Ball Security Issue: Touches per Turnover

On slightly more negative note, I've decided to turn my attention to turnovers per touch or simply: How many plays does it take before a specific player turns the ball over?

My biggest concern and a lot of fans' concerns about the option we are running revolves around the sheer volume of fumbles increasing because our number of carries is increasing and/or the pitches are dangerous. I think it's a hotly debated issue and probably shouldn't be. I personally think our fumble rate is more dependent on the backs running the offense than the offense itself. A prime example would be Joe Burns the fumbling machine versus Tashard Choice, a man who hardly ever fumbled. So do not crucify me when you notice Nesbitt, Dwyer, and Roddy at the bottom of this list. Once again, same criteria of 100 touches during the CCG/CPJ Era.

Chart includes rank in this system, position played, name, total touches (returns, pass attempts, rushes, receptions), career lost fumbles, career interceptions, percentage of touches that resulted in a turnover, and average number of plays before a turnover.

I think Nesbitt is hurt by the transition period of CCG->CPJ. The other issue is that a lot of Nesbitt's fumbles are poor QB-center exchanges. And Nesbitt haters/Jaybo lovers can't find much solace in this chart. After tabulating all of Jaybo's stats, he has a very high 5.75% turnover rate.

I will admit several flaws in the system. It only penalizes lost fumbles not total fumbles. It also penalizes QB's for tipped interceptions. So goes life. The stats are in their names so they go down in history as their turnovers.

How do you win the ACC?

Note: We have a new writer who has joined us. His name is Bird.

As my first post, I would like to drop some statistical analysis on how to win the ACC. This is based entirely on data provided by the post-expansion ACC (2004 forward, all BC data in 2004 is excluded).

Typically, in college football points scored per game goes hand in hand with a teams W/L column. However, the ACC offers us a bit of a different perspective on the matter. In the ACC, it is more important to have low defensive points per game than higher offensive points per game.

Every ACCC has featured the #1 scoring defense leading into the ACCC while the #1 scoring offense leading into the ACCC has been sitting at home watching the past two years (Clemson both times).

Below are some basic graphs showing Scoring Offense vs. Wins and Scoring Defense vs. Wins. You can use the linear regressions to predict your wins/losses for the remainder of the season (e.g. GT should win 6-7 games total for the season based on their offensive output but 8-9 based on their defense). I included this seasons wins/losses by normalizing them across a 13 game season for every team in the ACC that should make a bowl and 12 game season for those that wouldn't.







Currently, GT is the #1 defense but I do not see that lasting through the Miami/uga games while UNC is a close second and I see their defensive stats improving against the Terps, mighty Dookies, and hapless Wolfpack. Look for FSU to take the other division. Predicting the winner is a little more difficult because there are less points to interpret and because the statistically disadvantaged team has won twice (FSU in '05 and Wake in '06).

If I were betting man though, I'd put money on the team with the better turnover ratio and in this case it's UNC at +1.44 per game. However, the last time FSU won the ACC, they came into the ACCC with a negative turnover ratio. Look for UNC in the Orange Bowl unless UNC manages to Marcus-Vick-it-up in the ACCC.