Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Fun With Numbers - 7on7 Style

  1. #1
    All-State Hooked's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Arlington
    Posts
    400

    Default Fun With Numbers - 7on7 Style

    I decided to go back a couple of years and compare 7on7 qualifying success with fall football success at the 4-A and 5-A levels. I started in 2009 and 2010 - I am getting tired-head so 2011 and, perhaps, a couple of more earlier year comparisons may have to wait for another day.

    Here is what I found - I will leave it to others to draw any conclusions.

    2009

    Of the 64 teams that qualified for the state 7on7 D1 tournament, 42 qualifying teams also made the state playoffs that fall in their various divisions. There were 28 5-A teams (10 Div I, and 18 Div II), and 14 4-A teams (11 Div I; 3 Div II). Of these 42 teams.......

    26 Teams made at least the 2nd round of the playoffs in the fall;
    18 Teams made at least the 3rd round of the playoffs;
    9 made the quarter-finals;
    7 made the semi-finals; and
    3 made it to the state champ game, including state champions Lake Travis and Abilene.

    2010

    Of the 64 teams that qualified for the state 7on7 D1 tournament, 49 qualifying teams also made the state playoffs that fall in their various divisions. There were 33 5-A teams (20 Div I, and 13 Div II), and 16 4-A teams (11 Div I; 5 Div II). Of these 49 teams.......

    31 Teams made at least the 2nd round of the playoffs in the fall;
    19 Teams made at least the 3rd round of the playoffs;
    13 made the quarter-finals;
    5 made the semi-finals; and
    2 made it to the state champ game, both being state champions Lake Travis and Pearland. (And, as noted elsewhere on this board on multiple occasions, Lake Travis was state champions in both venues that year).

    Thoughts?

  2. #2
    5A Texas Football.com Hall of Famer shooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    a Nice Home in San Antonio and a Marriott in Dallas
    Posts
    2,957

    Default Re: Fun With Numbers - 7on7 Style

    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    Thoughts?
    I could use a peanut-butter and jelly sandwich right about now...

    Shooter

  3. #3
    All-World
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Manvel
    Posts
    1,017

    Default Re: Fun With Numbers - 7on7 Style

    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    Thoughts?
    Interesting stuff, Hooked. Well, at least it is interesting to stat-heads like me. Seems like you did this to show whether there’s a correlation between 7-on-7 success and regular season success, but I couldn’t quite tell from the info you provided. Thought I’d go ahead and look at the 2011 season. Here’s the results, plus a few additional thoughts:

    2011

    Of the 65 teams that qualified for the state 7on7 D1 tournament (used 65 because Manvel qualified but then was DQ’d due to a post-game incident), 47 qualifying teams also made the state playoffs that fall in their various divisions. There were 33 5-A teams (23 Div I, and 10 Div II), and 14 4-A teams (7 Div I; 7 Div II). Of these 47 teams.......

    27 Teams made at least the 2nd round of the playoffs in the fall;
    16 Teams made at least the 3rd round of the playoffs;
    7 made the quarter-finals;
    3 made the semi-finals; and
    2 made it to the state champ game, with LT winning 4A D1 and Manvel runner-up in 4A D2

    The 2011 numbers look like they are down slightly from the 2010 and 2009 numbers



    Here’s the additional information on 2011:
    • The 65 teams that qualified for 7-on-7 state finished the 11-man season with a combined 471-282 win/loss record. Obviously way above average.
    • Across 5A and 4A, right at half of all teams make the playoffs (there's right around 250 schools in each classification, and 128 in each make the playoffs). Of the 65 teams that qualified for 7-on-7 state, 72% made the playoffs. Well above average, which makes sense because their W/L records are well above average.
    • The 7-on-7 state teams did do above average in the playoffs as well. 57% of them won their first round games, and 59% of those won their second round games.
    Based on the above, it sure looks like 7-on-7 success does translate into regular season and playoff success.

    Quote Originally Posted by shooter View Post
    I could use a peanut-butter and jelly sandwich right about now...

    Shooter
    And I think I'll go have a few drinks . . .

  4. #4
    All-Interweb slcdragonfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Southlake, TX
    Posts
    30,527

    Default Re: Fun With Numbers - 7on7 Style

    how many won state in the regular season?
    The rules of comparative advantage are ironclad....and the willingness to let an industry poison your air and water is a comparative advantage. - Firebird

  5. #5
    All-World
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Manvel
    Posts
    1,017

    Default Re: Fun With Numbers - 7on7 Style

    2009: Two of the four 4A/5A state champs were 7-on-7 state qualifiers

    2010: Two of the four 4A/5A state champs were 7-on-7 state qualifiers

    2011: One of the four 4A/5A state champs were 7-on-7 state qualifiers

    So, of the 12 4A/5A state champs from '09-'11, five of them were 7-on-7 state qualifiers.

    Approx 500 teams make up 4A and 5A. Of those, four become state champs each year. That's 0.8%.

    Of the 193 teams that qualified for D1 7-on-7 state in those years, 5 of them became regular season state champs. That's 2.6%.

    So 7-on-7 state qualifying teams have won 11-man state championships at more than 3x the rate of teams that either don't compete in or don't qualify for 7-on-7 state.

