Boise St Screwed

So Boise State is ending up in the Las Vegas Bowl, which is a relatively mediocre game. They will probably crush Utah, and have no financial motivation to care what game they go to this year (http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/12/06/1444809/boise-state-to-play-utah-on-dec.html).

The argument comes down to Arkansas being given the bid over the Broncos. Wouldn't it be delicious to actually have Boise St vs Ohio St in a BCS Bowl, with Ohio State's President E. Gordon Gee's commentary about the superiority of BCS teams hanging in the air? This one could be hyped up like a boxing match. A classic Drago vs Rocky affair. I think the BCS missed out on a great opportunity to do justice and score awesome ratings.

It seems they were more interested in avoiding future contention if the game wasn't a blowout by the Buckeyes.

TopoRank Bowl Predictions

Time to handicap all the bowl games!:

Visitor	Home	Predict	Spread	Actual
BYU	UTEP	17.0	11.5-12	28
Northern Illinois	Fresno St	1.1	2.5-3	23
Ohio	Troy	4.4	-(1-1.5)	-27
S.Mississippi	Louisville	7.7	3.5	3
Utah	Boise St	17.3	16-17	23
Navy	San Diego State	5.6	--	--
Hawaii	Tulsa	10.5	12-12.5	-27
Florida Intl	Toledo	6.8	1.5-2	2
Air Force	Georgia Tech	4.4	2-2.5	7
West Virginia	North Carolina St	7.1	2.5	16
Missouri	Iowa	6.1	0-1	-3
East Carolina	Maryland	16.4	7.5-8	31
Illinois	Baylor	5.7	-(1.5-2)	24
Oklahoma St	Arizona	1.6	6	26
Army	SMU	3.2	--	--
Kansas St	Syracuse	12.3	2-3	-2
North Carolina	Tennessee	6.9	-(1.5-2.5)	-3
Nebraska	Washington	15.3	13-13.5	-12
South Florida	Clemson	3.2	4-4.5	-5
Notre Dame	Miami	2.0	3	-16
Georgia	UCF	11.3	7	-4
South Carolina	Florida St	0.1	3	-9
Northwestern	Texas Tech	5.2	9-9.5	7
Florida	Penn St	7.6	7	13
Alabama	Michigan St	13.6	10.5-11	42
Mississippi St	Michigan	3.0	6	38
Wisconsin	TCU	8.6	2.5-3	2
Connecticut	Oklahoma	18.2	17-18	28
Stanford	Virginia Tech	14.5	3-3.5	28
Ohio St	Arkansas	7.6	3-3.5	5
Middle Tennessee	Miami (OH)	6.3	1.5-2	14
LSU	Texas A&M	1.7	-1	-17
Pittsburgh	Kentucky	4.8	2.5-3	17
Nevada	Boston College	21.1	9.5-10	7
Oregon	Auburn	16.7	-(2.5-3)	-3

Boise State is the clear Bowl placement loser here, and Connecticut is a questionable choice for the Fiesta Bowl. Swapping those two would do them justice and avoid a couple of ho-hum blowout games.

TopoRank finishes the bowl season 17 of 33, which loses just short of 2%.

I'll have to take a long hard look at the theory behind it, and perhaps change it up for next year.

NCAA 2010 Rankings, pre-bowl

The final regular season games have been played, and the bowl games are posted. Time to start with the new TopoRankings, out to the top 100 to include all the bowl contestants. Each team also has its TopoRanking value listed. Every point differential correlates with a team being '7 points better':

1. 22.135 Oregon

2. 21.270 Boise St

3. 21.254 Stanford

4. 20.738 Ohio State

5. 20.439 TCU

6. 20.153 Alabama

7. 19.983 Nebraska

8. 19.754 Auburn

9. 19.725 Oklahoma

10. 19.717 Missouri

11. 19.703 Oklahoma St

12. 19.654 Arkansas

13. 19.469 Arizona

14. 19.346 Nevada

15. 19.287 Texas A&M

16. 19.270 Oregon St

17. 19.214 Wisconsin

18. 19.178 Virginia Tech

19. 19.112 Arizona St

20. 19.093 Southern Cal

21. 19.042 LSU

22. 18.849 South Carolina

23. 18.843 Iowa

24. 18.841 Florida St

25. 18.831 West Virginia

26. 18.794 Utah

27. 18.760 Georgia

28. 18.516 Miami FL

29. 18.504 California

30. 18.373 Florida

31. 18.234 Notre Dame

32. 18.211 Michigan St

33. 18.150 Hawai`i

34. 18.044 Kansas St

35. 18.006 Mississippi St

36. 18.000 Tennessee

37. 17.902 Northern Illinois

38. 17.899 Illinois

39. 17.886 Clemson

40. 17.810 North Carolina St

41. 17.804 Washington

42. 17.762 San Diego St

43. 17.708 Texas

44. 17.700 Pittsburgh

45. 17.651 Maryland

46. 17.606 Louisville

47. 17.572 Michigan

48. 17.509 UCLA

49. 17.424 South Florida

50. 17.414 Air Force

51. 17.289 Penn State

52. 17.262 Texas Tech

53. 17.151 Brigham Young

54. 17.142 Central Florida

55. 17.122 Connecticut

56. 17.081 Baylor

57. 17.016 Kentucky

58. 17.013 North Carolina

59. 16.968 Navy

60. 16.889 Colorado

61. 16.793 Temple

62. 16.787 Cincinnati

63. 16.783 Georgia Tech

64. 16.758 Fresno St

65. 16.686 Mississippi

66. 16.646 Tulsa

67. 16.552 Iowa St

68. 16.544 Houston

69. 16.517 Northwestern

70. 16.509 Southern Miss

71. 16.457 Louisiana Tech

72. 16.406 SMU

73. 16.377 Villanova

74. 16.334 Boston College

75. 16.307 Western Michigan

76. 16.285 Syracuse

77. 16.045 Washington St

78. 16.030 Toledo

79. 15.956 Army

80. 15.918 Idaho

81. 15.886 Purdue

82. 15.880 Ohio U.

83. 15.852 Minnesota

84. 15.749 Delaware

85. 15.736 Northern Arizona

86. 15.668 William & Mary

87. 15.665 Duke

88. 15.639 Rutgers

89. 15.623 Virginia

90. 15.552 Wake Forest

91. 15.539 Eastern Washington

92. 15.526 Sacramento St

93. 15.503 Central Michigan

94. 15.481 Vanderbilt

95. 15.440 Kent St

96. 15.420 Utah St

97. 15.419 NW Missouri St

98. 15.367 Western Illinois

99. 15.321 New Hampshire

100. 15.320 Appalachian St

The next post will handicap all bowl game, and we can debate which teams got short-changed in the selection process.

Looking Back: BCS conference games

To cover a few games we might not otherwise hit, I'm looking at all the BCS conference games for this week. In the future, I think I'll post all BCS and Top 25 games.

Pac-10

Visitor	Home	Predict	Spread	Actual
ACC
21. Florida St	15. Virginia Tech	0.9	3.5-4.5	11
Big 12
9. Oklahoma	13. Nebraska	3.8	4-6.5	3
Big East
Rutgers	24. West Virginia	19.1	19.5-20.5	21
Pittsburgh	Cincinnati	2.6	0-2	18
Connecticut	South Florida	3	2-2.5	-3
Big Ten
Illinois	Fresno St	12.2	?	skip
Pac-10
2. Oregon	Oregon St	25.2	15.5-16.5	17
Arizona St	23. Arizona	3.3	5-6.5	-1
Washington	Washington St	1.8	5.5-8	7
USC	UCLA	7.1	6.5-8	skip
SEC
1. Auburn	19. South Carolina	1.4	5-6	39

I can no longer find reliable spread numbers for the Illinois-Fresno St game, so I won't count it. TopoRank hits 5 of 10 BCS conference games. There were a number of close calls, but this week comes out to a slight loss.

