New Football Hires

I have never been a member of the Fire Ron Guenther bandwagon because Illinois athletics has flourished as a whole under his tenure. The basketball team has capitalized on the groundwork laid by Lou Henson; Illinois has risen as a power in sports like wrestling, gymnastics and tennis; and Guenther upgraded the school's facilities and renovated Memorial Stadium. Nonetheless, he is closing in on retirement and still seeking his great white whale - turning around the Illini football team. Thus, Guenther is being criticized by a lot of Illini fans for not firing Ron Zook this year

That said, the quotations from Guenther in Loren Tate's Sunday football article were quite reassuring to me. A sampling:

"He [Ron Zook] knows and understands the culture of Illinois – the administration, philosophy, compliance and academics – and he could be effective if surrounded by stronger people... Ron Zook needs to be the CEO who solves problems and serves as the heartbeat of the program, and let his coaches coach. He is an energetic worker and an effective recruiter."

I have joked in the past that Ron Zook should be kept on the Illinois staff, but as a recruiting coordinator. Interestingly, if Ron Guenther's above comments are taken at face value, this may not be so far from the truth next year. Guenther's approach is a novel and clever one. He is well aware of Zook's weaknesses but is also careful to note that Zook has a lot of strengths, most notably his work ethic and passion for Illinois football. The head coach does not have to do everything. If Zook is truly willing to admit his weaknesses and delegate more authority to his coordinators, as Guenther suggests, then there is great potential to turn this coaching situation around.

Now the idea of putting more responsibility in the hands of Ron Zook's assistants only works with good coordinators, and he hasn't always had good coordinators, particularly on the defensive end. Fortunately, Ron Guenther spared no expense and brought in two of the best available coordinators out there in Paul Petrino and Vic Koenning. Petrino's Arkansas offense was #5 in the country at 6.8 yards per play this year and he has learned from one of the best offensive minds in college football in his brother Bobby. Similarly, Koenning's record the last few years as a defensive coordinator has been spectacular. His Clemson defenses never gave up more than 4.7 yards per play, which made them a top 10-15 defense every single year, and in his first season at Kansas State in 2009, the defense improved from allowing 6.2 yards per play to 5.4.

Ron Zook's performance as a whole has been poor enough to warrant his firing, yet firing a coach does not solve all of a program's problems. Fans across the country clamoring to get rid of their school's head coach tend to offer no suggestions as to who their team should hire instead, besides fantasy choices like Urban Meyer. With Brian Kelly off the market and Chris Pedersen unlikely to leave Boise State, I don't see there being any slam dunk head coach choices out there. Zook is not incapable of success at Illinois as witnessed by his 9-4 season in 2007. Both Paul Petrino and Vic Koenning have had great success at other programs, so there will be no more excuses for Zook if these staff shake-ups don't result in winning football in 2010.

The Great Coordinator Purge of 2009

As expected, Ron Zook finally cleaned house Friday. You could definitely make the argument that it's unfair for the assistant coaches to take the fall for Zook but this is more or less the way things go in college coaching. First the coordinators fall, and then the head coach. As I will describe below, I agree that most of the coordinators who were fired were not getting results. But I fear that merely removing the symptoms will fail to take care of the underlying disease.

The casualties:

Co-defensive coordinators Dan Disch and Curt Mallory, demoted

Disch and Mallory presided over a truly noxious defense this year so I was sure they would be let go. The fact that they were demoted and not fired is fair given that as I understand things, they lacked the autonomy of most defensive coordinators. Rather, their role was to call plays while hewing to Zook's overall schematic design. I always had the feeling that Disch and Mallory were there because Zook couldn't find anyone else (witness his contract offer to Penn State's Larry Johnson last year when Disch and Mallory ostensibly still had jobs). What I would like to see is for Zook to hire a coordinator who will implement his own scheme and jettison Zook's because having the corners play ten yards off their men clearly isn't working.

Special teams coordinator Mike Woodford

Special teams has been an area of weakness for Illinois for years now. Punting has been an adventure, and I fail to conceive how with so much supposed talent (Arrelious Benn especially) the Illini averaged just 4.2 and 19.3 yards on punt and kickoff returns this year. In terms of results, there's not much of an argument for keeping Woodford.

Receivers coach Jim Pry

Evaluating strictly by results, Pry's job performance has been poor. If his role was to develop the wide receivers, then the hugely disappointing performance of the Illini receiving corps this year is ample reason for him to be let go. I'm not going to blame him for Arrelious Benn's injuries, but the lack of development for hyped talent like Jarred Fayson and Jeff Cumberland is not a testament to Pry's coaching.

Quarterbacks coach Kurt Beathard

Again, if Beathard's role was to develop the quarterbacks, then the utter lack of development by either Juice or Eddie McGee is an indictment against him. Yet again, the results suggest that Beathard's job performance was not strong enough to warrant him keeping his job.

Offensive coordinator Mike Schultz

This was the big hire of the year after stalwart offensive coordinator Mike Locksley left for New Mexico, and needless to say, the results were rocky. I analyzed Schultz' performance in a post in October and while at the time I likely would have supported his firing, the performance of Illinois' offense in the final five games of the year should have been enough to give Schultz a second chance, at least in a world where his boss wasn't on the hot seat.

Despite Zook claiming that the offense wouldn't change much in the transition from Locksley to Schultz, my personal observation (and something I want to study more in the future) is that Schultz didn't feel comfortable in the Illinois offense until midway through the season. His play-calling philosophy is more conservative and run-based than Locksley's, which worked fine for the running backs, but not for Juice, as the short passing game has never been his forte. Nonetheless, Schultz found his groove with the Illini offense as the year went on, as he discovered the joys of the deep pass. His performance was sub-par on the whole, given the horrific start to the year and the failure to incorporate Arrelious Benn, but as much as I'd like to dream that Illinois will hire some wunderkind offensive coordinator to replace him, they probably won't, making his removal questionable.

So although I agree that most of the coordinators who were fired or demoted had job performances that warranted such actions, my qualm is that it's easy to fire someone but not so easy to find his replacement. If there were really this many sub-par coaches on the Illini staff (and I am inclined to believe there were), then doesn't that tell you something about the person hiring them? And why should we trust that person to make the right hires the second (or third, or fourth) time around? I'll keep my fingers crossed that the Rons knock a few out of the park with their coming hires, but history says they probably won't and that Zook will be fired after a lackluster 2010 season. Let's just hope it doesn't get too ugly.

Illinois 79, Vanderbilt 68

I was nervous coming into Tuesday night's game after yet another lackluster performance against an average Division I team (the close victory over Boise State on Saturday night) but the Illini got off to a 9-0 run and played well throughout, especially on offense. Although Vanderbilt kept the game from being a blowout, there was never really a moment where the Commodores seemed like they were going to come back and that is a tribute to the consistency of effort from Illinois.

Plus-minus chart:














Despite a great scoring line from Demetri McCamey (23 points on 8-10 shooting), Illinois was actually outscored when he was on the court while going +15 in Jeff Jordan's minutes. In general, Illinois will be better on offense with McCamey in the game and better on defense with Jordan, but last night with McCamey committing 6 turnovers and Jordan scoring 7 points on 3-4 shooting, the team didn't suffer on offense when Jordan came in and was better defensively as expected. McCamey still ranks as the most valuable player on the team in his season-long plus-minus count, but Jordan will be quite important himself if he can continue to nail open jump shots.

Nine games into the season, it's clear that Illinois has taken on a new identity as a more up-tempo, potent scoring team whose defensive effort comes and goes. Last night, they scored 79 points in 67 possessions, cracking the 1.1 points/possession barrier for the third game in a row and the sixth time in nine games after doing it just 12 times in 34 outings last season. On the other hand, it was also the fourth straight game they've given up over 1.0 points/possession after permitting teams to cross that barrier just 11 times all of last season.

