Here is Part
I of a multiple entry blog looking at various metrics from last year & how
they can assist with developing initial thoughts and projections for the 2017
season.
Here is a
matrix that shows 2016 record, 2016 final SBPI rating & ranking along with
OFF/DEF returning starters for 2017 (OFF numbers highlighted green represents
QB returning) along with turnover margin (TOM) in total. If you want to see offense & defense raw
unit rankings please reference entry from April 11th using toolbar
on right side of the page. These are the
first set of variables we will use to look towards the 2017 season.
|
RECORD
|
SOS ADJ #'s
|
2017 RS
|
|||||||||
|
WINS
|
LOSS
|
Team
|
RATING
|
RANK
|
OFF
|
DEF
|
TOT
|
TOM
|
|||
|
14
|
1
|
Alabama
|
307.4
|
1
|
6
|
5
|
11
|
10
|
|||
|
11
|
2
|
Ohio State
|
296.3
|
2
|
8
|
7
|
15
|
15
|
|||
|
14
|
1
|
Clemson
|
296.1
|
3
|
5
|
7
|
12
|
(1)
|
|||
|
12
|
2
|
Washington
|
275.1
|
4
|
7
|
6
|
13
|
18
|
|||
|
10
|
3
|
Florida State
|
266.8
|
5
|
7
|
9
|
16
|
3
|
|||
|
10
|
3
|
Michigan
|
261.2
|
6
|
4
|
1
|
5
|
7
|
|||
|
8
|
4
|
LSU
|
255.6
|
7
|
6
|
5
|
11
|
0
|
|||
|
11
|
3
|
Wisconsin
|
254.0
|
8
|
8
|
7
|
15
|
12
|
|||
|
10
|
4
|
Virginia Tech
|
244.8
|
9
|
5
|
7
|
12
|
(1)
|
|||
|
10
|
4
|
Colorado
|
|
241.7
|
10
|
|
9
|
3
|
12
|
|
6
|
|
10
|
3
|
USC
|
241.4
|
11
|
5
|
7
|
12
|
0
|
|||
|
9
|
4
|
Louisville
|
237.9
|
12
|
5
|
7
|
12
|
(7)
|
|||
|
8
|
5
|
Auburn
|
230.1
|
13
|
8
|
7
|
15
|
3
|
|||
|
9
|
4
|
Miami (Florida)
|
219.1
|
14
|
7
|
8
|
15
|
9
|
|||
|
7
|
6
|
North Carolina State
|
216.2
|
15
|
9
|
8
|
17
|
2
|
|||
|
11
|
2
|
Oklahoma
|
215.5
|
16
|
9
|
7
|
16
|
0
|
|||
|
8
|
5
|
Pittsburgh
|
212.7
|
17
|
6
|
4
|
10
|
1
|
|||
|
10
|
3
|
Appalachian State
|
211.9
|
18
|
7
|
6
|
13
|
8
|
|||
|
11
|
3
|
Penn State
|
211.4
|
19
|
9
|
7
|
16
|
1
|
|||
|
10
|
4
|
Temple
|
209.6
|
20
|
6
|
4
|
10
|
6
|
|||
|
13
|
1
|
Western Michigan
|
207.0
|
21
|
5
|
8
|
13
|
18
|
|||
|
9
|
4
|
Florida
|
206.2
|
22
|
9
|
5
|
14
|
2
|
|||
|
11
|
3
|
San Diego State
|
203.8
|
23
|
5
|
6
|
11
|
14
|
|||
|
10
|
3
|
West Virginia
|
203.3
|
24
|
5
|
3
|
8
|
4
|
|||
|
8
|
5
|
North Carolina
