How Colorado turned its defense around, plus stop rate for all 134 CFB teams

Published

1 week ago

October 29, 2024

admin

Max Olson, ESPN Staff WriterOct 29, 2024, 07:00 AM ET
Close
- Covers the Big 12
- Joined ESPN in 2012
- Graduate of the University of Nebraska

When Deion Sanders needed a new defensive coordinator back in January, he looked to the NFL and leaned on peers he trusts. They pointed him in the direction of a 38-year-old coach who’d never been a DC anywhere but had the potential to be just what Colorado needed.

Ten months later, it’s hard not to be impressed by what Robert Livingston is achieving in Boulder. Under his leadership, the Buffaloes have one of college football’s most improved defenses. Just look at their stop rate.

What is stop rate? It’s a basic measurement of success: the percentage of a defense’s drives that end in punts, turnovers or a turnover on downs. Defensive coordinators have the same goal regardless of their scheme, opponent or conference: prevent points and get off the field. Stop rate is a simple metric but can offer a good reflection of a defense’s effectiveness on a per-drive basis in today’s faster-tempo game.

Last year, national champ Michigan finished No. 1 with a stop rate of 81.6% in its games against FBS opponents. The top 25 teams in the final 2023 stop rate standings won a total of 249 games, with seven earning conference titles. Great teams find a way to get stops in critical situations.

Stop rate is not an advanced stat and is no substitute for Bill Connelly’s SP+ or other more comprehensive metrics. It’s merely a different method for evaluating success on defense.

