/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/27540551/20140101_lbm_usa_092.0.jpg)
I'm really happy with the overall response to Friday's Five Factors post. I thought the post itself turned out well and conveyed the message I attempted to convey, but I think I made one mistake: I used the word "factors" too early. The point of that post and the ones that will follow was to identify the things that matter most in football, then figure out the best ways to isolate and measure them. But if I'm going to try to emulate basketball's Four Factors ... well, they were already isolated. Really, my idea of Five Factors were really five categories that might lead to factors. Semantics, really, but I had come to regret that a bit by Friday evening.
Regardless, we now set about figuring out the best ways to isolate and measure these factors as planned. And the first step might be the biggest. I can justify to you the need for both efficiency and explosiveness components, but what does that mean exactly? And how do you separate one from another?
Why Efficiency?
More on Five Factors
More on Five Factors
It is rather commonly accepted at this point that Yards Per Play (i.e. explosiveness) is the single best way to measure a football team. This is a good thing; it is indeed a strong measure. But you only have a finite number of downs to rip off a big play. Unless you're going to rip off a 25-yard gain on every play, you're probably going to need to move the chains a bit if you want to score. That, of course, means you have to gain 10 yards within three (or four) plays without any major setbacks.
Simply looking at explosiveness, however you care to define it, misses this key step. Take the yardage of 20 plays from two (completely unrealistic) data sets, for instance:
Set No. 1: 80, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1
Set No. 2: 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5
In both sets, the offense gained 100 yards in 20 plays. In the first set, those 20 plays resulted in an almost certain touchdown (the 80-yard gain) and about six three-and-outs. In the second set, the offense converted on second-and-5 every single time and moved the ball at will. The median gain in Set No. 1 was one yard; in Set No. 2: five yards.
Obviously we could use Median Gain to gauge something like this. But if we stick with Success Rate (my efficiency measure of choice) for now, the question becomes this: How do we strip away explosiveness?
IsoPPP
My first stab at this (and the point of this post) is to build off of an idea in the comments of one of my Varsity Numbers pieces at Football Outsiders.
One way of measuring this that might be useful is PPP per successful play. That might more directly get at the key question - when you have successful plays, are the REALLY successful, or just a little successful.
I liked this idea enough to pursue it. Instead of simply looking at Success Rate and PPP (Equivalent Points Per Play), what if we added together Success Rate and the PPP for only successful plays? It puts efficiency first, which isn't a surefire winner, but it frames things in an interesting way: How efficient are you, and when you're successful, how successful are you?
Using full-season game data from 2012 and 2013 (with FCS games removed), I crafted a new version of S&P using Success Rate and this Isolated PPP idea (PPP on successful plays only). The most effective weights: 86% Success Rate, 14% IsoPPP. With that weighting, I was able to almost exactly recreate the strong correlations between S&P and both points scored and percentage of points scored.
Category | Correlation with S&P (2012-13) | Correlation with S&P(Iso) (2012-13) |
Points scored in a given game | 0.754 | 0.768 |
Pct. of points scored in a given game | 0.639 | 0.655 |
This new version of S&P passed another test as well. One of the better ways of determining the reliability and consistency of a measure is to compare its performance in one half of the season to its performance in the other. If the first-half and second-half numbers are drastically different, you might not be measuring a very consistent variable. Not a problem.
Correlation with S&P | Correlation with S&P(Iso) | |||
Category | 1st Half of 2013 | 2nd Half of 2013 | 1st Half of 2013 | 2nd Half of 2013 |
Points scored in a given game | 0.783 | 0.798 | 0.773 | 0.784 |
Pct. of points scored in a given game | 0.663 | 0.668 | 0.664 | 0.663 |
This 'new' version of S&P is just as consistent and closely correlated with quality as the old one; plus, I was able to strip apart the concepts of efficiency and explosiveness to a strong degree.
Correlation between Success Rate and PPP: 0.666
Correlation between Success Rate and IsoPPP: 0.145
Now, before I go and redefine S&P+ top to bottom, I have more tests to run. I need to see how IsoPPP when adjusted for opponent, and I need to see what that does to the predictive value of S&P+. But S&P+ is a completely different story. If we're looking to gauge explosiveness and efficiency in completely different ways, this is a huge step toward doing that, no matter what impact it might have on my own ratings. (It's also far less intuitive, since you can't just quickly add two numbers together in your head.) And it completely redefines how we look at efficiency and explosiveness. In the current S&P+ formulas, I give PPP+ 60% weight and Success Rate+ 40%; in this IsoPPP world, Success Rate suddenly carries 86%.
The rankings
To best gauge the impact of a shift from PPP to IsoPPP, let's look at some rankings. How does this new S&P data (unadjusted for opponent, mind you) take shape?
