During the offseason I had just one weekend blog but each week during the season I will take a look at the Top 25 performances from the just completed week with a little analysis as well as a quick review of the past weekend. On Monday I will give you my News & Notes where I delve deeper into every game that was played this past weekend, breaking down individual drives and giving you misleading finals and other interesting tidbits.
As far as my game grades go after the 2008 season was completed I devised a power ratings system, which lets me analyze at what level each team played during an individual game. This “game grade” takes into account the yards rushing, yards passing, points scored, rushing yards allowed, passing yards allowed and points allowed and factors them in against the opponent played and even factors in the site the game was played at.
With all these factors taken into consideration you will see teams that lost the game having a better individual game grade than teams that beat them simply because the team they played was superior and much less was expected of them.
Top 25 Game Grades (Team Performances) Week 13
|
*Means Garbage Yards/Pts Were Subtracted (Includes all OT Yds/Pts)
|
|
|
|
|
OFF |
OFF |
OFF |
DEF |
DEF |
DEF |
Gm |
|
Rank
|
|
|
FOE |
RUSH |
PASS |
PTS |
RUSH |
PASS |
PTS |
Grade |
|
1
|
LSU |
|
Arkansas |
286 |
208 |
41 |
47 |
207 |
17 |
112.2 |
|
2
|
HOUSTON |
AT |
Tulsa |
84 |
474 |
48 |
159 |
175 |
16 |
111.4 |
|
3
|
USC |
|
UCLA |
149 |
424 |
50 |
124 |
260 |
0 |
107.8 |
|
4
|
WISCONSIN |
|
Penn St |
263 |
185 |
45 |
111 |
120 |
7 |
104.0 |
|
4
|
OREGON |
|
Oregon St |
373 |
294 |
49 |
12 |
307 |
21 |
104.0 |
|
6
|
VIRGINIA TECH |
|
Virginia |
189 |
226 |
38 |
33 |
210 |
0 |
103.7 |
|
6
|
ALABAMA |
AT |
Auburn |
218 |
184 |
42 |
75 |
63 |
14 |
103.7 |
|
8
|
S CAROLINA |
|
Clemson |
210 |
210 |
34 |
70 |
83 |
13 |
99.0 |
|
9
|
OKLAHOMA |
|
Iowa St |
253 |
256 |
26 |
128 |
126 |
6 |
97.6 |
|
10
|
STANFORD |
|
Notre Dame |
196 |
233 |
28 |
57 |
252 |
14 |
96.5 |
|
11
|
VANDERBILT |
AT |
Wake Forest |
297 |
184 |
41 |
146 |
183 |
7 |
95.2 |
|
12
|
BOISE ST |
|
Wyoming |
210 |
264 |
36 |
97 |
80 |
14 |
92.3 |
|
13
|
MINNESOTA |
|
Illinois |
248 |
85 |
27 |
82 |
78 |
7 |
91.6 |
|
14
|
CALIFORNIA |
AT |
Arizona St |
247 |
237 |
47 |
148 |
257 |
38 |
90.8 |
|
14
|
GEORGIA |
AT |
Georgia Tech |
128 |
252 |
31 |
243 |
112 |
17 |
90.8 |
|
16
|
BAYLOR |
† |
Texas Tech |
377 |
266 |
66 |
51 |
386 |
42 |
90.1 |
|
17
|
WASHINGTON |
† |
Washington St |
143 |
291 |
38 |
38 |
344 |
21 |
89.4 |
|
18
|
TEXAS |
AT |
Texas A&M |
86 |
151 |
27 |
104 |
224 |
25 |
89.1 |
|
18
|
TEXAS A&M |
|
Texas |
104 |
224 |
25 |
86 |
151 |
27 |
89.1 |
|
20
|
LOUISIANA TECH |
|
New Mexico St |
202 |
217 |
44 |
160 |
119 |
0 |
86.9 |
|
21
|
MICHIGAN ST |
AT |
Northwestern |
166 |
214 |
31 |
117 |
253 |
17 |
86.6 |
|
22
|
BOSTON COLL |
AT |
Miami, Fl |
153 |
196 |
24 |
122 |
245 |
17 |
86.1 |
|
22
|
LOUISVILLE |
AT |
USF |
132 |
241 |
34 |
64 |
247 |
24 |
86.1 |
|
24
|
FLORIDA ST |
AT |
Florida |
30 |
65 |
21 |
54 |
130 |
7 |
84.7 |
|
25
|
S MISS |
|
Memphis |
255 |
285 |
44 |
7 |
174 |
7 |
84.4 |
During the offseason I had just one weekend blog but each week during the season I will take a look at the Top 25 performances from the just completed week with a little analysis as well as a quick review of the past weekend. On Monday I will give you my News & Notes where I delve deeper into every game that was played this past weekend, breaking down individual drives and giving you misleading finals and other interesting tidbits.
