I'm off to New York for a couple of days of binge drinking and generally celebrating the stupidity that is contemporary society.Regular blog programming will return early next week. Until then, amuse yourself with some of the older Bonanza material that has already been calculated.
And, of course, crack yourself open a smooth, refreshing, and peanuty Matt's Premium - America's Finest Beer From Utica, NY Named Matt's Premium.
And the Bonanza rolls on....
A few days ago I took a brief look at offensive drive efficiency and how the members of the Big East stacked up against each other. While a nice illustration of what was happening offensively in the Big East this year, the portrait painted was not completely indicative of which teams were the most efficient overall in 2005.
In order to construct a complete picture of a team's production and value, it is necessary to examine a team's efficiency on both the offensive and defensive sides of the football. The premise behind this maxim is simple: teams that have a great disparity between points yielded and points scored are bound to have more success.
With this in mind, here's the 2005 Big East Drive Efficiency data:
PF = Points Factor
SEF = Scoring Efficiency Factor
DEF = Drive Efficiency Factor
TDB = Total Defensive Benefit
[Analysis]
General Thoughts
Looking at these ratings, some things instantly come to mind. First, teams that performed best in stopping the opposition's third-down opportunities ultimately generated a better TDB value. With Connecticut and South Florida topping the Big East in this statistic, it's not surprising to see their defensive units yielding such a low number of TDB points.
Second, which is also along the same line as the first point, is the importance of limiting the number of first downs the opposing offense generates. The top three teams in TDB are also the league's top three squads in limiting the opposition's number of first downs, albeit in a different order.
Finally, defensive units that generate takeaways will always yield fewer points. There is little explanation that needs to be given to this contention, especially when one recognizes that the top four teams in TDB are also the league's top four clubs in defensive takeaways.
Thus, if a team limits the length of the opposing offense's drives and creates turnovers, very few points will be yielded. The math is frighteningly simple when viewed through that lens.
Orange Perspective
What was all that stuff about Syracuse's defense being the Orange's saving grace this season?
Whether Syracuse's terrible defensive performance in 2005 is attributable to the offense's inability to stay on the field is debatable contention.
It is true that because Syracuse fielded such an inefficient offense (dead last in the Big East in 2005), the defense may have become fatigued from having to stay on the field for so long. Thus, because the defense was so fatigued, they simply ran out of gas as the game wore on and, consequently, yielded an uncharacteristic number of point-producing drives. This point is buttressed by the fact that Syracuse yielded 152 total second half points this season as opposed to 143 in the first half.
Additionally, it could be argued that a defensive unit that is unassisted by an inefficient offensive unit is almost guaranteed to fail and yield lots of points because of the short field the defense must defend. When an offense cannot string together prolonged drives, a defense is bound to be forced to essentially have to play with only a half-field behind them, thus giving a defense's opposition great opportunity to score.
However, these arguments cannot be the only reasons for the Orange's weak statistical production. Syracuse was only yielded 11 more points in the second half on the season than they did in the first. That does not really smack of defensive inefficiency as the result of offense-induced fatigue.
Moreover, the Orange defensive unit yielded 4100 yards to its opposition this year and only managed to generate 23 takeaways. To believe that these aspects of Syracuse's defensive performance are directly attributable to Perry Patterson's chubby an innacurate throwing arm is ludicrous.
What plagued the Orange all season (and is probably attributable to Syracuse's poor defensive production) is the team's inability to: a) generate sacks, b) create turnovers, and c) turn the opposition's opportune field position into field goal attempts rather than red zone possessions.
This season, the Orange defense managed only 25 sacks on the season (6th in the Big East). When a team cannot generate sacks (especially a defense that blitzes and attacks with reckless abandon), the opposition is not losing field position and, consequently, is in a prime position to create prolonged drives and scoring opportunities.
As for the inability to create turnovers, Syracuse wasn't quite dreadful, but they certainly weren't superb. With 23 takeaways, the Orange finished 5th in the conference. However, many of these turnovers were of little assistance when viewed in the abstract because the Orange's offense was bound to either squander field position or generate a giveaway in plus territory. Thus, because Syracuse's offense was so terrible, the Orange defense needed to actually create a ridiculous number of turnovers in order decrease the number of scoring opportunities its opposition could have.
A few days ago I took a brief look at offensive drive efficiency and how the members of the Big East stacked up against each other. While a nice illustration of what was happening offensively in the Big East this year, the portrait painted was not completely indicative of which teams were the most efficient overall in 2005.
In order to construct a complete picture of a team's production and value, it is necessary to examine a team's efficiency on both the offensive and defensive sides of the football. The premise behind this maxim is simple: teams that have a great disparity between points yielded and points scored are bound to have more success.
With this in mind, here's the 2005 Big East Drive Efficiency data:
| 2005 Big East Defensive Drive Efficiency | ||||
| Team | PF | SEF | DEF | TDB |
| West Virginia | 1.8299 | 1.449 | 1.068 | 157.000 |
| South Florida | 1.869 | 1.4897 | 1.111 | 169.917 |
| Connecticut | 1.622 | 1.324 | 1.026 | 172.417 |
| Louisville | 1.9696 | 1.591 | 1.213 | 179.500 |
| Pittsburgh | 2.012 | 1.752 | 1.492 | 229.833 |
| Syracuse | 2.046 | 1.770 | 1.495 | 249.667 |
| Rutgers | 2.533 | 2.261 | 1.989 | 292.333 |
| Cincinnati | 2.454 | 2.214 | 1.947 | 296.167 |
PF = Points Factor
SEF = Scoring Efficiency Factor
DEF = Drive Efficiency Factor
TDB = Total Defensive Benefit
[Analysis]
General Thoughts
Looking at these ratings, some things instantly come to mind. First, teams that performed best in stopping the opposition's third-down opportunities ultimately generated a better TDB value. With Connecticut and South Florida topping the Big East in this statistic, it's not surprising to see their defensive units yielding such a low number of TDB points.
