|
I
publish this article twice per year and the
numbers never seem to change. I update it
early in the college preseason and again right
before the bowls with the current season update.
With bowl season right around the corner,
now is the time to once again look at some
significant running game information.
Being able to run the ball
in college football has always been a key
factor in the overall success of a team. The
same adage also goes for teams who have the
ability to stop the run as well. Putting these
two factors together can produce some very
positive results in a team’s record
both straight up and against the spread. Let’s
take a look at three years of numbers and
show you how the significance of solid running
attacks on both sides of the ball can produce
some very nice profits.
I have my own formulas that
rank the rushing offense and defense of teams
which are based on yard per game (ypg), yards
per carry (ypc), touchdowns scored and allowed,
power ratings and strength of schedule.
2005 once again provided great
opportunities for teams that both excelled
and faltered in the trenches. My top five
rushing offenses at the end of the season
were USC, Texas, Minnesota, Texas A&M
and Navy. All five of those teams finished
in the top ten in yards per carry average.
Defensively, the top five consisted of Ohio
St., Kansas, Boston College, Tennessee and
Colorado. Notice that of those 10 teams, only
Texas A&M and Tennessee aren’t in
the postseason.
Offensively, here is
the top 20 with their final ORR (Offensive
Rushing Rating) for 2005:
24.23 Southern California
23.59 Texas
21.01 Minnesota
16.65 Texas A&M
16.64 Navy
15.84 Penn St.
15.81 California
14.81 West Virginia
14.73 La.-Lafayette
14.51 Purdue
14.42 Louisville
14.15 Memphis
13.64 Northwestern
13.25 Air Force
13.22 Boise St.
13.07 Auburn
13.04 Washington St.
12.74 Michigan St.
12.39 Northern Ill.
12.09 Arkansas
Of these 20 teams, only six
finished with a losing record both straight
up and against the number. Texas A&M,
Purdue, Air Force, Washington St., Michigan
St. and Arkansas were the only teams with
a sub-.500 mark with the Razorbacks being
the only team that finished as expected. Overall,
the 20 teams finished 145-79 SU and 121-91
ATS (57.1 percent). California is the only
team in that group that finished with a losing
record against the number but finished above
.500 straight up.
The top 20 with their
final ORR for 2004:
23.33 Texas
19.61 California
18.72 Louisville
17.59 Utah
16.61 Rice
16.55 Boise St.
16.29 Virginia
16.23 Minnesota
16.09 Fresno St.
16.02 Air Force
16.00 Navy
15.82 Oklahoma St.
14.85 Michigan St.
13.50 West Virginia
12.85 Oklahoma
12.74 Louisiana Tech
12.12 Memphis
11.86 Northern Ill.
11.84 Texas A&M
11.83 North Carolina
Of these 20 teams, only Rice,
Air Force and Michigan St. finished the season
with a losing straight up record while only
5 of the 20 teams finished with a sub-.500
ATS record (Texas, Michigan St., West Virginia,
Oklahoma and Louisiana Tech). Overall, the
20 teams combined for a 157-65 record straight
up and a 124-92 record ATS (57.4%). Even more
impressive, these teams combined for a 37-26
record ATS (58.8%) as underdogs. This solidifies
the maxim “Always look at the rushing
dog”.
Here is the listing
of the top 20 with their final ORR for 2003:
20.99 Minnesota
19.39 Navy
19.05 Rice
18.58 Texas
17.90 Missouri
16.39 Oklahoma St.
16.35 Kansas St.
15.67 Arkansas
15.32 Air Force
15.10 Louisville
14.51 Virginia Tech
12.70 New Mexico
12.69 Tulsa
12.36 Wake Forest
12.17 Nebraska
12.06 Bowling Green
11.96 Northwestern
11.54 Michigan
11.50 Auburn
11.49 West Virginia
Rice and Wake Forest were the
only teams in the top 20 that finished below
.500 on the season. Only 6 of the 20 finished
with a sub-.500 ATS mark (Kansas St., Air
Force, Louisville, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
and Auburn). Overall, the 20 teams combined
for a 160-79 SU record and 125-97 (56.3%)
ATS record and as underdogs, they combined
for a 40-29 (58.0%) ATS record.
