Thursday, December 11, 2008

Offense vs Defense

Let's talk about some of the questions that are an entrance ramp to one of the biggest circular arguments in college football. If a defense holds an offense to 3 points, is it because they're a good defense, or is it because they played a bad offense? At the same time, if an offense scores 70, is it because they're good or because the D is bad? How do you know whether you're watching good defense or bad offense, or whether you're watching bad defense or good offense? Or is it somewhere in between? Or both?

I'm pretty convinced that statistically, there's no way to definitively tell. But I've started to work towards a method to sort out some of the shades of grey, distinguishing over the course of a whole season where the good and bad offenses and defenses are.

For lack of a better term, I'll call this a team's Off.A and Def.A - Offensive Ability and Defensive Ability. It's based on two easy to study statistics: yards and points. A lot of posts about statistics that use yards and points simply go by the amount of them that teams rack up or allow per game. You know the abbreviations - YPG (yards per game) & PPG (points per game). For my purposes, dYPG and dPPG are the defensive statistics. A lot of people swear by these, and they're easy to calculate and understand, but they have one major flaw - they don't take opponent's strength into account.

A statistic that's just as easy to calculate that DOES take opponent's strength into account is the one I'm presenting here. It's designated by percentage, as in YPG%, PPG%, dYPG%, and dPPG%. What is it? It's the percentage of yards or points that a team gains or allows compared to their opponent's average.

Let's look at a specific and good example from this year - Texas Tech. Here's a breakdown of all their games from this year.

Texas Tech, 2008
oConf Opponent dYPG dPPG YPG PPG Yds Pts dYds dPts Yds% Pts% dYds% dPts%
zAA Eastern Washington 452.4 41.8 248.7 11.5 639 49 364 24 141% 117% 146% 209%
WAC Nevada 393.3 31.2 512.6 39.5 421 35 488 19 107% 112% 95% 48%
CUSA SMU 460.1 37.7 318.0 22.6 693 43 274 7 151% 114% 86% 31%
zAA Massachusetts 452.4 41.8 248.7 11.5 538 56 258 14 119% 134% 104% 122%
Big12 Kansas State 465.7 33.8 411.7 35.5 626 58 296 28 134% 172% 72% 79%
Big12 Nebraska 356.1 28.5 457.1 36.6 421 37 471 31 118% 130% 103% 85%
Big12 Texas A&M 452.9 36.9 344.1 25.0 561 43 306 25 124% 117% 89% 100%
Big12 Kansas 388.2 26.5 441.8 33.7 556 63 315 21 143% 238% 71% 62%
Big12 Texas 318.2 16.7 485.7 44.9 579 39 374 33 182% 233% 77% 73%
Big12 Oklahoma State 370.7 24.3 500.3 43.5 629 56 368 20 170% 231% 74% 46%
Big12 Oklahoma 355.2 24.8 556.8 53.1 406 21 625 65 114% 85% 112% 122%
Big12 Baylor 395.7 28.8 381.5 28.0 365 35 320 28 92% 121% 84% 100%
- Averages 405.1 31.1 408.9 31.1 536.2 44.6 371.6 26.3 133% 150% 93% 90%

Let's look at the Red Raiders' second game of the season, @ Nevada. Against their non-Texas Tech opponents, Nevada's D gave up an average of 393.3 yards per game. Texas Tech gained 421 yards on them, which was 107% of Nevada's average (393.3/421). The Red Raiders scored 35 points, which was 112% of Nevada's average of 31.2 against their other opponents. Texas Tech's D gave up 488 yards, which was 95% of Nevada's average of 512.6, and 19 points, which was just 48% of Nevada's average of 39.5. See how it works? By comparing a team's performance against their opponent's opponent's average, we get a better measure of their overall offensive or defensive ability.

As you might have noticed, on offense a higher percentage is better - you want to score more than your opponent usually allows. On defense, a lower percentage is better - you want to allow less yards and points than your opponent usually gains and scores. In the case of Texas Tech vs Nevada, the Red Raider's offense was decent, gaining just above the average that Nevada allowed to all their other opponents. Their yardage D was average too, allowing 95% of the yards that Nevada gained against their other opponents. But their scoring D was great, allowing only 19 points when Nevada averaged 39.5 against their other opponents (48%).

(A quick note about games against I-AA foes - they had to be included, so I took the average of how they all did against their BCS and non-BCS conference opponents respectively. So the 248.7 YPG and 11.5 PPG for Eastern Washington & Massachusetts was the average of how I-AA teams did against BCS conference teams this year.)

