UPDATE: The production model correctly picked three of the four winners yesterday, with the only incorrect one being Nebraska losing to Washington. This now brings the model to 11-7 for the bowl season so far. Admittedly, the 2OT game between North Carolina and Tennessee seems to be more of a random result that a vindication of the model, I will take it. Well, let's turn our attention to the games scheduled for today.
Meineke Car Care Bowl: Clemson (6-6) vs. South Florida (7-5)
Clemson (#35) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #77 and a defense that is ranked #6. Clemson also has a SOS of 54.58, with their best win over #37 North Carolina State and their worst loss against #61 (in terms of production) Boston College.
South Florida (#62) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #94 and a defense that is ranked #12. South Florida also has a SOS of 59.25, with their best win over #20 (in overall productivity) Miami (FL) and their worst loss against #59 (in terms of the production model) Syracuse.
Thus based only on the production model Clemson is more productive than South Florida, so the production model predicts that Clemson will win the Meineke Car Care Bowl.
Sun Bowl: Notre Dame (7-5) vs. Miami (FL) (7-5)
Notre Dame (#50) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #53 and a defense that is ranked #44. Notre Dame also has a SOS of 42.83, with their best win over #26 (in terms of the production model) Pittsburgh and their worst loss against #51 (in overall productivity) Michigan.
NOTE: Notre Dame (using my measure of strength of schedule) had the strongest strength of schedule of any team in 2010.
Miami (FL) (#20) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #37 and a defense that is ranked #16. Miami (FL) also has a SOS of 52.08, with their best win over #26 Pittsburgh and their worst loss against #79 (using the ranking from the production model) Virginia.
NOTE: I have blogged about Miami (FL)'s termination of their head coach.
Thus based only on the production model Miami (FL) is favored over Notre Dame, so the model predicts that Miami (FL) will win the 2010 Sun Bowl.
Liberty Bowl: Central Florida (10-3) vs. Georgia (6-6)
Central Florida (#14) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #21 and a defense that is ranked #7. Central Florida also has a SOS of 83.00, with their best win over #60 (in terms of overall production) Houston and their worst loss against #81 (from the production model) Kansas State.
Georgia (#27) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #30 and a defense that is ranked #35. Georgia also has a SOS of 61.00, with their best win over #38 (from the production model) Kentucky and their worst loss against #86 (in terms of overall production) Colorado.
Thus based only on the production model Central Florida is favored over Georgia, so the production model forecasts that Central Florida will win the 2010 Liberty Bowl.
Chick-Fil-A Bowl: Florida State (9-4) vs. South Carolina (9-4)
Florida State (#22) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #39 and a defense that is ranked #18. Florida State also has a SOS of 45.33, with their best win over #20 Miami (FL) and their worst loss against #43 (from the production model) North Carolina.
South Carolina (#39) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #35 and a defense that is ranked #55. South Carolina also has a SOS of 45.08, with their best win over #4 (in terms of production) Alabama and their worst loss against #38 Kentucky.
NOTE: Two of South Carolina's losses were against #12 (in terms of production) Auburn, one in the regular season and the other in the SEC championship game.
Thus based only on the production model Florida State is the more productive team, so the model predicts that Florida State will win the Chick-Fil-A Bowl.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Armed Forces, Pinstripe, Music City and Holiday Bowls 2010
UPDATE: With Maryland and Oklahoma State victorious yesterday, the NCAA FBS Production model is now 8-6 for the 2010-2011 bowl season. Here is the tale of the tape for the four NCAA FBS bowl games today.
Armed Forces Bowl: SMU (7-6) vs. Army (6-6)
SMU (#67) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #49 and a defense that is ranked #67. SMU also has a SOS of 65.54, with their best win over #29 (based on the production model) Tulsa and their worst loss against #75 (based on the production model) Texas Tech.
Army (#52) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #50 and a defense that is ranked #49. Army also has a SOS of 68.58, with their best win over #49 (based on the production model) Kent State and their worst loss against #96 (based on the production model) Rutgers.
Thus based only on the production model Army is favored over SMU, so the model predicts that Army will win the Armed Forces Bowl for 2010.
Pinstripe Bowl: Kansas State (7-5) vs. Syracuse (7-5)
Kansas State (#81) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #55 and a defense that is ranked #99. Kansas State also has a SOS of 63.33, with their best win over #14 (in terms of the productivity model) University of Central Florida and their worst loss against #86 (from the production model) Colorado.
Syracuse (#59) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #89 and a defense that is ranked #45. Syracuse also has a SOS of 70.50, with their best win over #13 West Virginia and their worst loss against #84 Washington.
NOTE: Two of Syracuse's seven wins were against NCAA FCS schools, so if these were eliminated, Syracuse would not even qualify to be bowl eligible.
Thus based only on the production model Syracuse is favored over Kansas State, so the production model predicts that Syracuse will win the Pinstripe Bowl.
Music City Bowl: North Carolina (7-5) vs. Tennessee (6-6)
North Carolina (#43) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #72 and a defense that is ranked #21. North Carolina also has a SOS of 60.83, with their best win over #22 (in terms of productivity) Florida State and their worst loss against #66 (in overall productivity) Georgia Tech.
Tennessee (#72) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #71 and a defense that is ranked #56. Tennessee also has a SOS of 56.67, with their best win over #38 Kentucky (in terms of the productivity model) and their worst loss against #39 (in overall productivity) South Carolina.
Thus based only on the production model North Carolina is more productive than Tennessee, so the model predicts that North Carolina will win the Music City Bowl.
Holiday Bowl: Nebraska (10-3) vs. Washington (6-6)
Nebraska (#19) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #20 and a defense that is ranked #19. Nebraska also has a SOS of 67.69, with their best win over #10 (in terms of the production model) Oklahoma State and their worst loss against #57 (from the production model) Texas.
Washington (#84) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #82 and a defense that is ranked #87. Washington also has a SOS of 53.17, with the Huskies best win over #45 (in terms of production) USC and their worst loss against #70 (from the production model) Arizona State.
Thus based only on the production model Nebraska is favored over Washington, so the model predicts that Nebraska will win the 2010 Holiday Bowl.
Armed Forces Bowl: SMU (7-6) vs. Army (6-6)
SMU (#67) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #49 and a defense that is ranked #67. SMU also has a SOS of 65.54, with their best win over #29 (based on the production model) Tulsa and their worst loss against #75 (based on the production model) Texas Tech.
Army (#52) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #50 and a defense that is ranked #49. Army also has a SOS of 68.58, with their best win over #49 (based on the production model) Kent State and their worst loss against #96 (based on the production model) Rutgers.
Thus based only on the production model Army is favored over SMU, so the model predicts that Army will win the Armed Forces Bowl for 2010.
Pinstripe Bowl: Kansas State (7-5) vs. Syracuse (7-5)
Kansas State (#81) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #55 and a defense that is ranked #99. Kansas State also has a SOS of 63.33, with their best win over #14 (in terms of the productivity model) University of Central Florida and their worst loss against #86 (from the production model) Colorado.
Syracuse (#59) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #89 and a defense that is ranked #45. Syracuse also has a SOS of 70.50, with their best win over #13 West Virginia and their worst loss against #84 Washington.
NOTE: Two of Syracuse's seven wins were against NCAA FCS schools, so if these were eliminated, Syracuse would not even qualify to be bowl eligible.
Thus based only on the production model Syracuse is favored over Kansas State, so the production model predicts that Syracuse will win the Pinstripe Bowl.
Music City Bowl: North Carolina (7-5) vs. Tennessee (6-6)
North Carolina (#43) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #72 and a defense that is ranked #21. North Carolina also has a SOS of 60.83, with their best win over #22 (in terms of productivity) Florida State and their worst loss against #66 (in overall productivity) Georgia Tech.
Tennessee (#72) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #71 and a defense that is ranked #56. Tennessee also has a SOS of 56.67, with their best win over #38 Kentucky (in terms of the productivity model) and their worst loss against #39 (in overall productivity) South Carolina.
Thus based only on the production model North Carolina is more productive than Tennessee, so the model predicts that North Carolina will win the Music City Bowl.
Holiday Bowl: Nebraska (10-3) vs. Washington (6-6)
Nebraska (#19) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #20 and a defense that is ranked #19. Nebraska also has a SOS of 67.69, with their best win over #10 (in terms of the production model) Oklahoma State and their worst loss against #57 (from the production model) Texas.