I'm looking forward to the bowl season!

TopoRank v4 Predictions, Week 14

The end of the regular season is here! I have the predictions for Week 14 using TopoRank v4, and I'll have predictions for the entire bowl lineup once the games are published:

Visitor	Home	Predict	Spread	Actual
1. Auburn	19. South Carolina	1.4	5-6	39
2. Oregon	Oregon St	25.2	15.5-16.5	17
9. Oklahoma	13. Nebraska	3.8	4-6.5	3
Utah St	11. Boise St	43.5	38-40	36
21. Florida St	15. Virginia Tech	0.9	3.5-4.5	11
17. Nevada	Louisiana Tech	15.8	9-12.5	18
Arizona St	23. Arizona	3.3	5-6.5	-1
Rutgers	24. West Virginia	19.1	19.5-20.5	21
25. N Illinois	Miami (OH)	19.4	14.5-18.5	-5

TopoRank hit on 4 of 9 games this week, giving back 15% of the gain from last week. The overall record for the season is 33 out of 60 (5% return). Having fewer games reduces the diversity (safety) of the process, so it's advisable to reduce the total stakes on weeks like these.

As a further experiment, I'll chart up TopoRank's success for each of the BCS conferences this week (it's harder to find historical spread numbers, so I'm not going to create the same data going backwards in time).

I'll also post the new TopoRank rankings and critique the bowl selections when they are released.

2010 College Football Rankings, Week 14

I am now just tracking TopoRank v4. Here are the updated rankings after week 13 action:

1. Oregon

2. Stanford

3. Boise St

4. Ohio State

5. TCU

6. Oklahoma

7. Alabama

8. Oklahoma St

9. Auburn

10. Wisconsin

11. Texas A&M

12. Nebraska

13. South Carolina

14. Arizona

15. Missouri

16. California

17. Arizona St

18. Florida St

19. Arkansas

20. Southern Cal

21. Georgia

22. Nevada

23. Virginia Tech

24. Florida

25. LSU

This week we see Stanford leap into the #2 spot with a big win. Wisconsin comes screaming up the board to #10 and LSU teeters on the edge of the Top 25. A few interesting and perhaps unintuitive moves I'd like to point out are Arizona and Arkansas. Arizona stays put despite a 19 point loss. They were predicted to lose by 19.6, so they actually outperformed their previous ranking slightly, and hence we see them retain the #14 spot. Arkansas falls 8 spots despite a victory over LSU. LSU had been ranked slightly outside the Top 25 and Arkansas was expected to win by 10.5. This alone drops them a little, but we also see the effects of teams on their schedule losing a lot of games. Furthermore, #13 through #19 are separated by the equivalant of about a 1.5 point spread, so big rank moves are possible with slight changes in rating.

TopoRank (Classic) Predictions, Week 13

Here are the predictions for Week 13 using TopoRank Classic:

Visitor	Home	Predict	Spread	Actual
20. Arizona	1. Oregon	10.4	17.5-19.5	19*
2. Auburn	11. Alabama	0.6	4-5	-1
3. TCU	New Mexico	38.6	42.5-43.5	49
4. Boise St	19. Nevada	10.1	14-14.5	-3
5. LSU	12. Arkansas	8.4	3.5-4	8
Oregon St	6. Stanford	12.9	14-15	38
Northwestern	7. Wisconsin	17.7	22.5-23.5	47
Michigan	8. Ohio St	18.8	17-17.5	30
13. Oklahoma	9. Oklahoma St	2.8	2-3	skip
10. Michigan St	Penn St	0.2	-(1.5-2)	-6
Kansas	14. Missouri	30.0	24-24.5	28
Colorado	15. Nebraska	16.7	17.5	28
Virginia	16. Virginia Tech	22.4	23.5	30
17. Texas A&M	Texas	9.6	3-3.5	7
18. South Carolina	Clemson	2.9	2.5-3	skip
BYU	20. Utah	15.3	9-10	1
Florida	22. Florida St	2.9	2-2.5	30
23. N.Carolina St	Maryland	5.4	2-2.5	-7
24. Iowa	Minnesota	22.2	15-16	-3
25. Mississippi St	Mississippi	4.6	2.5-3	8

I have a feeling TopoRank v4 will continue to outperform this algorithm. TopoRank Classic reverses the pick for a number of games, and finishes the week with 8 correct picks out of 18 for about a 15% loss this week. If it has a poor showing next week too, I will likely retire the algorithm.

TopoRank v4 Predictions, Week 13

Here are the predictions for Week 13 using TopoRank v4:

Visitor	Home	Predict	Spread	Actual
20. Arizona	1. Oregon	19.6	17.5-19.5	19*
2. Auburn	11. Alabama	4.3	4-5	Skip
3. TCU	New Mexico	52.6	42.5-43.5	49
4. Boise St	19. Nevada	20.9	14-14.5	-3
5. LSU	12. Arkansas	10.5	3.5-4	8
Oregon St	6. Stanford	16.4	14-15	38
Northwestern	7. Wisconsin	25.6	22.5-23.5	47
Michigan	8. Ohio St	26.7	17-17.5	30
13. Oklahoma	9. Oklahoma St	0.6	2-3	-6
10. Michigan St	Penn St	0.9	-(1.5-2)	-6
Kansas	14. Missouri	38.8	24-24.5	28
Colorado	15. Nebraska	19.1	17.5	28
Virginia	16. Virginia Tech	23.8	23.5	30
17. Texas A&M	Texas	11.4	3-3.5	7
18. South Carolina	Clemson	5.7	2.5-3	22
BYU	20. Utah	18.2	9-10	1
Florida	22. Florida St	1.2	2-2.5	24
23. N.Carolina St	Maryland	3.7	2-2.5	-7
24, Iowa	Minnesota	19.3	15-16	-3
25. Mississippi St	Mississippi	6.8	2.5-3	8

* - Given the available spreads, anyone picking Oregon to beat the spread should have gone with the 17.5 option

TopoRank v4 was a stellar 11 of 14 for the Top 20 games this week, and a very good 12 of 19 overall, resulting in a 20% return. If I can achieve these results consistently, I'll consider a change of profession.

2010 College Football Rankings, Week 13

I am now tracking rankings based on 2 TopoRank algorithms in order to evaluate both.

Rank	TopoRank Classic	TopoRank v4
1	Boise St	Oregon
2	Ohio St	Boise St
3	Oregon	Ohio St
4	Auburn	Stanford
5	Stanford	TCU
6	Oklahoma	Oklahoma
7	Arkansas	Alabama
8	Missouri	Auburn
9	Oklahoma St	Oklahoma St
10	Texas A&M	Texas A&M
11	Alabama	Arkansas
12	Williams	Missouri
13	South Carolina	Wisconsin
14	TCU	Arizona
15	Nebraska	South Carolina
16	Virginia Tech	Nebraska
17	Iowa	California
18	Wisconsin	Iowa
19	Arizona	Arizona St
20	Miami	Souther Cal
21	LSU	Florida
22	Florida	Oregon St
23	Trinity	Virginia Tech
24	Florida St	Miami
25	North Carolina St	Florida St

We're seeing the capped TopoRank classic let some lower division teams sneak up into the rankings. This is a rather odd turn, and I may investigate it ... or just decide that TopoRank v4 is the fundamentally correct way to go.