What's changed? The most noticeable difference is an increase in tempo by nearly seven possessions a game over last season. Pushing the pace and adding two more capable scorers to the starting lineup in DJ Richardson and Brandon Paul has increased Illinois' effective field goal percentage (taking into account three-pointers) from 51.1 to 54.9. The other significant difference is an increase in offensive rebound percentage from 29.9 to 36.1. The credit here partly has to go to Mike Davis (up to 2.7 offensive boards a game from 1.8 last year), especially given that his totals have increased despite the team missing fewer shots, but the team effort on the offensive boards as a whole has been good. For all the talk about the team lacking physicality, they have been good at rebounding on both ends of the floor, according to Ken Pomeroy's stats. The drop on defense, though, has come partly from an increase in two-point percentage by opponents, perhaps an indication of too much dribble penetration, and regression to the mean in opponents' free-throw percentage (up to 70.9% after a flukishly low 63.1% mark last season). I still think that Bruce Weber will get the defense turned around, but I hope he won't have to sacrifice too much of the offense to get there.

Fresno State 53, Illinois 52

As much as I like to harp on how not all wins are created equal, and how the underlying statistics are sometimes more revealing than the score, it still hurts as a fan to see your team lose on a two-point conversion play where the other team's quarterback throws the ball away to avoid getting sacked, your team's cornerback safely bats the ball down, and then the other team's offensive lineman manages to catch the ball and fall into the end zone. The fact that it was ESPN's play of the week on Sports Center over Kobe Bryant's ridiculous banked-in buzzer-beating three to beat the Heat didn't really make me feel better.

But seriously, as much of a fluke as the play was, and even though Illinois was statistically the better team on Saturday, I felt as disappointed as if they had been blown out. Even if they got unlucky in the end, the miserable play of the defense gave Fresno State the opportunity to win the game and the Bulldogs seized it.

The stats:







The game was an offensive delight, as both teams were explosive and consistent. The 1.132 figure (points/play + success rate) was Illinois' best against FCS competition all season, but unfortunately the 1.041 figure by Fresno State was the Illini defense's second-worst performance of the year. Both teams emphasized the run game to great success, which helped open up the passing game for big plays. Still, the point totals were extreme given the yards gained by both teams, reflecting the role that turnovers and special teams played in setting up short fields. Fresno State, in fact, had a microscopic yards/point ratio of 8.5 thanks in part to an interception return for a touchdown.

I will post some final thoughts (and statistics!) on the season in the coming days, but I must first brag that I totally called the resurgence of the Illinois offense over the second half of the season in my post on yards per point. At the time I wrote the post Illinois was 119th out of 120 teams in the FCS with a horrific ratio of 21.7 yards per point on offense. I pointed out that although Ron Zook teams were historically below average in this statistic, they had never been that bad before and could likely look forward to some regression to the mean. Well, just as I forecasted, the Illinois offense was far more efficient at converting yards into points as the year went on and wound up with a 16.7 yards/point ratio, still below average, but actually a little better than their average during Ron Zook's tenure. Over the last five games, Illinois averaged 13.0 yards/point and also a much better 6.4 yards per play, resulting in a healthy 35.4 points per game over this stretch. This was finally, to some extent, the Illini offense everyone feared coming into the season. Unfortunately, the defense was still so bad that Illinois managed to go 2-3 in their last five despite scoring 35 a game. And Juice Williams will leave Illinois having led the offense to 52 points in his final game but still having lost. I think that says it all.

Illinois 76, Clemson 74

What a game!  It's not often you see a game that exciting in the regular season.  But there's nothing quite like coming back from a 23 point second-half deficit to win by two on the road.  Of course, I knew Illinois would come back since I picked them to win by almost the exact actual final score (sarcasm).  The game was also remarkable since it helped the Big 10 to capture the ACC/Big 10 Challenge for the first time ever, thus winning me my bet with my girlfriend.  And even more remarkable was the plus-minus chart:

Demetri McCamey was +28 in a game where Illinois won by just two points, meaning that his overall plus/minus was an astounding +54!!  Let me repeat that: Illinois was fifty-four points worse when Demetri was on the bench.  I'd been wondering if my game plus/minus charts had any value, but this is a great example of how they can be quite revealing.  I don't have a ton of college plus/minus data to work with but I have never seen a player put up a number anywhere near +54, which attests to how unique a game this was.

Clemson's big run to go up by 20+ points took place with McCamey on the bench with three fouls and Jordan running the point.  Similarly, Illinois' big run took place with McCamey back in the game.  I don't mean to suggest that McCamey can be solely credited with Illinois' better play when he was on the court, nor should Jordan be solely blamed for Clemson's first-half run.  But against the Clemson press, McCamey was particularly valuable because he is the team's most credible ballhandler.  Jeff simply wasn't able to run the offense successfully against the press while Demetri kept the tempo slowed down, which had a double effect of improving the Illinois offense and the defense since they just had to play man-to-man rather than try to contain a series of Clemson fastbreaks.  Bruce Weber was quoted after the game as saying "He [McCamey] had two points, but he might have had the best game in his career."  A few years ago, I would have scoffed at such a statement, but basketball really sometimes can't be captured by the traditional stats, and the plus/minus chart from last night's game shows that (in corroboration with what I witnessed with my own eyes).

Overall, Illinois fans can now be justified in feeling optimistic about the team again.  I suspect they will still be up and down as Richardson and Paul learn how to play winning college basketball, but both of the freshmen played 30+ solid minutes last night and were productive on the offensive end.  You will see Illinois' rotation expand again as the team plays some easier opponents, but it looks to me like come postseason time, the roster will boil down to an 8-man rotation: the five starters, Dominique Keller, Jeff Jordan, and quite possibly, Bill Cole, whose hustle is evident every time he is out on the court.  I suspect Tyler Griffey, Alex Legion and Richard Semrau will be phased out as the season progresses, but I would be happy if any or all of them proved me wrong.  Next up:  Boise State!

Thoughts on Illinois basketball thus far

I'm a little behind on posting plus/minus charts for the weekend's basketball games what with it being Thanksgiving weekend and all.  And of course, it doesn't help my spirits that Illinois lost both games.  First off, the charts:

Against Utah, the team was generally much more successful with the bench players on the court rather than the starters.  This isn't too surprising given that the Illini led by 16 at the half and blew their lead mostly in the last ten minutes of the game.  I was skeptical of Bruce Weber's decision to start Alex Legion against Bradley but he did lead the team against Utah with a +12 rating. 

Against Bradley, the bench once again outperformed the starters.  Although Richard Semrau was on the floor just 7 minutes, he managed to post a +11 rating, while the three returning stars from last year (McCamey, Davis, Tisdale) were -7, -10 and -12 respectively.  Still, I'm reluctant to draw very many conclusions from game by game plus/minus charts.  I'm primarily posting them for interest at this point - until there have been enough games played that season-long numbers begin to mean something.

At any rate, it's probably still too early to read too much into the Pomeroy Ratings, but right now, the Illini rank a bit ahead of last year's team on the offensive end (up from 98th to 72nd) but the defense is fulfilling Bruce Weber's worst fears, and has regressed much more than I would have expected (down to 122nd from 4th), even given the graduation of defensive star Chester Frazier.  That said, given Weber's track record, I would expect the defense to improve sharply as the season progresses - they have certainly shown flashes, like holding Utah to 16 points in the first half, but have also had really bad stretches of defense, like letting Utah score 44 in the second half. 

What concerns me more is that the offense has taken only a small step forward from last year.  Illinois no longer ranks dead last in the country in FTA/FGA but is still just 287th, while everything else has remained about the same.  After hot starts, Paul and Richardson have faded a bit the last couple games, and this is probably to be expected given their youth.  The success of this season will hinge upon Paul and Richardson's ability to improve the offense by drawing free throws while improving on team defense (Paul, in particular, has been a sieve on defense according to the plus/minus numbers so far).

Overall, it was disappointing and unexpected that Illinois went to Las Vegas and came back with two losses, but it's certainly not the end of the world yet, because the losses were at least close.  I read something in the local paper about how if Illinois loses to Clemson, it will be their first three-game losing streak since the miserable 16-19 season of 2008.  Yet although true, the implication is misleading.  It is the two losses to underdogs in Utah and Bradley that are significant, not a potential third loss to Clemson in a situation where Clemson would have been favored even if the Illini were 6-0.  So if Illinois loses another close game tonight, please ignore the inevitable ominous articles revolving around their three-game losing streak.  Sometimes luck is just against you.  As for me, I need the Big 10 to beat the ACC tonight so I can win a bet with my ACC-school attending girlfriend.  So in other words, I'm picking the Illini! 

