Contextual Comparisons
Like any sports message board, Buckeye Planet is full of people who are convinced that they're right and that anyone who disagrees with them is not only wrong but also stupid, insane, evil, downright un-American, or combination thereof. What sets us apart is that we also have a few people who have a sense of perspective. I'm not one of them, but I hear they're out there.
This time of year the discussions and arguments among college football fans are about who deserves to be ranked where in the CFP rankings. Statistics can't end those discussions and settle those arguments, because everyone has a different definition of that elusive word "deserves". Even for those who believe that being the best makes you deserving, stats can provide only data, not answers.
Unlike what you'll get from most sports media, we here at BP prefer stats with context. Rather than just compare teams to whom they've played, we prefer numbers that compare teams to everyone whom their opponents have played.
Take scoring offense: Just scoring more than other teams doesn't mean much if you don't answer the age-old question: "Who have they played?" But if you look at Differential Scoring Offense (DSO), the answer to that question is built into the statistic. A DSO of 1 means that you score exactly what your opponents usually give up; a DSO of 2 means you score twice as much; a DSO of 0.5 means you only score half as much. To add more context to the discussion, rigidity is a number from -100 to 100 that indicates how well your DSO holds up against better competition. For more information on BP-Style Stats, see this Glossary.
Rushing Offense
While our example above was scoring offense, the principle works the same for rushing offense. In Differential Rushing Offense (DRO), Air Force is number one in the country. The point here however is to provide context for playoff ranking discussions, so the table below shows the DRO rankings for the top twelve in CFP rankings:
Many people prefer to compare teams by yards per carry rather than yards per game. This does add a bit of context, and using differential stats adds even more. The following table shows the top twelve in Differential Yards Per Carry (offense):
Stats are okay. Stats with context are great. Stats with context that are surprising are among my favorite things. Stats with context that show something surprising about how great Ohio State is.... That's life.
Based on DYpC alone, I could argue that Ohio State has the second-best rushing attack in the country. Does this mean that the Buckeyes' running game doesn't need work? Of course not. This is where rigidity comes into play. Despite being number two in DYpC, the Buckeyes have a subpar rigidity of -35.736, while their prime opponent (Michigan) not only has a slightly better DYpC but also a decent rigidity of 19.254. The upshot is that the Buckeyes have done better against the lesser teams but have struggled, relatively speaking, against the better rushing defenses on their schedule (Penn State, Iowa). Regardless, these differential numbers do show that the Ohio State running game is a good one; the Buckeyes just need to shore up a few things in order to become truly elite on the ground. Buckeye fans seem to love to panic, and the running game has been a prime source of that panic lately. But a little numerical context can provide some much needed perspective, no?
Rushing Defense
Rushing defense is more of a mixed bag for the top twelve:
As with the offense, the Yards Per Carry comparison is probably more valid, and it comes with some surprises:
Would you have guessed that the Vols are #1 in the country in Differential Yards per Carry defense?
Yeah... Me either
The most striking thing to me about the rushing defense numbers though is how poor some of the top twelve teams are at stopping the run. There was a time not so long ago when the rushing defense rankings didn't look all that different from the AP top-20.
Passing Offense
Having finally gotten the DSA spreadsheets cranked up for the first time in over a decade, it's a shame that they churned out their first FBS-wide numbers right after the Buckeyes played a starring role in The Perfect Storm II, or at least that's what it looked like from the comfort of my recliner in my man cave. Doubtless, the Buckeyes would have utterly dominated these rankings before Saturday's game against Northwestern. Nevertheless, here they are, with that horrible day included. (North Carolina, with top-five quarterback Drake Maye running the show, is number one in the country in DPO):
For decades now, pass efficiency has been considered a better measure for comparing quarterbacks than simple passing yards per game. It's even better when some context is added, as with Differential Passing Efficiency:
Of all the comparisons that we've done so far, it is interesting that Offensive Differential Pass Efficiency is the only one where all of the top twelve teams are in the top 33 nationally.
While C.J. Stroud is ahead of Hendon Hooker in this metric, it is notable that the Volunteers as a team are actually ahead of the Buckeyes (in large part due to the nor'easter the Buckeyes played through on Saturday). It is also remarkable how far in front of everyone else those two teams are. North Carolina is third at 1.414, and no one else is above 1.3. It is also noteworthy that Ohio State's Rigidity in this metric is 12.461 while Tennessee's is -23.590, meaning that Ohio State has held up better to their tougher competition than Tennessee has (spoiler: three of Ohio State's opponents are in the top ten in DPE-defense).