|
|
201.7
|
25
|
|
5
|
7
|
12
|
|
(2)
|
|
8
|
5
|
Georgia
|
201.5
|
26
|
7
|
10
|
17
|
8
|
|||
|
9
|
4
|
Houston
|
200.9
|
27
|
8
|
7
|
15
|
(7)
|
|||
|
9
|
4
|
Utah
|
197.9
|
28
|
5
|
6
|
11
|
6
|
|||
|
11
|
3
|
Western Kentucky
|
195.0
|
29
|
4
|
6
|
10
|
2
|
|||
|
10
|
3
|
Stanford
|
194.2
|
30
|
8
|
8
|
16
|
2
|
|||
|
9
|
4
|
Nebraska
|
190.1
|
31
|
4
|
6
|
10
|
5
|
|||
|
9
|
4
|
Tennessee
|
190.0
|
32
|
7
|
7
|
14
|
(2)
|
|||
|
7
|
6
|
Baylor
|
189.4
|
33
|
7
|
7
|
14
|
(5)
|
|||
|
8
|
5
|
Washington State
|
189.4
|
34
|
7
|
9
|
16
|
6
|
|||
|
10
|
3
|
Troy
|
188.4
|
35
|
8
|
7
|
15
|
10
|
|||
|
9
|
4
|
BYU
|
187.5
|
36
|
6
|
6
|
12
|
12
|
|||
|
10
|
3
|
Tulsa
|
187.0
|
37
|
7
|
6
|
13
|
0
|
|||
|
9
|
4
|
Kansas State
|
186.4
|
38
|
8
|
6
|
14
|
13
|
|||
|
7
|
6
|
Arkansas
|
186.3
|
39
|
7
|
6
|
13
|
(4)
|
|||
|
10
|
3
|
Oklahoma State
|
185.1
|
40
|
7
|
5
|
12
|
11
|
|||
|
8
|
5
|
Texas A&M
|
184.1
|
41
|
5
|
7
|
12
|
3
|
|||
|
4
|
8
|
Missouri
|
183.6
|
42
|
10
|
5
|
15
|
(3)
|
|||
|
9
|
4
|
Toledo
|
179.3
|
43
|
5
|
7
|
12
|
(4)
|
|||
|
10
|
3
|
Boise State
|
177.1
|
44
|
5
|
4
|
9
|
(9)
|
|||
|
8
|
5
|
Iowa
|
176.8
|
45
|
7
|
8
|
15
|
6
|
|||
|
4
|
8
|
Notre Dame
|
175.9
|
46
|
8
|
7
|
15
|
(4)
|
|||
|
10
|
3
|
Air Force
|
175.4
|
47
|
6
|
1
|
7
|
6
|
|||
|
11
|
2
|
South Florida
|
174.3
|
48
|
7
|
9
|
16
|
9
|
|||
|
7
|
6
|
Colorado State
|
173.8
|
49
|
6
|
9
|
15
|
(1)
|
|||
|
8
|
5
|
Army
|
172.9
|
50
|
9
|
7
|
16
|
(3)
|
|||
|
6
|
7
|
Indiana
|
171.6
|
51
|
6
|
9
|
15
|
(6)
|
|||
|
9
|
4
|
Minnesota
|
171.3
|
52
|
8
|
6
|
14
|
8
|
|||
|
9
|
4
|
Georgia Tech
|
171.1
|
53
|
8
|
8
|
16
|
4
|
|||
|
7
|
6
|
Northwestern
|
170.7
|
54
|
8
|
8
|
16
|
9
|
|||
|
6
|
7
|
TCU
|
167.8
|
55
|
10
|
7
|
17
|
(4)
|
|||
|
4
|
8
|
UCLA
|
167.1
|
56
|
9
|
6
|
15
|
(2)
|
|||
|
5
|
7
|
Texas
|
166.8
|
57
|
7
|
10
|
17
|
(3)
|
|||
|
7
|
6
|
Southern Mississippi
|
166.1
|
58
|
6
|
6
|
12
|
(17)
|
|||
|
3
|
9
|
Michigan State
|
163.5
|
59
|
4
|
5
|
9
|
(5)
|
|||
|
5
|
7
|
Mississippi
|
162.4
|
60
|
5
|
6
|
11
|
(3)
|
|||
|
8
|
5
|
Memphis
|
161.4
|
61
|
9
|
6
|
15
|
8
|
|||
|
7
|
6
|
Boston College
|
