Though teammate Minkah Fitzpatrick gets more headlines, the other Alabama safety prospect in this year's draft deserves plenty of attention too.
31 Oct 2012
by Brian Fremeau
What do we know and what do we think we know? This question is on my mind every year entering the final month of the season. By this point in the year, the best teams in the nation have typically played one or more games in which they demonstrated their case for the championship. We want to have arguments settled on the field, and though the number of games played between contenders will never be enough, the games that are played provide valuable, measurable data.
At the moment, there are four clear contenders for the national championship game: Alabama, Oregon, Kansas State, and Notre Dame. It is certainly possible that all four will still lose before the end of the season, but it is also possible that all four will win out. Either way, it is likely that the debate over the BCS championship game participants will be as intense as ever.
How do the contenders match up? It’s a really interesting question at this point because of the differences in schedule strength to date. According to FEI data, Notre Dame and Kansas State have distinguished themselves from Alabama and Oregon by having already played the toughest stretches of their respective schedules. It would be easier for an elite team to have gone undefeated against the Crimson Tide or Ducks schedule to date three times than to go undefeated against the Notre Dame or Kansas State schedule once.
For many, the eyeball test trumps the resume test every time. I don’t fault anyone for thinking that Alabama and Oregon are the two best teams in the country. They very well may be. We might assume that the Ducks would have dominated Notre Dame’s schedule to date more impressively than the Irish did. We might assume that Alabama would crush everyone more efficiently than Kansas State. But we don’t have much data on hand yet to know for sure.
The table below ranks every FBS game played to date by the four contenders according to opponent-adjusted Game Efficiency (GFEI). The overall FEI ratings of each team are a function of these single-game measures and the relevance factor of each game.
Opponent Adjusted Game Efficiency (GFEI) | |||||||||||||||||
Team | Score | Opponent | GFEI | Rk | |||||||||||||
Kansas State | 55-14 | West Virginia | .793 | 1 | |||||||||||||
Notre Dame | 30-13 | Oklahoma | .739 | 2 | |||||||||||||
Oregon | 49-0 | Arizona | .681 | 6 | |||||||||||||
Kansas State | 24-19 | Oklahoma | .678 | 7 | |||||||||||||
Alabama | 52-0 | Arkansas | .647 | 8 | |||||||||||||
Kansas State | 55-24 | Texas Tech | .634 | 9 | |||||||||||||
Oregon | 43-21 | Arizona State | .597 | 11 | |||||||||||||
Notre Dame | 20-3 | Michigan State | .588 | 12 | |||||||||||||
Alabama | 44-13 | Tennessee | .546 | 18 | |||||||||||||
Alabama | 41-14 | Michigan | .508 | 23 | |||||||||||||
Alabama | 38-7 | Mississippi State | .428 | 40 | |||||||||||||
Oregon | 52-21 | Washington | .425 | 42 | |||||||||||||
Kansas State | 27-21 | Iowa State | .418 | 45 | |||||||||||||
Notre Dame | 41-3 | Miami | .412 | 47 | |||||||||||||
Alabama | 35-0 | Western Kentucky | .401 | 49 | |||||||||||||
Notre Dame | 50-10 | Navy | .396 | 52 | |||||||||||||
Kansas State | 52-13 | Miami | .388 | 55 | |||||||||||||
Notre Dame | 20-13 | Stanford | .367 | 63 | |||||||||||||
Alabama | 42-10 | Missouri | .309 | 82 | |||||||||||||
Oregon | 70-14 | Colorado | .297 | 89 | |||||||||||||
Notre Dame | 17-14 | BYU | .252 | 110 | |||||||||||||
Oregon | 42-25 | Fresno State | .245 | 112 | |||||||||||||
Notre Dame | 13-6 | Michigan | .206 | 143 | |||||||||||||
Oregon | 57-34 | Arkansas State | .178 | 158 | |||||||||||||
Alabama | 33-14 | Mississippi | .161 | 167 | |||||||||||||
Kansas State | 56-16 | Kansas | .150 | 175 | |||||||||||||
Oregon | 51-26 | Washington State | .146 | 181 | |||||||||||||
Alabama | 40-7 | Florida Atlantic | .125 | 188 | |||||||||||||
Kansas State | 35-21 | North Texas | -.070 | 326 | |||||||||||||
Notre Dame | 20-17 | Purdue | -.175 | 390 |
For as strongly as I believe in the FEI ratings, I know that they are just one tool to evaluate college football teams and games. I wrote yesterday about how Kansas State has distinguished themselves as the No. 1 team in the land. By the data above, the Wildcats' best three games compare well to the combination of the best single games played by Notre Dame, Oregon and Alabama.