TopoRank v4 predictions for 2010 week 11

And here are the retroactive predictions for week 11 using TopoRank v4:

Visitor	Home	Prediction	Spread	Actual
1. Oregon	California	19.5	19-20.5	skip
Georgia	2. Auburn	8.2	7.5-8.5	skip
San Diego St	3. TCU	31.8	27-28	5
4. Boise St	Idaho	31.9	33.5-34.5	38
LA-Monroe	5. LSU	30.2	31-34	51
6. Stanford	Arizona St	10.3	4.5-6.5	4
Indiana	7. Wisconsin	21.5	21.5-22.5	skip
Kansas	8. Nebraska	41.1	34-34.5	17
Penn St	9. Ohio St	25.7	17.5-20.5	24
10. Oklahoma St	Texas	18.0	4-6.5	17
19. Mississippi St	12. Alabama	16.0	13-14	27
13. Iowa	Northwestern	16.6	9.5-12	-4
14. Utah	Notre Dame	10.8	5-6	-25
UTEP	15. Arkansas	32.9	28.5-30	31
Texas Tech	16. Oklahoma	23.2	16-16.5	38
24. Kansas St	17. Missouri	7.9	13-13.5	10
USC	18. Arizona	2.9	-(4-5.5)	3
20. Virgina Tech	North Carolina	0.3	-(3-5.5)	-16
21. Nevada	Fresno St	18.3	8-9.5	1
23. South Carolina	22. Florida	6.4	6-7	skip
25. Texas A&M	Baylor	11.5	3-3.5	12

This week, TopoRank v4 made the right call 9 out of 17 times for a success rate of 52.9% which would result in a 1% return.

TopoRank v4 Predictions, 2010 week 12

Here are the predictions for Week 12 using TopoRank v4:

Visitor	Home	Prediction	Spread	Actual
Fresno St	4. Boise St	32.6	30.5	51
Mississippi	5. LSU	22.4	15.5-16	7
6. Stanford	Cal	3.5	6.5-8	34
7. Wisconsin	Michigan	11.1	4.5-5.5	20
8. Nebraska	19. Texas A&M	3.2	-(2.5-3)	3
9. Ohio St	20. Iowa	10.2	3	3
10. Oklahoma St	Kansas	35.6	22.5-24	34
Purdue	12. Michigan St	25.8	19.5-21	4
13. Arkansas	21. Mississippi St	3.2	3-4	skip
14. Oklahoma	Baylor	16.6	7-7.5	29
15. Missouri	Iowa St	13.1	11-12	14
16. Virginia Tech	24. Miami	0.3	-(2-2.5)	-14
Troy	17. South Carolina	26.2	22.5-23.5	45
New Mexico St	18. Nevada	15.7	37.5	46
23. Utah	San Diego St	5.9	2.5-3	4
25. Florida St	Maryland	3.5	4-6	14

TopoRank v4 hits on 8 of 15 picks for a slim 2% gain. Among the big calls are Texas A&M's upset victory over Nebraska, Boise State's blowout win, and Wisconsin's dominating win over Michigan. There were also a few big misses were Nebraska's trampling of New Mexico State, Michigan State's narrow margin over Purdue and Stanford's pounding of California. A number of these varied wildly from the real spreads too, and that's why they play the game. As a coworker once told me, a person would be foolish to pin their well-being to the performance of 20-year-olds. But that, is why a diversified approach should perform!

Rethinking TopoRank

I had originally put a condition into TopoRank to discount extreme blowout wins. This has 2 reasons:
1. To allow for sportsmanship and not make teams feel like they need to pile it on to appease the computer rankings
2. Because one can only say so much about beating up on a weaker team (ex: does beating North Dakota State by 50 mean that same team will stand toe-to-toe with Oregon?)

However, teams are not currently playing with TopoRank in mind, so I believe I'm allowing for a factor that doesn't actually make much sense. Furthermore, I do believe there's a difference in teams who can focus and trample a weak team by 50 as opposed to let them linger in the game and stretch the lead to 25-30 at the end. Removing the cap for how much better a team can be rated than another per game gives the following ranking (TopoRank v4):

1. Oregon
2. Boise St
3. Ohio State
4. Stanford
5. TCU
6. Alabama
7. Oklahoma
8. Oklahoma St
9. Auburn
10. California
11. Texas A&M
12. Southern Cal
13. Nebraska
14. Arizona
15. Wisconsin
16. Missouri
17. Arizona St
18. Arkansas
19. Georgia
20. South Carolina
21. Miami FL
22. LSU
23. Florida
24. Iowa
25. Florida St

Stay tuned for week 11 and 12 re-predictions using the new formula

Handicapping 2010 NCAA Week 12

Sticking with the theme of validating TopoRank, here are the predictions for Week 12:

Visitor	Home	Prediction	Spread	Actual
Fresno St	4. Boise St	16.9	30.5	51
Mississippi	5. LSU	20.3	15.5-16	7
6. Stanford	Cal	5.4	6.5-8	34
7. Wisconsin	Michigan	3.0	4.5-5.5	20
8. Nebraska	19. Texas A&M	3.2	-(2.5-3)	3
9. Ohio St	20. Iowa	4.5	3	3
10. Oklahoma St	Kansas	21.7	22.5-24	34
Purdue	12. Michigan St	22.7	19.5-21	4
13. Arkansas	21. Mississippi St	2.5	3-4	7
14. Oklahoma	Baylor	10.4	7-7.5	29
15. Missouri	Iowa St	10.6	11-12	14
16. Virginia Tech	24. Miami	2.3	-(2-2.5)	-14
Troy	17. South Carolina	24.4	22.5-23.5	45
New Mexico St	18. Nevada	34.7	37.5	46
23. Utah	San Diego St	4.1	2.5-3	4
25. Florida St	Maryland	4.1	4-6	skip

The top 3 teams have this week off. TopoRank predicts two upsets: Texas A&M over Nebraska and Miami over Virginia Tech; the spread is in favor of the higher ranked team in each case (marked with a negative in my table to reflect the opposite polarity). Florida State vs Maryland is currently a skip. 9 of 15 games won't beat the spread.

A terrible week for predictions here. I hit on only 4 of 15, which translates into a whopping 49% loss. TopoRank v4 did considerably better.

2010 College Football Rankings, Week 12

Updating TopoRank ratings after week 11:

1. Oregon
2. Alabama
3. Ohio State
4. Auburn
5. TCU
6. Stanford
7. Oklahoma St
8. Oklahoma
9. Boise St
10. South Carolina
11. Arkansas
12. Missouri
13. Texas A&M
14. LSU
15. Nebraska
16. Virginia Tech
17. Miami
18. Michigan St
19. Iowa
20. Florida
21. Pittsburgh
22. Southern Cal
23. Arizona
24. North Carolina St
25. Wisconsin

Wisconsin certainly seems out of place at #25, this rating is a result of several very weak teams on the schedule, and some close wins seem to be weighing them down a lot. Alabama, not Auburn, grades out as the best SEC team, and TCU is the top non-BCS team at #5.

Handicapping 2010 NCAA Week 11

We can use TopoRank to reverse-engineer the expected point differential between two teams. Let's see how it does for this week's Top 25 matchups. The predicted winner is bolded.

Visitor	Home	Prediction	Spread	Actual
1. Oregon	California	12.2	19-20.5	2
Georgia	2. Auburn	14.2	7.5-8.5	18
San Diego St	3. TCU	25.9	27-28	5
4. Boise St	Idaho	20.9	33.5-34.5	38
LA-Monroe	5. LSU	32.3	31-34	skip
6. Stanford	Arizona St	12.9	4.5-6.5	4
Indiana	7. Wisconsin	16.4	21.5-22.5	63
Kansas	8. Nebraska	24.7	34-34.5	17
Penn St	9. Ohio St	13.9	17.5-20.5	24
10. Oklahoma St	Texas	8.0	4-6.5	17
19. Mississippi St	12. Alabama	12.2	13-14	27
13. Iowa	Northwestern	11.5	9.5-12	skip
14. Utah	Notre Dame	6.4	5-6	-25
UTEP	15. Arkansas	30.1	28.5-30	31
Texas Tech	16. Oklahoma	13.9	16-16.5	38
24. Kansas St	17. Missouri	7.2	13-13.5	10
USC	18. Arizona	5.1	4-5.5	skip
20. Virgina Tech	North Carolina	3.7	3-5.5	skip
21. Nevada	Fresno St	7.4	8-9.5	1
23. South Carolina	22. Florida	3.7	6-7	-22
25. Texas A&M	Baylor	5.5	3-3.5	12

I'm also tracking approximate spreads for these games and seeing how TopoRank would do. In each case, if TopoRank predicts a bigger win than the spread, I'd bet for the spread (and vice versa). This is slightly complicated by the fact that spreads vary by institution, so if TopoRank's prediction falls within a range of published spreads, the game will be ommitted ('skip').