Pick: Illinois 75, Clemson 73




 

Cincinnati 49, Illinois 36

I suppose I ought to be embarrassed that Illinois gave up 49 points, but I was actually kind of excited that they scored 36 themselves and outgained a 10-0 team on the road.  In actuality though, the fact that Illinois had more yards is misleading, since they ran over 20 more plays, a testament to Cincinnati constantly starting in good field position and scoring quickly as well.

The chart:

Funny thing about this game: Illinois was more effective than Cincinnati when they ran the ball, and also more effective when they dropped back to pass.  Yet Cincinnati was much more effective overall.  The reason is that Illinois called 45 runs and 36 passes, while Brian Kelly called an absurd 46 passes to just 13 runs for the Bearcats.  Given that both teams' pass offenses were much more successful than their run offenses, this imbalance worked out rather well for Cincinnati.  So although Tony Pike was no more effective on a per-play basis than Juice was, his performance was actually much more impressive given that his team almost never ran the ball, and when they did run it, got nowhere.  Illinois knew Cincinnati was going to throw and throw again, and there was nothing they could do about it.

So sure, the defensive performance was sorry, but we're talking about the 98th ranked secondary against the 5th ranked passing offense in the country.  What did Illini fans really expect?  The thing that caught my attention more was Brian Kelly's willingness to flout typical run/pass convention.  You shouldn't call runs just for the sake of calling runs and if your pass game can be that successful without running the ball, you might as well keep throwing.  Mike Schultz, however, called more runs than passes despite the Illini gaining no traction on the ground all day.  I don't blame him for starting the game more conservatively, but especially in the second half, facing a deficit, Illinois might have been well served to pass more and more often.  It's all moot at this point anyways, as the Illini have found their offense a few weeks too late.

Illinois 94, Presbyterian 48

The memory I'll take away from this game is turning the TV off with Illinois up 43-28 at halftime, then turning it back on in the second half and seeing that the score had suddenly ballooned to 68-32.  Admittedly, Presbyterian is undermanned this season, but there's no reason to feel guilty about the Illini's second big blowout win in three tries.  Presbyterian actually executed their game plan, holding the tempo to 64 possessions (after Illinois averaged 75.5 in their first two games), while their 2-3 zone kept Illinois off the foul line (just 7 free throw attempts).  Unfortunately for the Blue Hose, the talent disparity was too great, as the Illini hit 11 of 26 from 3 and 28 of 46 from 2, and despite missing only 33 shots, picked up 20 offensive rebounds (!).  Illinois scored on a ridiculous 64% of their possessions and the defense wasn't too shabby either, as Presbyterian was just 4 of 24 from 3.

Plus/minus chart:

Once again, the team played well no matter who was on the court.  D.J. Richardson led the team at +31 but he also played the most non garbage-time minutes.  The one starter who scuffled a bit was Mike Tisdale, who has had a slow start this year.  At some point, I'll start posting season-long plus/minus statistics and examining lineups, but the numbers don't really mean anything at this point in the season.  Next up: Wofford!

Northwestern 21, Illinois 16

I'm way behind on this, but I figured it was still worth posting a recap considering this was the first game I actually attended in person this year.  Without any further ado, the stats:

In my preview, I predicted that the game would come down to the two teams' strengths: run offense and run defense.  But really, the match-up proved to be a wash.  The Illini outperformed the Wildcats on the ground by a good margin, but were a bit below their season rushing averages (.408 points/play, 47.8% success rate).  Illinois lost because they were simply decimated when Northwestern took to the air.  I was worried that QB Mike Kafka's accurate passing would be a bad match-up for the Illinois secondary and that is exactly what it was.  Illinois' soft coverages only work if they are able to generate a pass rush, but for the majority of the year, they haven't been able to, and Saturday's game was no exception.  Since I was actually at the game, I could better observe the Illinois secondary, and it wasn't pretty.  Northwestern receivers were open all game, and were able to run the same flag route to the outside corner over and over again for big gains.

As for the future of Ron Zook, I read somewhere (I think it was in this excellent book) that the minimum winning percentage a coach needs to stay afloat is .600, not .500.  This theory makes sense since although .500 is enough to make a bowl every year, a 6-6 record doesn't have much sex appeal.  .600, however, is 7.2 wins per year (in a 12-game schedule).  That puts you in a solid bowl every year and probably means there will be some very good seasons mixed in there as well.  Of course, Zook had a .622 winning percentage at Florida and got fired, but I'm talking about .600 as a minimum, and Florida has higher expectations than most programs.

Zook's winning percentage after 5 years at Illinois is .362, which is far below .600.  Even if you throw out his first two seasons as rebuilding years, his winning percentage is just .486. This means that Illinois would have to finish 4-8 and go 12-1 next year for Zook to reach the .600 mark - and that's excluding his first two seasons, where he was just 4-19!  I plan to conduct a more extensive analysis of Zook's tenure at the end of the season but suffice it to say, although I am somewhat sympathetic to the idea of giving him one more try, I'm not confident in his ability to lead the team back to a bowl next year.

Illinois 96, SIU-Edwardsville 69

Last year I started work on plus/minus analysis for Illini basketball and I am going to keep it up this year.  Here is the plus/minus chart from Friday night's game against SIU-Edwardsville:

I included the number of minutes played by each player, the points scored and allowed by Illinois while that player was on the court, and then translated those to per 40 'Off' and 'Def' numbers.  As the careful observer will note, I only included the first 29.6 minutes of the game, at which point Illinois was ahead 77-41 and projected to win 104-55.  The reason?  This was the point where the game was determined to be 'statistically over' at statsheet.com.  It's an approximation, but I don't want the data to be skewed by 'garbage time' statistics.  I like the methodology Statsheet uses (based on a Bill James formula) because it is rather conservative for determining when a game is over (something like 99.99% win probability), and I wouldn't want too much of a game to be classified as garbage time.

Anyways, I don't think there's a whole lot to be gleaned from this plus-minus chart, since Illinois started the game on a 12-2 run and didn't let up until being ahead 77-41.  Alex Legion had the highest rating on the team as he was +23 in just 14.5 minutes.  The team gave up just 38.5 points per 40 minutes when D.J. Richardson was on the court.  But really, Illinois was dominating no matter who was on the floor.  I wrote in my season preview that the offense would have to get to the foul line and get more offensive rebounds to make up for an expected regression for the defense, and that is exactly what happened against SIU-Edwardsville.  D.J. Richardson scored 14 points on just 5 field goal attempts by getting to the line 10 times, an encouraging sign for the future.  Even though they slowed down a bit towards the end, the offense scored 96 points on just 73 possessions, which is hard to beat. 

On the surface, the defensive performance was poor, as Illinois surrendered nearly a point per possession to a team which ranked 335th out of 344 teams in Division I last year.  But that's why the garbage time adjustment is so relevant.  Ken Pomeroy lists an offensive efficiency (points per 100 possessions) of 131.1 and a defensive efficiency of 94.3 for Illinois for the game.  But when the game was already statistically over, Illinois' offensive efficiency (approximately) was an even more astronomical 142.2 and their defensive efficiency a stalwart 75.7.  This fact is worth emphasizing in comparison with SIU-Edwardsville's subsequent 82-60 loss to Illinois State, which wasn't statistically over until there was 4:20 left in the game.  The final score was similar but at the 10:22 mark ISU led 58-43 as compared to Illinois' 77-41 margin.  Can you really blame Illinois for not defending with as much fervor when they had a 36 point lead?  I don't think so and as such, I have nothing but good feelings about this game.

Northwestern at Illinois, Preview

Although I'm getting hyped up about basketball, I haven't lost interest in the Illini football team, which is still technically in the running for a bowl at 3-6.  Tomorrow's game against Northwestern will provide an excellent opportunity to continue the team's recent win streak.

Illinois Passing vs. Northwestern Secondary:
EDGE: Illinois

If Jacob Charest can continue his good play from the Minnesota game, this is a favorable matchup for Illinois.  Northwestern's secondary hasn't been much better than Illinois' meager unit.  The Illini certainly have the receiving talent to exploit the Wildcat defensive backs.  My one concern is that Northwestern has picked off 12 passes this year and Charest has been lucky to not have been intercepted so far this season.