Second, which is also along the same line as the first point, is the importance of limiting the number of first downs the opposing offense generates. The top three teams in TDB are also the league's top three squads in limiting the opposition's number of first downs, albeit in a different order.
Finally, defensive units that generate takeaways will always yield fewer points. There is little explanation that needs to be given to this contention, especially when one recognizes that the top four teams in TDB are also the league's top four clubs in defensive takeaways.
Thus, if a team limits the length of the opposing offense's drives and creates turnovers, very few points will be yielded. The math is frighteningly simple when viewed through that lens.
Orange Perspective
What was all that stuff about Syracuse's defense being the Orange's saving grace this season?
Whether Syracuse's terrible defensive performance in 2005 is attributable to the offense's inability to stay on the field is debatable contention.
It is true that because Syracuse fielded such an inefficient offense (dead last in the Big East in 2005), the defense may have become fatigued from having to stay on the field for so long. Thus, because the defense was so fatigued, they simply ran out of gas as the game wore on and, consequently, yielded an uncharacteristic number of point-producing drives. This point is buttressed by the fact that Syracuse yielded 152 total second half points this season as opposed to 143 in the first half.
Additionally, it could be argued that a defensive unit that is unassisted by an inefficient offensive unit is almost guaranteed to fail and yield lots of points because of the short field the defense must defend. When an offense cannot string together prolonged drives, a defense is bound to be forced to essentially have to play with only a half-field behind them, thus giving a defense's opposition great opportunity to score.
However, these arguments cannot be the only reasons for the Orange's weak statistical production. Syracuse was only yielded 11 more points in the second half on the season than they did in the first. That does not really smack of defensive inefficiency as the result of offense-induced fatigue.
Moreover, the Orange defensive unit yielded 4100 yards to its opposition this year and only managed to generate 23 takeaways. To believe that these aspects of Syracuse's defensive performance are directly attributable to Perry Patterson's chubby an innacurate throwing arm is ludicrous.
What plagued the Orange all season (and is probably attributable to Syracuse's poor defensive production) is the team's inability to: a) generate sacks, b) create turnovers, and c) turn the opposition's opportune field position into field goal attempts rather than red zone possessions.
This season, the Orange defense managed only 25 sacks on the season (6th in the Big East). When a team cannot generate sacks (especially a defense that blitzes and attacks with reckless abandon), the opposition is not losing field position and, consequently, is in a prime position to create prolonged drives and scoring opportunities.
As for the inability to create turnovers, Syracuse wasn't quite dreadful, but they certainly weren't superb. With 23 takeaways, the Orange finished 5th in the conference. However, many of these turnovers were of little assistance when viewed in the abstract because the Orange's offense was bound to either squander field position or generate a giveaway in plus territory. Thus, because Syracuse's offense was so terrible, the Orange defense needed to actually create a ridiculous number of turnovers in order decrease the number of scoring opportunities its opposition could have.
Inside Lacrosse and Face-Off Yearbook released their Division I Pre-Season Coaches’ Poll yesterday. The poll is taken from surveys issued to 55 Division I coaches, the largest sampling for any Division I poll.
Earning the top-spot in the poll is 2005 defending National Champion Johns Hopkins. Coming in behind the Blue Jays were Duke (Lacrosse Magazine's pre-season selection for 2006 champion), Virginia, Joe Walters-led Maryland, and the Syracuse Orange.
In addition to the pre-season poll, Inside Lacrosse and Face-Off Yearbook announced their Division I Pre-Season All-America list. The Orange placed a handful of players on the list, including:
Earning the top-spot in the poll is 2005 defending National Champion Johns Hopkins. Coming in behind the Blue Jays were Duke (Lacrosse Magazine's pre-season selection for 2006 champion), Virginia, Joe Walters-led Maryland, and the Syracuse Orange.
| Pre-Season 2006 Coaches' Poll | ||||
| Rank | Team | Votes | ||
| 1. | Johns Hopkins | 1369 (36) | ||
| 2. | Duke | 1354 (17) | ||
| 3. | Virginia | 1223 | ||
| 4. | Maryland | 1221 (1) | ||
| 5. | Syracuse | 1150 (1) | ||
| 6. | Georgetown | 1060 | ||
| 7. | Navy | 1026 | ||
| 8. | Cornell | 996 | ||
| 9. | Massachusetts | 894 | ||
| 10. | Princeton | 823 | ||
| 11. | Towson | 783 | ||
| 12. | Notre Dame | 633 | ||
| 13. | Penn State | 607 | ||
| 14. | North Carolina | 578 | ||
| 15. | Army | 472 | ||
| 16. | Delaware | 430 | ||
| 17. | Dartmouth | 369 | ||
| 18. | Albany | 339 | ||
| 19. | Hofstra | 316 | ||
| 20. | Fairfield | 299 | ||
| 21. | Ohio State | 288 | ||
| 22. | Denver | 284 | ||
| 23. | Loyola | 231 | ||
| 24. | Rutgers | 192 | ||
| 25. | Bucknell | 174 | ||
In addition to the pre-season poll, Inside Lacrosse and Face-Off Yearbook announced their Division I Pre-Season All-America list. The Orange placed a handful of players on the list, including:
- First Team - Greg Rommel
- Second Team - Brian Crockett, Stephen Panarelli
- Third Team - Mike Leveille
- Honorable Mention - Brett Bucktooth, Joe Yevoli
Let the Bonanza continue!