Defensively, the numbers slipped
from previous seasons but still showed an
overall profit. Here are the top 20 teams
in Defensive Rushing Rating (DRR) for 2005:
0.60 Ohio St.
0.77 Colorado
0.81 Kansas
0.82 Boston College
0.83 Tennessee
0.93 Virginia Tech
0.94 Oklahoma
0.94 Penn St.
0.96 Georgia Tech
1.09 LSU
1.12 Alabama
1.12 Miami (Fla.)
1.16 West Virginia
1.20 Iowa St.
1.22 North Carolina St.
1.30 Iowa
1.42 Oregon St.
1.47 Southern California
1.47 Central Mich.
1.48 Michigan
The straight up numbers were
better compared to the offense with a 157-67
record and only two teams, Tennessee and Oregon
St. finished the season with a losing record.
The ATS mark of these 20 teams was 115-99
(53.8 percent) and while it wasn’t a
huge winning percentage, the top 20 still
finished in the black.
The top 20 and their
DRR in 2004:
0.48 Florida St.
0.61 Southern California
0.67 California
0.81 Notre Dame
0.92 Oklahoma
0.94 North Carolina St.
1.01 New Mexico
1.01 Iowa
1.15 LSU
1.15 Oregon St.
1.15 Troy
1.23 Purdue
1.27 Auburn
1.28 Georgia
1.32 Texas
1.37 Kansas
1.38 Texas A&M
1.42 Virginia
1.49 Oregon
1.50 Georgia Tech
Three of these teams finished
with a losing straight up record (North Carolina
St., Kansas and Oregon) while only 5 finished
with a losing ATS record (Florida St., Oklahoma,
North Carolina St., Purdue and Texas). Overall,
the top 20 combined for a 158-64 straight
up record and a 123-94 ATS record (56.7%).
Similar to 2004, the defensive
numbers are down from the offense in 2003
but again they were moneymakers. The
2003 top 20 with their final DRR:
1.46 Southern California
1.54 LSU
1.55 Ohio St.
2.07 New Mexico
2.11 Boise St.
2.33 Georgia
2.48 Washington St.
2.60 Oregon St.
2.73 TCU
2.82 Kansas St.
2.88 Purdue
2.94 Iowa
3.04 Memphis
3.05 Auburn
3.23 Oklahoma
3.32 Miami (Ohio)
3.39 North Texas
3.41 Mississippi
3.50 South Fla.
3.50 Michigan St.
All of these teams finished
with a winning record straight up with Auburn
having the worst record at 7-5. Overall, the
top 20 finished 186-52 SU and 128-99 (56.4%)
ATS.
Those three years show us some
great opportunities and prove once again that
being able to rush the ball and being able
to stop the run are huge factors in success.
The flip side is even stronger and that was
the case once again in 2005. Teams that struggled
with the running game on both sides of the
ball fell flat on their faces both straight
up and against the spread.
The bottom 10 teams
and their ORR for 2005:
0.86 Kent St.
1.86 Mississippi
2.00 Idaho
2.30 New Mexico St.
2.44 Temple
2.69 Tulane
2.75 Nebraska
2.82 Troy
2.87 Stanford
2.89 Buffalo
Notice that Nebraska is the
only team from this group that finished with
a winning record and is heading to a bowl
game. Overall, these 10 teams went a putrid
41-62 ATS (39.8 percent) with Idaho and Stanford
the only two teams to finish above .500. Kent
St., Mississippi, New Mexico St., Tulane and
Troy all finished with three or less wins
against the number on the season.
The other side of the ball
is even worse. The bottom 10 teams
and their DRR for 2005:
6.76 North Texas
6.32 Rice
6.15 La.-Monroe
5.99 New Mexico St.
5.87 East Carolina
5.73 Idaho
5.67 Arkansas St.
5.42 Tulane
5.33 La.-Lafayette
5.26 Duke
These 10 teams combined for
a money-burning 40-64 ATS mark (38.5 percent).
This group contains two teams with a winning
record, Arkansas St. and La-Lafayette, both
from the Sun Belt Conference and just the
former is heading to a bowl. East Carolina
had the best ATS mark of the group, going
8-3 and was one of only three teams with a
winning record against the number, La-Monroe
and Idaho being the other two.
As you can clearly see,
the running game is the ultimate difference
between winning and losing. During bowl season,
we have the cream of the crop so finding big
advantages in the running games are usually
few and far between but digging deeper into
those numbers can lead to some great discoveries.
Recent history and common opponents are just
two of the many number of things to take a
look at when going over the rushing stats
and you might be surprised at what you find.
Good luck this bowl season.
Matt Fargo is a documented member of The Professional
Handicappers League.
Read more of his articles and get his premium
plays here. |