Illinois Rushing vs. Northwestern Front:

EDGE: Illinois

Northwestern's strength has been against the run, where they have surrendered 116.5 yards per game as compared to Illinois' 162.2.  The question is how the Wildcats will perform against the Illinois option attack.  Last year they were able to shut Illinois down on the ground which fueled a 27-10 victory but in 2007 they were not.  This is likely the key to the game for Illinois and I think they will prevail, but I am nervous that the option attack will fizzle with Charest at QB.

Northwestern Passing vs. Illinois Secondary:
EDGE: Northwestern

Wildcats QB Mike Kafka has a high completion percentage (66.2%) but a relatively low yards per attempt (6.7) meaning his forte is short, low-risk passes.  His style is a good match against a weak Illinois secondary which usually lines up to prevent the big play and doesn't go for many interceptions (just 4 on the year).
Still, Illinois has a chance to outplay Northwestern here if they are able to generate a pass rush like they were against Minnesota.  Last week, Adam Weber completed just 14 of 31 passes and threw an interception that was returned for a touchdown while being sacked seven times.

Northwestern Rushing vs. Illinois Front:
EDGE: Illinois


The reason Northwestern lags well behind Illinois in yards per play on offense (4.8 vs. 5.5) is because of its anemic rushing attack.  Illinois is 25th nationally in rushing while Northwestern is 90th.  Northwestern's leading rusher is QB Mike Kafka, at just 236 yards.  With the defensive line improving, Illinois should be able to focus its attention on stopping the pass.

Special Teams:
EDGE: Northwestern

Northwestern is one of the worst punting teams in the country, at just 35.5 yards per punt, making mediocre Illinois P Anthony Santella look like an All-American.  Yet neither team is adept at returning punts and kickoffs, and Northwestern has a big edge at kicker, as K Stefan Demos has hit 14 of 16 field goals this year while Matt Eller is struggling for the Illini, with just 4 of 10 field goals made. 

Coaching:
EDGE: Northwestern  

Illinois has the more talented roster but is 3-6 while Northwestern is already bowl-eligible at 6-4.  The Wildcats are certainly not as good as their record would indicate, as their non-conference schedule consisted of Towson, Eastern Michigan and Miami (Ohio), but they always seem to win a few games they shouldn't under Pat Fitzgerald while Illinois can't say the same with Ron Zook.  Illinois has been the better team than Northwestern this year in terms of yardage, despite playing a tougher schedule, but you have to credit Fitzgerald for Northwestern's greater success in the most important category: wins.

The Illini are the more talented team, are heading home, and are favored by 4.5 points.  Still, this game makes me nervous because Pat Fitzgerald gets the most out of his players and Ron Zook often doesn't.  I am still perplexed by Illinois' pathetic showing against Northwestern last year with a bowl berth on the line.  All that said, Illinois is at home, confident, and Northwestern isn't as good as they were last year.

Pick: Illinois 28, Northwestern 21  

Illinois Basketball, Season Preview

The 2009-10 Illinois basketball season begins for real tonight at 7:00 against SIU-Edwardsville.  Here are some key questions Illinois will need to answer if they are to replicate or surpass last year's success.

1.  How easily can Chester Frazier and Trent Meacham be replaced?


The plus-minus data I gathered last year suggests that Frazier and Meacham may have been the team's most valuable players.  Illinois floundered offensively without Meacham in the lineup, not surprising given that his 113.7 Offensive Rating was by far the highest on the team.  Similarly, Illinois' 4th-ranked defense was not the same when Frazier was off the court, and without him, Illinois succumbed to 12th seeded Western Kentucky in the NCAA Tournament.

Frazier and Meacham will likely be replaced in the lineup by four-star freshmen D.J. Richardson and Brandon Paul, and although I have yet to see Richardson or Paul play, I am hearing the right kinds of buzzwords, and eventually the two will prove to be superior to the Frazier/Meacham combo.  Like Meacham, Paul's responsibilities will be slanted more towards the offensive end, but Paul is a much more athletic guard, drawing 14 free throw attempts in 34 minutes in the two exhibition contests against Missouri Southern and Quincy (a valuable skill given that Illinois was dead last nationally in FTA/FGA in 2009).  Meanwhile, Bruce Weber has been hyping up D.J. Richardson's defensive abilities, and Richardson is already more skilled offensively than Frazier, as witnessed by his 23 point performance against Quincy where he hit 5 of 8 3 pointers.

2.  Can the defense repeat last year's performance (4th nationally in adjusted defensive efficiency)?

Illinois will likely regress on defense, simply because their opponents shot 63.1% from the foul line, which is pure luck, and probably had a lot to do with Illinois' reversal of fortunes from 2008 (when their opponents shot 72% from the foul line - a rather unlucky figure).  Looking further, Illinois opponents also shot just 29.6% from 3, which can be chalked up to both skill and luck - Illinois ought to be strong on the perimeter this year as well, but probably not quite that strong.  In addition, the Illini's best defender, Chester Frazier, has graduated.  The good news is that Illinois has never ranked lower than 35th nationally in adjusted defensive efficiency during Bruce Weber's tenure and has ranked 21st or higher five years running.  Thus I would expect Illinois to slide a bit, but Weber clearly has a system that works and coaches his players to gave maximum effort on defense.


3.  How will Illinois score their points?

Bruce Weber has shown that his teams will defend at an elite level no matter what.  But his offenses have been more dependent on his personnel.  In 2004-2006, Illinois had a top 20 offense.  Yet the last 3 years, as recruiting has tailed off, the Illini have ranked 111th, 83rd, and 98th.  The offense was certainly a lot less ugly last year because the team was so much better at shooting but since their offensive rebound and foul drawing rates dropped precipitously, the team wasn't any more effective on a per-possession basis. 


The Illini almost never got to the foul line last year - perhaps not surprising given that the starting lineup consisted of two thin, jump-shooting big men, two guards who preferred to bomb away from the three point line, and a senior leader who was a non-factor scoring the ball.  The lack of free throws drawn isn't inherently bad, but Illinois didn't do enough in other categories to completely make up for it.  Although the offense had a lot of good shooters, it didn't take many three-pointers, instead relying on the dreaded mid-range jumper, the least efficient shot in basketball.  They managed to get away with it because the primary perpetrators (Tisdale and Davis) are both tall and accurate shooters, but unless Davis or Tisdale has developed three-point range, the Illini will have to start getting to the foul line. How many free throws the Illini can get will likely determine how good they can be this year.  They drew 37 free throw attempts against Quincy, so hopefully that is a good sign.


My prediction?  Eyeballing the schedule, I am unscientifically forecasting a regular season record of 11-7, 22-9 which will be good enough for a second straight NCAA appearance and to raise optimism for the 2010-11 campaign.

Oh yeah, and as for tonight's game SIU-Edwardsville is in their second year of transition from Division II to Division I and ranked 314th out of 344 teams in their 15 games against D-1 competition last year.  As such, this ought to be a nice tuneup game for the Illini.

Pick: Illinois 81, SIU-Edwardsville 51

The National Championship Picture

Using the handy SRS ratings over at pro-football-reference, I thought it would be fun to estimate the odds of each currently undefeated team finishing the regular season undefeated.  The SRS ratings track fairly closely with the Vegas odds this week, so I'm comfortable that they represent an accurate estimate of each team's strength.

It is no foregone conclusion that Florida and Alabama will both be 12-0 when they meet for the SEC championship.  In fact, the odds are only 51.9% that this will be the case.  Alabama still has two potentially tricky road games against Mississippi State and Auburn while Florida goes on the road to play South Carolina this week. 

The two mid-major gate crashers have the best odds at finishing undefeated.  TCU is in a strong position with a game against Utah this weekend, as Utah has not played as well as their record would indicate.  TCU is actually a 17 point favorite, and a 17 point win would look great to pollsters while improving the Horned Frogs' strength of schedule ratings.  Plus, if they beat the Utes their odds of finishing undefeated will be close to 98%. 

The next question is whether TCU or Boise State has a shot at playing for the national championship. I think TCU does but it's tough to predict how things will play out if the teams ahead of them lose.  First, TCU will have to hope Cincinnati loses, as I think a 12-0 Big East champion would pass them in the pecking order, especially with three strong wins to close the season.  Then, of course, the teams ahead of them will have to lose.  Texas losing would be their best bet because I think the Florida/Alabama winner will be in even if one of them loses before the SEC Championship. 