159.7
|
62
|
8
|
7
|
15
|
7
|
|||
|
8
|
6
|
Wyoming
|
159.5
|
63
|
6
|
8
|
14
|
3
|
|||
|
10
|
3
|
Old Dominion
|
159.4
|
64
|
8
|
6
|
14
|
13
|
|||
|
8
|
5
|
Arkansas State
|
158.0
|
65
|
5
|
5
|
10
|
5
|
|||
|
4
|
8
|
Oregon
|
156.7
|
66
|
8
|
9
|
17
|
(3)
|
|||
|
4
|
8
|
Duke
|
155.9
|
67
|
7
|
7
|
14
|
(4)
|
|||
|
6
|
7
|
Miami (Ohio)
|
155.2
|
68
|
8
|
8
|
16
|
1
|
|||
|
9
|
5
|
Louisiana Tech
|
152.8
|
69
|
5
|
6
|
11
|
1
|
|||
|
6
|
7
|
Mississippi State
|
152.0
|
70
|
7
|
6
|
13
|
7
|
|||
|
8
|
6
|
Ohio
|
148.6
|
71
|
7
|
6
|
13
|
1
|
|||
|
7
|
6
|
Kentucky
|
148.4
|
72
|
8
|
9
|
17
|
(7)
|
|||
|
5
|
7
|
California
|
146.1
|
73
|
6
|
8
|
14
|
3
|
|||
|
4
|
8
|
Tulane
|
143.9
|
74
|
8
|
8
|
16
|
9
|
|||
|
7
|
6
|
Wake Forest
|
143.9
|
75
|
9
|
6
|
15
|
8
|
|||
|
6
|
7
|
UCF
|
143.4
|
76
|
9
|
4
|
13
|
1
|
|||
|
8
|
5
|
Middle Tennessee
|
142.2
|
77
|
6
|
6
|
12
|
(2)
|
|||
|
5
|
7
|
Texas Tech
|
140.9
|
78
|
8
|
6
|
14
|
(4)
|
|||
|
5
|
7
|
Georgia Southern
|
139.4
|
79
|
5
|
5
|
10
|
1
|
|||
|
6
|
7
|
UTSA
|
139.3
|
80
|
7
|
7
|
14
|
3
|
|||
|
5
|
7
|
Northern Illinois
|
138.7
|
81
|
5
|
7
|
12
|
(1)
|
|||
|
5
|
7
|
SMU
|
138.7
|
82
|
9
|
5
|
14
|
2
|
|||
|
9
|
4
|
New Mexico
|
138.4
|
83
|
7
|
3
|
10
|
(1)
|
|||
|
4
|
8
|
Oregon State
|
137.8
|
84
|
7
|
8
|
15
|
1
|
|||
|
3
|
9
|
Iowa State
|
136.8
|
85
|
6
|
6
|
12
|
(3)
|
|||
|
7
|
6
|
Eastern Michigan
|
134.3
|
86
|
8
|
6
|
14
|
1
|
|||
|
6
|
7
|
Maryland
|
134.0
|
87
|
7
|
7
|
14
|
(7)
|
|||
|
9
|
5
|
Navy
|
133.4
|
88
|
5
|
8
|
13
|
2
|
|||
|
3
|
9
|
East Carolina
|
132.5
|
89
|
5
|
6
|
11
|
(16)
|
|||
|
6
|
7
|
South Carolina
|
128.5
|
90
|
10
|
6
|
16
|
7
|
|||
|
4
|
8
|
Syracuse
|
128.0
|
91
|
9
|
11
|
20
|
(1)
|
|||
|
6
|
7
|
Louisiana-Lafayette
|
127.1
|
92
|
6
|
7
|
13
|
1
|
|||
|
6
|
7
|
South Alabama
|
124.4
|
93
|
4
|
6
|
10
|
(2)
|
|||
|
6
|
7
|
Vanderbilt
|
124.0
|
94
|
9
|
7
|
16
|
4
|
|||
|
3
|
9
|
Utah State
|
123.3
|
95
|
5
|
4
|
9
|
(5)
|
|||
|
5
|
7
|
Nevada
|
123.1
|
96
|
5
|
9
|
14
|
4
|
|||
|
4
|
8
|
Ball State
|
120.7
|
97
|
8
|
4
|
12
|
(10)
|
|||
|
4
|
8
|
UNLV
|
120.4
|
98
|
9
|
4
|
13
|
2
|
|||
|
9
|
4
|
Idaho
