UT Roster Comparison, 2013-2014

#1
D

daj2576

@aVolForLife
Joined
Jan 6, 2012
Messages
5,482
Likes
2,646
#1
I will be brief and let the graphics speak for themselves. Here are two comparisons of last year's team versus this years team.

Here is the total roster compared by position groups.

ROSTER COMPARISON 2013-2014.jpg

link to clearer image: https://www.dropbox.com/s/5p54t09hx0sslkf/ROSTER COMPARISON 2013-2014.png

Here is the projected two-deep compared by position groups. I have posted this previously.

projected starter strength.jpg

link to clearer image:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/gvts0hos0c8mloy/projected starter strength.jpg


Viewing those charts, and looking at talent, depth, size, class, etc, do you think the majority of the professional prognosticators are under-estimating the impact of "replacing" both lines?

Here is a comparison of some of the pre-season predictions that I have compiled.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vOKoQ_Pix10mXVhg6lEOdU8NNvYUVVZq07lJvw8KrA0/edit?usp=sharing

Edit: when I ask if the predictions under estimate the impact of both lines, I mean over estimate (or do they believe UT will be worse than reality?).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 15 people
#2
#2
You put a lot of work into this man and you did an awesome job on the charts. Much appreciated!
 
#3
#3
First time in recent memory that UT has had to replace both the entire starting OL and DL..Our play will be better in mid October than in early September with both groups...
 
#4
#4
Good stuff here Daj. Love this type of analysis. Anyway to include only the starters vs projected starters in your first chart, that includes weights and heights. Everyone is talking about us being so much smaller but w all the weight gains listed over the summer I am not sure it is so dramatic. Thanks
 
#5
#5
RockyETop said:
Good stuff here Daj. Love this type of analysis. Anyway to include only the starters vs projected starters in your first chart, that includes weights and heights. Everyone is talking about us being so much smaller but w all the weight gains listed over the summer I am not sure it is so dramatic. Thanks
Click to expand...

Fulton, Richardson and James were all heavy last year. All over 320
 
#8
#8
You are always gonna be thought of the way we are when you lose all your starters on both lines and play five top twenty teams and two more just out of the top twenty. I really want to believe this Offensive line will be far better than the experts expect. I think they will be as good or very close to as good as last year's line. The Defense is a wait and see think the linebackers will be better and also the secondary still need to see more of the Defensive line to see where we stand there.
Our skill positions and depth are certainly better. Were a young team, but I'd rather have talent and be young than experience with low talent.
The season is a success if we win six games. It is a failure if we win less than that the dreaded 5 and 7 will be hard to take again. If this team wins more than six they probably overachieved as they will have to beat couple of teams ranked a lot higher.
 
#14
#14
Thanks for the info. On the second chart, are the star ratings supposed to be over 5 or did you mean to put like 3.8 instead of 5.8?
 
#16
#16
Can you make a pie chart showing how we're going to win the East this year, please? :whistling:
 
#17
#17
NeylandTradition said:
Thanks for the info. On the second chart, are the star ratings supposed to be over 5 or did you mean to put like 3.8 instead of 5.8?
Click to expand...

Those are the actual "scores" that rivals use to determine stars. Youll notice a number of "*" in parentheses next to those scores.

On the first chart those numbers are just the average number of stars (without the raw scores).

The different methodology between the two charts is admittedly confusing.
 
Last edited:
#18
#18
Is their a way to weight the averages to account for experience such starts, games played, number of snaps etc. ? Using the star system you have accounted for talent but. the lack of experience seems to be the major rap against this team. Good work . Much appreciated.
 
#19
#19
jmkvols said:
Just wondering, are you an accountant? Thanks, interesting perspective.
Click to expand...

No not an accountant. I graduated from UT in 2002 with a BS in advertising that I've never used.

Over the past decade I became a licensed professional land surveyor and then sold my business. I also run a blog (that the mods don't like me linking to) that has a few other guys who do some great work, these charts included.

I'm about to start my last year of law school (I know, I know) and have an amazing job in the legal field that also utilizes my love for predictive analytics in sports.
 
Last edited:
#20
#20
Hamptonvolfan said:
Is their a way to weight the averages to account for experience such starts, games played, number of snaps etc. ? Using the star system you have accounted for talent but. the lack of experience seems to be the major rap against this team. Good work . Much appreciated.
Click to expand...

Eh, the short answer is yes, kindof.

The long answer is its a lot of work to drive out any part of the last 30% of uncertainty making those numbers extremely expensive.
 
Last edited:
#21
#21
I think the big things the talking heads are overlooking is the large number of EE's which should count somewhere between a true freshman and a RS SO. the quality JUCO's we added, plus the ability of the coaches to work with the newcomers during the offseason. Our true freshman are going to be more knowledgeable than the true freshman in prior years. Then you have the intangibles such as coaching stability and the large number of legacy players.
 
#22
#22
Overall talent level raises at the same time experience takes a dive.. guess we get to see how that directly translates to the field. It is interesting to say the least. Which is more important, raw talent or experience?
 
#24
#24
daj2576 said:
Those are the actual "scores" that rivals use to determine stars. Youll notice a number of "*" in parentheses next to those scores.

On the first chart those numbers are just the average number of stars (without the raw scores).

The different methodology between the two charts is admittedly confusing.
Click to expand...

Got it. Silly Rivals :)
 
#25
#25
daj2576 said:
Those are the actual "scores" that rivals use to determine stars. Youll notice a number of "*" in parentheses next to those scores.

On the first chart those numbers are just the average number of stars (without the raw scores).

The different methodology between the two charts is admittedly confusing.
Click to expand...

In the first chart I noticed the 2013 average score was 5.8 but this year it's 5.3 if I'm not mistaken. My question is how is it possible that we're trending + on all positions yet the overall score was higher last year? Is that a typo? Or did you give the NRs as higher grades to make the math easier.

Thanks for the hard work you do a great job.

EDIT: I totally read that wrong. Sorry on mobile. Everything looks correct. Thanks again.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top