"successful play" percentage

RomanHawk

HR MVP
Gold Member
Dec 12, 2019
1,552
2,657
113
There are successful "big play" offenses. But most offenses would be considered
productive if they had the CONSISTENCY to maintain drives with the resultant
improvement in scoring, field position, and TOP.

It seems that most stats miss the mark in terms of measurement of consistency.
Averages can be very misleading. A 20 yard play followed by plays of 2 yards, 4 yards,
and 2 yards results in an average per play of 7 yards but only 1 first down.

It seems to me a better barometer for a team and comparing teams would be
"successful plays as a % of total plays run from the LOS". The definition of a
successful play could be one that gains 3 or more yards. It would seem that the
number 1 priority for an OC would be to minimize the number and size of unsuccessful
plays. Big plays would not be ignored because just their threat helps keep defenses
on their heels.

We often compare ourselves to WI. I'm guessing that the difference in their %
of successful plays compared to ours clearly pinpoints the difference.

Is anyone aware of a current stat that comes close to measuring this?
I think it would be extremely interesting to see across all teams.
 

BBHawk

HR Legend
Oct 31, 2001
30,492
24,607
113
Iowa City
There are successful "big play" offenses. But most offenses would be considered
productive if they had the CONSISTENCY to maintain drives with the resultant
improvement in scoring, field position, and TOP.

It seems that most stats miss the mark in terms of measurement of consistency.
Averages can be very misleading. A 20 yard play followed by plays of 2 yards, 4 yards,
and 2 yards results in an average per play of 7 yards but only 1 first down.

It seems to me a better barometer for a team and comparing teams would be
"successful plays as a % of total plays run from the LOS". The definition of a
successful play could be one that gains 3 or more yards...
What if a team needs 1 yard to score a TD? Wouldn't scoring be also considered a success? By your standard it wouldn't. In fact, if a team only had one of every 3 plays >3 yards but converted on every 3rd down, do you honestly think that they would be unsuccessful? Their defense would beg to differ.
 

DodgerHawki

HR Legend
Nov 19, 2002
10,044
12,329
113
There are successful "big play" offenses. But most offenses would be considered
productive if they had the CONSISTENCY to maintain drives with the resultant
improvement in scoring, field position, and TOP.

It seems that most stats miss the mark in terms of measurement of consistency.
Averages can be very misleading. A 20 yard play followed by plays of 2 yards, 4 yards,
and 2 yards results in an average per play of 7 yards but only 1 first down.

It seems to me a better barometer for a team and comparing teams would be
"successful plays as a % of total plays run from the LOS". The definition of a
successful play could be one that gains 3 or more yards. It would seem that the
number 1 priority for an OC would be to minimize the number and size of unsuccessful
plays. Big plays would not be ignored because just their threat helps keep defenses
on their heels.

We often compare ourselves to WI. I'm guessing that the difference in their %
of successful plays compared to ours clearly pinpoints the difference.

Is anyone aware of a current stat that comes close to measuring this?
I think it would be extremely interesting to see across all teams.
There are several advanced stats places that do this. Football Outsiders is one of them.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaa/fei/overalloff/2021

Looks at efficiency on offense and defense, defines successful plays according to how much of the needed yards to gain or prevent a team accomplishes on a given down.

Iowa was both low in raw yard totals last year and terrible on an efficiency basis. Iowa was 90th offensively last year according to FO. Wisconsin was 52nd on offense last year in the FO metrics, which is far worse than previous years.
 

RomanHawk

HR MVP
Gold Member
Dec 12, 2019
1,552
2,657
113
What if a team needs 1 yard to score a TD? Wouldn't scoring be also considered a success? By your standard it wouldn't. In fact, if a team only had one of every 3 plays >3 yards but converted on every 3rd down, do you honestly think that they would be unsuccessful? Their defense would beg to differ.
That happens on maybe 1% of all plays and it happens to all teams so it wouldn't substantially impact a team's standing vis a vie it's position relative to other teams which is it's value.
 

grayhair81

HR Legend
Sep 3, 2006
11,276
13,723
113
There are several advanced stats places that do this. Football Outsiders is one of them.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaa/fei/overalloff/2021

Looks at efficiency on offense and defense, defines successful plays according to how much of the needed yards to gain or prevent a team accomplishes on a given down.

Iowa was both low in raw yard totals last year and terrible on an efficiency basis. Iowa was 90th offensively last year according to FO. Wisconsin was 52nd on offense last year in the FO metrics, which is far worse than previous years.

They were 111th in % of drives that produced at least one 1st down. The only other team with a good record down where Iowa resides is San Diego St. Last year's formula won't produce many 10-win seasons no matter how good the defense is.
 

DodgerHawki

HR Legend
Nov 19, 2002
10,044
12,329
113
They were 111th in % of drives that produced at least one 1st down. The only other team with a good record down where Iowa resides is San Diego St. Last year's formula won't produce many 10-win seasons no matter how good the defense is.
Agreed totally. Iowa's offense has not been great from 2015 to now, when Iowa has piled up a lot of wins. But if you go back through the years on Football Outsiders, last year was particularly bad. Iowa was much better in 2020 at getting at least one first down in a drive. If Iowa can just flip the field in a given possession, to where Taylor can pin the opponent inside their own 20, that actually is momentum the way Iowa plays.

I would agree the odds of Iowa getting another 10 wins this year with the same sort of offensive production are very low. Offense needs to go from bad to mediocre. If that happens, another really good season could take place.
 

