:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/46131378/usa-today-8238916.0.jpg)
Last offseason around this time (okay, about a month earlier ... I feel like I'm behind on everything this year), I wrote a pretty well-received piece about offenses that generate more solo tackles than others and what that might mean.
The word "spread" has come to describe about 38 different styles of offense in college football. If you line your tight end up detached from the line, you're a spread. If you utilize mostly four wideouts, you're a spread. Hell, if your quarterback lines up mostly in the shotgun, you're a spread. These all have kernels of truth in them, but at this point, the spread has mostly lost its meaning. Saying a team runs a "spread" offense tells you almost nothing about what kind of offense the team actually runs.
At its heart, though, the spread ethos is about putting playmakers in space and giving them room to make plays. It originally developed as an underdog tactic of sorts, as a way to spread out and harry more talented defenses and hopefully force some mistakes. But there is a certain level of tactical superiority to the idea, and after a while, a lot of the most talented teams in the country began to employ more and more spread tactics.
But who actually spread you out the most in 2013? Whether a team is actually doing it well or not, the spread is designed to create numbers advantages and get the ball-carrier away from a mass of tacklers. That often leads to solo tackles. So which offensive systems led to the most solo tackles?
The answers were a little bit surprising. Yes, renowned spread teams like Texas Tech, Arizona State, Baylor, and Indiana all found residence in the top 10 of the list, but the No. 1 team was none other than Kansas State.
Now, part of this could have been due to official scorers. KSU had a higher rate of solo tackles in home games (when the Wildcats were in charge of official scoring) than in away games, but they were still top 10 using only away tackles.
When I spoke with spread wizard Bill Snyder for last year's Blueprint for a Rebuild piece, I referenced the piece. Here was his response:
"One of our coaches gave me a copy of that article. It was interesting to me as well, so we gained some benefit out of it. I think the diversity of our system is key. We can be five receivers or two tight ends and a back. All of those people have the capacity of lining up and performing at a variety of positions. A lot of people are doing that; we're not alone. But how we utilize our guys is very diverse."
In 2014, KSU was tasked with replacing its two leading running backs, its situational, run-first quarterback, and three starters on the offensive line. Did that change things up for the Wildcats? Nope. Not in the slightest.
Below are 2014's %Solo data, along with 2013 data, 2013-to-2014 change data, and, to satisfy my own curiosity, a team's Adjusted Run-Pass Rank from 2014.
(Adj. Run-Pass looks at teams' run-pass rates on standard downs and passing downs and adjusts so that everybody had the same percentage of standard and passing downs. If you faced a ton of passing downs, your run rates were probably going to slip no matter what, so this is an attempt to remove quality from the equation and look only at intention. And yes, sacks count as pass attempts, too.)
I slipped Adj. Run-Pass in there so we can start diversifying a bit, looking at which teams spread opponents out to run and which ones spread to pass. There's a slight correlation (0.21) between your %Solo and your %Pass, which makes sense -- while some teams indeed spread to run, passing is certainly thought of as a more common aspect of spreading out defenses.
