Back last week, I asked the guys at the Ryan For Heisman blog to put something together regarding what #12 needed to do in order to lock up the trophy and the pose. Obviously, since that happened, some things have changed (read, Night games at Alumni Stadium), but they were still happy to change some things around and put something together. If you aren't reading that blog, well, get on it. Don't forget to check out the other Heisman candidacy sites, ryanforheisman.com and the school-sponsored MattyIce.com
What does #12 have to do?
When we first decided to write this post, our analysis could be summed
up in 3 words: "just win, baby". It appeared that Matt Ryan had a
stranglehold on the 2007 Heisman Trophy. BC's loss to Florida State
changed all of that and now Ryan has fallen from most experts' top-3.
If #12 is going to change that, he needs help. Here are three things
that need to happen for the Heisman to come to the Heights:
1) Boston College needs to win out. This one is a must. The Eagles
need to go 11-1 through the regular season and they need to win the
ACC Championship Game. Tebow and McFadden will likely be sitting at
home on December 1st. Ryan needs that extra game to make a statement
to voters who will be waiting until the last minute to submit their
ballots.
2) Ryan needs to play well in the 4 remaining games. He should have a
decent audience for each of the last 3 regular season games as well as
the ACCCG. He can't give voters any more reasons to discount him.
3) Dennis Dixon and/or Oregon need to slip up. Right now, Dixon has a
tight grip in most straw polls. Furthermore, if the Ducks are the
odd-man-out in the National Championship race, look for voters to
learn towards Dixon for Heisman as a consolation prize. Matt Ryan can
overcome Tebow, McFadden and Daniel on his own, but not Dixon, who
will be taking on Arizona, UCLA, Oregon State and his own left knee.
Can all three of these things happen? Sure. Will they happen? In
this, the craziest of college seasons, nobody knows. Will Matt Ryan
walk out of the Nokia Theater in Times Square with the Heisman Trophy?
If Ryan can put the Seminoles behind him and get BC back on track, we like his chances.
Thanks again, and be sure to read up at the Ryan for Heisman blog. Heights and Lows is hoping there is going to be a pig pile on Bandwagon Wednesday.
Showing posts with label Heisman Watch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Heisman Watch. Show all posts
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Friday, October 26, 2007
Heisman Status After VT Game
The general consensus from sports reporters after last night's victory is that Matty Ice is a Heisman Front-Runner. The general consensus from most NON-BC fans after last night's victory is that he is not. Let us take an objective look at where Matt Ryan stands after last night's performance, without employing Levy's Heisman Rubric.
Let's evaluate a couple of things here. I'll flat out say I don't think Ryan is the BEST player out there, but let's not completely knock him. He is definitely worth mentioning in the Heisman Race.
1) Although it's hard not to compare this game with LSU's game against VT, you have to try not to. First, that game was played @ LSU, it was played under dry and warm conditions (as opposed to 40 something degrees and monsoon rains last night), and it was the second game of the second for a team that was still figuring out its offensive line and QB.
2) Whoever wins the Heisman is not going to win it on numbers alone. Numbers aren't even THAT important, or we would be saying that Colt Brennan and Graham Harrell (sp?) are the top front runners. But they aren't because in Brennan's case he doesn't play anybody and there are many other QBs in the NCAA who could throw for 500 yards if they threw the ball 70+ times in a game. In Harrell's case, he is flat out a system QB.
3) Yes, Matt Ryan was AWFUL for 95% of that game. But take a couple of things into account. He had 6 or 7 dropped balls by receivers, he was playing one of the top defenses in ALL of college football, AT one a really tough place to win, IN a monsoon. What matters is what you show when your back is up against the wall and you have the smallest window of opportunity. And what Matt Ryan showed last night was a heck of a lot. Pinned at his 9, he marched 91 yards and scored on a GORGEOUS pass. Then, on the game winning drive, he scrabbled around and bought himself time, and made another great throw to win the game. It's what you do when it matters the most.