So now that we've got that groundwork set, let's go to the big table. Here's how to read it: in looking at Florida this year, they averaged 442.4 YPG, which was 142% of the yardage per game that their opponents usually allowed. They averaged 45.2 PPG, which was a whopping 219% of what their opponents usually allowed. Their dYPG was decent, but not great - they allowed 83% of what their opponents usually gained, but their dPPG was stellar, allowing only 54% of the points their opponents usually scored. The Off.A column is an average of the YPG% & PPG%, and the Def.A column is an average of the dYPG% & dPPG%. The last column, Total.A, is the difference between offense and defense. So Florida had the offensive ability to gain an average of 180% more offense against their opponents than their opponents usually allowed, and Florida had the defensive ability to allow just 68% of the average offense than their opponents usually gained. Their total of 112% is the biggest difference among teams this season, showing that in any given game, GENERALLY, it was more likely a matter of Florida's offense and defense playing well rather than their opponents defense and offense playing poorly. The closer the Off.A or Def.A percentages is to 100%, the more of a balance between good offense/bad defense and bad offense/good defense there is.

(As usual, the columns are soratable, so click on the headers to sort around. The Total.A column doesn't sort well though, so just refresh the page to get back to the original sort of total ability.)

Offense vs Defense
Year Conf Team YPG YPG% PPG PPG% dYPG dYPG% dPPG dPPG% Off.A Def.A Total.A
2008 SEC Florida 442.4 142% 45.2 219% 279.3 083% 12.8 054% 180% 068% 112%
2008 Big12 Oklahoma 562.1 156% 54.0 224% 359.1 087% 24.5 075% 190% 081% 109%
2008 Pac10 USC 453.1 133% 37.5 158% 206.1 059% 7.8 027% 146% 043% 103%
2008 Big10 Penn St 452.2 127% 40.2 165% 263.9 075% 12.4 051% 146% 063% 083%
2008 SEC Alabama 367.2 116% 31.2 150% 256.9 072% 13.0 047% 133% 059% 074%
2008 Big12 Texas 476.4 119% 43.9 154% 339.9 076% 18.6 051% 136% 064% 073%
2008 MtnWest TCU 417.1 111% 35.0 126% 215.1 056% 10.9 038% 118% 047% 071%
2008 WAC Boise St 456.8 119% 39.4 135% 294.5 079% 12.3 043% 127% 061% 066%
2008 Pac10 Oregon 478.2 145% 41.9 186% 383.0 108% 28.0 105% 166% 106% 059%
2008 Pac10 Oregon St 418.3 129% 32.8 159% 323.3 088% 25.0 086% 144% 087% 057%
2008 SEC Mississippi 398.7 123% 30.8 147% 293.8 086% 17.8 074% 135% 080% 054%
2008 Big10 Ohio St 339.7 100% 28.2 123% 279.3 072% 13.1 044% 111% 058% 053%
2008 Big12 Missouri 497.5 128% 43.2 154% 414.2 099% 27.5 078% 141% 088% 053%
2008 Big10 Iowa 373.9 104% 30.0 123% 289.5 079% 13.3 048% 114% 063% 050%
2008 Big12 Texas Tech 536.2 133% 44.6 150% 371.6 093% 26.3 090% 142% 091% 050%
