Daily Blog • February 26, 2010 |
---|
In my 2009 College Preview Magazine on pgs 324 and 327 I included my computer's projected stats in 2009 for all 120 FBS teams. There were several different categories including rush offense/defense, pass offense/defense, offensive pts and defensive pts.
On the right hand side of the page I listed the teams that my computer projected to be most improved in '09 compared to '08 season in 6 different categories. I had them ranked in order from Most Improved all the way down to the Least Improved and included the top 15 in each category along with the bottom 5.
In today's blog I have included my projections of the teams I thought would be most improved in rush defense heading into the 2009 season and how they finished in the final NCAA rankings.
In the coming days I will feature a different category in each blog and I think you will be impressed with the results of the accuracy of my projections.
Most Improved Rush Defense 2009 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pre-Season Projection | Final Rankings |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
As you can see my projections were pretty close. I nailed 4 of the top 5 most improved teams and 11 of my top 15 teams finished #29 or better! 13 of my 15 teams (86.7%) saw their rush defense ypg decrease and on avg my top 15 improved by 40 ypg in '09!
My bottom 5 results were just as accurate. All 5 of my projected bottom teams in rush defense saw their ypg increase in '09 and all 5 of the teams finished 73rd or worse! 3 of my projected preseason teams finished in the bottom 7 and on average the 5 teams had a rush defense increase of 47.4 ypg in '09!
Going into the season I thought San Diego St would have the most improved rush defense thanks to an amazing hire in Rocky Long as their DC. Long knew the MWC inside and out and produced top notch D's every year as the Lobos HC. In 2009 under the tutelage of Long, the Aztecs saw their rush defense decrease by 82 ypg which was good enough for #5 in the country.
Kansas St had 8 starters back on defense and welcomed back Bill Snyder who accomplished the greatest rebuilding job in college football history in his 1st stint in Manhattan. I thought the Wildcats would be the 2nd most improved team in rush defense and the Wildcats didn't disapoint allowing 112.3 ypg less in '09 which ranked #1.
In 2009 new Washington HC Steve Sarkisian was surprisingly able to hire Nick Holt as the DC. Holt was the HC at Idaho from 2004-'05 and left to return to USC as the DC the last two years. In the magazine I predicted that the Huskies were arguably the Most Improved Team in the country but their tough schedule would probably prevent them from going to a bowl. One of the areas I thought the Huskies would be most improved in was rush defense where I had them ranked #3 and that projection turned out to be dead on as Washington finished #3 with a 91.8 ypg improvement in 09.
Western Kentucky returned only 4 starters on defense and I thought the 2009 season would be a true transition year into the SBC for the Hilltoppers as they finished 0-12. Coming into the season I thought WKU would have the least improved rush defense and unfortunately for them my projection was very close as they finished #119 allowing 82.4 ypg more in '09.
Overall 18 of the 20 teams (90%) that were featured in my magazine finished with either a higher ypg or lower ypg just as I projected!
Here is a complete list of all 120 teams and how they fared from 2008 to 2009. The teams highlighted in yellow were the teams I had projected in my top 15 and the teams highlighted in green are those I projected to be in the bottom 5.
