text:
Football Study Hall - All Posts Because some nerds don't love baseball. http://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/community_logos/50273/fsh-fav.png 2014-08-14T09:49:37-04:00 http://www.footballstudyhall.com/rss/current/ 2014-08-14T09:49:37-04:00 2014-08-14T09:49:37-04:00 Can Oklahoma's new defense finally subdue Big 12 offenses?
The Stoops brothers have built a frontline on defense so loaded that it might very well dominate the Big 12 and put the Sooners into the first college football playoff.

Mike Stoops was brought back to Oklahoma in 2012 after an underrated and effective season by Brent Venables and his Sooner defense. They had finished 7th in defensive S&P thanks to a stout defensive front that included DE Frank Alexander, DE/LB Ronnell Lewis, DE/LB Corey Nelson, LB Travis Lewis, and LB Tony Jefferson.

Their strong performance was clouded by the difference between a realistic view of what playing good, modern defense looks like and what fans, media, and even coaches still expected. The Sooners gave up gobs of yards in 2011 and saw their defense have unforgivable performances that resulted in their first home loss in years (to Tech), a loss to normally subdued rival Oklahoma State, and an unthinkable loss to Baylor that helped RG3 win the Heisman.

So analytics were ignored and Mike Stoops was brought back while Venables took the opportunity to head to Clemson and build a strong unit for which he could claim sole credit. While Venables was adjusting to the changing realities in the Big 12 by playing strong coverage players like Aaron Colvin at safety and utilizing more 3-4 odd front defenses, Mike Stoops went back to basics with a gap controlling 4-3 defense backed mostly by man coverage.

Between Stoops' over reliance on matching spread teams with dime packages that left Oklahoma vulnerable to the run game and the depletion of talent from Oklahoma's roster from lackluster recruiting, the 2012 unit slipped. They finished 15th overall in defense and 2nd in pass defense but were 58th in rushing defense and were not the dominant unit Oklahoma was hoping for.

So the Stoops brothers did some soul searching, found their souls, and sold them to the devil to help them install a 3-4 defense that would allow them to keep linebackers on the field to stop the run without losing their good pass defense.

This yielded a defense that only ranked 33rd overall and still struggled against the run, but one that began to find it's footing while raising up a new generation of Sooner defenders that may at last be ready to play the kind of football that has keyed Oklahoman dominance over the Big 12 in the past. The Sooners now have a firm identity they are ready to pit against a league known for lethal offense and where every team is returning a quarterback who has logged significant snaps as a starter.

While Mike Stoops is known for building around the abilities of his defensive backs and developing great safeties, the defensive front Oklahoma has assembled to run their 3-4 might very well be the best in the nation.

Oklahoma's 3-4

While Saban had some input on the development of this defense, the Sooner base front actually reminds a bit of Stanford or Oregon's defensive fronts.

The defensive ends play a 4i technique, lined up across the inside eye of the offensive tackles, while the nose tackle is in a classic 0-technique, simply matched against the center.

In 2013, Oklahoma would play Eric Striker as their "Jack" linebacker, who would align to the boundary while they played a nickelback at the "Sam" outside linebacker spot. The inside linebackers would usually play across the guards depending on the coverage call.

As a general rule, the defensive ends are looking to fill the B gaps between the guards and tackles although they will take the C gap outside of the tackle depending on situation. The nose is 2-gapping the center and filling the playside gap either with his own body or that of the center if he can't work his way there.

While the DL have flexible rules for responding to blocks, as a general rule they are looking to spill the ball outside, the outside linebackers are containing it between them, and the inside linebackers are keying the backs and flowing to the ball hopefully unencumbered.

The problem for Oklahoma playing this front in 2013 was that they were too small and inexperienced up front to properly execute it.

Corey Nelson was supposed to serve as inside linebacker who could also play as the "Sam" if the offense brought out bigger personnel that negated the need for a nickelback but he went down for the season in game five against TCU and left freshman Dominique Alexander to fill his role inside. The Sooners had also just lost their "war daddy" nose tackle Jordan Phillips in game four, a 6'6" 334 monster who was emerging as a potential superstar. They replaced him with redshirt freshman Jordan Wade.

The following week, these two youngsters were totally unprepared for the bowl of wrath that Texas' upperclassmen-rich OL had been preparing as vengeance for consecutive humiliations at the Sooners' hands. Texas' two main running backs each ran for 120 yards and OU had to take it, having no answers but to allow their young players to tough it out.

In that game, the 2013 Oklahoma front seven looked like this:

DE: Charles Tapper: 6'4" 275

NT: Jordan Wade: 6'4" 312

DE: Geneo Grissom: 6'4" 247

Sam: Julian Wilson: 6'2" 202

Mike: Frank Shannon: 6'1" 234

Will: Dominique Alexander: 6'0" 215

Jack: Eric Striker: 6'0" 217

Heading into 2014, that front has been changed to the following group:

DE: Charles Tapper: 6'4" 281

NT: Jordan Phillips: 6'6" 334

DE: Chuka Ndulue: 6'3" 289

Sam: Eric Striker: 6'0" 221

Mike: Jordan Evans: 6'3" 223

Will: Dominique Alexander: 6'0" 227

Jack: Geneo Grissom: 6'4" 252

That's a net gain of 125 pounds across the front and an average of almost 18 pounds per position. The two most notable gains are at DE and outside linebacker where Grissom was moved into Striker's "Jack" linebacker spot while Striker took Wilson's role of playing in space as the nickel/sam player.

With Grissom playing the strongside edge, Ndulue and Phillips adding weight and power inside, and the removal of a DB from the front, you can assume that Oklahoma's resistance to opposing run games will greatly increase.

The key to all of this is the versatility of Eric Striker to be able to play an outside linebacker position that puts him out in space as often as it asks him to blitz the edge. He's essentially a nickel/DE/LB hybrid wearing a variety of hats for the Sooner defense. Because Striker has the quickness and awareness to play out in space, Oklahoma can now play two versions of every base coverage and front.

For instance, check out their base Cover 3 pattern-matching defense with either the Jack coming as the fourth rusher:

Or just as easily, the same coverage with a Sam linebacker blitz from Striker:

All of Oklahoma's base coverages can be run with the flexibility to bring either outside linebacker off the edge. As for the players, Striker had 6.5 sacks in 2013 while Grissom added 4.5 of his own playing with his hands in the dirt as a DE. Then there's DE Charles Tapper who is a freak athlete and a great pass-rusher in his own right who had 5.5 sacks in 2013. Don't forget Ndulue who had five sacks as a DE in 2012 and 2.5 playing spot duty in 2013.

This is the versatility of a 3-4 defense and the reason it's often been a preferred defense for bringing pressure, the problem for the 3-4 in modern football is that teams typically have to bring their 2nd great pass-rusher off the field against offensive formations like this or risk being torched by the slot (H here) in the quick passing game.

With quick little Striker playing the outside linebacker spot that's left in space, this isn't a concern for the Sooners.

This is to say nothing of the blitz packages that Oklahoma has at their disposal, which include some man-1 fire zones and some cover 0 blitzes. If the base pass-rush from having these players on the field wasn't enough for an offense, Oklahoma can also blitz Grissom and Striker at the same time, or blitz them in combination with inside linebackers or safeties.

Because they're returning almost every key player in their front from 2013, Oklahoma has now found a formula that allows them to put a considerable amount of talent on the field. Their problems with lack of size in 2013 are behind them while their ability to bring lots of pressure from different angles has stunningly been expanded at the same time.

Imagine being an OT lined up across from Charles Tapper and wondering whether he's going to come right at you or dart just inside of you while Striker comes screaming past you around the edge. Big 12 teams with slow or inexperienced linemen may be forced to play conservatively simply due to the pass-rushing threat.

OU's nickel package

But what happens if the offense floods the field with four or even five good receivers, as Big 12 teams are prone to do? While Striker may be quicker than an average 3-4 outside linebacker, can Oklahoma really hold up against the spread passing teams on the schedule with great slot receivers?

When Oklahoma wants to drop two deep safeties can these guys really hold up underneath? Perhaps not, but that's why Oklahoma has a 2-4-5 nickel package to throw into the mix:

To the field side the Sooners have Striker in a stand-up technique where he can either drop into coverage, stunt inside, or attack the edge. Just inside of him is Geneo Grissom in a 3-technique.

To the other side the Sooners have Ndulue at another 3-technique position and Tapper as another outside end. They replace Striker with a more traditional nickelback (probably strong safety Quentin Hayes) and can play man coverage without any horrendous mismatches. They can also adjust this to a dime defense by removing one of their inside linebackers or one of their DE's.

Essentially, this just puts even more speed on the field and allows Oklahoma to throw pass-rushers at the backfield from a variety of angles and spots. Here's what this package can look like in terms of bringing the blitz:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://swf.tubechop.com/tubechop.swf?vurl=PZG6tdW2pFc&start=475&end=481&cid=3445412"> <embed src="http://swf.tubechop.com/tubechop.swf?vurl=PZG6tdW2pFc&start=475&end=481&cid=3445412" mce_src="http://swf.tubechop.com/tubechop.swf?vurl=PZG6tdW2pFc&start=475&end=481&cid=3445412" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

In this blitz they had Striker lined up as an inside linebacker before moving back outside to attack the edge. The dimeback and strong safety (D and S respectively) locked up the slot receivers in man coverage, the remaining inside linebacker (M) played man coverage on the running back, and the corners played the outside receivers. It's a typical man-1 blitz but the amount of pass-rushing and coverage ability Oklahoma can put on the field with blitzes like this in their new 2-4-5 package is intense.

But perhaps the most dangerous ingredient to this defense is the adoption of a Tampa-2 coverage for 3rd and long:

There are a few elements of the Tampa-2 that make it an ideal change of pace for Oklahoma on obvious passing downs. The needs of the scheme are for an athletic middle linebacker who can make deep drops to the middle of the field and play the passing lanes and for a pass rush that gets home quickly.

While potentially losing middle linebacker Frank Shannon for the year hurts OU's depth, new starter Jordan Evans is a more athletic player who at 6'3" is excellent at getting his hands in passing windows both as a blitzer and as a deep dropper. We've already covered how much pass-rushing excellence OU can get on the field.

The great benefit of Tampa-2 is that it makes it much easier for the safeties to handle spread passing attacks. The hardest part of playing quarters for a safety is the potential run/pass conflicts a safety can find himself in as well as the quickness and awareness needed to handle vertical routes over the middle of the field.

Oklahoma has been stockpiling some young hitters like Hatari Byrd and Ahmad Thomas in recent years who excel more at open field tackling and big hits than in matching routes by slot receivers. In Tampa-2, they can sit on deep routes with help inside from the mike linebacker and then break on the ball and deliver big hits.

Many spread teams have QBs who are chosen more for their accuracy, decision making, and athleticism than for having big arms. They aren't used to beating deep safeties who are sitting on deep routes and often struggle to do anything more against this coverage than hit someone underneath on the run and hope they can make people miss in the open field.

After years of relying on a multiple and aggressive 4-3 defense, the Stoops brothers have patiently been tinkering with their schematic approach while raising up young players to fill a void left by a few down years in defensive recruiting. Now, thanks to unique young talents like Eric Striker, they've assembled one of the most ideal 3-4 personnel groupings college football has seen and had an entire offseason with a mostly intact roster to work out the best ways to deploy it.

The Big 12 probably won't be able to handle Stoops' patented aggressive defense playing in these schemes and it's likely that this defensive front will dominate the league to such an extent that they put the Sooners in the playoffs.

In a league dominated by offensive innovation and success, 2014 might finally see the empire strike back.
 http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2014/8/14/5999783/oklahoma-sooners-3-4-defense-eric-striker-stoops-college-football-playoffs Ian Boyd 2014-08-11T10:22:28-04:00 2014-08-11T10:22:28-04:00 Prognosticating the first playoff season in college football
Bill and Ian take a few stabs at guessing which teams and players will dominate 2014 and how the inaugural college football playoff will unfold.

Well Billy, for me having a national championship game that attempts to pit the consensus top two teams against each other is what I've been accustomed to for the entirety of my life as a college football fan (I fell in love with the game during Ricky Williams' 98 Heisman run).

