When I think of Michigan State over the past few years, the terrible images of the beast known as Jehuu Caulcrick, the former Spartan running back, come to mind. And make it hard to sleep. Jehuu, as mental-prototypes of Spartan running backs tend to do, has/had thighs so massive that the surface area would make emperors day-dream of colonization. And when I think of such big-bruising running backs, I get a mental picture of a conservative, clock controlling offensive system that would make blue-hairs with overly romantic notions of time-of-possession swoon. But to paint Michigan State in wide swaths of a color called "Clock Chomp Glow" would be ill-fitting, as MSU, even in their "BCS-quality" season of 2010, are hardly time eliminating, dust creating machines.
A not particularly strong Spartan team of 2009 went 6-7 and actually ranked just 94th in time of possession. At the same time, they ranked 28th in passing offense and 73rd in rushing offense.
Now, before you go thinking that the 2010 edition "brought the sexy back" if you're the type who finds running-game proficiency to be sexy, guess again. While making massive improvements in their record (11-2) they barely budged their rushing offensive ranking up to 64th and actually saw their passing offense drop to 46th. And their time-of-possession rank was a middling 45th.
Now, heading into the contest between the Spartans and the Irish, MSU has a major lead in TOP: claiming a full 35:39 of the clock per game and ranking 7th. But the bulk of the advantage in either of those numbers arrives by virtue of their game last week against FAU, where they claimed 42:26 of game clock. It was a much different story against Youngstown State, when YSU actually beat out MSU for game-clock superiority, 31:09 to 28:51.
One element of the game I'm becoming more and more curious about is the time an offense spends on the field in the act of scoring. In other words, how much of a team's time of possession is spent running plays that ultimately contribute to a scoring drive? Let's call this stat, which is probably better named by someone else who tracks it better than I, "Time Well Spent."
| Opponent | Time of Possesion | Time Well Spent | % Well Spent |
|---|---|---|---|
| YSU | 28:51 | 12:48 | 44% |
| FAU | 42:26 | 33:14 | 78% |
| Totals | 71:17 | 46:02 | 65% |
So as you can see, the cumulative numbers seem to tell the sort of story you'd expect. Michigan State tends to hold onto the ball on long drives punctuated by scores. But the really interesting thing is that rep, at least this season, is earned via one performance against FAU. Who, if you hadn't heard, was playing a "home game" against Sparty last week. In Detroit.
Bonus Fun With Numbers: Notre Dame's Time Well Spent!
I know and you know that, by and large, the 2011 Irish have dominated every category save for the one that matters in the first 2 games of the season, but it was still a little startling, while researching MSU, to come across the Irish at #27 in Time of Possession. At first it was just weird to see them that high. But then I got to wondering why they weren't higher. They've racked up more than 500 yards per game, afterall. But in indeed they're averaging about 32 minutes of possession time per game, with 28:54 vs. South Florida and 37:01 vs. Michigan. And then, of course, given all the red-zone turnovers this year, I couldn't help but figure out their Time Well Spent. So here it is...
| Opponent | Time of Possesion | Time Well Spent | % Well Spent |
|---|---|---|---|
| South Florida | 28:54 | 6:49 | 24% |
| Michigan | 37:01 | 16:51 | 46% |
| Totals | 65:55 | 23:40 | 35% |
Yeah. Granted, the Irish haven't spent the first 6th of the season playing Youngstown State and FAU, but the Irish's best game for TWS is against Michigan, with 46% of their time possessing the ball actually being spent scoring. Which is just 2 points better than MSU's worst game. And the Irish's average TWS thus far is a full 30 points below MSU's average. See, wasn't that fun?
By Brad September 16, 2011 - 6:52 am
The thing I am interested to see this week (besides, you know, cleaning up the punting, turnovers, and penalties) is how we perform in two tight end sets. We have run a lot of them so far this year, and the running game has looked pretty good. But Ragone has been a blocking machine in those sets, and he is now gone. Welch is still recovering, so our 4th string true frosh Koyack will have to be able to get into the game and get physical against some MSU boys in the blocking game. Thats big for a kid to do, and I think his success in those sets will be a big, big factor in this game.
Also of note, I liked Kelly’s responses about Gary Gray this week at his presser:
“Gary Gray is going to have a great game. He’s going to play well.”
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Matt Q. (DMQ) September 16, 2011 - 9:42 am
Yeah. It’s a concern. I’m very curious to see how that plays out, particularly given that Kelly’s clearly trying to call a balanced game. Would be a shame for Ragone’s injury to throw a wrench in that.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Huck Finn September 16, 2011 - 10:49 am
I am interested by this idea of TWS. What do you think are the merits of it? For example, is scoring on an 80-yard bomb and then suffering a turnover a la the first drove against USF more valuable than marching down the field to score and then throwing a first-play INT? What makes it so? Morale-boosting? Defense-resting?
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Matt Q. (DMQ) September 16, 2011 - 12:18 pm
I’m really not sure. I think I’ll track the data, then see where correlations arise. It just seems there’s something intuitive (to me, anyway) about it.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By kyndfan September 16, 2011 - 1:43 pm
TWS may vary depending on the score. Being up by two td’s in the fourth, TWS can be burning five minutes off of the clock and punting, pinning the opponent deep in their own territory. I don’t think TWS can be pinned down to just scoring drives. Although scoring is always the ultimate goal; sometimes just eating the clock up so the other team doesn’t have time to drive down the field is TWS. And yes, I know scUM only needed 20 something seconds, but that is an exception not the rule.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Matt Q. (DMQ) September 16, 2011 - 2:11 pm
Completely valid. And I think the actual derivation of much information from the data will require some formulation that requires consideration of those facts. But for now, I think just starting to track it and brain-storming ideas for what to do with the data is fun.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Jason Thompson September 17, 2011 - 9:36 am
My personal guess is that TWS doesn’t really matter. Scoring matters, obviously, and we’re all familiar with the arguments as to why or why not TOP might matter. But TWS shouldn’t “matter” although it would be interesting if it showed something interesting (maybe a lower TWS suggested more fluke scores, and less repeatability, or something.)
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Time, Time, Tickin’… Tickin’ Away… « Her Loyal Sons September 29, 2011 - 10:37 pm
[...] some of you may recall, while previewing Michigan State, I took a look at how well both MSU and Notre Dame have been utilizing their time of possession. [...]
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Defending Air Force — Beyond the Yardage « Her Loyal Sons October 11, 2011 - 11:28 am
[...] drive a TD drive. It’s very similar to what DMQ talks about in posts regarding time well spent. So even your offense can be an effective defense in the game as TDs scored can create [...]
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0