4) Other QBs mentioned for the Heisman (Tebow, Woodson, Dixon) have proven that they can play consistently all game long. However, how many of them have done it in a Monsoon against one of the top defenses? None yet. Not that they couldn't, but they haven't. In other words, Matty's performance can't be judged on his numbers because he played in awful conditions.
5) Is there anybody in the NCAA who throws a more pretty ball than Matt Ryan. If you want proof, just look @ the throws he has been able to throw. Against GT, a 40 something yard bomb over the Robinson's shoulder RIGHT AT the pylon. Against Wake, a 50 something yarder across his body for a TD. Last night against VT, the first TD pass. This kid is going to be a stellar QB on Sundays, because he has the arm and mind to make it on Saturday.
6) Lastly, and I reiterate, Matt Ryan IS NOT the best player in NCAA, but he is worthy of Heisman Discussion.
Let's evaluate a couple of things here. I'll flat out say I don't think Ryan is the BEST player out there, but let's not completely knock him. He is definitely worth mentioning in the Heisman Race.
1) Although it's hard not to compare this game with LSU's game against VT, you have to try not to. First, that game was played @ LSU, it was played under dry and warm conditions (as opposed to 40 something degrees and monsoon rains last night), and it was the second game of the second for a team that was still figuring out its offensive line and QB.
2) Whoever wins the Heisman is not going to win it on numbers alone. Numbers aren't even THAT important, or we would be saying that Colt Brennan and Graham Harrell (sp?) are the top front runners. But they aren't because in Brennan's case he doesn't play anybody and there are many other QBs in the NCAA who could throw for 500 yards if they threw the ball 70+ times in a game. In Harrell's case, he is flat out a system QB.
3) Yes, Matt Ryan was AWFUL for 95% of that game. But take a couple of things into account. He had 6 or 7 dropped balls by receivers, he was playing one of the top defenses in ALL of college football, AT one a really tough place to win, IN a monsoon. What matters is what you show when your back is up against the wall and you have the smallest window of opportunity. And what Matt Ryan showed last night was a heck of a lot. Pinned at his 9, he marched 91 yards and scored on a GORGEOUS pass. Then, on the game winning drive, he scrabbled around and bought himself time, and made another great throw to win the game. It's what you do when it matters the most.
4) Other QBs mentioned for the Heisman (Tebow, Woodson, Dixon) have proven that they can play consistently all game long. However, how many of them have done it in a Monsoon against one of the top defenses? None yet. Not that they couldn't, but they haven't. In other words, Matty's performance can't be judged on his numbers because he played in awful conditions.
5) Is there anybody in the NCAA who throws a more pretty ball than Matt Ryan. If you want proof, just look @ the throws he has been able to throw. Against GT, a 40 something yard bomb over the Robinson's shoulder RIGHT AT the pylon. Against Wake, a 50 something yarder across his body for a TD. Last night against VT, the first TD pass. This kid is going to be a stellar QB on Sundays, because he has the arm and mind to make it on Saturday.
6) Lastly, and I reiterate, Matt Ryan IS NOT the best player in NCAA, but he is worthy of Heisman Discussion.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Heisman Watch - Halfway There
Like the BCS Computers, the name is just attached to the number at the end of the row. I just wanted to put that waiver up before you see the list I'm about to post.
Things have changed since last I posted this. For example, you won't find Colt McCoy or JDB anywhere near the list. You will see some new faces, urged by a panel of the BCRC/Bleachers Poll Voters.
Remember that this formula gives the most weight to offensive production and the player who has the highest percentage of his teams total offense. I'm not buying the Defensive Tackle theory. I just can't do it. If he was meant to win it, I wouldn't be doing a formula and no one would be discussing a "wide open race."
For arguments sake, it was asked that I also run the numbers on Graham Harrell, but I have a feeling that he will only be in the middle of the pack for the same reason that Crabtree is only at third: the way the offense is spread out. Ultimately, you can knock Tebow and Crabtree off this list (unless Tebow pulls off a miracle and the Gators, like, obliterate LSU in the SEC Championship Game) for being underclassmen.
