Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

Most Recent FO Features

RiceSid07.jpg

» Sidney Rice: What Could Have Been?

Sidney Rice has retired. Is he the most random single-season DYAR leader ever? One-year wonder? Injury prone? We offer a career retrospective for the second-best wide receiver named Rice in NFL history.

21 Nov 2013

VN: Weighing Offense and Defense

by Bill Connelly

A funny thing happens when you come up with your own system of ratings: Through time, you begin to resent teams or units or players, the outliers (the ones you cannot immediately understand or explain, anyway) that skeptics might point to in order to knock the legitimacy of your numbers. You find yourself thinking things like, "Dammit, Northern Illinois, why won't you lose already?" even when you enjoy NIU and love watching the Huskies' quarterback, Jordan Lynch. (That cutback touchdown sprint he had Wednesday night against Toledo was thrilling.)

For the most part, this year's outliers have followed a pattern. "How the hell is Virginia Tech ranked so high?" "It's that defense." "How the hell is USC ranked so high?" "Defense." "How the hell is Florida ranked so high [a few weeks ago, before everything fell apart in a hailstorm of injuries and offensive incompetence]?" "Defense." The teams that have stood out the furthest in 2013, in terms of the difference between eyeball perceptions and numbers, have mostly been those on the highest end of the defensive ratings.

There's one other thing teams like Virginia Tech and USC have in common this year: losses. The Hokies are currently 7-4 with a fantastic defense and an offense that (Miami performance aside) oscillates mostly between iffy and the other definition of offensive. Meanwhile, USC is 8-3 with an offense that is better than Virginia Tech's, but not vastly so. I could point out that five of the two teams' seven losses came by one possession (and the other two were blowout losses to the teams currently ranked second and sixth in the F/+ rankings). But let's overreact for a moment, just in case it serves a purpose.

I've been apologizing for all-defense, minimal-offense teams enough this year that I decided to look into the matter. Is there a chance that we should be weighing offensive ratings slightly more than defense? Is there something about the college game -- the occasional lack of elite skill (or the wide array between highest skill and lowest), the pace, etc. -- that would make it more of an offense-first game?

The short version: Maybe, but probably not. But here's the longer version.

Out of curiosity as much as anything else, I decided to tinker with old S&P+ ratings. Leaving 2013 out of the equation for now, I looked at the 2005-12 and 2010-12 ranges (the former because it's the biggest, the latter because it's the most recent). In the name of quickness, my first step was going to be comparing S&P+ ratings, both the official one and a new, adjusted one, to a team's win percentage and percentage of overall points scored. Typically, S&P+ has a correlation of about 0.85 to win percentage and 0.92 to percentage of points.

My second step, tinker with weights. To create a new S&P+, I looked at what would happen if we gave offense 55 percent of the overall S&P+ weight, then 60 percent. As it turns out, there might be a slight, positive impact here, and it peaks around 55 percent.

A weight of 55 percent seems to do the following to the correlations:

  • The correlation between a team's S&P+ rating and win percentage moves from 0.850 to 0.853.
  • The correlation between a team's S&P+ ratings and its percentage of points scored moves from 0.916 to 0.917.
  • Using only 2010-12 data, the correlation between S&P+ and win percentage moves from 0.843 to 0.847
  • Using only 2010-12 data, the correlation between S&P+ and percentage of points moves from 0.914 to 0.917.

So maybe … maybe there's something there. Something infinitesimal. In the offseason, I will tinker with these same weights to see what they do to the predictive side of S&P+. And if there's an effect there, I will probably take them into account in the overall ratings. I'm all for improvements, even small ones. Until then, however, this is as much a thought experiment as anything else.

But since I did the work (no wasted effort here!), let's take a look at what this adjustment would do to the 2013 S&P+ ratings. Since it is, in the grand scheme of things, pretty small, would it even have the intended impact?

