As you can tell by going through the magazine there is very little advertising and there are several pages that are left out due to space constraints. One article I wanted to expand on was starters lost during the year. (see Football 365 Days A Year Pg 17, 314)
Remember when Oklahoma won the National Title in 2000? Not a single OU starter lost a single start due to injury! My research has shown that teams that benefited from very few injuries, in this case 6 or less, usually have a weaker season the next year.
The bottom line is, teams that have suffered a lot of injuries the previous year will generally have a better year the next season. A lot of backups were forced to play during the injury-riddled year, gaining valuable experience and the team figures to not be so injury-prone the next year.
In a study over the last 6 years, my research shows that if a team had 32 or more starts lost to injury the prior season, they improved or had the same record the next year on 48 out of 58 occasions for an 82.8% success rate. How about teams that are really banged up? Well from 2001-2005 12 teams went through seasons of having 40 or more combined starts lost and ALL 12 had the same or better record the next season. It surprises me that 17 teams met that criteria in 2006-’07 but only 7 had a stronger record the next year and 9 had a weaker record.
In 2008, Utah was at the top of the chart with 51 starts lost to injury and they went from 9-4 to 13-0 and #2 in the country! Last year was another solid year as 11 teams had 40 or more starts lost to injury in ‘08 and 8 of the 11 improved their records (72.7%!). Here are the teams that suffered 32 or more starts lost to injury last year:
Read more…
Categories: Offseason Notes Tags: college football, Colorado St, Idaho, Illinois, Oklahoma, Oregon St, phil steele, Starts Lost, Temple, Tulsa, Utah, Washington St, Wyoming
In Monday’s Blog, I analyzed which method of determining who plays the toughest schedule is more accurate; mine or the NCAA. I compared the preseason predictions of both and concluded that my method is superior because it takes two major factors into account. The first is my 9 sets of Power Ratings. This ensures that an FCS team like William & Mary who was 11-3 last year is rated much lower than Oklahoma which was 8-5 in 2009. The second factor is the amount of home and away games played. As an example, this year some teams will have as many as 8 home games, while others play as many as 8 on the road.
Today’s blog will take a closer look at the toughest schedule debate by looking at this year’s opponents’ win/loss record from the 2009 season.
At the beginning of the season, the NCAA usually releases a rating of each team’s schedule based on their opponents’ win/loss record from the previous season. This is a good method but it does have its obvious flaws.
The first flaw is basing the ratings on opponents’ records from the previous season. Let’s look at a couple of examples. At the start of 2007 I had Illinois rated as one of the top teams in the Big Ten and they went on to knock off #1 Ohio St and play in the ROSE BOWL. My ratings had them as an above avg opponent at the start of the year and they finished the regular season #13 (AP). Using 2006’s record as the criteria for determining the strength of an opps’ schedule, however you would count them as a 2-10 team!
The second flaw is basing it on pure overall records. If a team plays a FCS (IAA) school that was 11-1 in 2007, that would have counted as a MUCH tougher game in the NCAA ratings than facing a team like Alabama who was 7-6 in ‘07 but #1 at the end of ‘08 regular season! My ratings had Bama ranked as a much tougher team than an FCS foe.
Below is a chart of all 120 teams and the combined 2009 opponents’ records from last year. It is ranked in order of highest % of opponent wins (or toughest schedule) to lowest % of opponent wins (or easiest schedule). This is the same chart that will be printed in this year’s college preview magazine. Read more…
Categories: Offseason Notes Tags: 2009, 2010, Central Michigan, college football, Florida St, football, Illinois, LSU, Minnesota, Ohio St, Oklahoma, Opp Win %, phil steele, San Jose St, Temple, Toughest Schedules, william & mary
There were very few games this week so it wasn’t as tough to earn a Top 20 spot from my computer’s average individual grades as there was only 34 performances to grade. Therefore, I will cut it off at the Top 14 this week.
Read more…
Categories: News & Notes Tags: 2 point conversion, Arizona, Boise St, bowl confidence poll, cal, California, Cincinnati, college football, Connecticut, Fresno St, fresno st 2 point, Hawaii, Illinois, New Mexico St, Oregon, Oregon St, phil steele, philsteele.com, pitt, Pittsburgh, rutgers, South Florida, uconn, USC, USF, Washington, West Virginia, wisconsin
The BCS Busters are down to two as Houston lost to UTEP, so only Boise St and TCU have a shot at being a BCS Buster this year. Boise’s toughest foe appears to be Tulsa who they have to play on the road and TCU has to play BYU on the road.
Let’s take a look at this week’s top performances:
USC’s demolition of California on the road got them the top grade for this week at 103.4 per my computer. USC is a prime contender for the National Title and should they end up with just one loss, would probably get my vote if they continue to play this impressively. They have been in the Top 25 Performances of the Week every week this year.
Read more…
Categories: Phil Steele News, Top 25 Individual Game Grades Tags: California, Clausen, Clayton, college football, computer ratings, Georgia, Houston, Illinois, Indiana, individual game grades, Louisville, LSU, Miami, Mississippi, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio St, Oklahoma, Penn St, phil steele, Pittsburgh, rankings, top 25, UNLV, upsets, USC, UTEP, Vanderbilt, Virginia
