I'm posting 7 historical/statistical studies of ND football. This is the first on this site. Hence, the intro.
Each is self-explanatory and has already appeared on other sites, so some of you may have seen one or more of these already. The only differences are some minor edits and the fact that I use different handles on different sites.
What's coming is a mass of data, some questions and discussion. But it's not a North Korean missile attack. I just wanted to post it all at once, so that I can spend more time on my blog and major research projects: the Kennedy assassination; coronary heart disease; and Bitcoin.
Man cannot live on ND football alone.
EXERCISE 1, PART A: ND TOP-20 RUSHING VS. TOP-20 PASSING OFFENSES
I’m doing five exercises on ND’s historical performance. They cover 1) offense, 2) defense, 3) rivals’ performance, 4) coaching and 5) recruiting. My goal is to finish before September.
This first exercise is a five-part analysis of ND’s offenses. Rushing vs. passing, balanced offenses and total offenses comprise the first three PARTS – A, B and C. PART D contains my observations, while PART E, the stats I used throughout.
I’ve researched ND’s rushing/passing stats from 1918 through 2016. On the various sites I visited, no stats are available from 18 to 23; 25 to 29; and 31 to 38. For 39 and 40, only partial stats are available but enough for my purposes.
If anyone knows if there are stats available for the missing years, please let me know.
In this first exercise, I’ve listed the top-20 most productive rushing and passing squads – on a yardage basis only. I’ve done rushing first, then passing.
I’ve listed the year; yardage total; percentage of the offense either rushing or passing comprised; and the squad’s final ranking.
As per rushing, the cutoff point per season is 2,750 yards. Which is exactly where the top-20 break comes. With passing, the break occurs at 2,150.
The idea is to a) compare success rates between the most productive run-first and pass-first squads; b) compare each to the most productive balanced-offenses; c) discuss each in relation to the most productive total offenses; and d) summarize the material, while offering observations.
Most Productive Rushing Teams by Yardage
73 – 3,502 – 318.36 – 76% – 1
89 – 3,452 – 265.54 – 72% – 2
91 – 3,229 – 248.38 – 59% – 13
48 – 3,194 – 319.40 – 80% – 2
43 – 3,137 – 348.56 – 75% – 1
74 – 3,119 – 259.92 – 65% – 6
69 – 3,094 – 281.27 – 63% – 5
92 – 3,090 – 257.50 – 60% – 4
68 – 3,055 – 305.50 – 61% – 5
30 – 3,047 – 304.70 – 90% – 1
72 – 3,043 – 304.30 – 70% – 14
46 – 3,036 – 337.33 – 77% – 1
96 – 2,965 – 58% – 19
24 – 2,960 – 78% – 1
49 – 2,914 – 67% – 1
53 – 2,881 – 75% – 2
93 – 2,868 – 61% – 2
88 – 2,859 – 67% – 1
87 – 2,773 – 66% – 17
90 – 2,753 – 60% – 6
The correlation between these squads and success is high. 7 NC’s; 4 seconds; 1 fourth; 2 fifths; 2 sixths; and 4 between 10th and 20th (13, 14, 17 and 19). The average final ranking for this group is 5.2, and no squad finished outside the Top-25.
Most Productive Passing Teams by Yardage
05 – 3,963 – 69% – 9
09 – 3,882 – 72% – 66
14 – 3,711 – 64% – 37
06 – 3,433 – 68% – 17
15 – 3,364 – 55% – 11
13 – 3,313 – 63% – 20
10 – 3,290 – 67% – 35
11 – 3,284 – 61% – 35
16 – 3,051 – 55% – 91
12 – 2,896 – 54% – 4
99 – 2,858 – 51% – 75
08 – 2,777 – 67% – 52
70 – 2,740 – 50% – 2
04 – 2,617 – 63% – 55
86 – 2,444 – 54% – 64
77 – 2,289 – 47% – 1
02 – 2,264 – 56% – 17
91 – 2,238 – 41% – 13
97 – 2,224 – 51% – 54
79 – 2,158 – 52% – 39
The correlation between these squads and success is spottier: 1 NC; 1 second; 1 fourth; 1 ninth; 5 between 10th and 20th (11, 13, 17, 17 and 20); and 11 well out of the Top-25, the closest being the 2010, 2011 editions, each at 35. The average final ranking for this group is 34.8.
The only crossover squad is the 13th ranked 91 team: third all-time in rushing and eighteenth in passing.