| Offense | 2014 Solo | 2014 Assist | 2014 %Solo | Rk | 2013 %Solo | Rk | % Chg | Adj. Run-Pass Rk |
| Kansas State | 606 | 79 | 88.5% | 1 | 88.2% | 1 | 0.3% | 99 |
| Syracuse | 521 | 86 | 85.8% | 2 | 81.6% | 10 | 4.2% | 62 |
| Hawaii | 664 | 111 | 85.7% | 3 | 78.7% | 29 | 7.0% | 64 |
| South Florida | 446 | 76 | 85.4% | 4 | 72.9% | 70 | 12.5% | 49 |
| Texas Tech | 565 | 97 | 85.3% | 5 | 87.5% | 2 | -2.2% | 124 |
| Arkansas State | 687 | 120 | 85.1% | 6 | 64.7% | 114 | 20.4% | 39 |
| Arizona State | 628 | 110 | 85.1% | 7 | 85.5% | 3 | -0.4% | 101 |
| Arizona | 690 | 133 | 83.9% | 8 | 78.1% | 33 | 5.8% | 103 |
| Florida International | 541 | 106 | 83.6% | 9 | 77.5% | 37 | 6.1% | 26 |
| Memphis | 692 | 140 | 83.2% | 10 | 79.2% | 23 | 4.0% | 47 |
| Clemson | 675 | 137 | 83.1% | 11 | 78.6% | 30 | 4.5% | 73 |
| Baylor | 734 | 149 | 83.1% | 12 | 83.8% | 4 | -0.7% | 83 |
| Texas | 581 | 120 | 82.9% | 13 | 72.4% | 78 | 10.5% | 66 |
| UL-Lafayette | 628 | 131 | 82.8% | 14 | 80.4% | 13 | 2.4% | 30 |
| Rutgers | 532 | 115 | 82.2% | 15 | 65.6% | 109 | 16.6% | 34 |
| Temple | 481 | 105 | 82.1% | 16 | 82.6% | 7 | -0.5% | 107 |
| UCLA | 679 | 149 | 82.0% | 17 | 80.0% | 17 | 2.0% | 63 |
| Fresno State | 683 | 153 | 81.7% | 18 | 82.3% | 8 | -0.6% | 57 |
| Colorado | 653 | 147 | 81.6% | 19 | 79.6% | 21 | 2.0% | 113 |
| Miami-FL | 521 | 118 | 81.5% | 20 | 81.5% | 11 | 0.0% | 81 |
| West Virginia | 720 | 171 | 80.8% | 21 | 80.1% | 15 | 0.7% | 88 |
| Georgia Tech | 673 | 163 | 80.5% | 22 | 80.3% | 14 | 0.2% | 6 |
| Louisville | 596 | 146 | 80.3% | 23 | 76.9% | 44 | 3.4% | 68 |
| Texas State | 574 | 141 | 80.3% | 24 | 79.9% | 19 | 0.4% | 33 |
| Maryland | 506 | 129 | 79.7% | 25 | 74.6% | 59 | 5.1% | 97 |
| Offense | 2014 Solo | 2014 Assist | 2014 %Solo | Rk | 2013 %Solo | Rk | % Chg | Adj. Run-Pass Rk |
| Florida State | 584 | 149 | 79.7% | 26 | 77.3% | 40 | 2.4% | 109 |
| Washington | 650 | 168 | 79.5% | 27 | 75.0% | 54 | 4.5% | 27 |
| Miami-OH | 450 | 116 | 79.5% | 28 | 68.9% | 95 | 10.6% | 121 |
| Georgia State | 503 | 131 | 79.4% | 29 | 79.5% | 22 | -0.1% | 106 |
| Western Kentucky | 601 | 156 | 79.4% | 30 | 74.8% | 57 | 4.6% | 122 |
| Kansas | 531 | 139 | 79.3% | 31 | 77.3% | 41 | 2.0% | 50 |
| Middle Tennessee | 554 | 145 | 79.3% | 32 | 77.4% | 39 | 1.9% | 24 |
| Tennessee | 622 | 167 | 78.8% | 33 | 74.5% | 61 | 4.3% | 98 |
| BYU | 619 | 167 | 78.8% | 34 | 72.7% | 76 | 6.1% | 90 |
| Washington State | 570 | 154 | 78.7% | 35 | 79.2% | 24 | -0.5% | 128 |
| Purdue | 481 | 131 | 78.6% | 36 | 82.9% | 6 | -4.3% | 79 |
| TCU | 623 | 170 | 78.6% | 37 | 80.0% | 18 | -1.4% | 104 |
| Oklahoma State | 566 | 155 | 78.5% | 38 | 79.8% | 20 | -1.3% | 52 |