Drive efficiency is probably the best barometer for measuring an offense's true productive value. Through this methodology, noisy data is eradicated by using objective measurements of standard value and efficiency.
If you are looking for some more background information on drive efficiency (and to see how the Big East stacked up in 2004), I highly suggest clicking this text.
PF = Points Factor
SEF = Scoring Efficiency Factor
DEF = Drive Efficiency Factor
TOB = Total Offensive Benefit
[Analysis]
Who would've thought that Dan Orlovsky, Connecticut's all-everything gunslinger from 2004, would be missed so much?
To say that Connecticut had a significant offensive fall from grace from 2004 to 2005 would be an understatement of epic proportion. Last season, Storrs housed the league's most efficient offense, chiming in with a 333.75 total offensive benefit value. This season, the Huskies barely managed to climb above the 200-point mark.
Connecticut's woeful offensive output appears to be directly attributable to the team's inability to string together prolonged drives. With a DEF of just over 1.3 (3rd worst in the Big East), the Huskies were simply unable to a) score when put in opportune situations, and/or b) sustain a drive to put the offense in an opportune situation.
As for the truly efficient offensive units in the Big East, Louisville is, not suprisingly, at the top of the heap. With an offense built around an ultra-accurate passer in Brian Brohm and a rusher that is cash money in short yardage situations, the Cardinals were unstoppable when they had the pigskin. With a total offensive benefit value that all but tripled that of Syracuse's, Louisville's "disappointing" season cannot be pinned on the offense's performance.
Speaking of Syracuse, the Orange were just pathetic on offense. I know this serves as no news flash, but it is eye-opening to see Syracuse get outpaced by Cincinnati by almost 70 points this season. And the Bearcats were essentially playing with nine new starters on offense this season.
Furthermore, the Orange reached a new four-year low with their offensive output this season. I'd like to believe that it's always darkest before dawn, but I think this offense is still a few hours away from sunrise.
As for the other squads on the list, I'll probably come back to them later for a further rundown. Until then, feel free to comment about any of this data in the "Comments" section below.
Drive efficiency is probably the best barometer for measuring an offense's true productive value. Through this methodology, noisy data is eradicated by using objective measurements of standard value and efficiency.
If you are looking for some more background information on drive efficiency (and to see how the Big East stacked up in 2004), I highly suggest clicking this text.
| 2005 Big East Drive Efficiency | ||||
| Team | PF | SEF | DEF | TOB |
| Louisville | 2.984 | 2.747 | 2.5099 | 381.500 |
| West Virginia | 2.377 | 2.144 | 1.912 | 279.083 |
| South Florida | 2.125 | 1.836 | 1.546 | 235.000 |
| Rutgers | 2.361 | 1.903 | 1.446 | 221.167 |
| Connecticut | 1.813 | 1.556 | 1.300 | 213.250 |
| Pittsburgh | 2.039 | 1.721 | 1.403 | 211.833 |
| Cincinnati | 1.957 | 1.628 | 1.299 | 197.417 |
| Syracuse | 1.439 | 1.109 | 0.7799 | 127.917 |
PF = Points Factor
SEF = Scoring Efficiency Factor
DEF = Drive Efficiency Factor
TOB = Total Offensive Benefit
[Analysis]
Who would've thought that Dan Orlovsky, Connecticut's all-everything gunslinger from 2004, would be missed so much?
To say that Connecticut had a significant offensive fall from grace from 2004 to 2005 would be an understatement of epic proportion. Last season, Storrs housed the league's most efficient offense, chiming in with a 333.75 total offensive benefit value. This season, the Huskies barely managed to climb above the 200-point mark.
Connecticut's woeful offensive output appears to be directly attributable to the team's inability to string together prolonged drives. With a DEF of just over 1.3 (3rd worst in the Big East), the Huskies were simply unable to a) score when put in opportune situations, and/or b) sustain a drive to put the offense in an opportune situation.
As for the truly efficient offensive units in the Big East, Louisville is, not suprisingly, at the top of the heap. With an offense built around an ultra-accurate passer in Brian Brohm and a rusher that is cash money in short yardage situations, the Cardinals were unstoppable when they had the pigskin. With a total offensive benefit value that all but tripled that of Syracuse's, Louisville's "disappointing" season cannot be pinned on the offense's performance.
Speaking of Syracuse, the Orange were just pathetic on offense. I know this serves as no news flash, but it is eye-opening to see Syracuse get outpaced by Cincinnati by almost 70 points this season. And the Bearcats were essentially playing with nine new starters on offense this season.
Furthermore, the Orange reached a new four-year low with their offensive output this season. I'd like to believe that it's always darkest before dawn, but I think this offense is still a few hours away from sunrise.
As for the other squads on the list, I'll probably come back to them later for a further rundown. Until then, feel free to comment about any of this data in the "Comments" section below.
I'll be on hiatus for the next few days because I need to spend some time trying to pin my father on the floor so as to stop this wretched holiday.I should return sometime early next week to complete some more work on the Bonanza. If for some reason you've missed Parts I-III, here's the shakedown:
- Part I: 2005 Pythagoras
- Part II: 2005 Parity Index
- Part III: 2005 Big East Pass Receiver Ratings
Still to come:
- Part IV: 2005 Big East Offensive Efficiency
- Part V: Early Season Big East Wonk
- Part VI: The Gerry McNamara File
It's not just you. The Big East was a wasteland for effective receivers this year.
Last season, the Big East saw five receivers top the 70.000 mark with Greg Lee leading the way with a terrific 105.587 rating. This season, however, the Big East was home to only three players in the upper echelon of receiving production with nobody topping the 100.000 mark.
[Data]
In order to make this analysis reasonable, I only considered Big East receivers who made at least 10 catches on the season and played in at least 75% of their team's games.