A college football playoff with four teams? I imagine my excitement level is comparable to that of older fans who couldn't wait to see a BCS title game in the late 90's. The next generation will probably scream at the injustice of only selecting four teams and wonder why it took so long to add four more.

In the meantime, let's geek out just a little about the four team playoff and start here:

Which teams do you think will end up as the top squads in the land and which teams do you think will actually get the nod from the committee?

Bill: Honestly, I hate that I have a boring answer for this one, but ... I have a boring answer. Florida State should be great and has a clear enough schedule that they should get to 12-1 relatively easily. Alabama should be great (or close to it) and hosts Auburn; the Tide have the inside track on the SEC title and, therefore, an all-but-automatic playoff bid. While UCLA, USC, and Washington will certainly have something to say about it, the odds are still pretty good that the Stanford-Oregon winner will win the Pac-12, and even if Stanford hits the postseason at 11-2, the Cardinal's schedule strength is absurd and will probably get them in (barring a rash of undefeateds). And the two most likely candidates for the fourth spot are Ohio State and Oklahoma.

As far as less-boring answers ... UCLA will have the schedule strength to make it if it wins the Pac-12. Michigan State gets Ohio State at home, and while I don't think the Spartans will be quite as good as last year, they have a schedule that could be conducive to 12-1 or so. South Carolina has the schedule to go 11-1 or so and could be in decent position even with a loss to Bama (or whoever) in the SECCG. And if Georgia beats either Clemson or South Carolina early on, the Dawgs could get super hot.

Ian: For my part, I'm inclined to agree about the top four. I was pretty confident that Alabama wouldn't be able to recover from losing several pieces from one of the greatest OLs in recent college football history and was also dubious of their DL being as dominant as usual last year. This year Alabama is clearly loaded along both lines.

With so much elite talent back and a weak ACC it's hard to pick against Florida State either. I'll take Oklahoma to finish with only one or perhaps even zero losses thanks to a potentially elite defense and favorable schedule and consequently take spot number three. I expect Auburn will be very good again but can two SEC West teams both make the playoff?

You're probably right about the Pac-12 champion being one of the best four teams but I'm not sure that I have any confidence that the selection committee will choose a two-loss champion over a one-loss SEC non-champion.

Give me a one-loss Big 10 champion Michigan State as a 4th team provided they beat Oregon early, otherwise I'll bet on OU, FSU, Bama, and a 2nd SEC team.

Let's also satiate some of our cynical tastes. Since most everything the power programs do is designed to keep money and attention focused on them, can we assume the committee is a means of throwing a bone to the fans while ensuring that mid major powers like Boise State are forever thrown into the pit where there's gnashing of teeth and a lack of primetime access?

Are there any non-power five programs that you would project to finish with top four resumes in 2014 anyways?

Bill: I assume the committee will take a mid-major seriously if it can put together multiple great years, a la Boise State from about 2008-11. But if Utah State goes 13-0, I can't even imagine how good the Aggies would have to look to make it (barring a lot of two-loss teams at the top).

Ian: As far as mid-majors go, I'm having trouble believing that a one-loss Big 12 champion that isn't Oklahoma or Texas will get a shot at the playoff much less an undefeated AAC or Mountain West champion.

 Of course all this speculation is tough to nail down without forecasting which surprise teams will jump up. After all, the last two Heisman winners were redshirt freshman QBs that no one was ready to project as brilliant.
Are there any young QBs out there that could seize the reigns of a team and propel them into the upper tier of 2014?

Bill: Obviously I'm partial to Maty Mauk, but ... well ... he's going to be awesome. Not sure if his receiving corps will get it done this year, but if it does, Mizzou's offense should be fine. It sounds like Deshaun Watson will get every chance in the world to become the guy pretty early at Clemson. And Anu Solomon is taking first-string reps at Arizona; he seems custom-made for a RichRod offense.

Ian: For young QB's I've got my eye on the battle in College Station between former Texas HS champion Kenny Hill and the Aggie's 5-star freshman Kyle Allen. They clearly played well enough in the spring to drive Senior Matt Joeckel to TCU and the weapons around them will be plentiful enough that whoever emerges as starter might put up some good stats with relative ease.

What about team units? Any defenses or units like Missouri's 2013 WR corp or Sparty's 2013 D that could end up being dominant enough to carry a top team?

Bill: My goodness, the Georgia skill position lineup is loaded. If Hutson Mason and the line are just competent, and if the injury bug is nicer, that's a top-10 offense again. And Va Tech's defensive backfield should be incredible again, though the pass rush might not do it any favors.

Ian: Some units that I think will impress in 2014 include;

The OU defensive front. With Striker playing at "nickel" and DE Grissom moved outside to the "Jack" position, while Charles Tapper remains at DE and is rejoined by 6'6" 330 pound nose tackle Jordan Phillips that pass-rush is beginning to look pretty terrifying. Keep an eye on athletic inside linebacker Jordan Evans to emerge as well.

The Alabama skill player group is another one that should cause nightmares. A WR corp of Amari Cooper, Christion Jones, and DeAndrew White is no joke. When you add in their stable of RBs and TE's OJ Howard and Brian Vogler you get the sense that they will be okay regardless of who takes snaps at QB.

While we're on the subject, give me a few teams as nominations for the best run game, best passing attack, best secondary, and best overall defense for 2014.

Bill: Best run game: oh goodness, Auburn.

Best passing game: boring, but Florida State.

Best secondary: boring, but Florida State.

Best defense: boring, but Florida State ... unless Jeremy Pruitt was really that much of a difference-maker. If that's the case, then ... boring, but Alabama.

Ian: For best run game I agree that Auburn is a great answer but how about Oregon? They've accumulated quite a few backs there with Tyner and Marshall and they also have an abundance of quality TEs to play on the edge of that veteran OL. Factor in Mariota's insane speed and that's a pretty dominant group. Plus, you probably don't want your secondary to get their eyes glued to the backfield.

For best passing game I'm not going to dispute with Florida State.

The best secondary award could go to the 'Noles as well but I'm curious whether Stanford ends up with a strong showing here, provided they adequately replace Ed Reynolds. Alabama was weak at cornerback in 2013 and have some serious ground to make up there while FSU replaces absolute stud Lamarcus Joyner.

Speaking of corners, if Aaron Colvin had another year of eligibility I'd take Oklahoma as best defense...but he doesn't. I'll take a surprise pick and say that Stanford manages to have one of the nation's better defenses thanks to a veteran secondary and depth up front.

Outside of your own conference, which teams are you most excited to watch this year? That could either be because of entertainment value or because they might be really good. Or, hey, really bad.

Finally, what's your dream outcome for this season in terms of who makes the playoff and what follows from there and what's your predicted outcome?

Bill: Outside of the obvious dream (Missouri!), I'd love to have serious contrasts of styles involved. Aside from the whole "settling it on the field" thing (which has become a massive cliche at this point), the Playoff gives us an opportunity to answer more what-if questions as it pertains to elite teams. I want to see Alabama and Baylor play ... Florida State and Oregon ... etc. My fantasy outcome is a set of matchups like that. Baylor probably won't make it this year, but there are plenty of exciting, high-octane teams out there, and I'm a big "styles make fights" guy. (That said, I assume Bama and FSU will be playing for the title because I assume they're the two best teams.)

Ian: 2014 has a couple of really interesting storylines for me. As a Michigan resident, I'm really curious to see how Michigan State's defense holds up against Mariota and the Oregon offense while I also want to see how much of an impact Nussmeier has in year one at Michigan. There's a lot of talent in Ann Arbor and excuses will dwindle if there isn't improvement this season.

Down south, who doesn't want to see the continued war between old-school coaches like Bielema and Saban and the proliferating up-tempo spread offenses in the SEC? Auburn has some serious talent on offense if Malzahn can help Marshall progress enough as a passer to unlock it. The development of that QB as well as how Saban adapts to these new threats could very well define the SEC West this year.

I need to catch more Pac-12 games this year as well, I bet there's some fun contests out west this year.

As for the playoffs, my dream is more or less exactly the same. I want to see Oregon get their chance against more big, physical SEC teams and I want more style contrast match-ups in general.

My other big wish would be to see a team like UCF that doesn't have highly regarded talent face off against a power five squad, but I fear that was a fruit of the old system and not the new one. The problem is that the BCS would protect the major programs from match-ups against teams like Boise St, TCU, or UCF with very few exceptions.

I agree, Alabama vs FSU is the most likely match-up, which probably means that it won't happen.

Should be fun, let's get this started.
 http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2014/8/11/5990781/prognosticating-the-first-playoff-season-in-college-football-predictions Ian Boyd 2014-08-05T10:58:51-04:00 2014-08-05T10:58:51-04:00 Demystifying Kansas State: When, why, and how are the Wildcats good?
No one seems to understand how Snyder keeps producing wins out in Manhattan, Kansas but a closer look reveals the truth behind Bill Snyder's wizardry.

Typical preseason prognostications about Kansas State typically go something like this:

"What about Kansas St this year?"

"Um...losing a lot of starters...QB is back. Probably solid, not that great."

"That's when they turn out to be really good."

"Yeah, let's put 'em 3rd or 4th in the league just as a CYA."

For most fans and sportswriters, Bill Snyder's Kansas State Wildcats are something of an enigma. No one really knows why or how they are so good, some even crediting their success to unpredictable intangibles if not outright sorcery.

Will they be good this year? You can't hope to answer that question if you don't know why they were good in previous years. To get past an understanding of KSU's success that's based on Snyder's mystical or personal powers and into the actual cause and effect relationships at play takes a deeper look at the KSU model.

Ultimately, success at a given college football program is about leveraging the strengths of the program's resources against your opponent. Before Snyder arrived it wasn't apparent that Kansas St had any resources to speak of as a program, but they clearly do now.

Understanding how to translate "every man a wildcat" and Snyder's "16 goals" into an answer for "how the hell is Kansas St competing for Big 12 titles?" requires an understanding of KSU's resources and strategies for unlocking those resources.

Phase I Recruiting:

Here's a look at where Snyder's recruits have come from in his 2nd tenure as KSU's head coach (2009-present)

The obvious takeaway is that Kansas has access, by virtue of geography and of playing in the Big 12, to the Kansas City metroplex, Wichita, Dallas-Ft Worth, Houston, lots of rural towns in the great plains, and somehow to the Bay area and southern California.

All in all, a school could do worse in terms of recruiting turf, but the most interesting points is how many of Kansas St's players come from the state of Kansas itself. As Snyder immediately realized after arriving at KSU in 1989, recruiting in Kansas isn't as bad as it's made out to be if you know how to recruit and utilize JUCO's.

Kansas is home to some premier junior college football programs with Butler community college, Hutchinson community college, and Garden City community college all existing within the Jayhawk community college system. Since Snyder came back, the Wildcats have taken 15 JUCOs from six different programs within the state. Their success in the JUCO ranks has also allowed them to also add transfers from Texas and California programs.

The Wildcats also maintain a pipeline of rural regional kids that often end up playing a huge role in their program.

Small town football players are often totally overlooked by bigger, lazier programs for several reasons. First of all, they rarely have football programs with the resources to maximize the talent of the players. Secondly, it's harder for scouts and coaches to have a chance to see or visit them, so they often don't. Finally, the level of competition is lower, which breeds a lack of trust in the talent.

Scouts and big programs ignore these kids and thus Kansas St has access to talent that has a greater upside then many people realize. A lot of that talent is filtered through their walk-on program.

Even now KSU is projected to start walk-ons at defensive end (Ryan Mueller) and weakside linebacker (Jonathan Truman) that may be two of their better players and indeed two of the better defensive players in the conference. Both were from small Kansas towns and obviously neither got much recruiting attention.

The Wildcats have 124 players on their roster heading into fall practices and the players besides the 85 on scholarship aren't necessarily just there to get beat up in practice. Many of them will have a chance to be contributors and even earn scholarships or starting roles.

That means Kansas St has a larger pool of talent to choose from than a program that relies simply on their scholarship athletes and are consequently less vulnerable to the problems that arise in maintaining a depth chart with only 85 players.

Another result of pulling from this recruiting base is that Kansas State is ALWAYS stocked with upperclassmen, be they lower-rated recruits that have finally reached their potential after a few years of high level coaching or JUCO transfers who arrived as juniors. The tactics Kansas State is able employ have a lot to do with the fact that their players are generally older.