Passing Defense
If you were expecting the top teams to be bunched near the top in Pass Defense the way they were for offense, you'll be disappointed. The only thing notable about the Differential Pass Defense numbers is that just two of the top twelve were in the top ten for DPD, with Ohio State being tops among them at number six with a DPD of 0.766, and Alabama at number nine with a DPD of 0.792. Below is the chart for DPE defense. (Illinois is #1 in FBS with DPE of 0.698):
Of note is the presence of three of Ohio State's opponents in the top ten in FBS in Differential Pass Efficiency – Defense: Penn State is at #4, Iowa at #9, and Notre Dame at #10 (Wisconsin, another Ohio State opponent, checks in at #24).
Scoring
Finally we come to the most important numbers: Differential Scoring, both offense and defense, and the the composite number that combines them (see the previously-mentioned Glossary if these things are new to you). In addition to the top twelve, some other teams of note are included:
There are so many interesting comparisons one could make in the above table. I will point out two and leave the rest to the reader's imagination. First, observe how almost absurdly biased the committee is toward offense. When it comes to the "eye test", they seem to notice only one side of the ball. The second point is something we already knew intuitively, but I don't think I've ever seen it spelled out so dramatically. Compare each B1G team's DSC to its ranking. Some might say that all of those impressive DSC rankings come from playing in a bad conference. I would say that those people don't know how DSC really works. It is a mathematical impossibility for a conference to have that many teams that highly ranked in DSC by beating up on each other, or even by beating up on the weaker members of their own conference, because whatever those better teams are doing to the lesser teams is hurting every other B1G team's differential numbers.
There are many other observations that can be made, but half the fun is discovering things for yourself. Go nuts. If there are specific rankings that you would like to know or perhaps additional calculations you would like to see, just ask.
Like any sports message board, Buckeye Planet is full of people who are convinced that they're right and that anyone who disagrees with them is not only wrong but also stupid, insane, evil, downright un-American, or combination thereof. What sets us apart is that we also have a few people who have a sense of perspective. I'm not one of them, but I hear they're out there.
This time of year the discussions and arguments among college football fans are about who deserves to be ranked where in the CFP rankings. Statistics can't end those discussions and settle those arguments, because everyone has a different definition of that elusive word "deserves". Even for those who believe that being the best makes you deserving, stats can provide only data, not answers.
Unlike what you'll get from most sports media, we here at BP prefer stats with context. Rather than just compare teams to whom they've played, we prefer numbers that compare teams to everyone whom their opponents have played.
Take scoring offense: Just scoring more than other teams doesn't mean much if you don't answer the age-old question: "Who have they played?" But if you look at Differential Scoring Offense (DSO), the answer to that question is built into the statistic. A DSO of 1 means that you score exactly what your opponents usually give up; a DSO of 2 means you score twice as much; a DSO of 0.5 means you only score half as much. To add more context to the discussion, rigidity is a number from -100 to 100 that indicates how well your DSO holds up against better competition. For more information on BP-Style Stats, see this Glossary.
Rushing Offense
While our example above was scoring offense, the principle works the same for rushing offense. In Differential Rushing Offense (DRO), Air Force is number one in the country. The point here however is to provide context for playoff ranking discussions, so the table below shows the DRO rankings for the top twelve in CFP rankings:
| Team | DRO ratio | DRO Rank | CFP Rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Michigan | 1.771 | 2 | 3 |
| Mississippi | 1.696 | 4 | 11 |
| UCLA | 1.631 | 5 | 12 |
| Oregon | 1.407 | 16 | 6 |
| Georgia | 1.382 | 18 | 1 |
| Ohio State | 1.382 | 19 | 2 |
| Tennessee | 1.350 | 20 | 5 |
| Alabama | 1.314 | 26 | 9 |
| TCU | 1.263 | 31 | 4 |
| LSU | 1.209 | 39 | 7 |
| Clemson | 1.132 | 46 | 10 |
| USC | 1.132 | 47 | 8 |
| Team | DYpC ratio | DYpC Rank | CFP Rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Michigan | 1.457 | 1 | 3 |
| Ohio State | 1.447 | 2 | 2 |
| Alabama | 1.421 | 3 | 9 |
| UCLA | 1.411 | 4 | 12 |
| Georgia | 1.368 | 8 | 1 |
| Oregon | 1.290 | 12 | 6 |
| Mississippi | 1.276 | 15 | 11 |
| TCU | 1.257 | 19 | 4 |
| USC | 1.204 | 23 | 8 |
| LSU | 1.164 | 28 | 7 |
| Tennessee | 1.100 | 40 | 5 |
| Clemson | 1.033 | 56 | 10 |
Based on DYpC alone, I could argue that Ohio State has the second-best rushing attack in the country. Does this mean that the Buckeyes' running game doesn't need work? Of course not. This is where rigidity comes into play. Despite being number two in DYpC, the Buckeyes have a subpar rigidity of -35.736, while their prime opponent (Michigan) not only has a slightly better DYpC but also a decent rigidity of 19.254. The upshot is that the Buckeyes have done better against the lesser teams but have struggled, relatively speaking, against the better rushing defenses on their schedule (Penn State, Iowa). Regardless, these differential numbers do show that the Ohio State running game is a good one; the Buckeyes just need to shore up a few things in order to become truly elite on the ground. Buckeye fans seem to love to panic, and the running game has been a prime source of that panic lately. But a little numerical context can provide some much needed perspective, no?