This week, TopoRank made the right call 10 out of 17 times for a success rate of 58.8%. Assuming someone, somewhere, would pay 21:11 for a correct pick, the rate of return would be 12.3% ...

2010 College Football Rankings, Week 11

TopoRank Top 25 after Week 11:

1. Oregon

2. TCU

3. Stanford

4. Boise St

5. Auburn

6. Ohio State

7. Alabama

8. Arkansas

9. Missouri

10. Oklahoma St

11. Oklahoma

12. Nebraska

13. Texas A&M

14. Iowa

15. Arizona

16. Virginia Tech

17. LSU

18. Florida

19. Utah

20. Kansas St

21. South Carolina

22. Michigan St

23. Wisconsin

24. Southern Cal

25. Nevada

The BCS results aren't out yet, but I expect to see some big differences again. Oregon and TCU stay on top. Compared to last week, we see Missouri, Utah and Arizona take big falls after ugly losses, and Stanford and Boise State jump to #3 and #4 with big wins. TopoRank still shows Auburn trailing these teams to round out the top 5.

If the season ended today, Oregon would face Auburn in the BCS Championship game, even though TCU and Boise State are more deserving. This is the strength of perception, especially about the SEC.

2010 College Football Rankings, Week 9

I am using TopoRank to rank college football teams, and have compared my Week 9 standings and the BCS standings. I'm calling out the teams that ended up at least 5 spots lower or higher and examining if these re-rankings make sense. (*I've also added in the combined of two TopoRank algorithms)

Rank	BCS	TopoRank	*TopoRank Combined
1	Oregon	TCU	Oregon
2	Auburn	Oregon	Missouri
3	TCU	Oklahoma	TCU
4	Boise State	Alabama	Oklahoma
5	Utah	Missouri	Nebraska
6	Alabama	Stanford	Alabama
7	Nebraska	Boise State	Stanford
8	Oklahoma	Utah	Auburn
9	Wisconsin	Iowa	Boise State
10	LSU	Arizona	Iowa
11	Ohio State	Auburn	Arizona
12	Missouri	Nebraska	Ohio State
13	Stanford	Ohio State	Utah
14	Michigan St	Arkansas	Arkansas
15	Arizona	Virginia Tech	Virginia Tech
16	Iowa	Michigan St	Oregon St
17	Oklahoma St	Oregon St	South Carolina
18	Arkansas	Illinois	Oklahoma St
19	South Carolina	South Carolina	LSU
20	Mississippi St	Oklahoma St	Michigan St
21	Baylor	Mississippi St	Florida St
22	Virginia Tech	Florida	USC
23	Nevada	Florida St	Mississippi St
24	Florida St	USC	Florida
25	NC St	LSU	Texas A&M

The Good (*-no longer 5 spots better):

Oklahoma* (BCS #8, TopoRank #3) - This is a stretch. Oklahoma's only good win was a demolition of Florida St, and narrow wins over Utah St, Air Force, Cincinnati don't paint a picture of a national powerhouse. An alternate version of TopoRank has them at #8 and I think that's much more correct. Perhaps I also need to average the results of different algorithms (the subjectivity in TopoRank is how much credit to give a team over another based on the final score differential).

Missouri (BCS #12, TopoRank #5) - Missouri was racking up dominating wins and a close win over a probably underappreciated (now 6-2) SDSU team when it ran into a backup running back who had a career game. This is more a case of a very strong team tripping a bit than a consistently semi-strong performer. I think the #5 ranking is much more justified than #12.

Stanford (BCS #13, TopoRank #6) - This team packs a major punch and has absolutely blown up 6 of its 8 opponents (Washington St made the score look a lot closer in the closing minutes). The Cardinal get it done and don't leave things to chance. Their one loss is against one of the best teams in the last decade, and they managed to respond late in the game to pull off a win against borderline-Top-25 USC. Name 6 teams you'd favor over them. I sure can't.

Iowa (BCS #16, TopoRank #9) - Iowa is bearing the brunt of having 2 losses, both of them being close games against good teams. Their wins have been mostly beatdowns, including a 37-6 trampling of then-#6 Michigan St. This team is strong and would be competitive against many of the teams ranked ahead of them.

Arizona* (BCS #15, TopoRank #10) - Arizona is smothering opposing offenses, scores points in bunches, and is one subpar half away from being 8-0. Their defense is consistently stepping up when the offense stalls. This team is never out of a game.

Virginia Tech (BCS #22, TopoRank #15) - A close loss to a top team followed by a letdown loss on 5 days rest has doomed this team. They've rallied to win 6 straight since, their best win being a comeback against #23 NC St. Perhaps the Hokies are benefiting too much from score differential. The other algorithm (which gives less credit for blowouts) has them at #18.

Oregon St (BCS unranked, TopoRank #17) - The Beavers took on two national title contenders and were overmatched in both games, but not badly. And Jake Locker had one of his 2 good games to pull out a double overtime win. Their big win is against Arizona, but really they're a victim of their schedule. Replace games against TCU and Boise St with weaker opponents and this team is likely 6-1 and in the thick of the 10-15 range.

Illinois* (BCS unranked, TopoRank #18) - 3 losses against very good teams (including then unranked Missouri) have made voters forget about this team. However, they turned in dominating performances in 4 of 5 wins, and 2 of the 3 losses to good teams should be considered competitive games. This is not the profile of an unranked team. Perhaps they should be borderling Top 25. The other algorithm currently places them #32, so an average of the two seems to place them just right.

The Bad (* - no longer 5 spots worse):

Auburn (BCS #2, TopoRank #11) - Yes, Auburn is 9-0. Yes, they have big wins over South Carolina, Arkansas and LSU. But, Auburn barely squeezed by SC and LSU, and pulled away from Arkansas after Ryan Mallett was hurt. And they had narrow wins over barely ranked Mississippi St and unranked Clemson and Kentucky. This paints a picture of a team that is certainly good, but sweating out wins against teams across the Top 25 and beyond.

Nebraska* (BCS #7, TopoRank #12) - Nebraska has 2 wins against good teams, a win that used to look good (Washington), 4 wins that carry no weight, a loss that looks increasingly bad (Texas). This team created a strong impression against weak competition, then pulled out 2 wins powered by big plays against good teams. This team has gotten a little bit lucky, and is not as consistently good as voters think.

LSU (BCS #10, TopoRank #25) - This team might actually be ranked closer to its true strength if Tennessee hadn't tried to defend with 13 men on the field. In addition to the biggest gift of the year and a solid win over Mississippi State, they've pulled off narrow wins over no-longer-ranked teams North Carolina, West Virginia and Florida, and never-ranked Vanderbilt and McNeese State. Add in a loss to overranked Auburn, and this team belongs in the tail end of the Top 25.

The Additional Bad by Combined TopoRank:

Boise State (BCS #4, Combined TopoRank #9) - With only 2 quality opponents, it's hard to argue that Boise State has shown it's a national contender. We specifically see the Combined TopoRank place less emphasis on the margins of victory, causing the Broncos to fall lower.

