C.J. Spiller Highlights

From Shoeless Works.  You’ve probably seen it by now since it’s been on every Clemson site out there, but just in case.

Ranking the championship teams

I’m not a huge believer in all-decade teams and the like, but in researching a post last week I wondered who the best team of the 2000’s was. I remember ’01 Miami and certainly ’05 Texas, but who was I leaving out, or better yet, who was I selling short because of some potential bias and maybe who was I giving a lot more credit than they deserved because of a) seeing them so much and b) how they won games.

So, I developed a formula (similar to the one I used last season in baseball to predict LSU over Texas) that would theoretically take out all my biases. This formula is based on the factors that lead to a national champion and the categories that are highly correlated to a NC are weighted as such.

Rank	Team	Score	% of Perfection
1	2009 Alabama	549.7	94.27%
2	2001 Miami	544.7	93.41%
3	2007 LSU	541.4	92.85%
4	2004 USC	539.0	92.44%
5	2008 Florida	533.3	91.46%
6	2005 Texas	517.1	88.68%
7	2003 LSU	506.6	86.88%
8	2000 Oklahoma	494.4	84.79%
9	2006 Florida	490.2	84.07%
10	2002 Ohio State	451.5	77.43%

A perfect score would be 583.100.

The scores are heavily weighted towards defense, because that’s what wins championships. So, in general, better defensive teams will score higher than offensive powers.

Certainly a case can be made for 2001 Miami, but they were crushed by 2009 Alabama in two categories that accounted for most of the difference: Rush defense (2nd for Alabama, 40th for Miami) and turnovers lost (3rd for Alabama and 26th for Miami).

Texas circa 2005 is an interesting case. The Longhorns were 3rd in total offense (one of only two of the last 10 champions to be in the top 10 in total offense) and 10th in defense, but were 40th in passing offense, 33rd in rushing defense and 36th in turnovers lost. You can see how they would be down this list.

There’s not much arguing Ohio State’s 10th place standing among this group. The Buckeyes were 70th in total offense, 92nd in passing offense, 23rd in total defense and 95th in passing defense – easily the worst in those categories among the 10 champions.

Defense wins again

No matter which team won the BCS National Championship game last Thursday, one thing was certain: for the 7th consecutive year and 9th time in the last 10 years the BCS Champion finished in the top 10 in total defense.

Alabama’s victory also insured that a top 10 scoring defense also won the championship for the 9th time in 10 years.

In an era when headlines and SportsCenter highlights are driven by eye-popping offensive plays, nothing is more certain than this: defense wins championships.

Year	Team	Total O	Rush O	Pass O	Scoring O	Total D	Rush D	Pass D	Scoring D	TO Lost	TO Gain	TO Margin
2000	Okla.	18	68	13	7	8	23	9	7	88	5	30
2001	Miami	8	21	35	3	6	40	2	1	26	1	1
2002	Ohio St.	70	31	92	41	23	3	95	2	7	33	18
2003	LSU	31	27	43	19	1	3	18	1	83	9	39
2004	USC	12	33	13	6	6	1	34	3	35	1	1
2005	Texas	3	2	40	1	10	33	8	8	36	21	27
2006	Florida	19	38	28	23	6	5	33	6	66	17	37
2007	LSU	26	11	58	11	3	12	9	17	10	3	2
2008	Florida	15	10	61	4	2	15	20	4	13	34	2
2009	Alabama	42	12	92	22	9	2	10	2	3	10	4

Consider these facts:

*Only 2 of the last 10 BCS Champions were ranked in the top 10 in total offense.
*9 of the last 10 champions were ranked in the top 10 in total defense.

*Only 2 of the last 10 BCS Champions were ranked in the top 10 in rushing offense.
*5 of the last 10 champions were ranked in the top 10 in rushing defense.

*0 of 10 champions were in the top 10 in passing offense.
*5 of 10 champions were in the top 10 in passing defense.

This is not to say that offense is unimportant in the equation. The 10 champions averaged ranking 24th in total offense and 14 in scoring offense. One irony, of course, is that points scored by a team’s defense and special teams are credited to the scoring offense category. Hence, Clemson can rank 74th in total offense, but 28th in scoring offense.

In contrast, the last 10 champions have averaged a number 5 ranking in scoring defense and a 7th ranking in total defense.