There are also two anomalies in the pass-first list. The 77 and 91 squads were run-first, but still rank 16th and 18th, respectively, in passing yardage. Technically, they are run-first but pass-heavy. But, while, as noted above, the 91 squad is the 3rd-ranked rushing squad, the 77 squad ranks only 27th.
In the case of the 70 squad, the yardage split was 50/50. While ND-70 is the 13th all-time most productive passing squad, its run-first rank is only 25.
The cumulative W/L record of the 20 leading rushing squads is 189-25-6 (where a tie counts as both a win and a loss), i.e. 86%. Scrapping the six ties, it’s 88%.
The cumulative W/L record of the 20 leading passing squads is 162-86 (no ties), i.e. 65%.
For the 20 leading rushing squads, the breakdown by coach per year – including annual average yardage; total W/L record/percentage; and average final ranking – is:
Rockne – 2 (with only two years of available stats) – 3,003/20-0/100%/1.0
Leahy – 5 – 3,032/45-1-3/92% (minus the 3 ties, 98%)/1.4
Parseghian – 5 – 3,163/44-8-2/82% (minus the 2 ties, 85%)/6.2
Holtz – 8 – 2,999/80-17-1/82% (minus the tie, also 82%)/8.0
For the 20 leading passing squads, the breakdown by coach per year, on the same basis, is:
Parseghian – 1 – 2,740/10-1/91%/2.0
Devine –2 – 2,223/18-5/78%/20.0
Holtz – 2 – 2,341/15-9/63%/37.5
Davie – 2 – 2,541/12-13/48%/64.5
Willingham – 2 – 2,440/16-9/64%/36.0
Weis – 4 – 3,516/32-18/64%/36.0
Kelly – 7 – 3,273/59-31/66%/33.3
In EXERCISE 1, PART B, I look at a) outliers, i.e. successful squads that were less productive and b) the top-20 balanced-offenses. In Part C, I review the top-20 total offenses and in D, offer comments and observations.
Each PART has been posted concurrently, so they’re all now available.
I have not posted PART E, my stat sheet appendix, as it’s seven typewritten pages long. But, if there’s interest in seeing it, I will post it. I should warn you, though, it’s a maze of numbers, caps, slashes and dashes. To capture what I realized I needed, I developed my own notation.
Each is self-explanatory and has already appeared on other sites, so some of you may have seen one or more of these already. The only differences are some minor edits and the fact that I use different handles on different sites.
What's coming is a mass of data, some questions and discussion. But it's not a North Korean missile attack. I just wanted to post it all at once, so that I can spend more time on my blog and major research projects: the Kennedy assassination; coronary heart disease; and Bitcoin.
Man cannot live on ND football alone.
EXERCISE 1, PART A: ND TOP-20 RUSHING VS. TOP-20 PASSING OFFENSES
I’m doing five exercises on ND’s historical performance. They cover 1) offense, 2) defense, 3) rivals’ performance, 4) coaching and 5) recruiting. My goal is to finish before September.
This first exercise is a five-part analysis of ND’s offenses. Rushing vs. passing, balanced offenses and total offenses comprise the first three PARTS – A, B and C. PART D contains my observations, while PART E, the stats I used throughout.
I’ve researched ND’s rushing/passing stats from 1918 through 2016. On the various sites I visited, no stats are available from 18 to 23; 25 to 29; and 31 to 38. For 39 and 40, only partial stats are available but enough for my purposes.
If anyone knows if there are stats available for the missing years, please let me know.
In this first exercise, I’ve listed the top-20 most productive rushing and passing squads – on a yardage basis only. I’ve done rushing first, then passing.
I’ve listed the year; yardage total; percentage of the offense either rushing or passing comprised; and the squad’s final ranking.
As per rushing, the cutoff point per season is 2,750 yards. Which is exactly where the top-20 break comes. With passing, the break occurs at 2,150.
The idea is to a) compare success rates between the most productive run-first and pass-first squads; b) compare each to the most productive balanced-offenses; c) discuss each in relation to the most productive total offenses; and d) summarize the material, while offering observations.