Offense | Record | Success Rt | Rk | PPP | Rk | IsoPPP | Rk | Diff | S&P(original) | Rk | S&P(Iso) | Rk |
Florida State | 14-0 | 54.5% | 2 | 0.78 | 1 | 1.39 | 1 | 0 | 1.324 | 1 | 0.664 | 1 |
Texas A&M | 9-4 | 55.5% | 1 | 0.71 | 3 | 1.23 | 25 | -22 | 1.268 | 2 | 0.649 | 2 |
Oregon | 11-2 | 51.1% | 4 | 0.74 | 2 | 1.38 | 4 | -2 | 1.249 | 3 | 0.632 | 3 |
Ohio State | 12-2 | 53.8% | 3 | 0.68 | 5 | 1.20 | 41 | -36 | 1.219 | 4 | 0.630 | 4 |
Alabama | 11-2 | 51.1% | 5 | 0.68 | 6 | 1.26 | 18 | -12 | 1.190 | 5 | 0.615 | 5 |
Baylor | 11-2 | 47.1% | 21 | 0.70 | 4 | 1.39 | 2 | 2 | 1.175 | 6 | 0.600 | 6 |
Ball State | 10-3 | 50.5% | 7 | 0.64 | 15 | 1.18 | 45 | -30 | 1.141 | 8 | 0.600 | 7 |
Auburn | 12-2 | 49.8% | 9 | 0.66 | 7 | 1.23 | 22 | -15 | 1.153 | 7 | 0.600 | 8 |
Louisville | 12-1 | 50.6% | 6 | 0.62 | 20 | 1.16 | 57 | -37 | 1.128 | 11 | 0.598 | 9 |
Central Florida | 12-1 | 49.3% | 13 | 0.63 | 16 | 1.23 | 20 | -4 | 1.125 | 12 | 0.597 | 10 |
Clemson | 11-2 | 49.2% | 14 | 0.64 | 11 | 1.23 | 28 | -17 | 1.132 | 9 | 0.595 | 11 |
Bowling Green | 10-4 | 49.7% | 10 | 0.62 | 21 | 1.18 | 46 | -25 | 1.115 | 16 | 0.593 | 12 |
Northern Illinois | 12-2 | 49.5% | 11 | 0.64 | 13 | 1.17 | 52 | -39 | 1.132 | 9 | 0.589 | 13 |
LSU | 10-3 | 46.8% | 22 | 0.65 | 8 | 1.33 | 8 | 0 | 1.122 | 13 | 0.588 | 14 |
Wisconsin | 9-4 | 48.0% | 19 | 0.64 | 12 | 1.25 | 19 | -7 | 1.119 | 15 | 0.588 | 15 |
Kansas State | 8-5 | 48.2% | 18 | 0.63 | 17 | 1.23 | 21 | -4 | 1.110 | 17 | 0.587 | 16 |
Fresno State | 11-2 | 48.6% | 17 | 0.64 | 14 | 1.20 | 39 | -25 | 1.122 | 13 | 0.586 | 17 |
Western Kentucky | 8-4 | 49.3% | 12 | 0.59 | 26 | 1.12 | 78 | -52 | 1.085 | 21 | 0.580 | 18 |
Indiana | 5-7 | 45.0% | 45 | 0.64 | 10 | 1.36 | 6 | 4 | 1.091 | 19 | 0.577 | 19 |
Miami-FL | 9-4 | 44.5% | 51 | 0.65 | 9 | 1.38 | 3 | 6 | 1.095 | 18 | 0.576 | 20 |
East Carolina | 10-3 | 49.0% | 16 | 0.58 | 33 | 1.10 | 84 | -51 | 1.067 | 27 | 0.575 | 21 |
Georgia | 8-5 | 46.2% | 30 | 0.62 | 19 | 1.26 | 12 | 7 | 1.087 | 20 | 0.574 | 22 |
Toledo | 7-5 | 49.0% | 15 | 0.59 | 27 | 1.08 | 97 | -70 | 1.081 | 23 | 0.573 | 23 |
Navy | 9-4 | 50.2% | 8 | 0.57 | 39 | 1.00 | 119 | -80 | 1.073 | 25 | 0.572 | 24 |
San Jose State | 6-6 | 46.6% | 25 | 0.61 | 22 | 1.23 | 27 | -5 | 1.074 | 24 | 0.572 | 25 |
Offense | Record | Success Rt | Rk | PPP | Rk | IsoPPP | Rk | Diff | S&P(original) | Rk | S&P(Iso) | Rk |
Missouri | 12-2 | 45.8% | 34 | 0.63 | 18 | 1.26 | 13 | 5 | 1.085 | 22 | 0.571 | 26 |
South Carolina | 11-2 | 46.4% | 29 | 0.61 | 24 | 1.22 | 30 | -6 | 1.070 | 26 | 0.570 | 27 |
Marshall | 10-4 | 46.7% | 23 | 0.57 | 37 | 1.16 | 56 | -19 | 1.039 | 32 | 0.564 | 28 |
Arizona State | 10-4 | 45.7% | 36 | 0.58 | 30 | 1.21 | 37 | -7 | 1.039 | 32 | 0.563 | 29 |
New Mexico | 3-9 | 44.9% | 49 | 0.61 | 23 | 1.26 | 15 | 8 | 1.055 | 28 | 0.562 | 30 |
UL-Lafayette | 9-4 | 46.5% | 27 | 0.59 | 28 | 1.16 | 55 | -27 | 1.051 | 29 | 0.562 | 31 |
Cincinnati | 9-4 | 47.5% | 20 | 0.56 | 46 | 1.09 | 90 | -44 | 1.035 | 34 | 0.562 | 32 |
Boise State | 8-5 | 46.4% | 28 | 0.58 | 29 | 1.16 | 58 | -29 | 1.047 | 31 | 0.561 | 33 |
Illinois | 4-8 | 45.9% | 32 | 0.56 | 48 | 1.17 | 49 | -1 | 1.019 | 39 | 0.559 | 34 |
Oregon State | 7-6 | 45.1% | 42 | 0.58 | 35 | 1.22 | 33 | 2 | 1.027 | 36 | 0.559 | 35 |
Oklahoma State | 10-3 | 45.5% | 38 | 0.56 | 42 | 1.17 | 51 | -9 | 1.019 | 37 | 0.555 | 36 |
Stanford | 11-3 | 44.7% | 50 | 0.60 | 25 | 1.21 | 34 | -9 | 1.048 | 30 | 0.554 | 37 |
Colorado State | 8-6 | 44.9% | 47 | 0.58 | 31 | 1.18 | 43 | -12 | 1.028 | 35 | 0.552 | 38 |