2008 Big12 Oklahoma St 489.3 127% 41.6 148% 392.3 093% 26.9 084% 137% 089% 049%
2008 MtnWest Utah 405.3 112% 37.4 141% 295.9 083% 17.3 073% 127% 078% 048%
2008 SEC Georgia 433.9 139% 32.1 158% 318.3 096% 25.6 106% 148% 101% 047%
2008 MAC Ball St 459.4 120% 36.6 134% 347.9 096% 18.6 074% 127% 085% 042%
2008 ACC Florida St 368.7 109% 32.7 142% 291.8 088% 20.8 081% 126% 085% 041%
2008 Big12 Nebraska 458.3 121% 36.2 138% 361.5 091% 29.2 092% 129% 091% 038%
2008 BigEast Rutgers 395.2 117% 29.0 125% 323.9 093% 18.5 072% 121% 082% 038%
2008 BigEast Pittsburgh 356.2 107% 29.3 142% 320.8 088% 23.0 090% 125% 089% 036%
2008 Pac10 Arizona 401.3 111% 37.1 136% 302.1 085% 21.3 092% 123% 088% 035%
2008 CUSA Tulsa 565.1 141% 47.4 158% 391.2 109% 29.1 126% 149% 117% 032%
2008 CUSA Houston 575.1 145% 41.2 141% 418.6 109% 31.2 114% 143% 111% 032%
2008 Pac10 California 379.2 106% 33.3 122% 315.4 088% 20.2 080% 114% 084% 030%
2008 SunBelt Troy 421.4 108% 33.3 112% 319.6 086% 20.6 075% 110% 080% 029%
2008 Big10 Illinois 438.8 125% 28.7 127% 350.3 094% 26.6 099% 126% 097% 029%
2008 WAC Nevada 510.6 136% 37.8 144% 395.6 106% 31.5 117% 140% 111% 029%
2008 MtnWest BYU 444.8 124% 35.3 129% 350.9 106% 21.2 093% 127% 099% 027%
2008 SEC LSU 371.8 113% 30.3 131% 326.5 091% 25.9 105% 122% 098% 024%
2008 ACC Boston College 318.5 096% 25.5 117% 273.4 085% 18.5 079% 106% 082% 024%
2008 BigEast Cincinnati 375.3 105% 27.3 106% 316.1 085% 20.2 077% 105% 081% 024%
2008 ACC Georgia Tech 377.3 117% 26.2 114% 312.7 100% 18.8 083% 115% 092% 024%
2008 Big10 Michigan St 352.4 104% 26.2 117% 357.9 096% 21.9 080% 110% 088% 022%
2008 Big12 Kansas 431.3 114% 32.7 117% 402.2 097% 29.5 090% 115% 093% 022%
2008 ACC Clemson 339.3 100% 25.5 105% 294.8 093% 16.6 072% 102% 082% 020%
2008 BigEast South Florida 397.4 112% 26.5 098% 291.8 085% 20.5 085% 105% 085% 020%
2008 ACC Wake Forest 300.3 091% 22.5 104% 300.3 090% 16.1 067% 098% 079% 019%
2008 BigEast Connecticut 351.8 099% 23.8 099% 281.4 082% 19.8 079% 099% 080% 019%
2008 CUSA Southern Miss 434.5 113% 30.7 110% 369.3 099% 23.8 089% 112% 094% 018%
2008 MtnWest Air Force 348.8 093% 26.7 103% 335.3 088% 21.3 074% 098% 081% 017%
2008 Indy Navy 361.7 101% 27.8 122% 341.8 103% 21.4 090% 111% 096% 015%
2008 BigEast West Virginia 352.5 102% 24.0 101% 325.5 099% 15.9 074% 101% 086% 015%
2008 ACC Virginia Tech 296.2 087% 22.2 098% 277.1 083% 17.5 071% 092% 077% 015%
2008 SEC South Carolina 316.8 094% 21.7 096% 288.9 083% 20.3 079% 095% 081% 014%
2008 Big10 Wisconsin 404.8 113% 28.7 115% 322.3 092% 25.3 109% 114% 100% 014%
2008 MAC N. Illinois 334.8 087% 25.3 087% 303.7 082% 18.1 068% 087% 075% 013%
2008 MAC W. Michigan 422.7 110% 29.8 104% 390.3 104% 23.8 087% 107% 095% 012%