Most Productive Rushing Teams by Yardage
73 – 3,502 – 318.36 – 76% – 1
89 – 3,452 – 265.54 – 72% – 2
91 – 3,229 – 248.38 – 59% – 13
48 – 3,194 – 319.40 – 80% – 2
43 – 3,137 – 348.56 – 75% – 1
74 – 3,119 – 259.92 – 65% – 6
69 – 3,094 – 281.27 – 63% – 5
92 – 3,090 – 257.50 – 60% – 4
68 – 3,055 – 305.50 – 61% – 5
30 – 3,047 – 304.70 – 90% – 1
72 – 3,043 – 304.30 – 70% – 14
46 – 3,036 – 337.33 – 77% – 1
96 – 2,965 – 58% – 19
24 – 2,960 – 78% – 1
49 – 2,914 – 67% – 1
53 – 2,881 – 75% – 2
93 – 2,868 – 61% – 2
88 – 2,859 – 67% – 1
87 – 2,773 – 66% – 17
90 – 2,753 – 60% – 6
The correlation between these squads and success is high. 7 NC’s; 4 seconds; 1 fourth; 2 fifths; 2 sixths; and 4 between 10th and 20th (13, 14, 17 and 19). The average final ranking for this group is 5.2, and no squad finished outside the Top-25.
Most Productive Passing Teams by Yardage
05 – 3,963 – 69% – 9
09 – 3,882 – 72% – 66
14 – 3,711 – 64% – 37
06 – 3,433 – 68% – 17
15 – 3,364 – 55% – 11
13 – 3,313 – 63% – 20
10 – 3,290 – 67% – 35
11 – 3,284 – 61% – 35
16 – 3,051 – 55% – 91
12 – 2,896 – 54% – 4
99 – 2,858 – 51% – 75
08 – 2,777 – 67% – 52
70 – 2,740 – 50% – 2
04 – 2,617 – 63% – 55
86 – 2,444 – 54% – 64
77 – 2,289 – 47% – 1
02 – 2,264 – 56% – 17
91 – 2,238 – 41% – 13
97 – 2,224 – 51% – 54
79 – 2,158 – 52% – 39
The correlation between these squads and success is spottier: 1 NC; 1 second; 1 fourth; 1 ninth; 5 between 10th and 20th (11, 13, 17, 17 and 20); and 11 well out of the Top-25, the closest being the 2010, 2011 editions, each at 35. The average final ranking for this group is 34.8.
The only crossover squad is the 13th ranked 91 team: third all-time in rushing and eighteenth in passing.
There are also two anomalies in the pass-first list. The 77 and 91 squads were run-first, but still rank 16th and 18th, respectively, in passing yardage. Technically, they are run-first but pass-heavy. But, while, as noted above, the 91 squad is the 3rd-ranked rushing squad, the 77 squad ranks only 27th.
In the case of the 70 squad, the yardage split was 50/50. While ND-70 is the 13th all-time most productive passing squad, its run-first rank is only 25.
The cumulative W/L record of the 20 leading rushing squads is 189-25-6 (where a tie counts as both a win and a loss), i.e. 86%. Scrapping the six ties, it’s 88%.
The cumulative W/L record of the 20 leading passing squads is 162-86 (no ties), i.e. 65%.
For the 20 leading rushing squads, the breakdown by coach per year – including annual average yardage; total W/L record/percentage; and average final ranking – is:
Rockne – 2 (with only two years of available stats) – 3,003/20-0/100%/1.0
Leahy – 5 – 3,032/45-1-3/92% (minus the 3 ties, 98%)/1.4
Parseghian – 5 – 3,163/44-8-2/82% (minus the 2 ties, 85%)/6.2
Holtz – 8 – 2,999/80-17-1/82% (minus the tie, also 82%)/8.0
For the 20 leading passing squads, the breakdown by coach per year, on the same basis, is:
Parseghian – 1 – 2,740/10-1/91%/2.0
Devine –2 – 2,223/18-5/78%/20.0
Holtz – 2 – 2,341/15-9/63%/37.5
Davie – 2 – 2,541/12-13/48%/64.5
Willingham – 2 – 2,440/16-9/64%/36.0
Weis – 4 – 3,516/32-18/64%/36.0
Kelly – 7 – 3,273/59-31/66%/33.3
In EXERCISE 1, PART B, I look at a) outliers, i.e. successful squads that were less productive and b) the top-20 balanced-offenses. In Part C, I review the top-20 total offenses and in D, offer comments and observations.
Each PART has been posted concurrently, so they’re all now available.
I have not posted PART E, my stat sheet appendix, as it’s seven typewritten pages long. But, if there’s interest in seeing it, I will post it. I should warn you, though, it’s a maze of numbers, caps, slashes and dashes. To capture what I realized I needed, I developed my own notation.
