Word of Muth breaks down film of Alex Gibbs coaching and speaking over a cut-up tape. Find out the secrets of the man who's built big seasons for everyone from Terrell Davis to Warrick Dunn.
09 Nov 2011
by Brian Fremeau
Last weekend’s Alabama-LSU game answered some questions and raised a few others. As predicted, a close contest resulted in little impact on the FEI ratings. Alabama remains No. 2 and may very well have a solid argument at season’s end that they are the second-best team in the nation. We can’t jump to any conclusions yet, of course. The gap between the Crimson Tide and other contenders is slim, and there will be opportunities ahead for Stanford, Oklahoma State, and others to make impressive statements as well. Of course, if there are upsets -– and there are always upsets –- Alabama might very well have an argument that they are the nation’s best team. I’m looking forward to watching it all unfold.
As for my impressions of the game, I’m not one to lament the lack of offensive fireworks. As others have stated, incredible athleticism on the defensive side of the ball can be extraordinarily enjoyable to watch too. These two teams are among the top defenses in the country, without a doubt. LSU is No. 1 in DFEI this week, Alabama ranks No. 6.
There is great sentiment in the college football world to get to see a truly elite offense square off against one of these defenses. According to my ratings, LSU (No. 23 OFEI) was the best offense Alabama has faced this year, and Alabama (No. 13 OFEI) was the second-best offense LSU has faced this year, behind only West Virginia (No. 6 OFEI). As things stand right now, LSU won’t face a tougher offense even if Stanford (No. 28 OFEI), Oklahoma State (No. 31 OFEI), or Boise State (No. 37 OFEI) snag the championship bid.
This is where I furrow my brow. The Offensive and Defensive FEI ratings have always been part validation and part bewilderment for me. Most of the top OFEI teams make sense, but then there’s the Miami Hurricanes sitting there at No. 1. Most of the top DFEI teams make sense, but then there’s the Oklahoma State Cowboys sitting there at No. 2. What’s going on there?
Let’s talk about Miami first. The Hurricanes are averaging a pedestrian 385 yards per game (67th in the nation), but unlike some of the teams at the top of those stat sheets, they play at a very deliberate pace. They are maximizing value on the plays they do run (6.5 yards per play, 15th nationally) and possessions. Last weekend against lowly Duke (No. 91 DFEI), Miami scored touchdowns on each of its first five offensive possessions, the fifth of which concluded with less than 10 minutes left in the third quarter. Garbage time hadn’t officially kicked in at that point, but they were ruthlessly efficient against a weak opposing defense, as elite offenses must be. Against a similarly ranked Louisiana-Lafayette defense (No. 94 DFEI) in Week 1, Oklahoma State’s explosive offense scored its fifth touchdown late in the third quarter, too. But it was the Cowboys’ 13th possession of the day –- two field goals, three punts, two interceptions, and a turnover on downs preceded that drive. Oklahoma State’s 666 yards in the game impressed a lot of people. Miami’s efficiency impressed FEI.
That’s on one end of the spectrum. Against the second-best defense Miami has faced to date, Virginia Tech (No. 16 DFEI), the Hurricanes had only nine non-clock kill possessions and scored five touchdowns. Two of those other four possessions were thwarted on downs in the red zone, so they had little trouble moving the ball. That game ranks as the No. 1 opponent-adjusted OFEI game of the year, and it’s the biggest reason why Miami sits at the top of the overall OFEI ratings. More on that in a moment.
On defense, Oklahoma State is surrendering 460 yards per game (only 10 teams are worse), and they just had Kansas State run up 45 points and 507 yards in a shootout this past weekend. So why are the Cowboys rating as an elite defense according to FEI? The Wildcats game was their worst opponent-adjusted effort of the year, so I’m not going to defend it. But, due to their own high-octane offense, the Cowboys defense is facing many more possessions than an average defense.