Rushing Defense
Rushing defense is more of a mixed bag for the top twelve:
| Team | DRD ratio | DRD Rank | CFP Rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Georgia | 0.476 | 1 | 1 |
| Michigan | 0.506 | 3 | 3 |
| Tennessee | 0.549 | 4 | 5 |
| Alabama | 0.574 | 7 | 9 |
| Oregon | 0.656 | 15 | 6 |
| Louisiana State | 0.666 | 18 | 7 |
| Ohio State | 0.679 | 21 | 2 |
| Clemson | 0.728 | 29 | 10 |
| UCLA | 0.789 | 45 | 12 |
| Texas Christian | 0.834 | 57 | 4 |
| Southern Cal | 0.909 | 78 | 8 |
| Mississippi | 1.043 | 104 | 11 |
| Team | DYpC ratio | DYpC Rank | CFP Rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tennessee | 0.681 | 1 | 5 |
| Michigan | 0.687 | 2 | 3 |
| Alabama | 0.688 | 3 | 9 |
| Georgia | 0.705 | 5 | 1 |
| Ohio State | 0.788 | 13 | 2 |
| Louisiana State | 0.838 | 22 | 7 |
| Oregon | 0.845 | 23 | 6 |
| UCLA | 0.928 | 41 | 12 |
| Texas Christian | 0.946 | 52 | 4 |
| Clemson | 0.951 | 55 | 10 |
| Mississippi | 1.082 | 98 | 11 |
| Southern Cal | 1.084 | 99 | 8 |
Yeah... Me either
The most striking thing to me about the rushing defense numbers though is how poor some of the top twelve teams are at stopping the run. There was a time not so long ago when the rushing defense rankings didn't look all that different from the AP top-20.
Passing Offense
Having finally gotten the DSA spreadsheets cranked up for the first time in over a decade, it's a shame that they churned out their first FBS-wide numbers right after the Buckeyes played a starring role in The Perfect Storm II, or at least that's what it looked like from the comfort of my recliner in my man cave. Doubtless, the Buckeyes would have utterly dominated these rankings before Saturday's game against Northwestern. Nevertheless, here they are, with that horrible day included. (North Carolina, with top-five quarterback Drake Maye running the show, is number one in the country in DPO):
| Team | DPO ratio | DPO Rank | CFP Rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tennessee | 1.515 | 2 | 5 |
| Ohio State | 1.403 | 9 | 2 |
| USC | 1.328 | 13 | 8 |
| Georgia | 1.259 | 17 | 1 |
| Oregon | 1.185 | 24 | 6 |
| Alabama | 1.168 | 28 | 9 |
| LSU | 1.126 | 37 | 7 |
| Clemson | 1.092 | 45 | 10 |
| UCLA | 1.062 | 50 | 12 |
| TCU | 1.025 | 56 | 4 |
| Mississippi | 1.012 | 61 | 11 |
| Michigan | 0.919 | 83 | 3 |
| Team | DPE ratio | DPE Rank | CFP Rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tennessee | 1.550 | 1 | 5 |
| Ohio State | 1.534 | 2 | 2 |
| USC | 1.246 | 7 | 8 |
| Michigan | 1.204 | 11 | 3 |
| TCU | 1.197 | 13 | 4 |
| UCLA | 1.185 | 14 | 12 |
| Oregon | 1.174 | 16 | 6 |
| LSU | 1.163 | 18 | 7 |
| Georgia | 1.163 | 19 | 1 |
| Mississippi | 1.121 | 29 | 11 |
| Alabama | 1.118 | 30 | 9 |
| Clemson | 1.104 | 33 | 10 |
While C.J. Stroud is ahead of Hendon Hooker in this metric, it is notable that the Volunteers as a team are actually ahead of the Buckeyes (in large part due to the nor'easter the Buckeyes played through on Saturday). It is also remarkable how far in front of everyone else those two teams are. North Carolina is third at 1.414, and no one else is above 1.3. It is also noteworthy that Ohio State's Rigidity in this metric is 12.461 while Tennessee's is -23.590, meaning that Ohio State has held up better to their tougher competition than Tennessee has (spoiler: three of Ohio State's opponents are in the top ten in DPE-defense).
