College Football by the Numbers

Tough Games Only Make You Stronger

2010-09-03T12:46:00.007-04:00

I have a ton of respect for what Chris Petersen has accomplished with that program, and the Broncos have proved they can beat just about anybody in a one-game situation. But playing in the WAC simply doesn’t compare to playing in the SEC. It’s apples and oranges. It’s like asking where are you most likely to be attacked by a Great White Shark: Swimming in your neighbor’s pool or swimming off the coast of South Africa? - Chris Low, ESPN

Raise your hand if you've heard it before. Yeah, BYU beats Oklahoma, Utah beats Alabama, Boise St beats Oregon ONCE, but they don't have the NFL caliber athletes and depth to do it week in and week out. The argument makes sense, but its garbage. And I can prove it.

The first part of this argument is that playing a tougher schedule wears down players, leading to injuries and missed starts. False. Pac-10 teams led the nation in 2009 by missing an average of 23.3 starts, driven largely by Washingtson St.'s 67 (#1 in the nation by 23 missed starts)*. The SEC is second, but then come the MAC, Sunbelt, MWC and C-USA at 3, 4, 7, and 8, respectively. Big Ten and Big 12 teams missed the fewest games. Three of the 4 conferences to miss the most offensive players were non-AQs. BCS conference teams missed 6.6% of starts to 6.4% of starts for non-BCS teams. If we throw out Washington St., which only masquerades as a Div I football program, non-BCS teams were more injury prone.

Using regression, we have another method for measuring the effect of strength of schedule (SOS) on missed starts. In the model above**, we see that as SOS increases by 1 ( = the average opponent is 1 point better), teams miss 1 more start every 5 games (.18) on average. To put this in context, Alabama missed 29 starts in 2009 and TCU missed 12. Of the 17 extra missed starts for Alabama, one of them can be explained by Alabama's tougher schedule. More importantly, SOS does not significantly effect injuries (p=.419). In other words, its also possible that a tougher schedule reduces injuries, but last season teams with tougher schedules just happened to have more injuries. The same is true of missed starts on offense with a tougher defense SOS and vice versa (not shown).

We can also measure the effect of playing ranked teams. The regression results suggest that teams miss an extra start on average for every 2 games they play against top 25 teams. When we consider that most teams have 286 starts, missing 1 just doesn't seem like that big of a deal. And again, the variable is not significant. While ranked opponents may have produced a handful of injuries in 2009, it is also very possible that playing ranked teams protects teams against injuries.

But the effect of a tough schedule is more than injuries, right? Turns out, we can also measure the effect of a tough schedule one wins and losses. The logistic regression model below looks at all non-bowl games between 1980 and now in which teams played a top 20 team. After controlling for the quality of the team (TRate) the opponent (ORate) and the location of the game (Home), we look at the effect of having played games against other top 20 teams. Seq is the number of games against top 20 teams the team has played before the current game, and Sep is the number of weeks since that game.

There is a good chance that having time between tough games is an advantage - having an extra week between top 20 teams helps a team win as much as playing the game at home instead of at a neutral site (about 3 points of advantage). But their is a large standard error (Std. Err.) for this effect, meaning that while on average it is probably good, it could be very good or not important at all. Having played more games against top 20 teams before the current game has no effect on a team's chances of winning (p=.794, Seq is not significant). On the other hand, playing more games against top 20 teams over the entire season actually increases a teams chances of winning any one of those games (below).

What does this mean? A tough schedule does not, on average, lead to injured teams. Injuries are pretty evenly split between BCS and non-BCS teams, and considering BCS teams should have more depth, injuries over the course of the season are undoubtedly more damaging to non-BCS teams. Playing a lot of top 20 teams does not hurt a team's chances of winning, and may actually help them win. Its like RockBand. When I move from Hard to Expert, the change of pace always messes me up. The same is true when Kellen Moore or Matt Barkley are reading a defense. But having a little time in between showdowns does seem to help, and since injuries are not the issue, we can only assume that time helps for game planning and emotionally preparing for big games.

Could Boise St. survive in the SEC? Well, I don't see any reason why they couldn't. If you can do it once, you can do it a million times.

*Missed start data comes from PhilSteele.com
**I have removed Washington St. because it is an outlier that unfairly influences the results without substantially changing them.

MWC, Realignment, and the Search for AQ Status

2010-09-01T11:29:00.003-04:00

When the year is listed as 2009, read 2010. Sorry.