Notre Dame | 9-4 | 44.2% | 56 | 0.58 | 32 | 1.22 | 29 | 3 | 1.019 | 38 | 0.552 | 39 |
Temple | 2-10 | 45.8% | 35 | 0.54 | 57 | 1.12 | 73 | -16 | 1.001 | 51 | 0.551 | 40 |
Troy | 6-6 | 44.1% | 57 | 0.58 | 34 | 1.23 | 24 | 10 | 1.018 | 41 | 0.551 | 41 |
Washington | 9-4 | 45.3% | 39 | 0.56 | 41 | 1.15 | 65 | -24 | 1.018 | 40 | 0.550 | 42 |
Texas Tech | 8-5 | 45.1% | 43 | 0.56 | 50 | 1.16 | 54 | -4 | 1.006 | 46 | 0.550 | 43 |
Georgia Tech | 7-6 | 46.0% | 31 | 0.54 | 58 | 1.10 | 85 | -27 | 1.001 | 52 | 0.549 | 44 |
UTSA | 7-5 | 45.6% | 37 | 0.55 | 55 | 1.12 | 77 | -22 | 1.003 | 49 | 0.549 | 45 |
Old Dominion | 1-4 | 43.9% | 60 | 0.56 | 43 | 1.23 | 25 | 18 | 1.002 | 50 | 0.549 | 46 |
UCLA | 10-3 | 44.4% | 54 | 0.57 | 40 | 1.19 | 42 | -2 | 1.013 | 42 | 0.548 | 47 |
Ole Miss | 8-5 | 44.5% | 53 | 0.56 | 44 | 1.18 | 47 | -3 | 1.008 | 45 | 0.548 | 48 |
Arizona | 8-5 | 46.6% | 24 | 0.54 | 61 | 1.04 | 111 | -50 | 1.004 | 48 | 0.547 | 49 |
Duke | 10-4 | 45.2% | 40 | 0.56 | 45 | 1.12 | 74 | -29 | 1.012 | 43 | 0.546 | 50 |
Offense | Record | Success Rt | Rk | PPP | Rk | IsoPPP | Rk | Diff | S&P(original) | Rk | S&P(Iso) | Rk |
South Alabama | 6-6 | 43.7% | 62 | 0.57 | 36 | 1.21 | 36 | 0 | 1.010 | 44 | 0.545 | 51 |
North Carolina | 7-6 | 44.9% | 48 | 0.55 | 56 | 1.13 | 72 | -16 | 0.994 | 53 | 0.544 | 52 |
Mississippi State | 7-6 | 44.2% | 55 | 0.55 | 53 | 1.16 | 53 | 0 | 0.992 | 54 | 0.543 | 53 |
Wyoming | 5-7 | 43.2% | 64 | 0.57 | 38 | 1.22 | 32 | 6 | 1.004 | 47 | 0.542 | 54 |
UNLV | 7-6 | 44.9% | 46 | 0.52 | 67 | 1.10 | 86 | -19 | 0.974 | 57 | 0.540 | 55 |
Northwestern | 5-7 | 45.9% | 33 | 0.51 | 77 | 1.02 | 114 | -37 | 0.968 | 59 | 0.538 | 56 |
Air Force | 2-10 | 46.5% | 26 | 0.51 | 75 | 0.98 | 123 | -48 | 0.976 | 56 | 0.537 | 57 |
Nebraska | 9-4 | 45.1% | 43 | 0.51 | 72 | 1.06 | 103 | -31 | 0.964 | 61 | 0.536 | 58 |
North Texas | 9-4 | 44.5% | 51 | 0.53 | 65 | 1.06 | 102 | -37 | 0.973 | 58 | 0.531 | 59 |
Army | 2-10 | 45.2% | 40 | 0.53 | 64 | 1.01 | 116 | -52 | 0.981 | 55 | 0.530 | 60 |
Pittsburgh | 7-6 | 43.7% | 62 | 0.49 | 87 | 1.09 | 93 | -6 | 0.929 | 75 | 0.527 | 61 |
Oklahoma | 11-2 | 42.7% | 68 | 0.54 | 60 | 1.15 | 64 | -4 | 0.965 | 60 | 0.527 | 62 |
Maryland | 7-6 | 38.9% | 97 | 0.56 | 48 | 1.37 | 5 | 43 | 0.948 | 68 | 0.526 | 63 |
Penn State | 7-5 | 44.0% | 58 | 0.52 | 69 | 1.05 | 106 | -37 | 0.957 | 63 | 0.526 | 64 |
Nevada | 4-8 | 43.9% | 59 | 0.52 | 68 | 1.06 | 104 | -36 | 0.957 | 64 | 0.526 | 65 |
Michigan | 7-6 | 41.3% | 77 | 0.51 | 78 | 1.21 | 35 | 43 | 0.920 | 79 | 0.525 | 66 |
USC | 10-4 | 41.1% | 79 | 0.55 | 54 | 1.22 | 31 | 23 | 0.958 | 62 | 0.525 | 67 |
Arkansas State | 8-5 | 43.7% | 61 | 0.51 | 73 | 1.06 | 105 | -32 | 0.950 | 67 | 0.524 | 68 |
Central Michigan | 6-6 | 42.2% | 71 | 0.50 | 79 | 1.15 | 63 | 16 | 0.926 | 78 | 0.523 | 69 |
Washington State | 6-7 | 41.5% | 75 | 0.52 | 71 | 1.18 | 44 | 27 | 0.931 | 74 | 0.523 | 70 |
Arkansas | 3-9 | 42.9% | 67 | 0.52 | 70 | 1.10 | 88 | -18 | 0.945 | 70 | 0.523 | 71 |
BYU | 8-5 | 41.9% | 72 | 0.54 | 62 | 1.16 | 60 | 2 | 0.955 | 65 | 0.522 | 72 |
Middle Tennessee | 8-5 | 42.6% | 69 | 0.53 | 66 | 1.11 | 81 | -15 | 0.953 | 66 | 0.522 | 73 |
Houston | 8-5 | 39.6% | 85 | 0.54 | 59 | 1.29 | 10 | 49 | 0.936 | 73 | 0.522 | 74 |
San Diego State | 8-5 | 39.1% | 95 | 0.55 | 51 | 1.31 | 9 | 42 | 0.943 | 71 | 0.520 | 75 |
Offense | Record | Success Rt | Rk | PPP | Rk | IsoPPP | Rk | Diff | S&P(original) | Rk | S&P(Iso) | Rk |
UAB | 2-10 | 39.2% | 94 | 0.54 | 63 | 1.29 | 11 | 52 | 0.927 | 76 | 0.518 | 76 |