2008 ACC North Carolina 317.3 097% 27.5 135% 357.9 111% 20.3 100% 116% 106% 011%
2008 Pac10 Stanford 351.8 111% 26.3 125% 379.6 110% 27.4 107% 118% 109% 010%
2008 ACC Miami (FL) 327.1 094% 27.9 119% 315.8 096% 24.2 103% 107% 099% 007%
2008 Big10 Northwestern 357.0 100% 24.5 101% 343.0 104% 19.3 083% 100% 093% 007%
2008 CUSA Rice 472.3 123% 41.6 142% 466.8 121% 34.9 132% 133% 126% 006%
2008 MAC Buffalo 380.5 100% 31.1 122% 408.3 108% 27.5 102% 111% 105% 006%
2008 MAC Bowling Green 359.8 099% 27.7 102% 343.4 094% 23.2 096% 100% 095% 005%
2008 CUSA Memphis 432.2 114% 28.3 100% 341.9 095% 26.0 108% 107% 102% 005%
2008 MtnWest New Mexico 339.6 093% 21.1 074% 335.8 085% 22.8 074% 084% 079% 004%
2008 SEC Tennessee 268.8 081% 17.3 077% 263.5 078% 16.8 072% 079% 075% 004%
2008 CUSA East Carolina 336.0 091% 23.8 092% 334.8 089% 20.8 087% 091% 088% 003%
2008 SunBelt Arkansas St 398.8 101% 27.0 084% 336.5 091% 23.8 091% 092% 091% 001%
2008 Big10 Purdue 374.4 107% 24.7 096% 358.1 100% 25.1 103% 101% 102% 000%
2008 Big12 Baylor 376.4 097% 28.0 096% 393.2 098% 29.3 096% 096% 097% -001%
2008 Indy Notre Dame 344.8 096% 22.7 088% 327.5 098% 22.3 088% 092% 093% -001%
2008 SEC Vanderbilt 260.9 079% 19.4 088% 318.7 092% 20.1 081% 083% 086% -003%
2008 SEC Kentucky 298.4 089% 22.4 092% 327.0 099% 21.7 089% 090% 094% -004%
2008 MAC C. Michigan 427.1 115% 30.3 116% 424.3 116% 30.8 123% 116% 120% -004%
2008 ACC Virginia 299.8 094% 16.1 082% 333.3 100% 21.7 087% 088% 093% -005%
2008 SEC Auburn 302.9 089% 17.3 068% 317.8 092% 18.0 078% 078% 085% -007%
2008 SunBelt LA-Lafayette 449.2 113% 33.1 111% 429.6 112% 33.7 126% 112% 119% -007%
2008 MAC Akron 396.7 109% 30.0 113% 397.6 111% 31.3 125% 111% 118% -007%
2008 Pac10 Arizona St 309.4 084% 22.8 075% 335.2 093% 22.7 082% 079% 088% -008%
2008 Big10 Minnesota 322.3 092% 23.4 101% 378.4 110% 23.3 099% 096% 104% -008%
2008 CUSA UTEP 406.5 104% 32.9 119% 469.8 117% 37.0 123% 111% 120% -009%
2008 BigEast Louisville 376.7 109% 24.7 098% 368.8 105% 29.8 123% 104% 114% -010%
2008 SEC Arkansas 373.1 114% 21.9 097% 375.2 105% 31.2 127% 106% 116% -010%
2008 WAC Hawaii 344.8 092% 24.9 085% 351.8 095% 27.3 103% 088% 099% -010%
2008 WAC Fresno St 383.3 107% 29.2 107% 393.5 111% 30.3 126% 107% 118% -011%
2008 MAC Temple 298.1 080% 23.4 084% 388.0 102% 23.1 085% 082% 094% -011%
2008 Big10 Michigan 290.8 086% 20.3 095% 366.9 099% 28.9 108% 090% 103% -013%
2008 ACC Duke 303.8 089% 20.1 095% 356.9 114% 23.4 098% 092% 106% -014%
2008 ACC NC State 326.3 101% 23.5 111% 387.1 121% 26.1 119% 106% 120% -014%
2008 Big12 Kansas St 402.1 098% 34.9 106% 479.1 118% 35.8 114% 102% 116% -014%
2008 ACC Maryland 341.9 103% 17.9 078% 355.0 109% 23.6 101% 090% 105% -015%
