Before the 2009 season, we used Twitter to see what the public thought of some selected players. Now, with the season finished, we'll review those predictions and analyze what went right or wrong, starting with quarterbacks.
18 Nov 2009
by Brian Fremeau
Maybe you saw the fall of USC coming this year. Maybe you had a hunch that the loss of an entire two-deep linebacker corps to NFL rosters during the last few seasons would be too much to overcome. Maybe you suspected that the offense and defense would struggle to maintain consistency in the absence of dynamic coordinators that had moved on to head coaching gigs of their own. Maybe you thought this wasn’t the right time for a freshman quarterback, however talented, to step in and maintain the Trojans’ unprecedented track record of success.
Maybe. But did you really think you’d be watching the Stanford Cardinal deliver the kill shot? There were plenty of other viable Pac-10 candidates with the potential to dethrone USC at the beginning of the year, but Stanford was far from the most popular pick. Even three short weeks ago, head coach Jim Harbaugh’s team had dropped two in a row to Oregon State and Arizona -- each by double digits -- and appeared more like a nuisance than an actual threat to any of the league’s contenders.
But after back-to-back drubbings of Oregon and USC -- each ranked in the BCS Top 10 at the time of the game -- Stanford is now the hottest, most dangerous team in the nation. Running back Toby Gerhart is steamrolling his way to New York for the Heisman ceremony, and freshman quarterback Andrew Luck is making people wonder why so much fuss has been made about USC’s Matt Barkley. And now Harbaugh is either about to sign a big fat contract extension or strike while his iron’s hot and make a move to the NFL or a higher-profile NCAA gig.
Whether or not it’s a factor in his career plans, Harbaugh might want to think about other recent breakout seasons and the often fleeting nature of college football turnarounds. We use Program FEI for our projection tool baseline because in the big picture, college football teams don’t dramatically advance their program status overnight very often. During the last five seasons, the biggest single-season breakouts were almost always followed by at least some sort of step back the following year.
| Top 15 Breakout Seasons Since 2005 (FEI - Program FEI) | |||||
| Year | Team | Delta | Prev Year W-L |
Year W-L | Next Year W-L |
| 2005 | Tulsa | 0.294 | 3-8 | 9-4 | 7-5 |
| 2008 | Buffalo | 0.269 | 5-7 | 8-6 | 2-7* |
| 2006 | Rutgers | 0.264 | 6-5 | 10-2 | 7-5 |
| 2008 | North Carolina | 0.253 | 3-8 | 7-5 | 5-3* |
| 2008 | Mississippi | 0.248 | 2-9 | 8-4 | 5-3* |
| 2009 | Temple | 0.236 | 5-7 | 8-1* | - |
| 2008 | Temple | 0.230 | 4-8 | 5-7 | 8-1* |
| 2008 | Ball State | 0.229 | 6-6 | 11-2 | 1-8* |
| 2005 | SMU | 0.223 | 3-8 | 5-6 | 5-6 |
| 2005 | Baylor | 0.221 | 2-8 | 4-6 | 3-8 |
| 2009 | Stanford | 0.211 | 5-7 | 7-3* | - |
| 2006 | Hawaii | 0.205 | 5-7 | 10-3 | 10-1 |
| 2007 | Illinois | 0.205 | 1-10 | 8-4 | 4-7 |
| 2005 | UTEP | 0.203 | 7-4 | 7-4 | 5-7 |
| 2006 | BYU | 0.200 | 5-6 | 11-2 | 10-2 |
| *Season in progress | |||||
By this metric, the most impressive rebuilding job at the moment is actually Al Golden’s turnaround at Temple -- a program that ranked dead last in Program FEI heading into the 2008 season. The Owls haven’t run over multiple top-10 opponents this year like Stanford, but they are very obviously taking the next step forward after emerging from the depths of despair. We’ll need a few more years to evaluate the long-term impact of either coach on the revival of their respective programs, but it remains to be seen if they’ll stick it out or move on to greener pastures.
One quick housekeeping note: I discovered an error in the strength of schedule formula I was running over the past few weeks. It was treating home field advantage inversely, lowering a home team's win expectation data and raising a road team's. This error was isolated to the SOS output only, which is produced as a function of the FEI ratings, not the other way around. It also did not impact any of the FEI Forecasts, which have consistently credited home field advantage in favor of the home team.
Of note in the now corrected SOS data, TCU's schedule to date rates just as strong as any of the other undefeated candidates. That is likely to change down the stretch, as Alabama and Florida will still meet and Cincinnati will play its strongest Big East opposition in the final weeks of the year. But for now, there aren't many reasons to doubt the Horned Frogs are just as qualified for consideration as any of the others.
The principles of the Fremeau Efficiency Index (FEI) can be found here. Like DVOA, FEI rewards playing well against good teams, win or lose, and punishes losing to poor teams more harshly than it rewards defeating poor teams. Unlike DVOA, it is drive-based, not play-by-play based, and it is specifically engineered to measure the college game.