Washington (#84) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #82 and a defense that is ranked #87. Washington also has a SOS of 53.17, with the Huskies best win over #45 (in terms of production) USC and their worst loss against #70 (from the production model) Arizona State.
Thus based only on the production model Nebraska is favored over Washington, so the model predicts that Nebraska will win the 2010 Holiday Bowl.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Maryland
Maryland's head coach Ralph Friedgen will coach his last game for the Terrapin's in today's Military Bowl against East Carolina today after being bought out of the remainder of his contract. So that got me to think about how Maryland has fared over the last three years under coach Friedgen. Here are the numbers from the production model.
In 2008, Maryland was #70 (in terms of overall production) - which is below average - and they faced a strength of schedule equal to 49.92 (which is tougher than average) and went 7-5 in the regular season, and finished 8-5 due to their bowl win against #24 (in terms of overall production) Nevada. Their offense was ranked #77 and their defense was ranked #62. Maryland's best win that season was a victory over #14 (in terms of overall production) California. The Terps worst loss was to #94 (in terms of production) Virginia.
In 2009, Maryland was #107 (in terms of overall production) - which was one of the worst teams in the FBS that year, facing a strength of schedule equal to 54.50 and went 2-10 in the regular season. Maryland's best win was against #11 (in terms of overall production) Clemson and their worst loss was to #100 (in terms of production) Virginia again.
This year (2010) Maryland was #28 (in terms of overall production) with the #45 ranked offense and the #21 ranked defense. The Terps finished the regular season 8-4 facing a strength of schedule equal to 62.54. Their best win was against #37 (in terms of overall production) North Carolina State and their worst loss was to #50 (in terms of overall production) Clemson.
Thus we see a team with a level of performance that is highly variable over the last three years. Of the three, this is the best performance relative to the rest of the Football Bowl Subdivision, with a final regular season production ranking of #28, which puts Maryland in the top 25% of all FBS schools this year, but yields a three year overall production average of #68.33, which is below average in terms of production rank for the 120 FBS schools during that time period. Given the expectations of Maryland's AD and the teams performance, it may not be that surprising that coach Friedgen's contract was bought out.
What will be interesting is how Maryland fares over the next few seasons with a new head coach. I will try to return to this in the future.
In 2008, Maryland was #70 (in terms of overall production) - which is below average - and they faced a strength of schedule equal to 49.92 (which is tougher than average) and went 7-5 in the regular season, and finished 8-5 due to their bowl win against #24 (in terms of overall production) Nevada. Their offense was ranked #77 and their defense was ranked #62. Maryland's best win that season was a victory over #14 (in terms of overall production) California. The Terps worst loss was to #94 (in terms of production) Virginia.
In 2009, Maryland was #107 (in terms of overall production) - which was one of the worst teams in the FBS that year, facing a strength of schedule equal to 54.50 and went 2-10 in the regular season. Maryland's best win was against #11 (in terms of overall production) Clemson and their worst loss was to #100 (in terms of production) Virginia again.
This year (2010) Maryland was #28 (in terms of overall production) with the #45 ranked offense and the #21 ranked defense. The Terps finished the regular season 8-4 facing a strength of schedule equal to 62.54. Their best win was against #37 (in terms of overall production) North Carolina State and their worst loss was to #50 (in terms of overall production) Clemson.
Thus we see a team with a level of performance that is highly variable over the last three years. Of the three, this is the best performance relative to the rest of the Football Bowl Subdivision, with a final regular season production ranking of #28, which puts Maryland in the top 25% of all FBS schools this year, but yields a three year overall production average of #68.33, which is below average in terms of production rank for the 120 FBS schools during that time period. Given the expectations of Maryland's AD and the teams performance, it may not be that surprising that coach Friedgen's contract was bought out.
What will be interesting is how Maryland fares over the next few seasons with a new head coach. I will try to return to this in the future.
Military, Texas and Alamo Bowls 2010
Here is the numbers for the three bowls today. If I get a chance, I will also look at Maryland over the last few years.
Military Bowl: Maryland (8-4) vs. East Carolina (6-6)
Maryland (#40) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #64 and a defense that is ranked #23. Maryland also has a SOS of 59.33, with their best win over #32 (in terms of overall production) Navy and their worst loss against #35 (in terms of overall production) Clemson.
East Carolina (#92) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #47 and a defense that is ranked #114. East Carolina also has a SOS of 55.83, with their best win over #29 (in terms of overall production) Tulsa and their worst loss against #108 (in terms of overall production) Rice.
Thus based only on the production model Maryland is more productive than East Carolina and thus the model predicts that Maryland will defeat East Carolina in the 2010 Military Bowl.
Texas Bowl: Illinois (6-6) vs. Baylor (7-5)
Illinois (#48) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #48 and a defense that is ranked #50. Illinois also has a SOS of 61.00, with their best win over #9 (in terms of production) Northern Illinois and their worst loss against #89 (in production) Minnesota.
Baylor (#47) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #18 and a defense that is ranked #85. Baylor also has a SOS of 66.42, with their best win over #57 Texas and their worst loss against #75 Texas Tech.
Thus based only on the production model Baylor is more productive than Illinois so the model picks Baylor to defeat Illinois in the 2010 Texas Bowl.
Alamo Bowl: Oklahoma State (10-2) vs. Arizona (7-5)
Oklahoma State (#10) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #4 and a defense that is ranked #54. Oklahoma State also has a SOS of 62.42, with their best win over #29 (in terms of overall production) Tulsa and their worst loss against #19 (in terms of overall production) Nebraska.
Arizona (#21) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #24 and a defense that is ranked #29. Arizona also has a SOS of 63.58, with their best win over #17 (in terms of overall production) Iowa and their worst loss against #88 (in terms of overall production) Oregon State.
Thus based only on the production model Oklahoma State is more productive than Arizona, thus the model predicts that Oklahoma State will defeat Arizona in the 2010 Alamo Bowl.
Military Bowl: Maryland (8-4) vs. East Carolina (6-6)
Maryland (#40) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #64 and a defense that is ranked #23. Maryland also has a SOS of 59.33, with their best win over #32 (in terms of overall production) Navy and their worst loss against #35 (in terms of overall production) Clemson.
East Carolina (#92) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #47 and a defense that is ranked #114. East Carolina also has a SOS of 55.83, with their best win over #29 (in terms of overall production) Tulsa and their worst loss against #108 (in terms of overall production) Rice.
Thus based only on the production model Maryland is more productive than East Carolina and thus the model predicts that Maryland will defeat East Carolina in the 2010 Military Bowl.
Texas Bowl: Illinois (6-6) vs. Baylor (7-5)
Illinois (#48) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #48 and a defense that is ranked #50. Illinois also has a SOS of 61.00, with their best win over #9 (in terms of production) Northern Illinois and their worst loss against #89 (in production) Minnesota.
Baylor (#47) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #18 and a defense that is ranked #85. Baylor also has a SOS of 66.42, with their best win over #57 Texas and their worst loss against #75 Texas Tech.
Thus based only on the production model Baylor is more productive than Illinois so the model picks Baylor to defeat Illinois in the 2010 Texas Bowl.
Alamo Bowl: Oklahoma State (10-2) vs. Arizona (7-5)
Oklahoma State (#10) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #4 and a defense that is ranked #54. Oklahoma State also has a SOS of 62.42, with their best win over #29 (in terms of overall production) Tulsa and their worst loss against #19 (in terms of overall production) Nebraska.
Arizona (#21) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #24 and a defense that is ranked #29. Arizona also has a SOS of 63.58, with their best win over #17 (in terms of overall production) Iowa and their worst loss against #88 (in terms of overall production) Oregon State.
Thus based only on the production model Oklahoma State is more productive than Arizona, thus the model predicts that Oklahoma State will defeat Arizona in the 2010 Alamo Bowl.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Champ Sports and Insight Bowls 2010
UPDATE: The NCAA FBS production model is 5-4 so far this bowl season.
Two bowl games tonight. The first is the Champs Sports Bowl with NC State and West Virginia and the second is the Insight Bowl with Iowa and Missouri. The tale of the tape for each bowl game is below.