April 22, 2009 - The BCS releases its formula for evaluating conferences for AQ status. The formula uses three standards. The first ranks the conference's top teams, the second measures overall strength, and the third standard, a tie breaker of sorts, gives points for ranked teams. If a conference meets the most stringent standards, it automatically qualifies for AQ status. If it meets a set of softer standards, the conference can appeal. I am completely convinced that the committee drew up this formula to create the appearance of objectivity while retaining complete control in the hands of the appeals committee. More on that later.

To clear the air a little, I've run my own calculations. The released BCS formula is a little unclear on a few points, but I found that jiggling with the actual approach did not change the results. I also added in a projections based on expected performance in 2010 and (to a lesser degree) 2011. Again, these projections did not substantially change the results.

Teams are evaluated on their performances from 2008 to 2011 based on conference affiliation on Dec 4, 2011, so the recent realignments could potentially impact a conference's AQ future. Particularly, I wanted to see how realignment affected the MWC and where the MWC stands today.

We start on Feb 1, 2009, pre-shakeup. The MWC is in good shape by the first method with high finishes from TCU and Utah and another high finish expected from TCU in 2010. There is little doubt that the conference will be able to hold on to a top 6 spot. The MWC looks solid coming in 7th in the 2nd method. In fact, the conference was on its own little island, with very little chance of catching #6, but very little chance of being caught by #8. At #7, the conference could not qualify automatically. To qualify for an appeal, the MWC needed to finish in the top 5 in method 1 and have 33% of the points of the top dog in method 3. As of Feb 2, 2009, I would have given the MWC a 5% chance of gaining AQ status automatically, but an 85% chance of qualifying for an appeal.

Things start looking up for the MWC on June 2, 2009 when they add Boise St. The high finish in 2009 and projected high finish in 2010 moves the conference up to #3 by method 1 and within spitting distance of #6 in method 2. Now, the MWC can expect to certainly qualify for an appeal, and has a 10% chance of earning AQ status outright.

Then it hits the fan. Nebraska heads for the Big Ten on June 9th and Utah says its heading west a week later. The second move affects the MWC most directly, but Nebraska's move was deceptively important. Nebraska strengthens the Big Ten in method 2, making it almost impossible that the MWC moves into the 6th slot. The chances of the MWC getting the automatic upgrade drop back below 5%, but the conference's odds of staying in the top 5 in method 1, and qualifying for an appeal, are still around 90%.

It is leaked that BYU might be going independent, and the MWC strikes preemptively, snagging Fresno St and Nevada. While Fresno offers something to the conference, the Nevada grab could only be an attempt to kill the WAC and thwart BYU's plan to join them in all other sports. The move did nothing to improve the conference's BCS hopes (although it definitely put the WAC in the cellar). This, of course, depends on the two schools ability to leave the WAC for 2011, which is still undetermined. The MWC's chances at an automatic AQ upgrade worsen because it is harder to move an average of 11 teams than 9, and their odds of retaining appeal status change very little.

Then, on the last day of August, BYU makes it official that it will be independent on Dec 4, 2011. This, in fact, does very little to the MWC's official chances of gaining AQ status. The conference will still be dependent on an appeal.

So, the real issue is this - will a MWC appeal for AQ status be granted? Based on the way the system has been structured, there is no doubt in my mind that this is where the BCS wanted to be leading up to 2012. By creating the appearance of opportunity, they are hoping to get the legal bloodhounds off their trail while delaying any real decisions. I think the result of the appeal is still TBD. It will depend in large part on the legal environment at the time. But I don't think Utah's and BYU's departure helped anything. Though not more successful on the field than TCU and Boise St, these two programs have a broader, and would make it easier for the BCS bowls to stomach letting in a MWC champion. BYU especially has the longest tradition of success, which would increase the odds that the MWC representative would always be competitive.

On a related side note, the Big East had better be very careful. While it is currently holds a contract for the next several years, the Big East is less qualified than the MWC for AQ status, regardless of the conference alignments. While the MWC may be out in the cold in 2012 and 2013, it will be hard to leave them out while including the Big East after the current contract expires.

Ten+ Boring Predictions for 2010

2010-08-31T09:19:00.000-04:00

Everyone that's writes about college football will have a "Bold Predictions" moment this season. They pick a few darkhorses to win their conferences, another one to win the Heisman, claim something new that has never happened before will happen, and do it all to generate a little discussion and get attention.

