How good are our Tigers?

[StatTiger 3,086]

I rated the teams since 1981 based on the following criteria:

30 pt offensive games

200-yd rushing games

200-yd passing games

400-yd total offense games

Games we had 200 rushing and 200 Passing

13 pt or less allowed on defense games

Under 100-yd rushing allowed on defense.

Under 200-yd allowed on passing

Under 300-yds allowed on total defense

Games we held opponents to under 100 rushing and under 200 passing

Total the numbers up and divide by the number of games played. Here are the results:

Team- Rating

1988- 7.55

2004- 7.00

1986- 6.18

1993- 6.18

1989- 5.45

1994- 5.18

1987- 5.00

1995- 5.00

1984- 4.73

2003- 4.46

1983- 4.36

1985- 4.27

1990- 4.27

2002- 4.15

2000- 3.92

1997- 3.67

1982- 3.55

1996- 3.36

1992- 3.18

1991- 2.91

1981- 2.64

2001- 2.64

1999- 2.27

1998- 1.91

The above rankings are based totally on productivity but the absence of strength of schedule hurts the ratings of teams that played tougher schedules ( 1983 ). It does reveal how productive the 2004 squad has been.

Here is another rating system based on strength of schedule, scoring margin, number of ranked opponents and total number of Division I opponents with winning records. ( 1970-2004 )

Here is the Top 20:

Year- Rating

1983- 97.68

1970- 90.30

2004- 88.70

1988- 86.11

1986- 86.00

1987- 85.15

1994- 84.85

1972- 82.90

1989- 81.76

1974- 81.72

1997- 81.42

1971- 81.40

1985- 80.88

1993- 77.84

2002- 73.90

1995- 73.63

1996- 70.43

1982- 69.76

1990- 67.63

1984- 67.15

[BoJtrueAUman 4]

you are the man

[Tigerdog 0]

:wacko:

[hccobb 0]

Holy.

God.

Dude, that's too much analysis for my feeble brain to handle.

[GoAU 1,479]

I would love to know where you get those statistics at the drop of a hat!!!

[AU4Ever 0]

Don't think that those type of numbers come at the drop of a hat. Having a little statistical knowledge and experience, I know that they come from many hours of entering data into a spreadsheet. And I do mean many hours. Then all you have is raw data. To come up with the numbers many more hours are required to write formulas and calculations on the raw data. And the sheer size of the spreadsheet must be enormous.

I myself would not have the patience or tenacity to keep the data from every game from God only knows how long back throughout the years.

Stat deserves a standing ovation IMO. We have our own personal Statmeister here at AU Nation. He always provides solid numbers, and no telling how many hours in front of a computer screen with a bunch of little boxes full of numbers. He is to be commended and revered by all of us.

[wesfau 0]

Don't think that those type of numbers come at the drop of a hat.  Having a little statistical knowledge and experience, I know that they come from many hours of entering data into a spreadsheet.  And I do mean many hours.  Then all you have is raw data.  To come up with the numbers many more hours are required to write formulas and calculations on the raw data.  And the sheer size of the spreadsheet must be enormous.

I myself would not have the patience or tenacity to keep the data from every game from God only knows how long back throughout the years.

Stat deserves a standing ovation IMO.  We have our own personal Statmeister here at AU Nation.  He always provides solid numbers, and no telling how many hours in front of a computer screen with a bunch of little boxes full of numbers.  He is to be commended and revered by all of us.

113770[/snapback]

A-frickin-men.

[woods1110 0]

Standing ovation has been going on for 10 mins here at my desk...

[WarTim 3,293]

StatTiger ! ! !

[sportwareagle 0]

ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!