As far as my game grades go after the 2008 season was completed I devised a power ratings system, which lets me analyze at what level each team played during an individual game. This “game grade” takes into account the yards rushing, yards passing, points scored, rushing yards allowed, passing yards allowed and points allowed and factors them in against the opponent played and even factors in the site the game was played at.
With all these factors taken into consideration you will see teams that lost the game having a better individual game grade than teams that beat them simply because the team they played was superior and much less was expected of them.
Top 25 Game Grades (Team Performances) Week 12
|
*Means Garbage Yards/Pts Were Subtracted (Includes all OT Yds/Pts)
|
|
|
|
|
OFF |
OFF |
OFF |
DEF |
DEF |
DEF |
Gm |
|
Rank
|
|
|
FOE |
RUSH |
PASS |
PTS |
RUSH |
PASS |
PTS |
Grade |
|
1
|
BAYLOR |
|
Oklahoma |
144 |
485 |
45 |
157 |
446 |
38 |
103.4 |
|
2
|
USC |
AT |
Oregon |
146 |
323 |
38 |
205 |
268 |
35 |
103.3 |
|
3
|
LSU |
AT |
Mississippi |
353 |
105 |
52 |
147 |
47 |
3 |
102.9 |
|
4
|
ARKANSAS |
|
Mississippi St |
165 |
376 |
44 |
84 |
127 |
17 |
102.3 |
|
5
|
MICHIGAN |
|
Nebraska |
235 |
179 |
45 |
134 |
122 |
17 |
99.3 |
|
5
|
UCLA |
|
Colorado |
328 |
225 |
45 |
87 |
142 |
6 |
99.3 |
|
7
|
HOUSTON |
|
SMU |
148 |
365 |
37 |
24 |
239 |
7 |
97.6 |
|
8
|
TEXAS A&M |
|
Kansas |
189 |
280 |
61 |
64 |
133 |
7 |
96.8 |
|
9
|
MICHIGAN ST |
|
Indiana |
172 |
297 |
55 |
95 |
142 |
3 |
94.6 |
|
10
|
IOWA ST |
|
Oklahoma St |
167 |
351 |
24 |
52 |
459 |
24 |
94.3 |
|
11
|
NC ST |
|
Clemson |
147 |
251 |
37 |
31 |
307 |
13 |
91.9 |
|
12
|
OREGON |
|
USC |
205 |
268 |
35 |
146 |
323 |
38 |
91.6 |
|
13
|
CALIFORNIA |
AT |
Stanford |
79 |
278 |
28 |
149 |
253 |
31 |
91.3 |
|
13
|
OREGON ST |
|
Washington |
145 |
339 |
38 |
160 |
155 |
21 |
91.3 |
|
15
|
BOISE ST |
AT |
San Diego St |
131 |
366 |
52 |
119 |
266 |
29 |
90.8 |
|
16
|
RUTGERS |
|
Cincinnati |
203 |
182 |
20 |
67 |
158 |
3 |
89.9 |
|
17
|
STANFORD |
|
California |
149 |
253 |
31 |
79 |
278 |
28 |
87.5 |
|
18
|
ILLINOIS |
|
Wisconsin |
150 |
152 |
17 |
194 |
90 |
28 |
86.9 |
|
19
|
N CAROLINA |
AT |
Virginia Tech |
134 |
224 |
21 |
145 |
195 |
24 |
86.6 |
|
20
|
MIAMI FLA |
AT |
USF |
57 |
259 |
6 |
116 |
133 |
3 |
86.4 |
|
21
|
WISCONSIN |
AT |
Illinois |
194 |
90 |
28 |
150 |
152 |
17 |
85.8 |
|
22
|
ARKANSAS ST |
AT |
Middle Tennessee |
203 |
333 |
45 |
80 |
219 |
19 |
85.3 |
|
23
|
GEORGIA TECH |
AT |
Duke |
364 |
185 |
38 |
101 |
250 |
31 |
85.0 |
|
23
|
VIRGINIA |
AT |
Florida St |
89 |
238 |
14 |
183 |
200 |
13 |
85.0 |
|
25
|
PENN ST |
AT |
Ohio St |
239 |
88 |
20 |
206 |
83 |
14 |
84.7 |
|
25
|
BYU |
|
New Mexico St |
173 |
238 |
42 |
90 |
159 |
7 |
84.7 |
|
25
|
TULSA |
AT |
UTEP |
217 |
283 |
57 |
177 |
266 |
28 |
84.7 |
During the offseason I had just one weekend blog but each week during the season I will take a look at the Top 25 performances from the just completed week with a little analysis as well as a quick review of the past weekend. On Monday I will give you my News & Notes where I delve deeper into every game that was played this past weekend, breaking down individual drives and giving you misleading finals and other interesting tidbits.