I want to make predictions that will endure the test of time. I want predictions that are rational, reasonable and, perhaps to some, just plain boring. I, too, will be completely wrong, but at least I actually try to be right. So hold on to your seats - here we go.

Prediction #1: Jake Locker will complete 61% of his passes, throw for 3,200 yards, rush for 600 and be dropped from the Heisman discussion before mid-October. How can you foresee anything but modest improvement for a guy heading into his final college campaign? Even if the kid is heroic, with their schedule he'd have to be Herculean to win 8 games, and he's not a Heisman candidate if his team is floating around .500. On the other had, if UW skates in with 9 or 10 wins, Mr. Locker will take home more hardware than Michael Phelps.

Prediction #2: Garrett Gilbert will be just as successful as Colt McCoy in his first (and second) go as a Longhorn. This means 9-3 regular season, 5-3 in conference, and a relatively prestiguous, non-BCS bowl game. I think the world underestimated the contributions of 3rd rounders Jordan Shipley and Jamaal Charles to Colt's success, and the Texas D took some heavy losses in 2009 as well.

Prediction #3: Have you guys seen the helmets Virginia Tech was wearing in the early 70s? Talk about hideous. I predict that no team in college football has helmets so ugly. And the Hokies will reign over the ACC again. Deep competition in the Coastal just gives Beamer room for error.

Prediction #4: One team from Alabama will be conference champions. That is, the Other Men of Troy. I was going to go with MTSU for the Sunbelt crown until Dasher ran into some troubles with Big Brother. I also predict that all of 10 people will watch a Sunbelt conference game this season, and they will all be next-of-kin.

Prediction #5: Someone will win the MAC, and nobody will care. The same goes for the Pac-10.

Prediction #6: Michigan loses another home opener. Like the other home openers (App State and Utah) Michigan loses this one because the Wolverines are not actually very good at football. And Rich Rod keeps his job because the state of Michigan is economically on par with Zimbabwe right now.

Prediction #7: Alabama's Greg McElroy will get more Heisman love than teammate Mark Ingram. But they'll both get left out in the cold because . . . (see Prediction #8). Kellen Moore will run away with the Heisman if Boise can beat Virginia Tech (See Prediction #9). Landry Jones would be able to turn a Big 12 championship into more hardware except he decides to sport the 'stache. In the end, the Heisman goes to . . . (see Bonus Prediction).

Prediction #8: Florida wins the SEC. 'Bama will win Redneck Rumble III, but Florida will get revenge in the SEC championship game (RRIV). This will then cause the universe to implode (see Prediction #9).

Prediction #9: Boise State will . . . . not beat Virginia Tech. TCU will be the nation's only undefeated team, winning every game by 400 points. Both Florida and Alabama will claim a spot in the national championship game, and will have a legitimate argument. Oklahoma will be disqualified for the 'stache and the Pac-10 champion will be disqualified because they will officially become a professional franchise, trading places with the Raiders. The Big Ten champ will also have less claim to the title game than the SEC runner up (see Prediction #10).

Prediction #10: Ohio State will win the Big Ten. And Terrelle Pryor will again be quite pedestrian - because the guy has pedestrian talent. Sure he's fast, but he's not at all quick and he doesn't have good vision. Yes he can throw a spiral, but that's the only compliment I can bestow on his passing potential with a straight face. He seems like a good kid, but all hype. Ohio State loses two on its way to its last conference championship in Joe Pa's lifetime.

Bonus Prediction: The Heisman trophy goes to . . . .(Drumroll) . . . Dion Lewis. Pitt wins 10 games and the Big East. Lewis puts up huge numbers - and he's a sophomore, which has been Heisman gold recently.

Distance Matters - Travel and HFA

2010-08-30T12:37:00.000-04:00

In recent posts, I've shown that crowd size doesn't matter in home field advantage, and I've traveled around college football conferences to show that the teams with the large, historic stadiums are not the ones that enjoy the best home field advantage. In fact, the award for best home field advantage in the country probably goes to Texas Tech's Jones Stadium. Arizona St. got +10 points in the Pac-10 playing at home versus on the road, and Indiana got +9 in the Big Ten.

But if crowd size doesn't matter, why do home teams tend to play better? One answer is travel. Distance makes the heart grow fonder, the legs weaker, the body dehydrated, the sleep patterns disrupted, the equipment misplaced or forgotten, the preparation time cut short, the players distracted, and the visiting teams loser. And I can prove it.