Last season, the Big East saw five receivers top the 70.000 mark with Greg Lee leading the way with a terrific 105.587 rating. This season, however, the Big East was home to only three players in the upper echelon of receiving production with nobody topping the 100.000 mark.
[Data]
In order to make this analysis reasonable, I only considered Big East receivers who made at least 10 catches on the season and played in at least 75% of their team's games.
| Pass Receiver Ratings: 2005 | ||||
| Rank | Player | Team | Rating | |
| 1. | G. Lee | Pitt | 89.079 | |
| 2. | M. Urrutia | UL | 80.248 | |
| 3. | J. Tinch | UL | 72.638 | |
| 4. | T. Moses | RU | 65.101 | |
| 5. | M. Jones | UL | 61.898 | |
| 6. | B. Leonard | RU | 58.342 | |
| 7. | C. Harris | RU | 54.376 | |
| 8. | B. Myles | WVU | 52.946 | |
| 9. | H. Douglas | UL | 50.158 | |
| 10. | E. Jackson | Cincy | 48.777 | |
| 11. | S. Tucker | RU | 47.095 | |
| 12. | J. Williams | Conn | 47.021 | |
| 13. | B. Young | Conn | 46.513 | |
| 14. | D. Kinder | Pitt | 46.297 | |
| 15. | B. Celek | Cincy | 45.229 | |
| 16. | D. Murray | Conn | 41.526 | |
| 17. | D. Reynaud | WVU | 39.9798 | |
| 18. | T. Lane | SU | 39.352 | |
| 19. | D. Ross | Cincy | 38.8999 | |
| 20. | R. Moss | SU | 38.460 | |
| 21. | B. Poland | Cincy | 38.049 | |
| 22. | M. Bush | UL | 37.171 | |
| 23. | A. Hall | USF | 36.965 | |
| 24. | D. Goodman | Cincy | 34.815 | |
| 25. | J. Peyton | USF | 33.704 | |
| 26. | D. Strong | Pitt | 33.307 | |
| 27. | G. Barnidge | UL | 33.236 | |
| 28. | J. Chambers | USF | 33.124 | |
| 29. | E. Gill | Pitt | 32.833 | |
| 30. | K. Smith | UL | 32.771 | |
| 31. | D. Rhodes | SU | 32.142 | |
| 32. | S. Buches | Pitt | 30.947 | |
| 33. | S.J. Green | USF | 30.879 | |
| 34. | A. Jackson | USF | 30.018 | |
| 35. | C. Hill | USF | 28.046 | |
| 36. | B. McLean | Conn | 26.534 | |
| 37. | A. Giddens | Cincy | 25.037 | |
| 38. | T. Caulley | Conn | 24.794 | |
| 39. | S. Slaton | WVU | 24.634 | |
| 40. | T. Murphy | Pitt | 23.986 | |
| 41. | J. DelSardo | Pitt | 23.874 | |
| 42. | D. Jones | Cincy | 19.389 | |
| 43. | B. Glatthaar | Cincy | 15.711 | |
| 44. | M. Daniels | Cincy | 12.756 | |
Two lacrosse essays on back-to-back days?This truly is the most wonderful time of the year!
In an apparent effort to beat out Inside Lacrosse's Pre-season Media Poll, Lacrosse Magazine debuted their 2006 pre-season rankings yesterday. Inside Lacrosse is expected to release their Division I rankings sometime within the next week or two.
Lacrosse Magazine has tapped Mike Pressler's Duke Blue Devils as its pre-season choice to raise hell in Philadelphia over Memorial Day Weekend. Following Duke are2005 National Champion Johns Hopkins, Virginia, Maryland, and Syracuse, respectively. The rest of the Top 20 may be seen below.
| Pre-Season 2006: Lacrosse Magazine | ||||
| Rank | Team | |||
| 1. | Duke | |||
| 2. | Johns Hopkins | |||
| 3. | Virginia | |||
| 4. | Maryland | |||
| 5. | Syracuse | |||
| 6. | Cornell | |||
| 7. | Navy | |||
| 8. | Georgetown | |||
| 9. | Massachusetts | |||
| 10. | Notre Dame | |||
| 11. | Penn State | |||
| 12. | Towson | |||
| 13. | Army | |||
| 14. | Princeton | |||
| 15. | Denver | |||
| 16. | Hofstra | |||
| 17. | Delaware | |||
| 18. | North Carolina | |||
| 19. | UMBC | |||
| 20t. | Fairfield | |||
| 20t. | Stony Brook | |||
The Syracuse Athletic Department recently released the 2006 Men's Lacrosse schedule. The list of potential victims is littered with many familiar faces, but includes a few fresh ones as well.
* = Scrimmage
[Thoughts]
If this schedule isn't the toughest in the country, it's certainly going to be amongst the most difficult. With road games against Hopkins, UVA, and Cornell, the Orange have their work cut out for them if they expect to garner a high seed for this year's post-season tournament.
Also, Syracuse has a brutal stretch of three games in seven days starting with their April 8th game against Princeton. With two out of those three games on the road (including a trip to Ithaca where Syracuse has been snakebitten for about five years now), the Orange will have to fight off fatigue as they battle relatively worthy opponents.