FEI is the opponent-adjusted value of Game Efficiency (GE), a measurement of the success rate of a team scoring and preventing opponent scoring throughout the non-garbage-time possessions of a game. Like DVOA, it represents a team's efficiency value over average. Strength of Schedule (SOS) is calculated as the likelihood that an elite team would win every game on the given team's schedule to date. SOS listed here does not include future games scheduled.
Only games between FBS teams are considered in the FEI calculations. Preseason projections are not a factor in the current calculations. Current FEI ratings are a function of results of games played through Nov. 15th.
FEI ratings for all 120 FBS teams are now listed in the stats page section of FootballOutsiders.com. Click here for current ratings; the pull-down menu in the stats section directs you to 2007 and 2008 ratings.
| Rank | Team | FBS W-L |
FEI | Last Wk |
GE | GE Rk |
SOS | SOS Rk |
OE | OE Rk |
Off FEI |
OFEI Rk |
DE | DE Rk |
Def FEI |
DFEI Rk |
FPA | FPA Rk |
| 1 | Alabama | 10-0 | .280 | 1 | .298 | 4 | .357 | 61 | .162 | 34 | .333 | 15 | -.715 | 2 | -.647 | 2 | .532 | 22 |
| 2 | TCU | 9-0 | .253 | 2 | .335 | 3 | .370 | 64 | .291 | 23 | .308 | 19 | -.603 | 6 | -.448 | 13 | .563 | 5 |
| 3 | Texas | 10-0 | .249 | 5 | .393 | 1 | .513 | 95 | .394 | 16 | .388 | 11 | -.750 | 1 | -.463 | 12 | .577 | 4 |
| 4 | Florida | 9-0 | .247 | 3 | .266 | 6 | .475 | 86 | .124 | 41 | .306 | 20 | -.616 | 5 | -.570 | 8 | .548 | 14 |
| 5 | Georgia Tech | 9-1 | .246 | 6 | .137 | 23 | .141 | 7 | .495 | 8 | .697 | 2 | .142 | 81 | -.132 | 40 | .504 | 56 |
| 6 | Cincinnati | 9-0 | .242 | 4 | .293 | 5 | .464 | 84 | 1.017 | 1 | .591 | 4 | -.157 | 36 | -.197 | 31 | .501 | 61 |
| 7 | Virginia Tech | 7-3 | .234 | 7 | .169 | 14 | .136 | 5 | .144 | 37 | .391 | 10 | -.434 | 15 | -.440 | 15 | .548 | 13 |
| 8 | Clemson | 6-3 | .230 | 9 | .144 | 22 | .157 | 13 | -.086 | 73 | .134 | 39 | -.376 | 21 | -.632 | 3 | .555 | 10 |
| 9 | Ohio State | 9-2 | .222 | 12 | .224 | 7 | .292 | 43 | .037 | 53 | .207 | 28 | -.633 | 3 | -.585 | 5 | .563 | 6 |
| 10 | Iowa | 8-2 | .217 | 11 | .116 | 28 | .185 | 17 | -.098 | 75 | .104 | 41 | -.470 | 13 | -.574 | 7 | .516 | 38 |
| 11 | Oregon | 8-2 | .206 | 10 | .212 | 9 | .284 | 40 | .390 | 18 | .445 | 8 | -.414 | 17 | -.370 | 20 | .513 | 46 |
| 12 | Pittsburgh | 8-1 | .205 | 16 | .218 | 8 | .606 | 105 | .424 | 12 | .341 | 13 | -.094 | 46 | -.191 | 33 | .548 | 15 |
| Rank | Team | FBS W-L |
FEI | Last Wk |
GE | GE Rk |
SOS | SOS Rk |
OE | OE Rk |
Off FEI |
OFEI Rk |
DE | DE Rk |
Def FEI |
DFEI Rk |
FPA | FPA Rk |
| 13 | North Carolina | 5-3 | .198 | 21 | .015 | 51 | .154 | 11 | -.242 | 91 | -.002 | 60 | -.376 | 20 | -.627 | 4 | .456 | 106 |
| 14 | Miami | 6-3 | .197 | 8 | .065 | 39 | .092 | 2 | .159 | 35 | .455 | 7 | -.117 | 41 | -.416 | 16 | .497 | 63 |
| 15 | Oregon State | 6-3 | .191 | 18 | .118 | 27 | .259 | 33 | .260 | 24 | .290 | 22 | .090 | 71 | -.074 | 47 | .550 | 12 |
| 16 | Stanford | 7-3 | .189 | 19 | .157 | 18 | .193 | 19 | .585 | 5 | .713 | 1 | .286 | 94 | .253 | 93 | .561 | 8 |
| 17 | Boise State | 9-0 | .179 | 13 | .387 | 2 | .687 | 116 | .418 | 14 | .089 | 47 | -.540 | 9 | -.446 | 14 | .587 | 3 |
| 18 | Arizona | 5-3 | .178 | 15 | .107 | 30 | .228 | 25 | .165 | 32 | .184 | 31 | -.209 | 30 | -.313 | 24 | .522 | 27 |
| 19 | Oklahoma | 5-4 | .174 | 17 | .187 | 12 | .292 | 42 | .187 | 29 | .097 | 45 | -.563 | 7 | -.578 | 6 | .502 | 60 |
| 20 | Penn State | 8-2 | .170 | 22 | .200 | 10 | .439 | 78 | .235 | 26 | .167 | 34 | -.625 | 4 | -.485 | 10 | .503 | 58 |
| 21 | USC | 7-3 | .153 | 14 | .055 | 42 | .138 | 6 | .164 | 33 | .310 | 18 | -.162 | 35 | -.221 | 30 | .495 | 66 |
| 22 | LSU | 8-2 | .153 | 20 | .159 | 17 | .213 | 23 | -.058 | 66 | .051 | 56 | -.492 | 12 | -.401 | 17 | .547 | 17 |
| 23 | Florida State | 4-5 | .151 | 23 | .038 | 46 | .115 | 3 | .391 | 17 | .579 | 5 | .567 | 115 | .208 | 90 | .547 | 16 |
| 24 | Boston College | 6-3 | .140 | 24 | .056 | 41 | .165 | 15 | -.012 | 60 | .067 | 54 | -.493 | 11 | -.724 | 1 | .471 | 98 |
| 25 | Wisconsin | 7-2 | .133 | 27 | .077 | 36 | .341 | 54 | .376 | 20 | .297 | 21 | -.165 | 34 | -.361 | 21 | .475 | 91 |
10 comments, Last at 20 Nov 2009, 6:59pm by TV_Pete
