The Absurdity of K-State Above ND

We all know the polls are dumb. I don’t mean any individuals are dumb (which is also likely) but that the collective group is. They lack data, they don’t pay attention to data if they do have it, and their own biases impact everything. It’s kind of a silly system, and the current ranking of ND behind K-State is also silly.

This is a rock. We have a golden dome with Jesus’ mom on it. C’MON!

Here’s why.

Let’s take a look at a few data points to evaluate the order here:

1. Performance against the same opponents
2. Absolute Stats
3. Opponent-Adjusted Stats
4. Overall SOS (stealing this from Tex’s post earlier this week)

So, first:

1. Performance against the same opponents

Both ND and K-State played Miami and Oklahoma, and both teams won those games. But they didn’t win by the same margins. This is probably the ‘fairest’ comparison of the two teams we’ll get as they are the exact same opponents. The results of a comparison favor ND.

ND-OK: 30-13
KS-OK: 24-19

ND beat Oklahoma by 17 points for score ratio of 131%. KS beat Oklahoma by less than a Touchdown, a differential of 5 points or 26%. ND scored more points against Oklahoma and gave up fewer. This is clearly a superior performance by ND against the same team.

ND-MI: 41-3
KS-MI: 52-13

Here the story is more mixed as ND scored fewer points but also gave up fewer. On a percentage basis KS put up 3X or 300% of Miami’s points. But ND put up almost 13X or 1300%! C’mon now, folks!

But even if you call that a tie it’s pretty clear that ND outperformed K-State against the same competition. Say whatever else you want, but ND wins this test. ADVANTAGE ND

2. Absolute Stats

This is the one place where K-State looks better than ND, and it’s almost entirely on the offensive side of the ball. When we look at rankings of Passing and Rushing Offense (Yards), Points For and Points Against, ND only wins in the last category. And that’s where the perception that K-State is ‘better’ sets in. Here are national rankings in those categories:

KS ND

PASS 82 89
RUSH 18 30
POINTS 5 72
AGAINST 21 2

So K-State wins Test 2 but that brings us to Test 3 which pretty much negates it…

3. Opponent-Adjusted Stats

The problem with the previous view is that it completely ignores who they’ve played. And while K-State clearly has better offensive stats, ND has played a slate of teams with MUCH better defenses. And that matters. A lot.

Looking at the Combined S&P/FEI rankings on FootballOutsiders.com, which accounts for the quality of the teams played, we get a very different story.

KS ND

OFF 11 4
DEF 15 4

ND is better at both offense and defense once the competition is taken into account. ADVANTAGE BACK TO ND. Which brings us to point 4, competition.

4. SOS

See, when two teams have the exact same record, this is where the rubber meets the road. Look, if I am 100-0 in boxing and only fought 5th grade girls (or BC students – ZING!) you might not be intimidated. If I was 100-0 and took down heavyweight pros, it’s a different story. But somehow poll voters ignore this. ND is undefeated. So is K-State. BUT ND HAS PLAYED A HARDER SCHEDULE ACCORDING TO EVERYONE!

From Tex’s post earlier this week, here are the various SOS rankings for K-State and ND respectively:

KS: 30 40 13 16 33 AVERAGE = 26.4
ND: 25 8 10 7 16 AVERAGE = 16.2

So ND goes undefeated against the 16th most difficult schedule and K-State does the same against the 26th and somehow K-State is better than ND? WHAT KIND OF CRACK IS BEING SMOKED HERE?

Summary:

ND performed better against the same teams, ND has better opponent-adjusted stats, and ND played a more difficult schedule and has the same record. ND is #3 folks, plain and simple.

All K-State has over ND is style points (because people love offense), ND hatred in the general populace, and ND pulling off some close Ws in OT. But I find that much less compelling than all of the data here.

So that’s that. Now, on to Oregon…

BEAT BC!!!

ESPN: Yeah, Even We Can’t Imagine Why You’d Want To Play For Zook

ESPN’s Mark Schlabach is the recipient of only the 2nd ever Blind Squirrels/Big Nuts award for this piece about Ron Zook’s recruiting success despite a miserable career of actual coaching. I’ve pasted some of the highlights below:

…Illinois football coach Ron Zook … could sell you a used car, but might not be able to teach you to drive it. Zook could sell you swamp land in Arizona, but couldn’t find the state on a map.

[...]

…a masterful recruiter but a lousy coach.

[...]

The Illini, perhaps best known for producing rough-and-tough linebackers such as Dick Butkus, Dana Howard and Kevin Hardy, needed a salesman as much as a coach, because after struggling as one of college football’s worst teams for more than a decade, there wasn’t much about Illinois to sell.

[...]

Zook hasn’t changed the Illini’s fortunes on the field…

[...]

His teams went 4-19 the past two seasons, including a woeful 1-15 against Big Ten Conference opponents.

[...]

“A coach once told me it’s better to be a bad coach with good players than a good coach with bad players.”

[...]

Illinois’ football program has had only minor success — the Illini have won only four Big Ten titles in the last 43 seasons — despite being located in a heavily populated state with no powerful in-state rival.

[...]

“…it’s kind of like selling Mary Kay.”

Jim Donnan Actually Writes Something Worthwhile. HLS Creates New Category.

Jim Donnan actually wrote up a nice piece on the negative effects the horrid, putrid spawns of Satan officially named 3-2-5 and 3-2-5e, and affectionately named “Those Stupid F’in New Clock Rules” have had on the game of College Football.

“When you deprive a team of seven offensive plays per game, you not only decrease the number of opportunities to score, you decrease the amount of time an opponent must spend on defense as well. This can make for closer games, often with surprising results. The rules changes also significantly affected the ability of teams to utilize end-of-game clock management and minimized their chances to stage a comeback. And while shortened games provided fewer offensive opportunities, hastening the time between plays proved to be a disadvantage for defenses, which had less time to react to the opposing offense’s personnel packages.

The clock changes also affected the building of a team’s depth. Seven fewer plays each game might not sound like a lot, but over the course of the season, teams lost an average of 84 plays. That’s 84 plays a second-teamer didn’t get to experience. By affecting a team’s ability to develop its future stars and starters, the rules changes not only impacted records for this season, but future seasons as well.”

As a result, we at HLS have decided to start a new category for when oafs stumble upon success: Blind Squirrels/Big Nuts

Way to go, Jim!

Also, as a friendly public service reminder, hop on over to WeHateTheNewClockRules.com and sign their petition if you haven’t already.