Finally, it's interesting to see Colgate on the schedule this season instead of perennial opponent Brown. The Post-Standard noted this development in a recent story and it can be found here.
| Syracuse Lacrosse 2006 Schedule | |||
| Date | Opponent | Location | Time |
| 2/11 | Navy* | Annapolis, MD | 12:00 PM |
| 2/18 | Maryland* | Syracuse, NY | 1:00 PM |
| 2/25 | Army | Syracuse, NY | 4:00 PM |
| 3/4 | Virginia | Charlottesville, VA | 3:00 PM |
| 3/10 | Georgetown | Syracuse, NY | 7:00 PM |
| 3/18 | Johns Hopkins | Baltimore, MD | 1:00 PM |
| 3/28 | Hobart | Syracuse, NY | 7:00 PM |
| 4/1 | Loyola | Syracuse, NY | 4:00 PM |
| 4/8 | Princeton | Syracuse, NY | 2:00 PM |
| 4/11 | Cornell | Ithaca, NY | 7:00 PM |
| 4/15 | Rutgers | Piscataway, NJ | 12:00 PM |
| 4/21 | Albany | Syracuse, NY | 7:00 PM |
| 4/29 | Massachusetts | Syracuse, NY | 2:00 PM |
| 5/6 | Colgate | Hamilton, NY | 1:00 PM |
[Thoughts]
If this schedule isn't the toughest in the country, it's certainly going to be amongst the most difficult. With road games against Hopkins, UVA, and Cornell, the Orange have their work cut out for them if they expect to garner a high seed for this year's post-season tournament.
Also, Syracuse has a brutal stretch of three games in seven days starting with their April 8th game against Princeton. With two out of those three games on the road (including a trip to Ithaca where Syracuse has been snakebitten for about five years now), the Orange will have to fight off fatigue as they battle relatively worthy opponents.
Finally, it's interesting to see Colgate on the schedule this season instead of perennial opponent Brown. The Post-Standard noted this development in a recent story and it can be found here.
[The Parity Index]
The Parity Index is a simple measure of how close each conference is to "utopian" competitive balance. Thus, if every team in a conference finished with a .500 conference record, the conference's parity index value would be zero (0).
Why is this important?
Well, through an examination of parity, several valuable insights may be made, including:
- What conferences are most prone to parity thus making each conference game all that more important;
- Perspective can be given to "upsets" by placing them in the context of the conference they occur in; and
- Insights may be made as to relationship between parity and the intangibles associated with each D-1A football conference.
And if you're interested, the 2004 Parity Index may be found here.
[Analysis]
Atlantic Coast Conference
All season the ACC was characterized as the most competitive conference in the country. With nine of the conferences twelve teams within one victory or defeat from a .500 record, the ACC was clearly the most competitively balanced conference in the country in 2005.
PAC-10
The PAC-10 once again places amongst the worst three conferences in the country in terms of competitive balance. Unless you're interested in watching the daily line being validated, there is little reason to tune into any of these contests.
Sun Belt
Here's some simple math that adequately describes the Sun Belt's high parity value:
A Bunch of Shitty Teams + Very Few Dominating Road Variables = High Parity.
Big East
What a difference a year makes.
In 2004, the Big East was the second-most competitive conference in the country chiming in with a 21.822 parity value. This year, the Big East saw itself become one of the least competitively balanced conferences in the country.
Why did this happen? It's actually pretty simple: the addition of Louisville and Syracuse's sharp demise.
The Parity Index is a simple measure of how close each conference is to "utopian" competitive balance. Thus, if every team in a conference finished with a .500 conference record, the conference's parity index value would be zero (0).
Why is this important?
Well, through an examination of parity, several valuable insights may be made, including:
- What conferences are most prone to parity thus making each conference game all that more important;
- Perspective can be given to "upsets" by placing them in the context of the conference they occur in; and
- Insights may be made as to relationship between parity and the intangibles associated with each D-1A football conference.
And if you're interested, the 2004 Parity Index may be found here.
| Parity Index - 2005 | ||||
| Conference | Parity Index | |||
| Western Athletic | 30.619 | |||
| Big East | 28.571 | |||
| PAC Ten | 28.504 | |||
| Big Ten | 27.178 | |||
| Southeastern | 27.003 | |||
| Big Twelve | 23.936 | |||
| Mountain West | 23.570 | |||
| Mid-American | 22.823 | |||
| Conference USA | 21.651 | |||
| Atlantic Coast | 21.651 | |||
| Sun Belt | 17.496 | |||
[Analysis]
Atlantic Coast Conference
All season the ACC was characterized as the most competitive conference in the country. With nine of the conferences twelve teams within one victory or defeat from a .500 record, the ACC was clearly the most competitively balanced conference in the country in 2005.
PAC-10
The PAC-10 once again places amongst the worst three conferences in the country in terms of competitive balance. Unless you're interested in watching the daily line being validated, there is little reason to tune into any of these contests.
Sun Belt
Here's some simple math that adequately describes the Sun Belt's high parity value:
A Bunch of Shitty Teams + Very Few Dominating Road Variables = High Parity.
Big East
What a difference a year makes.
In 2004, the Big East was the second-most competitive conference in the country chiming in with a 21.822 parity value. This year, the Big East saw itself become one of the least competitively balanced conferences in the country.
Why did this happen? It's actually pretty simple: the addition of Louisville and Syracuse's sharp demise.
It's the Bonanza of Numbers.
And as far as I'm concerned, it's the second coolest thing on the internet right behind anything involving a crying toddler.
Today's edition of the Bonanza (that's what all the cool kids with calculators call it) marks the re-emergence of the joy of pythagoras. If you have no idea what a pythagora is, I highly suggest clicking this blue text. It has a brief explanation of the method, and, as an added bonus, contains all the pythagora data from the 2004 season.