Let's say Texas plays Nebraska for the Big 12 Championship, which would put Texas' odds at finishing 13-0 at 66.4%.  In this scenario, the odds of TCU finishing 12-0, Texas 12-1 and Cincinnati 12-1 are relatively high - 14.5%.  Would 12-0 TCU beat out 12-1 Texas?  I think so, especially if Texas lost the Big 12 title game.  I'm hoping things play out this way (sorry, Boise State) because TCU has absolutely played well enough to be in the same territory as Texas, Florida and Alabama.  SRS would only put them as a 4 point underdog on a neutral field against Texas (though I'm guessing Vegas would put it more in the 7-10 point range). 

Overall, it's still more likely that the presumed Texas vs. Alabama/Florida championship will happen than it won't (I think) but things could still get rather interesting.  Stay tuned!

 

Illinois 35, Minnesota 32

I will admit I was shocked when Illinois led 28-7 at the half against Minnesota.  That put the Illini on a 59-7 tear since falling behind 13-7 against Michigan last week, stunning for a team that two weeks ago was 1-6 and alone in the Big 10 basement.  Although the Gophers made a nice run at it in the second half, Illinois has undoubtedly been playing a lot better the last two weeks.  What has changed?  Let's take a look at the numbers from the game:

Interestingly, after Illinois simply dominated Michigan on the ground, racking up 414 yards on 52 plays, the rush offense had its worst outing of the season against Minnesota.  My guess is that this partially reflects the switch from Juice to Jacob Charest at QB.  Juice is obviously a better runner than Charest, but having Charest at QB also negatively impacted LeShoure and Ford since the Illinois running game is predicated on Juice's ball fakes and option pitches. 

The good news is that Charest more than made up for it through the air, averaging nearly 10 yards per pass attempt, which in combination with Juice's strong start before his injury was Illinois' best passing performance of the season in terms of efficiency.  Charest has an odd throwing motion and can't really zip the ball the way Juice can but he was accurate and would have had better stats if not for several drops by the wide receivers, particularly Jeff Cumberland.

The young Illinois defense is starting to gel (highlighted by true freshman Terry Hawthorne's pick six - the second week in a row he has made a game-changing play on defense) and the dormant pass rush has suddenly awakened (seven sacks, including four by Clay Nurse).  The offense is improving as well, though I think the team will be best served if Juice is able to play this weekend because of his ability to conduct the option offense.  Illinois has struggled against Northwestern the last few years, but I am liking their chances to move to 4-6 before the big game against Cincinnati.

Illinois at Minnesota, Preview

The question for Illinois fans tomorrow is of course, whether the 38-13 victory over Michigan was a fluke or a sign of an impending turnaround.  Although I think the 25 point margin was fluky, there are real reasons to think that the Illini will be more formidable on offense from here on out, as they have finally discovered their running game.  The bad news is that it's hard to imagine they will get away with only attempting to pass 12 times again.  Furthermore, although the Illini's goal-line stand was impressive, they can't count on surrendering 13 points every week if they are giving up 377 yards at the same time.  So we shouldn't expect that the Illini will suddenly be the team they were expected to be before the season, but they ought to be more competitive at the very least.


The next question, then, is what to expect from the Golden Gophers.  The good news is that despite their 5-4 record, Minnesota has been outscored and outgained on the season.  They also lost star WR Eric Decker to a season-ending injury (50 catches, 758 yards) before last week's 42-34 victory over Michigan State.  Ironically, their scuffling offense found its mojo without Decker, as QB Adam Weber threw for 416 yards (beating his season high by almost 150 yards), and Minnesota posted its highest offensive output of the season in terms of both points and yards.  Although I don't expect Weber to perform that well two weeks in a row, he has been successful against defenses not named Penn State or Ohio State (7.6 yards per attempt on the year) and has proven for the time being that Eric Decker was not the sole reason for his success.

Ultimately, I think the Illini will score some points since Minnesota's defense hasn't been particularly successful against the run (or the pass, for that matter) but will also give up points against a solid Gopher pass attack.  I am tempted to pick Illinois since I suspect Minnesota will start to feel the loss of Decker this week, but they are at home, and it's tough to win on the road in conference.  Still, I think Illinois will continue the momentum from last week and I wouldn't be shocked to see them pull out a second straight victory.

Pick: Minnesota 27, Illinois 24

Michigan at Illinois, Win Probability

I love following Brian Burke's work over at Advanced NFL Stats, and in particular, his win probability graphs for NFL games.   Using down and distance, yards to go, and time left in the game, Brian can model the probability of each team winning in any game situation.  Using the handy Win Probability Calculator he provides on his site, I took the opportunity to graph Illinois' probability of winning over the course of their 38-13 defeat of Michigan on Saturday.  Be warned, the following chart is rough because my Excel graphing skills are somewhat lacking:

I had to keep the model simplified (both because of lack of data and time constraints), so the win probability is modeled drive-by-drive as opposed to play-by-play like Brian models it.  Even so, you can see that llinois' odds of winning were around 20% early in the second half (when Michigan was leading 13-7 and also had the ball).  And in fact, when Michigan achieved first and goal on the 1, Illinois' odds of winning were down to just 10% seeing how they were almost certainly about to fall behind either 16-7 or 20-7.  Although Terry Hawthorne's stop of Roy Roundtree on the Illinois 1 proved to be a huge play, it didn't make much of an impact on Illinois' win probability since Michigan was still expected to score 92% of the time from first and goal on the 1. 

I didn't think much about it during the game, but now I wonder if Rich Rodriguez' decision to go for it on fourth and 1 was a good idea or not.  I'm not going to judge by the results but by the probability going in.  Let's look at the scenarios:

4th and 1, Michigan scores a TD to go up 20-7: Illinois' odds of winning are 4% if they get the ball on their own 20.

4th and 1, Michigan kicks a FG to go up 16-7: Illinois' odds of winning are 25% if they get the ball on their own 20.

4th and 1, Michigan goes for a TD and doesn't get it, giving Illinois the ball at their own 1: Illinois' odds of winning are 19%.

So according to this model, had Michigan attempted a field goal, they would have been better off missing the attempt rather than making it.  This is rather counterintuitive, but there is a logical explanation, which is that the negative value of Illinois' field position backed up on their own 1 was greater than the positive value of Michigan scoring 3 points and giving Illinois much better field position after a kickoff.  Clearly, Rich Rodriguez made the right decision because going up 20-7 would have been decisive and going up 16-7 wouldn't have been.  Furthermore, even if they didn't get the touchdown, by far the most likely outcome was that Illinois would punt and Michigan would have great field position to attempt another score.  So don't blame Rodriguez for not taking the easy points.  There was enough time left in the game that he was best off trying to maximize his team's margin rather than playing it conservative.  What really changed things was Mikel LeShoure's 70 yard touchdown run, and that is all on the Michigan defense.

Illinois 38, Michigan 13

In the first half, it was the same old Illini.  They scored first but fell down 13-7 by the half as their offense went cold and their momentum frittered away.  And when Tate Forcier connected with Roy Roundtree for a 77 yard pass to seemingly put Michigan ahead 20-7, I was ready to lament yet another loss where the Illini fell apart as the game went on.  Except on review, Roundtree was down at the 1, Illinois made four straight goalline stops, then quickly rattled off a 6 play, 99 yard drive, highlighted by a 70 yard touchdown run by Mikel LeShoure. 

And suddenly, everything was different.  I had dismissed Illinois as a team that just didn't have as much talent as I once thought they did.  But maybe they were just shell-shocked after a 37-9 opening game loss and didn't have the confidence to win games they were capable of winning.  But after that series of plays where instead of being down 20-7, they were up 14-13, they finally realized they could win a game.  And the result was far and away the most satisfying game of football Illinois has played since, oh, their 45-20 defeat of Michigan last year in the Big House.  Are they really 25 points better than Michigan?  Probably not.  But for once, all the breaks went the Illini's way and they were ready to capitalize  They made huge plays over and over again in the second half, and the 79 yard touchdown run by Jason Ford to put them ahead 38-13 was just icing on the cake.  It may be too late to save a bowl berth, but for one glorious second half, it all came together for the Illini and Rich Rodriguez has to be wondering if he will still be patrolling the Michigan sideline this time next year.

