By the numbers: What does it take to win the Pac-12? (by Shravan Janakiraman)

Discussion in 'GarryP's Trojan Huddle' started by ErikMcKinney, Jun 18, 2020.

  1. pgoodman

    pgoodman Junior Member

    Aug 24, 2017
    Likes Received:
    Jun 20, 2020
    what do u think of out LB play? It seems we have plenty of talent but have not been disciplined in Gap Defense or are we just not as talented at the position as I think?
  2. AMLTrojan

    AMLTrojan Junior Member

    Aug 24, 2017
    Likes Received:
    Jun 20, 2020
    I'm not Mr. Bruce, but given the consistency of results across the years, I'd say it's the scheme. Certainly LBs haven't been performing, but did Clancy set them up for success? Doesn't look like it.
    pgoodman likes this.
  3. SoCalN8tiv

    SoCalN8tiv Junior Member

    Aug 24, 2017
    Likes Received:
    Jun 21, 2020
    By the numbers?


    Fire Helton
    AMLTrojan likes this.
  4. Eeks2284

    Eeks2284 Junior Member

    Aug 24, 2017
    Likes Received:
    Jun 22, 2020
    Appreciate the effort here and seeing more data analysis on, but I'm not buying many of these stats as leading to Pac-12 titles, much less playoff caliber football which I think everyone can agree is success. To even get a chance at playing for a Pac-12 title, USC needs to win the south. Once you get to a title game, football's a game of matchups and season long leaderboard stats aren't going to predict the outcome of one game. Vegas makes so much money off the super bowl because people can't just use season stats to predict what's going to happen. If we can expect Oregon, Washington and Stanford to be the north champ, USC needs to devise schemes and game plans that match up well against and consistently beat those teams.

    For 2011, USC couldn't even contend for the Pac-12 championship due to sanctions even though they beat eventual champ Oregon earlier that year. Not sure why 2011 was included in the data set.

    Since 2012, USC's record against the top three Pac-12 north contenders is:
    Oregon: 1-3
    Washington: 2-2
    Stanford: 4-5 (lost to Stanford once in conference play and again in title game in 2015)

    Sub-500 results are nowhere near good enough. As for the South, there isn't really a dominant team that wins the South division year after year consistently. It should be USC, hopefully that changes soon.

    While I consider winning the Pac-12 a success, if I was doing a similar season-long comparison analysis, I think I'd ignore the Pac-12 and instead compare against playoff teams. Since only four teams can make the playoffs and the Pac-12 hasn't done a great job of representing there, it's important to target and model against the teams that are deemed good enough to make the playoffs.

    I like that turnovers and penalties were included since to me, they are good, actionable indicators of wins. For future articles/analysis, here are some of the other indicators I'd also consider that should be more actionable for USC's leadership:
    • OOC SOS
    • Head coach salaries
    • Coaching staff salaries
    • Recruiting rankings
    • Recruiting staff size
    • Points per game
    • Opponent points per game
    Overall, nice work and I hope to see more data-supported articles here in the future.

Share This Page