Most coaches would prefer to recruit in Texas or Florida, but there are advantages to recruiting in Kansas if you know how to maximize what's there.

Phase II: Culture

If you have the chance to ask Bill Snyder about his team you are likely to get a long, droning answer about various players' personal integrity, work ethic, and strong family life. A sportswriter attempting to get into Snyder's mind is likely to give up within ten minutes of listening to Snyder talk about family values and culture.

However, the culture at Kansas State is undoubtedly a crucial component to their success. There's a reason other programs don't feature maxed out walk-ons on a regular basis and aren't consistently able to transform JUCO players who were unable to get scholarship offers from major schools out of high school into productive players.

Turning kids with off the field problems, academic issues, lack of ideal measurables, or lack of attention into a cohesive unit requires a very strong culture and building that culture is undoubtedly one of Snyder's greatest strengths.

There's no great secret here, Snyder simply works long hours and invests time into the lives of his players on a regular basis. As a top recruit or a talented JUCO transfer, if you don't respond to coaches speaking into your life and pushing you every day, there's undoubtedly another player who will and the coaches will give him your spot on the depth chart.

There can be little doubt that having so many rural kids and JUCO transfers who are fighting for every chance or opportunity they can get has an additional multiplier effect in forcing every player on campus to seek their highest potential.

There are a fair number of Wildcats in the NFL today because when talent goes to Manhattan the culture ensures that it isn't wasted.

Phase III: Deployment

Besides the unexamined benefits of recruiting in Kansas, Wildcat strategy is one of the more interesting aspects of the program and a big part of why they are consistently good.

Remember that building up a program is all about leveraging your strengths and advantages and the Wildcat schemes absolutely do this.

On Offense:

Snyder-ball has been ahead of the curve on spread tactics for a very long time, even influencing great minds like Urban Meyer. When Snyder initially came back to Manhattan he plugged RB Daniel Thomas and eventually QB/WR Collin Klein in to run his multiple-option attack.

Snyder has always eagerly embraced the leverage and reduced box afforded by spread formations and has typically made great use of the spread-option to create opportunities for his best players to get the ball in space. While they've become famous for using the "Wildcat" as an enormous piece of their offense with players like Daniel Thomas, Daniel Sams, and Collin Klein, Snyder is now quickly integrating newer spread-option concepts.

With Jake Waters at the helm and Jesse Ertz, more of a pocket passer than a featured runner, as the 2nd in command, the Wildcats now employ more packaged plays that have the QB making option choices between hand-offs and passes.

Snyder's offensive brilliance is usually the most overlooked factor in KSU's sustained excellence. While his command of the option run game has defined most of KSU's great offenses, between Snyder and OC Dana Dimel exists a large acumen of offensive strategy and know-how.

You can always be sure that their playbook will include multiple and modern ways to feature whatever good players they happen to have on campus. The 2013 KSU offense was ultimately built around Jake Waters' strengths, primarily because a passing game allowed them to make the most out of having the best receiver in the Big 12, if not the nation, in Tyler Lockett.

Many sports writers and prognosticators will look at KSU and says "option running team with no experienced RB back and both offensive tackles gone...I see problems" but while KSU had fine players at those positions the cornerstones of the late surge in 2013 haven't left.

Stud interior linemen Cody Whitehair and BJ Finney aversatile fullback Glenn Gronkowski and tight end Zach Trujillo are also back. A major benefit of having a deep roster of tough contributors is that the Wildcats always have the players to utilize multiple positions and formations. Snyder is a organizational genius and precise overseer of their program, developing players to complement Waters and Lockett won't be an issue.

In 2014 they'll zero in on two major tactics:

First, they'll use spread formations with Gronk joining Waters in the backfield while four receivers are split wide. The unnoticed storyline of the Wildcats 2014 season, available to anyone paying attention to the team or watching their spring game, is that they have a pretty strong young WR corp. Despite being an exceptional athlete, Daniel Sams was unable to crack the depth chart at receiver because the Wildcats had other young players like DeAntre Burton and Judah Jones as well as veterans like Curry Sexton who combine good athleticism with more precise route running.

These players will always be in the right spots to execute Snyder's ball control passing game, which makes them a tough cover for a defense concerned with preventing Lockett from taking the top off the coverage.

The 'Cats will also use their typical array of bigger formations with multiple fullbacks and tight ends on the field designed to punish and wear out Big 12 defenses recruited and designed to handle finesse, spread attacks. Because Trujillo is a capable receiver, they'll still be able to mix in a ball-control passing game to their multiple zone/option run game while in bigger formations.

Check out their version of shallow cross:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://swf.tubechop.com/tubechop.swf?vurl=Uph-O2MJ1vs&start=1246&end=1253&cid=3407922"> <embed src="http://swf.tubechop.com/tubechop.swf?vurl=Uph-O2MJ1vs&start=1246&end=1253&cid=3407922" mce_src="http://swf.tubechop.com/tubechop.swf?vurl=Uph-O2MJ1vs&start=1246&end=1253&cid=3407922" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Trujillo (Y) has simply to understand how to find space and depth against the linebackers and then catch the ball and turn up field if the coverage leaves him open. KSU can send an up and coming athlete like Jones or Burton on the shallow cross while Lockett runs a deep route to create separation between the safeties and linebackers.

The Wildcat offense is all about execution, versatility, and precision and, like many offenses, relies more on skills and teamwork then athleticism. Thus, the KSU roster of maxed out and well-coached upperclassmen combined with a handful of premier athletes usually makes for a strong group.

In 2014, Waters, Lockett, a versatile supporting cast and a few legitimately good OL will allow Snyder to brew some potent potions in his magical cauldron.

On Defense and Special teams:

The Wildcats more or less play things safe on defense. They field solid-to-good defenses but they win games with special teams and offense.

Snyder has a great affinity for having tiny speedsters on the roster who keep the Wildcats stocked with good returners while the massive base of walk-ons and upperclass players fighting to see the field means that the Wildcat coverage teams are always loaded with specialists who treat their jobs with more focus then perhaps your average special teams contributor.

Defensively, the Wildcats are all about playing sound, base defense from a small handful of personnel packages (they play nickel at least 75% of their snaps) and they don't blitz often or particularly effectively.

The hardest positions to recruit on defense are DL and cornerback. If a team can field athletes at those positions, the linebacker and safety spots can be comprised of intelligent, tough kids working in cohesion that meet a baseline of size and athleticism which isn't impossible to find, even for programs that don't have access to top shelf athletes.

That said, KSU struggles to find cornerbacks who can play aggressive coverage on the sidelines without help so they usually play off coverage and bet against opponents executing ball control tactics with the same precision as their own offense.

The Wildcats build their coverages around the abilities of one or two players in the middle who have above average skill. In 2013 that was safety Ty Zimmerman and nickelback Randall Evans. Zimmerman was a fantastic run-support player while Evans possessed the ability to play man coverage without deep help at the nickel position, so KSU played quarters coverages that allowed Zimmerman to attack the run while Evans handled verticals.

In 2014 the 'Cats will probably assume a similar approach that relies on Evans and safety Dante Barnett and perhaps puts a little more on their cornerbacks. In 2013, the Wildcats played stopgaps at the cornerback positions, both of whom have departed. DC Tom Hayes has plenty of veterans and redshirted JUCOs who can match or likely exceed the play Kansas St got at CB last year. Incoming JUCO Dvonta Derricott may also give KSU range and athleticism at mike linebacker they haven't had since Arthur Brown left.

Defensive line is where KSU's JUCO strategy really pays off. You can't sit back and play base 4-3 defense without having at least good, if not great, DL play. Additionally, it's one of the hardest positions to recruit since the gene pool of athletic 250+ pound people is so small.

Choosing full-sized players from the JUCO ranks with a few years of college strength and conditioning under their belts makes it easier to field good defensive linemen. The Kansas JUCO programs have a surprisingly large population of legitimately good DL and KSU's supply of rural kids often produces players that grow bigger and more powerful than expected. With this recruiting base, KSU has actually been able to consistently get a pass-rush with four players and find nose tackles that can command and survive a double team.

In 2014 they bring back their two best defensive ends and some promising back-ups behind them, their 3-tech defensive tackle, and lose only their nose-tackle who was merely an average player. Stepping in will be either northern Cal-JUCO senior Valentino Coleman, or more likely, four-star incoming JUCO Terrell Clinkscales who chose KSU late in the game over Nebraska. At 6'4" and 325, Clinkscales has the rare size and power to be an impact player inside in the Big 12.

Snyder's Kansas State program is all about leveraging resources and the 2014 group is locked and loaded at the right spots to propel KSU to compete for the Big 12 title once more.
 http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2014/8/5/5951537/demystifying-kansas-state-wildcats-jake-waters-tyler-lockett-bill-snyder Ian Boyd 2014-07-24T10:00:03-04:00 2014-07-24T10:00:03-04:00 The Jace Amaro effect: Big 12 offenses and B-backs
The Big 12 was rocked by Tech's offense and the incomparable Jace Amaro in 2013, his impact is having a ripple effect across the rest of the league that will be evident in 2014.

"Coach Kingsbury, how do you replace everything that Jace Amaro brought to your offense in the screen game as a blocker, in the quick game, and even downfield?"

Kingsbury: We'll be a faster wide receiving crew, which will help...a guy like that, 6'6" and 250 and can dominate blocking and has 100 catches, I don't think you can replace him."

Texas Tech's freakish tight end finished the 2013 season with 106 catches, 1352 yards, and seven touchdowns. He was essentially the backbone of the Red Raider offense and allowed them to rotate walk-ons and freshman QBs without missing a beat.

Now he's gone and there's no one else remotely like him on the Texas Tech roster. They'll have to move on and find new players and concepts worth featuring. Kingsbury suggested that the deep passing game to speedy receivers would become the new foundation of the system.

Meanwhile, everyone else in the Big 12 is looking at Amaro's departure and responding in two ways. First was to say "phew!" because no one in the Big 12 had a great answer for how to account for the massive and reliable receiver. He was too big for DBs, even guys like OSU's 6'3" Lyndell Johnson who could play man coverage, were unable to erase him from games.

Linebackers were similarly helpless and he made solid players like OSU's Ryan Simmons look hopelessly slow with his ability to cut over the middle of the field. It's a good bet that Big 12 DCs will be willing to live with a faster Tech receiving corp rather than figuring out how to stop Amaro on 3rd down.

The second response to seeing Amaro carve through defenses and allow a team with inexperienced QBs to finish 23rd in offensive S&P and 10th on passing downs was to say, "granted we don't have an Amaro, but how we can we mimic that?"

There will be a few lessons that teams will learn from Tech that are applied both in 2014 and in the future:

1). Keep the tight end on the field

Many teams have realized that there's an easier way to have a steady, quick passing game that provides a ball-control element to the offense than to practice a complicated, precision and timing-based throw game.

Instead, teams will use either packaged plays or a handful of passing concepts to take advantage of the easy match-up wins that can be created in the "2-hole" or "3-hole", meaning the slot receiver positions that are lined up against inside linebackers.

Flexing out the tight end when a team wants to use a spread set can still create match-up opportunities by placing that player where he is covered by a weaker defender. Perhaps more importantly, it really helps the screen game by allowing the team to use that player to block nickelbacks, safeties, and corners who are responsible for stopping the bubble screen.

As Jimmay Mundine, a 6'2" 240 pound Kansas TE, noted from practicing in the Jayhawks' new spread system:

"Going up against guys that are 6'5" 290 is a big task for me to have to drink and swallow...now I'm going up against guys that are 5'10, 190, I blocked a few in spring ball and I'm out there laughing and enjoying myself...running them five yards off the line. It's pretty cool for the roles to change."

Mundine is not even a prototypical tight end. He lacks Amaro's fantastic length or size but when you're going up against DBs that doesn't matter as much.

There are match-up advantages available both in the run and the pass game when these players are on the field and defenses don't yet have many answers for teams that can throw a screen pass to a player like Tavon Austin or even Tony Pierson on the perimeter with a mobile, 240 pound lead blocker running in front of them.