Michigan at Illinois, a Prediction

I'm guessing Illinois fans don't really think there is much of a hope of beating Michigan this Saturday, especially after all the 'Michigan is back' hype in the wake of their 38-34 defeat of Notre Dame.  Yet the mood among Michigan fans isn't very optimistic either after they lost 35-10 at home to Penn State last week.  From reading some Michigan blogs, my impression is that the Michigan fans are gearing up for the worst this weekend.  I knew that the Wolverines had faded a bit after a strong start, but I was surprised to see just how bad they have been in conference play:

Their in-conference numbers really aren't any better than Illinois' (4.8 yards per play on offense, 6.3 yards per play allowed on defense) and they've played a lot of the same Big 10 opponents (Penn State, Michigan State, Indiana).  QB Tate Forcier has remembered that he's a true freshman, the ground game has stalled, and the defense has been mediocre apart from touted DE Brandon Graham (5.5 sacks, 15.5 tackles for loss). 

All that said, Michigan has played a tough Big 10 schedule and apart from the Penn State game have been competitive despite their deficit in yards per play, outright defeating Indiana, taking Michigan State to overtime, and losing to Iowa by just 2 points.  Given that, I don't think it makes sense to pick Illinois, as tempting as it may be given my incurable optimism.  But with the offense looking like it could round into form with a two-quarterback system, I like Illinois' chances of giving Michigan a game.

Pick: Michigan 24, Illinois 21

Illini Film Study Project

This blog is certainly a labor of love, because I have a small, if loyal readership (thanks family and friends!) and yet I pour hours into analyzing team statistics.  Actually, I have done this in past years, even without a blog.  At any rate, I have felt like my analysis could still use some work, especially since I have been at a loss to pinpoint the decline of the Illinois offense.  Thus I have begun an ambitious film study project.  I already have acquired the video from the Purdue game last weekend and have begun charting plays - on offense, focusing on offensive line protection and quarterback decision-making and on defense, focusing on defensive line penetration.

Unfortunately, watching and re-watching the plays is a slow process, so I have only charted up until about midway through the second quarter (hopefully I will get something more thorough posted in the future).  That said, I have already learned a lot.  It's easy to imagine that the coaches are incompetent buffoons since there is such a negative air around the team but so far, I haven't seen much of a playcalling difference between Illinois and Purdue.  In particular, Illinois' run plays were well-designed and well-executed in the first half, and they have a lot of different looks out of the backfield - handoffs out of the shotgun, delayed handoffs, and option pitches.  The pass game, in comparison, has not looked as good to me on film (not surprising).  In the passes I've charted for Juice so far, he made two really bad decisions, one under pressure, and one while on the run.  I'd like to imagine that Jacob Charest is the savior, but he also made a bad decision on his very first throw which could have led to an interception. 

Going forward, the run game is really starting to find itself with Mikel LeShoure as the lead back.  I still think that offensive coordinator Mike Schultz is hamstringing the offense with a lack of deep pass plays (none called in the plays I have charted so far), especially considering that was the strength of the team last year, but then again, Juice also hasn't had as much time to throw.  The offensive line looked noticeably worse in pass protection than against the run.  It's also becoming more clear to me that Juice hasn't developed as a passer.  When he got good protection against Purdue, he delivered nice, accurate passes, but when under pressure or on the run, he started to force passes into coverage and lose accuracy.  I think the main difference between this year and last year is less that Juice has regressed and more that the line is giving him much less pass protection, and that the receivers aren't getting open as often, thanks to the graduation of Will Judson and the injury problems of Arrelious Benn.
As for the defense, Illinois generally runs a basic 4-3 alignment (4 linemen, 3 linebackers) with corners and safeties in loose coverage, but in the first half against Purdue, they did a good job mixing up their coverage looks and disguising blitzes before the snap.  I have the same basic playcalling qualm as I do with the offense - not enough going for broke plays - in this case, I would like to see some more blitzes instead of deep passes.  All that said, the blitzes Illinois did run in the first half against Purdue were nicely timed and usually not picked up.  Again, the problem is less the playcalling and more the execution.  Purdue was able to run all over the Illini defense in the first half because the defensive line got almost no penetration.  This forced the linebackers and safeties to scramble to make tackles, which they sometimes did, but sometimes didn't.

So at least in the first half against Purdue, I felt the difference was more in terms of talent and execution than playcalling and game preparation.  This excuses Ron Zook and the coaching staff on one front, but as I alluded to in my last post, it raises serious questions about where all the supposed talent Zook brought in is if Purdue has the superior team.  The good news is if Jacob Charest continues to develop, the offense may show some more signs of life, and the Illini ought to be greatly improved next year with a more experienced defense and the return of their running back corps.

Purdue 24, Illinois 14

Well, the Illini had their moments against an underrated Purdue team, but couldn't put it all together for a victory, dropping them to just 1-6 overall and 0-5 in Big 10 play.  The difference, ultimately, was in the pass game:

 

Illinois actually matched Purdue on the ground - although a bit less consistent, they were also slightly more explosive (a 65 yard run always helps).  Mikel LeShoure is establishing himself as the #1 running back, and the coaches recognize that.  Unfortunately, it's difficult to focus on the run when Illinois always falls behind early.  Meanwhile, Purdue established the run and QB Joey Elliott was quite effective when he did throw.  Juice continued to struggle, taking four sacks and turning the ball over twice.  He had some good plays, but continued to make crippling mistakes when under pressure.  He had a near-interception in the first quarter where he forced a pass into double coverage rather than run or throw the ball away, and driving into Purdue territory with the score 7-7, he did the same thing again, and was that time rewarded with an actual interception.

So believe it or not, I actually like Ron Zook's idea to continue using two quarterbacks - Juice and Jacob Charest.  The Eddie McGee experiment was short-lived but a failure, as McGee is a Juice clone through and through, right down to the horrifying passes into double coverage.  Charest, on the other hand, looks like a more accurate passer, though he had one bad near-interception of his own.  Some fans might want to see Charest play the entire game, but that would limit the Illinois offense, since Juice was fairly effective on designed rush plays (10 carries, 47 yards, 5 successes).  So against Michigan, I would like to see Juice be used more for quarterback runs and Charest used more for pass plays.  Then we can find out if Charest is really a more effective passer than Juice or if he is too inexperienced at this point.  Illinois is only a 7.5 point underdog against Michigan and covered the spread for the first time all season against Purdue (by a half point) so they have a chance at the very least.

Purdue Outlook and Bonus UNC Coverage

Since forecasting Illinois games is becoming ever more depressing, I am going to supplement this post with some bonus North Carolina football coverage in honor of my girlfriend, who now attends UNC.  Needless to say, there will be no bonus UNC basketball coverage but I feel there are no conflicts of interest when it comes to football.

Last night was a desperation game for both Florida State and North Carolina who each entered the season with high expectations but were both off to 0-2 starts in the ACC.  Unfortunately for the Heels, they are now 0-3 in ACC play after FSU rallied from an 18 point second-half deficit to win 30-27.  It was an interesting game going in, as UNC was 1st in defense, but 110th in offense (in terms of yards per play) while FSU was 25th in offense, 115th in defense (again in terms of yards per play).  In the first half, the Heels defense won out and the offense took advantage of short-field situations for scores but in the second half QB Christian Ponder took over for Florida State while the UNC offense flatlined.

Betsy won't like this, but ultimately the statistics show that Florida State probably should have won by more than 3 points, despite the 18-point deficit.  Not only were their offense much more explosive on a per-play basis (6.8 to 4.9) but they were also were more consistent as shown by success rate (46.2% to 30.9%).  The Heels were solid on the ground, running some end-around and reverse plays to great effect, but did almost nothing through the air.  Meanwhile, after a penalty-ridden first half, Florida State lit up the UNC defense in the second half for 338 yards and 23 successes on just 40 plays.  The Seminoles never established a running threat but Christian Ponder nonetheless threw for 395 yards. 