Against Missouri (No. 18 OFEI) Oklahoma State gave up 463 yards and 24 points, but the Tigers had the ball 16 times in that game. Against Baylor (No. 2 OFEI), Oklahoma State held the Bears to only three points in nine non-garbage possessions. Baylor has averaged better than 3.5 points per non-garbage possession in all other games. Like the Miami offensive game against Virginia Tech, that effort against the Bears gives Oklahoma State’s defense the best opponent-adjusted DFEI game of the year.
You may be wondering, as I am, whether those outlier performances are getting a little too much weight in the formula. Both Miami and Oklahoma State have had fairly high variance in their opponent-adjusted stats this season, and the numbers shouldn’t suggest that those extreme performances are going to happen again. But those units certainly are better than raw metrics give them credit for. There’s more data to collect this year though, and I don’t want to jump to conclusions based only a couple of examples. Last season, Auburn’s defense appeared to be severely overrated according to FEI and then they managed to hold Oregon’s offense down in the BCS championship game. Time will tell again this year -- if not in the BCS title game, then in other marquee matchups in the coming weeks.
The Fremeau Efficiency Index (FEI) rewards playing well against good teams, win or lose, and punishes losing to poor teams more harshly than it rewards defeating poor teams. FEI 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. FEI represents a team's efficiency value over average. Strength of Schedule (SOS) is calculated as the likelihood that an "elite team" (two standard deviations above average) would win every game on the given team's schedule. "SOS Pvs" represents only games played to date. "SOS Fut" represents only remaining scheduled games.
Mean Wins (FBS MW) represent the average total games a team with the given FEI rating should expect to win against its complete schedule of FBS opponents. Remaining Mean Wins (FBS RMW) represent the average expected team wins for games scheduled but not yet played.
Offensive FEI (OFEI), Defensive FEI (DFEI), Special Teams Efficiency (STE) are also provided, along with Field Position Advantage (FPA), the share of the value of total starting field position earned by each team against its opponents.
Only games between FBS teams are considered in the FEI calculations. These FEI ratings are a function of results of games played through November 5. The ratings for all FBS teams can be found here. You can also find OFEI, DFEI, and STE on their own pages.
| Rk | Team | FBS W-L |
FEI | Last Wk |
GE | GE Rk |
SOS Pvs |
Rk | SOS Fut |
Rk | FBS MW |
FBS RW |
OFEI | Rk | DFEI | Rk | STE | Rk | FPA | Rk |
| 1 | LSU | 8-0 | .336 | 1 | .273 | 5 | .209 | 11 | .801 | 71 | 10.0 | 2.9 | .350 | 23 | -.811 | 1 | 4.367 | 1 | .603 | 2 |
| 2 | Alabama | 8-1 | .268 | 2 | .342 | 3 | .221 | 15 | .802 | 72 | 9.4 | 1.7 | .440 | 13 | -.639 | 6 | .383 | 53 | .545 | 12 |
| 3 | Oklahoma State | 9-0 | .266 | 3 | .255 | 9 | .342 | 41 | .716 | 58 | 10.5 | 2.6 | .286 | 31 | -.742 | 2 | 1.681 | 19 | .551 | 8 |
| 4 | Stanford | 9-0 | .229 | 4 | .360 | 2 | .574 | 96 | .667 | 45 | 10.7 | 2.4 | .306 | 28 | -.565 | 10 | 1.021 | 31 | .519 | 32 |
