Pac-10 Power-Point Rankings, 2002Why? Because it's fun
By:
Malamute,
2 July 2002
Can the Caldwell Cowboy lasso some roses in 2002? Photo of Cody Pickett courtesy
of dawgman.com |
How is it that people can look at the same data and come to different conclusions?
That's what makes the world go round. I've examined 11 different statistical
categories, awarded points to each Pac-10 team, and call the cumulative results a Power-Point
Ranking for the upcoming season (2002). |
According to my Power-Point Ranking, the battle for the
conference championship could be decided when Washington State plays UCLA on
December 7 in Pasadena. UCLA and Washington State each have 39 points followed
by Washington, which has 38 points.
Assigning points based on data analysis is subjective, and you, the reader, might assign points
differently based on your analysis of the data appearing in the tables below.
Or you might determine a new set of categories.
Power points are determined from 11 different categories, which range from a
"Proven Pac-10 head coach," based on his win percentage in the
league, to a "Successful returning field-goal kicker," based on his
field-goal percentage last season.
In all but two of the categories, points range from 1 to 5. In one category
(road killers) a negative number is given. In the other, (Top 25 teams played in
2001), as much as 6 points are given (Cal).
Having luck
and staying healthy might be the most important factors in determining a team's
success, especially in such a closely knit conference race.
In 9 of the last 10 years, a senior quarterback has led his team to either
the Rose Bowl game or to the Pac-10 conference championship (Harrington, 2001).
So why go to all this trouble when you can probably reach a viable conclusion
based on your intuition? Answer: Because it's fun. :)
Table 1. Pac-10 Power-Point Rankings (2002)
| Area |
UW |
WSU |
UCLA |
USC |
OSU |
UA |
UO |
Cal |
SU |
ASU |
| Coaching |
5 |
5 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
| Home field |
4 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
5 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
| QB's |
4 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
3 |
| Road Killers |
-1 |
-1 |
-1 |
-1 |
-1 |
-1 |
-1 |
-1 |
-2 |
-1 |
| Return Off. |
5 |
5 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
2 |
| Return Def |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
2 |
5 |
| 2001 Offense |
4 |
5 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
2 |
5 |
4 |
| 2001 Defense |
3 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
| 2001 Top 25 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
6 |
4 |
3 |
| Punting |
4 |
3 |
5 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
| Field Goals |
3 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
| Total |
38 |
39 |
39 |
36 |
36 |
35 |
34 |
32 |
31 |
29 |
The following tables were used to derive the point
tabulation shown by Table 1.
Quarterbacks: A senior quarterback who is returning
earns 5 points for the school. A junior quarterback earns 4 and a sophomore 3.
Table 2. Returning at Quarterback
| School |
Likely starter |
YR |
Backup |
Yr. |
Pts |
| WSU |
Jason Gesser |
SR |
Matt Kegel |
JR |
5 |
| USC |
Carson Palmer |
SR |
Matt Cassell |
SO |
5 |
| UCLA |
Cory Paus |
SR |
John Sciarra |
FR |
5 |
| UW |
Cody Pickett |
JR |
Taylor Barton |
SR |
4 |
| UO |
Jason Fife |
JR |
Scott Vossmeyer |
SO |
4 |
| OSU |
Derek Anderson |
JR |
Adam Rothenfluh |
SO |
4 |
| SU |
Chris Lewis |
JR |
Ryan Eklund |
SO |
4 |
| UA |
Jason Johnson |
SR |
Nic Costa |
FR |
5 |
| ASU |
Chad Christensen |
SO |
Andy Goodenough |
JR |
3 |
| UC |
Kyle Boller |
SR |
Reggie Robertson |
SO |
5 |
Coaching Staff: Based on their overall win
percentage as coaches in the Pac-10, the most successful coaches get five
points. Mike Price, the dean of Pac-10 coaches, gets five points based on his
tenure in the league. Incoming coaches get one point.
Table 3. Head Coaching Record (Pac-10)
| School |
Head Coach |
Won/Lost
|
No. *
|
Pct. |
Pts. |
| UO |
Mike Bellotti |
60-23 |
7 |
.723 |
5 |
| UW |
Rick Neuheisel |
26-10 |
3 |
.722 |
5 |
| OSU |
Dennis Erickson |
23-12 |
3 |
.66 |
4 |
| UCLA |
Bob Toledo |
42-27 |
6 |
.61 |
4 |
| USC |
Pete Carroll |
6-6 |
1 |
.5 |
3 |
| WSU |
Mike Price |
72-75 |
13 |
.49 |
5 |
| UA |
John Mackovic |
5-6 |
1 |
.45 |
3 |
| ASU |
Dirk Koetter |
4-7 |
1 |
.36 |
2 |
| Tree |
Buddy Teevens |
0-0 |
0 |
.0 |
1 |
| Cal |
Jeff Tedford |
0-0 |
0 |
.0 |
1 |
* Number of seasons coached in Pac-10
Offensive/Defensive Returnees (Starters): This is based on the number of
offensive and defensive players returning from 2001. For example, Washington,
USC and Arizona each get 5 points for their offensive returnees, since their
returning number of starters is among the most in the league.
Table 4. Offensive and Defensive Returnees (number of returning starters)
| School |
Off |
Pts. |
Def |
Pts. |
| Oregon State |
7 |
4 |
8 |
5 |
| Arizona |
9 |
5 |
6 |
4 |
| California |
7 |
4 |
8 |
5 |
| Washington |
8 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
| USC |
8 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
| ASU |
5 |
2 |
8 |
5 |
| UCLA |
6 |
3 |
5 |
3 |
| Oregon |
5 |
2 |
6 |
4 |
| WSU |
7 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
| Tree |
7 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
Home-field Advantage and Road Killers: Based on win percentage at
home against Pac-10 teams over the last 5 years. Playing against either UCLA, Oregon
or Washington on its home field is considered a road killer. None of the
rivalry games played on their fields is a road killer. Oregon
State is approaching road-killer status, having won 10 of its last 12 games
at Reser Stadium during the three years coach Dennis Erickson has coached the
Beavers.
