Last summer (and really at points throughout Weis' tenure), the idea that we don't run enough to be successful has been discussed. Unfortunately, most of the arguments are based on raw stats, which likely only tell part of the story.

Well, I found an article at that time called "The Passing Premium Puzzle Revisited". In it, the author does a fairly impressive job of trying to use data (from the NFL) for the result of every play a team ran to determine what their optimal run/pass ration should be. In the end, he finds that a teams winning percentage seems to correlate (at least partially) to how closely they conformed to their "optimal" ratio.

I contacted the author at the time, and inquired about whether he had looked at NCAA stats. He hadn't because he wasn't sure where to get full play by play summaries. After telling them that they were available on places like ESPN, he was kind enough to provide me his spreadsheets that do all the complex calculations. The only problem is that in order to actually generate the data, you have to manually compile the result of every play for the teams you are analyzing.

I'm really interested to see what the data would show for CFB. It's a definite possibility that the trends will be different (or that there may be no trend at all). After all, there is some level of parity in the NFL, which likely reduces anomalous results. Still, my goal is to compile the data for all the teams in the 6 BCS conferences plus Utah and ND. Anyone interested in helping compile the data? A tedious job, for sure...but I've already done a few teams and it's not that bad.

That's a fascinating topic. Can you try to explain how it works a little more? The thing that has me most confused is...How does it differentiate obvious run/pass situations while computing a team's optimal ratio? How does it know?

A lot of the concepts he uses go over my head, despite having read the paper a number of times. It's my basic understanding though that his model assumes coaches should call plays that maximize their net yardage and minimize their risk. He doesn't take into account the situations, but rather assumes that the coach has a fairly good idea what his net pass/run yardage vs. risk is, and calls an appropriate play. Obviously, this is a certain point of weakness in his theory. There are times where maximum yardage isn't really your concern--for instance when you are up at the end of the game and you are just trying to grind the clock.

I should also note that one of his conclusions is that teams don't run enough. That falls in line what we often say about rushing being so important. The interesting twist, I think, is that these kinds of analysis try to pinpoit exactly what that percentage is. You can't just say "we should rush 60% of the time", as it likely varies with many factors that are unique to the specific team.

- No text -