2008 WAC San Jose St 282.8 069% 18.7 061% 311.7 083% 21.6 078% 065% 080% -015%
2008 MAC Kent St 400.3 107% 25.7 095% 395.2 110% 31.7 122% 101% 116% -016%
2008 SunBelt Florida Intl 316.9 084% 24.7 086% 369.1 097% 28.3 107% 085% 102% -017%
2008 Pac10 UCLA 283.3 081% 17.7 072% 337.4 090% 29.0 101% 077% 096% -019%
2008 MtnWest Colorado St 377.3 105% 23.9 093% 408.1 113% 29.8 123% 099% 118% -019%
2008 SunBelt Florida Atl 391.5 101% 25.2 086% 402.1 112% 29.3 114% 094% 113% -019%
2008 MAC Ohio 361.4 093% 24.1 084% 348.6 097% 27.3 118% 089% 108% -019%
2008 WAC Louisiana Tech 352.0 092% 25.3 080% 379.7 107% 24.8 104% 086% 106% -020%
2008 MtnWest UNLV 345.0 096% 25.6 106% 423.2 116% 32.6 127% 101% 121% -020%
2008 Big12 Colorado 318.5 080% 20.2 071% 381.6 096% 29.3 098% 076% 097% -021%
2008 SunBelt Middle TN St 348.6 092% 22.8 077% 366.3 106% 24.9 108% 085% 107% -022%
2008 WAC Utah St 334.3 089% 24.0 088% 412.7 106% 34.7 116% 088% 111% -023%
2008 CUSA Marshall 330.4 088% 20.5 074% 418.1 107% 27.7 103% 081% 105% -024%
2008 MAC Toledo 334.1 089% 22.4 077% 381.4 102% 31.4 114% 083% 108% -025%
2008 Big12 Texas A&M 340.9 089% 25.0 092% 461.9 116% 37.4 118% 091% 117% -026%
2008 CUSA Central Florida 229.5 059% 16.6 060% 333.8 089% 24.1 084% 059% 086% -027%
2008 MAC E. Michigan 417.5 111% 25.8 098% 408.6 116% 35.6 155% 104% 135% -031%
2008 SEC Mississippi St 274.9 080% 15.3 059% 327.5 097% 24.7 107% 070% 102% -032%
2008 MtnWest Wyoming 296.0 084% 12.7 048% 329.7 093% 27.8 104% 066% 099% -033%
2008 WAC New Mexico St 355.6 092% 22.2 073% 379.6 101% 34.1 133% 083% 117% -034%
2008 Big10 Indiana 348.2 097% 20.5 083% 432.2 116% 35.3 134% 090% 125% -035%
2008 CUSA UAB 366.2 099% 22.8 078% 429.9 119% 31.3 128% 089% 123% -035%
2008 Indy Army 287.7 070% 14.8 046% 339.5 093% 23.7 093% 058% 093% -035%
2008 Big12 Iowa St 386.8 095% 25.3 079% 452.8 119% 35.8 128% 087% 124% -036%
2008 CUSA Tulane 339.7 087% 16.7 056% 391.3 096% 34.5 132% 072% 114% -042%
2008 BigEast Syracuse 270.2 078% 18.1 077% 414.5 115% 32.7 130% 078% 122% -044%
2008 SunBelt LA-Monroe 337.3 088% 23.7 079% 444.7 124% 31.2 136% 083% 130% -046%
2008 MAC Miami (OH) 326.0 089% 18.4 071% 395.5 117% 32.7 143% 080% 130% -050%
2008 CUSA SMU 314.3 083% 21.3 072% 479.5 118% 38.2 140% 077% 129% -052%
2008 Indy W. Kentucky 286.1 074% 17.5 054% 375.3 110% 27.2 123% 064% 116% -053%
2008 Pac10 Washington 263.2 077% 13.3 053% 451.8 120% 38.6 132% 065% 126% -062%
2008 SunBelt North Texas 363.0 093% 20.0 072% 482.6 127% 47.6 175% 082% 151% -069%
2008 WAC Idaho 320.9 084% 19.6 069% 472.0 135% 42.8 174% 076% 154% -078%
2008 MtnWest San Diego St 312.4 084% 19.3 069% 460.8 139% 37.2 178% 076% 158% -082%
2008 Pac10 Washington St 241.1 063% 12.7 042% 443.4 123% 43.8 158% 053% 141% -088%