One new trend may be emerging – turnover margin. In the last three years the champion has finished 2nd (2007 LSU), 2nd (2008 Florida) and 4th (2009 Alabama) in turnover margin. It also appears that the most important element in turnover rankings is very rarely turning the ball over (as opposed to gaining a lot of turnovers but giving up a fair amount, too as Texas did in 2009).

So when the 2010 season rolls around and there is talk turns to which team is going to win the BCS National Championship remember defense should come first.

Pick ’em standings – FINAL

AccuScore takes the overall prize with a solid bowl season.  Adam Eargle wins the human title (kind of like winning the MAC) and CUOrange turns in a solid 4-21 record in the bowls!

Contestant	Won	Loss	Push	Pct	GB
AccuScore	81	82	2	48.15	–
A. Eargle	73	90	2	44.24	8
Texas D	71	92	2	43.03	10
B. Rink	70	93	2	42.42	11
CUOrange	70	93	2	42.42	11

Pick ’em standings – CORRECTION

Adam Eargle is the lead human.  AccuScore has wrapped up the title. 

Contestant	Won	Loss	Push	Pct	GB
AccuScore	78	82	2	48.15	–
A. Eargle	72	88	2	44.44	6
CUOrange	70	90	2	43.21	8
Texas D	70	90	2	43.21	8
B. Rink	68	92	2	41.98	10

Pick ’em standings through the Orange Bowl

There are 7 games left and the field (at least the humans) are jumbled up and very close. AccuScore appears to have run away from the humans, going 11-7 in the first 18 bowl games while CUOrange was an impressive 3-15.

Contestant	Won	Loss	Push	Pct	GB
AccuScore	76	80	2	48.10	–
CUOrange	69	87	2	43.67	7
A. Eargle	69	87	2	43.67	7
Texas D	68	88	2	43.04	8
B. Rink	67	89	2	42.41	9

Pick ’em – Bowl edition 2

Game	Spread	AccuScore Predicted Score	Actual Score	AccuScore	CUOrange	Texas D	B. Rink	A. Eargle
NW vs. Auburn	NW +7	31-21 Auburn	38-35 AU	AU	AU	NW	NW	AU
WVU vs. Florida St.	FSU +3	33-29 WVU	33-21 FSU	WVU	WVU	WVU	WVU	WVU
Penn St. vs. LSU	LSU +3	25-20 PSU	19-17 PSU	PSU	PSU	PSU	LSU	LSU
Ohio State vs. Oregon	OSU +3.5	26-22 OU	OSU 26-17	OU	OU	OU	OU	OU
Florida vs. Cincinnati	UC +12	34-24 UF	51-24 UF	UC	UF	UF	UC	UC
SC vs. UConn	UConn +4.5	27-24 SC	20-7 UC	UC	UC	UC	SC	SC
Oklahoma St. vs. Mississippi	OSU +3	25-23 UM	21-7 UM	OSU	UM	UM	UM	UM
Arkansas vs. East Carolina	ECU +8	35-27 UA	20-17 UA	ECU	UA	ECU	UA	ECU
Michigan St. vs. Texas Tech	MSU +8.5	34-26 TTU	41-31 TTU	MSU	MSU	MSU	MSU	MSU
Boise St. vs TCU	BSU +8	TCU 32-25	17-10 BSU	BSU	TCU	TCU	BSU	TCU
Iowa vs. Georgia Tech	Iowa +4	27-26 GT	24-14 Iowa	Iowa	GT	Iowa	GT	GT
Texas vs. Alabama	Texas +4.5	25-19 Bama	37-21 Bama	Bama	Texas	Texas	Bama	Bama

In depth look at third downs

Here’s a table with the results of every third down situation this year (including 3rd and goal to go of the various distances). When you’re clicking along at 38.67% (70 for 181) overall you know there are going to be some ugly stats mixed in there and we don’t have to look far to find those.

While 59.1% doesn’t sound so bad, it doesn’t really sound great when it’s third and 1. Think about that. Over 40% of the time the Tigers failed on 3rd and 1. Wow. And when you get to third and 5 or more, well lets just say the chances aren’t good.

The moral of the story for the Tigers is to go into third down with 4 or less yards to go that way Clemson has a 59.7% chance of converting. Otherwise, it’s 26.3% chance for the Tigers, basically one of every 4.