Adjusted S&P+ ratings (with 55% weight for offense, 45% for defense)
Team Record S&P+ Rk Off. S&P+
Rk Def. S&P+
Rk NEW S&P+
w/different weight
Rk Change in
rating
Change in rank
Florida State 10-0 317.3 1 159.3 1 158.0 2 317.4 1 0.1 0
Baylor 9-0 298.1 2 156.0 2 142.1 9 299.5 2 1.4 0
Alabama 10-0 285.0 3 125.8 11 159.2 1 281.7 3 -3.3 0
Wisconsin 8-2 268.0 4 123.5 13 144.5 7 265.9 4 -2.1 0
Oregon 9-1 259.5 6 135.1 5 124.5 17 260.6 5 1.1 1
Stanford 8-2 262.3 5 117.7 21 144.6 6 259.7 6 -2.7 -1
Ohio State 10-0 254.6 8 137.2 4 117.4 31 256.6 7 2.0 1
Louisville 9-1 258.4 7 115.8 23 142.6 8 255.7 8 -2.7 -1
Arizona State 8-2 249.1 10 125.8 10 123.3 19 249.3 9 0.3 1
Clemson 9-1 249.9 9 121.6 15 128.3 13 249.2 10 -0.7 -1
Texas A&M 8-2 244.4 14 141.4 3 103.0 67 248.3 11 3.8 3
Missouri 9-1 248.1 11 120.9 17 127.2 14 247.5 12 -0.6 -1
Georgia 6-4 241.1 16 130.7 8 110.4 41 243.2 13 2.0 3
Virginia Tech 7-4 245.8 12 92.9 80 152.9 4 239.8 14 -6.0 -2
South Carolina 8-2 239.4 18 118.4 19 121.0 23 239.1 15 -0.3 3
USC 8-3 243.7 15 97.9 66 145.8 5 238.9 16 -4.8 -1
Michigan State 9-1 245.0 13 92.1 82 152.9 3 238.9 17 -6.1 -4
LSU 7-3 235.2 19 130.0 9 105.1 61 237.7 18 2.5 1
BYU 7-3 240.7 17 105.2 49 135.4 10 237.6 19 -3.0 -2
Central Florida 8-1 234.2 20 131.2 7 103.0 68 237.0 20 2.8 0
Miami 7-3 231.5 27 133.5 6 98.1 85 235.1 21 3.5 6
Kansas State 6-4 233.6 21 122.2 14 111.5 39 234.7 22 1.1 -1
Auburn 10-1 233.0 22 118.0 20 115.0 36 233.3 23 0.3 -1
Washington 6-4 232.2 24 112.2 30 119.9 25 231.4 24 -0.8 0
Utah 4-6 232.6 23 109.7 35 122.9 22 231.3 25 -1.3 -2
Team Record S&P+ Rk Off. S&P+
Rk Def. S&P+
Rk NEW S&P+
w/different weight
Rk Change in
rating
Change in rank
Boise State 7-3 230.7 29 117.4 22 113.3 38 231.1 26 0.4 3
Oklahoma State 9-1 232.0 26 106.3 45 125.7 15 230.1 27 -1.9 -1
Ole Miss 7-3 231.2 28 108.4 37 122.9 21 229.8 28 -1.5 0
UCLA 8-2 230.2 30 111.0 31 119.2 28 229.4 29 -0.8 1
Iowa 6-4 232.1 25 101.8 58 130.3 12 229.2 30 -2.9 -5
Oklahoma 8-2 229.2 31 112.4 29 116.8 32 228.7 31 -0.4 0
Texas Tech 7-4 222.6 34 121.3 16 101.3 75 224.6 32 2.0 2
Indiana 4-6 221.0 37 125.7 12 95.3 94 224.1 33 3.0 4
Utah State 6-4 225.4 32 105.7 46 119.7 26 224.0 34 -1.4 -2
Georgia Tech 6-4 221.8 35 120.2 18 101.6 73 223.7 35 1.9 0
Mississippi State 4-6 224.1 33 101.2 60 123.0 20 222.0 36 -2.2 -3
Bowling Green 7-3 220.7 38 112.4 28 108.3 47 221.1 37 0.4 1
Notre Dame 7-3 219.5 41 114.1 24 105.4 59 220.4 38 0.9 3
East Carolina 8-2 219.5 40 113.9 25 105.7 58 220.4 39 0.8 1
Northwestern 4-6 220.3 39 104.0 51 116.3 33 219.1 40 -1.2 -1
Toledo 7-3 217.5 42 110.2 34 107.4 52 217.8 41 0.3 1