Ohio | 7-6 | 39.6% | 88 | 0.55 | 52 | 1.26 | 14 | 38 | 0.946 | 69 | 0.517 | 77 |
Rutgers | 6-7 | 40.1% | 83 | 0.51 | 76 | 1.23 | 23 | 53 | 0.910 | 82 | 0.517 | 78 |
SMU | 5-7 | 41.5% | 76 | 0.51 | 74 | 1.14 | 67 | 7 | 0.927 | 77 | 0.516 | 79 |
Boston College | 7-6 | 38.0% | 106 | 0.56 | 47 | 1.34 | 7 | 40 | 0.940 | 72 | 0.514 | 80 |
Rice | 10-4 | 41.1% | 78 | 0.50 | 81 | 1.13 | 69 | 12 | 0.913 | 81 | 0.512 | 81 |
Buffalo | 8-5 | 42.2% | 70 | 0.48 | 95 | 1.06 | 101 | -6 | 0.907 | 84 | 0.512 | 82 |
Vanderbilt | 9-4 | 43.0% | 65 | 0.47 | 102 | 1.01 | 117 | -15 | 0.903 | 85 | 0.511 | 83 |
Tennessee | 5-7 | 41.7% | 73 | 0.48 | 96 | 1.08 | 96 | 0 | 0.901 | 86 | 0.510 | 84 |
Michigan State | 13-1 | 41.6% | 74 | 0.50 | 83 | 1.08 | 94 | -11 | 0.913 | 80 | 0.509 | 85 |
Iowa | 8-5 | 43.0% | 66 | 0.48 | 98 | 0.98 | 124 | -26 | 0.909 | 83 | 0.507 | 86 |
New Mexico State | 2-10 | 40.7% | 81 | 0.49 | 92 | 1.10 | 83 | 9 | 0.896 | 87 | 0.504 | 87 |
Minnesota | 8-5 | 40.9% | 80 | 0.48 | 99 | 1.08 | 99 | 0 | 0.887 | 92 | 0.502 | 88 |
Utah State | 9-5 | 39.4% | 91 | 0.50 | 84 | 1.15 | 61 | 23 | 0.891 | 89 | 0.500 | 89 |
Kentucky | 2-10 | 39.1% | 96 | 0.49 | 93 | 1.17 | 48 | 45 | 0.877 | 98 | 0.500 | 90 |
Eastern Michigan | 2-10 | 40.2% | 82 | 0.49 | 89 | 1.09 | 91 | -2 | 0.894 | 88 | 0.499 | 91 |
Hawaii | 1-11 | 39.5% | 89 | 0.49 | 94 | 1.13 | 70 | 24 | 0.881 | 95 | 0.498 | 92 |
Florida Atlantic | 6-6 | 39.8% | 84 | 0.49 | 90 | 1.10 | 87 | 3 | 0.888 | 91 | 0.496 | 93 |
Texas | 8-5 | 39.4% | 90 | 0.50 | 86 | 1.11 | 79 | 7 | 0.890 | 90 | 0.495 | 94 |
Colorado | 4-8 | 38.8% | 99 | 0.49 | 91 | 1.15 | 62 | 29 | 0.878 | 97 | 0.494 | 95 |
Utah | 5-7 | 36.9% | 114 | 0.50 | 80 | 1.26 | 16 | 64 | 0.871 | 99 | 0.494 | 96 |
Texas State | 6-6 | 39.6% | 87 | 0.48 | 97 | 1.09 | 89 | 8 | 0.879 | 96 | 0.494 | 97 |
Kent State | 4-8 | 39.3% | 92 | 0.49 | 88 | 1.11 | 82 | 6 | 0.886 | 94 | 0.494 | 98 |
UTEP | 2-10 | 38.7% | 100 | 0.50 | 82 | 1.14 | 68 | 14 | 0.886 | 93 | 0.492 | 99 |
TCU | 4-8 | 39.6% | 85 | 0.47 | 101 | 1.08 | 98 | 3 | 0.869 | 100 | 0.492 | 100 |
Offense | Record | Success Rt | Rk | PPP | Rk | IsoPPP | Rk | Diff | S&P(original) | Rk | S&P(Iso) | Rk |
Akron | 5-7 | 38.6% | 101 | 0.47 | 103 | 1.14 | 66 | 37 | 0.856 | 104 | 0.492 | 101 |
California | 1-11 | 38.2% | 104 | 0.48 | 100 | 1.16 | 59 | 41 | 0.858 | 102 | 0.490 | 102 |
West Virginia | 4-8 | 36.4% | 117 | 0.50 | 84 | 1.26 | 17 | 67 | 0.861 | 101 | 0.489 | 103 |
Syracuse | 7-6 | 39.2% | 93 | 0.47 | 105 | 1.07 | 100 | 5 | 0.858 | 103 | 0.487 | 104 |
Virginia Tech | 8-5 | 38.0% | 107 | 0.46 | 106 | 1.12 | 75 | 31 | 0.842 | 105 | 0.484 | 105 |
Louisiana Tech | 5-7 | 37.9% | 108 | 0.46 | 107 | 1.12 | 76 | 31 | 0.835 | 107 | 0.483 | 106 |
UL-Monroe | 6-6 | 37.0% | 113 | 0.47 | 104 | 1.17 | 50 | 54 | 0.836 | 106 | 0.481 | 107 |
Idaho | 1-11 | 37.6% | 109 | 0.45 | 108 | 1.13 | 71 | 37 | 0.830 | 109 | 0.481 | 108 |
Iowa State | 3-9 | 38.8% | 98 | 0.45 | 111 | 1.05 | 110 | 1 | 0.833 | 108 | 0.481 | 109 |
Florida | 4-8 | 38.5% | 102 | 0.44 | 112 | 1.03 | 112 | 0 | 0.824 | 110 | 0.476 | 110 |
Memphis | 3-9 | 38.2% | 105 | 0.43 | 116 | 1.05 | 107 | 9 | 0.812 | 112 | 0.476 | 111 |
NC State | 3-9 | 37.4% | 111 | 0.45 | 110 | 1.09 | 92 | 18 | 0.822 | 111 | 0.475 | 112 |
Wake Forest | 4-8 | 38.5% | 103 | 0.42 | 118 | 1.02 | 115 | 3 | 0.802 | 115 | 0.473 | 113 |
Tulane | 7-6 | 37.6% | 110 | 0.43 | 115 | 1.05 | 109 | 6 | 0.810 | 113 | 0.470 | 114 |
Georgia State | 0-12 | 35.0% | 121 | 0.45 | 109 | 1.21 | 38 | 71 | 0.802 | 114 | 0.470 | 115 |
