Texas Tech: The Most Powerful Team in the Big 12 (Since 2002)
by techtom4 on Aug 19, 2009 2:57 AM CDT
Email
Print
I had a lot of time on my hands, so I decided to try and figure out a way to truly examine the performances of every Big 12 team since 2002 in such a way that it took each program's advantages or disadvantages from a recruiting standpoint into consideration and could give a real number to gauge their productivity relative to the type of recruit they get. In this calculation, teams are rewarded for acquiring wins while having lesser recruits, while teams are punished for failing to acquire wins while having greater recruits. As we all know, Tech has been able to massively overachieve given the current pecking order in recruiting that exists in the Big 12, while schools such as, o I dunno, Texas A&M maybe, have managed to massively underachieve despite having what many "experts" (from rivals.com) declare great recruits/recruiting classes.
The information that I came up with resulted in each team earning what I call a "Power Score" in that it is a great indication of how much "boom for your buck," if you will, each team gets per recruit based on how many wins they earn with said recruits. This score consists of the amount of wins earned by each team beginning with the 2002 season and ending with the 2008 season (both total wins and conference wins) divided by the average star rating of a recruit their team signed, according to rivals.com, beginning with the class of 2002 and ending with the class of 2008. By doing this, every possible signee who could have contributed in any way to any teams' total win number over this time period is included in the calculation. Below is a table displaying the results:
Team Wins from '02-'08 (Conference Wins) Avg. Stars per player ('02-'08) Power Score (Conf. Power Score)
Baylor 25 (10) 2.27 11.01 (4.41)
Colorado 42 (27) 2.86 14.69 (9.44)
Iowa State 32 (15) 2.49 12.85 (6.02)
Kansas 45 (22) 2.66 16.92 (8.27)
Kansas State 48 (26) 2.85 16.84 (9.12)
Missouri 55 (29) 2.86 19.23 (10.14)
Nebraska 53 (28) 3.13 16.93 (8.95)
Oklahoma 78 (53) 3.64 21.43 (14.56)
Oklahoma State 51 (27) 2.88 17.71 (9.38)
Texas A&M 42 (24) 3.09 13.60 (7.77)
Texas 77 (47) 3.66 21.04 (12.84)
Texas Tech 62 (35) 2.71 22.88 (12.92)
As I mentioned before, as Tech fans we all know our team regularly overachieves, but I found this result to be pretty surprising! Your Texas Tech Red Raiders have the #1 power score in the overall wins category, and the #2 power score in the conference wins category! Below is the complete rankings list:
OVERALL:
#1 Texas Tech - 22.88
#2 Oklahoma - 21.43
#3 Texas - 21.04
#4 Missouri - 19.23
#5 Oklahoma State - 17.71
#6 Nebraska - 16.93
#7 Kansas - 16.92
#8 Kansas State - 16.84
#9 Colorado - 14.69
#10 Texas A&M - 13.60
#11 Iowa State - 12.85
#12 Baylor - 11.01
CONFERENCE:
#1 Oklahoma - 14.56***
#2 Texas Tech - 12.92
#3 Texas - 12.84
#4 Missouri - 10.14
#5 Colorado - 9.44
#6 Oklahoma State - 9.38
#7 Kansas State - 9.12
#8 Nebraska - 8.95
#9 Kansas - 8.27
#10 Texas A&M - 7.77
#11 Iowa State - 6.02
#12 Baylor - 4.41
***OU's conference power level is particularly high because Big 12 championships accounted for extra wins against conference foes, thus further rewarding their performance.