As far as my game grades go after the 2008 season was completed I devised a power ratings system, which lets me analyze at what level each team played during an individual game. This “game grade” takes into account the yards rushing, yards passing, points scored, rushing yards allowed, passing yards allowed and points allowed and factors them in against the opponent played and even factors in the site the game was played at.
With all these factors taken into consideration you will see teams that lost the game having a better individual game grade than teams that beat them simply because the team they played was superior and much less was expected of them. Read more…
During the offseason I had just one weekend blog but each week during the season I will take a look at the Top 25 performances from the just completed week with a little analysis as well as a quick review of the past weekend. On Monday I will give you my News & Notes where I delve deeper into every game that was played this past weekend, breaking down individual drives and giving you misleading finals and other interesting tidbits.
As far as my game grades go after the 2008 season was completed I devised a power ratings system, which lets me analyze at what level each team played during an individual game. This “game grade” takes into account the yards rushing, yards passing, points scored, rushing yards allowed, passing yards allowed and points allowed and factors them in against the opponent played and even factors in the site the game was played at.
With all these factors taken into consideration you will see teams that lost the game having a better individual game grade than teams that beat them simply because the team they played was superior and much less was expected of them. Read more…
During the offseason I had just one weekend blog but each week during the season I will take a look at the Top 25 performances from the just completed week with a little analysis as well as a quick review of the past weekend. On Monday I will give you my News & Notes where I delve deeper into every game that was played this past weekend, breaking down individual drives and giving you misleading finals and other interesting tidbits.
As far as my game grades go after the 2008 season was completed I devised a power ratings system, which lets me analyze at what level each team played during an individual game. This “game grade” takes into account the yards rushing, yards passing, points scored, rushing yards allowed, passing yards allowed and points allowed and factors them in against the opponent played and even factors in the site the game was played at.
With all these factors taken into consideration you will see teams that lost the game having a better individual game grade than teams that beat them simply because the team they played was superior and much less was expected of them.
Top 25 Game Grades (Team Performances) Week 9
|
*Means Garbage Yards/Pts Were Subtracted (Includes all OT Yds/Pts)
|
|
|
|
|
OFF |
OFF |
OFF |
DEF |