Team	Games	Stop Rate	Pts/Drive
1. Tennessee	6	81.3%	0.90
2. Texas	8	80.2%	0.90
3. Notre Dame	8	80%	1.04
4. Ohio State	7	79.5%	0.99
5. Army	6	78.9%	1.38
6. Iowa State	6	77.6%	1.26
7. Ole Miss	7	77.1%	1.04
8. James Madison	7	76.2%	1.37
9. Indiana	7	75%	1.47
10. Alabama	8	74.7%	1.33
11. California	7	74.7%	1.51
12. Wisconsin	7	74%	1.53
13. Duke	7	73.6%	1.39
14. Oregon	7	73.6%	1.39
15. Utah	7	73.3%	1.39
16. South Carolina	7	72.7%	1.47
17. Virginia Tech	8	72.4%	1.63
18. UConn	7	72.3%	1.36
19. Colorado	7	72.2%	1.66
20. Sam Houston	8	71.6%	1.71
21. Penn State	7	71.4%	1.32
22. Oklahoma	8	71.3%	1.46
23. Nebraska	7	71.1%	1.75
24. SMU	7	70.1%	1.76
25. Iowa	7	70%	1.56
25. Northern Illinois	7	70%	1.43
27. Clemson	7	69.8%	1.83
28. Missouri	7	68.8%	1.81
29. Houston	8	68.5%	1.85
30. Miami (Ohio)	8	68.2%	1.71
30. Georgia	6	68.2%	1.64
32. Pittsburgh	6	68.1%	1.81
33. Texas A&M	7	67.9%	1.69
34. Memphis	7	67.9%	1.90
35. Kansas State	7	67.5%	1.94
35. Fresno State	7	67.5%	1.70
37. Northwestern	7	67.4%	1.81
38. Liberty	5	67.2%	1.79
39. Western Kentucky	6	67.2%	2.14
40. Navy	6	67.1%	1.95
41. Old Dominion	8	67%	1.81
42. Toledo	7	66.7%	1.71
43. USC	8	66.3%	1.85
44. Florida International	7	66.3%	1.91
45. Minnesota	7	66.2%	1.72
46. Louisiana Tech	6	66.2%	1.74
46. Texas State	6	66.2%	1.79
48. Michigan	8	65.9%	1.89
48. San Jose State	7	65.9%	1.98
50. Kentucky	8	65.8%	1.77
51. Rice	7	65.4%	1.95
52. BYU	7	65.4%	1.73
53. Auburn	7	65.3%	1.84
54. UNLV	7	65.1%	2.06
55. Miami	7	64.9%	1.96
55. Washington	7	64.9%	1.82
57. Arkansas	7	64.6%	1.96
58. Colorado State	7	64.6%	2.12
59. Boise State	6	64.3%	2.13
60. Rutgers	7	63.6%	2.33
61. Florida	6	63.2%	2.19
61. San Diego State	6	63.2%	2.13
63. South Alabama	7	63%	2.07
64. Tulane	7	62.7%	1.94
65. LSU	7	62.5%	1.94
66. Maryland	7	62.4%	2.07
67. Georgia Tech	8	62.3%	2.04
68. UL Monroe	6	62.3%	1.97
69. Ohio	7	61.5%	2.08
70. Cincinnati	7	61.4%	1.95
71. Arizona State	7	61.3%	1.98
72. Michigan State	7	61.1%	2.21
73. Illinois	7	60.9%	2.16
74. UTSA	7	60.8%	2.25
75. East Carolina	7	60.2%	2.31
76. UTEP	7	59.8%	2.32
77. Washington State	7	59.8%	2.18
78. Baylor	7	59.3%	2.25
79. Louisville	7	59.2%	2.35
79. Bowling Green	7	59.2%	1.94
81. Temple	8	59.2%	2.58
82. Louisiana	6	58.9%	2.34
83. Jacksonville State	7	58.8%	2.22
84. Georgia Southern	7	58.6%	2.48
84. Oklahoma State	7	58.6%	2.46
86. North Carolina	7	58.3%	2.27
87. Eastern Michigan	7	58%	2.45
88. Marshall	6	58%	2.32
89. South Florida	6	57.9%	2.50
90. Tulsa	7	57.8%	2.57
91. Boston College	7	57.7%	2.17
92. Buffalo	7	57.6%	2.40
93. Kansas	7	57.5%	2.31
94. Arizona	7	57.5%	2.38
95. Kennesaw State	6	56.9%	2.61
96. TCU	7	56.6%	2.36
97. Texas Tech	7	56.5%	2.47
97. West Virginia	7	56.5%	2.69
99. Vanderbilt	7	56.3%	2.40
100. Air Force	6	56.1%	2.56
101. Virginia	7	55.1%	2.39
102. Florida Atlantic	6	55.1%	2.43
103. Arkansas State	7	54.5%	2.68
104. Wyoming	7	54.4%	2.38
105. Syracuse	6	54.2%	2.30
105. Hawai’i	6	54.2%	2.53
107. Florida State	8	54.2%	2.29
108. UCF	7	53.8%	2.46
109. Charlotte	7	53.8%	2.68
110. Georgia State	6	53.1%	2.74
111. Coastal Carolina	6	52.8%	2.64
112. Akron	7	52.6%	3.01
113. NC State	7	52.5%	2.49
114. Western Michigan	7	51.9%	2.90
115. Troy	7	51.4%	2.56
116. UMass	6	50.8%	2.76
117. Wake Forest	7	50.6%	2.75
118. North Texas	7	50.6%	2.84
119. Stanford	7	50%	2.83
120. Nevada	8	49.4%	2.71
121. New Mexico State	6	48.1%	2.90
121. Middle Tennessee	7	48.1%	3.25
123. UCLA	7	47%	2.86
124. Southern Miss	7	46.8%	3.01
125. Oregon State	7	46.4%	2.80
126. Central Michigan	7	46.3%	2.77
127. App State	6	42.4%	3.22
128. Purdue	6	41.8%	3.49
129. New Mexico	7	41%	3.41
130. Ball State	7	40.8%	3.54
131. Utah State	7	39.8%	3.38
132. UAB	6	39.4%	3.45
133. Mississippi State	7	35.6%	3.55
134. Kent State	7	35.3%	3.83

The numbers weren’t pretty for the Buffaloes in Year 1 of the Coach Prime era. They allowed 40 or more points in five games, gave up 6.3 yards per play (115th in the FBS) and finished with a stop rate of 57.8% against FBS opponents, which ranked 97th nationally.

This year, it’s a different story. The 6-2 Buffs rank 19th in this week’s updated stop rate standings at 72.7% and look as if they’ll be contenders in the Big 12 title race thanks to a defense that has made real progress in so many ways.

The most obvious area of improvement: Colorado has played pretty darn good defense in the second half of games. This unit is giving up a mere 6.5 points per game after halftime this season, eighth fewest in the FBS, with more takeaways (11) than touchdowns allowed (seven). Livingston has them performing much better on third downs (conversions are down from 47% to 34%) and has injected confidence into a defense that took a lot of heat last year.

