Lane Johnson and D.J. Fluker were selected high in the draft, but both have troubling flaws in pass protection according to Word of Muth.
14 Nov 2012
by Brian Fremeau
There are now only three undefeated contenders remaining in the BCS championship race, and the polls and computers responded to the Alabama upset pretty much as expected. Slide the Crimson Tide down a few notches, move a few teams up one spot, and maintain poll anchoring logic above all else. Readers of this column over the years won’t be surprised to know that the FEI ratings responded a bit differently.
Poll anchoring is not the goal here. The season cannot be evaluated based only on the results of the previous weekend as compared to the previous week’s rankings. From my perspective, the totality of the season needs to be re-evaluated each week.
Why is Kansas State the No. 1 team in FEI this week? The answer is not tied to its position last week. The answer is that the Wildcats have the best overall profile, ranking in the top 20 in Offensive FEI (OFEI), Defensive FEI (DFEI), and Special Teams Efficiency (STE). They are No. 1 in that last category by a large margin, earning 4.5 points more than average per game on special teams play (2.6 standard deviations better than average).
Why is Alabama the No. 2 team in FEI this week? The answer is that, along with Kansas State, they are the only other team in the nation to rank among the top 20 in OFEI, DFEI, and STE. (In fact, they are in the top-15 in all three categories.) A five-point loss to No. 6 Texas A&M in a game in which they lost the turnover value margin by 12.2 points is not a crippling loss. They have a stronger Game Efficiency than the Wildcats against what is now measured as a slightly stronger schedule to date. (They do play the nation’s easiest remaining regular-season schedule, so don’t be surprised if that position doesn’t hold firm in the coming weeks.)
Why is Oregon the No. 3 team in FEI this week? The Ducks are in the top 25 in OFEI, DFEI, and STE, despite playing a much weaker schedule strength to date than the other major contenders. Their raw Game Efficiency is No. 1, and if that keeps up in their remaining games against good teams (Stanford, Oregon State, and a Pac-12 title game against USC or UCLA), I expect Oregon will vault ahead to the top of the season-ending FEI ratings.
Why is Notre Dame the No. 4 team in FEI this week? The Irish have not been as dominant as the three teams ahead of them, but they have played the toughest schedule to date among them. Their offensive strength of schedule (opposing defenses) is light years better than Oregon’s and Kansas State’s, and their opponent-adjusted OFEI ranking reflects that. Their defense has been consistently dominant all season long and ranks No. 1 in that category. Their weakness is special teams, where they have cost themselves field-position value in seven of their ten games to date. With above-average special teams, their closest calls wouldn’t have been as close.
Those four teams are the best four teams in the country. The BCS ranks them in a particular order. FEI ranks them in another order, and the difference between their overall profiles is very close. Reasonable poll voters can consider this and other data, weight teams based on who is most deserving, trump up teams for best wins, knock teams down for worst wins, etc. I still expect an upset or two may shake up the BCS standings down the stretch, and I expect we’ll be considering the merits of all four of these teams when the championship match-up is selected.
This weekly feature identifies the games played each week that were most impacted by turnovers, special teams, field position, or some combination of the three. The neutralized margin of victory is a function of the point values earned and surrendered based on field position and expected scoring rates.