DEF |
DEF |
Gm |
|
Rank
|
|
|
FOE |
RUSH |
PASS |
PTS |
RUSH |
PASS |
PTS |
Grade |
|
1
|
OKLAHOMA |
AT |
Kansas St |
170 |
520 |
58 |
182 |
58 |
17 |
122.7 |
|
2
|
TEXAS |
AT |
Kansas |
441 |
149 |
43 |
-2 |
48 |
0 |
109.7 |
|
3
|
IOWA ST |
AT |
Texas Tech |
370 |
140 |
41 |
98 |
191 |
7 |
107.5 |
|
4
|
STANFORD |
AT |
USC |
137 |
298 |
34 |
135 |
235 |
34 |
99.6 |
|
5
|
TULSA |
|
SMU |
177 |
274 |
38 |
85 |
180 |
7 |
99.0 |
|
6
|
NEBRASKA |
|
Michigan St |
187 |
83 |
24 |
101 |
86 |
3 |
98.2 |
|
7
|
FLORIDA ST |
|
NC State |
123 |
321 |
34 |
36 |
130 |
0 |
97.9 |
|
8
|
MICHIGAN |
|
Purdue |
339 |
196 |
36 |
78 |
196 |
7 |
96.8 |
|
9
|
NOTRE DAME |
|
Navy |
182 |
260 |
56 |
196 |
33 |
14 |
96.0 |
|
10
|
ARMY |
|
FORDHAM |
514 |
30 |
55 |
69 |
17 |
0 |
95.7 |
|
11
|
GEORGIA TECH |
|
Clemson |
383 |
60 |
31 |
93 |
303 |
17 |
95.1 |
|
12
|
MARSHALL |
|
UAB |
138 |
291 |
59 |
27 |
225 |
7 |
94.1 |
|
13
|
GEORGIA |
AT |
Florida |
186 |
168 |
24 |
-9 |
245 |
20 |
93.2 |
|
14
|
S CAROLINA |
AT |
Tennessee |
231 |
87 |
14 |
35 |
153 |
3 |
93.0 |
|
15
|
OKLAHOMA ST |
|
Baylor |
325 |
274 |
59 |
177 |
445 |
24 |
92.1 |
|
16
|
N CAROLINA |
|
Wake Forest |
224 |
338 |
49 |
121 |
210 |
24 |
91.6 |
|
17
|
OHIO ST |
|
Wisconsin |
267 |
89 |
33 |
104 |
253 |
29 |
91.6 |
|
18
|
USC |
|
Stanford |
135 |
235 |
34 |
137 |
298 |
34 |
91.0 |
|
19
|
MISSOURI |
AT |
Texas A&M |
266 |
188 |
31 |
186 |
306 |
31 |
90.2 |
|
20
|
WASHINGTON |
|
Arizona |
179 |
310 |
42 |
36 |
388 |
31 |
89.4 |
|
21
|
HOUSTON |
|
Rice |
122 |
534 |
73 |
359 |
116 |
34 |
88.8 |
|
22
|
UCLA |
|
California |
294 |
92 |
31 |
134 |
199 |
14 |
88.6 |
|
23
|
BYU |
AT |
TCU |
139 |
215 |
28 |
136 |
147 |
38 |
88.0 |
|
23
|
S MISS |
AT |
UTEP |
260 |
190 |
31 |
68 |
194 |
13 |
88.0 |
|
25
|
TEXAS A&M |
|
Missouri |
186 |
306 |
31 |
266 |
188 |
31 |
87.2 |
During the offseason I had just one weekend blog but each week during the season I will take a look at the Top 25 performances from the just completed week with a little analysis as well as a quick review of the past weekend. On Monday I will give you my News & Notes where I delve deeper into every game that was played this past weekend, breaking down individual drives and giving you misleading finals and other interesting tidbits.
As far as my game grades go after the 2008 season was completed I devised a power ratings system, which lets me analyze at what level each team played during an individual game. This “game grade” takes into account the yards rushing, yards passing, points scored, rushing yards allowed, passing yards allowed and points allowed and factors them in against the opponent played and even factors in the site the game was played at.
With all these factors taken into consideration you will see teams that lost the game having a better individual game grade than teams that beat them simply because the team they played was superior and much less was expected of them.
Top 25 Game Grades (Team Performances) Week 7
|
*Means Garbage Yards/Pts Were Subtracted (Includes all OT Yds/Pts)