2). Teach them multiple roles

Big 12 teams have already realized that they can build a smashmouth run game from the spread by putting a fullback on the field in a three-WR "spread" set to create stress points for spaced out defenses. The role of fullback or H-back in a spread set is one that can be mastered by many tight ends.

Blocking from the backfield is easier than blocking on the line as a true TE because the player can now build up a head of steam before running into a defensive end or linebacker. A player like Mundine, or Iowa State's EJ Bibbs, can be taught how to play in the offense as an H-back, in-line TE, or flex TE and open up a world of hurt for defenses. Bibbs:

"I'm going to move around so much, confuse the defense. That's what I love about this offense...it's going to be a great season."

At 6'3", 261 pounds, Bibbs is a little on the shorter side for a prototype TE. However, he's still long enough to block on the line, he's fluid and quick enough to use his size to be a hard cover for linebackers and safeties, and he's wide and powerful enough to knock people backwards as a lead blocker from the backfield.

The hurry-up elements of a spread offense go to another level entirely when it has versatile players who can play multiple roles.

Worried about stopping the Iowa State run game? Perhaps a defense lines up with three linebackers on the field to load the box and control the run game. Wait, now Bibbs is flexing out? Better hope that 3rd linebacker can hang with him in coverage. Shoot, I guess not. Welp, let's get a DB in there then. Oh no, he's moving back to H-back...

Defenses can only substitute personnel to match an opponent if there is an break in action or the offense substitutes. If the offense doesn't have to substitute and can use Bibbs both in tight or spread formations then a defense doesn't have any answers except to hope that their defenders can be as versatile as Bibbs.

What's especially important is that Bibbs doesn't have to be a great lead blocker, a great in-line blocker, or a great receiver to make this work. He just needs to be good enough at each to take advantage of the defensive player that's across from him in a given role.

This position on the field, called the "B" player by Florida's Kurt Roper, is becoming a sought-after athlete for spread and HUNH teams across the nation.

3). Go find them!

Many of these players aren't necessarily that difficult to find, although they don't necessarily draw a ton of attention in the recruiting game.

A few examples of players that are likely to have their number called to fill the versatile "B" position for various Big 12 teams.

Blake Bell: 6'6, 251, OU: Bell was a four-star QB recruit and his time spent at that position has prevented him from developing all the skills to learn these roles but he will at least be given every chance to become a flex TE and match-up nightmare for opponents in 2014. He has similar size, fluidity, and hands to Amaro. This is as close as the B12 is likely to see for a few years.

Dimitri Flowers: 6'1", 244, OU: Flowers is their next Trey Millard, he can be a lead blocker out of the backfield or a slot receiver from play to play thanks to his solid speed, soft hands, and hard-nosed attitude. Even though it was known how this obvious versatility would be utilized in Norman he was only a three-star recruit.

Aaron Ripkowski, 6'1", 261, OU: That's right, OU has quietly accumulated several versatile bludgeons that will undoubtedly be useful in forging an identity as a smashmouth, hurry-up offense in 2014. Rip can block in-line or from the backfield but isn't a common target in the passing game. That's still pretty good find considering he was a walk-on.

Glenn Gronkowski: 6'3", 234, KSU. Gronk fills many roles in the KSU offense and, despite his family name, only got two-stars from Rivals.

E.J. Bibbs: 6'3", 261, ISU: Bibbs was rightfully acknowledged as the 1st team All-Big 12 tight end. He was a three-star JUCO transfer for Rhoads' Cyclones.

Jimmay Mundine: 6'2", 240, KU: Jimmay was a three-star player who will have every chance to shine in Reagan's new hurry-up spread at Kansas.

Besides Blake Bell, who was deemed a QB, none of these players were rated higher then three-stars by the services. Finding thickly built players who can catch, block out of the backfield, and abuse defensive backs with blocks is not one of the hardest tasks for a college scout to perform. Nor is it exceptionally difficult for a recruiter to convince such a player to come to his school...yet.

The tremendous success Tech had with Amaro was largely due to him being a rare athlete with exceptional size and skills, yet there were ways in which Tech utilized him that will have staying power in the Big 12 and college football. Look for teams to apply these lessons with smaller, versatile players while everyone turns over rocks looking for the next freakish athlete to change how things are done.
 http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2014/7/24/5930407/the-jace-amaro-effect-kliff-kingsbury-texas-tech-air-raid-spread Ian Boyd 2014-07-23T19:48:52-04:00 2014-07-23T19:48:52-04:00 The 2014 FBS College Football Media Guides
Your handy index to every 2014 media guide available online for all 128 FBS football teams and the ten conferences.

The name of the team/conference links to its respective website's football page. The hotlink on "2014 Media Guide" goes directly to the guide itself. Those lacking hotlinks are not available yet. An asterisk symbol (*) denotes a direct link to a PDF document.

We will be updating this post every few days over the next few weeks. If you have located any we have missed, please let us know in the comments.

For the completists among you here are the 2012 Media Guide List and the 2013 Media Guide List. These lists are no longer curated so some of the links may not be functional.

Last update: August 19

Conferences

 American Athletic Conference
	 2014 Media Guide

 Atlantic Coast Conference	  2014 Media Guide*

 Big Ten Conference	  2014 Media Guide*

 Big XII Conference	 2014 Media Guide

 Conference USA	  2014 Media Guide*

 Mid-American Conference	  2014 Media Guide*

 Mountain West Conference	  2014 Media Guide*

 PAC 12 Conference	 2014 Media Guide

 Southeastern Conference	  2014 Media Guide*

  Sun Belt Conference 	 2014 Media Guide

American Athletic Conference

 Cincinnati	 2014 Media Guide

 Connecticut	 2014 Media Guide

 East Carolina	 2014 Media Guide

 Houston	 2014 Media Guide

 Memphis	 2014 Media Guide

 SMU	 2014 Media Guide

 South Florida	 2014 Media Guide

 Temple	 2014 Media Guide

 Tulane	 2014 Media Guide

 Tulsa	  2014 Media Guide*

 UCF	 2014 Media Guide

Atlantic Coast Conference

 Atlantic Division

 Boston College	 2014 Media Guide

 Clemson	 2014 Media Guide

 Florida State	  2014 Media Guide*

 Louisville	 2014 Media Guide

 N.C. State	  2014 Media Guide*

 Syracuse	 2014 Media Guide

 Wake Forest	 2014 Media Guide

 Coastal Division

 Duke	 2014 Media Guide

 Georgia Tech	 2014 Media Guide

 Miami	 2014 Media Guide

 North Carolina	  2014 Media Guide*

 Pittsburgh	 2014 Media Guide

 Virginia	 2014 Media Guide

 Virginia Tech	  2014 Media Guide*

Big XII Conference

 Baylor	 2014 Media Guide

 Iowa State	  2013 Media Guide*

 Kansas	 2014 Media Guide

 Kansas State	 2014 Media Guide

 Oklahoma	 2014 Media Guide

 Oklahoma State	 2014 Media Guide

 TCU	 2014 Media Guide

 Texas	 2014 Media Guide

 Texas Tech	 2014 Media Guide

 West Virginia	 2014 Media Guide

Big Ten Conference

 East Division

 Indiana	  2014 Media Guide*

 Maryland	 2014 Media Guide

 Michigan	 2014 Media Guide

 Michigan State	 2014 Media Guide

 Ohio State	  2014 Media Guide*

 Penn State	 2014 Media Guide

 Rutgers	 2014 Media Guide

 West Division

 Illinois	 2014 Media Guide

 Iowa	  2014 Media Guide*

 Minnesota	  2014 Media Guide*

 Nebraska	 2014 Media Guide

 Northwestern	 2014 Media Guide

 Purdue	 2014 Media Guide

 Wisconsin	  2014 Media Guide*

Conference USA

 East Division

 Florida Atlantic	 2014 Media Guide

 Florida International	 2014 Media Guide

 Marshall	 2014 Media Guide

 Middle Tennessee	  2014 Media Guide*

 Old Dominion	 2014 Media Guide

 UAB	 2014 Media Guide

 Western Kentucky	 2014 Media Guide

 West Division

 Louisiana Tech	 2014 Media Guide

 North Texas	 2014 Media Guide

 Rice	  2014 Media Guide*

 Southern Mississippi	 2014 Media Guide

 UTEP	  2014 Media Guide*

 UT San Antonio	  2014 Media Guide*

Mid-American Conference

 East Division

 Akron	 2014 Media Guide

 Bowling Green	  2014 Media Guide*

 Buffalo	 2014 Media Guide

 Kent State	  2014 Media Guide*

 Miami (Ohio)	 2014 Media Guide

 Ohio	  2014 Media Guide*

 UMass	 2014 Media Guide

 West Division

 Ball State	 2014 Media Guide

 Central Michigan	 2014 Media Guide

 Eastern Michigan	 2014 Media Guide

 Northern Illinois	  2014 Media Guide*

 Toledo	 2014 Media Guide

 Western Michigan	 2014 Media Guide

Mountain West Conference

 Mountain Division

 Air Force	 2014 Media Guide

 Boise State	 2014 Media Guide

 Colorado State	 2014 Media Guide

 New Mexico	  2014 Media Guide*

 Utah State	 2014 Media Guide

 Wyoming	  2014 Media Guide*

 West Division

 Fresno State	 2014 Media Guide

 Hawai'i	 2014 Media Guide

 Nevada	  2014 Media Guide*

 San Diego State	 2014 Media Guide

 San Jose State	 2014 Media Guide

 UNLV	 2014 Media Guide

Pac 12 Conference

 North Division

 California	 2014 Media Guide

 Oregon	 2014 Media Guide

 Oregon State	  2014 Media Guide*

 Stanford	 2014 Media Guide

 Washington	 2014 Media Guide

 Washington State	  2014 Media Guide*

 South Division

 Arizona	  2014 Media Guide*

 Arizona State	 2014 Media Guide

 Colorado	 2014 Media Guide

 UCLA	  2014 Media Guide*

 USC	 2014 Media Guide

 Utah	 2014 Media Guide

Southeastern Conference

 East Division

 Florida	  2014 Media Guide*

 Georgia	 2014 Media Guide

 Kentucky	 2014 Media Guide

 Missouri	 2014 Media Guide

 South Carolina	 2014 Media Guide

 Tennessee	 2014 Media Guide

 Vanderbilt	 2014 Media Guide

 West Division

 Alabama	  2014 Media Guide*

 Arkansas	 2014 Media Guide

 Auburn	  2014 Media Guide*

 LSU	 2014 Media Guide

 Mississippi State	 2014 Media Guide

 Ole Miss	 2014 Media Guide

 Texas A&M	 2014 Media Guide

Sun Belt Conference

 Appalachian State	 2014 Media Guide

 Arkansas State	  2014 Media Guide*

 Georgia Southern	 2014 Media Guide

 Georgia State	 2014 Media Guide

 Idaho	 2014 Media Guide

 Louisiana	 2014 Media Guide

 ULM	 2014 Media Guide

 New Mexico State	 2014 Media Guide

 South Alabama	 2014 Media Guide

 Texas State	  2014 Media Guide*

 Troy	  2014 Media Guide*

Independents

 Army	  2014 Media Guide*

 BYU	  2014 Media Guide*

 Navy	 2014 Media Guide

 Notre Dame	 2014 Media Guide

Index Completion Status

(out of 138)

 http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2014/7/23/5892253/the-2014-fbs-college-football-media-guides C.J. Schexnayder 2014-05-21T11:58:39-04:00 2014-05-21T11:58:39-04:00 College football charting: Are certain types of passes more likely to be intercepted?
The goal with this offseason's Five Factors series has been to take these five keys to winning football games (efficiency, explosiveness, field position, finishing drives, and turnovers) and break them down into independent pieces. There are a few different goals for this. First, I'm jealous of basketball and want to come up with a list of easy-to-track stats the way we see on Ken Pomeroy's site and other corners of the Internet. Second, in order to truly use this Five Factors idea as a jumping-off point for projection, evaluation, coaching purposes, etc. -- in order to be able to take "Team A stunk at field position" or "Team B was awful in the turnover margin" and turn it into something useful or actionable -- we have to dial in as far as we can.