Champ Sports Bowl: North Carolina State (8-4) vs. West Virginia (9-3)
North Carolina State (#37) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #42 and a defense that is ranked #37. North Carolina State also has a SOS of 57.83 with their best win against the University of Central Florida (#14 in overall production) and NC State's worst loss against #92 (in overall productivity) East Carolina.
West Virginia (#13) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #41 and a defense that is ranked #3. West Virginia also has a SOS of 66.50 with WVU's best win against #26 (in terms of the NCAA FBS productivity model) Pittsburgh and worst loss against #59 (in terms of the NCAA FBS productivity model) Syracuse.
Thus based only on the production model West Virginia is more productive than North Carolina State, so the NCAA FBS production model "picks" that West Virginia will be the winner of the 2010 Champs Sports Bowl.
Insight Bowl: Iowa (7-5) vs. Missouri (10-2)
Iowa (#17) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #23 and a defense that is ranked #10. Iowa also has a SOS of 61.25 with Iowa's best win over #24 (in terms of production) Michigan State and their worst loss against #89 (in terms of overall production) Minnesota.
Missouri (#25) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #31 and a defense that is ranked #32. Missouri also has a SOS of 63.33, with Missouri's best win against #15 (in terms of the NCAA FBS productivity model) Oklahoma and their worst loss against #75 (in terms of the NCAA FBS productivity model) Texas Tech.
Thus based only on the production model Iowa is more productive than Missouri, so the model picks Iowa to be the winner of the 2010 Insight Bowl.
Two bowl games tonight. The first is the Champs Sports Bowl with NC State and West Virginia and the second is the Insight Bowl with Iowa and Missouri. The tale of the tape for each bowl game is below.
Champ Sports Bowl: North Carolina State (8-4) vs. West Virginia (9-3)
North Carolina State (#37) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #42 and a defense that is ranked #37. North Carolina State also has a SOS of 57.83 with their best win against the University of Central Florida (#14 in overall production) and NC State's worst loss against #92 (in overall productivity) East Carolina.
West Virginia (#13) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #41 and a defense that is ranked #3. West Virginia also has a SOS of 66.50 with WVU's best win against #26 (in terms of the NCAA FBS productivity model) Pittsburgh and worst loss against #59 (in terms of the NCAA FBS productivity model) Syracuse.
Thus based only on the production model West Virginia is more productive than North Carolina State, so the NCAA FBS production model "picks" that West Virginia will be the winner of the 2010 Champs Sports Bowl.
Insight Bowl: Iowa (7-5) vs. Missouri (10-2)
Iowa (#17) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #23 and a defense that is ranked #10. Iowa also has a SOS of 61.25 with Iowa's best win over #24 (in terms of production) Michigan State and their worst loss against #89 (in terms of overall production) Minnesota.
Missouri (#25) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #31 and a defense that is ranked #32. Missouri also has a SOS of 63.33, with Missouri's best win against #15 (in terms of the NCAA FBS productivity model) Oklahoma and their worst loss against #75 (in terms of the NCAA FBS productivity model) Texas Tech.
Thus based only on the production model Iowa is more productive than Missouri, so the model picks Iowa to be the winner of the 2010 Insight Bowl.
Monday, December 27, 2010
Independence Bowl 2010
Today is the Independence Bowl. Let's look at the tale of the tape.
Independence Bowl: Georgia Tech (6-6) vs. Air Force (8-4)
Georgia Tech (#66) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #46 and a defense that is ranked #70. Georgia Tech also has a SOS of 65.67 and Georgia Tech's best win was against North Carolina (#43 in overall production) and Georgia Tech's worst loss was against Kansas ranked overall in terms of production at #113 - ouch!
Air Force (#23) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #28 and a defense that is ranked #28. Air Force also has a SOS of 66.41. Air Force's best win was against #32 in overall production - Navy - and their worst loss was against San Diego State (#34 in overall production).
Thus based only on the production model Air Force is predicted to defeat Georgia Tech in this year's Independence Bowl.
Independence Bowl: Georgia Tech (6-6) vs. Air Force (8-4)
Georgia Tech (#66) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #46 and a defense that is ranked #70. Georgia Tech also has a SOS of 65.67 and Georgia Tech's best win was against North Carolina (#43 in overall production) and Georgia Tech's worst loss was against Kansas ranked overall in terms of production at #113 - ouch!
Air Force (#23) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #28 and a defense that is ranked #28. Air Force also has a SOS of 66.41. Air Force's best win was against #32 in overall production - Navy - and their worst loss was against San Diego State (#34 in overall production).
Thus based only on the production model Air Force is predicted to defeat Georgia Tech in this year's Independence Bowl.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Little Caeser's Bowl 2010
I'm thinking pizza, but since I am a pizza snob, not Little Caeser's - sorry. With the Little Caeser's bowl upon us (why is there not a Peanut bowl or Candy bowl?) let's take a look at the tale of the tape for today's game.
Little Caeser's Bowl: Florida International University (6-6) vs. Toledo (8-4)
Florida International (#71) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #54 and a defense that is ranked #64. FIU also has a SOS of 74.17, with FIU's best win against Arkansas State (ranked #64 in the production model), and their worst loss was against in-state rival Florida Atlantic (#101 in overall production).
Toledo (#56) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #57 and a defense that is ranked #51. Toledo also has a SOS of 67.25 with Toledo's best win this season against Kent State (#49 in overall production) and their worst loss against #106 Wyoming - ouch!
Thus based only on the production model Toledo is favored over Florida International, the model predicts that Toledo will be the winner of the Little Caeser's bowl.
Little Caeser's Bowl: Florida International University (6-6) vs. Toledo (8-4)
Florida International (#71) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #54 and a defense that is ranked #64. FIU also has a SOS of 74.17, with FIU's best win against Arkansas State (ranked #64 in the production model), and their worst loss was against in-state rival Florida Atlantic (#101 in overall production).
Toledo (#56) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #57 and a defense that is ranked #51. Toledo also has a SOS of 67.25 with Toledo's best win this season against Kent State (#49 in overall production) and their worst loss against #106 Wyoming - ouch!
Thus based only on the production model Toledo is favored over Florida International, the model predicts that Toledo will be the winner of the Little Caeser's bowl.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Hawai'i Bowl 2010
Up-to-Date NCAA FBS Production Model Performance: Last night San Diego State defeated Navy, bringing the model to 4-2 for the bowl season.
Ah, the Hawai'i Bowl. I wish I was in Hawai'i (with my lovely wife and wonderful boys - of course), but I am here in Iowa with my family, so on the whole that is better than not being with my family. But I digress. Let's look at the tale of the tape for the Hawai'i Bowl.
Hawai'i Bowl: Tulsa (9-3) vs. Hawai'i (10-3)
Tulsa (#29) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #13 and a defense that is ranked #75. Tulsa also has a SOS of 78.53, with Tulsa's best win against #42 (in terms of production) Southern Mississippi, and their worst loss against (#92 production ranked) East Carolina.
Hawai'i (#6) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #3 and a defense that is ranked #41. Hawai'i also has a SOS of 77.92, with Hawai'i's best win against #7 (in terms of production) Nevada and their worst loss against #45 (in terms of production) USC.
Expect a high scoring game with such powerful offenses like Hawai'i's against Tulsa's below average defense. Thus based only on the production model Hawai'i is favored over Tulsa. So the model predicts that Hawai'i will win the Hawai'i Bowl this year.
Ah, the Hawai'i Bowl. I wish I was in Hawai'i (with my lovely wife and wonderful boys - of course), but I am here in Iowa with my family, so on the whole that is better than not being with my family. But I digress. Let's look at the tale of the tape for the Hawai'i Bowl.
Hawai'i Bowl: Tulsa (9-3) vs. Hawai'i (10-3)
Tulsa (#29) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #13 and a defense that is ranked #75. Tulsa also has a SOS of 78.53, with Tulsa's best win against #42 (in terms of production) Southern Mississippi, and their worst loss against (#92 production ranked) East Carolina.
Hawai'i (#6) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #3 and a defense that is ranked #41. Hawai'i also has a SOS of 77.92, with Hawai'i's best win against #7 (in terms of production) Nevada and their worst loss against #45 (in terms of production) USC.
Expect a high scoring game with such powerful offenses like Hawai'i's against Tulsa's below average defense. Thus based only on the production model Hawai'i is favored over Tulsa. So the model predicts that Hawai'i will win the Hawai'i Bowl this year.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Poinsettia Bowl 2010
Up-to-Date NCAA FBS Production Model Performance: Last night Boise State defeated Utah, bringing the model to 4-1 for the bowl season.