The few people I have shown this two were shocked about Dixon being so high. I was too when I first press compute, but think about it. He has 21 touchdowns (passing and rushing) and only two turnovers. They have one loss that comes to the conference front runner and it was only in the last few minutes.
And if Oregon goes to the Roses, it'll be obvious why.
Now, Matt Ryan, H&L's own, factors right into the middle of the pack. But, as it stands right now, he'll pick up lots of advantages in three of the four categories plus the bonus. The lesson: you have to win. Chase Daniel, Mike Hart, Woodson and even the Texas Tech duo are in the same position.
Win, win efficiently, and the number will take care of itself.
Things have changed since last I posted this. For example, you won't find Colt McCoy or JDB anywhere near the list. You will see some new faces, urged by a panel of the BCRC/Bleachers Poll Voters.
Remember that this formula gives the most weight to offensive production and the player who has the highest percentage of his teams total offense. I'm not buying the Defensive Tackle theory. I just can't do it. If he was meant to win it, I wouldn't be doing a formula and no one would be discussing a "wide open race."
1. Dennis Dixon (Oregon, QB) 10.007
2. Tim Tebow (Florida, QB) 8.493
3. Michael Crabtree (Texas Tech, WR) 7.983
4. Andre Woodson(Kentucky, QB) 7.858
5. Chase Daniel (Missouri, QB) 6.684
6. Mike Hart (Michigan, RB)6.601
7. Matt Ryan (BC, QB) 6.461
8. Ray Rice (Rutgers, RB)6.444
9. Darren McFadden (Arkansas, RB)4.951
10. Colt Brennan (Hawaii, QB) 3.310
11. DeSean Jackson (Cal, WR) 3.133
For arguments sake, it was asked that I also run the numbers on Graham Harrell, but I have a feeling that he will only be in the middle of the pack for the same reason that Crabtree is only at third: the way the offense is spread out. Ultimately, you can knock Tebow and Crabtree off this list (unless Tebow pulls off a miracle and the Gators, like, obliterate LSU in the SEC Championship Game) for being underclassmen.
The few people I have shown this two were shocked about Dixon being so high. I was too when I first press compute, but think about it. He has 21 touchdowns (passing and rushing) and only two turnovers. They have one loss that comes to the conference front runner and it was only in the last few minutes.
And if Oregon goes to the Roses, it'll be obvious why.
Now, Matt Ryan, H&L's own, factors right into the middle of the pack. But, as it stands right now, he'll pick up lots of advantages in three of the four categories plus the bonus. The lesson: you have to win. Chase Daniel, Mike Hart, Woodson and even the Texas Tech duo are in the same position.
Win, win efficiently, and the number will take care of itself.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Heisman Sense of Reason
I'm not going to lie. Part of me is incredibly giddy about last weekend. But I promised when I started watching the 2007 Heisman race that I would avoid any personal bias as much as possible. One of the reasons I developed this little formula is because I wanted to see if Matty Ice's numbers were my own jaded glory or actually worthy for a trip to New York.
The sample size has been pretty small for the first few weeks. For starters, no one has played even balanced three (or two games, JDB). Perhaps as Ryan gets the cupcakes that others have started with, his ranking will go up on the offensive impact/performance scale. The problem here is that intangibles aren't measurable. But, that was kind of the point of starting this. If the voters went by those intangibles, every thing would be completely different.
So, I have eliminated some folks off of the previous lists due to that fact. Mike Hart, even though he showed up to play on Saturday against the Irish, was not factored in the Heisman standings. As things change in the next few weeks of the Wolverines schedule, it may be worth putting him back in there because, without Chad Henne, Hart will be the reason.
As things change more in the weeks when games matter, I will be able to add and take players off the list. Right now, because of the schedule differences, I have removed the Strength of Schedule factors from the formula. Here's the way the numbers come out.