Table 5. Home-field Advantage (Pac-10 games only)
| Team |
W/L |
Pct. |
Home |
Pct. |
Pts. |
Away |
Pct. |
| UW |
28-12 |
.7 |
15-5 |
.75 |
4 |
13-7 |
.65 |
| UO |
28-12 |
.7 |
17-3 |
.85 |
5 |
11-9 |
.55 |
| UCLA |
24-16 |
.6 |
15-5 |
.75 |
4 |
9-11 |
.45 |
| Tree |
22-18 |
.55 |
12-8 |
.6 |
3 |
10-10 |
.5 |
| UA |
19-21 |
.475 |
8-12 |
.4 |
2 |
11-9 |
.55 |
| ASU |
19-21 |
.475 |
11-9 |
.55 |
3 |
8-12 |
.4 |
| USC |
19-21 |
.475 |
10-10 |
.5 |
2 |
9-11 |
.45 |
| OSU |
16-24 |
.4 |
11-9 |
.55 |
3 |
5-15 |
.25 |
| WSU |
16-24 |
.4 |
8-12 |
.4 |
2 |
8-12 |
.4 |
| Cal |
9-31 |
.23 |
5-15 |
.25 |
1 |
4-16 |
.2 |
2001 Top 25 Teams: The number of top 25 teams that the team played against during the 2001
campaign, as
determined by the USA/Coaches poll (taken at the end of the bowl season). This is used to normalize the
2001 defensive and offensive records in the league. For example, Washington
played against Miami, Michigan, Stanford and WSU, which were among the top-twenty-five teams at the end of the bowl season. Washington gets four
points (1 for each team played), since those games had a negative effect on its statistics—the Miami
game being a prime example. Washington's bowl game against Texas doesn’t count, since
its record in the Pac-10 doesn’t include that game.
Table 6. Number of Top 25 Teams Played in 2001 (Regular season; normalizes data
shown in Table 7)
| Team |
Pts. |
Opponent |
| UW |
4 |
WSU, Miami, Michigan, Stanford |
| Tree |
4 |
Boston College, WSU, UO, UW |
| UCLA |
4 |
UW, Stanford, WSU, Oregon |
| USC |
3 |
Oregon, Stanford, UW |
| WSU |
3 |
Stanford, Washington, Oregon |
| OSU |
2 |
WSU, Washington |
| UO |
2 |
Stanford, WSU |
| Cal |
6 |
Illinois, BYU, WSU, UW, UO, Tree |
| UA |
4 |
OSU, UW, Tree, WSU |
| ASU |
3 |
Washington, Oregon, Stanford |
2001 Offense/Defense: Compared to the other teams in the
league, a team with the highest average finish in 12 offensive categories
gets 5 points (Table 7). Same for the 11 defensive categories. For example, UCLA gets five
points for its average finish (2.8) in eleven defensive categories. The number
of returnees on defense (Table 4) balances that number, only 3 points being awarded
to UCLA in that category.
Table 7. Average Finish in the Offensive (12) and Defensive (11) Categories
for the 2001 season
| Team |
Offense |
Pts |
Defense |
Pts. |
| Washington |
6.1 |
4 |
6.5 |
3 |
| WSU |
3.27 |
5 |
3.9 |
5 |
| UCLA |
6.72 |
3 |
2.8 |
5 |
| USC |
6.41 |
3 |
2.9 |
5 |
| OSU |
6.25 |
4 |
4.27 |
4 |
| Oregon |
3.3 |
5 |
5.8 |
3 |
| Stanford |
2.92 |
5 |
5.2 |
4 |
| California |
8.7 |
2 |
8.5 |
1 |
| ASU |
6.25 |
4 |
7.9 |
2 |
| Arizona |
6.2 |
4 |
7.1 |
3 |
Punting/Field Goals: Compared with the other
punters and kickers that are returning. The best kickers/punters get five
points. An incoming specialist gets 3 points.
(See Tables 8 and 9).
Table 8. Comparison of Returning Punters
| Punter |
School |
Yards/Punt |
Points |
| Fiske |
UCLA |
44.2 |
5 |
| McLaughlin |
UW |
41.2 |
4 |
| Fredrickson |
Cal |
39.5 |
4 |
| Tobey |
OSU |
39.2 |
4 |
| Arroyo |
Oregon |
38.5 |
3 |
| Johnson |
Stanford |
38.1 |
3 |
| Peru |
Arizona |
37.9 |
3 |
| Incoming |
ASU |
no record |
3 |
| Incoming |
USC |
no record |
3 |
| Incoming |
WSU |
no record |
3 |
Table 9. Comparison of Returning Field Goal Kickers
| Kicker |
School |
Pct. Made |
Points |
| Davis |
USC |
88.2 % |
5 |
| Jensen |
Cal |
78.6 |
4 |
| Dunning |
WSU |
77.8 |
4 |
| Griffith |
UCLA |
76.9 |
4 |
| Keel |
Arizona |
64.3 |
3 |
| Barth |
ASU |
64.3 |
3 |
| Anderson |
UW |
63.6 |
3 |
| Cesca |
OSU |
62.5 |
3 |
| Siegel |
Oregon |
54.5 |
2 |
| Incoming |
Stanford |
no record |
3 |