Unsurprisingly, Baylor and Iowa State finished 12th and 11th respectively in both lists, because they quite simply could not accumulate wins. Also unsurprisingly, the Aggies, one of only 4 teams in the conference to have an average star rating above 3, finished 10th in overall wins and conference wins despite having what would seem like a considerable advantage as far as recruiting is concerned compared to most teams. Texas Tech, on the other hand, had only the 9th highest average star rating, but was able to finish very high on both lists. What else does these calculations tell us though? These observations are fairly obvious and do not require calculations to agree upon, only common sense. What may surprise you, however, lies ahead. Consider this:
For Texas Tech, you can multiply their power score (22.88) and their average star rating (2.71) and you will come up with an answer of 62.0048, or 62, the number of wins Tech had from 2002 to 2008. What really makes this table interesting is that you can apply this formula to any team and see how they would perform with another team's talent. For comparison's sake, let's see how our team would have fared from this time period if they had the talent level of UT:
22.88 (Tech's power level) X 3.66 (UT's avg. star rating) = 83.7408
WOW! What a whopping number! If we had the same talent level as UT over the same time period based on the information presented in the table, we would have achieved 84 wins (if we round up) compared to UT's 77 wins that were actually accumulated over that time! Even with A&M's talent level we theoretically achieve about 71 wins compared to their 42 over the same time period! Of course, these calculations must be taken with a massive grain of salt, as they do not factor in uncontrollable variables of football such as turnovers, injuries, etc. But from simply a comparison of performance standpoint based on past trends acquired strictly from the information presented in the table, they are a great indicator of how much production a team gets, or would have got, out of their, or another team's players!
You can also multiply the power level of a team by the avg. star rating of a team to get the total wins the team would acquire, and then divide by 7 (2002 season through 2008 season) to discover how many wins the team would average over that span. Let's compare Tech with Baylor here:
22.88 X 2.27= 51.9376
51.9376 / 7 = 7.41965....
Even with we had BAYLOR'S talent level from 2002-2008, we would have theoretically still averaged 7 wins a season!!!!!
If this does not indicate what a wonderful, outstanding, remarkable, incredible job our staff does working with and developing our players, than I truly do not know what does. This also shows that our guys are FULL of heart and are willing to be taught from this great staff and work hard to reach what many people don't think is possible from them. I hope anyone who reads all this can appreciate it as much as I did, because I now have even MORE respect for my football team!
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Double-T Nation's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Double-T Nation's writers or editors.
65 comments
|
7 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Rec'd
This looks impressive, but it’s still too early for me to digest all of this.
Go Raiders . . .
Double-T Nation
very cool analysis.
It’s amazing when you put the numbers to it, tech really does so much more with less.
9 - 10 wins
this year using your average “power score” for one year. (22.81 / 7) times last four years average recruiting ranking of 2.897 = 9.44 wins. Or times average recruiting ranking the last two years of 3.00 = 9.77 wins. Very interesting tabulation.
Average power:
(first, i think we need a new name other than power score. something like worth-grade or something)
Anyway, if you extrapolate out and divide your power score by the number of games, you get a ratio that you can use to compare year-to-year or more appropriately rank the teams in conference where OU has played more games. This becomes win % / average stars.
In that situation, you should probably be using the average star ranking of the players on the field. so for the 2006 season, you’d use the 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, and maybe 2002 (i would consider that enough players redshirt that you can count 5 years of classes).
All just academic, of course, at that point.
Ya I considered that the recruiting classes from ‘01 and before weren’t being included but I couldn’t find the information for those classes on rivals. It really isn’t necessary for them to be included though, because this calculation assumes all teams were on a level playing field where the recruits that couldn’t be factored in is concerned.
Productivity gauge..
You are waaaay too modest techtom4. I liked it and its very timley based on our esteemd atm bloggers late night comments on Seths’ game preview. I rec’d you.This was overdue. Good work.
Love it, great post.
I really wish we had access to star rankings pre-Mike Leach, although one day we will certainly have them post-Mike Leach.
I think the only, ONLY knock on Leach is recruiting, and a lot of that may have less to do with him and more to do with Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M, etc.
But anyone who reads this post and doubts that Leach is one of the best football coaches in the league is insane. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding; no one does more with less in the Big 12, and I bet he’s up there among the best of “more with less.”
To think we were one game away (in a number of ways — Okey State could’ve won our way into the Big 12 championship) from taking the South over from two of the best, most talented teams in the country… Only Mike Leach.
You Should Get a Job Working for Phil Steele...
Good job on the post!
Seriously though, this is the type of analysis and ratios that Phil Steele dreams up … good stuff.
gret post techtom4 pure greatness
I just finished reading Texas Monthly cover story on Leach. After your effort on this post. I looking to the future when Leach recruits the best and TU and OU have to meet the productivity of Leach. That day is coming soon.
not so fast my friend...