Utah (BCS #5, Combined TopoRank #13) - The Utes suffer for the same reason as Boise State in this assessment, and their blowout loss to TCU hurts them further. With their only other quality game being against no-longer-ranked Pitt, it's hard to make the case that Utah should be a top 5 team.

Conclusion:

I think TopoRank places several teams more correctly with respect to their actual strength. I'll modify the rankings to incorporate both algorithms and republish* the results with Week 10 included. While it certainly is true that a team needs to prove itself by winning games (and not just playing good teams close), I contend teams are overly penalized for losses. Even if TopoRank can't overcome conventional thinking and 'gut feel', perhaps it can make a good handicapping tool for those of us headed to Vegas....

* I have updated the table with the Combined TopoRank results. I think they highlight the same over and underrated teams, and correct some of the extreme jumps. It also highlights the uncertainty of Boise State and Utah's rankings.

The Long Field Goal

Your team has just stalled their drive at the 35 yard line, and your kicker has a pretty good leg. Send on the field goal unit, right? We're seeing teams sometimes elect to punt or go for it... which is right?

Using average points per drive numbers, we see that pinning the opponent deep means they can expect to score about 0.7 points on the ensuing drive. Missing the field goal pushes this number up around 3.0 for a net loss of 2.3. Even if you make the field goal, your opponent will average 1.6 points on the next drive, netting 1.4 points. Kickers convert on long field goals about 50 percent of the time, meaning the likely outcome is a loss of 0.8 points per attempt. In other words, the long attempt is about as good as pinning the opponent deep, especially when factoring in that your punter might put the ball in the endzone.

But, what about going for it? Getting the first down ups the average score to 3.6, for a net of 2.0 after factoring in the ensuing drive from the other team. Failing to convert yields the same 3.0 to the other team as missing the field goal does, so the conversion would have to succeed about 60 percent of the time to break even.

Turns out that all the options are pretty even, and this is really an area where a coach can make their money by having a good feel for the right play to call.

Buying 4 points

Teams try all manner of improving the defense, but it's a complex machine with many moving parts. What if there were an easier way to keep points off the board? A ball-control offense does the trick, but that tends to score fewer points.

Turns out there's a very simple, side-effect free, but hypothetical way to do this. The Cowboys got it half right last year. I've charted every drive from the first 20 games of this year and quantified a fairly obvious truth: the farther back a team starts its drive, the less likely it is to score. When a team starts inside its own 10, it averages about 0.67 points per drive. When it starts past its own 40, that number rockets up to 3.0. Here are the ranges and average points scored:

1-10: 0.67

11-20: 0.70

20 yard line: 1.00

21-30: 1.60

31-40: 1.75

40+: 3.0

The average starting field position for a team accepting a kickoff is its own 26. 2 yard line.

Suppose we could find a player whose only job it was to kick a ball through the endzone, time after time. The average team in 2009 kicked off just about 5 times a game. According to the chart above, we'd shed about 3 points allowed per game!

Charting offensive yards vs points scored yields a highly correlated best-fit line showing that a team scores 1 point for about every 9.1 yards over 143 they gain in a game. So, a team gaining 250 points can expect to score about 12 points in a game, 360 yards yields 24 points, and 500 yards comes out to around 40. By this metric, a savings of 6.2 yards, 5 times a game, saves about 4.5 points. Even better! (but we'll use the first method)

Want a bonus? Since our kickoff duties have been offloaded to Mr Cannonleg, our field goal kicker can be optimized for accuracy. Teams attempted an average of 1.8 field goals a game, and converted at an 81 percent rate. The best kickers in the league hit about 10 percent more often than that, resulting in an extra 0.54 points per game. Replacing an inaccurate kicker? The bottom of the league is another 10 percent below the average, so the net effect would reach 1 point per game.

And sprinkles on top (though now we're being a bit silly)? The concept extends to punts too. Teams punt 4.8 times per game, of these 1.6 are downed inside the 20 and 0.4 result in touchbacks. If your punter can keep those touchbacks out of the endzone, that's another 0.12 points. Drives starting after punts yield 1.36 points. Mat McBriar was able to punt past the 20 57% of the time, which was 15% better than the league average. If the average team could improve by that much, they could expect to give up 0.72 points less per game. In short, improved punting could improve your team's defense by over 0.8 points per game. Can your cannon-legged kicker always get a touchback? The benefit jumps to 1.73 points per game! Even if your average punter is replaced by McBriar, about half a point is saved.

Points saved per game over average for

always kicking a touchback: 3.0

having an accurate field goal kicker: 0.5

* always punting a touchback: 1.7

* always punting inside the 20: 2.7

being best at punting inside the 20: 0.5

*- these are kinda ridiculous ...

Now for the hypothetical part: there has never been a kicker who could kick that far, that often. I suspect there are some soccer players out there who could achieve results close to these, especially in warm weather/indoor stadiums. They could probably be signed for minimum contracts and the benefit is probably bigger than keeping an extra special teams or backup player on the active roster. How much bigger? There's a very strong correlation: for every 2 point differential a team averages, it gains a win. 3 points, 1.5 wins per season. Tell me that's not worth it.

Draft Metrics: Linebackers

Linebackers are the multi-tool of the defense. Some come blitzing off the edge, others fill running lanes, while some frequently drop back in coverage. The wide variety (or combination) of objectives makes them hard to compare, so I'll be leaning on pro-football-reference.com's Career Approximate Value (CarAV) to help me rank players. Similar to defensive backs, I've broken down picks between 2000 and 2008 into starter quality (starts at least 80% of seasons), journeyman (at least 50% of seasons) and the rest. I've correlated these with CarAV ranges to get an idea of what level of play is required for each bucket, and will look at player yields from the draft using these points of reference.

By inspecting the list of players, the 'elite' range for CarAV is above 9, and 'good' is above 7.5. Starter quality players average about 6, so I'll consider this the cutoff for an 'adequate' starter. The bottom third of the journeyman range is 4.5, which will become the cutoff for a bust ('backup'). Now let's see what the data shows.

Round 7:
Of 45 picks, there are 2 backup level players.

Round 6:
Of 37 picks, there are 1 good, 2 adequate and 1 backup players.

Round 5:
Of 44 picks, there are 3 adequate and 3 backup players.

Round 4:
Of 42 picks, there are 5 adequate and 4 backup players.

Round 3:
Of 53 picks, there are 1 elite, 1 good, 4 adequate and 6 backup players.

Round 2:
Of 39 picks, there are 3 elite, 2 good, 8 adequate and 5 backup players.

Round 1:
Of 27 picks, there are 5 elite, 6 good, 6 adequate and 5 backup players. 5 players were busts.

Conclusion:
We see the similar trend of little differentiation in rounds 5 through 7. Less than 5% of picks are of adequate starting caliber, and only another 5% are destined to backup duty. In rounds 3 and 4, the odds of each double, but even building depth is a slim proposition. Things change drastically from here though, as nearly half of 2nd round picks seeing significant action, with 1 in 3 being starter quality. We also see about 1 in 5 picks end up in the good or elite category. Round 1 yields about 2 starters per 3 picks and those are equally likely to be good or elite. The bust rate is less than 1 in 5.

Based on past pick history, teams should not use a top-10 pick on a linebacker. Brian Urlacher is the only good or elite pick in that range (#9). The other 4 (Arrington, Hawk, Sims, Rivers) have been quality players, but didn't reach the higher status for one reason or another (Arrington and Rivers missed significant time to injury). Looking more closely at the draft history, the quality starts to drop off pretty significantly by the middle of the 2nd. The range is just right for every team to get one good shot at a starting linebacker.

