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.
19 Sep 2012
by Brian Fremeau
The third weekend of the college football season showcased a few more surprises, highlighted by Stanford's victory over USC and impressive road victories from Florida and Notre Dame. The Gators, Irish, and Cardinal are all in this week's FEI top 10, and though there will certainly be other tough tests in the coming weeks and months, each is well positioned to be part of the national championship discussion throughout the course of the season.
They are all well-positioned in part because none of them have to face Alabama in the regular season. The Crimson Tide obliterated Arkansas 52-0 on Saturday, a lopsided result at least partially attributable to the fragile emotional state of affairs in Fayetteville. But it's also an indicator of how much better Alabama may be than the rest of the nation. The Crimson Tide had the highest FEI projection at the start of the season, and through three games, no team has exceeded its projection in terms of raw game efficiency more than Alabama has.
In the weekly FEI tables published here, I include a couple of columns regarding mean wins. One column represents the average total wins against FBS opponents a team should expect against its entire schedule, and the other represents the average total against its remaining games. Adding the remaining mean wins projection to actual wins already recorded gives us the actual updated projection for the end of the regular season.
Alabama's FBS mean wins projection is now 10.1, up from 9.3 at the start of the year. The Crimson Tide are the only team that had been projected to win more than nine FBS games at the start of the year which also saw their mean wins projection rise over the first three weeks. Boise State has held steady at 9.9 wins. The rest have drifted down, including USC (10.1 preseason, down to 8.5 this week).
The following table represents the five teams that have improved their season win projection most dramatically in the first three weeks of the year, and the five teams that are now projected to fall well short of their preseason outlook according to FEI.
| FEI Season Win Projection Top Five Risers | |||||
| FEI Rank |
Team | FBS W-L |
Preseason Proj MW |
Current Proj MW |
Change +/- |
| 51 | Northwestern | 3-0 | 3.6 | 7.2 | +3.6 |
| 67 | Louisiana Monroe | 1-1 | 5.7 | 9.0 | +3.3 |
| 34 | UCLA | 3-0 | 5.3 | 8.3 | +3.0 |
| 32 | Arizona | 2-0 | 3.9 | 6.7 | +2.9 |
| 6 | Notre Dame | 3-0 | 7.2 | 10.0 | +2.8 |
| FEI Season Win Projection Bottom Five Fallers | |||||
| FEI Rank |
Team | FBS W-L |
Preseason Proj MW |
Current Proj MW |
Change +/- |
| 85 | Southern Mississippi | 0-2 | 8.1 | 5.1 | -3.0 |
| 25 | Oklahoma State | 1-1 | 8.3 | 5.2 | -3.1 |
| 46 | Arkansas | 0-2 | 7.5 | 4.2 | -3.2 |
| 103 | Navy | 0-2 | 7.6 | 3.9 | -3.7 |
| 98 | Houston | 0-3 | 9.5 | 4.3 | -5.2 |
Not every team has experienced a significant change in its mean wins projection through the first part of the season, but there has been plenty of shifting. Half of all teams have had a projection shift of less than one game, but the average shift to date in mean wins for all teams is 1.2 games. The chart below illustrates the mean wins adjustment for each team from our preseason FEI projections to date.