Most Improved Rush Defense 2009
Rank |
Team | 09 Rush Def YPG |
08 Rush Def YPG |
Diff |
1 |
Kansas St | 105.42 |
217.67 |
-112.25 |
2 |
ULM | 110.08 |
212.67 |
-102.59 |
3 |
Washington | 148.83 |
240.58 |
-91.75 |
4 |
Syracuse | 101.83 |
189.42 |
-87.59 |
5 |
San Diego St | 165.5 |
247.5 |
-82 |
6 |
SMU | 166.69 |
225.58 |
-58.89 |
7 |
Temple | 107.62 |
166.33 |
-58.71 |
8 |
Idaho | 155.15 |
209.58 |
-54.43 |
9 |
Texas A&M | 171.62 |
219.25 |
-47.63 |
10 |
Wisconsin | 88.23 |
133.31 |
-45.08 |
11 |
North Carolina | 95.62 |
139.38 |
-43.76 |
12 |
UCF | 82.77 |
126.08 |
-43.31 |
13 |
Oklahoma St | 95.77 |
137.85 |
-42.08 |
14 |
Kent St | 137.08 |
178.67 |
-41.59 |
15 |
Buffalo | 131.75 |
173 |
-41.25 |
16 |
Colorado St | 152.08 |
190.08 |
-38 |
17 |
Rutgers | 103.23 |
135.62 |
-32.39 |
18 |
Louisiana | 181.92 |
213.25 |
-31.33 |
19 |
BYU | 110.15 |
140.31 |
-30.16 |
20 |
Marshall | 134.85 |
164.42 |
-29.57 |
21 |
Miami, FL | 122.31 |
151.85 |
-29.54 |
22 |
Michigan St | 113.23 |
142.46 |
-29.23 |
23 |
UCLA | 142.77 |
169.75 |
-26.98 |
24 |
UAB | 143.67 |
167 |
-23.33 |
25 |
Nebraska | 93.14 |
116.46 |
-23.32 |
26 |
Oklahoma | 92.92 |
116.21 |
-23.29 |
27 |
Miami, OH | 186.92 |
208.33 |
-21.41 |
28 |
Ohio St | 90.77 |
110.23 |
-19.46 |
29 |
Arkansas | 152.69 |
170.75 |
-18.06 |
30 |
Arizona St | 108.58 |
126.5 |
-17.92 |
31 |
Pittsburgh | 106.31 |
124.15 |
-17.84 |
32 |
Oregon St | 114.38 |
131.23 |
-16.85 |
33 |
Middle Tenn | 136.77 |
153.5 |
-16.73 |
34 |
East Carolina | 120.29 |
135.79 |
-15.5 |
35 |
Akron | 171.92 |
187.17 |
-15.25 |
36 |
Stanford | 137.92 |
152.92 |
-15 |
37 |
Central Michigan | 122.86 |
136.54 |
-13.68 |
38 |
Texas Tech | 126.77 |
140.38 |
-13.61 |
39 |
Tulane | 204.83 |
218.42 |
-13.59 |
40 |
Navy | 122.14 |
134.85 |
-12.71 |
41 |
Northern Illinois | 124.77 |
137.38 |
-12.61 |
42 |
Indiana | 159.08 |
171.67 |
-12.59 |
43 |
Toledo | 166 |
178.33 |
-12.33 |
44 |
North Texas | 195.58 |
207.08 |
-11.5 |
45 |
Washington St | 236.42 |
247.62 |
-11.2 |
46 |
Texas | 72.36 |
83.54 |
-11.18 |
47 |
Ball St | 152.33 |
163 |
-10.67 |
48 |
Arizona | 120.46 |
131.08 |
-10.62 |
49 |
Iowa St | 165.69 |
176.17 |
-10.48 |
50 |
California | 112 |
122.23 |
-10.23 |
51 |
Southern Miss | 130.85 |
139.77 |
-8.92 |
52 |
Air Force | 134 |
141.54 |
-7.54 |
53 |
Missouri | 118.62 |
124.86 |
-6.24 |
54 |
Florida | 99.79 |
105.43 |
-5.64 |
55 |
Colorado | 161.17 |
166.25 |
-5.08 |
56 |
West Virginia | 126.69 |
131.62 |
-4.93 |
57 |
Mississippi St | 146 |
150.92 |
-4.92 |
58 |
Ohio | 153.71 |
157.58 |
-3.87 |
59 |
Penn St | 89.85 |
