Statistical Analysis of Defense vs. BCC

[The Franchise]

I think we are all aware of the fact that the game was shortened, and I also think we are all aware that a Miami program should always pound a team like BCC.

With that in mind, I wanted to take a look and see how we compared on a per-play basis against BCC in comparison to other FBS schools playing FBS teams. It might surprise some (our coaches perhaps?) that there is a far greater correlation to points allowed between yards-per-play than there is for simply looking at total yards allowed. Additionally, the correlation is strengthened quite a bit more by regressing the average starting position to account for where the opposing team actually starts their possession with the ball, but given the fact we are talking about FCS vs. FBS games, that sort of analysis should not be necessary, as you would hope not many teams would be having several turnovers and big mistakes such as that.

There were 48 games between FCS and FBS teams in week one, so the data set is actually fairly large (nearly half the teams that played, played FCS programs).

It was interesting to me in the sense that Miami truly and thoroughly dominated a team that was fairly decent offensively last year, and returned many of those same players on offense.

On a per rush basis, Miami ranked 10th of all teams against their FCS opponent. 5th out of the 23 BCS teams who played an FCS team. (1.51 YPC). Rutgers was first at -0.13 YPC. This was in the 78th percentile of all teams against the run.

On a yards per pass basis, Miami ranked 2nd of all teams against their FCS opponent. They were also 2nd among BCS teams who played an FCS team. (2.36 YPA) West Virginia was 1st at 2.23 YPA, but played a triple option team. This was in the 96th percentile of all teams against the pass.

On a total yards per play basis, Miami ranked 3rd of all teams. They were 2nd among BCS teams who played an FCS team. (1.72 YPP). New Mexico was 1st and destroyed a very, very bad FCS team at 1.32 YPP. Syracuse was the top BCS team with an impressive 1.60 YPP. Miami ranked in the 94th percentile on yards per play run.

There is a long way to go, and I won't be fooled again is a song that keeps playing in my head, but for one week at least, Miami's defense truly was dominant. You hear quite a bit about D'Onofrio- and rightly so- but the real worry is the offense. Playing against an undermanned defense replacing nine starters, Miami was mediocre in all facets offensively on a per-play basis. If we want to actually be a good team this year, we need to make massive strides offensively and become a lot more efficient with our plays on offense. I mentioned earlier that yards-per-play correlates well with scoring points, well that counts for the offensive side of our team as well, and right now we are not even close to where we need to be and Coley has to take some of that blame.

How would you take into account each coach's decision to play certain 2nd, 3rd, 4th stringers at various points of the game? How much time did our 1st and 2nd string get versus our 3rd and 4th? If we played the starters more, you better believe the results should be better than if another team played their starters in 1st quarter and played 2nd/3rd/4th the rest of the way.

And that's just one thought.

Absolutely your thoughts are valid, as any number of bias comes into play when talking about a game and statistics. Several of the FCS teams actually won the game, or came extremely close, so those games would be 1's vs. 1's all the way. There were also several games that were blowouts such as ours (many worse as well).

When you're referring to a sample size of 40+, you're actually looking at a decent sample size. Over 30 is considered a "large" sample size in the world of statistics (for the purpose of data analysis anyway).

There are varying degrees of talent on FCS teams- just like the teams playing them- and I didn't draw any conclusions from the data. What I'm trying to do is present information based on peer-to-peer data and see what trends develop from there. Just like anything else, what our fanbase chooses to do with it from there is personal choice.

The offense was a much bigger issue than the defense in this game.

In no way shape or form can you come to any conclusions based upon the data you're using. You just can't. You don't have a constant. I'm sorry man, but you did a lot of work for nothing.

He's one of those dudes who is trying to make what he's doing look factual because he's plucking out some random statistics. Dummies eat that **** up like pablum without questioning the basis for his opinions or his use of stats.

Way too many variables that he didn't account for to take anything from his post.

 

[pb5cane]

On a per rush basis, Miami ranked 10th of all teams against their FCS opponent. 5th out of the 23 BCS teams who played an FCS team. (1.51 YPC). Rutgers was first at -0.13 YPC. This was in the 78th percentile of all teams against the run.

On a yards per pass basis, Miami ranked 2nd of all teams against their FCS opponent. They were also 2nd among BCS teams who played an FCS team. (2.36 YPA) West Virginia was 1st at 2.23 YPA, but played a triple option team. This was in the 96th percentile of all teams against the pass.