North Carolina 5-5 217.2 43 108.3 38 108.9 44 217.1 42 -0.1 1
Florida 4-6 221.0 36 86.4 97 134.6 11 216.2 43 -4.8 -7
Fresno State 9-0 215.8 44 108.2 40 107.6 48 215.8 44 0.1 0
Houston 7-3 214.3 48 108.1 41 106.2 54 214.5 45 0.2 3
Michigan 7-3 214.6 47 105.4 48 109.2 43 214.2 46 -0.4 1
Arizona 6-4 215.3 46 101.9 57 113.4 37 214.2 47 -1.2 -1
Pittsburgh 5-5 215.6 45 97.5 67 118.1 29 213.5 48 -2.1 -3
Ball State 9-2 209.9 54 113.2 26 96.6 88 211.5 49 1.7 5
Duke 8-2 211.4 50 105.7 47 105.7 57 211.4 50 0.0 0
Team Record S&P+ Rk Off. S&P+
Rk Def. S&P+
Rk NEW S&P+
w/different weight
Rk Change in
rating
Change in rank
Boston College 6-4 210.9 52 106.8 43 104.1 63 211.2 51 0.3 1
Nebraska 7-3 210.3 53 108.0 42 102.2 71 210.8 52 0.6 1
Oregon State 6-4 209.0 55 110.8 32 98.2 84 210.2 53 1.3 2
North Texas 7-3 212.4 49 92.1 81 120.3 24 209.6 54 -2.8 -5
Marshall 7-3 207.9 58 110.6 33 97.3 86 209.2 55 1.3 3
Illinois 3-7 205.9 64 112.7 27 93.1 99 207.8 56 2.0 8
Maryland 6-4 208.2 56 101.6 59 106.6 53 207.7 57 -0.5 -1
Washington State 5-5 207.5 59 102.6 56 104.8 62 207.2 58 -0.2 1
TCU 4-7 211.1 51 86.1 99 125.0 16 207.2 59 -3.9 -8
Texas 7-3 206.1 62 106.3 44 99.8 79 206.8 60 0.7 2
Vanderbilt 6-4 206.1 63 97.3 68 108.8 45 204.9 61 -1.2 2
Buffalo 7-3 207.2 60 92.0 83 115.1 35 204.8 62 -2.3 -2
Tennessee 4-6 205.6 65 98.2 64 107.4 50 204.7 63 -0.9 2
Memphis 3-6 208.1 57 83.8 102 124.2 18 204.0 64 -4.0 -7
Penn State 6-4 206.3 61 89.0 92 117.4 30 203.5 65 -2.8 -4
Navy 6-4 201.5 67 108.9 36 92.6 100 203.1 66 1.6 1
Rice 7-3 202.9 66 93.4 79 109.5 42 201.3 67 -1.6 -1
Northern Illinois 10-0 197.9 74 108.3 39 89.7 105 199.8 68 1.9 6
Colorado State 6-5 199.5 69 101.0 61 98.5 83 199.8 69 0.3 0
Cincinnati 8-2 199.3 70 99.8 62 99.4 80 199.3 70 0.0 0
Arkansas 3-7 198.9 71 98.2 65 100.7 77 198.7 71 -0.3 0
SMU 4-5 196.4 78 103.1 54 93.3 98 197.4 72 1.0 6
Minnesota 8-2 197.5 75 96.2 70 101.2 76 197.0 73 -0.5 2
UL-Lafayette 8-2 195.1 80 104.9 50 90.1 104 196.5 74 1.5 6
Florida Atlantic 4-6 198.9 73 87.5 95 111.4 40 196.5 75 -2.4 -2
Team Record S&P+ Rk Off. S&P+
Rk Def. S&P+
Rk NEW S&P+
w/different weight
Rk Change in
rating
Change in rank
Kentucky 2-8 196.0 79 99.4 63 96.6 89 196.3 76 0.3 3
Wake Forest 4-6 200.0 68 80.7 111 119.4 27 196.2 77 -3.9 -9
UTSA 5-5 196.5 77 96.3 69 100.2 78 196.1 78 -0.4 -1
Virginia 2-8 198.9 72 83.8 103 115.1 34 195.8 79 -3.1 -7
San Jose State 5-5 194.1 82 102.6 55 91.4 102 195.2 80 1.1 2
N.C. State 3-7 196.7 76 89.2 91 107.5 49 194.9 81 -1.8 -5
Nevada 4-7 193.1 84 103.5 52 89.6 106 194.5 82 1.4 2
Syracuse 5-5 194.6 81 91.0 86 103.6 65 193.3 83 -1.3 -2