Unfortunately, UNC has a tough slate of games coming up with the only potential breather being a November 7 home game against Duke.  They can still reel off some wins but they will need to bring a consistent effort on defense and have their offense take advantage of short-field situations as it did against Florida State.  The stats from last night's game look bad, but I think the real problem was that the team simply let up after going ahead 24-6 in the third quarter.  It's natural, but given their offensive deficiencies, it can't afford to happen.

Well, my bonus UNC coverage wound up consuming the entire post.  But suffice it to say, I'm returning to my strategy of picking against the Illini until they prove to me that I shouldn't.

Pick: Purdue 35, Illinois 17

Illinois at Purdue, Preview

Before last weekend, I optimistically envisioned this game as the second consecutive win in a mid-season turnaround for the Illini.  If Illinois managed to beat Indiana, they would then be playing a 1-6 Purdue team.  Except, of course, Illinois lost and Purdue isn't 1-6 after a shocking 26-18 home upset of Ohio State.  Now, Illinois is a 10 point underdog against the suddenly resurgent Boilermakers.

All that said, I disagree with Dr. Saturday's contention that "it's not like Purdue was a snake in the grass or anything."  I certainly would not have picked Purdue to beat Ohio State just because Ohio State has historically been so reliable against its Big 10 opponents.  But Purdue was absolutely better than their 1-5 record going in indicated and are better than their current 2-5 mark as well.  They lost by just 2 points on the road against Oregon (#11 in the BCS standings) and by 3 at home against Notre Dame.  On the other hand, they did have head-scratching losses against Northern Illinois, Northwestern and to a lesser extent, Minnesota.  The NIU loss was legitimately head-scratching but the Northwestern loss was a fluke, as Purdue outgained the Wildcats by over 3 yards per play but was -5 in turnover margin.  Even the 15 point loss to Minnesota was closer than it appeared as the teams were equal on a yards per play basis.  Going into the Ohio State game, it was plausible that Purdue could have been 5-1 or 6-0 had they been particularly lucky instead of unlucky (and no, this is not a stretch - just look at Iowa, which is 7-0 despite close shaves against Northern Iowa and Arkansas State) - at which point I would still have picked Ohio State but it wouldn't have seemed like such a colossal upset.

So, in that sense, it was about time that one of Purdue's opponents handed them a game, and Ohio State did just that, with 5 turnovers.  And clearly, Vegas has recognized that despite similar records, Purdue has been far more competitive than the Illini - having been outscored by just 4 points on the season whereas the Illini have been outscored by 71.  Even with a new head coach and new QB, Purdue has had a rejuvenated pass attack this year, with Joey Elliott averaging 7.1 yards per pass attempt against the 6.3 of Curtis Painter last season.  Their team rushing statistics also look better since Elliott has more scrambling ability - though it's probably a wash given that sacks are included in team rushing totals.  Purdue has been slightly improved on defense from last year, primarily versus the run, though their pass defense has been respectable as well.

Purdue's pitfall, of course, has been turnovers, with 12 fumbles lost and 11 interceptions thrown, leaving them -7 in turnover margin on the season even after the +2 performance against Ohio State.  They actually have 23 turnovers to just 13 by Illinois but have also forced 16 turnovers while the Illini have forced just 9.  Part of Purdue's troubles have been bad luck, as they have lost 12 of their 17 fumbles - and fumble recovery rate is almost completely random.  But even so, 17 fumbles in 7 games is a big number, as is 11 interceptions.

So although Purdue is certainly the superior team to Illinois in terms of moving the ball up and down the field, they have already lost to inferior teams (Northern Illinois, Northwestern) thanks to their issues with turnovers and general inconsistency.  In other words, there is hope for the Illini yet, but if Purdue makes mistakes, Illinois will have to be able to take advantage of them - something they have not yet done this season.

Yards per Point

For my post yesterday, I calculated the average yards per point for NCAA football teams.  In 2008, teams averaged a point for every 13.7 yards gained, or a touchdown for every 96 yards.  Obviously, the average touchdown drive is shorter than 96 yards but every time a team drives 75 yards and only kicks a field goal or turns the ball over in the red zone, their yards per point is significantly hit.  On the other hand, teams can score touchdowns without even touching the ball on offense.  What it sums up to is that the average college football team can expect a touchdown for every 96 yards of offense.

Obviously, since this is an average, some teams will be more successful at converting yards into points than others.  Last year, the three most efficient teams in converting yards into points on offense were Florida, Oklahoma and Utah.  Perhaps not surprisingly, Florida and Oklahoma played for the national championship and Utah completed an undefeated season with a Sugar Bowl upset against Alabama. 

The question, of course, is whether converting yards into points is a skill or a matter of luck.  Something like yards per point will depend a lot on turnover margins and special teams, which tend to swing from year to year.  On the other hand, I would expect some level of skill to be involved, especially for the better teams in football.  That said, the top 5 teams in converting yards into points in 2008 have seen their yards per point ratio increase (get worse) by an average of 3.3 points in 2009.  Meanwhile, the bottom 5 teams in converting yards into points in 2008 have seen their ratios drop by an average of 3.4 points in 2009.

So what does this mean for Illinois football?  After ranking 92nd nationally in yards per point last year (thus making a potentially great offense rather inconsistent), the Illinois offense is 119th out of 120 teams this year (21.7 yards per point).  Illinois is averaging just one touchdown for every 152 yards of offense!  The good news is that with a total that low, simple bad luck comes into play.  So the Illini offense is not quite as bad as it has looked thus far this year.  With an average number of yards per point, they would be averaging 27 points per game instead of 16.5 - but an average number of yards per point is still a bit much to expect from a Ron Zook team. 

Now in most of Illinois' games this wouldn't have made a difference.  Based purely on raw yardage, they would still have been projected to lose all the games they did.  And in truth, their yardage totals are misleading considering they have racked up a lot of 'garbage time' yardage on offense in their last three games.  But the game against Indiana could very much have gone a different way if the Illini had gone up 14-13 instead of seeing Juice fumble at the 5 yard line.  Illinois actually had a superior success rate against the Hoosiers but was somewhat less explosive on a per-play basis.  Thus, I don't think that Illinois is a worse team than Indiana - considering that Indiana was at home, they are probably about even.  That may be damning with faint praise, but it offers some hope to a team that has yet to record a win against an FBS opponent.

So the good news is that the Illini offense will likely regress to the mean a bit and score a few more points than they've been scoring.  The bad news is that Ron Zook's teams have consistently undershot the average on yards per point for offense, with the offense averaging just 17.1 yards per point during his five-year tenure, and never finishing above the national mean.  Thus, although this year's team is getting unlucky, it is also a reflection on Zook's coaching that the offense has been consistently inefficient at converting yardage into points .

Illini Football Season Statistics

Although my analysis of the Illini football season has been statistically-oriented, I have not delivered on my promise to offer exclusive Illini statistics.  Well fear no more! 

Over at Rock M Nation, a Missouri sports blog, the proprietor, Bill Connelly, has developed a system for rating the success of college teams, units and players that has also made its way into columns at ESPN and Football Outsiders.  I am going to do something similar to analyze the Illini, though not quite as advanced, for the sake of saving time. 

Basically, there are two metrics that I want to look at.  One is yards per play, which I am converting into points per play based on an average ratio of 1 point for every 13.8 yards (Note that this reflects projected points scored, not actual points scored, which is something I will discuss more tomorrow).  The other is success rate, which measures whether each play was a success.  I'm using Connelly's criteria for what constitutes a success, namely:

1st down: A play that gains 50% of required yardage is a success
2nd down: A play that gains 70% of required yardage is a success
3rd and 4th down: A play that gains 100% of required yardage is a success

Then, similar to what Connelly does, I added the team's projected points per play and success rate together - thus capturing the pure scoring rate of an offense while also capturing its play-to-play consistency (i.e., are they more dependent on one big play to score or a series of smaller plays). 

Now, for some season statistics!

I don't have a lot of data yet to put into context exactly what these numbers mean but suffice it to say that the .835 figure for the Illinois offense is probably average but the .935 figure for the defense is pretty bad (and the numbers would look a lot worse if not for Illinois' beatdown of Illinois State).  Illinois' success rate on offense (44.5%) is not that much worse than the success rate of their opponents (46.6%), but their opponents get significantly more points per play, reflecting the Illini's lack of big play ability.  Illinois has actually outperformed their opponents on the season in the run game - but again, that is skewed because of the 400 yard rushing performance against Illinois State.  Still, the run game has largely been a wash for the Illini.  Where they have been beaten badly is in the passing game.