Looks pretty similar to the final regular season rankings, huh? Yeah, but I wouldn't trust them too much just yet. This is just a different way of looking at a team and how they performed over the whole season, and is probably most effective when used in conjunction with other stats and rankings.

So how do the teams from this year rank against the teams from past years? Here's the data from the previous 8 seasons. (But remember, the 2008 numbers don't include bowl games yet - the 2000-2007 number include the bowl games. I'll re-post a comparison in January after the bowls.)

The Oklahoma and Florida offenses rank #1 and #3 over the last 9 seasons, so we can probably expect a huge amount of offense in the title game this year. Vince Young's 2005 Texas team is at #2, while the Leinart & Bush USC 2005 team is at #4 - and that was a hell of a game. Another team of note is the Oregon squad from this year, coming in at #3 behind Oklahoma & Florida in 2008 and #10 overall. An amazing stat considering all the QB problems they had this year - they found a way to get it done. When they lost, it was most likely due to their D, which allowed more than 100% of their opponent's average in both yards & points.

The Best Offenses, 2000-2008
Year Conf Team YPG YPG% PPG PPG% dYPG dYPG% dPPG dPPG% Off.A Def.A Total.A
2008 Big12 Oklahoma 562.1 156% 54.0 224% 359.1 087% 24.5 075% 190% 081% 109%
2005 Big12 Texas 512.1 150% 50.2 227% 302.9 075% 16.4 055% 188% 065% 123%
2008 SEC Florida 442.4 142% 45.2 219% 279.3 083% 12.8 054% 180% 068% 112%
2005 Pac10 USC 579.8 155% 49.1 203% 360.9 084% 22.8 069% 179% 077% 102%
2006 WAC Hawaii 559.2 159% 46.9 183% 377.8 110% 24.1 100% 171% 105% 066%
2001 SEC Florida 536.8 148% 44.8 193% 294.8 072% 14.8 054% 171% 063% 108%
2001 BigEast Miami (FL) 456.3 138% 42.7 200% 267.8 074% 9.8 033% 169% 053% 115%
2005 BigEast Louisville 482.1 143% 43.4 194% 324.0 096% 23.8 105% 169% 101% 068%
2006 BigEast West Virginia 461.4 141% 38.8 192% 336.6 100% 21.7 088% 166% 094% 072%
2008 Pac10 Oregon 478.2 145% 41.9 186% 383.0 108% 28.0 105% 166% 106% 059%
2003 Big12 Texas Tech 582.8 158% 42.5 169% 453.4 119% 34.0 118% 163% 119% 045%
2006 MtnWest BYU 465.5 150% 36.8 176% 319.2 098% 14.7 064% 163% 081% 082%
2002 BigEast Miami (FL) 465.8 138% 40.5 186% 285.0 079% 19.1 080% 162% 080% 083%
2006 BigEast Louisville 475.3 143% 37.8 180% 320.5 098% 16.3 063% 161% 080% 081%
2000 ACC Florida St 529.8 151% 39.3 171% 275.5 070% 10.5 037% 161% 054% 107%
2000 BigEast Miami (FL) 459.6 132% 42.2 187% 342.5 089% 15.8 060% 160% 075% 085%