There are a couple of interesting anomalies in the numbers though. While the Tigers are 5 for 15 on 3rd and 6 and 1 for 16 on 3rd and 8 (what the hell?) they are 6 for 12 on 3rd and 7 and 4 of 8 on 3rd and 11. So, 33% on 3rd and 6, 6% on 3rd and 8, but 50% on 3rd and 7 and 3rd and 11.  Alrighty.

To Go	Made/Att	PCT
1	13/22	59.1
2	7/12	58.3
3	10/16	62.5
4	10/17	58.8
5	4/13	30.8
6	5/16	31.3
7	6/12	50.0
8	1/16	6.3
9	4/11	36.4
10	4/14	28.6
11	4/8	50.0
12	0/6	0.0
13	0/3	0.0
14	1/2	50.0
15	1/5	20.0
16	0/2	0.0
19	0/1	0.0
20	0/2	0.0
21	0/1	0.0
23	0/1	0.0
49	0/1	0.0

Pick ’em – Bowl edition 1

Game	Spread	AccuScore Predicted Score	Actual Score	AccuScore	CUOrange	Texas D	B. Rink	A. Eargle
Oregon St. vs. BYU	BYU +3	32-31 BYU	44-20 BYU	BYU	OSU	OSU	OSU	BYU
Utah vs. California	Utah +3	28-27 Cal	37-27 Utah	Utah	Cal	Cal	Cal	Cal
Pittsburgh vs. UNC	UNC +3	26-21 Pitt	19-17 Pitt	Pitt	Pitt	Pitt	UNC	UNC
Boston College vs. USC	BC +9	28-18 USC	24-13 USC	USC	BC	USC	USC	USC
Kentucky vs. Clemson	UK +7.5	29-21 CU	21-13 CU	CU	UK	UK	UK	UK
Texas A&M vs. Georgia	TAMU +7	35-27 UGA	44-20 UGA	UGA	TAMU	UGA	UGA	UGA
Miami (FL) vs. Wisconsin	UW +3	28-26 UM	20-14 UW	UW	UM	UW	UM	UM
Arizona vs. Nebraska	UN +1	22-21 UN	33-0 UN	UN	UA	UA	UA	UN
Houston vs. Air Force	AFA +5	33-30 UH	47-20 AFA	AFA	UH	UH	UH	UH
Oklahoma vs. Stanford	SU +8	34-25 OU	31-27 OU	OU	OU	SU	OU	SU
Navy vs. Missouri	Navy +6	29-23 UM	35-13 Navy	UM	UM	Navy	UM	UM
Minnesota vs. Iowa State	ISU +2.5	23-23	14-13 ISU	ISU	ISU	ISU	ISU	UM
Virginia Tech vs. Tennessee	UT +4.5	28-21 VT	VT 37-14	VT	UT	UT	VT	VT

Calling the Heisman race

It’s been a fascinating week in the Heisman Trophy race.  ESPN and the Heisman Trust couldn’t have asked for a closer race as the “perfect storm” hit last weekend to make the race interesting.

I’m calling for an even closer result than StiffArmTrophy.com (which as of 10:53 p.m. Pacific Time on 12/10/09 is forecasting a 100 point difference between 1^st and 2^nd and 10 points between 2^nd and 3^rd).  Nevertheless, we agree on the order of the top 5.  Ingram, Gerhart, Suh, McCoy and Tebow.

HeismanPundit.com called the race and declared McCoy the winner.  Wow.  McCoy didn’t even win with the Austin voters.  Oops.

What’s more interesting to me is the question of why Tim Tebow is in New York.  When only 3 were invited last year we were told that there was a “clear separation” after the top 3.  Fair enough, there was.  While not as large, there also appears to be a clear separation after the top 4 this year (more so when using StiffArmTrophy.com projections), with Tebow being a distant 5th.

Name	CUOrange	Points	StiffArmTrophy	Points
Ingram	1	1267	1	1229
Gerhart	2	1258	2	1129
Suh	3	1255	3	1119
McCoy	4	723	4	858
Tebow	5	294	5	269

I’m neither a conspiracy theorist nor a Tebow hater.  I think he’s a great player who has been great for college football.  I’m just not sure why he is in New York for the Heisman Trophy presentation unless the actual voting is vastly different from the projections on StiffArmTrophy.com.  Otherwise, the Heisman Trophy is headed towards becoming a sham and more of a popularity contest than it already is.