“It’s a testament to the guys,” Livingston said earlier this month. “They’ve bought in, they play hard, they play fast. Is it perfect? No, it’s not always perfect. But they give their all, and as long as we get that, I think we’ll like the results.”

When Charles Kelly left at the end of December to become the co-DC at Auburn and Sanders went through the search process, Livingston came well-recommended from several NFL coaches, including Dallas Cowboys DC Mike Zimmer, and brought valuable experience from his stint as defensive backs coach under one of the NFL’s best in Lou Anarumo with the Cincinnati Bengals. Colorado reloaded with 21 new scholarship transfers on defense, and 10 of them have earned starts this season. Their new leader has thrived by building around their strengths.

“The way he coaches, the scheme that he sets up for us, it’s a scheme that all of us love playing,” Colorado safety Cam’Ron Silmon-Craig said earlier this season. “It plays to all of our strengths. I’ve said it before, but when he came in, he came in with no playbook. He said, ‘What do y’all do well? We’re gonna work around that.’ I give coach Rob Livingston all the credit. The players, we go out and execute and play our heart out for him every day.”

Quarterback Shedeur Sanders and receiver/defensive back Travis Hunter gives the Buffaloes a chance to compete with anybody in the Big 12. But if this defense can keep finding a way to get stops, Colorado will be a contender in November.

A few more stop rate updates to note following Week 9:

Tennessee moved into the No. 1 spot in the stop rate standings ahead of Texas and Ohio State after the latter two had close wins Saturday. The Vols are coming off their bye week and have a stop rate of 81.3% on the year. They’re the only defense in FBS that has held every opponent under 20 points. Last season, Tennessee finished No. 28 in stop rate at 68.6%.
Alabama bounced back with a dominant day against Missouri and moved back into the top 10 in stop rate. The Tide forced seven punts and intercepted backup QB Drew Pyne three times in the 34-0 rout.
Undefeated Indiana is still in the top 10 in stop rate after another strong showing in its 31-17 win over Washington. The Hoosiers got eight stops on third downs and two on fourth downs and still haven’t trailed in a game this season. Oregon is closing in on the top 10 as well following its 38-9 rout of No. 20 Illinois.
Virginia Tech, UConn, Sam Houston and Iowa moved into the top 25 in this week’s standings with Navy, Missouri and Liberty dropping out. Navy’s defense gave up scores on 7 of 11 drives in its 51-14 loss to Notre Dame and slid from 15th to 40th.

Note: All data is courtesy of TruMedia. Games against FCS opponents and end-of-half drives in which the opponent took a knee or ran out the clock were filtered out.

Sports

What are FBS college football conference tiebreaker rules?

Published

14 hours ago

November 6, 2024

admin

What are FBS college football conference tiebreaker rules?

Keith Jenkins

Nov 6, 2024, 09:00 AM ET

In the new 12-team College Football Playoff format, there is an added emphasis on conference championships. The four highest-ranked conference champions receive a first-round bye and a fifth conference champion is guaranteed a spot in the field. Those champions will be determined by conference title games held Dec. 6-7.

But in a college football landscape that has mostly done away with divisions and with some conferences expanding to as many as 18 teams, it can be difficult to figure out who is in line to reach those conference title games.

We’re here to help out. Below are the list of tiebreakers for each league to help determine conference championship game participants.

Atlantic Coast Conference

Conference’s tiebreaker policy

Two-team tie:

1. Head-to-head

2. Win percentage against common opponents

3. Win percentage against common opponents from top-to-bottom of the conference standings (breaking ties among tied teams)

4. Combined win percentage of conference opponents

5. Higher ranking by the Team Rating Score metric (from SportSource Analytics)

6. Draw administered by the ACC commissioner

Three-plus team tie: In case of a tie for both conference championship spots, once the tiebreaker identifies one championship game representative, it will start over with the remaining tied teams.