If you are looking for a bowl between two balanced teams (in terms of offensive, defensive and overall production), I do not think you will find a better NCAA FBS bowl this year than the Poinsettia Bowl. Here we have two teams with almost identically productive offense, defense and overall production. Thus according to the model, this game is a coin-flip, as either team is likely to win, and the outcome will likely be to some random event - like a turnover as opposed to one team having an advantage over the other. So here is the run-down of the production statistics.
Poinsettia Bowl: San Diego State (8-4) vs. Navy (9-3)
San Diego State (#34) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #36 and a defense that is ranked #46. San Diego State also has a SOS of 77.17, with their best win against Air Force (#23 in overall production) and their worst loss against BYU (#54 in overall production).
Navy (#32) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #34 and a defense that is ranked #45. Navy also has a SOS of 74.83, with Navy's best win against Notre Dame (#50 in overall production) and their worst loss against Air Force.
Thus based only on the production model Navy is overall slightly more productive than San Diego State, so the production model picks Navy as the winner of the 2010 Poinsettia Bowl.
If you are looking for a bowl between two balanced teams (in terms of offensive, defensive and overall production), I do not think you will find a better NCAA FBS bowl this year than the Poinsettia Bowl. Here we have two teams with almost identically productive offense, defense and overall production. Thus according to the model, this game is a coin-flip, as either team is likely to win, and the outcome will likely be to some random event - like a turnover as opposed to one team having an advantage over the other. So here is the run-down of the production statistics.
Poinsettia Bowl: San Diego State (8-4) vs. Navy (9-3)
San Diego State (#34) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #36 and a defense that is ranked #46. San Diego State also has a SOS of 77.17, with their best win against Air Force (#23 in overall production) and their worst loss against BYU (#54 in overall production).
Navy (#32) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #34 and a defense that is ranked #45. Navy also has a SOS of 74.83, with Navy's best win against Notre Dame (#50 in overall production) and their worst loss against Air Force.
Thus based only on the production model Navy is overall slightly more productive than San Diego State, so the production model picks Navy as the winner of the 2010 Poinsettia Bowl.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Maaco Las Vegas Bowl 2010
Last night Louisville defeated Southern Mississippi in a very competitive game, bringing the model to 3-1 for the bowl year. So with the game in the books, let's take a look at tonight's game. Based on the NCAA FBS production model this is one of the best bowls of the year - even better than some of the BCS bowls in January. It is a shame that Boise State - again one of the best teams in the nation - ends up playing against a non-BCS team in a post-season bowl. Last year they played against TCU. How can this happen that a team with only one loss does not play against a BCS team? Anyway, here is the tale of the tape for these two schools.
Maaco Las Vegas Bowl: Utah (10-2) vs. Boise State (11-1)
Utah (#28) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #32 and a defense that is ranked #38. Utah also has a SOS of 69.53, with their best win against Air Force (#23 overall) and their worst loss against Notre Dame (#50 overall).
Boise State (#1) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #2 and a defense that is ranked #1. Boise State also has a SOS of 71.92, with their best win against Hawaii (#6 overall) and their worst (and only) loss against Nevada (#7 overall).
Thus based only on the production model Boise State is favored over Utah. So I am picking Boise State.
Maaco Las Vegas Bowl: Utah (10-2) vs. Boise State (11-1)
Utah (#28) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #32 and a defense that is ranked #38. Utah also has a SOS of 69.53, with their best win against Air Force (#23 overall) and their worst loss against Notre Dame (#50 overall).
Boise State (#1) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #2 and a defense that is ranked #1. Boise State also has a SOS of 71.92, with their best win against Hawaii (#6 overall) and their worst (and only) loss against Nevada (#7 overall).
Thus based only on the production model Boise State is favored over Utah. So I am picking Boise State.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Beef O'Bradys Bowl 2010
Well on the first day of NCAA FBS bowls, the model goes 2-1, with Troy's offense coming to life against Ohio's defense. So, let's see how we do today in the Beef O'Brady bowl. Ah, the Beef O'Brady Bowl played in - uh wait a second - St. Petersburg Florida. I had to look that one up. Well, this might not be one of the prime bowls but it does deserved to be looked at. So here it goes. As you can see below, we have one team in the top 25% of the FBS playing, against a team that is just below the top 33% of all teams, so given the games to date, this is a bowl between two fairly good teams.
Beef O'Brady's Bowl: Louisville (6-6) vs. Southern Mississippi (8-4)
Louisville (#30) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #45 and a defense that is ranked #25. Louisville also has a SOS of 66.92, with their best win over Connecticut (#44 overall) and their worst loss against Oregon State (#88 overall).
Southern Mississippi (#42) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #19 and a defense that is ranked #68. Southern Mississippi also has a SOS of 77.53, with their best win over University of Central Florida (#14 overall) and their worst loss against East Carolina (#91 overall).
Here we have an interesting matched game, with Louisville's very good defense up against Southern Mississippi's highly productive offense. I think the winner of this on-field match up will win the game. Yet, statistically based only on the production model Louisville is more productive than Southern Mississippi, so I am picking Louisville to win the 2010 Beef O'Brady's Bowl.
Beef O'Brady's Bowl: Louisville (6-6) vs. Southern Mississippi (8-4)
Louisville (#30) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #45 and a defense that is ranked #25. Louisville also has a SOS of 66.92, with their best win over Connecticut (#44 overall) and their worst loss against Oregon State (#88 overall).
Southern Mississippi (#42) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #19 and a defense that is ranked #68. Southern Mississippi also has a SOS of 77.53, with their best win over University of Central Florida (#14 overall) and their worst loss against East Carolina (#91 overall).
Here we have an interesting matched game, with Louisville's very good defense up against Southern Mississippi's highly productive offense. I think the winner of this on-field match up will win the game. Yet, statistically based only on the production model Louisville is more productive than Southern Mississippi, so I am picking Louisville to win the 2010 Beef O'Brady's Bowl.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
NCAA Bowls on December 18th
Saturday begins the 2010 bowl schedule with three bowls being played. So let's take a look at each of the teams that play on Saturday and see where they rank in terms of offensive, defensive, total production and strength of schedule (SOS). I have calculated for the 2010 NCAA FBS season at the end of the regular season the average SOS is 64.26 using my strength of schedule calculation. The reason that it is higher than 61.5 is that a number of NCAA FBS schools played teams in the FCS, which I gave a SOS rank of 121 (one more greater than the worst FBS school, which I will write about later).
Additionally, I will also do is keep track of how well the higher ranked productive team from the model does over the bowl season.
New Mexico Bowl: BYU (6-6) vs. UTEP (6-6)
BYU (#54) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #75 and a defense that is ranked #30. BYU also has a SOS of 63.92 which is just slightly lower (harder) than the average strength of schedule. BYU is the only team playing Saturday that has a more difficult strength of schedule than the average SOS.
UTEP (#74) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #69 and a defense that is ranked #62. UTEP also has a SOS of 84.50, which is substantially easier than the average strength of schedule.
Thus based only on the production model BYU is favored over UTEP. So I am picking BYU as the winner of the New Mexico Bowl.
Humanitarian Bowl: Northern Illinois (10-3) vs. Fresno State (8-4)
Northern Illinois (#9) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #11 and a defense that is ranked #14. Northern Illinois also has a SOS of 81.69.
Fresno State (#77) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #78 and a defense that is ranked #61. Fresno State also has a SOS of 70.83.
Again, based only on the production model, we have our first top 10 team playing in a bowl game this year (Northern Illinois). It will be interesting to see how one of the most productive offenses in the NCAA fares against what is the average defense in terms of productivity.
Given Northern Illinois as a better offense and a better defense than Fresno State, I pick Northern Illinois as the winner of the Humanitarian Bowl this year.
New Orleans Bowl: Troy (7-5) vs. Ohio (8-4)
Troy (#68) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #27 and a defense that is ranked #95. Troy also has a SOS of 77.25.
Ohio (#63) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #85 and a defense that is ranked #34. Ohio also has a SOS of 80.50.