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 3 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 |
||||||||||
| 9/13 | Rutgers | 23-13 | South Florida | 15.6 | 3.3 | 12.3 | -2.3 | ||||||||||
| 9/15 | Connecticut | 24-21 | Maryland | 6.9 | 3.2 | 3.7 | -0.7 | ||||||||||
| 9/15 | East Carolina | 24-14 | Southern Mississippi | 13.5 | 0.0 | 13.5 | -3.5 | ||||||||||
| 9/15 | Mississippi State | 30-24 | Troy | 12.1 | 0.0 | 12.1 | -6.1 | ||||||||||
| 9/15 | Missouri | 24-20 | Arizona State | 16.3 | 3.5 | 12.8 | -8.8 | ||||||||||
| 9/15 | Ohio | 27-24 | Marshall | 13.5 | 3.8 | 9.7 | -6.7 | ||||||||||
| 9/15 | Utah | 24-21 | BYU | 10.5 | 0.0 | 10.5 | -7.5 | ||||||||||
| 9/15 | Western Kentucky | 32-31 | Kentucky | 13.3 | 3.4 | 9.9 | -8.9 | ||||||||||
| Week 3 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 |
||||||||||||
| 9/15 | Auburn | 31-28 | Louisiana Monroe | 7.8 | -4.8 | ||||||||||||
| 9/15 | Ball State | 41-39 | Indiana | 5.4 | -3.4 | ||||||||||||
| 9/15 | Mississippi State | 30-24 | Troy | 7.9 | -1.9 | ||||||||||||
| 9/15 | Northern Illinois | 41-40 | Army | 1.7 | -0.7 | ||||||||||||
| 9/15 | Utah | 24-21 | BYU | 3.8 | -0.8 | ||||||||||||
| 9/15 | Wisconsin | 16-14 | Utah State | 5.7 | -3.7 | ||||||||||||
| Week 3 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 |
||||||||||
| 9/15 | Auburn | 31-28 | Louisiana Monroe | 23.6 | 19.7 | 3.9 | -0.9 | ||||||||||
| 9/15 | Ball State | 41-39 | Indiana | 29.5 | 19.6 | 9.9 | -7.9 | ||||||||||
| 9/15 | Connecticut | 24-21 | Maryland | 31.4 | 23.1 | 8.3 | -5.3 | ||||||||||
| 9/15 | Missouri | 24-20 | Arizona State | 33.4 | 26.5 | 6.9 | -2.9 | ||||||||||
| 9/15 | Utah | 24-21 | BYU | 31.8 | 26.5 | 5.3 | -2.3 | ||||||||||
| 9/15 | Wisconsin | 16-14 | Utah State | 28.9 | 26.6 | 2.3 | -0.3 | ||||||||||
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. 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 listed here includes future games scheduled.
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 Efficiency (OE) is the raw unadjusted efficiency of the given team's offense, a measure of its actual drive success against expected drive success based on field position. Defensive Efficiency (DE) is the raw unadjusted efficiency of the given team's defense, a measure of the actual drive success of its opponents against expected drive success based on field position. Field Position Advantage (FPA) is 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. Since limited data is available in the early part of the season, preseason projections are factored into the current ratings. The weight given to projected data will be reduced each week until Week 7, when it will be eliminated entirely. Opponent-adjusted offensive and defensive FEI ratings will also debut in Week 7.
These FEI ratings are a function of results of games played through September 15. The ratings for all FBS teams can be found here.
| Rank | Team | FBS W-L |
FEI | Last Wk |
GE | GE Rk |
SOS | SOS Rk |
FBS MW |
FBS RMW |
OE | OE Rk |
DE | DE Rk |