1. Combined head-to-head win percentage among the tied teams (if all tied teams are common opponents)

2. If all tied teams are not common opponents, if any tied team defeated each of the other tied teams

2a. If all tied teams are not common opponents, and no tied team defeated each of the other tied teams, but a tied team lost to each of the other tied teams, that team is eliminated

3. Win percentage against common opponents

4. Win percentage against common opponents from top-to-bottom of the conference standings

5. Combined win percentage of conference opponents

6. Higher ranking by the Team Rating Score metric (from SportSource Analytics)

7. Draw administered by the ACC commissioner

Big 12 Conference

Conference’s tiebreaker policy

Two-team tie:

1. Head-to-head

2. Win percentage against common conference opponents

3. Win percentage against the next-highest common opponent in the conference standings; in case of tied teams in standings, use each team’s win percentage against all of those teams

4. Combined win percentage in conference games of conference opponents (strength of conference schedule)

5. Total wins over the 12-game season (only one win against teams from FCS or lower division will be counted)

6. Higher ranking by the Team Rating Score metric (from SportSource Analytics)

7. Coin toss

Three-plus team tie: In case of a tie for both conference championship spots, once the tiebreaker identifies one championship game representative, it will start over with the remaining tied teams. When reduced to two tied teams, the two-team tiebreakers will be used.

1. Combined head-to-head among tied teams (if all tied teams are common opponents)

1a. If all tied teams are not common opponents, if any tied team defeated each of the other tied teams

1b. If all tied teams are not common opponents, and no tied team defeated each of the other tied teams, but a tied team lost to each of the other tied teams, that team is eliminated

2. Win percentage against all common opponents

3. Record against next-highest common opponent in conference standings; in case of tied teams in standings, use each team’s win percentage against all of those teams

4. Combined win percentage in conference games of conference opponents (strength of conference schedule)

5. Total wins over the 12-game season (only one win against teams from FCS or lower division will be counted)

6. Higher ranking by the Team Rating Score metric (from SportSource Analytics)

7. Coin toss

Big Ten Conference

Conference’s tiebreaker policy

Two-team tie:

1. Head-to-head

2. Win percentage against common conference opponents

3. Win percentage against common opponents from top-to-bottom of the conference standings (breaking ties among tied teams)

4. Combined conference win percentage of conference opponents

5. Higher ranking by the Team Rating Score metric (from SportSource Analytics)

6. Draw administered by the Big Ten commissioner

1. Combined head-to-head among tied teams

1a. If all tied teams are not common opponents, if any tied team defeated each of the other tied teams

2. Win percentage against all common conference opponents

3. Win percentage against common opponents from top-to-bottom of the conference standings (breaking ties among tied teams)

4. Combined conference win percentage of conference opponents

5. Higher ranking by the Team Rating Score metric (from SportSource Analytics)

6. Draw administered by the Big Ten commissioner

Southeastern Conference

Conference’s tiebreaker policy

Two-team tie:

1. Head-to-head

2. Win percentage against common conference opponents

3. Win percentage against common opponents from top-to-bottom of the conference standings (breaking ties among tied teams: if a two-team tiebreaker will not break a tie, combined records against tied common opponents will be used)

4. Combined conference win percentage of conference opponents

5. Higher relative total scoring margin against all conference opponents (from SportSource Analytics)

6. Random draw

Three-plus team tie: In case of a tie for both conference championship spots, once the tiebreaker identifies one championship game representative, it will start over with the remaining tied teams.

1. Combined head-to-head among tied teams (if all tied teams are common opponents)

1a. If all tied teams are not common opponents, if any tied team defeated each of the other tied teams

1b. If all tied teams are not common opponents, and no tied team defeated each of the other tied teams, but a tied team lost to each of the other tied teams, that team is eliminated

2. Record against all common conference opponents

3. Win percentage against common opponents from top-to-bottom of the conference standings (breaking ties among tied teams; if a two-team tiebreaker will not break a tie, combined records against tied common opponents will be used)

4. Combined conference win percentage of conference opponents

5. Higher relative total scoring margin against all conference opponents (from SportSource Analytics)

6. Random draw

American Athletic Conference

Conference’s tiebreaker policy

Two-team tie:

1. Head-to-head

2. If one team is ranked in the latest CFP rankings (and didn’t lose in the final weekend of the regular season)

2a. If one team is ranked in the latest CFP rankings and lost in the final weekend of the regular season, a composite average of selected metrics will be used

2b. If both teams are ranked, the higher-ranked team that didn’t lose in the final weekend of the regular season (if both lose, a composite average of metrics)

2c. If neither team is ranked in the latest CFP rankings, a composite average of selected metrics will be used

3. Win percentage against common conference opponents

4. Overall win percentage (conference and nonconference) excluding exempt games

5. Coin toss

Three-plus team tie: In case of a tie for both conference championship spots, once the tiebreaker identifies one championship game representative, it will start over with the remaining tied teams.