But you can carve this data up in many ways. Combined, these four teams have recorded 10 of the best 25 games performances of the year and 15 of the best 50. Alabama claims five of those 15, Kansas State has four, Oregon and Notre Dame have three apiece. Among top-100 games played, Alabama has six, Notre Dame and Kansas State have five, and Oregon has four.
If you're curious about how the FEI ratings shake out over the final month of the season, this table is a great indicator that all four teams are in the mix. Oregon has three solid opponents down the stretch in USC, Oregon State, and Stanford and has an opportunity to make the same kind of statement in each that Kansas State has already made. Alabama likewise has marquee matchups against LSU and Texas A&M in the next two weeks. There is always chaos, but more importantly, there are always opportunities for the top teams to rise above the chaos and distinguish themselves.
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 9 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 |
||||||||||
10/26 | Louisville | 34-31 | Cincinnati | 9.5 | 3.6 | 5.9 | -2.9 | ||||||||||
10/27 | Arizona | 39-36 | USC | 14.0 | 2.1 | 11.9 | -8.9 | ||||||||||
10/27 | Georgia | 17-9 | Florida | 25.5 | 12.3 | 13.2 | -5.2 | ||||||||||
10/27 | Houston | 45-35 | UTEP | 27.0 | 8.1 | 18.9 | -8.9 | ||||||||||
10/27 | Kent State | 35-23 | Rutgers | 24.9 | 7.3 | 17.6 | -5.6 | ||||||||||
10/27 | Syracuse | 37-36 | South Florida | 3.8 | 0.0 | 3.8 | -2.8 | ||||||||||
10/27 | Washington | 20-17 | Oregon State | 12.7 | 2.8 | 9.9 | -6.9 | ||||||||||
10/27 | Western Kentucky | 14-6 | Florida International | 17.5 | 4.5 | 13.0 | -5.0 |
Week 9 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 |
||||||||||||
10/27 | Boston College | 20-17 | Maryland | 7.9 | -4.9 | ||||||||||||
10/27 | Mississippi | 30-27 | Arkansas | 7.3 | -4.3 | ||||||||||||
10/27 | North Carolina | 43-35 | North Carolina State | 10.4 | -2.4 | ||||||||||||
10/27 | Texas | 21-17 | Kansas | 5.8 | -1.8 |
Week 9 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 |
||||||||||
10/27 | Arizona | 39-36 | USC | 31.7 | 24.1 | 7.6 | -4.6 | ||||||||||
10/27 | Houston | 45-35 | UTEP | 39.5 | 28.9 | 10.6 | -0.6 | ||||||||||
10/27 | Mississippi | 30-27 | Arkansas | 27.4 | 21.4 | 6.0 | -3.0 | ||||||||||
10/27 | Syracuse | 37-36 | South Florida | 20.2 | 15.3 | 4.9 | -1.9 | ||||||||||
10/27 | Texas | 21-17 | Kansas | 25.2 | 13.7 | 11.5 | -7.5 |
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 October 27th. 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 | 7-0 | .323 | 1 | .354 | 3 | .291 | 29 | .551 | 35 | 9.9 | 3.6 | .520 | 6 | -.569 | 10 | 2.727 | 10 | .577 | 3 |
2 | Notre Dame | 8-0 | .306 | 6 | .176 | 13 | .214 | 17 | .625 | 47 | 10.6 | 3.7 | .672 | 3 | -.694 | 4 | -.815 | 84 | .483 | 80 |
3 | Alabama | 8-0 | .278 | 3 | .404 | 2 | .674 | 101 | .479 | 22 | 9.9 | 2.4 | .313 | 19 | -.682 | 5 | 3.354 | 4 | .577 | 4 |
4 | Oregon | 7-0 | .274 | 4 | .421 | 1 | .645 | 97 | .278 | 10 | 9.4 | 2.9 | .259 | 25 | -.704 | 3 | 2.425 | 14 | .545 | 15 |
