East Region Fan Poll

[Jonny Utah]

http://stats.ncaa.org/rankings?sport_code=MFB&division=3

Noticed that Ithaca was ranked #209 in division 3 in punting, but when I saw Mt. Union was #201, I felt that maybe it was a useless stat.

I also noticed that Ithaca was #3 in Redzone offense, and other good teams like Linfield, Mt. Union, Wisc-Whitewater and OshKoshbagosh, Johns Hopkins, Thomas Moore, Salisbury and Albright were all in the top 25.  Made me think that that actually is an important stat, more than I would think (SJF is #198 in Redzone offense)

Other interesting East stat notes:

Utica is tied for #1 in the country for fumbles lost (0).

WR Tanner Williams of Hartwick leads the nation in several categories (yards, and yards per game)

RB Dan Andrews of Brockport is #1 in the nation for rushing TD's (14) and total scoring.

Rowan and Montclair State lead the country in 4th and 3rd down defense respectively.

Umass Dartmouth leads the nation with 9 blocked kicks

Colby is 2nd in the country with only 13 penalties (maybe they should hold a little more it might help!!!)

Bowdoin actually has the least penalty yards in the country with 89 (maybe they should do the same).

Fitchburg State leads the nation with 11 recovered fumbles.

Stevenson leads the nation with 17 interceptions.

Hobart trails only Mt. Union in passing yards allowed per game (89 pergame)

Salisbury leads the nation with yard per reception (26 yards)

Salisbury also up there in sacks allowed per game, and team rushing (3rd in both).

St. Lawrence 3rd in the nation with 11.7 team tackles for loss (I assume total?)

The Steves lead the nation in turnover margian.

[Jonny Utah]

And now the bad:

Plymouth State 2nd to last in the nation in 3rd down offense

Anna Maria last in completion %

West Conn and Framingham State in the bottom 5 in penalties.

Only 2 teams in the country have more penalty yards than RPI (522 total).

Cortland State has the 3rd worst first down defense in the country

Bates is dead last nationally in first down offense.

Salve Regina 2nd worst in the country in KOR average.

Union has thrown 15 interceptions, most in the country.

Springfield has the lowest passing offense in the country (no surprise I guess, 50 yards per game).

Cortland and SJF are 4th and 5th worst nationally in passing yards allowed.

WNEC last in the country in punt return defense (giving up 23.5 yards per return)

Lycoming dead last in the country with 95% scoring for redzone defense.

DelVall 3rd worst in the country in redzone offense (37% scoring).

Nichols 3rd worst in the country with 4+ sacks allowed per game.

TCNJ worst in the country for pass percentage defense

[ExTartanPlayer]

WNEC last in the country in punt return defense (giving up 23.5 yards per return)

I didn't look through all of them, but one fun thing to show how statistics can be deceiving, even halfway through a season:

Game 1: WNE punts twice for 103 yards, none returned
Game 2: WNE punts five times for 193 yards, one returned for 4 yards
Game 3: WNE punts six times for 226 yards, none returned
Game 4: WNE punts five times for 200 yards, one returned for 43 yards (whoops!)
Game 5: WNE punts four times for 117 yards, none returned

So that "23.5 yards per return" has come on two returned punts (out of 22 punted footballs).  The "average per return" makes it appear as though WNE has a punt-coverage problem, but on the whole (whether this is because of the punter coffin-cornering, the coverage team forcing fair catches, or both) they actually don't give up much in the return game.  Viewed another way, they have allowed 47 return yards on 22 punts (which is probably the team-level statistic that really matters; but since we report punt-return yards as average-per-return for individual players, we tend to do the same for teams).

Anyways, just thought this was funny.  Sometimes we can try to get cute in finding a team's strengths and weaknesses, and a simple statistic can be deceiving.  The most common version of this happens when someone compares two teams' FG kickers solely based on their made FG % for the season without looking at how long the attempts were. 

If I feel like it, I'll look into a few others and see if there are any other goofy quirks.