| 5 | Oklahoma | 8-1 | .225 | 5 | .267 | 6 | .324 | 34 | .445 | 9 | 9.6 | 2.1 | .445 | 12 | -.633 | 7 | .354 | 54 | .572 | 3 |
| 6 | Wisconsin | 6-2 | .223 | 8 | .365 | 1 | .390 | 64 | .698 | 54 | 9.3 | 2.5 | .571 | 5 | -.349 | 28 | -.064 | 62 | .525 | 28 |
| 7 | Boise State | 8-0 | .215 | 6 | .319 | 4 | .541 | 90 | .904 | 89 | 10.9 | 3.8 | .196 | 37 | -.539 | 12 | 2.964 | 9 | .616 | 1 |
| 8 | Clemson | 7-1 | .209 | 7 | .157 | 17 | .370 | 51 | .697 | 52 | 8.8 | 2.4 | .572 | 4 | -.257 | 34 | 1.558 | 23 | .534 | 18 |
| 9 | Oregon | 7-1 | .195 | 10 | .259 | 7 | .257 | 25 | .457 | 10 | 8.4 | 1.9 | .362 | 20 | -.570 | 9 | 1.814 | 17 | .504 | 53 |
| 10 | USC | 7-2 | .185 | 12 | .104 | 26 | .331 | 38 | .614 | 33 | 9.3 | 2.2 | .478 | 10 | -.088 | 51 | .921 | 35 | .535 | 17 |
| 11 | Arkansas | 7-1 | .174 | 18 | .106 | 24 | .306 | 30 | .258 | 1 | 7.9 | 1.8 | .331 | 26 | -.116 | 48 | 1.689 | 18 | .512 | 43 |
| 12 | Georgia Tech | 6-2 | .170 | 17 | .164 | 13 | .353 | 44 | .761 | 66 | 8.2 | 2.2 | .352 | 22 | -.389 | 20 | -1.942 | 101 | .504 | 56 |
| Rk | Team | FBS W-L |
FEI | Last Wk |
GE | GE Rk |
SOS Pvs |
Rk | SOS Fut |
Rk | FBS MW |
FBS RW |
OFEI | Rk | DFEI | Rk | STE | Rk | FPA | Rk |
| 13 | Ohio State | 6-3 | .159 | 13 | .103 | 27 | .231 | 17 | .609 | 31 | 8.1 | 2.0 | -.064 | 67 | -.603 | 8 | 2.735 | 11 | .562 | 4 |
| 14 | Michigan State | 6-2 | .158 | 9 | .090 | 31 | .219 | 14 | .657 | 41 | 7.4 | 2.1 | .062 | 50 | -.524 | 13 | 2.132 | 13 | .532 | 20 |
| 15 | Michigan | 7-2 | .157 | 15 | .216 | 10 | .373 | 54 | .588 | 23 | 8.7 | 1.7 | .377 | 17 | -.414 | 17 | -1.559 | 90 | .494 | 68 |
| 16 | Nebraska | 6-2 | .156 | 11 | .135 | 20 | .378 | 58 | .467 | 11 | 7.5 | 1.6 | .289 | 30 | -.115 | 49 | 3.066 | 8 | .542 | 13 |
| 17 | Florida State | 5-3 | .155 | 25 | .164 | 12 | .380 | 62 | .705 | 56 | 7.8 | 2.0 | .108 | 45 | -.411 | 18 | 2.946 | 10 | .541 | 14 |
| 18 | Southern Mississippi | 7-1 | .155 | 21 | .153 | 18 | .675 | 106 | .956 | 109 | 9.6 | 2.9 | -.023 | 58 | -.455 | 14 | .611 | 45 | .525 | 29 |
| 19 | Notre Dame | 6-3 | .154 | 20 | .163 | 15 | .328 | 37 | .553 | 17 | 8.4 | 2.1 | .357 | 21 | -.447 | 15 | .535 | 49 | .487 | 75 |
| 20 | Miami | 4-4 | .154 | 23 | .062 | 40 | .315 | 32 | .580 | 20 | 7.1 | 1.9 | .854 | 1 | .342 | 93 | 3.420 | 4 | .523 | 30 |
| 21 | Texas A&M | 5-4 | .153 | 16 | .101 | 28 | .237 | 19 | .656 | 39 | 8.2 | 2.1 | .477 | 11 | -.120 | 47 | .478 | 50 | .502 | 60 |
| 22 | Arizona State | 5-3 | .151 | 14 | .111 | 21 | .334 | 39 | .950 | 103 | 8.3 | 2.8 | .394 | 15 | -.357 | 25 | -.160 | 64 | .511 | 44 |
| 23 | Kansas State | 6-2 | .150 | 19 | .093 | 30 | .215 | 12 | .682 | 48 | 7.3 | 2.1 | .155 | 42 | -.348 | 29 | 2.041 | 15 | .557 | 6 |
| 24 | Cincinnati | 6-1 | .145 | 33 | .164 | 14 | .549 | 92 | .614 | 32 | 8.0 | 2.7 | .523 | 7 | -.150 | 43 | .816 | 40 | .547 | 11 |
| 25 | Penn State | 7-1 | .143 | 32 | .079 | 38 | .370 | 52 | .353 | 4 | 6.8 | 1.1 | -.135 | 81 | -.683 | 3 | .175 | 58 | .532 | 21 |
14 comments, Last at 22 Mar 2013, 1:57am by Leah Bathurst
Comments
Re: FEI: Eye Test
Brian,
Oregon is ranked above Stanford in OFEI, DFEI, and STE -- and it has a tougher SOS -- yet it's ranked several places behind Stanford in FEI. I'm not particularly skilled at getting a sense of things mathematical, so perhaps you can quickly tell me what I'm missing.
