Turnovers=Turnaround

[taoist]

Teams with positive double digit net turnovers last season.... (Not as likely to repeat same good fortune, but more likely to have worse record this season....)

USC +19
Ok St. +16
Bowling Green +15
Utah +15
Miami +14
Iowa +13
Pitt +13
Va Tech +13
L'ville +11
Troy +11
Boise St. +10
Iowa St. +10


Teams with negative double digit net turnovers last season.... (Not as likely to repeat same bad fortune, but more likely to have better record this season....)

SMU -19
Wash -19
NC St -17
UNLV -17
Baylor - 15
Ga. Tech -13
Nebraska -13
W. Mich -13
Col St. -12
Tulsa -11
BYU - 10
Miami, OH - 10
Mich St. -10
So. Florida -10


...info out of Steele's magazine.

 

[Scott4USC]

I think Phil Steele's magazine is the best on the market but this logic is bogus.

He assumes turnovers are randomly distributed. They aren't. I am a believer turnovers are usually forced. Steele assumes that if you were + TO's one year you will tend to return to 0 the next. Let me use USC as an example and I am sure other colleges do things similar. It simply proves the error in Phil Steele's logic.

USC defense has had a high turnover ratio(at least +15) each year Pete has been at USC. You don't get those consistent results if you don't practice, practice, and practice it. Almost every announcer who covers USC says at one time or another that they work harder at it in practice than anyone else. I assume other HC's do the same but maybe not as extreme as USC. It is not accidental that USC is tops in the nation the last 3 years in turnovers. Steele would assume it is accidental. 3 straight years of USC having the positive turnover margin that we have seen from the USC defense, it's no longer a random statistical blurb. It is learned by every player on the team from great coaching.

 

[Sun Tzu]

It isnt a defensive issue but an offenssive one. Take Nebraska for example - they arent going to throw as many ints as last year - I dont think it is physically possible. In one sense he is right - there are tips/deflections/breaks etc that account for some of it. But as a general rule Phil Steal is an idiot as shown by his lack of winners ,which in the end means alot more than his staistical nonsense.

 

[taoist]

Look, I'm not pimping Phil and I don't subscribe to his service, so I don't know what his "record" is, but I do know that he's put out the best CFB magazine (whether you consider the amount of information/stats or the accurate predictions) when judged against the other CFB magazines every year for the last 6 yrs by a long shot.... I'm just throwing out some information for discussion, fellas.


However, here I believe that he has a valid point.... For the most part, turnovers ARE a random event.... (Call me crazy!) Maybe some teams "practice" trying to cause a turnover more than others...it's still a random event, not that it will be zero exactly, but at least closer to the middle of the bell curve instead of out on the fringe. (Any statistician can tell you that....) I'm not talking about one individual team from southern calipornia.... Over all of the 119 Div 1A clubs times 10-13 games in a season, the net turnover margin for each team will be random.... It depends on "EVERYTHING" including the quality of the team, the weather, you name it.... Remember Mizzou's plane going off the end of the runway? Was that random? Mizzou -2 in TO... Everything in life is not based on USC...sorry.

How about this quote? I'll paraphrase.... IN the L12 yrs, 183 teams have had +DD net TO....117 (64%) have had worse records the following year, 44 (24%) improved their record and 22 had the same record.

Also, IN the L12 yrs, 143 teams have had -DD net TO.... 95 (66%) have improved their record the following year....

It's just info, guys.... Take it for what it's worth....