Running by committee: Better or worse?

I came across a story in The Oklahoman on Sunday, discussing how more college football teams are turning to offensive schemes that move away from a single primary-back running attack. It's certainly becoming a popular model in the NFL, with young 1-2 punches like Carolina's DeAngelo Williams and Jonathan Stewart, or the Giants' Brandon Jacobs and Derrick Ward last season.

There's been a share of criticism from fans in the past three years at USF, which hasn't had a running back go for more than 650 yards in a season since Andre Hall in 2005. Much of that can be attributed to the running of quarterback Matt Grothe, who has rushed for 2,085 yards in his three seasons. Injuries, too, have played a role, with top backs Mike Ford and Jamar Taylor sidelined for parts of the past two seasons.

What I wondered in all this is whether, statistically speaking, an offense that focuses on a single running back is more of less successful than one that spreads its carries among several ballcarriers. Establishing a consistent running game, to be sure, is a huge advantage in college football -- the top seven teams in the BCS (the best 10 percent) in rushing yards last season went a combined 68-25; the bottom seven went 29-56 by comparison.

But is reliance on a single back an advantage? I took all 66 BCS teams and ranked them based on what percentage of the total rushing offense came from their leading rusher. Michigan State, for instance, was amazingly dependent on running back Javon Ringer, who accounted for 96.7 percent of the Spartans' rushing total. Next on the list was Pittsburgh, which was carried by LeSean McCoy, who had 82.3 percent of the Panthers' rushing yards. Both those schools went 9-4 last season, and the next five teams included many of the nation's top running backs, like Iowa's Shonn Greene, Connecticut's Donald Brown and Georgia's Knowshon Moreno.

Those top seven teams went a combined 54-35 last season, which equates to an average 8-5 season.

The bottom seven in the same rankings? USF ranked sixth, getting just 27.5 percent of its rushing yards from Grothe, just slightly less than Southern Cal got from its leading rusher. The two teams who relied the least on one rusher were Florida (20.8 percent from Tim Tebow) and Texas (25.8 percent from Colt McCoy), so three of the bottom seven won at least 12 games last year.

Those bottom seven teams together went 66-25, which equates to nearly 10 wins per school.

It's worth noting, too, that five of the "bottom" six schools had a quarterback among their top two rushers -- Tebow and McCoy led their teams, as did Grothe, and Josh Freeman ranked second at Kansas State, as did quarterback Randall Cobb at Kentucky. And if you're wondering, the BCS average was for a school to get 46.5 percent of its rushing yards from its top rusher.

Just food for thought -- USF has much the same depth at running back as it did last year, which could produce a successful, shared rushing attack, or perhaps a healthy Ford or Taylor could separate themselves from the pack and become a primary ballcarrier.

Comments

[DELdaBULL]

I hate running back by committee. Running back by TANDEM fits the bill for me. 5 backs getting touches in a game (plus a qb) seems counter intuitive to me. But I am just me.

[Jemal]

Most good running backs in the NFL get better as the game goes on, a lot in part to the defense wearing down. We need another back like Hall before we can be happy with a single back approach. Right now the combo of Taylor and Ford is good given that they're both healthy. The only plus side that I see to a committee is that you have fresh legs and you have the defense guessing nonstop because each back has a uniques style of running.

[G.A.]

Thanks JT. I try not to spout.

[JT (Atlanta)]

Great stuff, GA. Always a fan of real analysis, rather than the typical spouting of opinions most often seen in college football coverage.

[My opinion....]

I think running back by committee is fine to an extent. The problem people had last year was the substitutions were too liberal. You can give 2-3 good RB's plenty of carries throughout a season to keep them happy without rotating them so liberally where none can get any level of consistency going on the field which is what we did last year.

You run a guy like Ford for a quarter and a half to start the game and get him going. Throw in a Taylor in situational circumstances, rest Ford for a quarter and let Plancher get going and then re-insert Ford in the middle 3rd to pound it out. That's the kind of mind-set most teams have when they rotate backs, putting them in one series, get one carry and then not see the field for another 2-3 series is no way to get a RB going.

[Tim]

I'm okay with using 2 or even 3 RB's but NOT 5 or more.... there's no chance for a RB to get confidence from that unless they are just that good of a team.