Finally, we have Troy's above average offense against Ohio's above average defense against Troy's below average defense against Ohio's below average offense. If the teams play as they have overall this year, this should be a low scoring affair. Not sure if I will stay up for this one. Anyway, the model predicts that Ohio is overall more productive than Troy and thus I am picking Ohio over Troy in the New Orleans Bowl.
Additionally, I will also do is keep track of how well the higher ranked productive team from the model does over the bowl season.
New Mexico Bowl: BYU (6-6) vs. UTEP (6-6)
BYU (#54) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #75 and a defense that is ranked #30. BYU also has a SOS of 63.92 which is just slightly lower (harder) than the average strength of schedule. BYU is the only team playing Saturday that has a more difficult strength of schedule than the average SOS.
UTEP (#74) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #69 and a defense that is ranked #62. UTEP also has a SOS of 84.50, which is substantially easier than the average strength of schedule.
Thus based only on the production model BYU is favored over UTEP. So I am picking BYU as the winner of the New Mexico Bowl.
Humanitarian Bowl: Northern Illinois (10-3) vs. Fresno State (8-4)
Northern Illinois (#9) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #11 and a defense that is ranked #14. Northern Illinois also has a SOS of 81.69.
Fresno State (#77) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #78 and a defense that is ranked #61. Fresno State also has a SOS of 70.83.
Again, based only on the production model, we have our first top 10 team playing in a bowl game this year (Northern Illinois). It will be interesting to see how one of the most productive offenses in the NCAA fares against what is the average defense in terms of productivity.
Given Northern Illinois as a better offense and a better defense than Fresno State, I pick Northern Illinois as the winner of the Humanitarian Bowl this year.
New Orleans Bowl: Troy (7-5) vs. Ohio (8-4)
Troy (#68) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #27 and a defense that is ranked #95. Troy also has a SOS of 77.25.
Ohio (#63) overall in production has an offense that is ranked #85 and a defense that is ranked #34. Ohio also has a SOS of 80.50.
Finally, we have Troy's above average offense against Ohio's above average defense against Troy's below average defense against Ohio's below average offense. If the teams play as they have overall this year, this should be a low scoring affair. Not sure if I will stay up for this one. Anyway, the model predicts that Ohio is overall more productive than Troy and thus I am picking Ohio over Troy in the New Orleans Bowl.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
NCAA FBS Top 25 as of December 11
With the last game played before the bowl games starting this Saturday, here is the final top 25.
Over the next few days I will be writing about the upcoming bowl games - I hope.
Over the next few days I will be writing about the upcoming bowl games - I hope.
| Rank | School | |
| 1 | Boise State | |
| 2 | TCU | |
| 3 | Oregon | |
| 4 | Alabama | |
| 5 | Ohio State | |
| 6 | Hawai'i | |
| 7 | Nevada | |
| 8 | Wisconsin | |
| 9 | Northern Illinois | |
| 10 | Oklahoma State | |
| 11 | Stanford | |
| 12 | Auburn | |
| 13 | West Virginia | |
| 14 | UCF | |
| 15 | Oklahoma | |
| 16 | Virginia Tech | |
| 17 | Iowa | |
| 18 | Arkansas | |
| 19 | Nebraska | |
| 20 | Miami (Florida) | |
| 21 | Arizona | |
| 22 | Florida State | |
| 23 | Air Force | |
| 24 | Michigan State | |
| 25 | Missouri |
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Questioning Football Rankings
Here is an article from the NY Times questioning the BCS football rankings from before Thanksgiving.
h/t Phil Miller.
h/t Phil Miller.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Army-Navy Game
The last regular season NCAA FBS game to be played this year is the Army-Navy game this Saturday. So let's look at the productivity ranking of the last regular season game of the year. As of last Saturday, we see that Navy is more productive in terms of offense and that Army is slightly more productive on the defensive side of the ball. Overall, Navy is the more productive team, primarily since Navy is so much more productive on offense than Army is on defense.
Also, since I am looking at schools associated with our armed forces, I thought that I would look at Air Force's productivity which received the Commander-in-Chief Trophy this year. Here we can see that both the on-field results correspond to the productivity rankings, in that Air Force is more productive both in offense and defense (and overall).
Here are the offense, defense and total productivity rankings as of December 4th.
(Please note: it is possible that after this game some of the coefficients in the model may change enough to change the overall regular season rankings, so I will be posting another ranking for next week - though not likely on Monday.)
Also, since I am looking at schools associated with our armed forces, I thought that I would look at Air Force's productivity which received the Commander-in-Chief Trophy this year. Here we can see that both the on-field results correspond to the productivity rankings, in that Air Force is more productive both in offense and defense (and overall).
Here are the offense, defense and total productivity rankings as of December 4th.
(Please note: it is possible that after this game some of the coefficients in the model may change enough to change the overall regular season rankings, so I will be posting another ranking for next week - though not likely on Monday.)
| School | Offense | Defense | Total |
| Air Force | 38 | 28 | 29 |
| Navy | 44 | 35 | 35 |
| Army | 73 | 33 | 52 |
Thursday, December 9, 2010
KGAN CBS 2 :: Local Sports - UI Professor Creates College Football Ranking System
If you missed my interview about the NCAA FBS football rankings on KGAN (I did), follow the link below and it will take you there.
KGAN CBS 2 :: Local Sports - UI Professor Creates College Football Ranking System
KGAN CBS 2 :: Local Sports - UI Professor Creates College Football Ranking System
Florida Under Urban Meyer
Urban Meyer resigned as head football coach from the University of Florida yesterday, and Florida is in the process of selecting a new head football coach. So that got me to wondering how productive has Florida's football team been over the last three years (years that I data).
Given that the production model ranks in the University of Florida being the second best team in the nation in terms of productivity in 2008 and being the most productive team in the nation in 2009, Florida has had an off year as compared to the previous two seasons in terms of where they rank out of the 120 NCAA FBS schools in the nation. Still, finishing in the top 25% of the nation is nothing to be looked down upon.
Given that the production model ranks in the University of Florida being the second best team in the nation in terms of productivity in 2008 and being the most productive team in the nation in 2009, Florida has had an off year as compared to the previous two seasons in terms of where they rank out of the 120 NCAA FBS schools in the nation. Still, finishing in the top 25% of the nation is nothing to be looked down upon.
| Season | Offense | Defense | Total |
| 2008 | 3 | 5 | 1 |
| 2009 | 3 | 3 | 1 |
| 2010 | 65 | 11 | 33 |
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
NCAA FBS Head Coach Salaries
The USA Today for a number of years has been collecting head coaches (and last year assistant head coaches) salary data. Here is the data for 2010 and here is a longer piece focusing on Fresno State's Pat Hill. Finally, here is a link to last year's database, and if you look on the website carefully, you can download most of the head coaches contract's as a .pdf file.
Monday, December 6, 2010
NCAA FBS Top 25 as of December 4
With the games in the books (except for the Army-Navy game this weekend), let's see how the final rankings stand before the bowl games are played. The production model still has Boise State as the most productive team overall, with TCU and Oregon finishing second and third. The actual top 25 is below, and the previous top 25's are linked at the bottom of this blog. Thanks to cfbstats.com for posting the data over the last few years, which makes this exercise managable for me to do each week.
Top 25 for the first week of the BCS (October 16, 2010).
Top 25 for the second week of the BCS (October 23, 2010).
Top 25 for the third week of the BCS (October 30, 2010).
Top 25 for the fourth week of the BCS (November 6, 2010).
Top 25 for the fifth week of the BCS (November 13, 2010).
Top 25 for the sixth week of the BCS (November 20, 2010).
Top 25 for the seventh week of the BCS (November 27, 2010).
| Rank | School | |
| 1 | Boise State | |
| 2 | TCU | |
| 3 | Oregon | |
| 4 | Alabama | |
| 5 | Hawai'i | |
| 6 | Ohio State | |
| 7 | Nevada | |
| 8 | Wisconsin | |
| 9 | Oklahoma State | |
| 10 | Auburn | |
| 11 | Stanford | |
| 12 | Northern Illinois | |
| 13 | West Virginia | |
| 14 | Oklahoma | |
| 15 | UCF | |
| 16 | Virginia Tech | |
| 17 | Arkansas | |
| 18 | Nebraska | |
| 19 | Iowa | |
| 20 | Florida State | |
| 21 | Arizona | |
| 22 | Pittsburgh | |
| 23 | Michigan State | |
| 24 | Miami (Florida) | |
| 25 | Missouri |
Top 25 for the first week of the BCS (October 16, 2010).