Legend:
PF = Points For
PA = Points Against
AW/L = Actual Won/Loss Record
AW/L% = Actual Won/Loss Percentage
PW/L = Predicted Won/Loss Record
PW/L% = Predicted Won/Loss Percentage
DIF = Difference between Actual and Predicted Won/Loss Record (in parantheticals) and in Percentage
[Analysis]
The big overachievers in 2005 were:
1. UCLA
2. Nevada
3. Oregon
4. Central Florida
5. Cincinnati
The big underachievers in 2005 were:
1. Connecticut
2. Washington State
3. Arkansas
4. Middle Tennessee State
5. Arizona
Conference Breakdown:
1. Sun Belt (+5)
2. Big Twelve (+3)
3. Mid-American (+2)
4. Independents (+1)
4. Western Athletic (+1)
6. Atlantic Coast(0)
6. Big Ten (0)
6. Conference USA (0)
9. Big East (-1)
9. PAC-10 (-1)
9. Southeastern (-1)
12. Mountain West (-2)
And as far as I'm concerned, it's the second coolest thing on the internet right behind anything involving a crying toddler.
Today's edition of the Bonanza (that's what all the cool kids with calculators call it) marks the re-emergence of the joy of pythagoras. If you have no idea what a pythagora is, I highly suggest clicking this blue text. It has a brief explanation of the method, and, as an added bonus, contains all the pythagora data from the 2004 season.
Legend:
PF = Points For
PA = Points Against
AW/L = Actual Won/Loss Record
AW/L% = Actual Won/Loss Percentage
PW/L = Predicted Won/Loss Record
PW/L% = Predicted Won/Loss Percentage
DIF = Difference between Actual and Predicted Won/Loss Record (in parantheticals) and in Percentage
| Pythagorean Method - 2005 Season | ||||||||
| Conf. | Team | PF | PA | AW/L | AW/L% | PW/L | PW/L% | DIF |
| ACC | VTech | 405 | 144 | 10-2 | .833 | 11-1 | .921 | (-1)/-0.088 |
| FSU | 353 | 260 | 8-4 | .667 | 8-4 | .674 | (0)/-0.007 | |
| Miami | 322 | 131 | 9-2 | .818 | 10-1 | .894 | (-1)/-0.076 | |
| UVA | 286 | 248 | 6-5 | .545 | 6-5 | .584 | (0)/-0.039 | |
| UNC | 198 | 288 | 5-6 | .455 | 3-8 | .292 | (+2)/0.163 | |
| GT | 212 | 203 | 7-4 | .636 | 6-5 | .526 | (+1)/0.11 | |
| Clemson | 297 | 201 | 7-4 | .636 | 8-3 | .716 | (-1)/-0.08 | |
| NCSU | 235 | 212 | 6-5 | .545 | 6-5 | .561 | (0)/-0.016 | |
| MD | 270 | 275 | 5-6 | .455 | 5-6 | .481 | (0)/-0.026 | |
| Wake | 269 | 316 | 4-7 | .364 | 4-7 | .406 | (0)/-0.042 | |
| Duke | 177 | 408 | 1-10 | .090 | 1-10 | .121 | (0)/-0.031 | |
| BC | 283 | 170 | 8-3 | .727 | 8-3 | .7699 | (0)/-0.043 | |
| BE | Pitt | 267 | 243 | 5-6 | .455 | 6-5 | .556 | (-1)/-0.101 |
| WVU | 347 | 179 | 10-1 | .909 | 9-2 | .828 | (+1)/.081 | |
| SU | 152 | 295 | 1-10 | .090 | 2-9 | .172 | (-1)/-0.082 | |
| UConn | 272 | 211 | 5-6 | .455 | 7-4 | .646 | (-2)/-0.191 | |
| Rutgers | 304 | 262 | 7-4 | .636 | 6-5 | .587 | (+1)/0.049 | |
| Louisville | 497 | 250 | 9-2 | .818 | 9-2 | .836 | (0)/-0.018 | |
| S. Florida | 276 | 202 | 6-5 | .545 | 7-4 | .677 | (-1)/-0.132 | |
| Cincy | 192 | 345 | 4-7 | .364 | 2-9 | .1996 | (+2)/0.164 | |
| B10 | Wisc | 422 | 299 | 9-3 | .750 | 8-4 | .694 | (+1)/0.056 |
| NWest | 350 | 357 | 7-4 | .636 | 5-6 | .488 | (+2)/0.148 | |
| PU | 330 | 309 | 5-6 | .455 | 6-5 | .539 | (-1)/-0.084 | |
| OSU | 358 | 163 | 9-2 | .818 | 10-1 | .866 | (-1)/-0.048 | |
| MSU | 372 | 316 | 5-6 | .455 | 7-4 | .595 | (-2)/-0.14 | |
| Minn | 398 | 314 | 7-4 | .636 | 7-4 | .637 | (0)/-0.001 | |
| PSU | 387 | 181 | 10-1 | .909 | 9-2 | .858 | (+1)/0.051 | |
| Illinois | 187 | 435 | 2-9 | .182 | 1-10 | .119 | (+1)/0.063 | |
| Indiana | 248 | 361 | 4-7 | .364 | 3-8 | .291 | (+1)/0.073 | |
| Michigan | 317 | 212 | 7-4 | .636 | 8-3 | .722 | (-1)/-0.086 | |
| IOWA | 336 | 209 | 7-4 | .636 | 8-3 | .755 | (-1)/-0.119 | |
| B12 | Mizzou | 331 | 319 | 6-5 | .545 | 6-5 | .522 | (0)/0.023 |