Let me try to get past the numbers a little bit so the 14 readers of this can actually see what happened. First off, without the SOS factor, Brohm and McFadden's losses over the weekend have yet to hurt their standing. Later in the season when the sample is bigger and I can put in all of the schedules, these rankings will likely drop just enough (certainly for Brohm to fall from 2nd).
Second, there is a little bit greater bonus for running touchdowns then passing touchdowns (because, no matter how good the QB is, you have to give some credit to the receiver). This is what propels Tebow to the top of the list. The Gators have a total of 21 offensive touchdowns this year, Tebow was involved in more than half including five on the ground.
If Florida can beat LSU, I don't think I'll be the only one with Tebow in New York City. It's hard to say so early if this will hold up as they get to the SEC schedule, but I'm intrigued.
I mentioned on the first posts about the Heisman that there were bonuses associated with BCS teams. This is what is keeping Colt Brennan low on the list. The way Colt McCoy has played, he just might be the next person off the top ten to make room for one of the two Sooners who have been driving that offense.
I'll update the stats next week and we'll see how it goes. The Bleachers poll will be up tomorrow after a few more of the "experts" get their top tens in.
The sample size has been pretty small for the first few weeks. For starters, no one has played even balanced three (or two games, JDB). Perhaps as Ryan gets the cupcakes that others have started with, his ranking will go up on the offensive impact/performance scale. The problem here is that intangibles aren't measurable. But, that was kind of the point of starting this. If the voters went by those intangibles, every thing would be completely different.
So, I have eliminated some folks off of the previous lists due to that fact. Mike Hart, even though he showed up to play on Saturday against the Irish, was not factored in the Heisman standings. As things change in the next few weeks of the Wolverines schedule, it may be worth putting him back in there because, without Chad Henne, Hart will be the reason.
As things change more in the weeks when games matter, I will be able to add and take players off the list. Right now, because of the schedule differences, I have removed the Strength of Schedule factors from the formula. Here's the way the numbers come out.
1. Tim Tebow (Florida, QB) 6.050
2. Brian Brohm (Louisville, QB) 5.753
3. Ray Rice (Rutgers, RB)5.089
4. Steve Slaton (WVU, RB) 5.024
5. Matt Ryan (BC, QB) 4.535
6. Darren McFadden (Arkansas, RB) 4.523
7. Colt Brennan (Hawaii, QB)4.317
8. Colt McCoy (Texas, QB) 4.038
9. John David Booty (USC, QB) 3.633
Let me try to get past the numbers a little bit so the 14 readers of this can actually see what happened. First off, without the SOS factor, Brohm and McFadden's losses over the weekend have yet to hurt their standing. Later in the season when the sample is bigger and I can put in all of the schedules, these rankings will likely drop just enough (certainly for Brohm to fall from 2nd).
Second, there is a little bit greater bonus for running touchdowns then passing touchdowns (because, no matter how good the QB is, you have to give some credit to the receiver). This is what propels Tebow to the top of the list. The Gators have a total of 21 offensive touchdowns this year, Tebow was involved in more than half including five on the ground.
If Florida can beat LSU, I don't think I'll be the only one with Tebow in New York City. It's hard to say so early if this will hold up as they get to the SEC schedule, but I'm intrigued.
I mentioned on the first posts about the Heisman that there were bonuses associated with BCS teams. This is what is keeping Colt Brennan low on the list. The way Colt McCoy has played, he just might be the next person off the top ten to make room for one of the two Sooners who have been driving that offense.
I'll update the stats next week and we'll see how it goes. The Bleachers poll will be up tomorrow after a few more of the "experts" get their top tens in.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
What makes a Heisman? (Part 2)
First off, I'd like to point out that I did not consult with BC Offensive Coordinator Steve Logan before (a) making my comments yesterday and (b) devising this formula. You see, yesterday in a post on the NYTimes Blog, Logan had some comments which look like they were a part of my rant yesterday:
He followed it with something that I loved nearly as much:
Ah, agreeing unintentionally with an assumed eccentric genius. I love it.