Top 25 for the second week of the BCS (October 23, 2010).
Top 25 for the third week of the BCS (October 30, 2010).
Top 25 for the fourth week of the BCS (November 6, 2010).
Top 25 for the fifth week of the BCS (November 13, 2010).
Top 25 for the sixth week of the BCS (November 20, 2010).
Top 25 for the seventh week of the BCS (November 27, 2010).
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Friday, December 3, 2010
Bill Lynch, Randy Shannon & Rich Rodriguez
Earlier this week both Indiana University football head coach Bill Lynch and University of Miami football head coach Randy Shannon were terminated from their jobs. Meanwhile, the athletics director at the University of Michigan is waiting to evaluate football head coach Rich Rodriguez.
So this got me to think about how these three teams have fared under each coach over the last three seasons (2008, 2009 and 2010), which is the time period that I have evaluated and also most of the time periods mentioned under the termination or evaluation of the three football head coaches. What I will look at for each team and each season then is their offensive production rank, defensive production rank, total production rank as well as their strength of schedule and winning percent. So here it goes starting by college in alphabetical order.
As shown below, Indiana over the last three years was below average in terms of offensive production, defensive production and total production. That coupled with the low winning percent, and the teams inability to win many games (especially against Big Ten opponents) lead to the termination of coach Bill Lynch.
As shown below, Randy Shannon's Miami Hurricanes finished 2008 as an above average defensive team, a below average offensive team and an average team overall. Much progress (in terms of production) was made in 2009 and 2010 resulting in Miami finishing in the top 25 in terms of total production, but that seems not to be enough to retain coach Shannon's services at "the U". As noted in the article linked above, the lack of conference championships and wins (or winning percentage) seems to be major factors in coach Shannon's termination. Yet in terms of production, his team is one of the premier schools in the nation - just not in the BCS, where it counts, which I think is unfortunate.
And then there is the Rich Rodriguez case. As shown below, Michigan finished both 2008 and 2009 below average in terms of production on both sides of the football. As of the most recent production rankings, Michigan is a top 25 team on the offensive side of the ball, but not on the defensive side. Michigan is getting better moving from an total production rank of 102 to 76 to 45 (as of November 27, 2010). Is that enough to retain coach Rodriguez's services, time will tell. Note: a better overall performance by Miami was not enough to retain coach Shannon.
So this got me to think about how these three teams have fared under each coach over the last three seasons (2008, 2009 and 2010), which is the time period that I have evaluated and also most of the time periods mentioned under the termination or evaluation of the three football head coaches. What I will look at for each team and each season then is their offensive production rank, defensive production rank, total production rank as well as their strength of schedule and winning percent. So here it goes starting by college in alphabetical order.
As shown below, Indiana over the last three years was below average in terms of offensive production, defensive production and total production. That coupled with the low winning percent, and the teams inability to win many games (especially against Big Ten opponents) lead to the termination of coach Bill Lynch.
| Indiana (2008) | ||
| Off. Prod. Rank = | 100 | |
| Def. Prod. Rank = | 100 | |
| Total Prod. Rank = | 106 | |
| SOS = | 58.67 | |
| Win % = | 0.250 | |
| Indiana (2009) | ||
| Off. Prod. Rank = | 79 | |
| Def. Prod. Rank = | 91 | |
| Total Prod. Rank = | 88 | |
| SOS = | 64.33 | |
| Win % = | 0.333 | |
| Indiana (2010) | ||
| Off. Prod. Rank = | 81 | |
| Def. Prod. Rank = | 104 | |
| Total Prod. Rank = | 95 | |
| SOS = | 63.17 | |
| Win % = | 0.417 |
As shown below, Randy Shannon's Miami Hurricanes finished 2008 as an above average defensive team, a below average offensive team and an average team overall. Much progress (in terms of production) was made in 2009 and 2010 resulting in Miami finishing in the top 25 in terms of total production, but that seems not to be enough to retain coach Shannon's services at "the U". As noted in the article linked above, the lack of conference championships and wins (or winning percentage) seems to be major factors in coach Shannon's termination. Yet in terms of production, his team is one of the premier schools in the nation - just not in the BCS, where it counts, which I think is unfortunate.
| Miami (Florida) (2008) | ||
| Off. Prod. Rank = | 77 | |
| Def. Prod. Rank = | 43 | |
| Total Prod. Rank = | 61 | |
| SOS = | 62.08 | |
| Win % = | 0.539 | |
| Miami (Florida) (2009) | ||
| Off. Prod. Rank = | 30 | |
| Def. Prod. Rank = | 20 | |
| Total Prod. Rank = | 19 | |
| SOS = | 48.77 | |
| Win % = | 0.692 | |
| Miami (Florida) (2010) | ||
| Off. Prod. Rank = | 33 | |
| Def. Prod. Rank = | 18 | |
| Total Prod. Rank = | 22 | |
| SOS = | 52.92 | |
| Win % = | 0.583 |
And then there is the Rich Rodriguez case. As shown below, Michigan finished both 2008 and 2009 below average in terms of production on both sides of the football. As of the most recent production rankings, Michigan is a top 25 team on the offensive side of the ball, but not on the defensive side. Michigan is getting better moving from an total production rank of 102 to 76 to 45 (as of November 27, 2010). Is that enough to retain coach Rodriguez's services, time will tell. Note: a better overall performance by Miami was not enough to retain coach Shannon.
| Michigan (2008) | ||
| Off. Prod. Rank = | 113 | |
| Def. Prod. Rank = | 72 | |
| Total Prod. Rank = | 102 | |
| SOS = | 57.33 | |
| Win % = | 0.250 | |
| Michigan (2009) | ||
| Off. Prod. Rank = | 69 | |
| Def. Prod. Rank = | 79 | |
| Total Prod. Rank = | 76 | |
| SOS = | 63.00 | |
| Win % = | 0.417 | |
| Michigan (2010) | ||
| Off. Prod. Rank = | 17 | |
| Def. Prod. Rank = | 87 | |
| Total Prod. Rank = | 45 | |
| SOS = | 56.50 | |
| Win % = | 0.583 |
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
NCAA FBS Top 25 as of November 27
The 2010 NCAA FBS regular season is almost over, so here is the latest NCAA FBS production Top 25 rank. Notice, even with Boise State's loss this past weekend, they still remain the most productive team in the nation, although the gap between them and the second place team has narrowed considerably.
Top 25 for the first week of the BCS (October 16, 2010).
Top 25 for the second week of the BCS (October 23, 2010).
Top 25 for the third week of the BCS (October 30, 2010).
Top 25 for the fourth week of the BCS (November 6, 2010).
Top 25 for the fifth week of the BCS (November 13, 2010).
Top 25 for the sixth week of the BCS (November 20, 2010).
| Rank | School | |
| 1 | Boise State | |
| 2 | TCU | |
| 3 | Oregon | |
| 4 | Ohio State | |
| 5 | Alabama | |
| 6 | Northern Illinois | |
| 7 | Wisconsin | |
| 8 | Hawai'i | |
| 9 | Nevada | |
| 10 | Stanford | |
| 11 | Oklahoma State | |
| 12 | Nebraska | |
| 13 | UCF | |
| 14 | Arkansas | |
| 15 | Iowa | |
| 16 | Auburn | |
| 17 | Virginia Tech | |
| 18 | Oklahoma | |
| 19 | West Virginia | |
| 20 | Florida State | |
| 21 | Air Force | |
| 22 | Miami (Florida) | |
| 23 | Arizona | |
| 24 | Michigan State | |
| 25 | Missouri |
Top 25 for the first week of the BCS (October 16, 2010).
Top 25 for the second week of the BCS (October 23, 2010).
Top 25 for the third week of the BCS (October 30, 2010).
Top 25 for the fourth week of the BCS (November 6, 2010).
Top 25 for the fifth week of the BCS (November 13, 2010).
Top 25 for the sixth week of the BCS (November 20, 2010).
Friday, November 26, 2010
The Iron Bowl - 2010 Edition
In a few minutes, the Iron Bowl between Auburn and Alabama will be under way, and according to the BCS, Auburn is ranked #2 and Alabama is ranked #9. Yet in terms of overall productivity, I have Auburn ranked #12 and Alabama ranked #4. So why does the production ranking differ from the conventional wisdom? Let's take a look at the two teams offense and defense in terms of productivity rank.