| Neb | 264 | 224 | 7-4 | .636 | 7-4 | .596 | (0)/0.04 | |
| KU | 227 | 251 | 6-5 | .545 | 5-6 | .441 | (+1)/0.104 | |
| KSU | 289 | 305 | 5-6 | .455 | 5-6 | .468 | (0)/-0.013 | |
| OU | 306 | 263 | 7-4 | .636 | 6-5 | .589 | (+1)/0.047 | |
| Texas | 611 | 175 | 12-0 | 1.000 | 11-1 | .951 | (+1)/0.049 | |
| TT | 463 | 213 | 9-2 | .818 | 9-2 | .863 | (0)/-0.045 | |
| TAMU | 352 | 343 | 5-6 | .455 | 6-5 | .515 | (-1)/-0.06 | |
| Okie St. | 222 | 344 | 4-7 | .364 | 3-8 | .262 | (+1)/0.102 | |
| Baylor | 236 | 291 | 5-6 | .455 | 4-7 | .378 | (+1)/0.077 | |
| CU | 295 | 288 | 7-5 | .583 | 6-6 | .514 | (+1)/0.069 | |
IowaSt. | 315 | 203 | 7-4 | .636 | 8-3 | .739 | (-1)/-0.103 | |
| P-10 | ASU | 397 | 319 | 6-5 | .545 | 7-4 | .627 | (-1)/-0.082 |
| Org. St. | 293 | 365 | 5-6 | .455 | 4-7 | .373 | (+1)/0.082 | |
| UCLA | 419 | 372 | 9-2 | .818 | 6-5 | .570 | (+3)/0.248 | |
| Oregon | 400 | 261 | 10-1 | .909 | 8-3 | .733 | (+2)/0.176 | |
| WSU | 368 | 346 | 4-7 | .364 | 6-5 | .536 | (-2)/-0.172 | |
| Stanford | 269 | 337 | 5-6 | .455 | 4-7 | .3696 | (-1)/-0.085 | |
| 'Zona | 252 | 290 | 3-8 | .273 | 5-6 | .418 | (-2)/-0.145 | |
| UW | 237 | 337 | 2-9 | .182 | 3-8 | .303 | (-1)/-0.121 | |
| USC | 600 | 256 | 12-0 | 1.000 | 11-1 | .883 | (+1)/0.117 | |
| Cal | 360 | 226 | 7-4 | .636 | 8-3 | .751 | (-1)/-0.115 | |
| SEC | UF | 312 | 202 | 8-3 | .727 | 8-3 | .737 | (0)/-0.01 |
| S. Car | 253 | 241 | 7-4 | .636 | 6-5 | .529 | (+1)/0.107 | |
| UK | 239 | 375 | 3-8 | .273 | 3-8 | .256 | (0)/0.017 | |
| Vandy | 299 | 321 | 5-6 | .455 | 5-6 | .458 | (0)/-0.003 | |
| Auburn | 376 | 162 | 9-2 | .818 | 10-1 | .880 | (-1)/-0.062 | |
| LSU | 343 | 182 | 10-2 | .833 | 10-2 | .818 | (0)/0.015 | |
| 'Bama | 250 | 118 | 9-2 | .818 | 9-2 | .856 | (0)/-0.038 | |
| Ark. | 283 | 271 | 4-7 | .364 | 6-5 | .526 | (-2)/-0.162 | |
| Ole Miss | 148 | 245 | 3-8 | .273 | 3-8 | .232 | (0)/0.041 | |
| Miss St. | 153 | 259 | 3-8 | .273 | 2-9 | .223 | (+1)/0.05 | |
| UGA | 349 | 175 | 10-2 | .833 | 10-2 | .837 | (0)/-0.004 | |
| Tenn | 205 | 205 | 5-6 | .455 | 5-6/6-5 | .500 | (0)/-0.045 | |
| CUSA | UCF | 325 | 324 | 8-4 | .667 | 6-6 | .502 | (+2)/0.165 |
| S.Miss | 355 | 272 | 7-5 | .583 | 8-4 | .653 | (-1)/-0.07 | |
| Memp | 288 | 245 | 6-5 | .545 | 7-4 | .595 | (-1)/-0.05 | |
| E.Car. | 267 | 317 | 5-6 | .455 | 4-7 | .3997 | (+1)/0.055 | |
| Marsh | 204 | 285 | 4-7 | .364 | 3-8 | .312 | (+1)/0.052 | |
| UAB | 307 | 264 | 5-6 | .455 | 6-5 | .588 | (-1)/-0.133 | |
| Tulsa | 399 | 281 | 8-4 | .667 | 8-4 | .697 | (0)/-0.03 | |
| UTEP | 369 | 266 | 8-3 | .727 | 8-3 | .685 | (0)/0.042 | |
| HOU | 324 | 282 | 6-5 | .545 | 6-5 | .582 | (0)/-0.037 | |
| SMU | 229 | 280 | 5-6 | .455 | 4-7 | .383 | (+1)/0.072 | |
| TUL | 234 | 348 | 2-9 | .182 | 3-8 | .281 | (-1)/-0.099 | |
| Rice | 241 | 447 | 1-10 | .091 | 2-9 | .188 | (-1)/-0.097 | |
| MAC | M(OH) | 371 | 258 | 7-4 | .636 | 8-3 | .703 | (-1)/-0.067 |
| Akron | 276 | 280 | 7-5 | .583 | 6-6 | .491 | (+1)/0.092 | |
| BG | 371 | 304 | 6-5 | .545 | 7-4 | .616 | (-1)/-0.071 | |
| Ohio | 192 | 336 | 4-7 | .364 | 2-9 | .2098 | (+2)/0.154 | |
| BUF | 110 | 327 | 1-10 | .091 | 1-10 | .070 | (0)/0.021 | |
| KentSt. | 180 | 331 | 1-10 | .091 | 2-9 | .191 | (-1)/-0.1 | |
| Tol | 384 | 248 | 8-3 | .727 | 8-3 | .738 | (0)/-0.011 | |
| N.Ill | 389 | 274 | 7-5 | .583 | 8-4 | .696 | (-1)/-0.113 | |
| WMich | 354 | 342 | 7-4 | .636 | 6-5 | .520 | (+1)/0.116 | |
| CMich | 260 | 260 | 6-5 | .545 | 6-5/5-6 | .500 | (0)/0.045 | |
| B.St. | 233 | 416 | 4-7 | .364 | 2-9 | .202 | (+2)/0.162 | |
| EMich | 240 | 295 | 4-7 | .364 | 4-7 | .380 | (0)/-0.016 | |
| MWest | TCU | 371 | 199 | 10-1 | .909 | 9-2 | .814 | (+1)/0.095 |
| CSU | 291 | 318 | 6-5 | .545 | 5-6 | .448 | (-1)/-0.097 | |