|
|
|
|
|
OFF |
OFF |
OFF |
DEF |
DEF |
DEF |
Gm |
|
Rank
|
|
|
FOE |
RUSH |
PASS |
PTS |
RUSH |
PASS |
PTS |
Grade |
|
1
|
TEXAS TECH |
AT |
Oklahoma |
162 |
434 |
41 |
127 |
406 |
38 |
110.9 |
|
2
|
STANFORD |
|
Washington |
446 |
169 |
65 |
162 |
262 |
21 |
110.6 |
|
3
|
USC |
AT |
Notre Dame |
219 |
224 |
31 |
41 |
226 |
17 |
106.7 |
|
4
|
ALABAMA |
|
Tennessee |
141 |
294 |
37 |
92 |
63 |
6 |
106.2 |
|
5
|
LSU |
|
Auburn |
177 |
219 |
45 |
25 |
139 |
3 |
105.6 |
|
6
|
OREGON |
AT |
Colorado |
371 |
156 |
45 |
98 |
133 |
2 |
104.8 |
|
7
|
OKLAHOMA ST |
AT |
Missouri |
204 |
329 |
45 |
253 |
215 |
24 |
102.0 |
|
8
|
ARIZONA |
|
UCLA |
254 |
319 |
48 |
37 |
286 |
12 |
101.8 |
|
9
|
CALIFORNIA |
|
Utah |
129 |
255 |
34 |
-3 |
117 |
3 |
101.5 |
|
10
|
TCU |
|
New Mexico |
264 |
251 |
69 |
64 |
21 |
0 |
100.1 |
|
11
|
OREGON ST |
AT |
Washington St |
175 |
376 |
44 |
83 |
232 |
21 |
96.3 |
|
12
|
S MISS |
|
SMU |
187 |
266 |
27 |
157 |
173 |
3 |
96.0 |
|
13
|
KANSAS ST |
AT |
Kansas |
261 |
205 |
59 |
88 |
169 |
14 |
95.4 |
|
14
|
AIR FORCE |
AT |
Boise St |
271 |
145 |
26 |
142 |
279 |
37 |
94.9 |
|
15
|
CLEMSON |
|
North Carolina |
75 |
372 |
59 |
64 |
263 |
31 |
94.6 |
|
16
|
FLORIDA ST |
|
Maryland |
218 |
264 |
41 |
54 |
214 |
10 |
94.3 |
|
17
|
NEBRASKA |
AT |
Minnesota |
346 |
169 |
41 |
97 |
68 |
7 |
94.1 |
|
18
|
SYRACUSE |
|
West Virginia |
194 |
249 |
49 |
70 |
338 |
23 |
92.1 |
|
19
|
MICHIGAN ST |
|
Wisconsin |
108 |
290 |
37 |
223 |
223 |
31 |
92.1 |
|
20
|
WISCONSIN |
AT |
Michigan St |
223 |
223 |
31 |
108 |
290 |
37 |
91.9 |
|
21
|
TEXAS A&M |
AT |
Iowa St |
247 |
263 |
33 |
125 |
180 |
17 |
88.6 |
|
22
|
MIAMI FLA |
|
Georgia Tech |
121 |
140 |
24 |
134 |
77 |
7 |
87.7 |
|
23
|
NC STATE |
AT |
Virginia |
114 |
231 |
28 |
124 |
125 |
14 |
86.1 |
|
24
|
BYU |
|
IDAHO ST |
290 |
282 |
56 |
20 |
231 |
3 |
85.8 |
|
25
|
VANDERBILT |
|
Army |
344 |
186 |
44 |
270 |
18 |
21 |
85.8 |
During the offseason I had just one weekend blog but each week during the season I will take a look at the Top 25 performances from the just completed week with a little analysis as well as a quick review of the past weekend. On Monday I will give you my News & Notes where I delve deeper into every game that was played this past weekend, breaking down individual drives and giving you misleading finals and other interesting tidbits.
As far as my game grades go after the 2008 season was completed I devised a power ratings system, which lets me analyze at what level each team played during an individual game. This “game grade” takes into account the yards rushing, yards passing, points scored, rushing yards allowed, passing yards allowed and points allowed and factors them in against the opponent played and even factors in the site the game was played at.
With all these factors taken into consideration you will see teams that lost the game having a better individual game grade than teams that beat them simply because the team they played was superior and much less was expected of them.