Hawk_4shur

HR Legend
Jan 2, 2009
15,928
21,616
113
tumblr_o72l918Ypp1redn6go1_400.jpg
 

DodgerHawki

HR Legend
Nov 19, 2002
10,044
12,329
113
What if a team needs 1 yard to score a TD? Wouldn't scoring be also considered a success? By your standard it wouldn't. In fact, if a team only had one of every 3 plays >3 yards but converted on every 3rd down, do you honestly think that they would be unsuccessful? Their defense would beg to differ.
BB the Football Outsiders and S&P+ Ratings that Bill Connelly produces do measure stuff like this. I don't have the complete definitions, but it's something like if a team gets 50% of the needed yards on first down, 70% of needed yards on second down and 100% of needed yards on third down. And the reverse would be true for defensive efficiency. Holding a team to less than 50% of needed yards on first down, less than 70% on second down, ann less than 100% on third down. So if a team has second and goal from the 5, offense would be successful if it gained 3.5 yards or more, and unsuccessful if not. They calculate a teams offensive and defensive efficiency success rate using those numbers.
 

RomanHawk

HR MVP
Gold Member
Dec 12, 2019
1,552
2,657
113
There are several advanced stats places that do this. Football Outsiders is one of them.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaa/fei/overalloff/2021

Looks at efficiency on offense and defense, defines successful plays according to how much of the needed yards to gain or prevent a team accomplishes on a given down.

Iowa was both low in raw yard totals last year and terrible on an efficiency basis. Iowa was 90th offensively last year according to FO. Wisconsin was 52nd on offense last year in the FO metrics, which is far worse than previous years.
That stat is not without value but mostly as an after-the-fact analysis. If the primary or even exclusive goal befoe calling each play is to get a first down, then each down basically becomes a third down. Even that is not all bad, but requires a very effective passing game and makes consistency even more challenging.
 

TheGuy9

All-Conference
Mar 25, 2016
377
475
63
There are successful "big play" offenses. But most offenses would be considered
productive if they had the CONSISTENCY to maintain drives with the resultant
improvement in scoring, field position, and TOP.

It seems that most stats miss the mark in terms of measurement of consistency.
Averages can be very misleading. A 20 yard play followed by plays of 2 yards, 4 yards,
and 2 yards results in an average per play of 7 yards but only 1 first down.

It seems to me a better barometer for a team and comparing teams would be
"successful plays as a % of total plays run from the LOS". The definition of a.
successful play could be one that gains 3 or more yards. It would seem that the
number 1 priority for an OC would be to minimize the number and size of unsuccessful
plays. Big plays would not be ignored because just their threat helps keep defenses
on their heels.

We often compare ourselves to WI. I'm guessing that the difference in their %
of successful plays compared to ours clearly pinpoints the difference.

Is anyone aware of a current stat that comes close to measuring this?
I think it would be extremely interesting to see across all teams.
Sorry. I don't compare Iowa to Wisconsin. Infact, I think that Wisconsin will slowly start to revert back to the form they had prior to Barry Alvarez becoming coach. They weren't that good, and I expect if they lose the Big Ten West three or four times in a row, their trend will be down.
 

grayhair81

HR Legend
Sep 3, 2006
11,276
13,723
113
Sorry. I don't compare Iowa to Wisconsin. Infact, I think that Wisconsin will slowly start to revert back to the form they had prior to Barry Alvarez becoming coach. They weren't that good, and I expect if they lose the Big Ten West three or four times in a row, their trend will be down.

You may be right. Wisconsin did look down last season. Their 22 recruiting class wasn't great and neither is their 23 class so far.
OTOH, Chryst is 5-2 vs Iowa and the Hawks managed 125 yards against that down team last year. 30 rushing attemts for 24 yards. Wisconsin's formula has been power offense with huge OLs leading stud RBs down the field. They have those pieces in place. They have a great young RB and they have signed several top OL in the last few classes. I don't see evidence of their imminent demise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: littlez

BBHawk

HR Legend
Oct 31, 2001
30,492
24,607
113
Iowa City
Sorry. I don't compare Iowa to Wisconsin. Infact, I think that Wisconsin will slowly start to revert back to the form they had prior to Barry Alvarez becoming coach. They weren't that good, and I expect if they lose the Big Ten West three or four times in a row, their trend will be down.
If Wisconsin can continue to recruit offensive linemen and running backs like they have, they will be able to sustain some success with Leonhard at DC. Much like Phil as Iowa's DC, Leonhard has the Wisconsin defense in reloading mode, much like Iowa.
Oh, and eff Wisconsin!
 
  • Like
Reactions: grayhair81
Feb 25, 2008
53,536
26,947
113
That stat is not without value but mostly as an after-the-fact analysis. If the primary or even exclusive goal befoe calling each play is to get a first down, then each down basically becomes a third down. Even that is not all bad, but requires a very effective passing game and makes consistency even more challenging.
200.gif



You are trying way tf too hard to quantify something that can easily be explained in just a couple words...................
 

RomanHawk

HR MVP
Gold Member
Dec 12, 2019
1,552
2,657
113
They were 111th in % of drives that produced at least one 1st down. The only other team with a good record down where Iowa resides is San Diego St. Last year's formula won't produce many 10-win seasons no matter how good the defense is.
Yes, there were QB and OL problems but that shows deeper concerns with design and schemes. Even with seemingly better performance against KY, they had 73% more TOP and ran 25% more plays than we did. A real indictment of BF/KF.