|
120.1
|
99
|
5
|
5
|
10
|
11
|
|||
|
6
|
7
|
Central Michigan
|
119.7
|
100
|
8
|
6
|
14
|
(6)
|
|||
|
3
|
9
|
Illinois
|
119.1
|
101
|
5
|
6
|
11
|
(2)
|
|||
|
4
|
8
|
San Jose State
|
117.9
|
102
|
7
|
8
|
15
|
(1)
|
|||
|
3
|
9
|
Georgia State
|
117.0
|
103
|
8
|
6
|
14
|
(5)
|
|||
|
4
|
8
|
Cincinnati
|
112.1
|
104
|
5
|
5
|
10
|
1
|
|||
|
5
|
7
|
Arizona State
|
111.2
|
105
|
7
|
8
|
15
|
(4)
|
|||
|
3
|
9
|
Kent State
|
109.7
|
106
|
7
|
6
|
13
|
11
|
|||
|
4
|
8
|
UTEP
|
102.2
|
107
|
5
|
6
|
11
|
(5)
|
|||
|
3
|
9
|
Arizona
|
100.0
|
108
|
7
|
7
|
14
|
(7)
|
|||
|
7
|
7
|
Hawai'i
|
99.5
|
109
|
8
|
6
|
14
|
(8)
|
|||
|
2
|
10
|
Virginia
|
98.9
|
110
|
6
|
8
|
14
|
(9)
|
|||
|
4
|
8
|
Charlotte
|
98.5
|
111
|
6
|
6
|
12
|
8
|
|||
|
3
|
9
|
Purdue
|
98.2
|
112
|
5
|
8
|
13
|
(17)
|
|||
|
3
|
9
|
Marshall
|
98.0
|
113
|
8
|
7
|
15
|
4
|
|||
|
3
|
9
|
New Mexico State
|
96.5
|
114
|
6
|
9
|
15
|
1
|
|||
|
5
|
8
|
North Texas
|
94.4
|
115
|
6
|
5
|
11
|
1
|
|||
|
2
|
10
|
Kansas
|
94.1
|
116
|
8
|
4
|
12
|
(14)
|
|||
|
5
|
7
|
Akron
|
92.9
|
117
|
9
|
6
|
15
|
(8)
|
|||
|
3
|
9
|
Rice
|
|
90.0
|
118
|
|
8
|
8
|
16
|
|
(7)
|
|
2
|
10
|
Rutgers
|
89.5
|
119
|
5
|
8
|
13
|
(5)
|
|||
|
2
|
10
|
Massachusetts
|
87.6
|
120
|
6
|
8
|
14
|
(10)
|
|||
|
4
|
8
|
Louisiana-Monroe
|
86.8
|
121
|
7
|
9
|
16
|
(11)
|
|||
|
4
|
8
|
Florida International
|
86.2
|
122
|
7
|
8
|
15
|
(9)
|
|||
|
4
|
8
|
Bowling Green
|
85.6
|
123
|
6
|
7
|
13
|
(16)
|
|||
|
2
|
10
|
Buffalo
|
85.4
|
124
|
6
|
9
|
15
|
(6)
|
|||
|
3
|
9
|
Connecticut
|
84.9
|
125
|
7
|
7
|
14
|
(8)
|
|||
|
3
|
9
|
Florida Atlantic
|
78.9
|
126
|
9
|
9
|
18
|
(5)
|
|||
|
1
|
11
|
Fresno State
|
72.2
|
127
|
10
|
6
|
16
|
(9)
|
|||
|
2
|
10
|
Texas State
|
38.6
|
128
|
7
|
7
|
14
|
(14)
|
|||
Here is a small grid showing average returning starters by
group heading into 2016 season along with heading into the 2017 season:
|
OFF
|
DEF
|
TOT
|
|
|
2017
|
6.84
|
6.59
|
13.43
|
|
2017 QB's
|
88
|
||
|
2016
|
6.85
|
6.53
|
13.38
|
|
2016 QB's
|
87
|
So we can see not much change in any of these figures at all
YOY, which, for the most part, is expected.
