero or negative yards. Turnover rate (DTO) is the percentage of opponent offensive drives that result in a fumble or interception.
Defense continues to slide. Early games against weak opponents has shown that the defense is still a work in progress. Pretty much every stat here is worse than last week.
Teams are ranked in the table below by net points scored per drive (NPD), the difference between points scored per offensive drive (OPD) and points allowed per opponent offensive drive (DPD). Points per drive from long starting field position for the offense (OLD) and opponent offenses (DLD) are calculated on possessions that begin inside the offense's own 20-yard line. Points per drive from middle starting field position for the offense (OMD) and opponent offenses (DMD) are calculated on possessions that begin from the offense's own 20-yard line to its own 40-yard line. Points per drive from short starting field position for the offense (OSD) and opponent offenses (DSD) are calculated on possessions that begin less than 60 yards from the end zone.
109 Georgia Tech
Net point score per drive: -1.02 (109)
Long drives continue to be the bane of our offense and short drives continue to be a thorn for the defense. In another thread I mentioned that if we gave UVA way too many short field last week, but even with that, had we held them to our average DSD on the season, we are tied going into the final drive. I hate that I keep harping on this, but the defense has got to be better at holding teams to fgs in drives of 60 yards or less.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
. Defense improved in each category. The PPD in short drives is still killing us. We gave up 3.5 ppd in short fields, which while much better than we've been, is still not great. Defense was helped by missed kicks, but that's part of the game.
OTO was the offensive stat I asked to improve this week and the offense listened. This was definitely our best offensive performance of the year, and I look forward to more weeks of continued success. Four of our ten drives were still three and outs (or less since one interception on second play of a drive). I don't expect this offense to score points on drives starting inside our 5, but we have to get better at getting a first down or two in those situations.