In performing this play-by-play analysis, I counted all sacks as pass plays (since that's what they are!), which means that Illinois actually averages more points per rush than per pass, which is rare.  Generally, you would expect the passing game to have a higher points per play value but a lower success rate due to incomplete passes.  Instead, the Illini passing game has been ineffective all around with a low success rate (37.5%) and a poor ratio of points per play.  On the other side of the ball, the secondary has been regularly torched this year, yielding a 1.016 S&P+ (using Connelly's terminology for the time being - though it is not exactly the same thing).  Apart from the Penn State game, the run defense has been pretty good but the strategy of putting the corners into loose coverage has clearly not been an effective one.

Tomorrow, I will show why the Illinois offense has been rather unlucky this year and why the Illinois-Indiana game was closer than it looked, perhaps giving some positive signs going ahead.

Indiana 27, Illinois 14 and Thoughts on the Ron Zook Era

With yet another baffling and embarrassing loss, it's safe to say that Ron Zook is on the hot seat.  I watched this game from start to finish, and it is clear that Illinois is the worst team in the Big 10.  The final game statistics give some false signs of hope, but 148 of Illinois' 443 yards of offense came in the fourth quarter, after they had already fallen behind 27-7 (and even then it took the Illini 29 plays to get those yards).  Sure, Illinois had a chance to go ahead 14-13 before the critical Juice fumble on the 5, but only because Indiana had gone into the red zone three times and come out with just three points.  And it's hard to even give much credit to the Illini for stopping Indiana in the red zone given that the Hoosiers missed two field goals and had their running back fall down on 4th and 1 when he probably would have scored a touchdown.

The Illini offense was average, with a solid touchdown drive in the first half, but simply could not put anything together consistently until it was too late.  But after a nice performance in the second half against Michigan State, the defense was lost yet again, surrendering 482 yards of offense on 6.8 yards per snap.  Most galling, Indiana QB Ben Chappell threw for a career high 333 yards and 3 touchdowns.  I know the defense is young, and has only gotten younger due to a wave of injuries (LB Martez Wilson, CB Miami Thomas, and now, S Donsay Hardeman).  But it would be nice if the coaching staff would put them in a position to try and make plays.  Instead, they run the same vanilla 4-3 scheme every week with the corners 10 yards off the receivers and almost no blitzing.  Predictably, there is no pass rush and the team gets picked apart with short passes.   The other huge negative about the 'bend but don't break' style of defense is that the Illini seemingly never force turnovers.  Illinois is a remarkably bad -38 in turnover margin during the Ron Zook era and has NEVER had a positive turnover margin on the season.  This is incredible given that turnover margin is notoriously inconsistent from year to year.

I appreciate Zook's enthusiasm but it's time for me to admit that my optimism has blinded me.  Admittedly, there are more problems with this team than just coaching.  After all, Zook did coach a team to the Rose Bowl just two years ago - so it's not true that he is totally incompetent.  But what is true, both at Florida and at Illinois, is that Zook's teams consistently underachieve.  And for all his vaunted recruiting, the product on the field this year simply isn't all that talented.  The defense is young and thanks to injuries, has gotten even younger.  The offense has failed to gel.  Zook brings the players in but hasn't shown an ability to keep those players on the team or to help them develop their potential.

The root of the problem  is that Zook thinks that everything will be solved if the team just plays harder.  I have collected a series of quotations from Zook this year, which are rather damning.

"This is going to end when we decide it's going to end" - Ron Zook after the Indiana loss
"I don't think we're as far away as everyone thinks" - Ron Zook after the Michigan State loss
"I'm not sure this is the right thing to do, but it'll give us a change and we'll see" - Ron Zook after announcing that Eddie McGee would start against Michigan State
"Obviously, again, we didn't play the way we are capable of playing" - Zook after the Penn State loss
"We're in a little slump now for whatever reason and we're going to have to play our way out of it" - Zook after the Ohio State loss
"We didn't play the way we've practiced" - Zook after the Missouri loss

What's terrifying is that Ron Zook is apparently unable to see or admit that this team just isn't very good.  He still thinks that the problem is just that they aren't playing hard enough or putting it all together.  If they were playing well some weeks and not others, I could see his point, but that isn't the case.  They have been consistently outclassed by all of their opponents apart from Illinois State.  This is not a team that isn't playing hard.  This is a team that isn't very good.  That alone is a huge knock on Zook, but the biggest red flag is when the head coach can't recognize that he doesn't have a very good team.  Ron Zook is unwilling or incapable of properly analyzing the players around him.  He thinks that everything is a matter of motivation, which it isn't.  Is it a wonder that his recruits haven't developed when all Zook apparently does is tell them to play harder?  Sorry, Ron, but this season should be your last.

Indiana Outlook

Well, I ran the same simulation I ran last week, and unsurprisingly, Illinois' bowl odds have plummeted after another lackluster loss.  Just a week ago, the Illini projected to be a 6 point favorite against Indiana but Vegas is finally ditching its high preseason expectations for Illinois and has moved them to just a 2 point favorite (Actually, the line has moved up to 3.5 over the last day - this is a good sign!).  Correspondingly, Illinois' bowl odds have fallen from 35.2% to 13.6% in my simulation.  It's still not impossible but with a mean simulated finish of 4-8, the more pressing question may be whether Ron Zook will still be coaching Illinois this time next year. 

It's past time to throw out the preseason expectations.  The offense has been much worse than expected and the defense, the main question mark coming into the season, has shown why it was a question mark.  But if Illinois is going to win any games this year, now is a good time to get started.  The young defense played a lot better in the second half against Michigan State.  Arrelious Benn is healthy.  And best of all, they are playing an opponent who hasn't looked a whole lot more impressive than they have.  I'm calling for a strong, consistent performance from the defense and Juice hooking up with Benn for a long touchdown pass. 

Pick: Illinois 24, Indiana 17

Indiana Preview

Indiana has historically been the weakest team in the Big 10, so it's not too surprising that Illinois, even at 1-4, has been posted as a road favorite by Vegas.  Yet at the same time, Illinois is only favored to win by two points over a team that was throttled 47-7 by Virginia last week.  The Illini are 0-4 against the spread this year and as such, Vegas has brought the line on this game way down from where it would have been just a few weeks ago. 

So what can we expect from the Hoosiers?  They got off to a 3-0 start, but only thanks to the kind of pathetic nonconference schedule I wish Illinois would play, with narrow wins over Western Michigan, FCS member Eastern Kentucky and a more resounding win against Akron.  Their most impressive game of the season by far was a 36-33 loss at Michigan where they actually outgained the Wolverines 467-372 but lost on a late touchdown drive by Michigan QB Tate Forcier.  Based on that performance, Indiana probably would have been favored against the Illini except for last week when they were torched by an improving Virginia team, dropping them to 3-3 on the season.

Even without QB Kellen Lewis (kicked off the team due to disciplinary problems), Indiana has a decent passing offense behind QB Ben Chappell, who is averaging 6.8 yards per pass attempt.  Their running game hasn't been as impressive due largely to the immobility of Chappell but the top two running backs, Demetrius McCray and Darius Willis, have been decently productive. 

Where the team has really struggled is in the secondary, giving up 8.0 yards per pass attempt (even worse than Illinois!).  This flaw became all too visible for Hoosier fans when embattled Virginia QB Jameel Sewell threw for 308 yards in three quarters and Virginia racked up 536 yards of offense.  The Hoosier secondary was also embarassing against FCS Eastern Kentucky, whose quarterbacks went 17-26 for 278 yards in a 19-13 loss. 

Even with their poor secondary, Indiana has been slightly better than Illinois on a per-play basis this year.  The teams have been the same on offense, both averaging 5.2 yards per play, but Indiana has had a superior rush defense and thus has surrendered 5.5 yards per play versus Illinois' 6.0.  That said, Illinois has played a significantly tougher schedule and probably has more talent.  We still don't know for sure who will be starting at QB for the Illini, but I'm guessing it will be Juice, and if so, he and Arrelious Benn will really need to take advantage of a weak Indiana secondary for the Illini to win.