On a total yards per play basis, Miami ranked 3rd of all teams. They were 2nd among BCS teams who played an FCS team. (1.72 YPP). New Mexico was 1st and destroyed a very, very bad FCS team at 1.32 YPP. Syracuse was the top BCS team with an impressive 1.60 YPP. Miami ranked in the 94th percentile on yards per play run.

There is a long way to go, and I won't be fooled again is a song that keeps playing in my head

Thanks for posting. How much stock do you put in any defensive stats that crown Rutgers, West Virginia and New Mexico? Just asking.

 

[OzarCaneSaw]

I think we are all aware of the fact that the game was shortened, and I also think we are all aware that a Miami program should always pound a team like BCC.

With that in mind, I wanted to take a look and see how we compared on a per-play basis against BCC in comparison to other FBS schools playing FBS teams. It might surprise some (our coaches perhaps?) that there is a far greater correlation to points allowed between yards-per-play than there is for simply looking at total yards allowed. Additionally, the correlation is strengthened quite a bit more by regressing the average starting position to account for where the opposing team actually starts their possession with the ball, but given the fact we are talking about FCS vs. FBS games, that sort of analysis should not be necessary, as you would hope not many teams would be having several turnovers and big mistakes such as that.

There were 48 games between FCS and FBS teams in week one, so the data set is actually fairly large (nearly half the teams that played, played FCS programs).

It was interesting to me in the sense that Miami truly and thoroughly dominated a team that was fairly decent offensively last year, and returned many of those same players on offense.

On a per rush basis, Miami ranked 10th of all teams against their FCS opponent. 5th out of the 23 BCS teams who played an FCS team. (1.51 YPC). Rutgers was first at -0.13 YPC. This was in the 78th percentile of all teams against the run.

On a yards per pass basis, Miami ranked 2nd of all teams against their FCS opponent. They were also 2nd among BCS teams who played an FCS team. (2.36 YPA) West Virginia was 1st at 2.23 YPA, but played a triple option team. This was in the 96th percentile of all teams against the pass.

On a total yards per play basis, Miami ranked 3rd of all teams. They were 2nd among BCS teams who played an FCS team. (1.72 YPP). New Mexico was 1st and destroyed a very, very bad FCS team at 1.32 YPP. Syracuse was the top BCS team with an impressive 1.60 YPP. Miami ranked in the 94th percentile on yards per play run.

There is a long way to go, and I won't be fooled again is a song that keeps playing in my head, but for one week at least, Miami's defense truly was dominant. You hear quite a bit about D'Onofrio- and rightly so- but the real worry is the offense. Playing against an undermanned defense replacing nine starters, Miami was mediocre in all facets offensively on a per-play basis. If we want to actually be a good team this year, we need to make massive strides offensively and become a lot more efficient with our plays on offense. I mentioned earlier that yards-per-play correlates well with scoring points, well that counts for the offensive side of our team as well, and right now we are not even close to where we need to be and Coley has to take some of that blame.

How would you take into account each coach's decision to play certain 2nd, 3rd, 4th stringers at various points of the game? How much time did our 1st and 2nd string get versus our 3rd and 4th? If we played the starters more, you better believe the results should be better than if another team played their starters in 1st quarter and played 2nd/3rd/4th the rest of the way.

And that's just one thought.

Absolutely your thoughts are valid, as any number of bias comes into play when talking about a game and statistics. Several of the FCS teams actually won the game, or came extremely close, so those games would be 1's vs. 1's all the way. There were also several games that were blowouts such as ours (many worse as well).

When you're referring to a sample size of 40+, you're actually looking at a decent sample size. Over 30 is considered a "large" sample size in the world of statistics (for the purpose of data analysis anyway).

There are varying degrees of talent on FCS teams- just like the teams playing them- and I didn't draw any conclusions from the data. What I'm trying to do is present information based on peer-to-peer data and see what trends develop from there. Just like anything else, what our fanbase chooses to do with it from there is personal choice.

The offense was a much bigger issue than the defense in this game.

In no way shape or form can you come to any conclusions based upon the data you're using. You just can't. You don't have a constant. I'm sorry man, but you did a lot of work for nothing.

This is correlation. You don't need a constant.

At the end of the day, I believe these kinds of results are meaningless in terms of predicting season win / loss records.

A constant being something by which to compare. Like rankings. Rankings might be worthless because they are just subjective opinions of writers/coaches, but at least they're something. You can't just say that because one team had an easier time with an FCS team than another, that there's something to be said about it. Not all FCS teams are the same. Like not all FBS teams are the same. Put it this way, just because Appy State beat Michigan that one year doesn't mean they could've beat the Florida Gators. ****, there's so much variation from Saturday to Saturday, let alone from team to team, you can't infer ANYTHING from last Saturday's game.

