A properly tempered sword will sport Auburn colors*
First off, let me say that I enjoy reading Phil Steele’s magazine and daily blog. If ever I need to know how many starting offensive linemen are returning for a given team year to year, or how each SEC team’s yards per play compares to any other at a glance, it’s just a quick search in his archived articles. His annual articles related to such data and his comprehensive magazine are anticipated by college football fans for weeks before thier publication dates. They’re a wonderful blend of hard numbers and oftentimes very astute analysis.
That being said, at other times much of Phil’s analysis is either puzzlingly vague or laughably absurd. Many of his regular articles are either overly simplistic or completely irrellevant in any rational analysis. Why this occurs in amongst his other fine articles is unknown. I can only surmise that as his entire business revolves around keeping his readers engaged, he sometimes chums the water every now and then just to keep them occupied while he works on other more relevant material.
For example, some of his more common articles involve the return of key position players for various teams. While this might seem to be an important factor in assessing a team’s potential, it is often misleading in the extreme. Take last year’s report on % of Offensive Yards Returning. I looked at what Phil reported and added the actual yards per game in 2013 for each of the SEC teams. Sorting first for Phil’s numbers from his mid-summer article shows what seems like important data on returning talent.
Granted, he pegged a few teams correctly – Alabama and LSU started and ended in the top five and Vandy and the Gators stayed at the bottom, but few other teams are anywhere near what his numbers would suggest by the end of the season, least of all the team that led the SEC in running the ball last year. Marshall, Artis-Payne and Grant had zero yards in 2012, and although Tre Mason was a thousand-yard running back, it was under an entirely different offensive scheme that woefully under-utilized his true talent.
So my question is, if Phil Steele’s data is so often irrelevant day to day, what about his predictions for the coming year?
An aide to British military commander Field Marshal Haig wrote this in a report following a tank demonstration in 1916.
Predictions by even the most experienced and rational people are notoriously inaccurate, often spectacularly so. Mr Steele is not immune to this, and his latest predictions posted last month are no exception to this rule.
On the surface this seems an impressive list of likely candidates, especially given Phil’s extensive research which he describes in the article. His discussion is impressive, compelling and seemingly accurate. But before we take this (and the glaring omission of Auburn) to heart, take a look at what he predicted last year and more importantly how those “National Championship Mold” teams fared in 2013.
While Phil had the eventual BCS champion Florida State and five other 11+ win teams in that list, he also had two LOSING teams listed, and two other mediocre teams who barely finished over .500 for the year. For all the detailed analysis he describes, that just seems to be a surprising number of low achievement teams for this to be a valid method of predicting outcomes. I mean, what if you just took the top 14 teams from the 2012 final BCS standing?
Florida State is still there, along with the horrendously bad self-blocking 2013 Gators. But what about at the rest of the field? In my selection there are eight 11+ win teams, half of the top ten teams in the final BCS standings for 2013.
Phil’s analysis must have taken long hours of detailed comparisons and study. Mine took about ten seconds. Just long enough to type ‘2012 season final BCS’ in a Google search window and choose the right link. Herein lies the problem with detailed statistical analysis, predictions, and making sense of the wealth of data generated by NCAA football. How each team performs this coming year will rely on a number of issues, of which game experience at positions and previous achievement may play a part, but by no means will that be decisive in predicting results. In fact, most of what is generated in preseason predictions is pure chaff (to use a safe-for-work term). Kernels of truth might exist in such analysis, but separating that out from the sheaf of irrelevant statistical data they are bundled with is all but impossible.
The limitations of this sort of analysis should be readily apparent. I don’t mean to imply that Phil Steele’s work isn’t worthwhile. It is, but only when you use descretion interpreting his predictions. They are by their very nature inaccurate, and his data at times misleading. Just because Slippery Rock returns 100% of their offensive line, and LSU is replacing both starting tackles doesn’t mean that the Rock will be more successful than the Bayou Bengals in the upcoming season. Many other factors involved in their overall performance will have a much greater impact than whether certain positions have multiple-year starters or not.
Factors like continuity of coaching staffs, quality of players, position coaches, offensive and defensive schemes, schedule and team morale defy precise measurement but often have a dramatic effect on team overall performance. Judging those qualities accurately requires a more profound understanding of each team and its component parts than can be found on in broad brush statistical analysis, however comprehensive it may seem. Phil Steele’s blog and magazine provide important data and good information on NCAA teams, but they do not convey complete understanding of each team’s potential for the coming season. For that you will have to dig a little deeper into each one, their coaching staff, players, offensive/defensive philosophies and quality of play as a unit.
But even then, the ultimate determination of how good or poor a team will be on the field of play during the season. For that, we’ll just have to wait and see how they do when the season starts. Until then, everyone is undefeated and for the true fan, will always have the potential to remain so for the year.
In Auburn’s case, I’ll put my money on Gus and the boys over Phil’s analysis any day. War Eagle.
It is usually a dangerous idea to test the temper of a Tiger
*Historical Note: Tempering is the process of applying heat to achieve greater toughness in steel by decreasing the hardness/brittleness while increasing ductility. Precise tempering at several temperatures across the entire cross section of a sword enables it to be hard enough along the blade to hold a keen edge, but ductile enough at the spine to withstand severe distortion in close combat without shattering or deforming. Swordsmiths of antiquity perfected this technique visually, as the color of the metal changed in a pattern of orange, purple and blue at very precise temperature ranges. A properly tempered sword would be dark blue in the center (590 degrees F) and ranging to bright orange on the blade edge (439 degrees F) before being allowed to cool.
In other words, it had to look like an Auburn blade before it was cool(ed).