Draft Metrics: Defensive Backs

What good is a strong pass rush if there aren't players to make a quarterback pay for poor passes? Defensive backs are the last line of defense, and have the largest ability to make big plays on the ball, but they're also the ones who get singled out for being burned over the top. So, what can we expect from a player? Most seasons, the NFL leader has 8-10 interceptions. The names are familiar: Darren Sharper, Ed Reed, Antonio Cromartie, Champ Bailey ... and yet, that level of success is incredibly hard to maintain. In fact, the highest per-season interception average over the last decade is just 5.8 (Ed Reed), and only two other players (Asante Samuel and Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie) are at 5 per season. 7 more players are between 4 and 5, and there aren't quite enough players total (28) to leave every NFL team with one player averaging at least 3 interceptions per year.

We'll define players averaging 4 or more picks as 'elite' playmakers, 3 or more as 'good', 2 or more as 'adequate' and the rest are freely replacable. Any player starting over 80% of his seasons (to allow for one injured or bad season) in the league will be labeled a 'career starter', and players starting at least 50% of the season will be labeled 'fringe starters'. Of 485 picks made between 1999 and 2008, only 48 meet this criteria. So, based on picks made from 1999 to 2008, where should teams look to find these players?

See full data here.

Round 7:
Of 70 picks, 3 fall into the adequate playmaker category and all others are replacable. 1 player (Finnegan) has made 1 Pro Bowl. 1 player is a career starter and 6 are fringe.

Round 6:
Of 71 picks, 2 are adequate playmakers and all others are replacable. 1 player (Bethea) has made 1 Pro Bowl. 2 players are career starters and 1 is fringe.

Round 5:
Of 69 picks, 4 are adequate playmakers, and 1 player (Azumah) has made 1 Pro Bowl. 3 players are career starters. 3 are career starters, 4 are fringe.

Round 4:
Of 79 picks, 1 (Samuel) is an elite playmaker, 3 more (A.Henry, Vasher, Rhodes) are good and 5 more are adequate. There are 5 Pro Bowl appearances from this group (Samuel: 3, Vasher: 1, McGee: 1). 5 are career starters, 9 are fringe.

Round 3:
Of 67 picks, 2 (Atogwe, Wesley) are good playmakers, and 6 more are adequate. Wilson has made 3 Pro Bowls, C.Hope has made 1. 7 are career starters, 8 are fringe.

Round 2:
Of 73 picks, 1 (Mathis) is elite, 5 are good, and 14 are adequate playmakers. There are 13 Pro Bowl selections from this group, though the 2 belonging to Devin Hester are not for playing defense. 10 are career starters, 32 are fringe.

Round 1:
Of 56 selections, 8 are elite, 7 are good and 14 are adequate. 47 Pro Bowl spots over the last decade are from this group. 20 are career starters, 19 are fringe.

Defensive backs show a fast dropoff in playmaking skill and starting caliber through the rounds. Rounds 5-7 are essentially interchangable, yielding 6 career starters, 3 Pro Bowls and no good or elite playmakers in 210 tries. Rounds 3 and 4 contain 12 career starters, 19 fringe, 8 Pro Bowls, 1 elite and 5 good playmakers in 146 tries. The odds of an impact player stay safely under 10 percent. Round 2 improves the odds, but there's still only about a 30 percent chance of picking up a playmaker, and only about half of those stick as career starters.

Round 1 drastically improves the odds of picking up a playmaker who becomes a starter over a career. Bust rates are very high, barely 1 in 3 first rounders reach this level. Another 1 in 3 are shuffled in and out of lineups, relegated to Mel Kiper's assessment that they are not the long-term future of the position and an upgrade could be made. But Mel, the odds of the new pick beating them out just isn't that high.

It seems drafting defensive backs is a constant struggle, and teams picking well need to treasure that player. Even for just quality depth, picks should come from the top 2 rounds. Because of the high risk involved, these players should not be picked so high that their contracts become prohibitive. A smart team must realize there's a good chance their selection will not pan out, and has to be ready to move on in a few years.

Draft Metrics: Center

The center is the quarterback of the offensive line, and a great player in the middle can really gel the line into a cohesive front. However, centers are valued even less than guards, only 5 having been selected in the 1st round between 1996 and 2008. Yet, finding a center is non-trivial, there are only about 2 starting-caliber centers per draft. I am using the same groupings as for tackles. Full data is here.

Round 7:
Of 23 selections, 2 (K.Houser, E.Amano) are top, 1 is a solid starter and 5 are backups.

Round 6:
Of 17 selections, 1 (J.Sullivan) is top, 2 are solid starters and 5 are backups.

Round 5:
Of 12 selections, 2 (R.Pontbriand, D.Koppen) are top and 2 are solid. 4 more are backups.

Round 4:
Of 13 selections, 1 (K.Lichtensteiger) is a top, 4 are solid starters. 4 more are backups.

Round 3:
Quality picks up a lot here, of 10 selections, 1 (A.Treu) is a top and 7 more are solid starters.

Round 2:
Stacks up like round 2, of 9 selections, 2 (S.Satele, D.Raiola) are top and 3 are solid starters. 3 more are backups.

Round 1:
Only 5 picks have come from round 1, and they have all panned out. 1 (N.Mangold) is a top and the other 4 are solid starters.

Conclusion:
Quality is spread evenly on the first day, with 75% panning out as at least solid starters. Rounds 4 and 5 present about a one-third chance each of picking up a starter or a quality backup. Odds diminish by about half in the last 2 rounds. Teams looking for a starter should stay disciplined and not pick in the first 2 rounds. In 9 of the 13 years, the top player came from the 3rd round or later, and in 2 of the remaining years there was still a starting-quality player available at that time in the draft.

Draft Metrics: Offensive Guard

Guards set the tone for the offensive line. They are the mean ones, the maulers, and tend to have the biggest impact in establishing a physical running attack. Guards are rarely selected in the 1st round, in fact each year averages 1 player taken with a top pick. I'm going to use the same bucketing as for tackles. As expected (since they have similar career lengths as and play every down like tackles), the buckets contain similar hit rates overall. Of 201 selections, we have 18 top, 30 adequate and 47 stopgap starters. 106 (about half) are busts. Full data here.

Round 7:
The last round shows a run on guards. Of 52 selections, 5 are adequate and 4 are stopgap starters. This has been a significantly weaker round for picks than any other.

Round 6:
Of 24 selections, 2 (M.Rivera, R.Hadnot) are top, 2 are adequate and 5 are stopgap starters.

Round 5:
Of 34 selections, 3 (D.Diehl, J.Scott, B.Olson) are top, 7 are adequate and 5 are stopgap.

Round 4:
Of 29 selections, 5 are adequate and 11 are stopgap.

Round 3:
Of 26 selections, 3 are top, 2 more are adequate and 10 more are stopgap.

Round 2:
The quality picks up drastically in the top 2 rounds. Of 23 selections, 7 are top, 4 more are adequate and 8 more are stopgap. The starter hit rate jumps suddenly over 50 percent, whereas it's 25% or lower in the later rounds.

Round 1:
There have only been 13 1st round selections, which reflects the relatively lower value assigned to guards compared to some other positions. Of these selections, 3 are top, 6 are adequate and the remaining 4 are stopgap quality.

Conclusion:
Rounds 3 through 6 are a good place to add depth with the possibility of more. 21% of selections in this range end up being at least adequate starters, and another 27% are quality backups. Round 2 yields about half starters, and almost all picks are at least a quality roster spot. Paralleling tackles, two-thirds of Pro Bowl selections are 1st rounders, but teams can build effectively using 2nd-round picks to save money, or assembling depth and developing starters from rounds 3 and on.

Draft Metrics: Offensive Tackle

Most teams approach building their offense through the trenches, specifically focusing on the offensive tackle. A dominant player can lock down the position for over a decade, and positively impact both the running and passing games. For this study, I've taken draft data from 1996 to 2008 (2009 data hadn't been updated yet). In assessing a player's performance, I'm looking at two tiers: games played per years available to judge whether a player is starting caliber, and Pro Bowls per year available to screen out elite players.