Connecticut | 3-9 | 36.9% | 115 | 0.41 | 119 | 1.05 | 108 | 11 | 0.775 | 119 | 0.464 | 116 |
Southern Miss | 1-11 | 34.4% | 122 | 0.44 | 113 | 1.20 | 40 | 73 | 0.780 | 118 | 0.463 | 117 |
Western Michigan | 1-11 | 36.0% | 119 | 0.44 | 114 | 1.08 | 95 | 19 | 0.796 | 116 | 0.461 | 118 |
Tulsa | 3-9 | 37.2% | 112 | 0.42 | 117 | 1.00 | 120 | -3 | 0.792 | 117 | 0.459 | 119 |
Purdue | 1-11 | 36.6% | 116 | 0.39 | 123 | 0.99 | 121 | 2 | 0.752 | 121 | 0.453 | 120 |
Virginia | 2-10 | 35.5% | 120 | 0.40 | 120 | 0.98 | 122 | -2 | 0.754 | 120 | 0.443 | 121 |
Massachusetts | 1-11 | 36.0% | 118 | 0.39 | 121 | 0.94 | 125 | -4 | 0.748 | 122 | 0.442 | 122 |
Kansas | 3-9 | 33.6% | 123 | 0.39 | 122 | 1.03 | 113 | 9 | 0.723 | 123 | 0.432 | 123 |
Miami-OH | 0-12 | 33.3% | 124 | 0.30 | 126 | 0.85 | 126 | 0 | 0.636 | 126 | 0.405 | 124 |
South Florida | 2-10 | 28.8% | 126 | 0.37 | 124 | 1.11 | 80 | 44 | 0.660 | 124 | 0.403 | 125 |
Florida International | 1-11 | 30.5% | 125 | 0.35 | 125 | 1.00 | 118 | 7 | 0.653 | 125 | 0.402 | 126 |
This has the odd effect of creating drastic differences in explosiveness rankings -- Texas A&M was third in PPP but 25th in IsoPPP, while Flexboning Navy (the ultimate efficiency-only offense) went from 39th in PPP to 119th in IsoPPP -- while not really changing the overall S&P ratings. Only three teams went up more than 10 spots (Pitt and Temple because of the extra emphasis on efficiency, Michigan because of the "their big plays were uncommon and very big" effect), and none went down more than eight. Again, this is exciting. The overall ratings are pretty good and didn't need massive change; meanwhile, we've made efficiency and explosiveness two completely different variables.
Defense | Record | Success Rt | Rk | PPP | Rk | IsoPPP | Rk | Diff | S&P(original) | Rk | S&P(Iso) | Rk |
Michigan State | 13-1 | 29.1% | 1 | 0.37 | 1 | 1.16 | 70 | -69 | 0.656 | 1 | 0.412 | 1 |
Florida State | 14-0 | 32.5% | 3 | 0.37 | 2 | 1.03 | 10 | -8 | 0.699 | 2 | 0.424 | 2 |
Virginia Tech | 8-5 | 32.1% | 2 | 0.41 | 4 | 1.22 | 97 | -93 | 0.729 | 3 | 0.446 | 3 |
Louisville | 12-1 | 34.2% | 7 | 0.39 | 3 | 1.09 | 41 | -38 | 0.729 | 4 | 0.447 | 4 |
USC | 10-4 | 34.0% | 6 | 0.42 | 7 | 1.14 | 62 | -55 | 0.764 | 5 | 0.452 | 5 |
TCU | 4-8 | 32.6% | 4 | 0.44 | 12 | 1.23 | 100 | -88 | 0.768 | 6 | 0.453 | 6 |
BYU | 8-5 | 35.6% | 9 | 0.44 | 11 | 1.09 | 40 | -29 | 0.794 | 11 | 0.459 | 7 |
Oklahoma State | 10-3 | 35.9% | 11 | 0.43 | 8 | 1.08 | 34 | -26 | 0.790 | 9 | 0.460 | 8 |
Iowa | 8-5 | 37.7% | 18 | 0.41 | 5 | 0.97 | 5 | 0 | 0.787 | 7 | 0.460 | 9 |
Florida Atlantic | 6-6 | 34.5% | 8 | 0.44 | 13 | 1.18 | 78 | -65 | 0.787 | 8 | 0.461 | 10 |
Utah State | 9-5 | 36.9% | 15 | 0.42 | 6 | 1.05 | 19 | -13 | 0.790 | 10 | 0.464 | 11 |
Wisconsin | 9-4 | 37.8% | 19 | 0.44 | 14 | 1.04 | 17 | -3 | 0.822 | 15 | 0.471 | 12 |
East Carolina | 10-3 | 37.9% | 20 | 0.45 | 15 | 1.05 | 23 | -8 | 0.825 | 18 | 0.473 | 13 |
North Texas | 9-4 | 36.4% | 12 | 0.46 | 22 | 1.14 | 63 | -41 | 0.829 | 19 | 0.473 | 14 |
Alabama | 11-2 | 37.4% | 16 | 0.45 | 16 | 1.09 | 38 | -22 | 0.824 | 17 | 0.474 | 15 |
Cincinnati | 9-4 | 38.5% | 26 | 0.43 | 9 | 1.02 | 8 | 1 | 0.816 | 13 | 0.474 | 16 |
Oregon | 11-2 | 38.3% | 25 | 0.46 | 21 | 1.04 | 13 | 8 | 0.844 | 21 | 0.475 | 17 |
Tulane | 7-6 | 35.7% | 10 | 0.45 | 18 | 1.21 | 92 | -74 | 0.812 | 12 | 0.476 | 18 |
Clemson | 11-2 | 34.0% | 5 | 0.48 | 31 | 1.32 | 118 | -87 | 0.819 | 14 | 0.477 | 19 |
Marshall | 10-4 | 38.7% | 29 | 0.45 | 17 | 1.07 | 29 | -12 | 0.841 | 20 | 0.482 | 20 |