| BYU | 368 | 316 | 6-5 | .545 | 6-5 | .589 | (0)/-0.044 | |
| NM | 326 | 327 | 6-5 | .545 | 5-6 | .498 | (+1)/0.047 | |
| Utah | 322 | 279 | 6-5 | .545 | 6-5 | .584 | (0)/-0.039 | |
| SDSU | 323 | 325 | 5-7 | .417 | 6-6 | .496 | (-1)/0.079 | |
| AF | 330 | 349 | 4-7 | .364 | 5-6 | .467 | (-1)/0.103 | |
| WYO | 271 | 297 | 4-7 | .364 | 5-6 | .446 | (-1)/-0.082 | |
| UNLV | 207 | 381 | 2-9 | .182 | 2-9 | .190 | (0)/-0.008 | |
| WAC | Boise | 448 | 290 | 9-3 | .750 | 9-3 | .737 | (0)/0.013 |
| NEV | 361 | 335 | 8-3 | .727 | 6-5 | .544 | (+2)/0.183 | |
| Fresno | 467 | 261 | 8-4 | .667 | 10-2 | .799 | (-2)/-0.132 | |
| LTech | 316 | 281 | 7-4 | .636 | 6-5 | .569 | (+1)/0.067 | |
| Hawaii | 368 | 428 | 5-7 | .417 | 5-7 | .411 | (0)/0.006 | |
| SJSU | 248 | 357 | 3-8 | .273 | 3-8 | .297 | (0)/-0.024 | |
| UtahSt. | 208 | 360 | 3-8 | .273 | 2-9 | .214 | (+1)/0.059 | |
| Idaho | 243 | 419 | 2-9 | .182 | 2-9 | .216 | (0)/-0.034 | |
| NMST | 198 | 465 | 0-12 | 0.000 | 1-11 | .117 | (-1)/-0.117 | |
| SBelt | ArkSt. | 275 | 272 | 6-5 | .545 | 6-5 | .506 | (0)/0.039 |
| La-Laf | 286 | 304 | 6-5 | .545 | 5-6 | .464 | (+1)/0.081 | |
| La-Mon | 239 | 339 | 5-6 | .455 | 3-8 | .304 | (+2)/0.151 | |
| FInt | 257 | 323 | 5-6 | .455 | 4-7 | .368 | (+1)/0.087 | |
| Troy | 175 | 255 | 4-7 | .364 | 3-8 | .291 | (+1)/0.073 | |
| MTSU | 210 | 206 | 4-7 | .364 | 6-5 | .511 | (-2)/-0.147 | |
| NTex | 157 | 346 | 2-9 | .182 | 1-10 | .133 | (+1)/0.049 | |
| FAtl | 148 | 339 | 2-9 | .182 | 1-10 | .123 | (+1)/0.059 | |
| IND | ND | 420 | 260 | 9-2 | .818 | 8-3 | .757 | (+1)/0.061 |
| NAVY | 359 | 283 | 7-4 | .636 | 7-4 | .637 | (0)/-0.001 | |
| ARMY | 220 | 294 | 4-7 | .364 | 4-7 | .335 | (0)/0.029 | |
| Temple | 107 | 497 | 0-11 | 0.000 | 0-11 | .026 | (0)/-0.026 | |
[Analysis]
The big overachievers in 2005 were:
1. UCLA
2. Nevada
3. Oregon
4. Central Florida
5. Cincinnati
The big underachievers in 2005 were:
1. Connecticut
2. Washington State
3. Arkansas
4. Middle Tennessee State
5. Arizona
Conference Breakdown:
1. Sun Belt (+5)
2. Big Twelve (+3)
3. Mid-American (+2)
4. Independents (+1)
4. Western Athletic (+1)
6. Atlantic Coast(0)
6. Big Ten (0)
6. Conference USA (0)
9. Big East (-1)
9. PAC-10 (-1)
9. Southeastern (-1)
12. Mountain West (-2)
Here's some simple math for you to digest:Stupid Glaude + Final examinations = Crying on the floor in the fetal position.
With that said, I've buried myself under books and outlines in a futile effort to learn all the information I should have acquired over the last 15 weeks.
While I'm only saddled with three final examinations this semester, tax law always seems to find a way to make things more difficult than it should be. Thus, trying to balance statistical research with liberal analytical logic just isn't going to cut the mustard.
I'll be back sometime around the 23rd with some greatly overdue end-of-the-season stuff. It'll be a "Bonanza of Numbers" complete with tables, shoddy analysis, and all the other crap that has made this notebook one of the internet's greatest displays of pointlessness.
The Bonanza of Numbers is a celebration of the 2005 NCAA and Big East football season. Its purpose, albeit oftentimes convoluted, is to describe, through statistical methodology, performance and behavior so as to objectively quantify production and value.There is no predetermined number of parts that will be included in this series of essays and observations. It will be a running feature until I feel as if I have presented sufficient data so as to draw reasonable conclusions of a team's (or conference's) production.
Or until I get sick of rehashing Syracuse's pathetic season. One of the two.