93.23 |
-3.38 |
60 |
Arkansas St | 122 |
125.17 |
-3.17 |
61 |
North Carolina St | 139.08 |
142.23 |
-3.15 |
62 |
Troy | 137.77 |
139.69 |
-1.92 |
63 |
Purdue | 173.42 |
174.83 |
-1.41 |
64 |
New Mexico St | 220.69 |
220.17 |
0.52 |
65 |
Duke | 152.83 |
151.5 |
1.33 |
66 |
UTEP | 200.83 |
199.5 |
1.33 |
67 |
Illinois | 154.42 |
152.92 |
1.5 |
68 |
Northwestern | 128.62 |
126.38 |
2.24 |
69 |
Boise St | 120.36 |
118 |
2.36 |
70 |
Georgia | 126.15 |
122.31 |
3.84 |
71 |
Alabama | 78.14 |
74.14 |
4 |
72 |
Fresno St | 214.08 |
210 |
4.08 |
73 |
Maryland | 150.83 |
146.69 |
4.14 |
74 |
South Carolina | 137.69 |
132.69 |
5 |
75 |
Army | 151.83 |
145.08 |
6.75 |
76 |
UNLV | 220.58 |
213.08 |
7.5 |
77 |
Rice | 190.58 |
182.77 |
7.81 |
78 |
Minnesota | 151.69 |
143.31 |
8.38 |
79 |
Oregon | 128.69 |
119.38 |
9.31 |
80 |
Boston College | 103.15 |
91.21 |
11.94 |
81 |
Kansas | 138.25 |
123.08 |
15.17 |
82 |
Auburn | 156.08 |
138.92 |
17.16 |
83 |
Tulsa | 147 |
129.5 |
17.5 |
84 |
Memphis | 174.08 |
152.85 |
21.23 |
85 |
Nevada | 111.54 |
88.62 |
22.92 |
86 |
Connecticut | 132.85 |
109.77 |
23.08 |
87 |
LSU | 133.38 |
110.15 |
23.23 |
88 |
Virginia Tech | 128.38 |
104.43 |
23.95 |
89 |
Clemson | 151.5 |
127.38 |
24.12 |
90 |
Virginia | 173.83 |
149.58 |
24.25 |
91 |
Cincinnati | 143.77 |
115 |
28.77 |
92 |
Iowa | 123.62 |
94 |
29.62 |
93 |
Georgia Tech | 151.64 |
120.31 |
31.33 |
94 |
Bowling Green | 194.23 |
162.58 |
31.65 |
95 |
Wyoming | 172.54 |
140.17 |
32.37 |
96 |
TCU | 80.23 |
47.08 |
33.15 |
97 |
Michigan | 171.92 |
136.92 |
35 |
98 |
Louisville | 165.08 |
129.5 |
35.58 |
99 |
Notre Dame | 170.25 |
134.15 |
36.1 |
100 |
Western Michigan | 178.33 |
140.46 |
37.87 |
101 |
Utah | 137.85 |
99.15 |
38.7 |
102 |
Wake Forest | 164.33 |
124.15 |
40.18 |
103 |
South Florida | 135.46 |
95.23 |
40.23 |
104 |
USC | 128.15 |
87.38 |
40.77 |
105 |
Baylor | 178.75 |
137.92 |
40.83 |
106 |
Florida Atlantic | 220.58 |
178.69 |
41.89 |
107 |
New Mexico | 165 |
122.25 |
42.75 |
108 |
Kentucky | 182.92 |
139.23 |
43.69 |
109 |
Utah St | 205.5 |
161.58 |
43.92 |
110 |
Tennessee | 149.54 |
103.08 |
46.46 |
111 |
Houston | 226.57 |
175.15 |
51.42 |
112 |
Vanderbilt | 197.83 |
144.69 |
53.14 |
113 |
Mississippi | 140.31 |
85.54 |
54.77 |
114 |
Louisiana Tech | 162.83 |
103.85 |
58.98 |
115 |
Hawaii | 201.85 |
142.07 |
59.78 |
116 |
Florida St | 204.62 |
132.54 |
72.08 |
117 |
FIU | 232.83 |
156.17 |
76.66 |
118 |
Eastern Michigan | 276.75 |
196.33 |
80.42 |
119 |
WKU | 244.83 |
162.42 |
82.41 |
120 |
San Jose St | 259.17 |
141.42 |
117.75 |