Stanford | 11-3 | 39.0% | 31 | 0.43 | 10 | 1.06 | 25 | -15 | 0.823 | 16 | 0.483 | 21 |
Rice | 10-4 | 36.8% | 14 | 0.48 | 36 | 1.20 | 87 | -51 | 0.853 | 22 | 0.484 | 22 |
Baylor | 11-2 | 37.5% | 17 | 0.48 | 32 | 1.18 | 83 | -51 | 0.854 | 23 | 0.488 | 23 |
Washington | 9-4 | 39.9% | 38 | 0.46 | 20 | 1.05 | 18 | 2 | 0.859 | 24 | 0.490 | 24 |
Arizona | 8-5 | 38.6% | 27 | 0.49 | 40 | 1.13 | 59 | -19 | 0.876 | 28 | 0.491 | 25 |
Defense | Record | Success Rt | Rk | PPP | Rk | IsoPPP | Rk | Diff | S&P(original) | Rk | S&P(Iso) | Rk |
Wake Forest | 4-8 | 40.5% | 43 | 0.48 | 28 | 1.04 | 15 | 13 | 0.882 | 31 | 0.495 | 26 |
Maryland | 7-6 | 39.3% | 33 | 0.47 | 23 | 1.12 | 49 | -26 | 0.862 | 25 | 0.495 | 27 |
Florida | 4-8 | 37.9% | 21 | 0.49 | 43 | 1.21 | 93 | -50 | 0.871 | 26 | 0.495 | 28 |
Penn State | 7-5 | 38.6% | 28 | 0.48 | 36 | 1.17 | 76 | -40 | 0.871 | 27 | 0.496 | 29 |
Texas State | 6-6 | 40.1% | 39 | 0.50 | 49 | 1.10 | 47 | 2 | 0.897 | 36 | 0.499 | 30 |
Utah | 5-7 | 38.0% | 23 | 0.50 | 52 | 1.24 | 101 | -49 | 0.883 | 32 | 0.499 | 31 |
Arizona State | 10-4 | 36.5% | 13 | 0.51 | 63 | 1.33 | 119 | -56 | 0.879 | 29 | 0.500 | 32 |
Memphis | 3-9 | 40.5% | 42 | 0.47 | 27 | 1.08 | 37 | -10 | 0.879 | 30 | 0.500 | 33 |
San Diego State | 8-5 | 39.8% | 37 | 0.50 | 51 | 1.13 | 55 | -4 | 0.898 | 37 | 0.501 | 34 |
Louisiana Tech | 5-7 | 41.0% | 49 | 0.49 | 42 | 1.08 | 33 | 9 | 0.902 | 40 | 0.503 | 35 |
Western Kentucky | 8-4 | 40.5% | 41 | 0.51 | 56 | 1.12 | 52 | 4 | 0.913 | 50 | 0.505 | 36 |
Buffalo | 8-5 | 38.0% | 24 | 0.51 | 62 | 1.28 | 115 | -53 | 0.894 | 34 | 0.507 | 37 |
Oklahoma | 11-2 | 39.5% | 34 | 0.51 | 59 | 1.20 | 86 | -27 | 0.905 | 43 | 0.507 | 38 |
South Carolina | 11-2 | 40.8% | 47 | 0.49 | 41 | 1.12 | 52 | -11 | 0.899 | 38 | 0.507 | 39 |
LSU | 10-3 | 42.1% | 56 | 0.47 | 24 | 1.04 | 15 | 9 | 0.892 | 33 | 0.508 | 40 |
Akron | 5-7 | 40.6% | 44 | 0.52 | 65 | 1.14 | 61 | 4 | 0.921 | 57 | 0.508 | 41 |
Pittsburgh | 7-6 | 39.6% | 36 | 0.51 | 54 | 1.20 | 89 | -35 | 0.902 | 39 | 0.509 | 42 |
Houston | 8-5 | 42.0% | 55 | 0.49 | 38 | 1.05 | 21 | 17 | 0.906 | 45 | 0.509 | 43 |
Kansas State | 8-5 | 43.2% | 75 | 0.47 | 26 | 0.98 | 6 | 20 | 0.906 | 47 | 0.509 | 44 |
Connecticut | 3-9 | 39.3% | 32 | 0.51 | 60 | 1.23 | 99 | -39 | 0.903 | 41 | 0.509 | 45 |
Boise State | 8-5 | 42.4% | 61 | 0.49 | 45 | 1.04 | 12 | 33 | 0.918 | 53 | 0.510 | 46 |
UCLA | 10-3 | 43.9% | 86 | 0.46 | 19 | 0.95 | 2 | 17 | 0.894 | 34 | 0.510 | 47 |
Colorado State | 8-6 | 38.9% | 30 | 0.54 | 78 | 1.26 | 107 | -29 | 0.925 | 59 | 0.510 | 48 |
North Carolina | 7-6 | 42.2% | 58 | 0.48 | 34 | 1.06 | 26 | 8 | 0.904 | 42 | 0.511 | 49 |
Georgia | 8-5 | 40.8% | 46 | 0.52 | 66 | 1.16 | 69 | -3 | 0.923 | 58 | 0.512 | 50 |
Defense | Record | Success Rt | Rk | PPP | Rk | IsoPPP | Rk | Diff | S&P(original) | Rk | S&P(Iso) | Rk |
Bowling Green | 10-4 | 42.2% | 59 | 0.48 | 35 | 1.07 | 30 | 5 | 0.906 | 46 | 0.512 | 51 |
Central Florida | 12-1 | 40.4% | 40 | 0.51 | 61 | 1.18 | 81 | -20 | 0.916 | 52 | 0.513 | 52 |
Fresno State | 11-2 | 39.6% | 35 | 0.54 | 77 | 1.24 | 105 | -28 | 0.931 | 64 | 0.514 | 53 |
Syracuse | 7-6 | 41.2% | 50 | 0.49 | 47 | 1.15 | 65 | -18 | 0.906 | 47 | 0.515 | 54 |
Virginia | 2-10 | 37.9% | 22 | 0.54 | 80 | 1.36 | 121 | -41 | 0.918 | 53 | 0.516 | 55 |
Missouri | 12-2 | 42.7% | 65 | 0.49 | 39 | 1.07 | 31 | 8 | 0.913 | 49 | 0.516 | 56 |
UTSA | 7-5 | 44.1% | 88 | 0.48 | 30 | 0.98 | 7 | 23 | 0.920 | 56 | 0.517 | 57 |
Vanderbilt | 9-4 | 43.2% | 74 | 0.47 | 25 | 1.04 | 14 | 11 | 0.905 | 44 | 0.517 | 58 |
