[HisKneeWasDown]

After playing us, USC is ranked #98 out of 128 at 198 YPG

UCLA is ranked #55 at 134 YPG. (#5 in the Pac-12... Even mighty Colorado is ahead of them).

Washington will be tough... #22 (#1 in Pac-12) at 91 YPG.

Cal is ranked #126 at  ??? ??? 296 YPG  ??? ??? Definitely looking forward to Big Game...

http://www.espn.com/college-football/sta...shingYards, sorted by YPG

[HisKneeWasDown]

After playing us, USC is ranked #98 out of 128 at 198 YPG

UCLA is ranked #55 at 134 YPG. (#5 in the Pac-12... Even mighty Colorado is ahead of them).

Washington will be tough... #22 (#1 in Pac-12) at 91 YPG.

Cal is ranked #126 at  ??? ??? 296 YPG  ??? ??? Definitely looking forward to Big Game...

http://www.espn.com/college-football/sta...shingYards, sorted by YPG

[CTcard]

After playing us, ...

As you noted in the first sentence, at this point in the season this kind of statistic is more determined by whom you have played than by how you have played.

U$C has played Alabama, Utah State, and Stanford.
Washington has played Rutgers, Idaho, and Portland State.
I wonder who is going to have better rush-defense stats? (and most stats)

That said, UW will probably have one of the better rush defenses we will see, though they did lose a couple of guys up front.

[CTcard]

After playing us, ...

As you noted in the first sentence, at this point in the season this kind of statistic is more determined by whom you have played than by how you have played.

U$C has played Alabama, Utah State, and Stanford.
Washington has played Rutgers, Idaho, and Portland State.
I wonder who is going to have better rush-defense stats? (and most stats)

That said, UW will probably have one of the better rush defenses we will see, though they did lose a couple of guys up front.

[HisKneeWasDown]

[quote author=HisKneeWasDown link=topic=15742.msg172406#msg172406 date=1474610996]
After playing us, ...

As you noted in the first sentence, at this point in the season this kind of statistic is more determined by whom you have played than by how you have played.

[/quote]

Excellent point. So there should be a way to normalize the ranking against the running production of the opponents. Or something like that. That sounds like math... :-)

So let's just pick on Cal... they've played Hawaii and San Diego St, which are not high-calibre running teams, so for them to rank near last, well...

[HisKneeWasDown]

[quote author=HisKneeWasDown link=topic=15742.msg172406#msg172406 date=1474610996]
After playing us, ...

As you noted in the first sentence, at this point in the season this kind of statistic is more determined by whom you have played than by how you have played.

[/quote]

Excellent point. So there should be a way to normalize the ranking against the running production of the opponents. Or something like that. That sounds like math... :-)

So let's just pick on Cal... they've played Hawaii and San Diego St, which are not high-calibre running teams, so for them to rank near last, well...

[BostonCard]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=15742.msg172412#msg172412 date=1474635692]
[quote author=HisKneeWasDown link=topic=15742.msg172406#msg172406 date=1474610996]
After playing us, ...

As you noted in the first sentence, at this point in the season this kind of statistic is more determined by whom you have played than by how you have played.

[/quote]

Excellent point. So there should be a way to normalize the ranking against the running production of the opponents. Or something like that. That sounds like math... :-)

So let's just pick on ןɐɔ... they've played Hawaii and San Diego St, which are not high-calibre running teams, so for them to rank near last, well...
[/quote]

Indeed, there was; Steve Durrett used to make "relative performance ratios", basically adjusting the stats compared to what an opponent normally accomplished.  Sadly, he passed away not long ago.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=15742.msg172412#msg172412 date=1474635692]
[quote author=HisKneeWasDown link=topic=15742.msg172406#msg172406 date=1474610996]
After playing us, ...

As you noted in the first sentence, at this point in the season this kind of statistic is more determined by whom you have played than by how you have played.

[/quote]

Excellent point. So there should be a way to normalize the ranking against the running production of the opponents. Or something like that. That sounds like math... :-)

So let's just pick on ןɐɔ... they've played Hawaii and San Diego St, which are not high-calibre running teams, so for them to rank near last, well...
[/quote]

Indeed, there was; Steve Durrett used to make "relative performance ratios", basically adjusting the stats compared to what an opponent normally accomplished.  Sadly, he passed away not long ago.

BC

[CTcard]

[quote author=HisKneeWasDown link=topic=15742.msg172485#msg172485 date=1474691980]
So let's just pick on ןɐɔ... they've played Hawaii and San Diego St, which are not high-calibre running teams, so for them to rank near last, well...

Indeed, there was; Steve Durrett used to make "relative performance ratios", basically adjusting the stats compared to what an opponent normally accomplished.  Sadly, he passed away not long ago.
[/quote]

As Steve himself often noted, that only provides a first level of connection, which for some purposes is inadequate. Later in the season, there's an issue if you compare a performance against a Group of 5 (which mostly plays weaker G5 teams in conference) versus a performance against a P5 team (which mostly plays strong P5 teams in conference). Early in the season it means you are comparing performances against poof-ball schedulers like Baylor (NWST, SMU, Rice) and UW (Rutgers, Idaho, PRST) to those against serious schedulers like $C and Stanford. Still it is considerably better than not doing so.

The advanced stats guys claim they are using more sophisticated adjustments for strength of schedule but mostly don't publish what they do, and this early in the season such things aren't reliable.

-----------
And just to fix an error above, SDSU is a very good running team at 261 yards per game, 5.88 per attempt, and the country's leading RB in yds/game.

[CTcard]

[quote author=HisKneeWasDown link=topic=15742.msg172485#msg172485 date=1474691980]
So let's just pick on ןɐɔ... they've played Hawaii and San Diego St, which are not high-calibre running teams, so for them to rank near last, well...

Indeed, there was; Steve Durrett used to make "relative performance ratios", basically adjusting the stats compared to what an opponent normally accomplished.  Sadly, he passed away not long ago.
[/quote]

As Steve himself often noted, that only provides a first level of connection, which for some purposes is inadequate. Later in the season, there's an issue if you compare a performance against a Group of 5 (which mostly plays weaker G5 teams in conference) versus a performance against a P5 team (which mostly plays strong P5 teams in conference). Early in the season it means you are comparing performances against poof-ball schedulers like Baylor (NWST, SMU, Rice) and UW (Rutgers, Idaho, PRST) to those against serious schedulers like $C and Stanford. Still it is considerably better than not doing so.

The advanced stats guys claim they are using more sophisticated adjustments for strength of schedule but mostly don't publish what they do, and this early in the season such things aren't reliable.

-----------
And just to fix an error above, SDSU is a very good running team at 261 yards per game, 5.88 per attempt, and the country's leading RB in yds/game.