[RPO]

I'm fine with TWO backs, but the three and four back approach we saw with Greg "The Genius" Gregory was ridiculous. If it were actually true that one or two of those backs last year were not good enough to stand out, they should have all been cut or demoted to the scout team to give other guys a shot.

Give one back 15-20 carries per game, and another 5-10 carries per game.

[Bill]

The larger the committee the less you get accomplished. Three backs in some rotation would be good. A couple of younger reserves just for experience is also good. Ford should do better if used more during the second half. Taylor would be better getting more touches during the first half. Also we need to limit how many runs Groethe does, planned or not.

[David Weber]

I don't think Kelly is very fast, and he's obviously done nothing to suggest that he's an NFL back. Taylor doesn't have the durability, and neither does Ford. Ford has the size and speed needed, but he doesn't have the consistent production.

I'd like to see Murray get a few touches in the early games just to get a look at his talent.

[David Weber]

I don't really like the committee approach, but the tandem idea seems to work. At USF, it seems like we don't really have a choice- every time it looked like Ford or Taylor was ready to take over, they'd get injured or suddenly have 6 carries for 5 yards. Ben Williams was the only back that had any sort of consistency, but as much as I liked him, he obviously wasn't striking fear into the opposing defense.

However, Cincy won the Big East with a committee. I think we have superior personnel at RB than they did, so if our guys can avoid injuries, fumbles, and falling into a black hole again, we should be fine. I really hope that Ford finally fills his potential, because he's the only one with the speed/strength combination that can succeed behind a new offensive line.

As for my last point- I think our O-line was pretty bad at run blocking last year, and the reason that we haven't had a dominant rusher since Hall (the first season in the Big East) is that Big East defenses advanced way ahead of our o-line in 2006. Before that, Amobi Okoye was really the only threat in the league. But suddenly, almost every school, including Syracuse with Arthur Jones, has had at least one dominant run stopper. The only school that hasn't is Louisville, and Ford's best game came against them. Of course last year, Louisville somehow shut every one down.

[paul wall]

speaking of andre hall any updates with him

[G.A.]

Sandro, Fan Appreciation Day is tentatively scheduled for Aug. 15 at 3 p.m. at Raymond James Stadium ...

[pingbull]

AGW - Not sure what your beef is with Kelly...I believe he has one of the highest YPC on the team. And how is 6' 240lbs not NFL quality/size?

[Sandro]

Greg,

Do you know on what Saturday the fan appreciation day is?

GO BULLS!!!

[G.A.]

SJT, I really didn't hear much about Murray in spring drills. The staff was pleased by his progress last fall, but he's just behind a ton of running backs who, when healthy, know the responsibilities of the position better.

Remember with Carl Franks, getting into the game requires a lot more than just being able to get yards -- it means knowing pass protections, being able to do all the things USF asks of its running backs.

If Murray isn't on the field much this fall, I'd say it's more a statement of the experienced backs ahead of him -- Ford, Taylor, Plancher and Kelly -- than anything about him individually.

[Rich]

I like multiple threats. If a defense is soft up the middle, use the big guys. If a defense is slow on the edges, use the fast guys. It works in the NFL (Tenn, NYG, Car, Dal, etc) I would like to see us work the edges of the field more this year.

[Troy C]

I would think our biggest problem with the running backs was our O-line. They appeared to be getting pushed around all season when it came to run blocking. I would prefer to see less backs used yes but I don't think it will really matter much unless we can get some good blocking up front.

[AGW]

I hope not. I hope that they finally decide to give Mike Ford 15 carries and games and Jamar Taylor 10 carries a game. Stop using 3-4 running back. Its unnecessary and doesnt make sense to not have one of your best two backs on the field especially when both guys could easily handle 20 or more carries on their own. They both are NFL quality backs. Kelly and Plancher are not, simply put. If Ford and Taylor stay healthy they need to get all of the carries.

[Brian]

Greg,

Were there any other teams that regularly fielded 5 running backs or more?

[SJT]

G.A.,

What about Demetris Murray? Have you heard about his potential from the coaches? I hope he can push Ford and Taylor for playing time at running back.