Re: FEI: Eye Test
The only difference, though it's fairly big, is on FPA. Which makes sense. Basically it means that the Ducks have been giving their opponents a lot better field position than they've been getting. If you think about the LSU game and the scoring 'drives' there, that's a good indicator.
But it is still a bit...odd.
Re: FEI: Eye Test
Let's take each team's Washington game as an example. It was Stanford's best overall game according to GFEI (No. 17 GFEI nationally) and Oregon's fifth-best overall game (No. 109 GFEI). Stanford was strong on both sides of the ball (No. 8 OFEI, No. 102 DFEI), while Oregon was much stronger defensively (No. 700 OFEI, No. 18 DFEI) due to great field position generated by the defense but not capitalized upon by the offense.
The overall FEI, OFEI, DFEI are all calculated independently. Stanford's overall FEI gets a little bit of a boost on this game due to having a stronger overall game. Oregon's defensive effort is given a big boost and its offensive effort suffers. But Oregon countered that with three other top-100 OFEI performances (vs. LSU, Nevada, and Cal). So the individual units shined more frequently for Oregon, but Stanford combined solid offense and defense in the same game more frequently.
Re: FEI: Eye Test
That still doesn't explain why Oregon ranks higher than Stanford in most of the categories but is still below them overall. Can you get into that at all?
Re: FEI: Eye Test
The special teams number is a factor. One thing that isn't counted in STE is opponent field goal efficiency. Stanford opponents have been the nation's worst field goal kickers, Oregon's opponents have been pretty good. Those numbers would show up in overall Game Efficiency, as evidenced by a comparison of the two teams' unit value splits: http://www.bcftoys.com/results/ Stanford is +28.3 points on the season in special teams, Oregon is only +16.7.
Also, though STE isn't opponent-adjusted like OFEI and DFEI, it does get incorporated into the opponent-adjusted GFEI. So without running actual opponent-adjusted STE to prove this, I believe that's where Stanford FEI edge comes from. It is also manifested in part in their field position advantage as you mentioned.
Re: FEI: Eye Test
Ugh. The LSU game was a nightmare for us Oregonians. Those turnovers...
A few weeks after that game, I read an interview with an LSU defender who said that all the hurry-up preparation they did for the Oregon game got them in incredible shape for the rest of the season.
Re: FEI: Eye Test
I think that's going to become the rule rather than the exception. With the practice rules, with the conditioning advantages, with the raw speed that you get - you'll definitely get big benefits. The Ducks have seen massive improvements in every reasonable category - including and possibly especially defense - since Kelly's been doing practices. It only seems logical that other teams would start adopting it.
Re: FEI: Eye Test
That and LSU's non-existent academic standards. =)
Re: FEI: Eye Test
The LSU-Alabama game was an absolute stinker, because it wasn't the (obviously competent) defenses that kept the score down. Alabama, clearly the better team during the game, badly missed four field goals they should have made; it has been quite a while since I've seen such a bad display of field goal kicking. The quarterback play for both teams was mediocre. None of the receivers made the great catches. The only player on either offense who passed the sight test was Trent Richardson. Alabama gave the game away, and LSU was just barely good enough to take advantage of it. If that was 1 v. 2, the state of college football is abysmal. Hopefully that was just a randomly terrible game.