2002 Big12 Texas Tech 488.2 143% 38.4 175% 403.5 109% 31.4 108% 159% 109% 050%
2004 CUSA Louisville 539.0 138% 49.8 179% 305.9 079% 19.7 064% 159% 071% 087%
2004 MtnWest Utah 499.8 132% 45.3 179% 343.4 095% 19.5 082% 156% 088% 067%
2004 Pac10 USC 449.1 130% 38.2 182% 279.3 072% 13.0 048% 156% 060% 096%
2007 SEC LSU 439.4 127% 38.6 183% 288.8 074% 19.9 067% 155% 071% 084%
2003 Pac10 USC 447.5 130% 41.1 177% 336.4 088% 18.4 073% 153% 080% 073%
2007 SEC Florida 457.2 127% 42.5 179% 361.8 095% 25.5 090% 153% 093% 060%
2000 BigEast Virginia Tech 423.7 118% 40.3 186% 321.9 081% 22.4 076% 152% 079% 073%
2000 SEC Florida 420.5 128% 36.0 176% 353.7 090% 21.0 076% 152% 083% 069%
2002 Pac10 USC 449.2 134% 35.8 168% 284.9 073% 18.5 058% 151% 065% 086%
2004 WAC Boise St 492.7 129% 48.9 171% 357.8 092% 25.7 089% 150% 090% 060%
2003 MAC Miami (OH) 501.1 134% 43.0 166% 341.1 086% 19.4 073% 150% 080% 070%
2008 CUSA Tulsa 565.1 141% 47.4 158% 391.2 109% 29.1 126% 149% 117% 032%
2003 Big10 Minnesota 494.6 137% 38.7 162% 340.4 095% 21.9 087% 149% 091% 058%
2007 BigEast West Virginia 456.2 124% 39.6 173% 301.7 076% 18.1 063% 149% 070% 079%
2000 Big12 Nebraska 474.6 126% 43.5 172% 325.3 087% 19.2 068% 149% 078% 071%
2001 ACC Florida St 423.6 130% 33.6 167% 349.9 088% 25.3 082% 148% 085% 063%
2004 Big12 Texas Tech 491.7 140% 36.2 157% 357.0 092% 26.2 093% 148% 093% 056%
2003 Big12 Oklahoma 439.4 120% 42.9 177% 259.6 067% 15.3 054% 148% 060% 088%
2008 SEC Georgia 433.9 139% 32.1 158% 318.3 096% 25.6 106% 148% 101% 047%
2000 Big10 Northwestern 466.3 128% 36.8 167% 427.1 108% 33.3 117% 148% 112% 035%
2000 Big12 Oklahoma 416.0 124% 37.0 171% 280.5 073% 14.9 050% 147% 062% 086%
2001 MtnWest BYU 521.4 132% 44.1 162% 436.4 116% 30.3 122% 147% 119% 027%
2001 Big12 Nebraska 434.4 128% 35.6 165% 301.4 080% 17.4 060% 146% 070% 076%
2008 Big10 Penn St 452.2 127% 40.2 165% 263.9 075% 12.4 051% 146% 063% 083%
2008 Pac10 USC 453.1 133% 37.5 158% 206.1 059% 7.8 027% 146% 043% 103%
2004 Pac10 California 492.4 138% 36.8 153% 320.9 083% 16.0 056% 145% 070% 076%
2005 Big10 Minnesota 494.8 137% 35.8 152% 412.7 103% 29.0 100% 145% 102% 043%
2007 Pac10 Oregon 467.5 131% 38.2 158% 382.0 096% 23.6 084% 145% 090% 055%
2005 Big12 Texas Tech 495.8 141% 39.4 148% 335.8 097% 18.8 078% 144% 088% 057%
2008 Pac10 Oregon St 418.3 129% 32.8 159% 323.3 088% 25.0 086% 144% 087% 057%
2006 Big10 Ohio St 384.5 118% 34.6 169% 280.5 077% 12.8 050% 144% 063% 080%
2001 MAC Marshall 513.9 137% 39.4 150% 421.1 114% 28.4 107% 143% 110% 033%
2000 Big12 Kansas St 416.9 118% 39.2 169% 271.9 071% 18.6 065% 143% 068% 075%