[Jonny Utah]

WNEC last in the country in punt return defense (giving up 23.5 yards per return)

I didn't look through all of them, but one fun thing to show how statistics can be deceiving, even halfway through a season:

Game 1: WNE punts twice for 103 yards, none returned
Game 2: WNE punts five times for 193 yards, one returned for 4 yards
Game 3: WNE punts six times for 226 yards, none returned
Game 4: WNE punts five times for 200 yards, one returned for 43 yards (whoops!)
Game 5: WNE punts four times for 117 yards, none returned

So that "23.5 yards per return" has come on two returned punts (out of 22 punted footballs).  The "average per return" makes it appear as though WNE has a punt-coverage problem, but on the whole (whether this is because of the punter coffin-cornering, the coverage team forcing fair catches, or both) they actually don't give up much in the return game.  Viewed another way, they have allowed 47 return yards on 22 punts (which is probably the team-level statistic that really matters; but since we report punt-return yards as average-per-return for individual players, we tend to do the same for teams).

Anyways, just thought this was funny.  Sometimes we can try to get cute in finding a team's strengths and weaknesses, and a simple statistic can be deceiving.  The most common version of this happens when someone compares two teams' FG kickers solely based on their made FG % for the season without looking at how long the attempts were. 

If I feel like it, I'll look into a few others and see if there are any other goofy quirks.

Yea there were a bunch I left out for the same reason.  Lots of Nescac stats don't count as much because they only played 3 games (and they only play each other).

Also on the same punt return stat, Amherst leads the country with a -4 yards return defense.  (2 returns for -9 yards).

[lewdogg11]

WNEC last in the country in punt return defense (giving up 23.5 yards per return)

I didn't look through all of them, but one fun thing to show how statistics can be deceiving, even halfway through a season:

Game 1: WNE punts twice for 103 yards, none returned
Game 2: WNE punts five times for 193 yards, one returned for 4 yards
Game 3: WNE punts six times for 226 yards, none returned
Game 4: WNE punts five times for 200 yards, one returned for 43 yards (whoops!)
Game 5: WNE punts four times for 117 yards, none returned

So that "23.5 yards per return" has come on two returned punts (out of 22 punted footballs).  The "average per return" makes it appear as though WNE has a punt-coverage problem, but on the whole (whether this is because of the punter coffin-cornering, the coverage team forcing fair catches, or both) they actually don't give up much in the return game.  Viewed another way, they have allowed 47 return yards on 22 punts (which is probably the team-level statistic that really matters; but since we report punt-return yards as average-per-return for individual players, we tend to do the same for teams).

Anyways, just thought this was funny.  Sometimes we can try to get cute in finding a team's strengths and weaknesses, and a simple statistic can be deceiving.  The most common version of this happens when someone compares two teams' FG kickers solely based on their made FG % for the season without looking at how long the attempts were. 

If I feel like it, I'll look into a few others and see if there are any other goofy quirks.

Yea there were a bunch I left out for the same reason.  Lots of Nescac stats don't count as much because they only played 3 games (and they only play each other).

If the NESCAC made babies, they'd have 3 eyes, if you know what I mean.

[Bombers798891]

http://stats.ncaa.org/rankings?sport_code=MFB&division=3

Noticed that Ithaca was ranked #209 in division 3 in punting, but when I saw Mt. Union was #201, I felt that maybe it was a useless stat.

I also noticed that Ithaca was #3 in Redzone offense, and other good teams like Linfield, Mt. Union, Wisc-Whitewater and OshKoshbagosh, Johns Hopkins, Thomas Moore, Salisbury and Albright were all in the top 25.  Made me think that that actually is an important stat, more than I would think (SJF is #198 in Redzone offense)

Net punt yards are totally useless. The difference between Ithaca at 209 and Birmingham Southern at 25 is about 7 yards a punt. Ithaca's punted 21 times this season, so we're talking a total of about 150 yards over five weeks. I mean, yeah, I'd rather Ithaca be good at it than bad, but there's so little practical difference, it's not a big thing, IMO.

Red zone offense directly relates to scoring, so it's going to be very important. I think a better stat, however, would be points-per-red zone trip.

For an extreme example, Utica's percentage (86%) ranks 48th but nearly half of their red zone trips result in FGs. They've scored TDs on just 11-of-31 trips. Now, this can cut both ways: If Utica had a lousy kicker instead of an elite one, they might go for TDs more often and have a higher percentage.

Still though, Utica's come away from their 31 RZ trips with 122 points. Meanwhile, Manchester, in 207th place (61%), has 18 RZ trips and 77 points. So you could argue they are a better red zone team than Utica.*

*Obviously, there are other contextual things to take into account. If you have RZ trips where you need a TD, or you're playing for a FG, or where you don't really care either way (in a blowout) things can get skewed further.

[Jonny Utah]

http://stats.ncaa.org/rankings?sport_code=MFB&division=3

Noticed that Ithaca was ranked #209 in division 3 in punting, but when I saw Mt. Union was #201, I felt that maybe it was a useless stat.

I also noticed that Ithaca was #3 in Redzone offense, and other good teams like Linfield, Mt. Union, Wisc-Whitewater and OshKoshbagosh, Johns Hopkins, Thomas Moore, Salisbury and Albright were all in the top 25.  Made me think that that actually is an important stat, more than I would think (SJF is #198 in Redzone offense)

Net punt yards are totally useless. The difference between Ithaca at 209 and Birmingham Southern at 25 is about 7 yards a punt. Ithaca's punted 21 times this season, so we're talking a total of about 150 yards over five weeks. I mean, yeah, I'd rather Ithaca be good at it than bad, but there's so little practical difference, it's not a big thing, IMO.

Red zone offense directly relates to scoring, so it's going to be very important. I think a better stat, however, would be points-per-red zone trip.

For an extreme example, Utica's percentage (86%) ranks 48th but nearly half of their red zone trips result in FGs. They've scored TDs on just 11-of-31 trips. Now, this can cut both ways: If Utica had a lousy kicker instead of an elite one, they might go for TDs more often and have a higher percentage.

Still though, Utica's come away from their 31 RZ trips with 122 points. Meanwhile, Manchester, in 207th place (61%), has 18 RZ trips and 77 points. So you could argue they are a better red zone team than Utica.*

*Obviously, there are other contextual things to take into account. If you have RZ trips where you need a TD, or you're playing for a FG, or where you don't really care either way (in a blowout) things can get skewed further.

Yea, I guess what I took out of that was that the best teams in the country were all top redzone scoring teams by percentage (not points).  I wouldn't think it would be such a telling stat for some reason.

[Bombers798891]

Yea, I guess what I took out of that was that the best teams in the country were all top redzone scoring teams by percentage (not points).  I wouldn't think it would be such a telling stat for some reason.

Well, good teams usually have good offenses, and good offenses tend to score in the red zone

[Jonny Utah]

Yea, I guess what I took out of that was that the best teams in the country were all top redzone scoring teams by percentage (not points).  I wouldn't think it would be such a telling stat for some reason.

Well, good teams usually have good offenses, and good offenses tend to score in the red zone

Well Duh.  Still kind of weird that Del Val is in the bottom 3, and there are some stinkers in the top 20 as well (Earlham, Muskingum, Susquehanna).  I simply didn't think that stat would be as telling as a total offense stat would be.  (Total offense looks more like the top 25 than the total defense stat would). 

Although the records are all pretty good in both top offense and defense categories.

[Bombers798891]

Well Duh.  Still kind of weird that Del Val is in the bottom 3, and there are some stinkers in the top 20 as well (Earlham, Muskingum, Susquehanna).  I simply didn't think that stat would be as telling as a total offense stat would be.  (Total offense looks more like the top 25 than the total defense stat would). 

Although the records are all pretty good in both top offense and defense categories.

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound pedantic. I just wasn't sure where the confusion came from.

To be sure, Del Val at the bottom with Earlham at the top is surreal. The Del Valley one is tricky to explain—some of it is fluky, like running into the red zone on the last play of the half, or losing a bunch of yards just inside the red zone vs. just outside to kill a drive. But overall, that's just strange

I'd suspect some of the Earlham stuff has to do with the team being so bad. Even if the game isn't out of reach when they get into the RZ, I wonder if teams just don't go as all out defensively—or if kids are just less focused because they know the team is going to win anyway. I don't mean to discredit the offense, it's just a guess

[dlippiel]

Union has thrown 15 interceptions, most in the country

mother****er!

[ExTartanPlayer]

I'd suspect some of the Earlham stuff has to do with the team being so bad. Even if the game isn't out of reach when they get into the RZ, I wonder if teams just don't go as all out defensively—or if kids are just less focused because they know the team is going to win anyway. I don't mean to discredit the offense, it's just a guess

I took a look at this earlier because I was curious.  I think it's partly what you said, and partly that Earlham's offense might be sort-of-OK (I expected that maybe it was all garbage-time points in the 4th quarter, but they've actually scored a decent handful in the first half, too).  Sometimes we can forget, as fans, that just because a team is really bad and loses all of its games, that doesn't mean the whole team is bad.  Earlham's defense is really dreadful* so they're going to lose a lot of games by big scores, and that can overshadow some modest competence on one side of the ball.  Imagine if Earlham's offense could just magically play with Wabash's defense; they're still not great, but that fake team probably wins 7 games in the NCAC, right?  Then, instead of thinking of that offense as another unit from a really bad team, they're the just-good-enough guys who can win games with a great defense.

*I mean, really dreadful.  Look at this:

http://www.d3football.com/seasons/2015/boxscores/20151010_t2x6.xml

Franklin took the starters out at halftime (with the QB having a stat line of 16-16-327 and 6 touchdowns...I mean, that's hard to do if you're playing against no defense, but I'm not sure Earlham's defense offers much more resistance than an empty field), gave everyone but the waterboy a carry, and still scored 80 points.  Franklin is a very good team, but that is really embarrassing.

[Bombers798891]

I took a look at this earlier because I was curious.  I think it's partly what you said, and partly that Earlham's offense might be sort-of-OK (I expected that maybe it was all garbage-time points in the 4th quarter, but they've actually scored a decent handful in the first half, too).  Sometimes we can forget, as fans, that just because a team is really bad and loses all of its games, that doesn't mean the whole team is bad.  Earlham's defense is really dreadful* so they're going to lose a lot of games by big scores, and that can overshadow some modest competence on one side of the ball.  Imagine if Earlham's offense could just magically play with Wabash's defense; they're still not great, but that fake team probably wins 7 games in the NCAC, right?  Then, instead of thinking of that offense as another unit from a really bad team, they're the just-good-enough guys who can win games with a great defense.

*I mean, really dreadful.  Look at this:

http://www.d3football.com/seasons/2015/boxscores/20151010_t2x6.xml

Franklin took the starters out at halftime (with the QB having a stat line of 16-16-327 and 6 touchdowns...I mean, that's hard to do if you're playing against no defense, but I'm not sure Earlham's defense offers much more resistance than an empty field), gave everyone but the waterboy a carry, and still scored 80 points.  Franklin is a very good team, but that is really embarrassing.

I want to say you're probably right that Earlham's offense is at least decent/average. 17 PPG isn't great, but it's not awful. It's what Ithaca averaged in 2011.

But while you're here:

So I have this theory, based in part on a Rutgers-Wisconsin game I went to last year. Is it possible, when playing an opponent you know you're going to beat, teams do things outside the ordinary in order to shore up other parts of their game?

For example, the RU-Wisky game, Wisconsin threw the ball a decent amount early, even though the running game was dominant (As an example, on a 2nd and goal from the five, they threw incomplete and took a sack). My father couldn't believe they were trying to pass—the weather was also lousy—and struggling. But I wondered if part of that was because hey, it was Rutgers. Sure, Wisconsin could have run even more than they did and probably scored more. But they also likely knew they couldn't go into tougher games without having their passing offense functional, so why not use the Rutgers game to try it out? If things get hairy, you can always go back to the run.

I wonder if any of that is going on with these Earlham games? Maybe the defense is calling plays they don't usually execute well, but will need to later in the season, knowing that the offense isn't going to be stopped. Just a thought.

[Jonny Utah]

I took a look at this earlier because I was curious.  I think it's partly what you said, and partly that Earlham's offense might be sort-of-OK (I expected that maybe it was all garbage-time points in the 4th quarter, but they've actually scored a decent handful in the first half, too).  Sometimes we can forget, as fans, that just because a team is really bad and loses all of its games, that doesn't mean the whole team is bad.  Earlham's defense is really dreadful* so they're going to lose a lot of games by big scores, and that can overshadow some modest competence on one side of the ball.  Imagine if Earlham's offense could just magically play with Wabash's defense; they're still not great, but that fake team probably wins 7 games in the NCAC, right?  Then, instead of thinking of that offense as another unit from a really bad team, they're the just-good-enough guys who can win games with a great defense.

*I mean, really dreadful.  Look at this:

http://www.d3football.com/seasons/2015/boxscores/20151010_t2x6.xml

Franklin took the starters out at halftime (with the QB having a stat line of 16-16-327 and 6 touchdowns...I mean, that's hard to do if you're playing against no defense, but I'm not sure Earlham's defense offers much more resistance than an empty field), gave everyone but the waterboy a carry, and still scored 80 points.  Franklin is a very good team, but that is really embarrassing.

I want to say you're probably right that Earlham's offense is at least decent/average. 17 PPG isn't great, but it's not awful. It's what Ithaca averaged in 2011.

But while you're here:

So I have this theory, based in part on a Rutgers-Wisconsin game I went to last year. Is it possible, when playing an opponent you know you're going to beat, teams do things outside the ordinary in order to shore up other parts of their game?

For example, the RU-Wisky game, Wisconsin threw the ball a decent amount early, even though the running game was dominant (As an example, on a 2nd and goal from the five, they threw incomplete and took a sack). My father couldn't believe they were trying to pass—the weather was also lousy—and struggling. But I wondered if part of that was because hey, it was Rutgers. Sure, Wisconsin could have run even more than they did and probably scored more. But they also likely knew they couldn't go into tougher games without having their passing offense functional, so why not use the Rutgers game to try it out? If things get hairy, you can always go back to the run.

I wonder if any of that is going on with these Earlham games? Maybe the defense is calling plays they don't usually execute well, but will need to later in the season, knowing that the offense isn't going to be stopped. Just a thought.

I think Earlham just might be decent on offense, but I also think some "system" offenses do better than others when they run out of room in the red zone.  It looks like they have scored 13 out of 14 times with 9 TD catches, 3 runs and a FG.  They may have a stud WR that can simply catch the end zone fade?  We should pose the question to that board.

14 red zone attempts isn't a huge stat sample either, so maybe it's just an outlier.

[ExTartanPlayer]

But while you're here:

So I have this theory, based in part on a Rutgers-Wisconsin game I went to last year. Is it possible, when playing an opponent you know you're going to beat, teams do things outside the ordinary in order to shore up other parts of their game?

Oh, this is absolutely a thing.  It's good coaching.  I just posted this anecdote recently on one of the other boards...when I was in junior high we were 5-0 or 6-0 and playing a clearly inferior opponent, but spent most of the first half passing (context: our entire school system - midgets, junior high, and high school - ran a wing-T offense with >80% rushing plays) and only led 14-0 at halftime.  I was pretty ticked at halftime and said something to our head coach about running the ball more in the second half.  I remember talking to my dad about it later, and he gently explained to 13-year-old Andrew that maybe our coach was passing the ball a lot because it was a game he knew that we would win and he wanted to work on the passing game.

Since then, I have generally thought of this as good coaching.  It might make your fans wonder what you're doing sometimes, but as long as you don't cost yourself any victories in the process by taking this too far, it's just doing your job, making sure the team is prepared for later in the season.  You might run some new looks because you want to see how they work, or maybe you just want to put something on film so your later opponents have to prepare for it.  If you're struggling to pass, work on the passing game some.  If you're not happy with the pass rush, try a few new blitzes.  If you're not happy with the pass defense, try that new zone coverage scheme. 

You do have to be careful with it, lest you take this a step too far and let a bad team hang around the game with you for way too long...so it has to be applied kind of sensibly.  You'd better be darn sure your team has a big enough advantage over the opponent to make up for a mistake or two.  I would prefer the strategy of "play the best possible game plan until we have at least a two-touchdown lead, then we can start messing around with some stuff, but if they show signs of closing the gap on us, go back to the normal playbook until we secure the win."

Not sure if that has any bearing in the Earlham stuff we're talking about here - I actually surmise it's really that Earlham has an offense that's merely "below average" and can score a semi-respectable number of points, just gets overshadowed because their defense can't stop anyone - but yes, good discussion topic in general.