• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!
Bumping an old thread here for some stats I've complied. Under Jim Tressel, OSU is 82-18.

When they win the turnover margin, OSU is 43-3 (93.5%), including 7-0 this season. Two of those three losses came in Tressel's first (2001) season (6-13 @ UCLA, +2 margin; 27-29 @ PSU, +1 margin). The other loss was against Texas in 2005 with a +2 margin. Beginning with 2002, OSU is 39-1 when they win the turnover margin. 39-1. Wow.

When the turnover margin is even, OSU is 15-5 (75%)

When they lose the turnover margin, OSU is 24-10 (70.6%)

TO Margin..........Record
-4......................3-0 - WTF stat of the day! (Marshall 2004; MSU 2005; Akron 2007)
-3......................2-2
-2......................8-7
-1.....................11-1
0......................15-5
+1....................16-1
+2....................15-2
+3.....................5-0
+4.....................6-0
+5.....................1-0

In his first 4 games against UM, the collective turnover margin was +8 and OSU went 3-1. In the 3 since then, the turnover margin is -6 and OSU is 3-0.

2001: 7-5 (+10)
2002: 14-0 (+12)
2003: 10-2 (+1)
2004: 8-4 (-4)
2005: 10-2 (-10)
2006: 12-1 (+9)
2007: 11-2 (-3)
2008: 9-2 (+14 - Thanks OU and MSU!)
 
Upvote 0
UPDATED THROUGH FIESTA BOWL

Bumping an old thread here for some stats I've complied. Under Jim Tressel, OSU is 83-19 (81.37%) .

When they win the turnover margin, OSU is 44-4 (91.67%), including 8-1 this season. Two of those four losses came in Tressel's first (2001) season (6-13 @ UCLA, +2 margin; 27-29 @ PSU, +1 margin). The other losses were against Texas in 2005 with a +2 margin and again against Texas in the Fiesta Bowl with a +1 margin. Beginning with 2002, OSU is 40-2 when they win the turnover margin.

When the turnover margin is even, OSU is 15-5 (75%)

When they lose the turnover margin, OSU is 24-10 (70.6%)

TO Margin..........Record
-4......................3-0 - STILL the WTF stat of the day! (Marshall 2004; MSU 2005; Akron 2007)
-3......................2-2
-2......................8-7
-1.....................11-1
0......................15-5
+1....................17-2
+2....................15-2
+3.....................5-0
+4.....................6-0
+5.....................1-0

In his first 4 games against UM, the collective turnover margin was +8 and OSU went 3-1. In the 4 since then, the turnover margin is -5 and OSU is 4-0.

2001: 7-5 (+10)
2002: 14-0 (+12)
2003: 10-2 (+1)
2004: 8-4 (-4)
2005: 10-2 (-10)
2006: 12-1 (+9)
2007: 11-2 (-3)
2008: 10-3 (+16)
 
Upvote 0
Take this with a huge grain of salt as his results show Mizzou be a title contender, but this guy
Picking college football's champion - Kansas City Star says turnover margin isn't all that big a factor.

?Turnover margin actually had a curve linear effect,? West said. ?The relationship with turnover margin actually looked like an upside down U. ... The team with the better turnover margin is actually expected to lose.
?That pattern has held up where turnover margin actually seems to have a detrimental effect. It?s something that has no science behind it, but it?s like 'Why is that happening?? ?

One grain for going against conventional wisdom, another for his other atypical results, and a huge mound considering his loyalties.
 
Upvote 0
The discussion in the rumor mill regarding whether it is worth it to sacrifice offensive efficiency in order to avoid turnovers got me thinking. My hypothesis is that a top-tier team will not usually lose, particularly to an underdog, unless they lose the turnover margin.

Losses for teams finishing in the AP Top 10 with turnover margin:

(UD = victor was underdog; F = victor was favored
2008:
Florida:
30-31 vs. Mississippi: -2 TOM (3 by UF-1 by Ole Piss) - UD

USC:
21-27 at Oregon State: -2 (2-0) - UD

Texas:
33-39 at Texas Tech: -1 (2-1) - UD

Oklahoma:
35-45 vs. Texas: -2 (2-0) - UD
14-24 vs. Florida: 0 (2-2) - F

Alabama:
20-31 vs. Florida: -1 (1-0) - F
17-31 vs. Utah: -2 (3-1) - UD

TCU:
10-35 at Oklahoma: -4 (4-0) - F
10-13 at Utah: -2 (2-0) - UD

Penn State:
23-24 at Iowa: 0 (2-2) - UD
24-38 vs. USC: -2 (3-1) - F

Ohio State:
3-35 at USC: -2 (3-1) - F
6-13 vs. Penn State: -2 (2-0) - F
21-24 vs. Texas: +1 (0-1) - F

Oregon:
32-37 vs. Boise State: -2 (4-2) - UD
10-44 vs. USC: 0 (2-2) - F
16-26 at Cal: +2 (3-5) - F

Losses vs. an underdog: The favored team (that lost the game) lost the turnover margin in 7 of 8 games. The turnover margin was even in the other (PSU @ Iowa). In order to avoid being upset, take care of the ball.

Losses vs. a favored team: The underdog (that lost the game) lost the turnover margin in 5 of 9 games. The turnover margin was even in 2 games. The underdog lost despite winning the turnover margin in the other 2. (OSU vs. Texas, Oregon @ Cal).

When I get a chance, I'll try to pull some other years' numbers to see if the additional data supports the conclusion.
 
Upvote 0
It's worth noting that the big key to USC's continued success is turn over margin.

Turnover Talk

By Scott Wolf on September 2, 2009 11:47 AM |

After ranking no worse than fifth nationally in turnover margin from 2001-2005, including first or second from 2003-2005, USC's dropped quite a bit the past three seasons. The Trojans were tied for 38th (2006), 41st (2007) and 25th (2008) the past three years.
http://www.insidesocal.com/usc/archives/2009/09/turnover-talk.html
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top