Pockets are too deep at Texas and Stoops must schmooze over mommy.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Aug 19, 2009 11:35 PM CDT up reply actions
Paradigm Shift
It is always amazing how paradigm shift occur to the least prepared, Just ask GM and Crysler if they had deep pockets. See all the clunker’s that Leach will leave in the next four years
OK...you are a 4-5 star recruit...are you wanting to attend TT in Lubbock with limited national exposure?
Or…would you rather latch on to one of the teams that has had BCS success?
Guys, I like TT nation…Leach is certainly different and he is as entertaining as they come. But real talent, year in and year out talent, will head to Norman, Austin, Florida, Columbus, USC, etc.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Aug 22, 2009 6:30 PM CDT up reply actions
I am simply responding to a post that indicates that TT...
is ahead of UT and OU in essence by the monstrosity of a formula listed above. Were it true, TT would be camped out in the top 10 annually. TT and OkSt are the next tier…for now. Could it change? Of course…but, you cannot give up 60 points to anybody…and you need to beat Ole Miss in the Cotton Bowl when given the chance.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Aug 23, 2009 9:23 PM CDT up reply actions
that was nowhere near the point
the point is that the talent that comes here is coached up to a level that far surpasses the recruiting rankings. Nobody here has claimed that the records or programs are above OU or UT. We are simply saying that this staff and program are doing MORE WITH LESS, which all of us already knew, this just put some numbers behind the theory.
With all due respect...
more with less is being accomplished at Boise St and Utah. TT is accomplishing about what the program is capable of producing…which is far better than most programs. A similar comparison would be for me to say that UT, compared to USC, is accomplishing more with less. It just is not true in either case.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Aug 24, 2009 11:08 PM CDT up reply actions
still not following us
What we are comparing is the records with relation to the talent level, particularly in conference. You’re taking the term “accomplishing more” as an absolute. That’s not what we’re saying. While the end result does not take them past OU or UT in final records, they are winning far more games than they should be based on the incoming talent.
While Texas Tech ranks 9th in the conference over the time span in average recruiting class ranking, its production is 3rd in conference wins.
We could do the same exercise for all teams in the country, but this is about the Big 12 conference. I’m sure Boise State and Utah have a good power factor as well. You could do the same to see how Texas stacks up to USC in the talent-to-production department.
What?
NOTHING you just said is true. Boise and Utah almost always lead their conference in recruiting and thus usually win the conference or come close to it. That situation you brought up IS true. USC most likely has had better recruiting than UT over the same span, so if you wanted to figure out their power score and compare it to yours to determine who has been more productive, you could. How can something that is mathematically true be false? The information presented in this post is irrefutable, and there is no way to prove it wrong. Geez, I thought UT students/alumni were supposed to be the smartest people in the world…
best friend went to TT...I will pull for anyone in the Big 12 except OU.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Aug 25, 2009 11:10 PM CDT up reply actions
Here is where you lose credibility...IMHO
“WOW! What a whopping number! If we had the same talent level as UT over the same time period based on the information presented in the table, we would have achieved 84 wins (if we round up) compared to UT’s 77 wins that were actually accumulated over that time!”
So Leach and the coaching staff is the big difference maker here…uh huh. Sorry, but this does not hold water. Good convo though…I will take Mack and Will…thanks. Good luck this season.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Aug 25, 2009 11:15 PM CDT up reply actions
Huh?
What does not hold water? Leach and the coaching staff ARE the big difference maker, what is still unclear about that? How can I lose credibility when my argument is based SOLELY on fact? Facts are TRUE…there is no debate as to how much credibility they should be given. What about these calculations seem false and/or misleading to you?
To answer the first part, I can’t say that I pull for UT ALL the time, but I wish you luck this season as well. :)
the assumption was
that if you had the recruits that UT had, coupled with Leach and Co., then you would have 84 wins based on mathematics. The BCS is based on some mathematics as well…how is that working out for us all? It is deplorable at best.
Too many variables come into play. You just cannot substitute talent and produce victories.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Aug 26, 2009 1:28 AM CDT up reply actions
you must have him confused with
Big Game Bob…what is his BCS record?