  6. #6
    All-Interweb Dawg82's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    La Porte
    Posts
    10,659

    Default Re: Fun With Numbers - 7on7 Style

    These are all great numbers. (Especially for me, since I don't follow 7on7 all that close.) Thanks!

    Do y'all think the modern spreads, more emphasis on passing games, etc. have made 7on7 more pronounced as a good tool? Is it just that the teams that do well in 7on7 have talent to begin with and would make a good run regardless? Thoughts?
    GO DAWGS!

  7. #7
    All-State LTCavDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    287

    Default Re: Fun With Numbers - 7on7 Style

    Quote Originally Posted by Dawg82 View Post
    These are all great numbers. (Especially for me, since I don't follow 7on7 all that close.) Thanks!

    Do y'all think the modern spreads, more emphasis on passing games, etc. have made 7on7 more pronounced as a good tool? Is it just that the teams that do well in 7on7 have talent to begin with and would make a good run regardless? Thoughts?

    7on7 certainly benefits teams that run a spread offense but I think the real advantage is the extra time the teams get to spend together forming a camaraderie and team chemistry. This takes time and if it can be worked on during the summer instead of during two-a-days, advantage 7on7 participating teams.

  8. #8
    All-World
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Abilene
    Posts
    1,437

    Default Re: Fun With Numbers - 7on7 Style

    Anyone who doesn't think 7 on 7 success is at least not an indicator of 11 man success isnt really looking at the numbers

  9. #9
    All-World
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Manvel
    Posts
    1,017

    Default Re: Fun With Numbers - 7on7 Style

    Quote Originally Posted by rhboiler View Post
    Approx 500 teams make up 4A and 5A. Of those, four become state champs each year. That's 0.8%.

    Of the 193 teams that qualified for D1 7-on-7 state in those years, 5 of them became regular season state champs. That's 2.6%.

    So 7-on-7 state qualifying teams have won 11-man state championships at more than 3x the rate of teams that either don't compete in or don't qualify for 7-on-7 state.



    Slight correction / clarification: The 0.8% state championship win rate is based on the total 4A/5A school set. Within that set, for the three years of '09-'11:
    • 193 qualified for 7-on-7 state. They won 11-man state 5 times: 2.6%
    • Approx 1300 either did not compete in or did not qualify for 7-on-7 sate. Of those 1300, 7 won 11-man state titles. That's 0.5%
    • So the bolded line above should actually say that the 7-on-7 state qualifying teams have won the 11-man championships at about 5x the rate of the teams that don't compete in or don't qualify for 7-on-7 state.

  10. #10
    All-World WestlandTiger'95's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    God's country (Katy)
    Posts
    1,684

    Default Re: Fun With Numbers - 7on7 Style

    although that 7on7 doesn't translate to State championships....it does have a lot to do with winning in general.

    I know that Pro teams clearly believe and are very vocal about the fact that States like Texas that have 7on7 tournaments produce better QB's for the college and the pros. Hence why we have seen so many QBs go pro from the state of texas lately. 7on7 has its pros and cons. In one aspect it doesn't teach a Qb how to deal with the pressure in his face, but It also teaches him to go through his progressions and to read what the secondary is doing. The later is what scouts are really concerned with. Pro organizations are very vocal with how impressed they are with the fact that so many young men know how to go through their progressions at such a young age due to 7on7. IMO, anytime that you get guys on the same team doing team-like activities, it is always a POSITIVE.
    pearland is your baby.....you love your baby....that baby can be BUTT UGLY....but you will never call it ugly....because well, it's YOUR baby.....now me on the other hand....when you take the blanket off his head I'll say "ahhhhh how precious" but as soon as you leave I will say "That was one UGLY Baby" wise words from the dada4w

  11. #11
    Starter
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    DFW
    Posts
    96

    Default Re: Fun With Numbers - 7on7 Style

    The truth, to me, lies somewhere in between the people who over-emphasize the importance, and those who say it means nothing.

    Over a large sample size, you can see that 7-7 success often translates to on the field success, but you can always find examples of teams who totally dont fit the mold.

    Example: SLC lost last summer at their own 7-7 tourney to FW Paschal. One went on to 16-0, the other 0-10.

  12. #12
    All-World
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Abilene
    Posts
    1,437

    Default Re: Fun With Numbers - 7on7 Style

    Kenny Hill not being healthy most of the summer had a lot to do with that also

  13. #13
    Starter
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    DFW
    Posts
    96

    Default Re: Fun With Numbers - 7on7 Style

    Quote Originally Posted by has09 View Post
    Kenny Hill not being healthy most of the summer had a lot to do with that also
    pretty positive he played. were you there?

  14. #14
    All-World
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Abilene
    Posts
    1,437

    Default Re: Fun With Numbers - 7on7 Style

    He played but he had just come back from that injury in the spring game, so I'm not real sure he was ever really in rhythm or 100%

  15. #15
    Starter
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    DFW
    Posts
    96

    Default Re: Fun With Numbers - 7on7 Style

    Quote Originally Posted by has09 View Post
    He played but he had just come back from that injury in the spring game, so I'm not real sure he was ever really in rhythm or 100%
    Maybe, Im not certain. I am certain that he played. and Im certain they gave up too many points. And they also qualified this year without Hill. Either way, I just think 7 on 7 success isnt always phony, but sometimes it is fools gold.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •