Total Offense vs Ranked Opponents

[Dossenator]

Very interesting....

[RazorHawk]

Amazing stat. Particularly with the refs against us in almost every game.

[GoBoilers]

Where is Purdue?

[Spence]

Where is Purdue?

Between Wisconsin and Ohio State.

[donovan]

I don't get it.....what am I missing?

[Spence]

I don't get it.....what am I missing?

I don't think you are missing anything. Not to take anything away from Arkansas, because the fact that they are near the top in total offense with the schedule they have played tells you something about them - as I have said - that they are one of the top teams in the country this year. I don't get that from this list, though, I get it from watching them play. This stat sheet is what it is, a piece of the total puzzle in trying to compare teams. Here is an example of why this - in and of itself says nothing. Michigan is seventh on the list. They have played three ranked (AP) opponents and they lost to all of them - so far. Do they have a good offense - yes. Does it mean they are a good team? No it doesn't and even if they were to beat Ohio State this weekend, that would tell you more about Ohio State than it would about Michigan being a good team.

As anyone who has ever used stats to argue their point knows, you can twist them to mean what you want. Personally, I think the opposite stat - total defense against ranked teams (especially ranked teams you have beaten) is a more important tell. You can win games against good teams with a lousy offense - Ohio State's 2002 season is a perfect example of that. You can't beat good teams with a lousy defense.

Even the total defense numbers against ranked opponent won't give you the whole picture, because it only allows you to compare teams that have played lots of ranked teams. While that is going to tell you some of the good teams this year, it isn't going to tell you anything about teams that don't play many or any ranked teams. Without opening the whole debate on whether a team should have to play a good schedule to prove they are a NCG contender, because that horse has been beaten so hard the ASPCA may have a case against us, you basically have to be able to watch game film and break down teams like a coach to be able to compare teams. The casual fan just doesn't have that kind of access. We can't isolate positions or see all the different angles necessary to break down teams with a TV broadcast. Since there aren't enough common games to compare through regular season games, we are left with our eyes to compare. Sometimes that is enough, sometimes it isn't. In the end, it really doesn't matter. If your team isn't as good as you thought and they don't play that game that proves it, you get that memory of a great team and a great season. If you play in the championship and your team isn't as good as you thought, that dream season memory turns sour for you. The competitor in me always wants to prove it no matter what, but the homer fan in me really wants the fun of a great season without the black mark.

That is the good and the bad thing about making the NCG. If you don't belong there, most of the time you will pay in fromt of the world. If you don't get in, you play a bowl game you can win and have that memory. Getting to the championship game can be a double edged sword, the pride of getting there and the fun building up to the game. The week of festivities leading up to the game and then the crash if your team isn't up to the task for what ever reason.

[GoBoilers]

Where is Purdue?

Between Wisconsin and Ohio State.

Squished!

[Dossenator]

I came across this on a Razorback message board. The only thing I took from it is Arkansas' offense has played well against quality opponents. I guess the other thing it shows is several highly ranked teams have played weak schedules (1 or 2 ranked opponents).

[Spence]

I came across this on a Razorback message board. The only thing I took from it is Arkansas' offense has played well against quality opponents. I guess the other thing it shows is several highly ranked teams have played weak schedules (1 or 2 ranked opponents).

And that was my point. In the case of Arkansas, your meaning was true - just not because of the stat or several other teams on the list wouldn't be there. That is what makes it so hard to prove or disprove strength of a team and that is the stat that means the most when ranking teams. Strength of schedule doesn't tell you the strength of the team. I can give you an idea of how you would fair against other teams who play schedules of like strengths, but not the strength of a team. How do you determine strength of a team - well that is the $64,000 question (that dates me some) -Today probably $64,000,000 question and only worth only $64.00 today.

[ktffan]

I came across this on a Razorback message board. The only thing I took from it is Arkansas' offense has played well against quality opponents. I guess the other thing it shows is several highly ranked teams have played weak schedules (1 or 2 ranked opponents).

Perhaps these opponents are unranked because the highly ranked teams beat them?

[billybud]

Well...there are only 25 slots nationally for ranked teams...take out the seven or so always allotted (tongue in cheek) for the SEC and that means unless you are playing SEC teams, you don't have a bunch of ranked teams to play.

[ktffan]

Well...there are only 25 slots nationally for ranked teams...take out the seven or so always allotted (tongue in cheek) for the SEC and that means unless you are playing SEC teams, you don't have a bunch of ranked teams to play.

Half the teams that finished in the top 10 in the last decade had played 2 or less ranked teams at this point in the season.

[billybud]

What I had surmised.