Western Kentucky 6-4 193.2 83 93.9 78 99.3 81 192.7 84 -0.5 -1
Arkansas State 6-4 191.6 85 96.2 71 95.5 91 191.7 85 0.1 0
Middle Tennessee 6-4 190.8 90 95.4 74 95.4 93 190.8 86 0.0 4
Rutgers 5-4 191.5 87 89.2 90 102.3 70 190.2 87 -1.3 0
Iowa State 1-9 191.6 86 88.5 93 103.0 66 190.1 88 -1.5 -2
Tulsa 2-8 191.3 89 86.1 98 105.2 60 189.4 89 -1.9 0
San Diego State 6-4 191.5 88 83.0 105 108.5 46 188.9 90 -2.6 -2
Ohio 6-4 188.9 91 94.6 75 94.2 97 188.9 91 0.0 0
West Virginia 4-7 188.7 92 87.4 96 101.4 74 187.3 92 -1.4 0
South Alabama 3-6 186.9 94 95.5 73 91.4 101 187.3 93 0.4 1
Wyoming 4-6 187.4 93 91.6 85 95.8 90 187.0 94 -0.4 -1
Colorado 4-6 186.1 96 91.6 84 94.4 96 185.8 95 -0.3 1
New Mexico 3-7 181.8 100 103.4 53 78.4 122 184.3 96 2.5 4
Tulane 6-4 186.8 95 80.7 110 106.1 55 184.2 97 -2.5 -2
UNLV 5-5 183.2 99 88.5 94 94.6 95 182.5 98 -0.6 1
California 1-10 181.3 101 90.2 89 91.1 103 181.2 99 -0.1 2
Hawaii 0-10 184.2 97 76.7 116 107.4 51 181.1 100 -3.1 -3
Team Record S&P+ Rk Off. S&P+
Rk Def. S&P+
Rk NEW S&P+
w/different weight
Rk Change in
rating
Change in rank
Air Force 2-8 179.9 104 95.7 72 84.3 116 181.1 101 1.1 3
Akron 4-7 183.5 98 77.7 114 105.8 56 180.6 102 -2.8 -4
Troy 5-6 179.2 106 94.1 77 85.2 114 180.1 103 0.9 3
UL-Monroe 5-5 179.3 105 82.4 106 96.9 87 177.9 104 -1.4 1
South Florida 2-7 180.2 102 78.5 113 101.7 72 177.9 105 -2.3 -3
Temple 1-9 177.3 108 90.8 87 86.5 110 177.7 106 0.4 2
Kansas 3-7 180.2 103 76.1 117 104.0 64 177.4 107 -2.8 -4
Army 2-8 175.4 110 94.5 76 80.9 119 176.7 108 1.4 2
Connecticut 0-9 177.6 107 74.8 119 102.8 69 174.8 109 -2.8 -2
Texas State 6-4 176.6 109 77.4 115 99.2 82 174.4 110 -2.2 -1
Purdue 1-9 174.2 111 78.8 112 95.4 92 172.6 111 -1.7 0
Kent State 3-8 171.6 112 82.1 107 89.4 107 170.8 112 -0.7 0
Central Michigan 4-6 168.3 113 83.7 104 84.6 115 168.2 113 -0.1 0
UAB 2-8 165.2 114 90.3 88 74.9 124 166.7 114 1.5 0
UTEP 2-8 164.9 116 84.1 101 80.8 120 165.2 115 0.3 1
Louisiana Tech 5-5 165.0 115 81.0 108 83.9 117 164.7 116 -0.3 -1
Idaho 1-9 163.8 117 75.4 118 88.4 108 162.5 117 -1.3 0
Eastern Michigan 2-8 159.7 119 85.4 100 74.2 125 160.8 118 1.1 1
Western Michigan 1-10 161.7 118 74.5 120 87.2 109 160.4 119 -1.3 -1
Massachusetts 1-9 159.1 120 73.2 121 85.9 112 157.9 120 -1.3 0
New Mexico State 1-9 156.3 121 80.8 109 75.5 123 156.8 121 0.5 0
Southern Miss 0-10 156.1 122 70.1 122 86.0 111 154.5 122 -1.6 0
Georgia State 0-10 150.6 123 70.0 123 80.6 121 149.5 123 -1.1 0
Florida International 1-9 144.6 124 62.0 124 82.6 118 142.6 124 -2.1 0
Miami (Ohio) 0-10 144.6 125 59.3 125 85.3 113 142.0 125 -2.6 0