Mississippi State | 7-6 | 41.3% | 51 | 0.52 | 64 | 1.16 | 71 | -7 | 0.928 | 62 | 0.517 | 59 |
Ole Miss | 8-5 | 43.2% | 72 | 0.48 | 33 | 1.05 | 20 | 13 | 0.913 | 51 | 0.518 | 60 |
Nebraska | 9-4 | 42.6% | 62 | 0.49 | 46 | 1.09 | 39 | 7 | 0.920 | 55 | 0.519 | 61 |
South Alabama | 6-6 | 42.0% | 54 | 0.51 | 55 | 1.13 | 57 | -2 | 0.927 | 60 | 0.520 | 62 |
Michigan | 7-6 | 42.6% | 64 | 0.51 | 53 | 1.09 | 43 | 10 | 0.932 | 65 | 0.520 | 63 |
Ohio State | 12-2 | 42.7% | 66 | 0.51 | 57 | 1.09 | 44 | 13 | 0.935 | 67 | 0.520 | 64 |
Tulsa | 3-9 | 42.1% | 57 | 0.52 | 67 | 1.13 | 57 | 10 | 0.937 | 68 | 0.521 | 65 |
Texas | 8-5 | 41.0% | 48 | 0.52 | 72 | 1.20 | 90 | -18 | 0.934 | 66 | 0.521 | 66 |
Notre Dame | 9-4 | 45.2% | 96 | 0.48 | 29 | 0.96 | 4 | 25 | 0.931 | 63 | 0.523 | 67 |
Ohio | 7-6 | 41.7% | 52 | 0.55 | 84 | 1.18 | 82 | 2 | 0.972 | 78 | 0.524 | 68 |
Ball State | 10-3 | 43.4% | 79 | 0.52 | 68 | 1.08 | 35 | 33 | 0.951 | 71 | 0.525 | 69 |
Minnesota | 8-5 | 42.9% | 69 | 0.51 | 58 | 1.12 | 51 | 7 | 0.938 | 69 | 0.526 | 70 |
West Virginia | 4-8 | 40.7% | 45 | 0.56 | 91 | 1.26 | 111 | -20 | 0.965 | 76 | 0.527 | 71 |
Northwestern | 5-7 | 44.6% | 93 | 0.49 | 44 | 1.02 | 9 | 35 | 0.939 | 70 | 0.527 | 72 |
South Florida | 2-10 | 43.4% | 78 | 0.49 | 48 | 1.10 | 46 | 2 | 0.928 | 61 | 0.527 | 73 |
Northern Illinois | 12-2 | 43.6% | 82 | 0.52 | 70 | 1.09 | 42 | 28 | 0.959 | 73 | 0.528 | 74 |
Texas Tech | 8-5 | 42.9% | 70 | 0.53 | 74 | 1.14 | 60 | 14 | 0.960 | 74 | 0.528 | 75 |
Defense | Record | Success Rt | Rk | PPP | Rk | IsoPPP | Rk | Diff | S&P(original) | Rk | S&P(Iso) | Rk |
Kansas | 3-9 | 42.7% | 67 | 0.53 | 75 | 1.15 | 64 | 11 | 0.958 | 72 | 0.528 | 76 |
Rutgers | 6-7 | 41.8% | 53 | 0.55 | 85 | 1.21 | 95 | -10 | 0.973 | 79 | 0.529 | 77 |
Duke | 10-4 | 44.6% | 92 | 0.52 | 71 | 1.06 | 28 | 43 | 0.969 | 77 | 0.532 | 78 |
Middle Tennessee | 8-5 | 46.6% | 101 | 0.50 | 50 | 0.96 | 3 | 47 | 0.963 | 75 | 0.534 | 79 |
Boston College | 7-6 | 43.2% | 76 | 0.54 | 81 | 1.16 | 72 | 9 | 0.973 | 80 | 0.535 | 80 |
Miami-FL | 9-4 | 44.2% | 90 | 0.55 | 83 | 1.11 | 48 | 35 | 0.988 | 84 | 0.536 | 81 |
Southern Miss | 1-11 | 44.2% | 89 | 0.56 | 86 | 1.13 | 56 | 30 | 0.997 | 91 | 0.539 | 82 |
Georgia Tech | 7-6 | 43.9% | 85 | 0.54 | 79 | 1.16 | 67 | 12 | 0.977 | 81 | 0.539 | 83 |
UL-Monroe | 6-6 | 43.5% | 81 | 0.54 | 82 | 1.18 | 79 | 3 | 0.979 | 82 | 0.539 | 84 |
UNLV | 7-6 | 43.1% | 71 | 0.56 | 89 | 1.21 | 94 | -5 | 0.987 | 83 | 0.540 | 85 |
Oregon State | 7-6 | 42.3% | 60 | 0.57 | 96 | 1.26 | 108 | -12 | 0.996 | 90 | 0.540 | 86 |
Iowa State | 3-9 | 43.9% | 87 | 0.56 | 87 | 1.17 | 73 | 14 | 0.995 | 88 | 0.541 | 87 |
Arkansas State | 8-5 | 43.8% | 84 | 0.56 | 88 | 1.18 | 77 | 11 | 0.994 | 87 | 0.542 | 88 |
Auburn | 12-2 | 43.3% | 77 | 0.56 | 90 | 1.21 | 91 | -1 | 0.991 | 85 | 0.542 | 89 |
Hawaii | 1-11 | 42.8% | 68 | 0.57 | 95 | 1.26 | 106 | -11 | 0.995 | 89 | 0.544 | 90 |
NC State | 3-9 | 43.4% | 80 | 0.57 | 94 | 1.22 | 98 | -4 | 1.001 | 92 | 0.544 | 91 |
Washington State | 6-7 | 44.5% | 91 | 0.58 | 98 | 1.19 | 84 | 14 | 1.021 | 95 | 0.549 | 92 |
Tennessee | 5-7 | 43.2% | 72 | 0.58 | 102 | 1.28 | 113 | -11 | 1.013 | 94 | 0.550 | 93 |
Toledo | 7-5 | 47.2% | 104 | 0.52 | 69 | 1.03 | 11 | 58 | 0.992 | 86 | 0.550 | 94 |
Colorado | 4-8 | 43.6% | 82 | 0.59 | 105 | 1.26 | 110 | -5 | 1.031 | 97 | 0.551 | 95 |
UL-Lafayette | 9-4 | 44.8% | 94 | 0.58 | 99 | 1.20 | 88 | 11 | 1.025 | 96 | 0.553 | 96 |
Western Michigan | 1-11 | 46.9% | 102 | 0.56 | 93 | 1.10 | 45 | 48 | 1.033 | 98 | 0.557 | 97 |