| Week 11 Games In Which Total Turnover Value Exceeded Non-Garbage Final Score Margin | |||||||||||||||||
| Date | Winning Team | Non-Garbage Final Score |
Losing Team | TTV + |
TTV - |
TTV Net |
TO Neutral Score Margin |
||||||||||
| 11/10 | Buffalo | 29-24 | Western Michigan | 20.2 | 3.7 | 16.5 | -11.5 | ||||||||||
| 11/10 | Central Florida | 31-24 | UTEP | 15.2 | 4.2 | 11.0 | -4.0 | ||||||||||
| 11/10 | Central Michigan | 34-31 | Eastern Michigan | 10.7 | 3.7 | 7.0 | -4.0 | ||||||||||
| 11/10 | Florida Atlantic | 31-28 | Western Kentucky | 17.1 | 9.3 | 7.8 | -4.8 | ||||||||||
| 11/10 | Massachusetts | 22-14 | Akron | 21.7 | 9.0 | 12.7 | -4.7 | ||||||||||
| 11/10 | Rutgers | 21-7 | Army | 18.3 | 2.8 | 15.5 | -1.5 | ||||||||||
| 11/10 | Texas A&M | 29-24 | Alabama | 12.2 | 0.0 | 12.2 | -7.2 | ||||||||||
| 11/10 | Virginia | 41-40 | Miami | 4.7 | 2.5 | 2.2 | -1.2 | ||||||||||
| Week 11 Games In Which Special Teams Value Exceeded Non-Garbage Final Score Margin | |||||||||||||||||
| Date | Winning Team | Non-Garbage Final Score |
Losing Team | STV + |
STV Neutral Score Margin |
||||||||||||
| 11/10 | Florida Atlantic | 31-28 | Western Kentucky | 5.2 | -2.2 | ||||||||||||
| 11/10 | Missouri | 51-48 | Tennessee | 9.3 | -6.3 | ||||||||||||
| 11/10 | UCLA | 44-36 | Washington State | 10.1 | -2.1 | ||||||||||||
| Week 11 Games In Which Field Position Value Exceeded Non-Garbage Final Score Margin | |||||||||||||||||
| Date | Winning Team | Non-Garbage Final Score |
Losing Team | FPV + |
FPV - |
FPV Net |
FPV Neutral Score Margin |
||||||||||
| 11/10 | Central Michigan | 34-31 | Eastern Michigan | 23.4 | 19.2 | 4.2 | -1.2 | ||||||||||
| 11/10 | Florida | 27-20 | Louisiana Lafayette | 29.4 | 20.6 | 8.8 | -1.8 | ||||||||||
| 11/10 | Florida Atlantic | 31-28 | Western Kentucky | 32.6 | 28.2 | 4.4 | -1.4 | ||||||||||
| 11/10 | Massachusetts | 22-14 | Akron | 32.2 | 16.9 | 15.3 | -7.3 | ||||||||||
| 11/10 | Missouri | 51-48 | Tennessee | 39.7 | 34.5 | 5.2 | -2.2 | ||||||||||
| 11/10 | UCLA | 44-36 | Washington State | 39.5 | 24.5 | 15.0 | -7.0 | ||||||||||
| 11/10 | Vanderbilt | 27-26 | Mississippi | 24.5 | 22.0 | 2.5 | -1.5 | ||||||||||
2012 totals to date:
2012 Game Splits for all teams, including the offensive, defensive, special teams, field position, and turnover values recorded in each FBS game are provided here.
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 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.
Other definitions:
These FEI ratings are a function of results of games played through November 3rd. The ratings for all FBS teams, including FEI splits for Offense, Defense, and Special Teams can be found here. Program FEI (five-year weighted) ratings and other supplemental drive-based data can be found here.
| Rk | Team | FBS Rec |
FEI | LW | GE | GE Rk |
SOS Pvs |
Rk | SOS Fut |
Rk | FBS MW |
FBS RMW |
OFEI | Rk | DFEI | Rk | STE | Rk | FPA | Rk |
| 1 | Kansas State | 9-0 | .306 | 1 | .306 | 3 | .292 | 47 | .775 | 41 | 10.0 | 1.8 | .373 | 18 | -.617 | 5 | 4.498 | 1 | .589 | 1 |
| 2 | Alabama | 9-1 | .283 | 2 | .314 | 2 | .279 | 45 | .985 | 124 | 9.9 | 1.0 | .381 | 15 | -.553 | 11 | 2.411 | 10 | .562 | 6 |
| 3 | Oregon | 9-0 | .281 | 5 | .390 | 1 | .512 | 88 | .484 | 8 | 9.8 | 1.4 | .477 | 8 | -.511 | 15 | 1.603 | 23 | .540 | 18 |
| 4 | Notre Dame | 10-0 | .279 | 3 | .162 | 18 | .219 | 30 | .700 | 25 | 10.4 | 1.7 | .525 | 6 | -.748 | 1 | -.955 | 90 | .488 | 75 |