Biggest positive changes (2013): Illinois (3-7, 64th to 56th), Miami (7-3, 27th to 21st), Northern Illinois (10-0, 74th to 68th), SMU (4-5, 78th to 72nd), Louisiana-Lafayette (8-2, 80th to 74th).

Biggest negative changes (2013): Wake Forest (4-6, 68th to 77th), TCU (4-7, 51st to 59th), Virginia (2-8, 72nd to 79th), Memphis (3-6, 57th to 64th), Florida (4-6, 36th to 43rd).

Biggest positive changes (2005-12): 2009 Stanford (8-5, 51st to 41st), 2009 UNLV (5-7, 65th to 57th), 2011 Navy (5-7, 70th to 62nd), 2009 Houston (10-4, 28th to 21st), 2009 Utah State (4-8, 88th to 81st), 2011 Georgia Tech (8-5, 41st to 34th).

Biggest negative changes (2005-12): 2011 Kent State (5-7, 81st to 91st), 2011 Rutgers (9-4, 58th to 66th), 2011 Illinois (7-6, 35th to 43rd), 2009 Arizona State (56th to 64th), 2012 Rutgers (9-4, 45th to 52nd), 2010 Boston College (7-6, 54th to 61st), 2009 North Carolina (8-5, 41st to 48th), 2008 Wake Forest (8-5, 41st to 48th), 2008 Boston College (9-5, 27th to 34th).

Again, if there is predictive power in doing this, I'll move in this direction. For now, though, that tiny change in correlations isn't enough to for me to engineer a philosophical shift in the ratings, especially when it barely impacts the teams like Virginia Tech (down from 12th to 14th) or USC (15th to 16th).

We automatically assume that offense and defense are worth equal value. But does that have to be the case? And what would it do to our legion of "Defense wins championships" truisms if it weren't? At the very least, it's something to think about.

This week at SB Nation

Monday
Auburn, USC, and a masterpiece of a college football weekend

Tuesday
The Numerical, Week 12: USC starts hot, Baylor adapts, Wisconsin eats souls
College football advanced stats: Week 12 box scores

Wednesday
Win probabilities: Projecting the 2013 season's BCS stretch run

Thursday
To upset Baylor, Oklahoma State must force the machine to hesitate
Week 13 F/+ picks

Posted by: Bill Connelly on 21 Nov 2013

13 comments, Last at 25 Jan 2014, 6:13am by www.louisoslo.com/LV-Monogram-Vernis-Veske

Comments

1
by hoegher :: Thu, 11/21/2013 - 6:48pm

I like a lot of what S&P+ does, but I personally think the way you calculate defensive ratings (using the inverse) leads to bias in favor of strong defensive squads.

2
by hopefullythisnameisnttakentoo (not verified) :: Fri, 11/22/2013 - 1:03am

I've always suspected this was the case because offense has "more room to grow". It's kinda like how typical home prices in an area are measured with median rather than mean because expensive homes raise the mean more more than cheap homes bring it down. I still believe "defense wins championships" is true though, in the sense that offense is more or less the prerequisite to get to be one of the big boys while defense is what separates the elite teams from the other teams with good offense.

3
by Kal :: Fri, 11/22/2013 - 2:21am

Nice.

This also makes a fair amount of sense from watching games. A truly great defense still keeps games very close without also having a great offense, and in a 1 possession game luck comes into play a lot more than it would in a dominating fashion. If you look at Stanford's scores, a lot of them are one-possession wins; while Stanford dominated and predictively we'd filter out a lot of the luck, it doesn't take much for a team to be in the game or win it.

Rivers wrote earlier today about how Baylor keeps doing the same things and expects that in the end if they do it enough the local minima will disappear and the results will be fairly predictable and closer to the mean. With fewer possessions, smaller room for error and reliance on lack of problems defense-oriented teams are just going to be hurt by those unlucky bounces way worse.

So it may not be that S+P is overvaluing defense so much as defense in general is not as valuable as offense in predicting wins across a season, especially given really disparate levels of talent. When given two elite teams I suspect defense wins out more than not, but when there's a delta between the quality of the teams and the only way the worse team will win is due to luck, playing that style is more prone to accentuate those breaks.

8
by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Fri, 11/22/2013 - 1:29pm

Baylor also has a good defense.

But there are teams with Baylor-like offenses whose defenses make everyone look like Baylor. Teams like West Virginia, Texas Tech, and Texas A&M -- who have to win shootouts because the alternative is losing them.

Or Baylor two years ago. Remember that bowl game against Washington?

4
by killwer :: Fri, 11/22/2013 - 3:06am

I know its not the same (NFL vs NCAA and drive vs play based) but looking at DVOA for the NFL, it is clear that a great offense has much higher weight than a great defense.