There were 256 tackles selected between 1996 and 2008. 32 of these have played 15 or more games per season (top starter) over their career, and 43 more play 12 or more games per season (adequate starter). An additional 54 appear in more than 6 games (stopgap starter/backup). The remaining half of selections are backups at best, and should be trivially replacable. Full data is here.

Round 7:
Of 41 selections, 1* is strong (J.Richard), 5 more are adequate, and 5 more are stopgap solutions.

Round 6:
Of 39 selections, 1 is strong (C.Johnson), 1 is adequate and 4 are stopgaps.

Round 5:
Of 34 selections, 1* is strong (C.Nicks), 2 are adequate and 8 are stopgaps.

*- both players have been in the league one year, so longterm success isn't guaranteed yet.

Round 4:
We start to see the quality pick up a little. Of 35 selections, 2 are strong (J.Evans, J.Runyan), 6 are adequate and 9 more are stopgaps. Both strong players have made a Pro Bowl, the lowest picks earning this distinction.

Round 3:
Looks much like round 4. Of 35 selections, 3 (A.Snyder, E.Winston, M.Starks) are strong, 7 are adequate and 9 can plug a hole in a lineup.

Round 2:
A noticeable increase in quality again. Of 28 selections, we see 7 strong players, 11 adequate starts, and 6 more stopgaps. Only 4 players (M.Pearson, W.Justice, J.Roque, J.Rogers) in 13 years fall below stopgap. We also see numerous Pro Bowl-level players (M.Roos, M.McNeill, F.Adams, C.Clifton, M.Light, ... )

Round 1:
Scouts earn their paychecks for this position. Of 44 selections, 17 are strong starters, 11 more are adequate and 11 are stopgaps. 5 players are busts. While the bucket numbers are pretty close to round 2, round 1 tackles have earned a combined 53 Pro Bowl nods vs 13 for round 2 picks.

Conclusion:
The late rounds produce about one starter per 10 picks, so don't get your hopes too high for that raw prospect. However, another 1 in 7 picks become decent backups, so there's a combined 1 in 4 chance your team will find a quality roster player here. The odds roughly double when picking in the 3rd and 4th round; per 4 players, 1 will be a starter, another will be a backup. 2 out of 3 players from the top rounds will be a solid starter or better. Though Pro Bowl selections are dominated by 1st rounders, a savvy team can build a strong line with 2nd-round picks and keep costs considerably lower.

Top offensive tackles should be located in the first two rounds, but upgrades to weak players can be readily found in the middle of the draft, and depth behind an otherwise solid line can be addressed with late-round picks.

Draft Metrics: Defensive Ends

Defensive end is a position dedicated to producing sacks, and a dominant player can single-handedly elevate a defense. However, such dominant players are rare. How rare? There have been 223 defensive ends selected this decade, but only 4 (Allen, Dumervil, Freeney, Peppers) average double-digit sacks per year. There are 7 more players at over 8 sacks per year (elite), and 11 more over 6 (strong presence), and 20 more over 4 (solid pass rusher). What does this mean? In other words, each draft contains about 1 8-sack, 1 6-sack and 2 4-sack players. Only two players from this decade (LaBoy, K.Edwards) averaging 4 sacks per year failed to make a roster. The halfway point is about 2 sacks per year, anyone under this I'll consider a bust.

I am using sacks per year available to compensate for players who have failed to make rosters in some of the years since they have been drafted. Note that I'm only evaluating these players as pass rushers. Some players are moved to DT or LB positions where pass rushing is no longer a primary duty. See full data here

Round 7:
Of 36 players, 2 players (McCray, Ratliff) turned out solid and 31 busted.

Round 6:
Of 34 players, 1 player (T.Scott) turned out strong, and 31 busted.

Round 5:
Of 23 players, 2 players (T.Cole, R.Mathis) turned out elite, 2 (K.G.Biamila, Kampman) are strong and 1 more is solid. 13 players busted.

Round 4:
Of 30 players, 2 (J.Allen, Dumervil) are elite, 1 (S.Philips) is strong, and 3 more are solid. 19 players were busts.

Round 3:
Of 25 players, there are 4 solid (Tuck, Burgess, Hayward, Shaughnessy), and 15 busted.

Round 2:
Of 35 players, 2 (Woodley, Schobel) are elite, 2 (Umeniyora, D.Howard) are strong and 4 more are solid. 14 players are busts.

Round 1:
Of 40 players, 5 (Freeney, Peppers, M.Williams, Abraham, W.Smith) are elite, 5 (A.Carter, Sh.Ellis, Hali, Wimbley, J.Smith) are strong and 6 more are solid. 16 players are busts.

Conclusion:
Pass rushers have a very high bust rate. Even in the first round, only 25 and 40 percent turn out strong or solid, respectively. Drafting across the first 2 rounds yields starters about 30% of the time, and 40% bust.

Drafting in the middle three rounds yields a solid starter nearly 20 percent of the time (with a similar ratio of strong and elite rushers). Bust rates increase to 60%, but mid-round salaries are cheap, so it appears teams are better off spending several middle round picks on high-risk/high-reward prospects than trying to get the highly touted player.

A quick aside: Trade Value

The Anquan Boldin trade discussion has fired up again, and everyone's asking what he's worth. Given the expectations from drafting a replacement wide receiver, we can give upper and lower bounds on his value.

What is he worth to the Cardinals?
One can make the argument that he's worth nothing. The Cardinals are 6-2 without him in the last 2 years. They would need to give him a big contract to keep him, and he's not likely to play at an elite level for more than the next 2 years, so simply not re-signing him is not out of the question.

What is he worth to another team?
Depends what the other team needs. There are two primary scenarios to consider: a team who needs a receiver to put them over the top, or a team building for the longer term. The team who needs a proven veteran is clearly the higher value proposition for the Cardinals. Such a team would need to spend a 1st and 2nd round pick to most likely get a player of Boldin's caliber. Missing slightly and getting another #3 receiver wouldn't do for such a team. In the immediate term, the value is therefore about a 1st and 2nd. However, if they do get a quality starter, that player is guaranteed to be with the team for 4-5 years on a rookie contract, which is likely substantially smaller than Boldin's future cost, so that cuts the total value of Boldin to half or slightly under. Thus, a team might spend a high 2nd round pick. A rebuilding team would have the same considerations as the Cardinals with respect to Boldin's cost and longevity, but given the small yield for a starter from the 3rd or 4th round, they're likely to easily trade such a pick. Thus, I'd bracket Boldin's value between about a 2nd and 3rd round pick. If there are multiple teams in the short-term need category vying for him, it could push his value up to a 2nd + a mid-round pick, or maybe a high 1st rounder, though that seems extreme.

Draft Metrics: Wide Receivers

Now that we've found where to pick our franchise quarterback, it's time to give him some weapons. Wide receiver is unique in that a team can field many of them at once, and they get to work against typically progressively weaker components of the defense. Thus, it stands to reason that a team can use a range of quality at the position. For this study I will look at receivers drafted since 2001 (299 total), and will measure receptions per year available (the number of years they could have played if they stayed in the league since they were drafted). I am breaking this performance into 4 categories: greater than 60 (top receiver), 60-40 (solid #2), 40-20 (solid #3) and less than 20 (replacable at will, aka 'bust'). See all data here.

Drafting a starter:
teams are generally looking to add playmakers at the position, which necessitates them being on the field. There have been 17 top receivers selected since 2001, 7 from the 1st round, 5 from the 2nd, and 5 spread across later rounds (3, 4, 4, 7, 7). There have been 24 solid #2 options, 12 from round 1, 7 from round 2, and 5 from later rounds (3, 4, 4, 5, 5). Combined, 19 came from round 1, 12 from round 2 and 10 from rounds 3 through 7. This suggests there is good talent in the later rounds, however, it is harder to find these diamonds amongst the refuse.