FPA | FPA Rk |
| 1 | Alabama | 3-0 | .324 | 1 | .458 | 5 | .188 | 51 | 10.0 | 7.1 | .308 | 31 | -1.178 | 2 | .647 | 3 |
| 2 | Oklahoma | 1-0 | .291 | 2 | .187 | 22 | .047 | 7 | 8.6 | 7.6 | .027 | 54 | -.874 | 5 | .494 | 62 |
| 3 | Florida State | 1-0 | .275 | 10 | .494 | 4 | .174 | 47 | 8.3 | 7.3 | .382 | 26 | -1.368 | 1 | .664 | 1 |
| 4 | Florida | 3-0 | .266 | 8 | .133 | 36 | .072 | 17 | 8.5 | 6.1 | .081 | 45 | -.139 | 46 | .533 | 38 |
| 5 | LSU | 3-0 | .259 | 3 | .429 | 7 | .088 | 24 | 8.7 | 5.8 | .525 | 19 | -.851 | 6 | .628 | 4 |
| 6 | Notre Dame | 3-0 | .257 | 9 | .227 | 15 | .076 | 18 | 9.5 | 7.0 | .293 | 32 | -.661 | 14 | .546 | 30 |
| 7 | West Virginia | 1-0 | .245 | 6 | .500 | 3 | .065 | 15 | 8.1 | 7.1 | 2.334 | 1 | -.088 | 53 | .556 | 25 |
| 8 | Oregon | 2-0 | .231 | 14 | .350 | 10 | .202 | 52 | 9.0 | 7.0 | .898 | 10 | -.535 | 25 | .487 | 69 |
| 9 | Texas | 3-0 | .221 | 21 | .418 | 9 | .058 | 10 | 8.6 | 5.7 | 1.148 | 4 | -.061 | 59 | .611 | 6 |
| 10 | Stanford | 3-0 | .220 | 20 | .187 | 23 | .116 | 35 | 9.2 | 6.6 | -.045 | 64 | -.650 | 16 | .593 | 8 |
| 11 | Georgia | 3-0 | .219 | 4 | .307 | 12 | .174 | 48 | 8.6 | 5.9 | .484 | 21 | -.535 | 26 | .588 | 10 |
| 12 | Texas Tech | 2-0 | .217 | 19 | .625 | 2 | .062 | 13 | 7.5 | 5.5 | 1.921 | 2 | -.325 | 37 | .573 | 20 |
| Rank | Team | FBS W-L |
FEI | Last Wk |
GE | GE Rk |
SOS | SOS Rk |
FBS MW |
FBS RMW |
OE | OE Rk |
DE | DE Rk |
FPA | FPA Rk |
| 13 | Kansas State | 2-0 | .213 | 16 | .441 | 6 | .044 | 4 | 7.2 | 5.3 | 1.121 | 5 | -.428 | 30 | .579 | 15 |
| 14 | TCU | 1-0 | .211 | 23 | .200 | 19 | .058 | 11 | 7.3 | 6.3 | -.042 | 63 | -.764 | 10 | .587 | 11 |
| 15 | USC | 2-1 | .210 | 7 | .193 | 20 | .114 | 33 | 8.8 | 6.5 | .116 | 43 | -.352 | 35 | .561 | 24 |
| 16 | Cincinnati | 1-0 | .210 | 18 | .421 | 8 | .318 | 73 | 8.0 | 7.2 | 1.059 | 7 | -.993 | 3 | .473 | 80 |
| 17 | South Carolina | 3-0 | .203 | 15 | .294 | 13 | .079 | 19 | 7.6 | 4.8 | .202 | 38 | -.911 | 4 | .506 | 53 |
| 18 | Clemson | 2-0 | .192 | 13 | .218 | 17 | .161 | 44 | 7.9 | 6.1 | .749 | 13 | -.158 | 44 | .514 | 47 |
| 19 | Georgia Tech | 1-1 | .190 | 25 | .223 | 16 | .154 | 42 | 8.0 | 6.5 | .379 | 27 | -.546 | 24 | .482 | 75 |
| 20 | Ohio State | 3-0 | .186 | 5 | .179 | 25 | .314 | 72 | 9.6 | 6.9 | .348 | 28 | -.191 | 42 | .512 | 50 |
| 21 | Michigan State | 2-1 | .178 | 11 | .097 | 43 | .246 | 59 | 9.0 | 7.0 | -.151 | 74 | -.709 | 12 | .476 | 78 |
| 22 | Virginia Tech | 1-1 | .173 | 12 | -.086 | 77 | .101 | 28 | 7.0 | 5.9 | -.536 | 105 | -.007 | 67 | .520 | 42 |
| 23 | Rutgers | 2-0 | .172 | 42 | .128 | 39 | .245 | 58 | 8.3 | 6.8 | -.130 | 70 | -.623 | 18 | .575 | 18 |
| 24 | Boise State | 1-1 | .153 | 30 | .173 | 26 | .463 | 95 | 10.2 | 8.9 | .117 | 42 | -.428 | 29 | .539 | 33 |
| 25 | Oklahoma State | 1-1 | .148 | 28 | .131 | 37 | .045 | 6 | 5.7 | 4.2 | .843 | 11 | .157 | 78 | .445 | 91 |
1 comment, Last at 08 Dec 2012, 3:20am by john123456
Comments
Re: FEI Week 3: Mean Wins Update
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.