1. Combined head-to-head (if all teams played each other)

1a. If one tied team defeated all other tied teams

2. If the highest-ranked team in the latest CFP rankings that didn’t lose in the final weekend of the regular season

2a. If the highest-ranked team loses in final weekend of regular season, a composite average of selected metrics will be used

2b. If multiple ranked teams in the CFP rankings, the highest ranked team(s) that wins in the final weekend of the regular season

2c. If all ranked teams lose on the final weekend, a composite average of selected metrics will be used

2d. If no teams are ranked in the final CFP rankings, a composite average of selected metrics will be used

3. Win percentage against common conference opponents

4. Overall win percentage (conference and nonconference) excluding exempt games

5. Coin toss

Conference USA

Conference’s tiebreaker policy

Two-team tie and three-team tie:

1. Head-to-head

2. Highest CFP rankings going into the final weekend (if team wins in the final weekend)

3. Highest average ranking of four computer rankings (Connelly SP+, SportSource, ESPN SOR, KPI Rankings)

4. Highest average ranking of two computer rankings (SportSource, KPI Rankings)

5. Highest most recently published multiyear football Academic Progress Rate (if same, most recent year)

6. Draw administered by commissioner’s designee

Mid-American Conference

Conference’s tiebreaker policy

Two-team tie:

1. Head-to-head

2. Win percentage against common opponents

3. Win percentage against common opponents based on MAC finish (breaking ties) from top-to-bottom of conference

4. Combined conference win percentage of conference opponents

5. Higher ranking by Team Rating Score metric (SportSource Analytics)

6. Draw administered by MAC commissioner

Three-team tie:

1. Combined head-to-head (if all teams played each other)

2. If one tied team defeated all other tied teams

3. Win percentage against all common opponents

4. Win percentage against all common opponents based on finish (with ties broken)

5. Combined conference win percentage of conference opponents

6. Higher ranking by Team Rating Score metric (SportSource Analytics)

7. Draw administered by MAC commissioner

Mountain West Conference

Conference’s tiebreaker policy

Two-team tie:

1. Head-to-head

2. Highest CFP ranking (if team wins in the final weekend)

2a. If only or both CFP ranked teams loses in the final weekend (or if there is no ranked teams), an average of metrics will be used

3. Overall win percentage (conference and nonconference)

4. Record against the next-highest team in the conference standings (tied teams will be lumped together if tied teams played all those teams)

5. Win percentage against common conference opponents

6. Coin toss conducted virtually by the commissioner

Three-plus team tie:

1. Combined head-to-head (if all teams played each other)

2. If one tied team defeated all other tied teams

3. Highest CFP ranking among teams to win in the final weekend

4. Average of selected metrics (if ranked team loses or if no teams ranked)

5. Overall win percentage against all opponents (conference and nonconference); maximum one win against FCS or lower-division team

6. Record against the next-highest team in the conference standings (tied teams will be lumped together if tied teams played all those teams)

7. Win percentage against common conference opponents

8. Drawing conducted virtually by the commissioner

Sun Belt Conference

Conference’s tiebreaker policy

Two-team tie

1. Head-to-head

2. Overall win percentage

3. Win percentage against the next-highest team in the division standings (lumping together tied teams)

4. Win percentage against all common nondivisional conference opponents

5. Higher-ranked teams in the CFP rankings (if it wins in the final regular season week); if the highest-ranked team loses, an average of selected computer rankings (Anderson & Hester, Massey, Colley and Wolfe)

6. If no team is ranked in the CFP rankings, an average of selected computer rankings (Anderson & Hester, Massey, Colley and Wolfe)

7. Overall win percentage (conference and nonconference) against FBS teams

8. Coin toss

Three-plus team tie: (Teams will not revert to two-team tiebreaker once three-plus team tiebreaker is trimmed to two.)

