Gary Pinkel Resigns as Head Football Coach

Gary Pinkel is resigning as head football coach from the University of Missouri due to health related concerns.  Coach Pinkel has been at the helm of the Missouri Tigers football program since 2001.  The model that I use goes back to the 2008 season, so I will only look at the last eight seasons of Pinkel's tenure.

Below is a chart of offense, defense and total production of the Missouri Tigers football program during Pinkel's tenure as head football coach since the 2008 season, along with who would be the lowest ranked team during this time period (in purple) and the average team (sky blue).   As you may notice, Missouri has been up and down during the last few years under Pinkel's tenure. All rankings in this blog come from my Complex Invasion College Football Production Model.  More details about the program under Pinkel are after the chart below, including contract information.

Gary Pinkel [2001-2015]

2008
At the end of the regular season the Tigers were 9-4 and bowl eligible in which Missouri defeated #54 ranked Northwestern (30-23) to finish the season at 10-4.  Missouri  played against an "average" strength of schedule (SOS) as compared to the "league" average SOS, meaning that their strength of schedule was plus or minus one standard deviation to the "league's" average SOS.  The Tigers best win was over #32 ranked Nevada by a score of (69-17) and their worst loss was to #42 ranked Kansas by a score of (37-40).  Missouri had the #16 ranked team in total production with the #4 ranked offense and the #95 ranked defense from the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model.

2009
At the end of the regular season the Tigers were 8-4 and bowl eligible, but lost to #32 ranked Navy (13-35) to finish 8-5 overall. The Tigers again played against an "average" strength of schedule (SOS) as compared to the "league" average SOS.  The Tigers best regular season victory was over #30 ranked Nevada (31-21) and their worst loss was to #100 ranked Baylor by a score of (32-40).  Missouri had the #47 ranked team in total production with the #43 ranked offense and the #54 ranked defense from the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model.

2010 
The Tigers again finished the regular season at 10-2 and were again bowl eligible where they were defeated by #17 Iowa by a score of (24-27).  Missouri again played against an "average" strength of schedule (SOS) as compared to the "league" average SOS.  The Tigers best regular season game was a victory (36-27) over #12 Oklahoma and their worst loss was to #64 ranked Texas Tech by a score of (17-24).  Overall, the Tigers had the #14 ranked team with the #30 ranked offense and the #8 ranked defense from the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model.

2011 
Missouri finished the regular season overall at 7-5 (bowl eligible) and defeated by #36 ranked North Carolina in their post-season bowl game by a score of (41-24) to finish the season at 8-5.  Missouri played against an "average" strength of schedule (SOS) as compared to the "league" average SOS.  The Tigers best game again was their victory over #33 ranked Texas A&M (38-31) and their worst loss was to #62 ranked Arizona State (30-37).  Missouri had the #31 ranked team in total production with the #17 ranked offense and the #58 ranked defense from the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model.

2012 
Missouri moved from the Big 12 conference to the SEC conference during this season and the Tigers had a rough start in the new conference.  At the end of the regular season the Tigers were 5-7 and were bowl ineligible, while playing against a "much tougher" strength of schedule (SOS) as compared to the "league" average SOS, meaning that Missouri's SOS was more than two standard deviations below the "leagues" average SOS.  The Tigers best win was over #19 ranked UCF (21-16) and their worst loss was to #38 ranked Vanderbilt by a score of (15-19).  Missouri had the #93 ranked team in total production with the #95 ranked offense and the #63 ranked defense from the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model. 

2013
At the end of the regular season the Tigers were 11-2 (and were bowl eligible) and defeated #15 Oklahoma State (41-31) to finish 12-2 overall.  Missouri played against an "average" strength of schedule (SOS) as compared to the "league" average SOS.  The Tigers best regular season victory was against #32 Texas A&M (28-21) and their worst loss was to #30 ranked Auburn by a score of (42-59).  Missouri had the #13 ranked team in total production with the #9 ranked offense and the #65 ranked defense from the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model.

2014
The Tigers again finished the regular season at 10-3 and were again bowl eligible, and defeated #45 ranked Minnesota by a score of (33-17).  Missouri played against an "average" strength of schedule (SOS) as compared to the "league" average SOS.  The Tigers best regular season game was a victory (21-14) over #22 Arkansas and their worst loss was to #94 ranked Indiana by a score of (27-31).  Overall, the Tigers had the #27 ranked team with the #46 ranked offense and the #26 ranked defense from the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model.

2015
Missouri finished the regular season overall at 5-7 and bowl eligible while playing against an "average" strength of schedule (SOS) as compared to the "league" average SOS.  The Tigers best game again was their victory over #42 ranked BYU (20-16) and their worst loss was to #89 ranked Vanderbilt (3-10).  Missouri was a contrast in opposites this season, with the #65 ranked team in total production with the #125 ranked offense and the #2 ranked defense from the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model.

Frank Beamer Retires from Virginia Tech

Last November Virginia Tech's head football coach announced that he was retiring at the end of the season.  Now that the season is over, I have decided to take a look at the last part of coach Beamer at the helm of the Virginia Tech football program in terms of team productivity starting in 2008, since that is when the data I use for the college football production model begins.

Below is a chart of offense, defense and total production of the Virginia Tech Hokies football program during Beamer's tenure as head football coach, along with who would be the lowest ranked team during this time period (in purple) and the average team (sky blue).   As you may notice, Virginia Tech has been up and down during the last few years under Beamer's tenure. All rankings in this blog come from my Complex Invasion College Football Production Model.  More details about the program under Beamer are after the chart below, including contract information.