5 | Oklahoma | 4-2 | .269 | 2 | .254 | 5 | .150 | 8 | .485 | 23 | 8.7 | 4.2 | .536 | 5 | -.535 | 13 | 1.592 | 25 | .516 | 47 |
6 | Florida | 7-1 | .249 | 5 | .165 | 15 | .294 | 30 | .587 | 40 | 9.1 | 2.5 | .043 | 53 | -.717 | 2 | 4.432 | 1 | .556 | 10 |
7 | Oregon State | 6-1 | .246 | 7 | .090 | 37 | .312 | 34 | .389 | 14 | 8.6 | 3.0 | .419 | 13 | -.571 | 9 | -.010 | 66 | .522 | 38 |
8 | Florida State | 6-1 | .212 | 8 | .280 | 4 | .627 | 94 | .592 | 42 | 8.2 | 2.1 | .088 | 46 | -.647 | 6 | 1.959 | 19 | .563 | 8 |
9 | Texas A&M | 5-2 | .207 | 12 | .187 | 10 | .460 | 61 | .401 | 16 | 7.6 | 2.0 | .478 | 11 | -.258 | 34 | .025 | 65 | .513 | 49 |
10 | Ohio State | 9-0 | .203 | 19 | .147 | 19 | .392 | 45 | .686 | 54 | 9.9 | 2.4 | .483 | 9 | -.461 | 18 | -1.431 | 93 | .500 | 61 |
11 | LSU | 6-1 | .200 | 11 | .164 | 16 | .265 | 23 | .557 | 36 | 8.3 | 3.1 | .072 | 47 | -.611 | 8 | 1.105 | 31 | .556 | 9 |
12 | Stanford | 6-2 | .184 | 9 | .097 | 35 | .192 | 14 | .260 | 7 | 8.0 | 2.2 | .035 | 54 | -.626 | 7 | 1.646 | 24 | .565 | 7 |
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 | USC | 6-2 | .181 | 13 | .187 | 9 | .314 | 36 | .252 | 6 | 8.1 | 2.1 | .184 | 34 | -.375 | 23 | 1.480 | 26 | .532 | 28 |
14 | Arizona | 4-3 | .179 | 16 | .022 | 56 | .136 | 7 | .685 | 53 | 7.1 | 3.1 | .746 | 2 | -.029 | 60 | .082 | 61 | .544 | 16 |
15 | Cincinnati | 3-2 | .157 | 15 | .125 | 24 | .575 | 87 | .800 | 75 | 7.7 | 4.0 | .250 | 26 | -.568 | 11 | .877 | 43 | .537 | 23 |
16 | Oklahoma State | 4-2 | .156 | 18 | .112 | 28 | .478 | 69 | .110 | 1 | 6.8 | 2.5 | .615 | 4 | -.083 | 54 | .244 | 57 | .460 | 102 |
17 | Michigan State | 5-4 | .154 | 29 | .051 | 51 | .176 | 11 | .722 | 60 | 7.8 | 2.0 | -.043 | 67 | -.740 | 1 | -.351 | 76 | .488 | 74 |
18 | Boise State | 7-1 | .153 | 27 | .209 | 7 | .560 | 85 | .869 | 85 | 10.2 | 3.5 | -.013 | 62 | -.536 | 12 | 1.129 | 29 | .568 | 6 |
19 | South Carolina | 7-2 | .145 | 25 | .162 | 17 | .263 | 22 | .758 | 68 | 7.9 | 1.4 | -.011 | 61 | -.508 | 15 | -.847 | 86 | .503 | 58 |
20 | BYU | 4-4 | .144 | 32 | .092 | 36 | .126 | 6 | .845 | 84 | 7.4 | 2.6 | .088 | 45 | -.502 | 16 | -1.184 | 90 | .498 | 65 |
21 | Nebraska | 5-2 | .143 | 38 | .054 | 50 | .307 | 33 | .540 | 32 | 7.0 | 2.5 | .507 | 7 | -.305 | 29 | -2.098 | 106 | .434 | 121 |
22 | Louisville | 7-0 | .140 | 28 | .102 | 32 | .665 | 100 | .634 | 49 | 8.5 | 2.9 | .481 | 10 | -.355 | 24 | -1.597 | 98 | .454 | 106 |
23 | Wisconsin | 5-3 | .139 | 22 | .112 | 27 | .281 | 25 | .534 | 31 | 6.9 | 1.5 | .197 | 32 | -.422 | 21 | .153 | 59 | .536 | 24 |
24 | Iowa State | 4-3 | .136 | 21 | .012 | 59 | .196 | 15 | .487 | 24 | 6.4 | 2.5 | -.180 | 88 | -.471 | 17 | .554 | 48 | .515 | 48 |
25 | Texas Tech | 5-2 | .134 | 10 | .102 | 33 | .113 | 5 | .611 | 45 | 6.8 | 2.7 | .392 | 15 | -.084 | 53 | -.488 | 78 | .475 | 87 |
11 comments, Last at 05 Nov 2012, 1:12pm by Richard Norwood
Comments
Re: FEI Week 9: And Then There Were Four
I see Minnesota is up to 61. I know the preseason projection was 88, but I can't seem to get to the week by week rankings for the entire division; did they not fall into the 90s after a week one ot victory against a hideous UNLV team?