<link rel="stylesheet" href="http://cdn3.sbnation.com/assets/3608425/mustreads.css">

  Five Factors

Kicks and kick returns in 2013

Bill C.
 A look at the distribution of college football kickoffs and returns, along with team efficiency ratings for both.

Turnover luck in 2013

Bill C.
 Sometimes the ball does lie.

  Five Factors

 Kicks and kick returns in 2013 Turnover luck in 2013

For the first four factors on the list, I think I've done a decent job of that. But to put the entire picture together, we have to tackle turnovers. And as you might glean from the gap of time between Five Factors posts, it's proven rather difficult. How do you figure out which part of turnovers involves luck and which involves manageable skill and execution? Here's part one of what will probably be many posts on the topic.

In my ongoing season preview series, I make note of turnovers luck pretty frequently, and in the coming Athlon annual, you'll find my references to turnovers and projected turnovers. These refer to two ideas: 1) Fumble recoveries even out toward 50% over time, and 2) the ratio of interceptions to overall passes defensed evens out toward about 21-23% over time. Look at fumbles and passes defensed, compare them to fumble recoveries and interceptions, and voila: you've got yourself a projected turnovers figure.

It's really easy to boil turnovers down to a simple factor of luck. Phil Steele has been doing it for a couple of decades now with his "turnovers = turnaround" lists, and as my little corner of the Internet has grown, I've done the same. And to be sure, turnovers are indeed partially based on luck. They are a significant part of college football games; you have about 56-57 points scored in a given college football game, and on average, a turnover is worth about five points based on field position gained and lost. You can't control where a ball bounces when it falls out of a running backs hands or deflects off of a defender.

However, there is a clear, obvious quality component to turnovers. Fumble recoveries matter, but in theory, you control how many times you fumble. Pass break-ups sometimes turn into interceptions and sometimes fall harmlessly to the ground, but in theory, you at least partially control how many passes are defensed. Luck is a huge part of the equation, but it's not the whole equation.

In this post, we're going to lay some groundwork about interceptions using 2013 charting data. For the 2013 Charting Project, charters were asked to document why an incomplete or intercepted pass was incomplete or intercepted. Combining with the distance of the pass itself, we can break charted passes out like this (click to enlarge):

(Quick notes: Passes tipped at the line were tossed out of this sample since we really don't know how far that pass was intended to go. Also: Charters were given the option of selecting categories like "Thrown ahead," "Thrown behind," "Out of bounds," "Overthrown," and "Underthrown"; those four were combined into the "Thrown Poorly" category seen here. Granted, inaccuracy is only one way a pass can be thrown poorly, but that's what we'll use for this post. They'll be broken apart below.)

(Okay, one more note. What constitutes a PBU here doesn't perfectly match what's noted in the box score. Here, it was selected by a charter among a ton of options. In the 'official' data used in season previews and elsewhere, it was selected by the official scorekeeper. Still, this gives you a pretty good idea of what we're working with.)

For all passes in this sample, the results for a given pass are distributed as follows (in descending order): Complete (61.5%), Thrown Poorly (17.0%), INT/PBU (11.2%), Dropped (6.0%), Thrown Away (2.2%), QB Hit (1.2%), Miscommunication/WR error (0.9%). As throws get longer, completion rate drops, and the "Thrown Poorly" and INT/PBU rates increase. That's pretty much what we would expect.

So what about those poorly thrown balls?

Most "poorly thrown" passes are overthrows, but as we see here, the longer the pass, the more likely it is to be over- or underthrown, and the less likely it is to be thrown ahead/behind. That's basically the nature of the pass itself. Most over- or underthrown passes are going to involve a receiver running vertically and are therefore probably going to be longer balls. Passes thrown ahead or behind the receiver are likely to involve a receiver running horizontally or diagonally at a shorter distance

As it pertains to Five Factors, the relationship between interceptions, passes broken up, and simple incompletions is vital. If we want to figure out the difference between execution and luck, we need to be able to project the expected number of interceptions as accurately as possible.

I found this data particularly interesting for that reason.

 Reason for INC/INT	 INC	 INT	 Total	 %INT

 Overthrown	 870	 43	 913	 5%

 Defensed	 736	 165	 901	 18%

 Dropped	 651	 17	 668	 3%

 Thrown Away	 342	 1	 343	 0%

 Thrown Ahead	 328	 9	 337	 3%

 Underthrown	 271	 33	 304	 11%

 Thrown Behind	 218	 25	 243	 10%

 Tipped at Line	 190	 9	 199	 5%

 Out of Bounds	 168	 0	 169	 0%

 Illegal Contact / Pass Interference	 155	 4	 159	 3%

 QB Hit	 141	 15	 156	 10%

 Miscommunication / WR Error	 97	 18	 115	 16%

 TOTAL	 4,168	 339	 4,507	 8%

Again, put aside for a moment the idea of the "PBU." Charting data suggests that certain types of incomplete passes are more likely to become interceptions than others, namely "Defensed" passes (which, as used by charters, simply means the defender breaking on an otherwise accurate ball), underthrown passes, passes thrown behind a receiver, passes in which the QB is hit as he throws, and passes that involve miscommunication or receiver error (like falling down). Overthrowing your target or throwing ahead of him is pretty common and relatively safe, but when you underthrow or throw behind him, defenders are more likely to be in the vicinity.

(One other interesting thing to note here: passes that are tipped at the line are very rarely intercepted.)

So are there certain distances at which what we'll "dangerous" throws are more likely to take place?

(You like the dark, dreary color scheme here for dangerous passes? I thought so.)

Longer passes are more likely to fall incomplete, but shorter incomplete passes are perhaps more likely to be intercepted, if that makes sense.

More soon ... hopefully.

 http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2014/5/21/5738216/college-football-charting-interceptions-passes-broken-up Bill C. 2014-05-19T12:27:04-04:00 2014-05-19T12:27:04-04:00 College football in 2013: Kickoffs and kick returns
I'm attempting a little bit of synergy here. Kickoffs and kick returns have been a topic of conversation in both the comments to last week's College football in 2013 charting post and the Five Factors discussion. Kickoffs make up about one-quarter of the field position equation in college football, which is pretty significant. So let's take a look at what we're dealing with.

Like so much of special teams, kicks and returns have a good deal of randomness involved. To get a good feel for who's good at returning kicks (or preventing good returns), we need a much larger sample than we actually get. One great return can make an inefficient return man look great, while a guy who consistently breaks off 30-yard returns might not rank as high as he should because he never broke one all the way. Brian Fremeau's special teams rankings look at measures of efficiency for each aspect of special teams, so let's take a stab at doing the same thing here.

But first, let's take a look at what we're dealing with.

(Net yards are the distance of the kickoff minutes the distance of the return/touchback/out-of-bounds penalty. Onside kick attempts were filtered out of these results.)

About 35.9 percent of college football kickoffs resulted in a touchback in 2013. Obviously that skews the frequency chart a good amount, but we can also see here that two-thirds of kickoffs resulted in a net of between 35 and 45 yards, or field position between the 20 and 30.

Now, as your average field position creeps toward (or past) your 30, your win percentage pretty quickly begins to skip upward, so this is a pretty significant difference in the grand scheme of things. Still, if you generalize every kickoff you've ever seen, the difference between a return that is stopped at the 21 and the 28 probably blend together. We remember the great and terrible returns and generalize in the middle.

Stats kind of do the same to some degree. Touchback rate is an important measure for gauging kickoff success, but it's not necessarily well-used. If we're judging kickoffs, we're probably doing so with opponent kick returns, which, again, might only look at two of every three kickoffs on average.

So what happens if we create a quick-and-dirty efficiency measure? Since two-thirds of kickoffs net 40 or greater yards for the kicking team, and since 40 is an incredibly common number, what if we created a simple Kickoff Success Rate measure that says any kick with a net of 40 or greater is successful and all others aren't? What does that get us?

 Team	 Kickoffs	  Success
Rate 	 Rk	  Avg. Net of
Unsuccessful Kick 	  Avg. Net of
Successful Kick 	  Overall
Avg. Net 	 Rk