| 5 | Oklahoma | 6-2 | .258 | 4 | .227 | 7 | .173 | 20 | .741 | 35 | 8.9 | 2.6 | .450 | 10 | -.535 | 12 | 1.440 | 28 | .510 | 55 |
| 6 | Texas A&M | 7-2 | .241 | 9 | .183 | 13 | .193 | 25 | .979 | 120 | 8.2 | 1.0 | .608 | 4 | -.300 | 31 | -.750 | 85 | .506 | 59 |
| 7 | Florida | 9-1 | .241 | 6 | .146 | 20 | .216 | 28 | .605 | 19 | 8.7 | 0.5 | .085 | 49 | -.730 | 2 | 3.170 | 2 | .552 | 8 |
| 8 | Oregon State | 7-2 | .223 | 7 | .086 | 36 | .223 | 32 | .592 | 14 | 8.3 | 1.4 | .403 | 14 | -.468 | 17 | .576 | 46 | .507 | 57 |
| 9 | Florida State | 7-1 | .213 | 8 | .247 | 5 | .569 | 98 | .703 | 26 | 8.4 | 1.4 | .127 | 43 | -.610 | 6 | 1.830 | 19 | .551 | 9 |
| 10 | LSU | 7-2 | .207 | 11 | .141 | 23 | .135 | 8 | .956 | 87 | 8.3 | 1.8 | .162 | 37 | -.584 | 7 | .971 | 36 | .550 | 10 |
| 11 | Nebraska | 7-2 | .205 | 12 | .057 | 44 | .167 | 18 | .877 | 61 | 8.1 | 1.7 | .617 | 3 | -.414 | 21 | -2.202 | 114 | .449 | 114 |
| 12 | Ohio State | 10-0 | .204 | 10 | .170 | 17 | .366 | 62 | .617 | 21 | 9.7 | 1.3 | .523 | 7 | -.432 | 20 | -1.140 | 95 | .503 | 62 |
| Rk | Team | FBS Rec |
FEI | LW | GE | GE Rk |
SOS Pvs |
Rk | SOS Fut |
Rk | FBS MW |
FBS RMW |
OFEI | Rk | DFEI | Rk | STE | Rk | FPA | Rk |
| 13 | Stanford | 8-2 | .174 | 21 | .139 | 24 | .216 | 29 | .324 | 1 | 8.1 | 0.7 | .071 | 51 | -.634 | 4 | 1.389 | 30 | .562 | 5 |
| 14 | South Carolina | 8-2 | .173 | 15 | .181 | 14 | .239 | 37 | .722 | 31 | 8.1 | 0.5 | .102 | 46 | -.567 | 10 | -.494 | 79 | .506 | 60 |
| 15 | Georgia | 9-1 | .172 | 16 | .227 | 6 | .353 | 57 | .945 | 79 | 8.9 | 0.8 | .366 | 19 | -.321 | 26 | .209 | 55 | .527 | 29 |
| 16 | Wisconsin | 6-3 | .168 | 29 | .146 | 19 | .246 | 39 | .599 | 16 | 7.5 | 1.0 | .132 | 42 | -.511 | 14 | .443 | 48 | .541 | 16 |
| 17 | Cincinnati | 5-2 | .158 | 13 | .143 | 21 | .629 | 103 | .888 | 63 | 8.0 | 2.4 | .266 | 28 | -.574 | 8 | .425 | 50 | .526 | 30 |
| 18 | USC | 7-3 | .156 | 19 | .143 | 22 | .225 | 34 | .456 | 7 | 7.8 | 0.8 | .278 | 26 | -.244 | 34 | 2.241 | 13 | .525 | 33 |
| 19 | Clemson | 8-1 | .150 | 20 | .193 | 11 | .498 | 85 | .803 | 44 | 8.6 | 1.3 | .429 | 12 | -.039 | 58 | 2.521 | 8 | .541 | 15 |
| 20 | Texas | 8-2 | .149 | 25 | .113 | 32 | .315 | 51 | .331 | 2 | 8.3 | 0.9 | .354 | 22 | -.034 | 61 | 2.551 | 7 | .564 | 4 |
| 21 | Michigan State | 5-5 | .148 | 18 | .041 | 47 | .153 | 11 | .861 | 53 | 7.5 | 1.4 | -.025 | 63 | -.712 | 3 | -.337 | 71 | .492 | 71 |
| 22 | UCLA | 8-2 | .138 | 14 | .119 | 31 | .435 | 73 | .704 | 27 | 8.5 | 1.0 | .215 | 32 | -.412 | 22 | -.398 | 75 | .558 | 7 |
| 23 | BYU | 5-4 | .137 | 17 | .127 | 28 | .161 | 16 | .849 | 50 | 7.3 | 1.6 | .056 | 53 | -.528 | 13 | -1.014 | 91 | .513 | 51 |
| 24 | Boise State | 8-2 | .134 | 23 | .213 | 9 | .521 | 89 | .948 | 80 | 9.9 | 1.7 | .104 | 45 | -.472 | 16 | -.756 | 86 | .542 | 14 |
| 25 | Oklahoma State | 5-3 | .133 | 22 | .091 | 35 | .222 | 31 | .432 | 5 | 6.9 | 1.5 | .462 | 9 | -.143 | 44 | 2.297 | 12 | .471 | 95 |
10 comments, Last at 15 Nov 2012, 9:52pm by Brian Fremeau
Comments
Re: FEI Week 11: Close Call
I think what Fremeau does is great, but sentences like these are worthless: "I still expect an upset or two may shake up the BCS standings down the stretch, and I expect we’ll be considering the merits of all four of these teams when the championship match-up is selected."