With remaining games against Michigan State, Nebraska, and Michigan, if they play well, I could see them rising into the forties, or even higher. What's the biggest upward move any team has made in the FEI during the season? The biggest downward drop?
Regarding the Final Four: Punish those who schedule FCS games
Oregon and Kansas State should be docked points for scheduling FCS games. In proportion, there should be further docking of points for scheduling non-AQ teams (hello, Florida Atlantic and Western Kentucky). Oregon, 'Bama, and K-State have all degrees from the Barry Alvarez School of Creating Easy Schedules. (Note: 'Bama should get credit for scheduling Michigan.)
Re: Punish those who schedule FCS games
Mr. X,
FEI does not count games against FCS teams. And it has opponent adjustments.
Re: Regarding the Final Four: Punish those who schedule FCS game
What evidence do you have that they are trying to create easy schedules? None? OK. The FCS games were last minute schedule changed due to Oregon wanting to play a tougher team in '11 (LSU).
Re: FEI Week 9: And Then There Were Four
Where is Georgia?
Re: FEI Week 9: And Then There Were Four
Georgia is not in the top 25? They would stomp half of these teams. Clearly, there is a chink in the system.
Re: FEI Week 9: And Then There Were Four
Wow, college football is essentially moribund in the East. I know that's part of a long-term trend, but it's vividly illustrated this year. It certainly wasn't always that way--for example, if you take an "all-time" roster from, say, Pitt, it would match up well with a similar roster from any other traditionally strong program. Anyone whose knowledge of NCAA football is based only on the last decade would scoff at that assertion, and rightly so, but Eastern football used to be strong and is now an afterthought. It's a shame.
Re: FEI Week 9: And Then There Were Four
Don't forget that some of those early powers became the Ivy League and stopped giving out athletic scholarships.
Will
Re: FEI Week 9: And Then There Were Four
I always feel like everyone consistently overrates the Big 12. Every system, ever.
IDK why I feel this way.
Re: FEI Week 9: And Then There Were Four
It occurred to me that the main reason ND is as high as it is in the BCS is that the computer polls don't know that they beat Stanford in OT. It then occurred to me, why don't they know? Why shouldn't the computers be able to take into account whether the game went into OT?
Re: FEI Week 9: And Then There Were Four
Some of us have noticed a Notre Dame bias in this report. Specifically they seem to place a much higher value on the weak ND schedule than others. 6 of their games are against teams from the the worst BCS Conferences (ACC, Big10) and even some of these games are close. May I ask if the Brian Fremeau that writes the report is the same person the is currently Director of Student Activities at Notre Dame. If so, should thiis conflict of interest be noted in his reports