I need to stop patting myself on the back here, for a second, because I guess that I should keep talking about more of the results of this little number. The thing that was most interesting to me is that trying to determine an offensive MVP to the best teams in the country was pretty much a self contrived formula.
What's the saying, there's lies, damn lies and statistics? I could have played with them anyway I want, and, for the most part, at the end it came down to being fairly consistent with what the voters thought. I mean, in 2004, Reggie Bush made it as a finalist but not too many were concerned with whether he would beat out Leinart. It was a battle of QBs for the trophy that year, and it was defending champ White versus the USC slinger.
USC actually played a statistically weaker schedule that year than Oklahoma, but where the stat line differs between Leinart and White was thanks to Adrian Peterson. The Southpaw's South California TD/INT ratio was 50 percent better than his Sooner counterpart. For one, Leinart was significantly more efficient, but also because when the endzone got close, instead of throwing into traffic, White handed off to Peterson. The OIF for both was extremely close and only slightly favored Leinart.
Leinart, QB, USC, OIF=2.436, Score=9.899
White, QB, OK, OIF=2.424, Score=8.622
This year was an example of how those overall production stats on two teams that are both very similar and make up will create the difference between the trophy winner and the runners-up.
2005 played out as many thought, with Bush clearly dominating. Whereas he was merely a role player the year before, he did more with fewer carries/receptions than anyone else. That assumption is what should be driving the "Most Valuable Offensive Player." Efficiency and impact on a winning team.
Pressed to keep going back to one of the year's of the most controversy, I was able to tap into the 2003 season archives to see if Larry Fitzgerald got screwed.
It was Jason White and a whole bunch of "really? they're a finalist?" type players that year. Fitzgerald earned his spot in NY, but White's objective numbers may have been the least impressive of any Heisman winner in recent memory. The same formula which had been pretty accurate over the last several years found a massive hiccup in a WR from Pittsburgh.
White's line in 2003: 40 tds, 10 picks, almost 4000 yards on nearly 500 attempts. I haven't discussed this before, but sacks count as an attempt in my formula, mainly because it is a designed passing play and how the QB reacts should factor into it.
Fitzgerald's line: 22 TDs on 92 catches. Even with Pitt's lackluster record and schedule, that massive efficiency computed the following.
White, QB, OK, OIF=2.387, Score=8.474
Fitzgerald, WR, Pitt, OIF=3.998, Score=8.928
Fitzgerald didn't get anywhere close to a BCS bowl, either, and the Panthers didn't win the conference. White got some significant bonuses from that even in my formula. It looks like the voters gave him even more. Why did he compute so high? Because he was really the only part of the offense. He factored in to almost half of Pitt's total touchdowns on the season. That's impressive to do, to begin with, but to do it on only 92 touches, that's even more ridiculous.
What does all of this Heisman number mumbo jumbo mean? For one, it shows what Logan was talking about (even though I was talking about it before he was). The player who the offense would be only good, not great, matters more than a leader or role player on a winning team. And it will be interesting to follow all year against the prognosticators.
Here's my current candidates who I'll be tracking all year:
Colt Brennan, Hawaii, QB
Brian Brohm, Louisville, QB
Matt Ryan, BC, QB
John David Booty, USC, QB
Colt McCoy, Texas, QB
Chad Henne, Michigan, QB
Tim Tebow, Florida, QB
Ray Rice, Rutgers, RB
Darren McFadden, Arkansas, RB
Steve Slaton, WVU, RB
DeSean Jackson, Cal, WR
Percy Harvin, Florida, WR/RB
Watch that clock to the right, it's almost time for football.
“That’s a looney-tune deal. You’ve got to have a great defense. You’ve got to have some help. The one thing about quarterback play, I said it on my radio show every week, the quarterback, unlike any other position in any sport, cannot and never does operate in a vacuum. If you want a Heisman Trophy-winning quarterback, he’d better have a pretty salty running back with him. He’d better have a wide receiver that can make a play. He’d better have an offensive line that gives him time."