1. Combined head-to-head

2. Divisional win percentage

3. Win percentage against the next-highest team in the division standings (lumping together tied teams)

4. Highest-ranked team in the CFP rankings (if they win in the final weekend of regular season); if that team loses, an average of selected computer rankings

5. If no team is ranked in the CFP rankings, an average of selected computer rankings (Anderson & Hester, Massey, Colley and Wolfe)

6. Overall win percentage (conference and nonconference) against FBS teams

7. Draw lots (conducted by commissioner)

Check out the ESPN college football hub page for the latest news, analysis, schedules, rankings and more.

Sports

Soto will take time in free agency, Boras says

Published

15 hours ago

November 6, 2024

admin

Soto will take time in free agency, Boras says

Jesse Rogers, ESPN Staff WriterNov 6, 2024, 02:32 PM ET
Close

SAN ANTONIO — Juan Soto will take his time surveying the free agent market before signing with a team, according to his agent Scott Boras.

Speaking at the general manager’s meetings Wednesday, Boras indicated that Soto desires a “thorough” vetting before making a decision.

“Due to the volume of interest and Juan’s desire to hear [from teams], I can’t put a timeframe on it, but it’s going to be a very thorough process for him,” Boras said. “He wants to meet people personally. He wants to talk with them. He wants to hear from them.”

That includes ownership, even for the New York Yankees, for whom he played in 2024 and hit 41 home runs with a league-leading 128 runs scored. Soto helped New York to a World Series appearance, but that doesn’t necessarily give the Yankees a leg up on the competition to sign him.

“He wants ownership that’s going to support that they are going win annually,” Boras said. “Owners want to meet with Juan and sit down and talk with him about what they’re going to provide for their franchise short term and long term.”

Soto’s overall deal is likely to be at least the second largest in MLB history behind Shohei Ohtani‘s 10-year, $700 million contract with the Los Angeles Dodgers.

Boras refused to compare the two players, but stressed Soto’s age (26) as a distinctive factor in teams’ pursuit of his client. Ohtani was 29 when he hit free agency.

“I don’t think Ohtani has much to do with Juan Soto at all,” Boras said. “It’s not something we discuss or consider. … He’s in an age category that separates him.”

Both New York teams have spoken to Boras already, though there are a handful of other big-market franchises that could be in play for his services, including the San Francisco Giants and Toronto Blue Jays.

Boras was asked how the competitive balance tax on payrolls could impact Soto’s free agency.

“I don’t think tax considerations are the focal point when you’re talking about a business opportunity where you can make literally billions of dollars by acquiring somebody like this,” Boras said.

Boras and Soto are only at the beginning stages of what could be a drawn-out process. One thing going for the player, in Boras’ estimation, is that Soto is “pretty well known” considering he has already been on three teams and played in 43 playoff games, including twice in the World Series.

In his agent’s eyes, every winning team should be interested.

“They’re [team executives] called upon to be championship magicians,” Boras said. “Behind every great magician is the magic Juan.”

Sports

Sources: Angels add ex-Cubs RHP Hendricks

Published

15 hours ago

November 6, 2024

admin

Sources: Angels add ex-Cubs RHP Hendricks

Jesse Rogers, ESPN Staff WriterNov 6, 2024, 01:14 PM ET
Close

SAN ANTONIO — Free agent pitcher Kyle Hendricks has agreed to a one year, $2.5 million contract with the Los Angeles Angels, sources familiar with the situation told ESPN.

Hendricks, 34, posted a 5.92 ERA for the Chicago Cubs last season but was better in the second half after a stint in the bullpen. His ERA was 4.41 from mid-July to the end of the regular season. He threw 7⅓ shutout innings in his last start as a Cub in late September after spending the first 11 years of his career with Chicago.

The Angels are hoping Hendricks finds more consistency in 2025, similar to what he displayed at times late in 2024. They also have a young pitching staff that needs mentoring. Hendricks can help in that department as well.

Hendricks won the ERA title in 2016, helping the Cubs to a World Series title. He was the last member of that team still playing for the Cubs until he became a free agent after the 2024 season. Overall, he’s 97-81 with a 3.68 ERA.

Hendricks is from the Los Angeles area, having gone to Capistrano Valley High School in Mission Viejo, California. He was originally drafted by the Angels in the 39th round in 2008 before attending Dartmouth. Additionally, his dad worked in the Angels’ ticket office for six years when Hendricks was a teenager.