 

[HurricaneVision]

How would you take into account each coach's decision to play certain 2nd, 3rd, 4th stringers at various points of the game? How much time did our 1st and 2nd string get versus our 3rd and 4th? If we played the starters more, you better believe the results should be better than if another team played their starters in 1st quarter and played 2nd/3rd/4th the rest of the way.

And that's just one thought.

Absolutely your thoughts are valid, as any number of bias comes into play when talking about a game and statistics. Several of the FCS teams actually won the game, or came extremely close, so those games would be 1's vs. 1's all the way. There were also several games that were blowouts such as ours (many worse as well).

When you're referring to a sample size of 40+, you're actually looking at a decent sample size. Over 30 is considered a "large" sample size in the world of statistics (for the purpose of data analysis anyway).

There are varying degrees of talent on FCS teams- just like the teams playing them- and I didn't draw any conclusions from the data. What I'm trying to do is present information based on peer-to-peer data and see what trends develop from there. Just like anything else, what our fanbase chooses to do with it from there is personal choice.

The offense was a much bigger issue than the defense in this game.

In no way shape or form can you come to any conclusions based upon the data you're using. You just can't. You don't have a constant. I'm sorry man, but you did a lot of work for nothing.

This is correlation. You don't need a constant.

At the end of the day, I believe these kinds of results are meaningless in terms of predicting season win / loss records.

A constant being something by which to compare. Like rankings. Rankings might be worthless because they are just subjective opinions of writers/coaches, but at least they're something. You can't just say that because one team had an easier time with an FCS team than another, that there's something to be said about it. Not all FCS teams are the same. Like not all FBS teams are the same. Put it this way, just because Appy State beat Michigan that one year doesn't mean they could've beat the Florida Gators. ****, there's so much variation from Saturday to Saturday, let alone from team to team, you can't infer ANYTHING from last Saturday's game.

Our fanbase is exhausting, I swear to Pete.

Where did I draw any conclusions other than our offense was a bigger than our defense against BCC? Are you so unhappy that you can't enjoy a solid defensive showing rather than what we have seen against similar lesser opponents of the past?

The dominance that our team defense displayed on Saturday was fun. It was impressive from a pure statistical standpoint. If you really must have a comparative variable to use, it seems you missed the fairly easy one: the mean. It is what the percentile rank would be using to form the percentages in the first place.

Put another way: 94% would represent two standard deviations from the mean in a normal distribution. 68% would be one standard deviation from the mean (up or down), 94% would be two, and anything beyond that is considered an outlier it is so far off the scale. That, to me, is fairly impressive.

 

[HurricaneVision]

On a per rush basis, Miami ranked 10th of all teams against their FCS opponent. 5th out of the 23 BCS teams who played an FCS team. (1.51 YPC). Rutgers was first at -0.13 YPC. This was in the 78th percentile of all teams against the run.

On a yards per pass basis, Miami ranked 2nd of all teams against their FCS opponent. They were also 2nd among BCS teams who played an FCS team. (2.36 YPA) West Virginia was 1st at 2.23 YPA, but played a triple option team. This was in the 96th percentile of all teams against the pass.

On a total yards per play basis, Miami ranked 3rd of all teams. They were 2nd among BCS teams who played an FCS team. (1.72 YPP). New Mexico was 1st and destroyed a very, very bad FCS team at 1.32 YPP. Syracuse was the top BCS team with an impressive 1.60 YPP. Miami ranked in the 94th percentile on yards per play run.

There is a long way to go, and I won't be fooled again is a song that keeps playing in my head

Thanks for posting. How much stock do you put in any defensive stats that crown Rutgers, West Virginia and New Mexico? Just asking.

Not much, of course, but it's better than giving up 5 + yards per play like we've done in the past. It'll be interesting- at least to me- to see where we fall on this scale moving forward this season in relation to other teams across the country.

 

[capefearcane]

I think we are all aware of the fact that the game was shortened, and I also think we are all aware that a Miami program should always pound a team like BCC.

With that in mind, I wanted to take a look and see how we compared on a per-play basis against BCC in comparison to other FBS schools playing FBS teams. It might surprise some (our coaches perhaps?) that there is a far greater correlation to points allowed between yards-per-play than there is for simply looking at total yards allowed. Additionally, the correlation is strengthened quite a bit more by regressing the average starting position to account for where the opposing team actually starts their possession with the ball, but given the fact we are talking about FCS vs. FBS games, that sort of analysis should not be necessary, as you would hope not many teams would be having several turnovers and big mistakes such as that.