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Aug 26, 2009 1:19 PM CDT up reply actions
the BCS is working poorly for us because the human polls bitched their way back into the formula and teams that were scheduling cupcakes were being punished. Most of the computer polls, especially Sagarin’s, are quite fair.
we do not need to reinvent the wheel here...
all of these computer geeks deciding who should and should not play for the MNC is moronic at best. A plus one would satisfy 98% of the seasons. The BCS fails about 50% of the time. That being said, the plus one would not have worked last season. There are 4 teams still in the hunt as far as I am concerned.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Aug 26, 2009 1:21 PM CDT up reply actions
I think its pretty obvious that winning 60 games over the span and 80 over the span is not a linear function because the opponents to get to the 80 over the 60 are more difficult. Thats why we didn’t beat them. So Mulligan you are right if you are saying the connection is not that direct. But to suggest that with UT’s talent we wouldn’t have at least challenged them for wins over the period is ignoring Leach and Co’s record.
There is the personality issue as well...
players respond differently to coaches…Leech probably gets out of some players what Mack and Co. could not and vice versa. I appreciate Statistics as much as the next guy…but last season, IMHO, there are 4 teams remaining:
USC
Utah
UT
FL
Nothing was settled last year whatsoever.
Check out these BCS busts:
2000: Oklahoma earned its shot by going undefeated. That part was easy. Controversy erupted when Florida State got to the championship game despite losing to No. 3 Miami during the regular season. Miami’s lone loss was to No. 4 Washington. The computers rated FSU’s schedule slightly better than Miami’s.
2001: Miami got justice this time around, going undefeated and advancing to the Rose Bowl.
Somehow, Nebraska finished .05 of a point ahead of Colorado for the second spot despite losing to the Buffs, 62-36 in Boulder. That’s right, the Huskers didn’t even win their division and still played for the national championship.
2003: For the second time in three years, a Big 12 team lost its last game and still played for the national championship.
No. 1 Oklahoma was blasted by Kansas State 35-7 in the Big 12 title game but still had enough cred in the computers and strength of schedule to advance to the Sugar Bowl.
USC was No. 1 in both AP and the coaches’ polls but third in the BCS. LSU finished second and used home-field advantage to beat the Sooners 21-14 in New Orleans.
2004: This crazy season ended with Tommy Tuberville working the press box at the Orange Bowl lobbying for a split national championship in the AP poll. That’s all Auburn (13-0) had left after three undefeated teams didn’t fit into two Orange Bowl spots. Unfortunately for the Tigers, the BCS picked USC and Oklahoma. Unfortunately for Bob Stoops, the Sooners never showed up — losing 55-19 as the Trojans won their second consecutive national championship.
007: Ten teams in the final BCS top 25 had two losses. Six of them were bunched at Nos. 2 through 7.
LSU hung on at No. 2 and for the second time in five years was able to play a “home” game in the Louisiana Superdome. You’ve heard this before but once again Ohio State didn’t show up.
The Tigers won their second title of the decade, capping off The Year of the Upset. It started with Appalachian State beating Michigan and Stanford shocking USC. There were six changes at the No. 1 spot in the AP poll. Seventeen teams were in the top five at one time or another.
It was that type of year. LSU lost its last regular-season game, giving up 50 points to Arkansas and still played for the title.
2008: Another contentious finish. Another Florida title.
Oklahoma lost to Texas but beat out the ‘Horns for the Big 12 title game in that controversial three-way tiebreaker. That opened the door to Sam Bradford’s Heisman and Bob Stoops’ fourth title berth this decade. He still has only that 2000 championship to show for it.
Utah knocked off Alabama in the Sugar Bowl to secure its second undefeated season in five years. That touched off a national debate led by the Mountain West. Suddenly, the BCS wasn’t good enough — the conference wanted access to the national championship.
Its case failed, for now, because its argument was Mountain West-centric. Boise State also finished undefeated in the regular season. The WAC has had as many BCS appearances as the Mountain West (each with two).
-————————————————————
What an atrocious system.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Aug 26, 2009 1:32 PM CDT up reply actions
It really annoys me when people give USC credit for a national championship they didn’t win. They have one this decade. If we are going to put all this interest in the BCS then USC won only one championship this decade. LSU has the BCS trophy for 03’ do they not?