Top 25 Game Grades (Team Performances) Week 7
|
*Means Garbage Yards/Pts Were Subtracted (Includes all OT Yds/Pts)
|
|
|
|
|
OFF |
OFF |
OFF |
DEF |
DEF |
DEF |
Gm |
| Rank |
|
|
FOE |
RUSH |
PASS |
PTS |
RUSH |
PASS |
PTS |
Grade |
|
1
|
ALABAMA |
AT |
Mississippi |
434 |
207 |
52 |
27 |
117 |
7 |
119.1
|
|
2
|
BOISE ST |
AT |
Colorado St |
372 |
360 |
63 |
83 |
147 |
13 |
113.0
|
|
3
|
LSU |
AT |
Tennessee |
252 |
130 |
38 |
110 |
128 |
7 |
103.7
|
|
4
|
N ILLINOIS |
|
W Michigan |
494 |
203 |
51 |
91 |
233 |
22 |
103.3
|
|
5
|
STANFORD |
AT |
Washington St |
139 |
336 |
44 |
48 |
209 |
14 |
102.3
|
|
6
|
TEXAS A&M |
|
Baylor |
266 |
415 |
55 |
50 |
430 |
28 |
101.2
|
|
7
|
MICHIGAN ST |
|
Michigan |
214 |
120 |
28 |
83 |
168 |
14 |
98.9
|
|
8
|
ULM |
AT |
Troy |
248 |
275 |
38 |
-14 |
140 |
10 |
98.7
|
|
9
|
OKLAHOMA ST |
AT |
Texas |
202 |
218 |
38 |
231 |
139 |
26 |
98.5
|
|
10
|
OKLAHOMA |
AT |
Kansas |
248 |
360 |
47 |
143 |
108 |
17 |
98.2
|
|
11
|
WASHINGTON |
|
Colorado |
295 |
267 |
52 |
62 |
207 |
24 |
96.5
|
|
12
|
FLORIDA ST |
AT |
Duke |
242 |
239 |
41 |
63 |
226 |
16 |
94.3
|
|
13
|
MISSOURI |
|
Iowa St |
294 |
289 |
52 |
157 |
186 |
17 |
93.5
|
|
13
|
OREGON |
|
Arizona St |
315 |
209 |
41 |
148 |
300 |
27 |
93.5
|
|
15
|
VIRGINIA TECH |
|
Wake Forest |
193 |
280 |
38 |
59 |
261 |
17 |
92.4
|
|
16
|
TEMPLE |
|
Buffalo |
400 |
58 |
34 |
71 |
84 |
0 |
91.6
|
|
17
|
AUBURN |
|
Florida |
154 |
123 |
17 |
67 |
129 |
6 |
89.7
|
|
18
|
USC |
AT |
California |
118 |
195 |
30 |
35 |
294 |
9 |
89.4
|
|
19
|
VIRGINIA |
|
Georgia Tech |
273 |
135 |
24 |
272 |
24 |
21 |
88.8
|
|
20
|
UTAH |
AT |
Pittsburgh |
124 |
127 |
26 |
70 |
50 |
14 |
88.6
|
|
21
|
NEVADA |
|
New Mexico |
338 |
260 |
49 |
168 |
89 |
7 |
88.0
|
|
22
|
SMU |
|
UCF |
82 |
358 |
38 |
110 |
349 |
17 |
86.6
|
During the offseason I had just one weekend blog but each week during the season I will take a look at the Top 25 performances from the just completed week with a little analysis as well as a quick review of the past weekend. On Monday I will give you my News & Notes where I delve deeper into every game that was played this past weekend, breaking down individual drives and giving you misleading finals and other interesting tidbits.
As far as my game grades go after the 2008 season was completed I devised a power ratings system, which lets me analyze at what level each team played during an individual game. This “game grade” takes into account the yards rushing, yards passing, points scored, rushing yards allowed, passing yards allowed and points allowed and factors them in against the opponent played and even factors in the site the game was played at.
With all these factors taken into consideration you will see teams that lost the game having a better individual game grade than teams that beat them simply because the team they played was superior and much less was expected of them. Read more…
During the offseason I had just one weekend blog but each week during the season I will take a look at the Top 25 performances from the just completed week with a little analysis as well as a quick review of the past weekend. On Monday I will give you my News & Notes where I delve deeper into every game that was played this past weekend, breaking down individual drives and giving you misleading finals and other interesting tidbits.
As far as my game grades go after the 2008 season was completed I devised a power ratings system, which lets me analyze at what level each team played during an individual game. This “game grade” takes into account the yards rushing, yards passing, points scored, rushing yards allowed, passing yards allowed and points allowed and factors them in against the opponent played and even factors in the site the game was played at.
With all these factors taken into consideration you will see teams that lost the game having a better individual game grade than teams that beat them simply because the team they played was superior and much less was expected of them. Read more…
During the offseason I had just one weekend blog but each week during the season I will take a look at the Top 25 performances from the just completed week with a little analysis as well as a quick review of the past weekend. On Monday I will give you my News & Notes where I delve deeper into every game that was played this past weekend, breaking down individual drives and giving you misleading finals and other interesting tidbits.
As far as my game grades go after the 2008 season was completed I devised a power ratings system, which lets me analyze at what level each team played during an individual game. This “game grade” takes into account the yards rushing, yards passing, points scored, rushing yards allowed, passing yards allowed and points allowed and factors them in against the opponent played and even factors in the site the game was played at.
With all these factors taken into consideration you will see teams that lost the game having a better individual game grade than teams that beat them simply because the team they played was superior and much less was expected of them. Read more…