When one looks at the range of offensive DVOA compared to defensive DVOA, the offensive DVOA range is almost twice as large as the defensive DVOA (around 70-80% compared to around 40%). Where SP+ seems to have the same maximum.

6
by hoegher :: Fri, 11/22/2013 - 11:44am

I really think this is due to the formula Bill uses, which is designed to measure Offense and Defense on the same scale.

11
by patrick1221 (not verified) :: Sat, 12/28/2013 - 7:51am

Good point.

But does he measure them on the same scale? I thought the idea was to measure how much better a given offense or defense was from an average offense or defense.

I definite think that the variance in defense is less. The gap between a great defense and a terrible defense isn't as wide as the gap between a great offense and a terrible offense. And this should be reflected in the metric that we use to gauge each, and if it isn't, calibration is probably necessary.

7
by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Fri, 11/22/2013 - 1:27pm

There are enough rule differences that the NCAA likely doesn't have the same offense-defense split the NFL does. Pass interference not being a spot foul is a huge difference.

5
by StatisticalEqualityCorrelation (not verified) :: Fri, 11/22/2013 - 11:02am

What if you took into account time of possession? I don't even know if that's possible without a lot of tedious manual entry. It seems to me that offenses like Stanford and Alabama, that can not only move the ball, but also control clock, have an entirely different effect on the game than a hurry-up based attack.

I think in general, most defenses would have trouble matching up with the power of Bama, Stanford and Wisconsin, and my "eye-ball test" entirely disagrees with the disparity of their offensive rankings with the spread-based attacks. The fact that their offenses don't put up 60 points/game is nullified partially because theif offense also affects a game such that the opposing team does not have the time to score that either.

In this way, there may be an inverse correlation between the weight to put on offenses and those offenses ability to control the clock. Essentially, Stanford/Bama style of play uses the offense to lean on the defense purposefully, and thus their defenses should be given more weight. On the other hand, an Oregon, which relies on the breakneck speed would equally and inversely benefit from the weight shifting to their offense. We always talk about "controlling the clock" or "shifting the momentum," and this suggestion is merely a rudimentary way to potentially capture that phenomena in a finite time-based game.

12
by patrick1221 (not verified) :: Sat, 12/28/2013 - 7:56am

Controlling the clock is nonsense.

No coach in the world would choose a 15 play 8 minute drive (and the accompanying multiple chances for fumbles, interceptions, etc.) over scoring on the first play. The goal of the game is to score more points than the other guy. Controlling the clock is something that stupid people talk about after listening to other stupid people convince them it's meaningful.

9
by Curious (not verified) :: Mon, 11/25/2013 - 1:11am

I'd be interested to see what happens if you instead weight defense at 55% and 60%. A 55/45 offense/defense split may be a local maximum rather than a global one.

10
by patrick1221 (not verified) :: Sat, 12/28/2013 - 7:44am

This article was glorious. I have come to the exact same conclusions as you regarding offense v. defense. Offense is more important. It has to be more important. There are so many moving parts that have to move together with proper lubrication and appropriate calibration in order for an offense to be successful. A defense just reacts.

And so the thing that separates a good defense from a bad defense is simply how speedy and mean the defenders are. Scheme in defense is overrated. Nick Saban isn't a genius. Nick Saban has NFL talent.

But on offense, you have talent disparity and also the effectiveness of the scheme, and the proper execution of all of it. A bad offense is way worse than a bad defense. A bad offense can't score against an open field of grass.

And so in CFB (and maybe the pro's as well, I don't watch much of it, though), the teams that win are the teams that can consistently score. If you have a great offense, the caliber of your defense is almost irrelevant. You'll keep scoring, and at some point, the other team will fumble a snap, and you'll win. Conversely, if you have a great defense, it doesn't do much for you if you can't score. This is why Va. Tech blows. This is why Florida blows. A great defense and a bad offense just leaves you a pick six or a scoop and score from losing to the likes of Georgia Southern or Maryland.

Georgia Southern or Maryland would never ever beat a great offensive team, even if they had a terrible defense.

I actually think you're underestimating the offense/defense disparity with 55/45. I think it's 65/35 without breaking a sweat.

Great post, though. I'll keep a lookout for follow-up research.

13
by www.louisoslo.com/LV-Monogram-Vernis-Veske (not verified) :: Sat, 01/25/2014 - 6:13am

Den ZigLite sted minner om Elis opptreden p