Round 7:
Of the 65 selections, 55 have been complete busts (34 of them have never caught a pass in the NFL). 2 have turned out to be top pass-catchers (Colston, Houshmandzadeh). 7 players have turned out to as solid #3 options. Starters = 3%, Regular contributors = 14%

Round 6:
Of the 41 selections, 4 have become solid #3 options and the rest have been busts (28 have never caught a pass). Starters = 0%, Regular contributors = 10%

Round 5:
Of the 39 selections, there are 2 each solid #2 (Breaston, Knox) and #3. 17 players never caught a pass. Starters = 5%, Regular contributors = 10%

Round 4:
Of the 34 selections, there are 2 top targets (Marshall, Collie) and 2 solid #2 (Cotchery, M.Thomas). There are 7 more solid #3 options. 6 players in this group never caught a pass. Starters = 12%, Regular contributors = 32%

Round 3:
The overall quality is still low here. Of the 40 selections, there is 1 top receiver (S.Smith of CAR), one #2 (Berrian) and 10 more #3 wideouts. 4 players have zero career receptions. Starters = 5%, Regular contributors = 30%

Round 2:
Finally some improvement. Of the 42 selections, there are 5 top targets (Boldin, Ochocinco, Royal, D.Jackson, Jennings), 7 more #2 options and 10 #3 wideouts. Only 1 player never caught a pass (Dexter Jackson). Starters = 29%, Regular contributor = 52%

Round 1:
Of the 38 selections, 7 turned out to be top receivers, 12 more were solid #2 and 10 were #3, leaving 9 as complete busts. Half the receivers will be career starters, and the other half are replacable with late first-day or early second-day picks. Starters = 50%, Regular contributor = 76%.

Conclusion:
If you are looking for a starter, you should be drafting in the first 2 rounds, and even then the yield is low (around 40%), though about 2 out of 3 will earn regular playing time and catch at least 20 passes a year. Rounds 3 and 4 produce a regular contributor per 3 picks, and almost no starters. Wide receiver is a great position to target in rounds 5-7 for special teams players such as gunners or returners. These players will often have some skills but won't be able to crack a starting roster due to size issues, route-running deficiencies, etc.

Draft Metrics: Quarterbacks

Quarterback is the flagship position of any team, and perhaps more draft effort goes into that selection than any other. Conventional wisdom says franchise quarterbacks are found in the first round, though there are examples of extreme late-round or undrafted successes (Tom Brady, Matt Hasselbeck, Kurt Warner). So, what's the reality, what should a team expect? For this exercise, I'll be looking at career rating vs draft round for players with at least 100 lifetime pass attemps, and the Sit-Adjusted Games per Year, which compensates for quarterbacks not typically playing their rookie year and a successful pick lasting at least 10 years in the league. The goal is to pick a franchise starter, which is a player who will play most games for the next 10 years or more. I've left players with little expected playtime (last 2 drafts) off the list, and compiled the data for the 1995 through 2007 drafts, which includes 160 total picks. See complete chart here.

69 of the 160 players have less than 100 lifetime pass attempts, in fact 42 of them have never thrown a pass in the NFL. All but a few of these picks came from day 2, about two-thirds of these picks (round 4: 9 of 21, round 5: 12 of 17, round 6: 18 of 28, round 7: 23 of 31) go virtually unused. Picks from the first 4 rounds fare considerably better at getting on the field, so I will focus the discussion on these rounds.


Round 4:
12 of 21 players have thrown at least 100 NFL passes. There are a few notable successes (David Garrard, Kyle Orton). A few others have turned in solid performances in limited time (Seneca Wallace, Sage Rosenfels, Aaron Brooks), but most are weak backups or never see the field.

Round 3:
14 of 18 quarterbacks have thrown at least 100 NFL passes (exceptions are Giovanni Carmazzi, David Greene, Charlie Whitehurst and Dave Ragone), but only 2 have become regular starters (Trent Edwards and Matt Schaub), and several others have gotten spot duty but been displaced (Brian Griese, Josh McCown, Charlie Frye, Chris Simms). Most become adequate short-term backups. This round stacks up much like round 4.

Round 2:
12 of 14 have thrown at least 100 NFL passes (Marques Tuiasosopo, Drew Stanton). Only 2 were regular starters (Drew Brees, Jake Plummer), and several others played significant time as starters (Kordell Stewart, Charlie Batch, Tarvaris Jackson). The bulk are again relegated to adequate backup duty, though career ratings more consistently hover in the 70s (instead of ranging down to about 60 for round 3 picks).

Round 1:
Drumroll please, for the obvious conclusion. 30 of 31 quarterbacks have gotten on the field for at least a season's worth of games (Jim Druckenmiller is the dubious exception). 5 have posted career ratings over 90, and 6 more are over 80 (for comparison, Dan Marino and Brett Favre are 86.4 and 86.6, respectively). 11 more are over 70, and only two are under 60 (Ryan Leaf, Akili Smith). The average for this group is about 75. Drafting a quarterback in the first round has about equal chances of netting a guy who can win games, who can manage, and who is a bust.



Top franchise quarterbacks come primarily from round 1. Picking in round 2 most likely gets you a solid backup, rounds 3 and 4 net players you can use in a pinch, while rounds 5 through 7 are probably better spent on any other position.

Draft Metrics: Running Backs

It's important to know what kind of production to expect from your running back, and targeting the right round to meet that expectation should increase the success of meeting needs with draft picks. I've charted rush yards per year and combined yards per year vs round drafted for running backs drafted since 2002 (to focus on current backs, given the expected career for them is about 8 years). A very interesting trend develops: if we remove the two 1st-round outliers (Chris Johnson, Adrian Peterson), there is virtually no difference in the peak performance per round on day 1. As expected, the average performance decreases with round.

First, let's take a look at the Rush Yards per Year and Combined Yards per Year vs Draft Round graphs (see full data here):

We see very similar distributions in both, suggesting there's no significant change in usage for backs taken in early rounds vs later ones. We also see a gradual dropoff in average career production with round, and no 1st rounder has failed to play at least one year (though this is not surprising given the money invested in them, and I expect this theme to persist for other positions).
So then, where should your team look for a back? As mentioned before, there are 2 exceptional backs from the last 8 years, and neither is the type of talent that is available in any draft. There is approximately 1 back per draft that will average over 1000 yards per year, 3 of whom came from the 1st round, 2 from the 2nd, and 1 each from the 3rd and 4th. Hence, the top back per draft can be lurking anywhere on day 1.

Digging deeper into the talent pool, we come up with 20 backs who averaged at least 800 yards per season (1st: 11, 2nd: 5, 3rd: 3, 4th: 1), which is about what we'd expect from a quality feature back. More than half of them are found in the first round, and an overwhelming majority come from the first two rounds.

Rounds 3 and 4 produce many solid backups, or players for multiple-back systems, but virtually no stars. Players from this range may have a few good years, but don't sustain success (Brandon Jacobs, Jerious Norwood). Careers average about 5 years.

Rounds 5 and later rarely produce anyone better than backup quality, Michael Turner and Tim Hightower being the exceptions. About a third of these players will never make an NFL roster.

NFL Draft

Every year the NFL Draft brings great hopes, fan opinions, Mel Kiper's prospect grades and ultimately, elation or disappointment. We debate if it's worth getting that top quarterback or running back, or to focus on the offensive line first. What we really need to know is the expectation of performance for a prospect drafted in a given round. I'm going to be evaluating performance vs round drafted for a number of positions to help sort these questions out.