One fourteen second video will get you rollin’!
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0J4d89UOec[/youtube]
As you have followed different off-season posts you probably realized that several studied parts of football. Whether the post was “You Can’t Get There From Here” which challenged recruiting commentators to consider whether Coach Petrino develops players based his players in the NFL Draft or Kicking Around with SEC Close Game Leader which took an in-depth look at the relationship between field goals and wins in route to creating a new football maxim, “In close SEC Games a team lives by the 3 and dies by the 3 or lives by 6 and dies by 6,” we had no intention of leaving these posts as academic exercises. Those who were kind enough to follow Hog Database on facebook last Saturday knew that more Texas A&M turnovers were more likely immediately after the first one.
Barb Kampbell And…another one. Saturday at 3:57pm
Lucas Kunert Add another! Saturday at 3:57pm
You know the rest of the story. The Hogs added two more turnovers including Tramain Thomas’ interception on the last play to seal the game. Not everything works out as well as that sequence did, but the object is broader than being a “predictor.”
We need to know more about winning standards than simply the numbers under W and L on the Razorbacks’ Schedule. Understanding the standards helps us to recognize and compliment what is good and push for change when things are bad. We are all pulling the same direction after all! Stats can correct our perceptions, like one which will hit you between the eyes in a moment, and let us know where our Razorbacks need to go. When we know the way Razorback football is, we can begin discussing the way it should be.
Performance Standards of BCS Champions let’s compare Arkansas and Auburn in relation to the best in college football since 2000.
| Sorting Here Will Group Stats by Unit | 2010 Arkansas | Arkansas Rank | Arkansas Value | Difference Rank | Difference Value | BCS Champ Rank | BCS Champ Value | Difference Rank | Difference Value | Auburn Rank | Auburn Value | 2010 Auburn |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | Scoring Defense | 13 | 15 | -7.9 | 1.3 | 5.1 | 13.7 | -40.9 | 7.6 | 46 | 21.3 | Scoring Defense |
| 11 | Pass Efffeciency Def. | 21 | 107.6 | -14.8 | 13 | 6.2 | 94.6 | -63.8 | 34.4 | 70 | 129 | Pass Efffeciency Def. |
| 9 | Total Defense | 19 | 302.4 | -11.6 | 24.5 | 7.4 | 277.9 | -32.6 | 56.9 | 40 | 334.8 | Total Defense |
| 4 | Scoring Offense | 50 | 30 | -36.3 | -7.8 | 13.7 | 37.8 | -4.3 | -1.1 | 18 | 36.7 | Scoring Offense |
| 7 | Rushing Defense | 43 | 134.6 | -29.3 | 38.8 | 13.7 | 95.8 | -0.3 | -0.1 | 14 | 95.7 | Rushing Defense |
| 5 | Passing Efficiency | 10 | 165.7 | 4.5 | 16.8 | 14.5 | 148.9 | 12.5 | 30.6 | 2 | 179.5 | Passing Efficiency |
| 14 | Turnover Margin | 80 | -0.4 | -63.9 | -1.4 | 16.1 | 1 | -36.9 | -0.8 | 53 | 0.2 | Turnover Margin |
| 8 | Pass Defense | 19 | 167.8 | 4.8 | -14.2 | 23.8 | 182 | -67.2 | 57.2 | 91 | 239.2 | Pass Defense |
| 3 | Total Offense | 19 | 462 | 5.4 | 30.9 | 24.4 | 431.1 | 14.4 | 51.9 | 10 | 483 | Total Offense |
| 1 | Rushing Offense | 96 | 108 | -70.7 | -91 | 25.3 | 199 | 17.3 | 77 | 8 | 276 | Rushing Offense |
| 15 | Net Punting | 51 | 37 | -23.2 | 0 | 27.8 | 37 | -63.2 | -3 | 91 | 34.1 | Net Punting |
| 16 | Punt Returns | 27 | 11.4 | 2.8 | -1.2 | 29.8 | 12.6 | -38.2 | -4.9 | 68 | 7.7 | Punt Returns |
| 6 | Sacks Allowed ** | 55 | 1.8 | -22 | 0.3 | 33 | 1.5 | 5 | -0.3 | 28 | 1.2 | Sacks Allowed ** |
| 12 | Sacks ** | 4 | 3.4 | 30.6 | 0.9 | 34.6 | 2.5 | -1.4 | 0 | 36 | 2.5 | Sacks ** |
| 17 | Kickoff Returns | 109 | 18.5 | -62.2 | -3.2 | 46.8 | 21.7 | -12.2 | 0.4 | 59 | 22.1 | Kickoff Returns |
| 2 | Passing Offense | 3 | 354 | 44.5 | 121.7 | 47.5 | 232.3 | -21.5 | -25.3 | 69 | 207 | Passing Offense |
| 13 | Tackles for Loss ** | 15 | 7.6 | 38.6 | 1.4 | 53.6 | 6.2 | 43.6 | 1.8 | 10 | 8 | Tackles for Loss ** |
** only 2005-2009 available.
When you understand that the Table is sorted by the average ranking of BCS Champions down the center, you may get a really good idea of what BCS Champions are good at. Four of the top five things BCS Champions do really well are about defense.
A negative number under “Difference” means a worse ranking and the number to the right is the difference in the value between the school’s performance and the BCS composite champion.
So have you figured some of this out yet? The top two offensive categories which BCS Champions have been good at are Scoring Offense and Passing Efficiency. The top overall categories for BCS Champions are Scoring Defense, Pass Efficiency Defense, and Total Defense with Rushing Defense tagging along.
Have you seen the shocking stat yet? Don’t worry, you will know in a moment.
It is not that Auburn gets red flags for the three most important traits of BCS Champions. The fact that Arkansas actually rates better at this point than the composite BCS Champions in Pass Defense likely qualifies.
Where does Arkansas need to be good in five days against a Gus Malzahn offense?
Sort by Column 1 on the left. Just click the up or down arrow and follow No. 2 over to Auburn’s passing offense.
This year, the Hogs better stop the run because Auburn stinks at throwing the ball by Gus Malzahn standards. The Hogs allow 143 yards per game on the ground while Auburn is racking up 276 yards per game running and a lackadaisical 207 yards per game through the air.
The truffle has been the biggest unreported story before the beginning of the year, Arkansas returns a defense which is better than anyone thinks.
