Wednesday, March 28, 2007

2006 3rd Down Data

Brian created the 2006 version of his 3rd down tool. I ran the BC graphs. We were below our peers on the offensive side and one of the better defenses. Considering our new playing calling on offense and the return of our Defensive staff and talent, this is good news.

This first graph shows how we performed on offense on 3rd down. The center line is the average for college football. Green means we performed above average. Red below. As you can see, last season we were one of the better teams on third and short. Everything else…not so great. This means most college football teams converted at a higher rate on third and long.

Defense is a much better story. Third and short – we were in the top half of college football. Third and long – we were great. The area that gave us problems? The intermediate length: 3rd and 3, 3rd and 5, etc. Good story on the defensive slide overall.

This next graph the red and green can be a little misleading. We had more third and shorts than most college teams. In turn we had fewer third and longs.

On the defensive side, we put teams in third and longs more often than our peers. Another good sign.

These last two are raw numbers. The red indicates successful conversions from each down marker. The blue represent failed conversions. On the offensive side you want to see as much red as possible. On the defensive side blue is good.

Third down doesn’t mean everything, but it can be the most important down in a series. Bible’s numbers declined year over year. The good news is that our defense improved last season and should get better this year.