Creating a Quarterback Efficiency Rating

The current NCAA

(Completions/Attempts)*100 + (Yards/Attempts)*8.4 + (Touchdowns/Attempts)*330 – (Interceptions/Attempts)*200

The formula was created this way in order so that a relatively average passer would achieve a rating of 100.0. Unfortunately that mark is hardly the average these days. For instance, with only the national championship game remaining in the 2008 season, 103 quarterbacks have a rating of 100.0 or higher. Although it seems as if the formula needs to be reworked if that many QBs are hitting the triple-digit mark, there really isn’t anything wrong with it. What’s wrong is the perception that 100.0 may indicate an average passer. Realistically a quarterback with that rating is below average according to today’s numbers. However, the relation of the statistics to each other within the formula is probably fine.

We probably just need to think of a higher number as the measurement of “average.” Look at it this way, 16 of the 103 have thrown more interceptions than touchdowns. Hardly a desirable trait you’re looking for in a quarterback. But if we up what we consider average to say, 120.0, only three QBs fit that bill. Go even higher to 125.0 and there’s only one – Clemson’s Cullen Harper. But this is hardly the issue. After all, touchdowns and interceptions shouldn’t be directly related to one another. A touchdown pass means you just helped your team score six points. However, throwing an interception doesn’t necessarily mean the other team scored six of their own. Obviously turning over the ball is bad, but it doesn’t always have the exact opposite outcome of throwing a touchdown pass for your team.

Anyway, the real issue is that the passer efficiency rating should be tweaked and realistically become what many already refer to it as – the quarterback efficiency rating. So that’s what I’m here for. To give you those tweaks. This is definitely a work-in-progress so feel free to give me any suggestions you may have. At this point, consider this the TBG QB Efficiency Rating System Version 1.0. If I get some good suggestions, I’ll be refining it until the start of the 2009 season.

Why am I doing this? Because quarterbacks are asked to do more than just pass the ball. During the 2008 season, two of the Heisman Trophy finalists were QBs who each ran the ball more than 100 times and each scored more than 10 touchdowns on the ground. The passer efficiency rating doesn’t take any of this into account. People can point to the current rating and say one QB is better than another and they may be right. But without adding their rushing attempts into the equation, we aren’t really evaluating their entire effectiveness as quarterbacks.

So here’s what we’re going to do. In developing an overall quarterback efficiency rating, we’re adding rushing to the equation. We’ll keep the passing formula the same and base the rushing one off of it. Because I don’t have the ability to watch game tape of every game to look at all the carries and determine which gained yards and which lost yards, we’ll stick to three categories that somewhat relate to their passing counterparts.

First, yards per attempt. If a quarterback rushes for 500 yards, great. If it takes him 250 carries to do so, not so great. So as with passing, yards per attempt is a good measure. The reason a multiplier of 8.4 was originally used in the passing efficiency formula was because it was thought as the average number of yards a completed pass should cover and resulted in giving an average QB a rating of 100.0. For rushing, we’ll go with 3.5. The reason is because although 4.0 yards per carry seems to be the number thought of as average, if a player were to rush for 3.5 yards on every attempt, their team would continue to get first downs and move the ball. Those are good things.

Next up is touchdowns per attempt. We’ll leave this with the same multiplier – 330 – because a touchdown is a touchdown is a touchdown. Anyway you cut it, it’s six points. In the end, it doesn’t matter if you score through the air or on the ground, it’s still a touchdown.

Finally, we’re approaching fumbles the same way. A turnover is a turnover is a turnover. For fumbles, the multiplier remains the same as it does for interceptions. I’m going to actually say fumbles should be accounted for regardless of if it was recovered by your team or the opponent. The reason being, you don’t want the ball carrier to fumble. Ever. Regardless of who ends up with the ball, a guy that can’t hang on to it is a liability. This one is definitely up for debate, but again, putting the ball on the ground is bad.

Taking all of this into account, the new formula looks like this:

(Completions/Attempts)*100 + (Yards/Attempts)*8.4 + (Touchdowns/Attempts)*330 – (Interceptions/Attempts)*200 + (Yards/Carry)*3.5 + (Touchdowns/Carry)*330 – (Fumbles/Carry)*200

Now let’s take two quarterbacks from this season and see how they stack up. Let’s use the two QBs playing in the national championship game, you say? Oklahoma’s Sam Bradford and Florida’s Tim Tebow? Well, since you asked. Sure, why not.

According to the current passer efficiency rating, Bradford was the more efficient passer – 186.3 compared to Tebow’s 176.8. But what happens when we add in the rushing game? Bradford gains 26.9 points for a quarterback efficiency rating of 213.2. Tebow gains 32.0 points for a QB rating of 208.8. So, Bradford actually remains the more efficient quarterback this season, but Tebow closes the gap slightly. The main reasons are that while Tebow accounted for 40 total touchdowns, Bradford accounted for 53. And Bradford’s five rushing touchdowns in only 40 attempts trumps Tebow’s 12 in 154. Did you think Tebow would come out on top? I’m actually glad he doesn’t. Hopefully that shows – if even slightly – I’m not doing this due to a personal bias.

On one hand, this might not change much in terms of overall rankings, but in a game where quarterbacks are asked to do much more than just throw the ball, rushing has to be taken into consideration. An overall quarterback efficiency rating gives more insight into how a signal caller manages the entire offense, not just when he happens to put the ball in the air.

Again, if you have any thoughts for revisions to this, please let me know. I’m always up for suggestions.