But other than that your post is good. We should have an 8 team playoff. Same bowls. Have to add 2 games. Cotton bowl for one. Gator for the other. Done. No one can complain anymore. No way you are undefeated and not in the top 8 unless you are in a minor conference. And if you aren’t undefeated don’t complain.
I guess you didn't bother to read the whole post
Because I clearly point out (in bold):
Even with A&M’s talent level we theoretically achieve about 71 wins compared to their 42 over the same time period! Of course, these calculations must be taken with a massive grain of salt, as they do not factor in uncontrollable variables of football such as turnovers, injuries, etc. But from simply a comparison of performance standpoint based on past trends acquired strictly from the information presented in the table, they are a great indicator of how much production a team gets, or would have got, out of their, or another team’s players!
by techtom4 on Aug 26, 2009 1:35 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
fair point...
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Aug 26, 2009 1:44 PM CDT up reply actions
and would someone
just knock Crabtree, preferably last November 1 :-), in the freaking head and tell him to sign the damn contract! OMG he is literally blowing his opportunity. He may never see the field with Singletary.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Aug 26, 2009 1:51 PM CDT up reply actions
I think you are still confused
These calculations really are not so much a method to determine how many wins we would have DEFINETELY had over the same span, because obviously that is impossible to determine no matter what formula you use. These calculations are more of a barometer that compares how successful teams have been given what they have to work with. The only reason I claim that we would have theoretically achieved 84 wins over the same span that UT had 77 is because the information in the table upholds that fact. However, this does not mean that I believe, without a doubt, that we would have without question achieved this feat. It simply points out how much we get out of our players compared to the UT’s and OU’s of the world.
I enjoy the debate...I like the TT program
I think Leach does very good things there…Perhaps where I am not following the analysis is if TT was truly overachieving based on the formula above, they should have enjoyed greater success IMHO. I know this is subjective. Just my $.02
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Aug 26, 2009 1:49 PM CDT up reply actions
I really think you should read the entire post and not just look at the numbers
and then you will be able to follow it much easier. I don’t know how you’ve managed to get so confused by it.
I am not confused...
To say that TT is getting the most out of the least in the conference, I disagree. Mathematics aside, it is about W’s. Timely W’s. Big game W’s.
Moreover, your schedule was not the same as UT’s. Moving talent from here to there is one part. I know you touched on this…but the 84 win comment throws me. The point I did not see you address is the scheduling differences. I cannot recall UT scheduling any biggie other than tOSU. I certainly do not know TT ooc schedule from the top of my head.
I get the fun exercise aspects of this. So, can we interchange sports? What if the Rangers had the talent of the Cardinals…would they have a world series title?
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Aug 28, 2009 11:36 AM CDT up reply actions
making stuff up?
no one here said Tech is getting the MOST out of the LEAST. Clearly, we do not have #12 talent in the conference, and clearly, we are not #1 in wins. But, also clear is that – based on incoming talent compared to win record – shows the most improvement: #9 in recruiting, #3 in conference wins. That’s a gain of six positions. It’s very cut and dry. I’m not sure what you can’t understand.
Scheduling differences are accounted for because both total wins and conference wins are included. While not exactly alike, the factors are similar. I don’t know, but to me you are just refusing to see the entire analysis, and picking at pieces. All together, it’s very easy to understand that this in an exercise in talent-to-production ratios.
Um...
""boom for your buck" IMHO is = getting the most out of the least.
I did not make anything up…I interpreted through your own penmanship. What does boom for your buck mean to you?
And please know I am not a TT hater whatsoever…that is reserved for OU. I was pulling hard for you in the cotton bowl. The same will never be said for OU in any bowl game.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Sep 3, 2009 5:58 PM CDT up reply actions
"Were it true, TT would be camped out in the top 10 annually."
But it IS true, yet we are still not camped out in the top 10 annually. How do you explain that one?
Kadron Boone, Delans Griffin, Scotty Young
They’ll all fade off into relative obscurity just like Michael Crabtree did, right?
Thanks to UT and OU, our guys get plenty of national exposure at least twice a year without having to live it the fishbowl that is Austin or Norman.
+1
Great post.With a few negative comments that try to correct your analysis it is right on no matter what type it is weather it be on an academic level or who can or can’t digest it.Thanks!
WRECK’EM
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