Using game results from 2006 to 2009, we can measure the effect of travel on performance. The first model below uses basic linear regression. We use three variables - DOffense, DDefense and Distance. DOffense and DDefense measure how good the road team's offense and defense are compared to the home team's. Distance is the distance traveled in thousands of miles.

The "Coef." for DOffense and DDefense are about 1. This makes sense. A team that is 1 point better than its opponent on offense or defense will win, on average, by 1 point. If it is 14 points better on offense and 28 points better on defense it will win, on average, by 42 points (28+14=42).

For every 1,000 miles a team travels, it loses 1.68 points. So, when Georgia Tech travels 600 miles to play Miami, it loses a point, but gains a point when the U comes calling. That might not seem like much, but about one out of every 13 games, or almost one game a season for the average team, is decided by 2 points or less - the price in points a team pays for traveling 600 miles instead of receiving a team from 600 miles away.

We then add the "_cons", or the home field advantage not explained by distance, and consider the average distance traveled for a game is about 500 miles, to get a net average home field advantage just under 1/2 a touchdown.

The logistic regression measures the effect of these variables on the probability that the road team will win. An "Odds Ratio" greater than 1 means that, as that variable increases, the odds of winning increase. If the Odds Ratio is less than 1, as that variable increases, the odds of winning decrease. Therefore, being 1 point better increases a team's odds by 1.13 and 1.15 for offense and defense, respectively. Traveling 1,000 miles decreases a team's odds of winning by more than a quarter (.694). So, for example, if Duke and North Carolina were evenly matched when UNC traveled to Duke (odds of UNC win = 1 to 2), the odds of a UNC victory drop to .818 to 2 if they had to travel 1,000 miles for that same game. In this scenario, 1 out or every 5 games is determined by travel.

What does this amount to? About 1 game in every 11 games has a different outcome because of where the game was played. 38% of that influence is a product of the distance that teams travel to play their road games. That, to me, is a pretty big deal.

Toughest Places to Play: Big Ten

2010-08-27T11:49:00.000-04:00

No conference in the country has bigger stadiums than the Big Ten and, if we exclude Northwestern's diminutive and sparsely population Ryan Field, the Big Ten tops all conferences in average attendance. (Otherwise, the SEC averages about 5,000 more in attendance per game.)

But even in the Big Ten, where average attendance ranges from over 100,000 to less than 30,000, more fans in the stands doesn't seem to help teams win. In conference games since 1994, home teams in the Big Ten have won 56.8% of conference games and have been about one touchdown better per game. Ohio St. has won 81% of their home games in this stretch, but this has little to do with a home field advantage - the Buckeyes also won 75% of road games. The Buckeyes were 6.25 points better at home than on the road, meaning the Buckeyes enjoyed less of a home field advantage than the conference average. Michigan, college football's attendance leader, got less of a boost at home - only 5.42 points per game.

The toughest place to play in the Big Ten has been Indiana's Memorial Stadium, capacity 52,000. The Hoosiers have been 9 points better and 2.5 times more likely to win at home. On the other hand, Illinois has seen no advantage to playing in their own Memorial Stadium (62,000 capacity). Illinois team's since 1994 have been 2.27 points better at home than on the road, but they actually have won more road games than home games in that period.

Boise St vs. Virginia Tech

2010-08-26T17:28:00.002-04:00

More information will be available in the expected box score as the season progresses.
Click Here to see a complete expected box score
Click here for an explanation

College Football by the Numbers

Tough Games Only Make You Stronger

MWC, Realignment, and the Search for AQ Status

Ten+ Boring Predictions for 2010

Distance Matters - Travel and HFA

Toughest Places to Play: Big Ten

Boise St vs. Virginia Tech

America Wants a non-AQ Champion

America Wants a non-AQ Champion

SMU vs. Texas Tech

Southern Miss. vs. South Carolina

Texas vs. Rice

Pitt vs. Utah

TCU vs. Oregon St.

Utah St. vs. Oklahoma

Washington St. vs. Oklahoma St.

Purdue vs. Notre Dame

Northwestern vs. Vanderbilt

New Mexico vs. Oregon

Wisconsin vs. UNLV

Western Kentucky vs. Nebraska

Minnesota vs. Middle Tenn. St.

Western Michigan vs. Michigan St.

Memphis vs. Mississippi St.

Maryland vs. Navy

Marshall vs. Ohio St.