| Central Michigan | 564 | 162 | 77.7% | 39 | 65.5% | 110 | 12.2% | 65 |
| Akron | 473 | 136 | 77.7% | 40 | 75.9% | 47 | 1.8% | 119 |
| North Carolina | 615 | 178 | 77.6% | 41 | 77.1% | 43 | 0.5% | 100 |
| Idaho | 541 | 158 | 77.5% | 42 | 78.2% | 32 | -0.7% | 93 |
| South Carolina | 569 | 167 | 77.3% | 43 | 77.7% | 35 | -0.4% | 89 |
| Michigan | 447 | 133 | 77.1% | 44 | 75.4% | 52 | 1.7% | 43 |
| Oregon State | 512 | 154 | 76.9% | 45 | 77.9% | 34 | -1.0% | 115 |
| Wisconsin | 595 | 179 | 76.9% | 46 | 73.0% | 69 | 3.9% | 11 |
| Boise State | 664 | 200 | 76.9% | 47 | 76.4% | 46 | 0.5% | 45 |
| Iowa State | 526 | 159 | 76.8% | 48 | 78.2% | 31 | -1.4% | 116 |
| San Diego State | 519 | 158 | 76.7% | 49 | 72.9% | 72 | 3.8% | 35 |
| Troy | 540 | 165 | 76.6% | 50 | 78.7% | 28 | -2.1% | 38 |
| Offense | 2014 Solo | 2014 Assist | 2014 %Solo | Rk | 2013 %Solo | Rk | % Chg | Adj. Run-Pass Rk |
| Louisiana Tech | 566 | 174 | 76.5% | 51 | 69.5% | 92 | 7.0% | 76 |
| UNLV | 554 | 171 | 76.5% | 52 | 74.7% | 58 | 1.8% | 94 |
| Penn State | 541 | 167 | 76.4% | 53 | 78.8% | 27 | -2.4% | 114 |
| Tulane | 504 | 156 | 76.4% | 54 | 70.8% | 86 | 5.6% | 74 |
| Southern Miss | 497 | 154 | 76.3% | 55 | 74.9% | 55 | 1.4% | 105 |
| SMU | 448 | 140 | 76.2% | 56 | 76.4% | 45 | -0.2% | 120 |
| Army | 539 | 170 | 76.0% | 57 | 74.1% | 64 | 1.9% | 1 |
| USC | 619 | 196 | 76.0% | 58 | 72.8% | 74 | 3.2% | 91 |
| Missouri | 537 | 171 | 75.9% | 59 | 77.4% | 38 | -1.5% | 46 |
| Indiana | 536 | 173 | 75.6% | 60 | 83.7% | 5 | -8.1% | 19 |
| Stanford | 526 | 170 | 75.6% | 61 | 64.5% | 115 | 11.1% | 71 |
| Wake Forest | 460 | 150 | 75.4% | 62 | 81.8% | 9 | -6.4% | 110 |
| Navy | 570 | 186 | 75.4% | 63 | 74.5% | 60 | 0.9% | 2 |
| Rice | 546 | 181 | 75.2% | 64 | 74.0% | 65 | 1.2% | 16 |
| Notre Dame | 541 | 180 | 75.0% | 65 | 65.1% | 113 | 9.9% | 84 |
| Auburn | 585 | 195 | 75.0% | 66 | 73.7% | 66 | 1.3% | 13 |
| Appalachian State | 510 | 172 | 74.8% | 67 | N/A | N/A | 20 | |
| Northwestern | 530 | 182 | 74.5% | 68 | 75.5% | 51 | -1.0% | 96 |
| Utah | 575 | 199 | 74.3% | 69 | 66.7% | 107 | 7.6% | 36 |
| Colorado State | 501 | 174 | 74.2% | 70 | 67.3% | 102 | 6.9% | 102 |
| Western Michigan | 529 | 185 | 74.1% | 71 | 64.1% | 116 | 10.0% | 58 |
| North Texas | 473 | 168 | 73.8% | 72 | 66.1% | 108 | 7.7% | 31 |
| San Jose State | 521 | 186 | 73.7% | 73 | 70.2% | 88 | 3.5% | 92 |
| Kent State | 386 | 140 | 73.4% | 74 | 68.1% | 100 | 5.3% | 125 |
| South Alabama | 533 | 194 | 73.4% | 75 | 68.2% | 99 | 5.2% | 40 |
| Offense | 2014 Solo | 2014 Assist | 2014 %Solo | Rk | 2013 %Solo | Rk | % Chg | Adj. Run-Pass Rk |
| Oklahoma | 531 | 193 | 73.3% | 76 | 73.2% | 67 | 0.1% | 22 |