There were 48 games between FCS and FBS teams in week one, so the data set is actually fairly large (nearly half the teams that played, played FCS programs).

It was interesting to me in the sense that Miami truly and thoroughly dominated a team that was fairly decent offensively last year, and returned many of those same players on offense.

On a per rush basis, Miami ranked 10th of all teams against their FCS opponent. 5th out of the 23 BCS teams who played an FCS team. (1.51 YPC). Rutgers was first at -0.13 YPC. This was in the 78th percentile of all teams against the run.

On a yards per pass basis, Miami ranked 2nd of all teams against their FCS opponent. They were also 2nd among BCS teams who played an FCS team. (2.36 YPA) West Virginia was 1st at 2.23 YPA, but played a triple option team. This was in the 96th percentile of all teams against the pass.

On a total yards per play basis, Miami ranked 3rd of all teams. They were 2nd among BCS teams who played an FCS team. (1.72 YPP). New Mexico was 1st and destroyed a very, very bad FCS team at 1.32 YPP. Syracuse was the top BCS team with an impressive 1.60 YPP. Miami ranked in the 94th percentile on yards per play run.

There is a long way to go, and I won't be fooled again is a song that keeps playing in my head, but for one week at least, Miami's defense truly was dominant. You hear quite a bit about D'Onofrio- and rightly so- but the real worry is the offense. Playing against an undermanned defense replacing nine starters, Miami was mediocre in all facets offensively on a per-play basis. If we want to actually be a good team this year, we need to make massive strides offensively and become a lot more efficient with our plays on offense. I mentioned earlier that yards-per-play correlates well with scoring points, well that counts for the offensive side of our team as well, and right now we are not even close to where we need to be and Coley has to take some of that blame.

How would you take into account each coach's decision to play certain 2nd, 3rd, 4th stringers at various points of the game? How much time did our 1st and 2nd string get versus our 3rd and 4th? If we played the starters more, you better believe the results should be better than if another team played their starters in 1st quarter and played 2nd/3rd/4th the rest of the way.

And that's just one thought.

Absolutely your thoughts are valid, as any number of bias comes into play when talking about a game and statistics. Several of the FCS teams actually won the game, or came extremely close, so those games would be 1's vs. 1's all the way. There were also several games that were blowouts such as ours (many worse as well).

When you're referring to a sample size of 40+, you're actually looking at a decent sample size. Over 30 is considered a "large" sample size in the world of statistics (for the purpose of data analysis anyway).

There are varying degrees of talent on FCS teams- just like the teams playing them- and I didn't draw any conclusions from the data. What I'm trying to do is present information based on peer-to-peer data and see what trends develop from there. Just like anything else, what our fanbase chooses to do with it from there is personal choice.

The offense was a much bigger issue than the defense in this game.

All in all interesting, but when you come right down to it - as much as you want it to be an apples to apples comparison there are too many variables. Would be interesting to see this same formulation later in the season. Right now I think it's somewhat comparable to an unavoidable head on collision between a bulldozer and a Fiat. Doesnt matter how big the dozer is, it still wins. Thank you for taking the time to put it together, something tells me you had a blast doing so.

 

[Rellyrell]

This is all you need to know:
2013-Miami v. Savannah St (FCS school): Final Score 77-7 (scored the most points in school history)
2013 final record: 9-4 including going 2-4 down the stretch.
Lock Thread.

 

[NJshoreCane]

Vanilla offense or not, Miami should be able to convert 3rd downs routinely on a team like that.

Didn't like having to punt 4 times against that team.

 

[NJshoreCane]

Thank you, from a stat guy.

 

[mcanes1]

Very nice evaluation. Thank you.

 

[emdmao11]

4 wins max

 

[HarryCarayisGoat]

So....we back?

 

[weownfsu]

Christ, who gives a ****. I didn't read more than two sentences of OP. It's Bethune Cookman nobody besides Al's Army cares.

 

[WR Cane]

If Coley wasn't being vanilla, or on the take, he's gonna cost Al his job, cause his play calling suxx. Can't believe we still throw the sideline pass that gets our WR's murdered. Everyone knows he is gonna call that BS and get us blown the FU.

 

[emdmao11]

Hi

 

[TreOFive]

but but but....we looked so aggressive vs BCU

Dorito ball magically returned after the rain delay. he back...we not

 

[emdmao11]

We're actually going to lose to fau. A new low

 

[Cane Dynasty]

:U5PyXda:

 

[Chicken_N_Roffles]

OP needs some statistical analysis done on the circumference of the ***** residing in his ******.