Offensive Production Ranks
Auburn ranks as the #7 most productive offense in the nation and Alabama ranks as the #16 most productive offense in the nation. So on the offensive side of the ball, Auburn is the better offense than Alabama. This I do not think is a shock to college football pundints.
Defensive Production Ranks
Alabama is the #2 most productive defense in the nation, just behind Boise State and Auburn is the #55 most productive defense in the nation, just behind Toledo. Thus on the defensive side of the ball, Alabama is a much better team.
Final (Overall) Ranking
So how do you compare the two? What I do is take each teams offensive production and subtract the teams defensive production and calculate the teams overall production. When taking account both the offensive and defensive productivity, Alabama is a more productive team than Auburn. Hence the productivity ranking has Alabama as a higher ranked (i.e. better team) than Auburn. Does that mean that Alabama will win today? No, this is just the statistical analysis of NCAA FBS teams, and these are the results from the statistical analysis.
Offensive Production Ranks
Auburn ranks as the #7 most productive offense in the nation and Alabama ranks as the #16 most productive offense in the nation. So on the offensive side of the ball, Auburn is the better offense than Alabama. This I do not think is a shock to college football pundints.
Defensive Production Ranks
Alabama is the #2 most productive defense in the nation, just behind Boise State and Auburn is the #55 most productive defense in the nation, just behind Toledo. Thus on the defensive side of the ball, Alabama is a much better team.
Final (Overall) Ranking
So how do you compare the two? What I do is take each teams offensive production and subtract the teams defensive production and calculate the teams overall production. When taking account both the offensive and defensive productivity, Alabama is a more productive team than Auburn. Hence the productivity ranking has Alabama as a higher ranked (i.e. better team) than Auburn. Does that mean that Alabama will win today? No, this is just the statistical analysis of NCAA FBS teams, and these are the results from the statistical analysis.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Ohio State - Boise State Debate
Recently the presidents of Ohio State and Boise State have made public comments about the worthiness of their respective football teams to play in the NCAA FBS championship game in January. The main issue seems to revolve around each teams strength of schedule. About as recently, I have been writing about the measurement of NCAA FBS strength of schedule and whether strength of schedule is important in regard to a teams winning percent. I conclude that my measure of strength of schedule is not a statistically significant (and therefore) important factor in determining a teams winning percent when taking into account team productivity.
Now we have this debate come up again, so I thought that I would look into the two conferences and the two teams strength of schedule as of November 20, 2010. Let's take them in order.
Strength of Schedule (SOS) of the Big Ten vs. Western Athletic Conference
Now there is a difference between the two conferences, and the Big Ten has an overall stronger conference schedule than the Western Athletic Conference. Here are the two conference teams winning percent and strength of schedule as I measured them using the methodology I outlined in a previous blog.
Notice that the difference in strength of schedule is higher (easier) for Big Ten teams on average than for Western Athletic Teams. So Gee's comment that teams that play in the Big Ten play more challenging teams on average than teams in the Western Athletic Conference. But just because the Big Ten's strength of schedule is harder than the Western Athletic Conference does not make Ohio State more worthy than Boise State. So let's turn to the two teams themselves.
Strength of Schedule (SOS): Ohio State vs. Boise State
Listed below are the two teams 2010 schedules and the two teams opponents strength of schedule as of November 20th. Notice that both teams have played very poor teams, such as Boise State playing Wyoming, New Mexico State and San Jose State. Ohio State has played some fairly low productive teams such as Eastern Michigan, Purdue and Indiana. In fairness, Boise State plays their strongest opponent (Nevada - currently ranked #5 in overall productivity) this week and then follows with a very weak Utah State (#99 in overall productivity), while Ohio State plays an above average Michigan (currently ranked #37) in overall productivity.
Yet all of this does not refute the overall productivity of the two teams. Taking this into account, we see that in terms of team productivity, Boise State is the most productive team in the land (ranked #1 in overall productivity) while Ohio State is ranked #6 in overall productivity. So even though Ohio State has a tougher schedule than Boise State, I have adjusted for conferences in the estimation of team overall productivity and found that Boise State is the more productive team. Additionally, when explaining the factors that drive winning percentage, my measure of strength of schedule is not statistically significant when controlling for points scored and points surrendered; point spread; or total productivity.
Full disclosure: I am an employee of a Big Ten university.
Now we have this debate come up again, so I thought that I would look into the two conferences and the two teams strength of schedule as of November 20, 2010. Let's take them in order.
Strength of Schedule (SOS) of the Big Ten vs. Western Athletic Conference
Now there is a difference between the two conferences, and the Big Ten has an overall stronger conference schedule than the Western Athletic Conference. Here are the two conference teams winning percent and strength of schedule as I measured them using the methodology I outlined in a previous blog.
| Team | SOS | Winpct | ||
| Illinois | 59.455 | 0.545 | ||
| Indiana | 58.182 | 0.364 | ||
| Iowa | 57.727 | 0.636 | ||
| Michigan | 61.909 | 0.636 | ||
| Michigan St. | 61.545 | 0.909 | ||
| Minnesota | 53.636 | 0.182 | ||
| Northwestern | 77.545 | 0.636 | ||
| Ohio St. | 63.273 | 0.909 | ||
| Penn St. | 53.000 | 0.636 | ||
| Purdue | 54.727 | 0.400 | ||
| Wisconsin | 71.364 | 0.909 | ||
| Big Ten Ave. | 61.124 | |||
| Boise St. | 73.700 | 1.000 | ||
| Fresno St. | 70.000 | 0.667 | ||
| Hawaii | 72.500 | 0.800 | ||
| Idaho | 61.500 | 0.400 | ||
| La.-Lafayette | 66.818 | 0.182 | ||
| Nevada | 84.400 | 0.900 | ||
| New Mexico St. | 74.455 | 0.200 | ||
| San Jose St. | 59.200 | 0.111 | ||
| Utah St. | 66.727 | 0.364 | ||
| WAC Average | 69.922 |
Notice that the difference in strength of schedule is higher (easier) for Big Ten teams on average than for Western Athletic Teams. So Gee's comment that teams that play in the Big Ten play more challenging teams on average than teams in the Western Athletic Conference. But just because the Big Ten's strength of schedule is harder than the Western Athletic Conference does not make Ohio State more worthy than Boise State. So let's turn to the two teams themselves.
Strength of Schedule (SOS): Ohio State vs. Boise State
Listed below are the two teams 2010 schedules and the two teams opponents strength of schedule as of November 20th. Notice that both teams have played very poor teams, such as Boise State playing Wyoming, New Mexico State and San Jose State. Ohio State has played some fairly low productive teams such as Eastern Michigan, Purdue and Indiana. In fairness, Boise State plays their strongest opponent (Nevada - currently ranked #5 in overall productivity) this week and then follows with a very weak Utah State (#99 in overall productivity), while Ohio State plays an above average Michigan (currently ranked #37) in overall productivity.
| Team | Opponent | SOS |
| Boise St. | Virginia Tech | 18 |
| Boise St. | Wyoming | 108 |
| Boise St. | Oregon St. | 67 |
| Boise St. | New Mexico St. | 118 |
| Boise St. | Toledo | 50 |
| Boise St. | San Jose St. | 116 |
| Boise St. | Louisiana Tech | 84 |
| Boise St. | Hawaii | 11 |
| Boise St. | Idaho | 85 |
| Boise St. | Fresno St. | 80 |
| Boise St. | Nevada | DNP |
| Boise St. | Utah St. | DNP |
| Ohio St. | Marshall | 95 |
| Ohio St. | Miami (FL) | 17 |
| Ohio St. | Ohio | 43 |
| Ohio St. | Eastern Mich. | 114 |
| Ohio St. | Illinois | 49 |
| Ohio St. | Indiana | 97 |
| Ohio St. | Wisconsin | 9 |
| Ohio St. | Purdue | 100 |
| Ohio St. | Minnesota | 94 |
| Ohio St. | Penn St. | 68 |
| Ohio St. | Iowa | 10 |
| Ohio St. | Michigan | DNP |
Yet all of this does not refute the overall productivity of the two teams. Taking this into account, we see that in terms of team productivity, Boise State is the most productive team in the land (ranked #1 in overall productivity) while Ohio State is ranked #6 in overall productivity. So even though Ohio State has a tougher schedule than Boise State, I have adjusted for conferences in the estimation of team overall productivity and found that Boise State is the more productive team. Additionally, when explaining the factors that drive winning percentage, my measure of strength of schedule is not statistically significant when controlling for points scored and points surrendered; point spread; or total productivity.