He followed it with something that I loved nearly as much:
“The quarterback out in Hawaii, he’ll throw for 80 quadrillion yards because of the system. If he does and they win every game he’ll come in second to someone from Oklahoma, Texas or Southern Cal.”
Ah, agreeing unintentionally with an assumed eccentric genius. I love it.
I need to stop patting myself on the back here, for a second, because I guess that I should keep talking about more of the results of this little number. The thing that was most interesting to me is that trying to determine an offensive MVP to the best teams in the country was pretty much a self contrived formula.
What's the saying, there's lies, damn lies and statistics? I could have played with them anyway I want, and, for the most part, at the end it came down to being fairly consistent with what the voters thought. I mean, in 2004, Reggie Bush made it as a finalist but not too many were concerned with whether he would beat out Leinart. It was a battle of QBs for the trophy that year, and it was defending champ White versus the USC slinger.
USC actually played a statistically weaker schedule that year than Oklahoma, but where the stat line differs between Leinart and White was thanks to Adrian Peterson. The Southpaw's South California TD/INT ratio was 50 percent better than his Sooner counterpart. For one, Leinart was significantly more efficient, but also because when the endzone got close, instead of throwing into traffic, White handed off to Peterson. The OIF for both was extremely close and only slightly favored Leinart.
Leinart, QB, USC, OIF=2.436, Score=9.899
White, QB, OK, OIF=2.424, Score=8.622
This year was an example of how those overall production stats on two teams that are both very similar and make up will create the difference between the trophy winner and the runners-up.
2005 played out as many thought, with Bush clearly dominating. Whereas he was merely a role player the year before, he did more with fewer carries/receptions than anyone else. That assumption is what should be driving the "Most Valuable Offensive Player." Efficiency and impact on a winning team.
Pressed to keep going back to one of the year's of the most controversy, I was able to tap into the 2003 season archives to see if Larry Fitzgerald got screwed.
It was Jason White and a whole bunch of "really? they're a finalist?" type players that year. Fitzgerald earned his spot in NY, but White's objective numbers may have been the least impressive of any Heisman winner in recent memory. The same formula which had been pretty accurate over the last several years found a massive hiccup in a WR from Pittsburgh.
White's line in 2003: 40 tds, 10 picks, almost 4000 yards on nearly 500 attempts. I haven't discussed this before, but sacks count as an attempt in my formula, mainly because it is a designed passing play and how the QB reacts should factor into it.
Fitzgerald's line: 22 TDs on 92 catches. Even with Pitt's lackluster record and schedule, that massive efficiency computed the following.
White, QB, OK, OIF=2.387, Score=8.474
Fitzgerald, WR, Pitt, OIF=3.998, Score=8.928
Fitzgerald didn't get anywhere close to a BCS bowl, either, and the Panthers didn't win the conference. White got some significant bonuses from that even in my formula. It looks like the voters gave him even more. Why did he compute so high? Because he was really the only part of the offense. He factored in to almost half of Pitt's total touchdowns on the season. That's impressive to do, to begin with, but to do it on only 92 touches, that's even more ridiculous.
What does all of this Heisman number mumbo jumbo mean? For one, it shows what Logan was talking about (even though I was talking about it before he was). The player who the offense would be only good, not great, matters more than a leader or role player on a winning team. And it will be interesting to follow all year against the prognosticators.
Here's my current candidates who I'll be tracking all year:
Colt Brennan, Hawaii, QB
Brian Brohm, Louisville, QB
Matt Ryan, BC, QB
John David Booty, USC, QB
Colt McCoy, Texas, QB
Chad Henne, Michigan, QB
Tim Tebow, Florida, QB
Ray Rice, Rutgers, RB
Darren McFadden, Arkansas, RB
Steve Slaton, WVU, RB
DeSean Jackson, Cal, WR
Percy Harvin, Florida, WR/RB
Watch that clock to the right, it's almost time for football.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
What Makes a Heisman?