Comments
Re: Week 11 FEI Ratings
I've laughed at the Luck-Barkley comparisons. Yes both are starting for the first time this eyar but Luck is a redshirt frosh. Very large difference. Ask Jimmy Claussen about the difference between his 1st and 2nd seasons.
I see FEI still loves the ACC
North Carolina? Really?
Re: I see FEI still loves the ACC
What surprises me about UNC being so high in the year to year rankings is that in 2007, they had a losing record, but had 6 losses that were by a score or less, 4 of which were by 4 points or less. It seems that, even though they lost, their FEI ranking would still be decent for playing all those games well, and I don't think they just blew away teams in 2008.
Re: I see FEI still loves the ACC
Ditto that for FSU
Re: Week 11 FEI Ratings
FEI apparently doesn't count games against Non-FCS schools. Because I bet their opening game loss to Villanova drops their in-season improvement below Stanford's.
(Not that Temple clearly isn't massively improved. But it seems silly to throw out data like that.)
Re: Week 11 FEI Ratings
"Only games between FBS teams are considered in the FEI calculations."
Will
Re: Week 11 FEI Ratings
Isn't Washington having a breakout season? Last year their FEI was -.256. This year it's -.005 - that's a delta of +.251.
Re: Week 11 FEI Ratings
East coast bias... stinking Bostonians...
Re: breakout
Washington's FEI was terrible last year, but their Program FEI wasn't as terrible. In other words, its more of a rebound year than a breakout year.
Re: Week 11 FEI Ratings
Would you rather have a playoff, so the 9-0 and 10-0 teams that have secured their divisions or conferences could just play their scrubs and not even play their starters. Or could the Classic Bowl + 1 be a step in the right direction?
In past years Auburn and FSU would make for good games next week for Alabama and UF, respectively.
I still feel that the setup is more likely to provide a champion than the classic bowls, so I view it as a positive change. A playoff is not going to happen in the immediate future (contractual obligations through 2014). However, one thing that could happen is a Classic Bowl + 1 (not the Plus One that the SEC pretended to put forward, knowing it would be rejected by Big 10 and PAC-10):
Play the normal classic bowls (with help ensuring the Top non-BCS team attends if in the Top 6 or so). The bowl picture might be something like this:
Sugar: SEC Champ (Alabama/Florida) against at-large (likely TCU or Boise State)
Orange: ACC Champ (Georgia Tech) against Big East (Cincinnati or maybe Pitt)
Fiesta: Big 12 against at large (probably TCU or Boise State, although it could be Iowa or Penn State or ???)
Rose Bowl: Big 10 (Ohio State) against PAC-10 (maybe Oregon or whoever)
This would not guarantee a single undefeated team as that is pretty much impossible to guarantee (sometimes every team loses during the season). The above scenario could result in 3-4 undefeated teams this year. It is not a tournament champion, per se. However, it does provide a decent competition for at least one game (and slightly more inter-connectivity).
I think this could partially satisfy those who want something approaching a playoff. However, it also keeps the presidents and bowls happy. The day after that last game (hopefully, January 2nd) the votes and computers would provide their tally and the top 2 BCS teams would be provided. This BCS championship could be held about the same time (about a week or so after the big bowls) and only 2 teams would play an extra game.
One advantage of this is that all of the smaller bowl game could actually be more important. They might have an impact about which teams make it into the championship (if one conference dominates post-season play then that might reflect better in the case of 3 teams of relatively equal caliber). Serioiusly... what is the holdup for this being done? I think it could feasibly happen next year or two if everyone was open to the change.
For me a bigger problem is not allowing Margin of Victory in some of the better algorithms (I prefer Sagarin Ranking or even Predictor is much better than the ELO-Chess, I would not mind the Football Outsiders' FEI being included).
Post new comment