| Iowa | 553 | 201 | 73.3% | 77 | 72.5% | 77 | 0.8% | 53 |
| Pittsburgh | 546 | 200 | 73.2% | 78 | 74.9% | 56 | -1.7% | 14 |
| UTSA | 470 | 173 | 73.2% | 79 | 71.1% | 84 | 2.1% | 60 |
| Buffalo | 481 | 177 | 73.1% | 80 | 69.9% | 89 | 3.2% | 48 |
| Illinois | 483 | 179 | 73.0% | 81 | 69.2% | 94 | 3.8% | 108 |
| Alabama | 602 | 224 | 72.9% | 82 | 69.2% | 93 | 3.7% | 56 |
| Northern Illinois | 650 | 242 | 72.9% | 83 | 72.4% | 79 | 0.5% | 12 |
| Ohio State | 663 | 251 | 72.5% | 84 | 75.6% | 49 | -3.1% | 28 |
| Boston College | 536 | 203 | 72.5% | 85 | 72.8% | 73 | -0.3% | 7 |
| Oregon | 642 | 245 | 72.4% | 86 | 75.8% | 48 | -3.4% | 59 |
| UAB | 584 | 225 | 72.2% | 87 | 69.7% | 90 | 2.5% | 21 |
| Florida | 470 | 181 | 72.2% | 88 | 77.5% | 36 | -5.3% | 15 |
| California | 514 | 199 | 72.1% | 89 | 78.8% | 26 | -6.7% | 117 |
| Wyoming | 469 | 185 | 71.7% | 90 | 74.3% | 63 | -2.6% | 67 |
| Connecticut | 407 | 161 | 71.7% | 91 | 73.1% | 68 | -1.4% | 61 |
| Nebraska | 539 | 215 | 71.5% | 92 | 71.1% | 83 | 0.4% | 25 |
| Houston | 527 | 210 | 71.5% | 93 | 72.8% | 75 | -1.3% | 85 |
| Air Force | 619 | 247 | 71.5% | 94 | 68.4% | 98 | 3.1% | 4 |
| Texas A&M | 507 | 203 | 71.4% | 95 | 72.3% | 80 | -0.9% | 111 |
| Old Dominion | 420 | 169 | 71.3% | 96 | N/A | N/A | 118 | |
| Nevada | 537 | 218 | 71.2% | 97 | 80.1% | 16 | -8.9% | 37 |
| Ole Miss | 504 | 205 | 71.1% | 98 | 80.8% | 12 | -9.7% | 95 |
| NC State | 487 | 199 | 71.0% | 99 | 66.8% | 106 | 4.2% | 75 |
| Michigan State | 529 | 219 | 70.7% | 100 | 66.8% | 104 | 3.9% | 42 |
| Offense | 2014 Solo | 2014 Assist | 2014 %Solo | Rk | 2013 %Solo | Rk | % Chg | Adj. Run-Pass Rk |
| East Carolina | 562 | 233 | 70.7% | 101 | 74.4% | 62 | -3.7% | 127 |
| Tulsa | 498 | 213 | 70.0% | 102 | 66.8% | 105 | 3.2% | 70 |
| Central Florida | 522 | 224 | 70.0% | 103 | 72.2% | 81 | -2.2% | 51 |
| Toledo | 553 | 237 | 70.0% | 104 | 65.1% | 112 | 4.9% | 29 |
| Georgia | 519 | 229 | 69.4% | 105 | 75.2% | 53 | -5.8% | 17 |
| New Mexico | 436 | 198 | 68.8% | 106 | 71.4% | 82 | -2.6% | 3 |
| Ohio | 464 | 211 | 68.7% | 107 | 63.6% | 117 | 5.1% | 32 |
| Georgia Southern | 484 | 222 | 68.6% | 108 | N/A | N/A | 5 | |
| Minnesota | 485 | 224 | 68.4% | 109 | 71.0% | 85 | -2.6% | 8 |
| Cincinnati | 478 | 221 | 68.4% | 110 | 67.4% | 101 | 1.0% | 112 |
| Mississippi State | 547 | 260 | 67.8% | 111 | 72.9% | 71 | -5.1% | 54 |
| Florida Atlantic | 445 | 212 | 67.7% | 112 | 75.5% | 50 | -7.8% | 55 |
| Kentucky | 453 | 216 | 67.7% | 113 | 78.9% | 25 | -11.2% | 87 |
| UL-Monroe | 444 | 217 | 67.2% | 114 | 77.2% | 42 | -10.0% | 126 |
| Utah State | 493 | 242 | 67.1% | 115 | 61.2% | 120 | 5.9% | 44 |