So, earlier this summer, while wondering the chances of our boy Matt Ryan, I started thinking about what the Heisman trophy really has become to mean in the past few years. It turned into me playing with statistics and trying to look at a numerical method to really try to understand the Heisman race.
Our editor here is totally with me on this, because we've had this discussion before: the Heisman has become less of the "best player in college football" and more the most key valuable part of the best team in the country. At the end of the day, if you play for a team that is not in a major conference and does not have a real shot at the championship, or if you play defense, you have to put up some absolutely ridiculous numbers to get noticed.
Just ask Colt Brennan.
I went back in time, thanks to some archived statistics and the College Football Encyclopedia that sits on my desk. I really wanted to try to break down what parts seem to matter the most to make a player really reflect the "most valuable part of the offense of the best part of the country." So, before I give the results, I want to talk about what I used to build these numbers.
I really broke it down into four things:
1) How good was the team: you have to go back to 1999 to find a Heisman winner who did not at least have a shot at the national championship. That was when Ron Dayne won the statue from Wisconsin, who, at the end of the day, still won the Big Ten and played for the Roses. You don't win the Heisman, no matter how good your numbers are, without a good supporting cast and just an overall good team. This is assumption number one: at the end of the day, these are the best teams in the land, and the idea is to find the player who seems to lead that crop of individuals.
2) How good your opponents are: racking up ridiculous stats against weak competition will not help you win the Heisman. That's why you need to really have an outstanding season outside of a BCS conference to get noticed. Even in a good conference, if you are playing an SEC schedule, the stats will get a small boost because of the quality of opponents. For these considerations in the formula, there is a small bonus given to teams from major conferences (and Notre Dame, just because all of their opponents are from the big leagues, for the most part).
3) Individual production statistics: of course they matter. I'm not that creative to try to dance with numbers to make intangibles more important than the actual facts. To discount the amount of production that an individual contributes is not possible. It's how that plays into the rest of the factors that matter.
4) How much do those stats matter to the overall impact of the offense: here's where I get to play with things. Good numbers on a team where everyone is producing at a high rate will not matter as much as one player really taking charge. The statistic I played with the most was one I created, the Offensive Impact Factor (OIF). This says of a teams points on offense, how many of them is the individual responsible for. As I mentioned above, these teams are all good. They all have fairly decent offensive lines and receivers and running backs, therefore it is fair to give the role players credit for TDs and Yards they accumulate.
Ultimately, the formula comes down to a winning percentage, strength-of-schedule factor, the production factor, the OIF and finally some small bonuses that most voters will take into account (BCS conference, type of bowl game invited). These are small but they can't be ignored.
So, I started going back and testing my ideas of what makes up the Heisman numbers. I started with last year and took the finalists for the trophy based on votes received. I also was interested in a few other people I thought were candidates. So, here is how 2005 worked out with the numbers.
Troy Smith, OSU, QB, OIF=2.208, Score=8.958
Brady Quinn, ND, QB, 2.765, 8.752
Colt Brennan, Hawaii, QB, 3.543, 5.653
Mike Hart, Michigan, RB, 1.640, 7.649
Darren McFadden, Arkansas, RB, 1.953, 6.549
Calvin Johnson, GTech, WR, 2.824, 7.004
Here's why I found this interesting. A few of my notions were right. Even though Brennan's numbers were absolutely ridiculous last year, he got hurt by not being in a main conference and, in addition, not even winning the one he was in. Brady Quinn gets hurt by his strength of schedule and Troy Smith got rewarded for beating Michigan and getting into the National Championship Game.
So, think about this a little bit, I will be back later in the week to post some more of the results. I really would appreciate feedback on the thinking behind this. For the most part, barring one exception in 2003, the formula was pretty accurate. I have a list of 11 candidates across different positions that I will be doing this for all season long. That list will be unveiled tomorrow, along with the results from 2005, 2004 and 2003.