 Utah State	 86	 89.5%	 1	 28.7	 43.7	 42.1	 1

 Rice	 79	 88.6%	 2	 30.7	 41.2	 40.0	 21

 LSU	 86	 88.4%	 3	 19.3	 42.3	 39.7	 37

 Missouri	 100	 88.0%	 4	 26.6	 41.5	 39.7	 35

 UCLA	 91	 87.9%	 5	 34.4	 43.0	 42.0	 2

 Boston College	 74	 87.8%	 6	 28.3	 42.0	 40.4	 15

 Auburn	 98	 87.8%	 7	 22.2	 41.3	 38.9	 60

 Tulane	 62	 87.1%	 8	 28.8	 41.6	 39.9	 25

 Indiana	 77	 87.0%	 9	 30.3	 42.8	 41.2	 7

 Florida	 51	 86.3%	 10	 28.7	 43.7	 41.7	 3

 Air Force	 58	 86.2%	 11	 31.9	 41.2	 39.9	 24

 Texas State	 56	 85.7%	 12	 32.6	 41.3	 40.1	 19

 Texas A&M	 97	 85.6%	 13	 29.9	 43.1	 41.2	 6

 Nebraska	 78	 84.6%	 14	 29.6	 41.6	 39.7	 33

 Tulsa	 55	 83.6%	 15	 27.3	 41.6	 39.3	 50

 UAB	 62	 82.3%	 16	 31.9	 41.5	 39.8	 29

 Ole Miss	 78	 82.1%	 17	 28.4	 42.3	 39.8	 31

 Miami-FL	 83	 81.9%	 18	 31.7	 42.8	 40.8	 10

 Stanford	 88	 81.8%	 19	 33.8	 43.4	 41.6	 4

 Virginia Tech	 60	 81.7%	 20	 23.8	 43.3	 39.7	 34

 Vanderbilt	 74	 81.1%	 21	 28.0	 42.2	 39.5	 46

 Washington State	 79	 81.0%	 22	 27.8	 44.0	 40.9	 8

 Illinois	 66	 80.3%	 23	 28.0	 41.6	 38.9	 61

 Marshall	 101	 80.2%	 24	 31.9	 42.0	 40.0	 23

 BYU	 80	 80.0%	 25	 20.1	 42.7	 38.2	 82

 UL-Monroe	 53	 79.2%	 26	 27.6	 42.3	 39.3	 52

 Arkansas	 51	 78.4%	 27	 29.5	 41.6	 39.0	 57

 Central Florida	 86	 77.9%	 28	 29.3	 43.6	 40.4	 14

 Arkansas State	 76	 77.6%	 29	 32.5	 43.2	 40.8	 9

 Arizona State	 106	 77.4%	 30	 24.9	 43.1	 39.0	 58

 Clemson	 95	 76.8%	 31	 29.2	 43.1	 39.8	 28

 Alabama	 90	 76.7%	 32	 30.2	 43.9	 40.7	 11

 Houston	 84	 76.2%	 33	 29.4	 42.7	 39.6	 44

 Cincinnati	 75	 76.0%	 34	 29.1	 43.8	 40.2	 18

 USC	 79	 75.9%	 35	 29.2	 44.0	 40.5	 13

 Mississippi State	 70	 75.7%	 36	 27.6	 43.0	 39.3	 51

 Boise State	 90	 75.6%	 37	 30.6	 42.7	 39.7	 32

 TCU	 61	 75.4%	 38	 23.8	 42.0	 37.5	 89

 Florida State	 128	 75.0%	 39	 29.9	 43.4	 40.0	 22

 Toledo	 76	 75.0%	 39	 31.5	 42.3	 39.6	 40

 UL-Lafayette	 77	 74.0%	 41	 23.7	 43.7	 38.5	 72

 UTEP	 53	 73.6%	 42	 29.4	 42.5	 39.1	 56

 North Texas	 79	 73.4%	 43	 33.1	 41.9	 39.6	 41

 San Jose State	 75	 73.3%	 44	 27.4	 42.4	 38.4	 74

 Iowa State	 55	 72.7%	 45	 29.3	 43.3	 39.5	 47

 Rutgers	 66	 72.7%	 45	 33.3	 44.4	 41.4	 5

 Oklahoma	 84	 72.6%	 47	 30.1	 41.7	 38.5	 71

 Maryland	 69	 72.5%	 48	 29.8	 44.5	 40.5	 12

 Georgia Tech	 83	 72.3%	 49	 30.0	 42.7	 39.2	 54

 Ohio State	 107	 72.0%	 50	 31.1	 43.6	 40.1	 20

 Nevada	 67	 71.6%	 51	 32.1	 42.2	 39.3	 49

 Duke	 81	 71.6%	 52	 31.7	 43.1	 39.9	 27

 North Carolina	 81	 71.6%	 52	 29.4	 42.5	 38.8	 64

 Texas Tech	 88	 71.6%	 54	 28.6	 42.8	 38.7	 65

 Arizona	 83	 71.1%	 55	 30.1	 43.0	 39.3	 53

 San Diego State	 69	 71.0%	 56	 27.8	 42.5	 38.2	 80

 Oklahoma State	 92	 70.7%	 57	 29.0	 44.4	 39.9	 26

 Memphis	 51	 70.6%	 58	 27.7	 42.8	 38.4	 76

 Florida Atlantic	 64	 70.3%	 59	 23.9	 43.4	 37.7	 88

 Michigan State	 83	 69.9%	 60	 32.6	 42.7	 39.7	 38

 Iowa	 69	 69.6%	 61	 28.8	 41.6	 37.7	 87

 Wisconsin	 85	 69.4%	 62	 33.5	 43.4	 40.4	 16

 Notre Dame	 75	 69.3%	 63	 26.3	 42.0	 37.2	 95

 Northwestern	 65	 69.2%	 64	 33.1	 42.8	 39.8	 30

 Minnesota	 68	 69.1%	 65	 33.3	 43.4	 40.3	 17

 Hawaii	 64	 68.8%	 66	 30.9	 42.2	 38.7	 66

 South Carolina	 83	 68.7%	 67	 28.2	 41.6	 37.4	 92

 UTSA	 60	 68.3%	 68	 29.6	 42.6	 38.5	 70

 Oregon State	 82	 68.3%	 69	 30.0	 43.0	 38.9	 62

 Georgia	 88	 68.2%	 70	 30.1	 42.6	 38.6	 69

 Wake Forest	 47	 68.1%	 71	 27.9	 44.7	 39.3	 48

 Northern Illinois	 102	 67.6%	 72	 28.1	 43.0	 38.2	 81

 Virginia	 52	 67.3%	 73	 29.5	 43.1	 38.6	 68

 Central Michigan	 58	 67.2%	 74	 31.8	 43.5	 39.7	 39

 NC State	 58	 67.2%	 74	 25.5	 41.2	 36.0	 116

 Michigan	 76	 67.1%	 76	 27.6	 41.3	 36.8	 102

 Navy	 76	 67.1%	 76	 33.8	 42.6	 39.7	 36

 Troy	 76	 67.1%	 76	 26.7	 42.2	 37.1	 97

 Colorado State	 94	 66.0%	 79	 28.5	 41.9	 37.3	 93

 Kansas	 44	 65.9%	 80	 27.1	 41.6	 36.7	 105

 Pittsburgh	 67	 65.7%	 81	 28.2	 43.3	 38.1	 83

 Wyoming	 66	 65.2%	 82	 30.7	 41.0	 37.4	 91

 Tennessee	 60	 65.0%	 83	 26.1	 42.6	 36.8	 101

 East Carolina	 93	 64.5%	 84	 29.7	 42.9	 38.2	 79

 Texas	 76	 64.5%	 85	 30.0	 42.1	 37.8	 86

 Southern Miss	 47	 63.8%	 86	 29.7	 43.7	 38.6	 67

 West Virginia	 60	 63.3%	 87	 33.1	 42.5	 39.1	 55

 Old Dominion	 27	 63.0%	 88	 24.0	 41.2	 34.9	 118

 Kentucky	 51	 62.7%	 89	 30.5	 44.9	 39.5	 45

 Colorado	 61	 62.3%	 90	 26.0	 42.3	 36.2	 114

 Middle Tennessee	 71	 62.0%	 91	 24.6	 43.3	 36.2	 115

 Baylor	 118	 61.9%	 92	 29.4	 42.0	 37.2	 94

 New Mexico	 70	 61.4%	 93	 32.3	 42.0	 38.3	 77

 Penn State	 67	 61.2%	 94	 27.3	 42.3	 36.5	 108

 Utah	 69	 60.9%	 95	 27.3	 43.2	 37.0	 98

 Ohio	 74	 60.8%	 96	 32.1	 44.4	 39.6	 43

 California	 56	 60.7%	 97	 28.9	 42.1	 36.9	 100

 Bowling Green	 93	 60.2%	 98	 33.6	 42.2	 38.8	 63

 Western Kentucky	 70	 60.0%	 99	 33.1	 43.9	 39.6	 42

 SMU	 57	 59.6%	 100	 32.2	 42.0	 38.1	 84

 Kansas State	 83	 59.0%	 101	 31.1	 43.3	 38.3	 78

 Temple	 56	 58.9%	 102	 25.3	 44.3	 36.5	 106

 Kent State	 53	 58.5%	 103	 27.8	 43.0	 36.7	 104

 Louisiana Tech	 53	 58.5%	 103	 30.4	 44.0	 38.4	 75

 Oregon	 101	 58.4%	 105	 33.0	 42.3	 38.4	 73

 South Florida	 43	 58.1%	 106	 29.7	 42.2	 36.9	 99

 UNLV	 73	 56.2%	 107	 27.7	 42.8	 36.2	 112

 Fresno State	 97	 55.7%	 108	 23.3	 43.3	 34.4	 120

 Syracuse	 62	 54.8%	 109	 34.0	 43.1	 39.0	 59

 Idaho	 46	 54.3%	 110	 23.6	 41.3	 33.2	 122

 Washington	 92	 52.2%	 111	 29.4	 42.7	 36.3	 109

 Buffalo	 71	 52.1%	 112	 26.5	 43.1	 35.2	 117

 Army	 56	 51.8%	 113	 28.9	 43.0	 36.2	 113

 Massachusetts	 39	 51.3%	 114	 28.7	 43.4	 36.2	 111

 Miami-OH	 30	 50.0%	 115	 31.4	 43.5	 37.4	 90

 Ball State	 95	 49.5%	 116	 29.9	 44.5	 37.1	 96

 Georgia State	 44	 47.7%	 117	 24.5	 42.6	 33.2	 123

 Purdue	 38	 47.4%	 118	 28.2	 42.2	 34.8	 119

 Louisville	 90	 46.7%	 119	 31.2	 43.1	 36.7	 103

 South Alabama	 73	 45.2%	 120	 33.0	 44.2	 38.0	 85

 Connecticut	 54	 44.4%	 121	 32.1	 41.9	 36.5	 107

 Akron	 53	 43.4%	 122	 31.7	 42.3	 36.3	 110

 New Mexico State	 52	 38.5%	 123	 24.0	 40.9	 30.5	 126

 Florida International	 35	 37.1%	 124	 23.6	 44.2	 31.3	 124

 Western Michigan	 48	 35.4%	 125	 27.4	 44.5	 33.5	 121

 Eastern Michigan	 47	 29.8%	 126	 25.2	 43.1	 30.6	 125

The breakdown here is pretty interesting. We begin to see all-or-nothing teams in the same way we see offenses or defenses. Look at LSU, for instance. The Tigers' average net of 39.7 yards was solid but unspectacular, 37th in the country. But that's because they were going for knockouts. On eight of nine kicks, LSU was netting more than 42 yards per kick; that's an average start of the 23 or so for opponents. On the ninth kick, the Tigers were giving up a pretty large return (or kicking out of bounds) and delivering a net of just 19.3 yards, meaning a start near midfield for opponents. This was basically the special teams equivalent of the Michigan State defense, willing to sacrifice a rare big play for otherwise consistnet dominance. No bend-don't-break here.

The overall net average ranges between 42.1 yards (Utah State) and 30.5 (NMSU), which is significant. But the range of kickoff success rates varies between 89.5 percent (Utah State again) and 29.8 percent (EMU). Combining this with the net average gives us a much more detailed, interesting look at the range of potential outcomes from team to team.

Okay, so what about returns?

And since someone asked in the comments to last week's post...

If a kicking team gives up a return of 24 yards or more, its Kickoff Success Rate drops below 50 percent. This is relatively arbitrary, but let's set the bar there. Let's say that any return 24 yards or greater is a successful return. What does that do for us?

 Team	 Returns	 KR Success
Rate	 Rk	  Avg of Unsuccessful
Return 	  Avg of Successful
Return 	  Overall Avg
Return 	 Rk