How can we use each of these metrics to get a head start on
our 2017 opinions for each team? By
examining the relationships between (keep in mind this write-up looks at each
of these metrics in a silo):
·
2016
record & 2016 SBPI rating: the rating column (for example Alabama at
307.4) is a very strong predictor of team record, with the two showing a 2016 correlation
of 83% across the entire 128 teams competing in FBS (in prior seasons that
correlation is typically closer to 90%). Using just this relationship the teams we want
to target to be bullish on are those who have a high SBPI rating and single
digit wins (such as LSU, Louisville, Auburn, Miami, NC State, Pittsburgh,
Florida & North Carolina amongst Top 25 teams) – the reason is those teams
played good football last year but likely caught a few tough breaks late in
games, or played a very tough schedule (either opponents which is represented
naturally in the SBPI rating or their home vs. away splits) that led to fewer
wins than expected. Teams we want to be
bearish on are those who fall further down the SBPI ratings but won more games
than expected (such as Hawaii, Idaho, Navy, New Mexico, Middle Tennessee,
Louisiana Tech & Old Dominion) – these teams successful record vs. true
statistical performance was driven by the opposite effect mentioned above;
probably many late game good breaks & easier schedule as measured by either
opponents or H/A split.
·
2016
SBPI rating & 2017 RS: the higher the number of returning starters
the more likely a team is, at a minimum, to replicate last year’s performance
or increase their SBPI rating which in turn would lead to a greater chance of
winning more games. If we focus on the
average RS figure above of 13.43 teams with more returning players than that
number should be as successful as they were last year, especially teams that
return their QB. However keep in mind
there are always exclusions to any broad application of any statistics – such
as bigger name teams that consistently recruit well (Alabama, Ohio State,
Clemson and Florida State to name a few) will have a much easier time turning
over new starters vs. middle to low pack Power 5 conference teams. In the Group of 5 returning starters is
typically a very solid place to start when projecting future success.
·
2016
record vs. 2016 TOM: as you can see from the figures above teams that
perform well in TOM are typically very successful with their record while teams
who struggle there do not usually post solid records. In addition, although there are outliers to
any high level application of statistical theories, teams will tend to
aggregate towards the mean the more time that passes. Examining this relationship on last year’s
data shows the 4 CFB Playoff teams ranked #1-4 in my SBPI; however, we can see
Clemson was a (1) in TOM while the other three teams were double digit
favorable in this metric. If we look
closer at the worst teams from last year we can also see this metric as very
predictive as the bottom 13 teams were all negative in TOM with an AVERAGE of
(9.4) – just shy of (1) per game. Those
teams not only played poorly but also took terrible care of the football, or
did not force enough turnovers, which is obviously the recipe for bad records. There are many subset variables you can use
to project turnovers committed and forced which will naturally drive the TOM
figure.
That was a high level look at a few metrics I will use to
set initial baselines on each team heading into the 2017 season.
In the coming weeks I will be using these metrics &
posting conference breakdowns where I share my initial projections for each
team. In those entries there will be
additional details on each team such as offense & defense figures from 2016
and how returning starters could potentially impact those. Stay tuned – it should be great information –
and who doesn’t enjoy reading college football analysis on the summer!
Thanks again for reading, please feel free to:
Email me directly: boss@thesportsboss.com
Visit my website: www.thesportsboss.com
Follow me on Twitter: @SportsBoss
COPYRIGHT: THE SPORTSBOSS, 2017
No comments:
Post a Comment