Finally, ACC preview on Thursday. Then kickoff on Saturday. Smell that? It's football season.
Our editor here is totally with me on this, because we've had this discussion before: the Heisman has become less of the "best player in college football" and more the most key valuable part of the best team in the country. At the end of the day, if you play for a team that is not in a major conference and does not have a real shot at the championship, or if you play defense, you have to put up some absolutely ridiculous numbers to get noticed.
Just ask Colt Brennan.
I went back in time, thanks to some archived statistics and the College Football Encyclopedia that sits on my desk. I really wanted to try to break down what parts seem to matter the most to make a player really reflect the "most valuable part of the offense of the best part of the country." So, before I give the results, I want to talk about what I used to build these numbers.
I really broke it down into four things:
1) How good was the team: you have to go back to 1999 to find a Heisman winner who did not at least have a shot at the national championship. That was when Ron Dayne won the statue from Wisconsin, who, at the end of the day, still won the Big Ten and played for the Roses. You don't win the Heisman, no matter how good your numbers are, without a good supporting cast and just an overall good team. This is assumption number one: at the end of the day, these are the best teams in the land, and the idea is to find the player who seems to lead that crop of individuals.
2) How good your opponents are: racking up ridiculous stats against weak competition will not help you win the Heisman. That's why you need to really have an outstanding season outside of a BCS conference to get noticed. Even in a good conference, if you are playing an SEC schedule, the stats will get a small boost because of the quality of opponents. For these considerations in the formula, there is a small bonus given to teams from major conferences (and Notre Dame, just because all of their opponents are from the big leagues, for the most part).
3) Individual production statistics: of course they matter. I'm not that creative to try to dance with numbers to make intangibles more important than the actual facts. To discount the amount of production that an individual contributes is not possible. It's how that plays into the rest of the factors that matter.
4) How much do those stats matter to the overall impact of the offense: here's where I get to play with things. Good numbers on a team where everyone is producing at a high rate will not matter as much as one player really taking charge. The statistic I played with the most was one I created, the Offensive Impact Factor (OIF). This says of a teams points on offense, how many of them is the individual responsible for. As I mentioned above, these teams are all good. They all have fairly decent offensive lines and receivers and running backs, therefore it is fair to give the role players credit for TDs and Yards they accumulate.
Ultimately, the formula comes down to a winning percentage, strength-of-schedule factor, the production factor, the OIF and finally some small bonuses that most voters will take into account (BCS conference, type of bowl game invited). These are small but they can't be ignored.
So, I started going back and testing my ideas of what makes up the Heisman numbers. I started with last year and took the finalists for the trophy based on votes received. I also was interested in a few other people I thought were candidates. So, here is how 2005 worked out with the numbers.
Troy Smith, OSU, QB, OIF=2.208, Score=8.958
Brady Quinn, ND, QB, 2.765, 8.752
Colt Brennan, Hawaii, QB, 3.543, 5.653
Mike Hart, Michigan, RB, 1.640, 7.649
Darren McFadden, Arkansas, RB, 1.953, 6.549
Calvin Johnson, GTech, WR, 2.824, 7.004
Here's why I found this interesting. A few of my notions were right. Even though Brennan's numbers were absolutely ridiculous last year, he got hurt by not being in a main conference and, in addition, not even winning the one he was in. Brady Quinn gets hurt by his strength of schedule and Troy Smith got rewarded for beating Michigan and getting into the National Championship Game.
So, think about this a little bit, I will be back later in the week to post some more of the results. I really would appreciate feedback on the thinking behind this. For the most part, barring one exception in 2003, the formula was pretty accurate. I have a list of 11 candidates across different positions that I will be doing this for all season long. That list will be unveiled tomorrow, along with the results from 2005, 2004 and 2003.
Finally, ACC preview on Thursday. Then kickoff on Saturday. Smell that? It's football season.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)