Daily Blog •February 20, 2013 |
---|
Every year I am adding to new features and articles to my College Football Preview and PhilSteele.com and this year for all 124 teams I have added a couple extra columns to the Game-by-Game Stats that you will find on the right hand page for every team. A lot of people have been asking me what those columns stand for and I thought I would explain it further in today’s blog.
During the 2012 season I was wondering how certain offensive and defensive performances that a team had vs a particular opponent stacked up on how the other opponents fared against that team. Not every performance as far as yards gained and given up is created equal due to the quality of opponent played. Let’s face it gaining 300 yards of offense last year vs Alabama’s defense would be far more impressive than gaining 300 yards vs Kansas’ D. So to the right of the net yards and points columns, you will see an offensive vs foe and defensive vs foe numbers. The first # is what that performance ranked compared to every other team their opponent allowed throughout the year (#1 being the best, with #12 being the worst since most teams played 12 games) while the second column contains the number of yards positive or negative against their opponent’s average.
If you need further explanation feel free to check out the June 14th blog.
In today’s blog I took all those averages on offense and combined them to come up with the most impressive offensive teams in the country compared to how they fared against their opponent. First, here is a ranking of all 124 teams and how they did.
Offensive YPG Avg Compared to
Opponent's Defensive YPG Avg
Rank | Team | Offensive Avg vs Opp D Avg |
1 | Texas A&M | 210.94 |
2 | Baylor | 178.56 |
3 | Louisiana Tech | 175.74 |
4 | Clemson | 144.48 |
5 | Oregon | 143.64 |
6 | Arizona | 124.61 |
7 | Marshall | 120.32 |
8 | Oklahoma St | 118.92 |
9 | Tennessee | 112.77 |
10 | Georgia | 111.23 |
11 | Nebraska | 102.23 |
12 | Syracuse | 101.98 |
13 | Troy | 97.92 |
14 | West Virginia | 96.65 |
15 | Nevada | 94.74 |
16 | North Carolina | 85.59 |
17 | Oklahoma | 79.67 |
18 | Fresno St | 77.50 |
19 | Texas Tech | 75.63 |
20 | Florida St | 75.46 |
21 | Alabama | 73.99 |
22 | Miami, Fl | 72.77 |
23 | Louisiana | 67.69 |
24 | Indiana | 64.00 |
25 | UCLA | 59.37 |
26 | Arkansas St | 56.81 |
27 | Northern Illinois | 56.23 |
28 | Arkansas | 55.42 |
29 | Cincinnati | 52.34 |
30 | San Jose St | 50.01 |
31 | Arizona St | 49.11 |
32 | Notre Dame | 49.06 |
33 | Utah St | 48.85 |
34 | USC | 47.69 |
35 | Louisville | 46.49 |
36 | Houston | 45.99 |
37 | Georgia Tech | 44.34 |
38 | Ohio St | 43.18 |
39 | Toledo | 41.53 |
40 | Mississippi | 38.86 |
41 | Ball St | 38.68 |
42 | Army | 35.52 |
43 | Duke | 34.60 |
44 | Oregon St | 33.23 |
45 | NC State | 32.11 |
46 | Penn St | 32.01 |
47 | Ohio | 30.58 |
48 | Tulsa | 28.49 |
49 | Wisconsin | 27.69 |
50 | Michigan | 27.05 |
51 | Northwestern | 24.24 |
52 | BYU | 21.83 |
53 | Texas | 18.30 |
54 | ULM | 17.99 |
55 | Western Michigan | 12.91 |
56 | Pittsburgh | 12.90 |
57 | Purdue | 7.32 |
58 | South Carolina | 7.06 |
59 | Middle Tennessee | 2.44 |
60 | UAB | 1.17 |
61 | Boise St | 0.61 |
62 | California | 0.58 |
63 | San Diego St | 0.02 |
64 | LSU | -1.10 |
65 | Kent St | -1.42 |
66 | UCF | -1.47 |
67 | Virginia Tech | -2.60 |
68 | Miami, Oh | -4.02 |
69 | Air Force | -4.72 |
70 | South Florida | -6.15 |
71 | Rice | -6.20 |
72 | Missouri | -7.45 |
73 | Mississippi St | -8.24 |
74 | East Carolina | -8.56 |
75 | Wyoming | -9.31 |
76 | Michigan St | -11.84 |
77 | Akron | -17.02 |
78 | North Texas | -20.68 |
79 | Virginia | -21.39 |
80 | Washington St | -23.22 |
81 | FIU | -25.20 |
82 | Florida | -25.88 |
83 | Stanford | -30.63 |
84 | Central Michigan | -31.26 |
85 | Boston College | -31.61 |
86 | Buffalo | -31.64 |
87 | Vanderbilt | -32.22 |
88 | Kansas St | -32.92 |
89 | TCU | -33.19 |
90 | WKU | -33.37 |
91 | UTSA | -36.01 |
92 | Navy | -37.20 |
93 | Florida Atlantic | -40.99 |
94 | UTEP | -42.42 |
95 | SMU | -42.51 |
96 | Temple | -43.26 |
97 | Washington | -43.35 |
98 | UNLV | -46.00 |
99 | New Mexico | -48.60 |
100 | Colorado St | -51.79 |
101 | Iowa St | -53.65 |
102 | Eastern Michigan | -57.36 |
103 | Texas St | -59.01 |
104 | Minnesota | -59.77 |
105 | Kansas | -60.13 |
106 | Rutgers | -61.77 |
107 | Connecticut | -66.17 |
108 | South Alabama | -66.92 |
109 | Bowling Green | -67.94 |
110 | Kentucky | -72.08 |
111 | Southern Miss | -74.54 |
112 | Idaho | -76.11 |
113 | Wake Forest | -79.23 |
114 | Utah | -82.40 |
115 | Iowa | -85.98 |
116 | Tulane | -93.32 |
117 | Auburn | -94.08 |
118 | Colorado | -95.24 |
119 | New Mexico St | -95.31 |
120 | Hawaii | -99.80 |
121 | Maryland | -108.66 |
122 | Massachusetts | -113.53 |
123 | Illinois | -115.02 |
124 | Memphis | -123.49 |
As you can see here, Texas A&M’s offense by far when you compare it to what their opponents were giving up had the most impressive offense gaining nearly 211 yards per game more than what their opponents D’s were allowing. This was more than 30 yards better than #2 Baylor who averaged 179 ypg better offensively than what their opposing D’s were allowing. Only two teams who were in the Top 10 in this offensive category failed to have a winning season as Marshall (+120.3) and Tennessee (+112.8) each had powerful offenses but their breakdowns on the other side of the ball prevented them from further success.
At the bottom of the chart you will find Memphis and Illinois as the two least impressive offenses as they averaged less than 115 ypg than what their opponents were giving up. Three bowl teams actually made the bottom 20 as Bowling Green, Rutgers and Minnesota each had underachieving offenses a year ago and rode the strength of their defenses and weaker schedules to bowl games.
Tomorrow I will break down the top performing defenses and it should come as no surprise as to who #1 will be.