| Bowling Green | 572 | 289 | 66.4% | 116 | 68.8% | 97 | -2.4% | 86 |
| Virginia Tech | 519 | 266 | 66.1% | 117 | 60.7% | 122 | 5.4% | 78 |
| New Mexico State | 474 | 245 | 66.0% | 118 | 68.8% | 96 | -2.8% | 69 |
| Massachusetts | 415 | 215 | 65.9% | 119 | 58.8% | 124 | 7.1% | 123 |
| Virginia | 444 | 232 | 65.7% | 120 | 70.3% | 87 | -4.6% | 77 |
| Marshall | 480 | 254 | 65.4% | 121 | 67.2% | 103 | -1.8% | 80 |
| Duke | 471 | 252 | 65.1% | 122 | 65.2% | 111 | -0.1% | 82 |
| Vanderbilt | 376 | 210 | 64.2% | 123 | 69.7% | 91 | -5.5% | 41 |
| Arkansas | 443 | 260 | 63.0% | 124 | 55.5% | 125 | 7.5% | 18 |
| Eastern Michigan | 382 | 236 | 61.8% | 125 | 63.2% | 118 | -1.4% | 23 |
| UTEP | 436 | 296 | 59.6% | 126 | 58.8% | 123 | 0.2% | 9 |
| Ball State | 388 | 281 | 58.0% | 127 | 60.7% | 121 | -2.8% | 72 |
| LSU | 382 | 360 | 51.5% | 128 | 61.2% | 119 | -10.4% | 10 |
Kansas State's percentages were almost literally identical to last year's. That's incredible. Kansas State: still the king of the spread offense. That's a funny thing to type.
In case you're wondering, solo tackles were up slightly last year: the national average for %Solo was 73.5% in 2013, 74.7% in 2014. That's how teams like Arizona State and Baylor can stay mostly the same but slip in the overall rankings.
Oh, and ... hello there, Syracuse and USF. Both offenses were abjectly terrible in 2014 -- Syracuse ranked 110th in Off. S&P+, and USF ranked 116th -- but there was an interesting change in intent. (That, or it was just really easy for defenders to tackle their ball-carriers. Let's not rule that out.) And the Bryan Harsin to Blake Anderson at Arkansas State turned ASU into an all-out spread attack; this isn't a surprise, as Anderson was one of the spread's earliest tinkerers at Middle Tennessee more than a decade ago.
Biggest %Solo increases in 2014:
1. Arkansas State (+20.4%)
2. Rutgers (+16.6%)
3. USF (+12.5%)
4. Central Michigan (+12.2%)
5. Stanford (+11.1%)
6. Miami-Ohio (+10.6%)
7. Texas (+10.5%)
8. Western Michigan (+10.0%)
9. Notre Dame (+9.9%)
10. North Texas (+7.7%)
A lot of new offensive coordinators or sudden shifts in personnel on this list. And hello there, Stanford!
Biggest %Solo decreases in 2014:
1. Kentucky (-11.2%)
2. LSU (-10.4%)
3. UL-Monroe (-10.0%)
4. Ole Miss (-9.7%)
5. Nevada (-8.9%)
6. Indiana (-8.1%)
7. FAU (-7.8%)
8. California (-6.7%)
9. Wake Forest (-6.4%)
10. Georgia (-5.8%)
A lot of SEC on this list. The league replaced a lot of quarterbacks and shifted more toward rushing and physicality ... particularly LSU, which went from Zach Mettenberger, Odell Beckham Jr., and Jarvis Landry to a four-headed rushing attack with a new QB and new receivers.
Loading comments...