Yes, upsets may shake up BCS standings. They may not. I may be six feet tall. I may not. Of course, not all may/may not sentences are worthless. You can say "a loss by Alabama may not drop it in the polls as much as you think" where your "may not" is contra conventional wisdom. Nevertheless, saying that upsets may shake up the BCS standings is sort of banal.
Also, it seems quite clear that we will be considering the merits of the four major teams when the championship match-up is selected. I guess the sentence is trying to say that the author expects that these specific four teams will all be in the championship conversation, and not some other teams? Or is he saying that whiles there's a good chance that he could be discussion the merits of only three teams that he still expects he'll be discussing all four? I don't know.
Re: FEI Week 11: Close Call
It's not a ground-breaking insight, but (not so much here as other places) people can get a bit nutty by assuming that the current standings will hold till the end of the year and college football fans have been known to perceive slights that don't exist (especially this year, where all 4 teams have reasonable cases).
At least as I take it, the sentence is just a reminder along those lines, that no one's locked in or out of the championship yet (well, a lot of teams are locked out, but none of these 4).
Again, not anything revelatory, but it does have a purpose/some worth.
And since I've just spent three sentences on an offhand comment rather than the main point of the article, let me just add that those rankings seem pretty reasonable to me.
Re: FEI Week 11: Close Call
It was a banal comment. I did mean that these are the four teams, the only four teams, that are worth discussing now and that will all be worth discussing in the end.
Re: FEI Week 11: Close Call
Had McCarron's fourth and goal pass fallen incomplete rather being intercepted, is it treated differently by FEI? I don't believe the receiver had a play on it regardless - it was thrown significantly behind him.
Will
Re: FEI Week 11: Close Call
The turnover value would have been calculated differently, but the efficiency of both teams remains the same. A&M stopped Alabama on the final non-garbage possession of the game.
Re: FEI Week 11: Close Call
Michigan State seems to be using a great defense to overcome mediocre special teams and offense, as are BYU and Boise State. The implication is that with that performance to date, against a slate of average teams, MSU would be the 20-25th best team in the country. That seems *extremely* generous to me - watching the Michigan game, I saw a team with a solid-to-good defense battling a conservative but good offense to a draw, but a team which couldn't move the ball at all without a fake punt or unlikely-to-be-repeated defender error on long pass plays, and made several special teams errors (like the missed FG). (Admittedly, that's the only time I paid close attention.) I think that they would end up about where they are, given that their defense can't really rack enough points for a victory. Maybe the win over Boise is propping them up?
Re: FEI Week 11: Close Call
MSU has one of the best opponent-adjusted defenses in the country, and they've played the second-toughest schedule to date of any of the teams in the top-25. They lost to Ohio State by 1 point, Michigan by 2 points, and Nebraska by 4 points. If they were 8-2 against their schedule instead of 5-5, they'd also probably be ranked in the same spot.
Re: FEI Week 11: Close Call
I appreciate that strength of schedule is a big deal, but rating ND's offense as better than Oregon's is, to quote Vincent Vega, a bold statement. It's a shame ND's specials are so bad. With a number that bad, it can't just be the kicker. Maybe a sign of lack of athletic depth?
Re: FEI Week 11: Close Call
Also, does this take into account the fact that Oregon has effectively shut off its offense in the 2nd half of many games this year?
Re: FEI Week 11: Close Call
Yes. FEI does something to figure out when garbage time is and rates the game based on that. It's not always what I would call non garbage time but its pretty close. You can see those breakdowns at bcftoys.com.
Post new comment