 Florida State	 31	 48.4%	 1	 13.9	 43.4	 28.2	 1

 UCLA	 46	 47.8%	 2	 15.7	 36.0	 25.4	 5

 Memphis	 46	 47.8%	 2	 15.8	 32.2	 23.7	 25

 North Texas	 36	 47.2%	 4	 15.8	 32.8	 23.8	 19

 Tulsa	 41	 46.3%	 5	 16.0	 30.9	 22.9	 38

 Miami-FL	 60	 43.3%	 6	 17.8	 34.6	 25.1	 8

 Missouri	 30	 43.3%	 6	 16.5	 31.6	 23.1	 33

 BYU	 44	 43.2%	 8	 17.2	 34.6	 24.7	 11

 Notre Dame	 42	 42.9%	 9	 17.4	 32.3	 23.8	 23

 Boise State	 47	 42.6%	 10	 15.5	 36.0	 24.2	 15

 TCU	 38	 42.1%	 11	 16.9	 38.0	 25.8	 3

 Stanford	 43	 41.9%	 12	 15.9	 43.3	 27.4	 2

 Central Michigan	 43	 41.9%	 12	 16.5	 32.6	 23.2	 31

 LSU	 36	 41.7%	 14	 17.6	 36.5	 25.5	 4

 Baylor	 48	 41.7%	 14	 13.9	 33.4	 22.0	 54

 Ohio State	 29	 41.4%	 16	 16.5	 32.1	 22.9	 37

 Florida	 34	 41.2%	 17	 16.2	 37.1	 24.8	 9

 Kansas	 44	 40.9%	 18	 14.8	 30.2	 21.1	 69

 Navy	 32	 40.6%	 19	 13.4	 34.2	 21.9	 58

 Louisiana Tech	 35	 40.0%	 20	 16.4	 30.1	 21.9	 57

 Oklahoma	 33	 39.4%	 21	 15.2	 35.2	 23.1	 34

 East Carolina	 28	 39.3%	 22	 19.2	 34.2	 25.1	 7

 Air Force	 28	 39.3%	 22	 19.8	 29.8	 23.7	 24

 Maryland	 51	 39.2%	 24	 15.5	 34.3	 22.8	 41

 UTEP	 46	 39.1%	 25	 16.0	 38.3	 24.7	 10

 Nebraska	 41	 39.0%	 26	 14.9	 35.1	 22.8	 42

 Central Florida	 41	 39.0%	 26	 16.4	 32.0	 22.5	 45

 Marshall	 47	 38.3%	 28	 16.8	 35.2	 23.9	 18

 Buffalo	 47	 38.3%	 28	 14.8	 33.7	 22.0	 52

 Kansas State	 37	 37.8%	 30	 14.4	 38.1	 23.4	 27

 Arkansas State	 40	 37.5%	 31	 14.9	 38.9	 23.9	 17

 Western Kentucky	 40	 37.5%	 31	 14.2	 27.8	 19.3	 100

 UNLV	 51	 37.3%	 33	 16.3	 33.9	 22.9	 39

 Michigan	 51	 37.3%	 33	 17.1	 30.6	 22.1	 50

 South Alabama	 27	 37.0%	 35	 15.3	 36.1	 23.0	 35

 Colorado State	 41	 36.6%	 36	 17.4	 34.9	 23.8	 20

 Northern Illinois	 44	 36.4%	 37	 16.0	 34.9	 22.9	 40

 San Diego State	 55	 36.4%	 37	 15.5	 30.7	 21.0	 71

 Houston	 47	 36.2%	 39	 16.6	 40.6	 25.3	 6

 Bowling Green	 25	 36.0%	 40	 16.7	 37.6	 24.2	 14

 Florida Atlantic	 25	 36.0%	 40	 16.5	 30.3	 21.5	 65

 Washington State	 50	 36.0%	 40	 15.9	 29.8	 20.9	 75

 Washington	 39	 35.9%	 43	 13.8	 40.1	 23.3	 30

 Louisville	 28	 35.7%	 44	 15.3	 36.1	 22.7	 43

 Kentucky	 37	 35.1%	 45	 16.4	 30.0	 21.2	 67

 Georgia Tech	 40	 35.0%	 46	 16.3	 32.6	 22.0	 53

 North Carolina	 49	 34.7%	 47	 15.9	 38.6	 23.8	 21

 Oregon	 49	 34.7%	 47	 14.6	 35.1	 21.7	 60

 Pittsburgh	 49	 34.7%	 47	 17.2	 31.1	 22.0	 55

 Ohio	 55	 34.5%	 50	 14.9	 29.9	 20.1	 87

 Rice	 32	 34.4%	 51	 13.2	 31.0	 19.3	 101

 Ball State	 44	 34.1%	 52	 12.7	 35.9	 20.6	 77

 South Florida	 47	 34.0%	 53	 14.5	 30.1	 19.8	 90

 Alabama	 30	 33.3%	 54	 16.3	 41.0	 24.5	 12

 Duke	 36	 33.3%	 54	 16.2	 40.8	 24.4	 13

 Iowa	 39	 33.3%	 54	 14.5	 37.0	 22.0	 56

 Colorado	 48	 33.3%	 54	 18.3	 31.1	 22.6	 44

 Northwestern	 30	 33.3%	 54	 17.7	 29.8	 21.7	 59

 Arizona	 33	 33.3%	 54	 17.1	 27.2	 20.5	 78

 Auburn	 40	 32.5%	 60	 15.0	 40.9	 23.4	 28

 Rutgers	 47	 31.9%	 61	 13.6	 41.4	 22.5	 46

 Texas	 41	 31.7%	 62	 15.6	 30.9	 20.5	 79

 Idaho	 48	 31.3%	 63	 16.4	 30.0	 20.6	 76

 Clemson	 29	 31.0%	 64	 14.7	 28.0	 18.8	 108

 Iowa State	 49	 30.6%	 65	 13.6	 41.5	 22.1	 49

 UTSA	 36	 30.6%	 66	 17.9	 27.9	 21.0	 74

 Virginia Tech	 33	 30.3%	 67	 14.3	 34.6	 20.4	 81

 Cincinnati	 33	 30.3%	 67	 18.1	 27.7	 21.0	 72

 Minnesota	 40	 30.0%	 69	 14.5	 39.8	 22.1	 51

 Massachusetts	 60	 30.0%	 69	 15.3	 32.4	 20.5	 80

 Indiana	 50	 30.0%	 69	 16.7	 31.1	 21.0	 70

 New Mexico	 67	 29.9%	 72	 14.8	 46.2	 24.2	 16

 Texas A&M	 47	 29.8%	 73	 15.8	 35.1	 21.5	 64

 Texas Tech	 37	 29.7%	 74	 15.5	 42.8	 23.6	 26

 Tennessee	 37	 29.7%	 74	 18.7	 35.8	 23.8	 22

 Arizona State	 45	 28.9%	 76	 18.4	 29.3	 21.6	 63

 California	 70	 28.6%	 77	 16.0	 30.5	 20.1	 86

 UAB	 53	 28.3%	 78	 14.6	 35.1	 20.4	 82

 Texas State	 39	 28.2%	 79	 15.5	 42.2	 23.0	 35

 Western Michigan	 43	 27.9%	 80	 15.4	 31.9	 20.0	 88

 Michigan State	 18	 27.8%	 81	 15.4	 29.0	 19.2	 103

 Georgia State	 58	 27.6%	 82	 15.1	 32.8	 20.0	 88

 Florida International	 33	 27.3%	 83	 16.3	 33.6	 21.0	 73

 Utah	 37	 27.0%	 84	 15.7	 26.4	 18.6	 114

 Wisconsin	 31	 25.8%	 85	 16.8	 41.3	 23.1	 32

 Oregon State	 66	 25.8%	 86	 16.4	 31.8	 20.4	 83

 Mississippi State	 28	 25.0%	 87	 13.6	 45.9	 21.7	 61

 Oklahoma State	 36	 25.0%	 87	 17.6	 40.4	 23.3	 29

 Utah State	 24	 25.0%	 87	 18.7	 33.8	 22.5	 47

 NC State	 44	 25.0%	 87	 15.5	 29.5	 19.0	 105

 Penn State	 36	 25.0%	 87	 15.8	 29.2	 19.1	 104

 Southern Miss	 57	 24.6%	 92	 16.2	 30.5	 19.7	 91

 West Virginia	 53	 24.5%	 93	 14.4	 30.2	 18.3	 118

 Purdue	 49	 24.5%	 94	 16.0	 42.0	 22.4	 48

 Virginia	 54	 24.1%	 95	 15.0	 29.8	 18.6	 115

 Georgia	 25	 24.0%	 96	 14.3	 32.2	 18.6	 113

 Middle Tennessee	 38	 23.7%	 97	 17.0	 36.4	 21.6	 62

 Fresno State	 55	 23.6%	 98	 15.7	 31.0	 19.3	 102

 Boston College	 47	 23.4%	 99	 13.9	 40.4	 20.1	 85

 Tulane	 30	 23.3%	 100	 17.0	 30.6	 20.2	 84

 UL-Lafayette	 43	 23.3%	 101	 13.0	 40.6	 19.4	 96

 Arkansas	 35	 22.9%	 102	 16.0	 38.5	 21.1	 68

 San Jose State	 44	 22.7%	 103	 15.8	 27.7	 18.5	 116

 Vanderbilt	 45	 22.2%	 104	 14.5	 36.5	 19.4	 98

 Old Dominion	 28	 21.4%	 105	 15.9	 29.7	 18.8	 107

 Toledo	 47	 21.3%	 106	 13.6	 37.3	 18.6	 112

 Temple	 47	 21.3%	 106	 15.9	 32.3	 19.4	 97

 Illinois	 52	 21.2%	 108	 15.6	 34.0	 19.5	 93

 Akron	 43	 20.9%	 109	 15.1	 30.4	 18.3	 117

 Miami-OH	 48	 20.8%	 110	 16.4	 27.2	 18.6	 111

 Kent State	 53	 20.8%	 111	 13.1	 33.8	 17.4	 122

 Ole Miss	 34	 20.6%	 112	 16.1	 32.1	 19.4	 95

 South Carolina	 35	 20.0%	 113	 16.3	 31.7	 19.4	 99

 SMU	 46	 19.6%	 114	 15.3	 37.9	 19.7	 92

 Wyoming	 31	 19.4%	 115	 14.3	 27.5	 16.9	 123

 Hawaii	 52	 19.2%	 116	 15.5	 45.8	 21.4	 66

 Syracuse	 37	 18.9%	 117	 16.6	 31.9	 19.5	 94

 Nevada	 37	 18.9%	 117	 15.2	 29.4	 17.9	 119

 UL-Monroe	 34	 17.6%	 119	 14.5	 39.5	 18.9	 106

 Eastern Michigan	 68	 17.6%	 119	 15.5	 33.6	 18.7	 109

 New Mexico State	 47	 17.0%	 121	 15.8	 27.5	 17.8	 120

 USC	 33	 15.2%	 122	 11.7	 29.8	 14.4	 126

 Troy	 44	 13.6%	 123	 12.9	 34.8	 15.9	 124

 Connecticut	 40	 12.5%	 124	 17.1	 30.0	 18.7	 110

 Wake Forest	 21	 9.5%	 125	 15.7	 33.5	 17.4	 121

 Army	 40	 5.0%	 126	 14.8	 25.0	 15.3	 125

I guess Florida State is the LSU in this example. About half of the Seminoles' returns garnered an average of 14 yards or so; the other half averaged more than 43 yards (here's one pretty memorable example). Meanwhile, the range for other pretty good return teams (Notre Dame and Ohio State were each at about 17 and 32 yards, respectively) was much smaller. And as a Missouri fan, I found it difficult to gauge the effectiveness of Marcus Murphy in 2013. He had a kick return touchdown in 2012 (and a couple of punt return TDs) and averaged more than 24 yards per return, but in 2013, he had no scores and an average of only 22.2 yards. This tells us he was still pretty efficient -- more efficient, actually, than Ty Montgomery, who broke off two return touchdowns but got stuffed behind the 25 pretty frequently.

Efficiency is the name of the game in college football, and judging kicks and returns through the lens of efficiency instead of the go-to averages gives us a slightly more accurate look at who was consistently strong outside of the outliers. We'll take a similar look at punts and returns soon.
 http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2014/5/19/5731182/college-football-kickoffs-kick-returns Bill C. 2014-05-15T14:36:55-04:00 2014-05-15T14:36:55-04:00 College football in 2013 (through the eyes of the 2013 Charting Project)
Part of the goal of sharing the 2013 charting data earlier this week was to motivate others to dive into the data and see what they can find. But I'm still going to play, too, and I figure the easiest place to start is a general "What did college football look like in 2013?" post.

Of the approximately 30,000 plays charted by volunteers and Intern Chris...

38% started on the left hash, 38% from the right, and 24% from between the hashes.

49% took place without a huddle, 51% came with a huddle.

56% came from a shotgun formation, 26% with the quarterback under center, and 18% from the pistol.

66% took place from a one-back formation, 24% from two-back, 6% from no-back, and 4% from 3-back (or more).

Some other notes:

On pass plays, the defense rushed four defenders at the passer 61% of the time, five 19% of the time, three 11% of the time, six or more 8% of the time, and one or two just 0.3% of the time.

On standard downs, 26% of pass attempts were marked as a play-action attempt of some kind. On passing downs, 11% were play-action.

On plays that started on the left hash, 40% of passes were thrown to the left, 35% were thrown to the right, and 25% were thrown down the middle. Meanwhile, on plays that started on the right hash, 40% of passes were thrown to the right, 36% were thrown to the left, and 25% were thrown down the middle. Because most passers are right-handed, I kind of thought the numbers would favor one side or the other no matter where the ball is lined up. I was incorrect.

On first downs, 66% of passes were thrown in front of the sticks (i.e. not further than the first-down marker). On second downs, 64%. On third downs, 49%. On fourth downs, 32%. (So yes, my wording in this tweet was incorrect. I went with the wrong cliche. Should have stuck with "on average" or something instead of "more often than not.")

Sack denominations: 56% in the pocket, 24% a coverage sack, 15% "rusher untouched", 4% "QB fault."

Of charted scrambles, 40% were deemed to have come because of "overall pressure," 30% were marked "coverage scramble," 20% came because a hole opened up in front of the quarterback, and 2% were undefined.

Break one tackle, and on average you gained about 8.2 yards after contact. Break two, and you average about 13.6 YAC. Three? 19.8 YAC. Four? 21.6.

Charts!

I find it fun that first and second down work in linear fashion -- with run rates falling as the distance to go increases, obviously -- while third and fourth downs almost work as a polynomial function.

Teams run 50% of the time on first-and-11+, on second-and-7, on third-and-3, and on fourth-and-2.

Not as much diversity here as I'd have expected, though because of the small sample of first-and-anything-less-than-10 situations (and the high probability that they're happening near the goal line) make the inclusion of first downs here kind of silly.

As shared on Twitter. Obviously deep balls skew averages quite a bit here. The average passes here are quite a bit higher than the medians.

Another unexpected one. I assumed that when teams were lined up on the right hash, they'd run left more frequently than when they're on the left hash (and vice versa). If you look at the rushes off left or right end, you do see that they're slightly more frequent coming from the opposite hash, but only slightly. And if they're looking to run between the tackles, ball placement doesn't seem to matter.

I was curious when and how frequently scrambling happened, so I created a "Scramble Rate" measure. It's basically Scrambles / (Scrambles + Passes + Sacks). Obviously a scramble can lead to a sack, too, but this made the most sense to me based on how these plays were charted.

The verdict: QBs tend to save their scrambling for third and fourth downs, particularly with four or more yards to go. This is what common sense would suggest. First of all, this is when defenses are more likely to blitz. Second, a quarterback is probably going to be more willing to sacrifice his body in a "gotta move the chains on this play" situation.