I've seen all of the highly ranked teams in your system a bit this year, and most of the positions of teams make a fair bit of sense. Stanford is an extremely talented team, though I'm not sold on their coach. Oklahoma State is probably not really that good, but they've certainly been successful. Wisconsin has a stellar O-line; it is a bit surprising they managed to lose two games. Boisie State is probably the best coached team in FBS football. I haven't really seen much of Clemson. It is hard to hold their loss to the top ranked team against Oregon,but they're probably not as good as advertised.
Oklahoma seems a bit out of place to me. Landry Jones is a good, but not great QB. Oklahoma does not have a great RB. Broyles is a standout at receiver, but unfortunately is now gone. They probably do not have an offense that is top 20 at this point. The defense is far from dominant (shouldn't number 7 be dominant?), though obviously good. Top 10 team? Yeah. Top 5? No.
USC comes in at ten, and, as a fan, I wish I could say they deserve it, but they don't. The defense is ranked 58, and I'm not sure that is bad enough. The coverage is atrocious. The holes in the zone scheme are trivial to exploit. In pursuit, everyone takes the wrong angle. Tackling seems actively discouraged. The d-line is ok, but not that powerful, and not that good at getting pressure either. Special teams is a distinct weakness as well. The offense is excellent, but relies on a few special players to be that way. The offensive line is not as good as advertised. Tyler is a good running back, but has issues. Mcneal is only a decent runningback, and cost USC several times. Robert Woods is an excellent receiver, but would be much better if he stopped dropping easy catches that would be good gains; he has several in most of the games. Marquise Lee is an excellent freshman, and a very good number two receiver, though he needs to cut down on the drops too. Matt Barkley is phenomenal; if he was just "pretty good", USC would be a team struggling to be bowl eligible rather than being 7-2; he's probably worth 3 or 4 wins for the Trojans above a "pretty good" quarterback.
Re: FEI: Eye Test
To be clear, I know USC cannot be bowl eligible, I was just using it as short hand for six wins.
Re: FEI: Eye Test
I've only seen two USC games this year -- Notre Dame and Stanford -- and I'm tempted to agree with your assessment about the Trojan defense, but I think it's more subtle than that. Monte Kiffin has consistently held a defensive philosophy that gives up field position while waiting for the offense to make mistakes. I'd say that pretty well sums up the USC defensive performances I've seen. (Of course, they may be outliers; I wouldn't know.)
I completely agree with your opinion that USC's record would be much worse were Barkley good-but-not-great. He's a phenomenal college QB. I really hope he gets a good chance to succeed on Sundays.
Re: FEI: Eye Test
Most obvious teams missing from FEI top 25 are South Carolina, Georgia, and Auburn. Also, FEI rates every single Big 10 team higher than BCS, which is extremely interesting. South Carolina, Kansas State, Georgia, and Texas are the top 4 2-loss teams in BCS, while in FEI it's Wisconsin, (USC), Georgia Tech, and then three more Big 10 schools.
Oh, and Houston and Virginia Tech. Those are both easily explainable voting on record instead of how well the team does.
Re: FEI: Eye Test
Examsmafia.com provides its customers genuine and quality study material. The study material for the certification 70-498 exam is thoroughly researched and prepared by IT industry experts who have deep knowledge and exposure of the candidates’ needs and problems. The 70-498 study material is also being constantly updated and amendments are being made whenever required in order to keep the content valid and relevant. Thus there is no question of authenticity with the 70-498 exam material provided by http://www.examsmafia.com/70-498.html. Our 70-498 study material is to the point, interactive and very easy in learning. Thus candidates from varying academic backgrounds find it the best and easy way of preparation for their certification 70-498 exams.
Re: FEI: Eye Test
They should get their eyes checked to prevent this from happening again. A good eyesight is what they need to able to judge the game carefully.