As far as defense goes, we knew this year's USC squad was stellar, but they're also the best since 1999, statistically. And it's not even close - their 7.8 dPPG average is 2 whole points less than the second best D, the 2001 Miami (FL) squad, and they're allowing just 27% of the points that their opponents usually score. TCU is at the top too, #2 this year and #5 overall - Boise State is gonna have their hands full, but the Broncos are actually at #3 this year. Penn State is #4, so we might get very low scoring Rose and Poinsettia Bowls. (At least lower than most are expecting...)

The Best Defenses, 2000-2008
Year Conf Team YPG YPG% PPG PPG% dYPG dYPG% dPPG dPPG% Off.A Def.A Total.A
2008 Pac10 USC 453.1 133% 37.5 158% 206.1 059% 7.8 027% 146% 043% 103%
2008 MtnWest TCU 417.1 111% 35.0 126% 215.1 056% 10.9 038% 118% 047% 071%
2007 Big10 Ohio St 393.7 104% 31.4 122% 233.0 057% 12.8 043% 113% 050% 063%
2005 Big10 Ohio St 422.3 109% 32.7 129% 281.3 061% 15.3 044% 119% 052% 066%
2001 BigEast Miami (FL) 456.3 138% 42.7 200% 267.8 074% 9.8 033% 169% 053% 115%
2000 ACC Florida St 529.8 151% 39.3 171% 275.5 070% 10.5 037% 161% 054% 107%
2000 WAC TCU 407.1 104% 35.9 125% 250.5 068% 11.2 042% 115% 055% 059%
2005 SEC Alabama 358.9 107% 21.9 105% 255.1 072% 10.7 040% 106% 056% 050%
2003 SEC LSU 418.4 116% 33.9 142% 252.0 068% 11.0 044% 129% 056% 073%
2006 ACC Virginia Tech 295.2 093% 25.8 127% 219.5 069% 11.0 046% 110% 057% 053%
2008 Big10 Ohio St 339.7 100% 28.2 123% 279.3 072% 13.1 044% 111% 058% 053%
2005 ACC Virginia Tech 380.9 114% 33.8 158% 247.6 068% 12.9 048% 136% 058% 078%
2002 Big12 Kansas St 423.0 109% 44.8 150% 249.0 070% 11.8 046% 129% 058% 071%
2003 BigEast Miami (FL) 394.9 104% 27.8 111% 257.5 066% 15.1 051% 107% 058% 049%
2008 SEC Alabama 367.2 116% 31.2 150% 256.9 072% 13.0 047% 133% 059% 074%
2001 Big12 Oklahoma 354.2 102% 30.5 131% 242.2 068% 13.0 052% 117% 060% 057%
2004 Pac10 USC 449.1 130% 38.2 182% 279.3 072% 13.0 048% 156% 060% 096%
2003 Big12 Oklahoma 439.4 120% 42.9 177% 259.6 067% 15.3 054% 148% 060% 088%
2006 SEC Florida 396.1 123% 29.7 159% 255.4 071% 13.5 050% 141% 060% 081%
2004 ACC Virginia Tech 365.5 106% 30.8 138% 268.0 072% 12.8 049% 122% 061% 061%
2008 WAC Boise St 456.8 119% 39.4 135% 294.5 079% 12.3 043% 127% 061% 066%
2004 SEC Auburn 420.7 122% 32.1 140% 277.6 076% 11.3 046% 131% 061% 069%
2000 Big12 Oklahoma 416.0 124% 37.0 171% 280.5 073% 14.9 050% 147% 062% 086%
2001 BigEast Virginia Tech 366.2 106% 31.3 148% 251.1 070% 14.8 054% 127% 062% 065%
2006 SEC LSU 417.5 128% 33.7 153% 242.8 070% 12.6 053% 141% 062% 079%
2002 SEC Alabama 403.5 125% 28.2 146% 257.3 069% 15.4 056% 135% 062% 073%
2007 Pac10 USC 434.9 114% 32.6 123% 273.2 069% 16.0 056% 119% 062% 056%
2002 Big10 Ohio St 364.5 095% 29.3 108% 320.9 079% 13.1 046% 101% 062% 039%
2003 Big12 Nebraska 345.0 091% 24.8 099% 297.2 078% 14.5 048% 095% 063% 033%
2004 Big12 Oklahoma 462.1 129% 34.8 145% 299.0 073% 16.8 053% 137% 063% 074%
2006 MtnWest TCU 408.5 122% 29.2 121% 234.9 071% 12.3 055% 122% 063% 059%
2001 SEC Florida 536.8 148% 44.8 193% 294.8 072% 14.8 054% 171% 063% 108%
2002 Big12 Oklahoma 392.6 106% 38.6 157% 293.1 076% 15.4 050% 132% 063% 069%
2008 Big10 Iowa 373.9 104% 30.0 123% 289.5 079% 13.3 048% 114% 063% 050%
2003 SEC Georgia 380.3 116% 26.5 134% 276.9 073% 14.5 053% 125% 063% 061%
2008 Big10 Penn St 452.2 127% 40.2 165% 263.9 075% 12.4 051% 146% 063% 083%
2006 Big10 Michigan 370.8 109% 29.2 154% 268.3 072% 15.9 055% 132% 063% 068%
2006 Big10 Ohio St 384.5 118% 34.6 169% 280.5 077% 12.8 050% 144% 063% 080%
2008 Big12 Texas 476.4 119% 43.9 154% 339.9 076% 18.6 051% 136% 064% 073%
2006 Big10 Wisconsin 373.2 106% 29.2 113% 253.1 074% 12.1 054% 110% 064% 046%
2005 Big12 Texas 512.1 150% 50.2 227% 302.9 075% 16.4 055% 188% 065% 123%
2001 Big12 Kansas St 380.3 112% 27.5 127% 255.9 069% 17.1 061% 119% 065% 054%
2007 Big12 Kansas 479.8 116% 42.8 134% 317.3 079% 16.4 052% 125% 065% 060%
2002 Pac10 USC 449.2 134% 35.8 168% 284.9 073% 18.5 058% 151% 065% 086%
2000 MAC W. Michigan 400.6 110% 29.9 120% 283.3 080% 11.6 052% 115% 066% 049%
2006 BigEast Rutgers 345.1 102% 29.8 132% 252.2 073% 14.3 058% 117% 066% 051%
2005 SEC LSU 374.1 111% 29.5 146% 266.8 074% 14.2 058% 129% 066% 063%
2002 SunBelt North Texas 284.5 079% 19.2 070% 290.6 078% 14.8 054% 074% 066% 008%
2007 SEC Auburn 335.2 094% 24.2 094% 297.9 077% 16.9 055% 094% 066% 028%
2001 Big12 Texas 426.4 116% 39.8 152% 251.5 068% 15.9 064% 134% 066% 068%

2 comments:

HeadThief said...

Great analysis. Keep up the good work.

Ed Gunther said...

Thanks much - it's appreciated!