Also shared on Twitter. Passes to a target behind the line of scrimmage are going to be complete more than 80% of the time with minimal interception risk (unless...), and passes thrown one to five yards downfield are going to be in the 70% completion range with about a 2% interception risk. Between about seven and nine yards, completion rates drop pretty dramatically, and interception rates creep up closer to five percent. And on balls thrown more than about 35 yards, it's almost a jump ball.
 http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2014/5/15/5721036/college-football-charting-data-2013 Bill C.


text:
About Us
Find a Chapter
Contact Us
Safer Roads Save Lives
Forgot Credentials?
Create Account
Remember Login
Forgot Password ?
Member Center
Member Center
Become a Member
Member Benefits
Chapter Network
Arizona Chapter
Arkansas Chapter
California Chapter
Carolinas Chapter
Chesapeake Chapter
Florida Chapter
Georgia Chapter
Heart of America Chapter
Illinois Chapter
Indiana Chapter
Iowa Chapter
Michigan Chapter
Nevada Chapter
New England Chapter
New Mexico Chapter
Northland Chapter
Northwest Chapter
Ohio Chapter
Pennsylvania Chapter
Rocky Mountain
Texas Chapter
Virginia Chapter
Wisconsin Chapter
Connect DOTs
Training & Certification
About Training
Course Information
Traffic Control Technician (TCT)
Florida Advanced Training
Pavement Marking Technician Course
Traffic Control Design Specialist Course
Flagger Instructor Training Course
Traffic Control Supervisor Training Course
Certification & Recertification
Work Zone Safety Grant
Flagger Information
ATSSA Online Flagger Training
Training Certification Database
Corporate Training Program / Training Partners
State Training Requirements
Future ATSSA Events
How To Conferences
National Work Zone Awareness Week
Advertising Sponsorship Opportunities
Convention & Traffic Expo
Midyear Meeting
Legislative Briefing & Fly-In
Government Relations
Toward Zero Deaths
Strategic Highway Safety Plans
Federal Government Relations
Roadway Safety Advocate
The Bill on the Hill
The Foundation
About Us
Creating a Legacy
Message from the President
Foundation Board of Directors
Foundation Videos
The Roadway Worker Memorial Scholarship Program
The National Work Zone Memorial - Respect and Rem
The "Life Behind the Cones and Barrels - How Roadw
Golf Classic Tournament
Sporting Clays
Foundation Council
Virginia Teen Driver Safety PSA Contest
Contact Us
Online Store
VDOT Work Zone Safety Products & Materials
How to Order / FAQs
Shipping Charges
Products Under Development
View Shopping Cart
Return Policy
About Us
Message from the President
Foundation Board of Directors
Creating a Legacy
Foundation Videos
The Roadway Worker Memorial
Scholarship Program
The National Work Zone Memorial
Golf Classic Tournament
Sporting Clays Event
Teen Driver Safety PSA Contest
Foundation Council
Contact Us
Foundation Videos
2015 Foundation Fundraising Events Promo
Join us for the Foundation's 24th Annual Golf Classic Tournament or the 3rd Annual Sporting Clays Event. Check out this video from the 2014 events.
Steve Morgan's Story
Meet Steve Morgan. A firefighter, highway worker, father, son, colleague and brother. He was killed on November 23, 2011 in a roadway work zone in Sarasota, Florida. His daughter, Lyndsay, received a scholarship from the Foundation
2014 Foundation Golf Classic and Sporting Clays Event
Foundation supporters participate in the 23rd Annual Golf Classic Tournament and the 2nd Annual Sporting Clays Event on Feb. 21, 2014 in San Antonio, Texas.
2014 Opening General Session Foundation Presentation
Sue Reiss delivers the Foundation Report and confirms the Foundation's commitment to support ATSSA's role in the Toward Zero Deaths initiative during the Opening General Session at ATSSA's 44th Annual Convention & Traffic Expo on Feb. 23, 2014.
This video highlights Nicole Rumley in New York City, NY to kick off the National Work Zone Awareness Week event. This year's theme, "Work Zones Need Your Undivided Attention," alerts motorists about the small margin of error for drivers passing through work zones. Each year, approximately 720 people lose their lives in work zone accidents -- most of them drivers.
This 2010 Foundation video was unveiled at the 40th Annual ATSSA Convention & Traffic Expo Opening General Session in February 2010. This video shares the latest work being undertaken by the Foundation.
This 2009 Foundation video was unveiled at the 39th Annual ATSSA Convention & Traffic Expo Opening General Session in February 2009. This video describes the wonderful work being undertaken by the Foundation and supported through the generosity of ATSSA members and companies nationwide. Thank You!
The American Traffic Safety Services Association
15 Riverside Parkway, Suite 100
Fredericksburg, Virginia 22406-1022
Telephone: (800) 272-8772
Recent Tweets
Member Center
Training & Certification
Meetings & Events
Online Store
Resource Center
The Foundation
News & PR
Government Relations
Copyright © 2013 by American Traffic Safety Services Association
Terms and Conditions
Contact Us

subset: commoncrawl


text:
I'm crushing on my best friend's dude...should I make a move?
The problem with feminism
The biggest OMG celeb moments of the week
Feel-Good Friday: The Little Leaguer who proved throwing like a girl is a good thing!
First-day inspo: How to wear crochet for BTS
Found: The best bangs for your face shape
5 common myths about braces
Will your budding romance make it past Labor Day?
#GLFashBash: Behind the scenes!
Disney's How to Build a Better Boy: An exclusive with China Anne McClain & Kelli Berglund!
More Friends = More Fun
GL Tweets !
1 HOURS AGO #FangirlAlert! We saw @TheVampsband & @AustinMahone and it was AMAZING: http://t.co/VudYOXE2oU
2 HOURS AGO #DIY bejeweled letter that will make your room **sparkle** http://t.co/YPRKZCSyIk
3 HOURS AGO If you have food allergies, then you know the struggle is real: http://t.co/nO9df9R6Au
sponsored links
Check these out, too...
Bigger is
We love tear-off desk calendars for keeping track of the ins
and outs of everyday life. They sit right on the surface of your desk like a
pad of humongous sheets of paper. You can work on top of them, easy peasy.
Bonus? You can doodle in the margins while thinking on your essay's intro.
At-A-Glance 30% Recycled Academic Desk Paper Calendar, $9,
All things bright
Stock your pencil cup with different colored pens or
markers, and use each color to represent a different activity—after school
sports practice, dance rehearsal, QT with your friends, doctors appointments,
homework assignments and tests. If you like to use one huge notebook for all of
your classes, you could also write your notes in different colors to make them
easier to find.
Paper Mate Retractable Gel Pens, $13, officemax.com
Ingenious inbox
Grab a few letter-sized plastic trays or make your own by
cutting up a cereal box and lining it with fun paper. Label them clearly with
their purposes. You'll definitely want one for homework that's heading back to
school, but you could use them for upcoming test prep materials or project
research or forms that needs to be signed by Mom or Dad. Make it a habit to
keep the papers in the proper trays, and to tuck your HW into your backpack in
the morning!
Staples Black Plastic Letter Tray, $5, staples.com
File forward
Have you ever been trying to study for a test only to find
that all of your notes are crammed in the bottom of your locker or balled up in
your backpack? Perfect for midterms and finals, file folders can help you stow
worksheets, old quizzes and homework for use later in the year. Make one for
each subject you're taking, or for each thematic unit within a class. When
you're finished (for now) with a sheaf of papers, simply put them in the file
you've already created.
Love this post? You'll heart these,
» 50
fun things to do before you head back to school
» Personalize
your school supplies
» School got ya
stressed? Chill out with our best weekend fun ideas!
Win big! Let
the BTS book bag battle begin! Enter our Bags 4 Babes giveaway now
Want more ways to get
GL? Like us on Facebook
or follow
us on Twitter!
POSTED IN back to school, your BTS shopping guide, DIY school supplies, redo your room, get organized now
To get ready for the new school year, what do you do first?
Life moves fast...
It's FINALLY our 20th birthday! To celebrate, we've rounded up our all time fave (and all time best) fashion and beauty tips 'n' tricks, amazing boy/bestie/life advice plus room DIYs, amazing recipes and top 20 lists exclusively for you right here on girlslife.com.
To join the fun,


text:
United We Spy
Save to a Shared List
Series that include this title
Item Details
- Description
- Full Record
- Contents
- Excerpts
- Reviews
- Summary
- A\\V Summary
- Searching for more content…
Boarding schools
Morgan, Cammie (Fictitious character)
Boarding schools
Spy stories.
Morgan, Cammie (Fictitious character)
Community Activity
CommentAdd a Comment
This was an awesome book! The last two of this series are my favorite. I would highly recommend them:)
This book was absolutely fantastic, it was a wonderful ending to a wondeful series, and I'm glad I waited for it!
Amazing book! I love this series! I just finished rereading it and at the end of the book, when Liz is valedictorian, I actually cried!
I'm so excited!!!!!
Great ending to a great series! I wish we could have seen Josh one more time, though.
OMG! Just finished reading it, loved it! I'm bummed that it was the end of my favorite series ever, but it was outstanding! (Also, if you are looking for another series sort of like the Gallagher Girls series, then try- As Known As.)
Such a great series. Such a great book. I cried when I read Liz's speech. A great ending for an absolutely amazing series. I'm so sad that it's over, though.
A mediocre end to an otherwise fairly good series. This book was especially disappointing considering how well done the 5th book was.
This was a great end to the series. You know it was a great ending because you got answers, but you still wanted more. Even though you there was a chapter that was six weeks after the end of the story, you sat there thinking that she could continue the series. However you felt that the conclusion was fulfilling.
Bex is a great best friends, she does now Cammie better then Cammie knows Cammie. Zach can be the guy everyone wishes they have. Liz grows up and becomes a stronger person. Macey shows her soft spot for Preston. Cammie is just the amazing leader spy that she always was, however she was able to realize it now. I think all of the characters grow and learn about themselves in this book.
And Liz's speech brought a tear to my eye.
Actions filled with a great ending to an awesome series
I am still waiting to read this book.
I have been waiting for 5 months!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ally carter is the best!!!!
AgeAdd Age Suitability
green_panda_673 thinks this title is suitable for 9 years and over
navy_tiger_129 thinks this title is suitable for 10 years and over
white_horse_284 thinks this title is suitable for between the ages of 12 and 90
Camryn10 thinks this title is suitable for 11 years and over
kabunnell thinks this title is suitable for between the ages of 10 and 15
MidnightLily thinks this title is suitable for 12 years and over
crazycoolbff thinks this title is suitable for 13 years and over
Tahi thinks this title is suitable for 13 years and over
olive_pigeon_21 thinks this title is suitable for 12 years and over
SummaryAdd a Summary
Many of the members of the Circle of are 'disappearing' or being killed off. Camie tries to save one but is eventually killed by Catherine. Soon she returns to school and Macey convinces her to go save Preston. They try but eventually fail at this as well as Agent Edwards gets Preston and his Dad (he makes the members 'disappear'). When Camie gets back to school, Edward is there and tells her that Preston's Dad wants to speak to her. So she goes, they talk, he says something crazy involving Liz, and then he is killed. Following this Liz admits that she took a test and one of the questions is: "How would you start WWIII?" AND THE REST YOU MUST READ YOURSELF! :)
NoticesAdd a Notice
Other: YOU. HAVE. GOT. TO. READ. IT!!! THAT'S MY ONLY NOTICE. ;)
QuotesAdd a Quote
"What do you wanna be when you grow up?"
"What is a Gallagher Girl?
She's a genius, a scientist, a heroine, a spy... a Gallagher Girl is whatever she wants to be."
"She looked at him and shook her head, smiled a litle as she told him, "You are so like your father."
Then she looked past me and Zach, past Bex and Abby, to where Agent Townsend sttod by the door with his arms crossed.
"What do you think, Townsend, darling? Isn't he just like you?" She looked at Zach again. "I think he's just like you."
And then she closed her eyes and drifted off to sleep."
"It was epic. It was awkward. It was epically awkward."
VideosAdd a Video
Book Trailer: United We Spy
Book trailer by Disney/Hyperion!