Passing Defense
If you were expecting the top teams to be bunched near the top in Pass Defense the way they were for offense, you'll be disappointed. The only thing notable about the Differential Pass Defense numbers is that just two of the top twelve were in the top ten for DPD, with Ohio State being tops among them at number six with a DPD of 0.766, and Alabama at number nine with a DPD of 0.792. Below is the chart for DPE defense. (Illinois is #1 in FBS with DPE of 0.698):
| Team | DPE ratio | DPE Rank | CFP Rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Georgia | 0.747 | 2 | 1 |
| Alabama | 0.765 | 3 | 9 |
| Michigan | 0.822 | 8 | 3 |
| Ohio State | 0.869 | 16 | 2 |
| Louisiana State | 0.882 | 22 | 7 |
| Clemson | 0.882 | 23 | 10 |
| Texas Christian | 0.933 | 48 | 4 |
| Tennessee | 0.947 | 52 | 5 |
| Southern Cal | 0.948 | 54 | 8 |
| UCLA | 0.966 | 60 | 12 |
| Oregon | 1.013 | 73 | 6 |
| Mississippi | 1.063 | 91 | 11 |
Scoring
Finally we come to the most important numbers: Differential Scoring, both offense and defense, and the the composite number that combines them (see the previously-mentioned Glossary if these things are new to you). In addition to the top twelve, some other teams of note are included:
| Team | DSO ratio | DSO Rank | DSD ratio | DSD Rank | DSC power | DSC Rank | CFP Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Georgia | 1.493 | 8 | 0.387 | 1 | 3.854 | 1 | 1 |
| Ohio State | 2.044 | 1 | 0.600 | 7 | 3.406 | 2 | 2 |
| Michigan | 1.679 | 3 | 0.530 | 4 | 3.170 | 3 | 3 |
| Tennessee | 1.899 | 2 | 0.701 | 20 | 2.709 | 4 | 5 |
| Alabama | 1.595 | 4 | 0.591 | 6 | 2.698 | 5 | 9 |
| Illinois | 0.991 | 66 | 0.476 | 2 | 2.080 | 6 | 21 |
| Penn State | 1.449 | 10 | 0.708 | 21 | 2.046 | 7 | 14 |
| Texas | 1.284 | 23 | 0.688 | 16 | 1.866 | 8 | 18 |
| Louisiana State | 1.284 | 22 | 0.710 | 22 | 1.808 | 10 | 7 |
| Notre Dame | 1.145 | 42 | 0.699 | 19 | 1.638 | 14 | 20 |
| Southern Cal | 1.485 | 9 | 0.914 | 47 | 1.625 | 16 | 8 |
| Wisconsin | 1.384 | 13 | 0.852 | 39 | 1.623 | 17 | NR |
| Clemson | 1.352 | 14 | 0.855 | 40 | 1.581 | 18 | 10 |
| Minnesota | 0.992 | 65 | 0.629 | 9 | 1.577 | 19 | NR |
| Iowa | 0.884 | 81 | 0.566 | 5 | 1.561 | 20 | NR |
| Oregon | 1.421 | 11 | 0.981 | 57 | 1.448 | 23 | 6 |
| UCLA | 1.411 | 12 | 0.997 | 59 | 1.415 | 26 | 12 |
| Texas Christian | 1.290 | 19 | 0.917 | 49 | 1.407 | 27 | 4 |
| Maryland | 1.127 | 47 | 0.826 | 34 | 1.365 | 33 | NR |
| Michigan State | 1.127 | 49 | 0.838 | 35 | 1.345 | 35 | NR |
| North Carolina | 1.580 | 5 | 1.274 | 113 | 1.240 | 45 | 15 |
| Mississippi | 1.284 | 24 | 1.037 | 72 | 1.238 | 46 | 11 |
| Kentucky | 0.869 | 84 | 0.717 | 23 | 1.212 | 49 | 24 |
There are many other observations that can be made, but half the fun is discovering things for yourself. Go nuts. If there are specific rankings that you would like to know or perhaps additional calculations you would like to see, just ask.