Full disclosure: I am an employee of a Big Ten university.
Monday, November 22, 2010
NCAA FBS Top 25 as of November 20
After a great weekend of NCAA FBS football, I have finally calculated the newest ranking as of November 20, 2010. The model still has Boise State ranked #1, but notice that Alabama is moving up the ranking. The data used for this comes from cfbstats.com.
Top 25 for the first week of the BCS (October 16, 2010).
Top 25 for the second week of the BCS (October 23, 2010).
Top 25 for the third week of the BCS (October 30, 2010).
Top 25 for the fourth week of the BCS (November 6, 2010).
Top 25 for the fifth week of the BCS (November 13, 2010).
| Rank | School | |
1 | Boise State | |
2 | Oregon | |
3 | TCU | |
4 | Alabama | |
5 | Nevada | |
6 | Ohio State | |
7 | Oklahoma State | |
8 | Stanford | |
9 | Wisconsin | |
10 | Iowa | |
11 | Hawai'i | |
12 | Auburn | |
13 | Nebraska | |
14 | Northern Illinois | |
15 | Oklahoma | |
16 | UCF | |
17 | Miami (Florida) | |
18 | Virginia Tech | |
19 | Arkansas | |
20 | West Virginia | |
21 | Air Force | |
22 | Arizona | |
23 | Florida State | |
24 | Florida | |
25 | Michigan State |
Top 25 for the first week of the BCS (October 16, 2010).
Top 25 for the second week of the BCS (October 23, 2010).
Top 25 for the third week of the BCS (October 30, 2010).
Top 25 for the fourth week of the BCS (November 6, 2010).
Top 25 for the fifth week of the BCS (November 13, 2010).
Friday, November 19, 2010
Does Strength of Schedule Matter?
The last two blogs have looked at how to measure strength of schedule and the teams actual schedule strength as of November 13th. Now I want to turn my attention to how much effect does strength of schedule actually have on team performance. In order to do this, I will need to analyze all 120 NCAA FBS teams through the weekend of November 13th in order to give (a series) of answers as to how (if at all) does strength of schedule affect NCAA FBS team performance. So, taking the data for all 120 NCAA FBS teams up to and including the weekend of November 13, I have calculated each teams strength of schedule, found their winning percent, points scored, points surrendered and also found their total productivity using the complex invasion sport production model. So, here are the results.
First, I ran a linear regression looking at how strength of schedule impacts winning percentage only. The regression estimated is: winning percent = f(strength of schedule). The result from this statistical estimation is that estimated coefficient for strength of schedule is positive and statistically significant, with a t-statistic greater than two in absolute value, and an adjusted r-squared equal to 0.05. Thus only looking at strength of schedule I find that it does impact winning percentage and that teams that have easier schedules have higher winning percentages. The problem is that the variation in strength of schedule "explains" very little of the variation in NCAA FBS team's winning percent - only about 5%. So, let's see if we can do better.
The second linear regression looks at how strength of schedule impacts winning percentage along with the amount of points the teams scores and the amount of points the team surrenders. (I also ran the regression on point spread - points for minus points against). Now strength of schedule variable does not work out well. The results from this regression are that strength of schedule is statistically insignificant (or that statistically strength of schedule has zero impact on winning percentage) when also taking into account the number of points scored and points surrendered. The regression does rather well on the whole, with an adjusted r-squared = 0.84, and the estimated coefficient on points scored is positive and statistically significant at the 99% level of confidence, and the estimated coefficient on points surrendered is negative and statistically significant at the 99% level of confidence.
The same goes for a regression on strength of schedule and the point spread (i.e. points scored minus points surrendered). Strength of schedule is statistically insignificant and point spread is positive and statistically significant at the 99% confidence level.
Given this result, I conclude that strength of schedule does not matter when looking at teams winning percent. It did not matter in the NCAA FBS paper I wrote up about team production, and still does not. So all this talk about one teams strength of schedule better than another teams strength of schedule is rather a waste of time.
First, I ran a linear regression looking at how strength of schedule impacts winning percentage only. The regression estimated is: winning percent = f(strength of schedule). The result from this statistical estimation is that estimated coefficient for strength of schedule is positive and statistically significant, with a t-statistic greater than two in absolute value, and an adjusted r-squared equal to 0.05. Thus only looking at strength of schedule I find that it does impact winning percentage and that teams that have easier schedules have higher winning percentages. The problem is that the variation in strength of schedule "explains" very little of the variation in NCAA FBS team's winning percent - only about 5%. So, let's see if we can do better.
The second linear regression looks at how strength of schedule impacts winning percentage along with the amount of points the teams scores and the amount of points the team surrenders. (I also ran the regression on point spread - points for minus points against). Now strength of schedule variable does not work out well. The results from this regression are that strength of schedule is statistically insignificant (or that statistically strength of schedule has zero impact on winning percentage) when also taking into account the number of points scored and points surrendered. The regression does rather well on the whole, with an adjusted r-squared = 0.84, and the estimated coefficient on points scored is positive and statistically significant at the 99% level of confidence, and the estimated coefficient on points surrendered is negative and statistically significant at the 99% level of confidence.
The same goes for a regression on strength of schedule and the point spread (i.e. points scored minus points surrendered). Strength of schedule is statistically insignificant and point spread is positive and statistically significant at the 99% confidence level.
Given this result, I conclude that strength of schedule does not matter when looking at teams winning percent. It did not matter in the NCAA FBS paper I wrote up about team production, and still does not. So all this talk about one teams strength of schedule better than another teams strength of schedule is rather a waste of time.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
NCAA FBS Strength of Schedule as of November 13
In the previous post, I talked about how I measure NCAA FBS strength of schedule. Now I want to use this strength of schedule measure and examine the teams in the top 25 of the BCS rankings after the weekend of November 13th. Here they are in the table below.
As you will notice, Oregon's strength of schedule is larger (easier) than both Boise State's and TCU's. Yet, I have not heard anyone question the legitimacy of Oregon playing in the NCAA championship game. I wonder why?
| Rank | Team | BCS Average | SOS | |||
| 1 | Oregon | 0.9753 | 78.60 | |||
| 2 | Auburn | 0.9687 | 55.09 | |||
| 3 | TCU | 0.8966 | 71.09 | |||
| 4 | Boise State | 0.8634 | 77.56 | |||
| 5 | LSU | 0.8243 | 57.20 | |||
| 6 | Stanford | 0.7553 | 72.20 | |||
| 7 | Wisconsin | 0.7258 | 73.60 | |||
| 8 | Nebraska | 0.7203 | 80.20 | |||
| 9 | Ohio State | 0.6674 | 69.30 | |||
| 10 | Oklahoma State | 0.6601 | 63.60 | |||
| 11 | Alabama | 0.6151 | 64.00 | |||
| 12 | Michigan State | 0.6066 | 57.80 | |||
| 13 | Arkansas | 0.5133 | 61.20 | |||
| 14 | Oklahoma | 0.4728 | 61.80 | |||
| 15 | Missouri | 0.4563 | 60.90 | |||
| 16 | Virginia Tech | 0.3676 | 71.20 | |||
| 17 | South Carolina | 0.3244 | 46.50 | |||
| 18 | Nevada | 0.3016 | 79.78 | |||
| 19 | Texas A&M | 0.2788 | 56.90 | |||
| 20 | Iowa | 0.219 | 61.60 | |||
| 21 | Mississippi State | 0.177 | 48.50 | |||
| 22 | Arizona | 0.1413 | 68.00 | |||
| 23 | Utah | 0.1109 | 76.70 | |||
| 24 | Miami (FL) | 0.0885 | 54.40 | |||
| 25 | Florida State | 0.0415 | 57.70 |
As you will notice, Oregon's strength of schedule is larger (easier) than both Boise State's and TCU's. Yet, I have not heard anyone question the legitimacy of Oregon playing in the NCAA championship game. I wonder why?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)