SMU | 5-7 | 47.6% | 107 | 0.53 | 73 | 1.05 | 22 | 51 | 1.004 | 93 | 0.557 | 98 |
Troy | 6-6 | 42.6% | 63 | 0.63 | 115 | 1.40 | 124 | -9 | 1.060 | 104 | 0.562 | 99 |
Wyoming | 5-7 | 47.0% | 103 | 0.58 | 101 | 1.13 | 54 | 47 | 1.049 | 102 | 0.562 | 100 |
Defense | Record | Success Rt | Rk | PPP | Rk | IsoPPP | Rk | Diff | S&P(original) | Rk | S&P(Iso) | Rk |
Central Michigan | 6-6 | 47.8% | 108 | 0.56 | 92 | 1.08 | 36 | 56 | 1.036 | 99 | 0.563 | 101 |
Kent State | 4-8 | 46.5% | 100 | 0.57 | 97 | 1.17 | 74 | 23 | 1.038 | 100 | 0.564 | 102 |
Navy | 9-4 | 50.6% | 121 | 0.53 | 76 | 0.93 | 1 | 75 | 1.041 | 101 | 0.565 | 103 |
Texas A&M | 9-4 | 46.2% | 98 | 0.62 | 110 | 1.24 | 102 | 8 | 1.077 | 107 | 0.570 | 104 |
Georgia State | 0-12 | 47.6% | 106 | 0.60 | 106 | 1.16 | 68 | 38 | 1.076 | 106 | 0.571 | 105 |
Temple | 2-10 | 46.3% | 99 | 0.62 | 112 | 1.24 | 104 | 8 | 1.085 | 109 | 0.572 | 106 |
Florida International | 1-11 | 45.4% | 97 | 0.63 | 113 | 1.30 | 117 | -4 | 1.084 | 108 | 0.572 | 107 |
Kentucky | 2-10 | 48.4% | 113 | 0.59 | 104 | 1.12 | 50 | 54 | 1.069 | 105 | 0.573 | 108 |
Massachusetts | 1-11 | 47.5% | 105 | 0.61 | 109 | 1.19 | 85 | 24 | 1.089 | 110 | 0.576 | 109 |
Arkansas | 3-9 | 48.3% | 111 | 0.58 | 100 | 1.15 | 66 | 34 | 1.059 | 103 | 0.576 | 110 |
San Jose State | 6-6 | 48.2% | 110 | 0.61 | 108 | 1.17 | 75 | 33 | 1.089 | 111 | 0.578 | 111 |
Illinois | 4-8 | 47.9% | 109 | 0.63 | 114 | 1.21 | 96 | 18 | 1.109 | 113 | 0.582 | 112 |
California | 1-11 | 44.8% | 95 | 0.68 | 120 | 1.42 | 126 | -6 | 1.131 | 115 | 0.584 | 113 |
Indiana | 5-7 | 49.4% | 117 | 0.62 | 111 | 1.18 | 80 | 31 | 1.113 | 114 | 0.590 | 114 |
Army | 2-10 | 48.5% | 115 | 0.67 | 118 | 1.26 | 112 | 6 | 1.154 | 118 | 0.594 | 115 |
Purdue | 1-11 | 51.9% | 123 | 0.58 | 103 | 1.05 | 24 | 79 | 1.103 | 112 | 0.594 | 116 |
Idaho | 1-11 | 48.3% | 112 | 0.65 | 117 | 1.28 | 114 | 3 | 1.132 | 116 | 0.595 | 117 |
Nevada | 4-8 | 49.7% | 119 | 0.67 | 119 | 1.26 | 108 | 11 | 1.169 | 119 | 0.604 | 118 |
UAB | 2-10 | 48.6% | 116 | 0.69 | 121 | 1.34 | 120 | 1 | 1.172 | 120 | 0.605 | 119 |
Miami-OH | 0-12 | 53.6% | 124 | 0.60 | 107 | 1.06 | 27 | 80 | 1.137 | 117 | 0.610 | 120 |
UTEP | 2-10 | 48.5% | 114 | 0.72 | 124 | 1.39 | 123 | 1 | 1.202 | 122 | 0.611 | 121 |
New Mexico State | 2-10 | 49.6% | 118 | 0.73 | 125 | 1.36 | 122 | 3 | 1.226 | 124 | 0.617 | 122 |
Air Force | 2-10 | 54.8% | 125 | 0.64 | 116 | 1.07 | 32 | 84 | 1.187 | 121 | 0.622 | 123 |
Eastern Michigan | 2-10 | 49.7% | 119 | 0.74 | 126 | 1.41 | 125 | 1 | 1.240 | 125 | 0.625 | 124 |
New Mexico | 3-9 | 51.8% | 122 | 0.71 | 123 | 1.28 | 115 | 8 | 1.225 | 123 | 0.626 | 125 |
Old Dominion | 1-4 | 55.0% | 126 | 0.70 | 122 | 1.24 | 103 | 19 | 1.253 | 126 | 0.646 | 126 |
There is a bit more of a shift in the defensive ratings -- five teams went up at least 10 spots, and three went down at least 12 -- but nothing major. Meanwhile, we get clearer pictures of some defenses. Purdue was 123rd in Success Rate and 24th in IsoPPP (the Boilermakers' Success Rate was so bad that it made their PPP ranking 103rd), while Navy took that effect even further: 121st in Success Rate, first in IsoPPP. (Again: not adjusted for opponent.) Meanwhile, both Michigan State and Virginia Tech (along with defenses like TCU's and Clemson's) were incredibly efficient and almost never gave up big plays; but the big plays they gave up were huge ... and had little impact. Again, big plays might not have the effect we thought they had.
This is exciting!
Loading comments...