Frank Beamer [2013 Contract Extension]

2008
In the first year of the model, the Hokies finished the regular season at 9-4 (bowl eligible), and defeated #31 ranked Cincinnati (20-7) to finish at 10-4 overall, while playing against an "average" strength of schedule (SOS) as compared to the "league" average SOS, meaning that their strength of schedule was plus or minus one standard deviation of the "league's" average SOS.  The Hokies best win was their bowl victory over Cincinnati and their worst loss was to #58 ranked East Carolina by a score of (22-27).  Virginia Tech had the #37 ranked team in total production with the #67 ranked offense and the #13 ranked defense from the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model.

2009
The Hokies again finished the regular season at 9-3 and were bowl eligible, defeating #22 ranked Tennessee (37-14) to finish 10-3 overall.  Virginia Tech played against a "tougher" strength of schedule (SOS) as compared to the "league" average SOS, meaning that Virginia Tech's SOS was between one and two standard deviations lower than the average SOS for the "league".  The Hokies best regular season game was a victory (16-15) over #16 Nebraska and their worst loss was to #33 ranked North Carolina (17-20).  Overall, the Hokies had the #6 ranked team with the #21 ranked offense and the #5 ranked defense from the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model.

2010
Virginia Tech finished the regular season overall at 11-2 (bowl eligible) and were defeated by #11 ranked Stanford in their post-season bowl game by a score of (12-40) to finish the season at 11-3.  Virginia Tech played against an "average" strength of schedule (SOS) as compared to the "league" average SOS.  The Hokies best game again was their victory over #23 ranked Florida State (44-33) and their worst loss was to FCS James Madison (16-21).  Virginia Tech had the #19 ranked team in total production with the #14 ranked offense and the #57 ranked defense from the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model.

2011
At the end of the regular season the Hokies were again 11-2 (bowl eligible) and again lost their bowl game, this time to #10 ranked Michigan (20-23) to finish 11-3 overall, playing against an "average" strength of schedule (SOS) as compared to the "league" average SOS.  The Hokies best win was over #17 ranked Georgia Tech (37-26) and their worst loss was to #59 ranked Clemson (twice) by a score of (3-23 & 10-38).  Virginia Tech had the #20 ranked team in total production with the #39 ranked offense and the #15 ranked defense from the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model.

2012  
At the end of the regular season the Hokies were 6-6 (bowl eligible) winning their post-season bowl game over #16 ranked Rutgers by a score of (13-10) to finish 7-6 overall, while playing against a "tougher" strength of schedule (SOS) as compared to the "league" average SOS.   The Hokies best win was bowl game victory and their worst loss was to #74 ranked Miami (FL) by a score of (22-28).  Virginia Tech had the #68 ranked team in total production with the #83 ranked offense and the #44 ranked defense from the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model.

2013
At the end of the regular season the Hokies were 8-4 (bowl eligible) losing their post-season bowl game to #26 ranked UCLA by a score of (12-42) to finish 8-5 overall, again playing against a "tougher" strength of schedule (SOS) as compared to the "league" average SOS.  The Hokies best win was again over #8 ranked Marshall (29-21) and their worst loss was to #73 ranked Boston College by a score of (27-34).  Virginia Tech had the #54 ranked team in total production with the #95 ranked offense and the #4 ranked defense from the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model.

2014
The Hokies again finished the regular season at 6-6 and were bowl eligible and won their post-season bowl game to #29 ranked Cincinnati by a score of (33-17).  Virginia Tech for a third straight year played against a "tougher" strength of schedule (SOS) as compared to the "league" average SOS.  The Hokies best regular season game was a victory (35-21) over #4 ranked Ohio State and their worst loss was to #119 ranked Wake Forest (3-6).  Overall, the Hokies had the #56 ranked team with the #90 ranked offense and the #8 ranked defense from the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model.

2015
Virginia Tech finished the regular season overall at 6-6 (bowl eligible) and defeated by #103 ranked Tulsa in their post-season bowl game by a score of (55-52) to finish the season at 7-6.  Virginia Tech played against an "average" strength of schedule (SOS) as compared to the "league" average SOS.  The Hokies best game again was their victory over #34 ranked Boston College (26-10) and their worst loss was to #76 ranked Miami (FL) (20-30).  Virginia Tech had the #71 ranked team in total production with the #74 ranked offense and the #58 ranked defense from the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model.

2015 NCAA FBS Competitive Balance

Now that the NCAA FBS season is over, let's take a look at how competitive the "league" was this year. For the 2015 season the Noll-Scully Competitive Balance measure was 1.564 for all games played.  Here are previous NCAA FBS season's measures of competitive balance (2002-2012) and (2013-2014) for the league as a whole including all the post season games in the NCAA FBS.  For those that are interested in calculating this on their own, here is a step-by-step guide as to how to perform the Noll-Scully competitive balance calculation.

As you can see from the chart above, that competitive balance among NCAA FBS teams has not changed much from one year to the next.  In fact the average Noll-Scully is 1.526 for this time period.  Of those listed only the 2005 and 2014 NCAA FBS seasons were more competitive than the average (i.e. had a Noll-Scully that was less than one standard deviation below the mean) and the 2003 and 2013 NCAA FBS seasons were less competitive than the average (i.e. had a Noll-Scully that was greater than one standard deviation above the mean).

2015 NCAA FBS Top 25 Final Rankings

With the NCAA FBS season over, here are the Top 25 rankings using the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model.  I am surprised by the result as well.

Rank	Team
1	Appalachian State
2	Oklahoma
3	Ohio State
4	San Diego State
5	Navy
6	Mississippi
7	Alabama
8	Boise State
9	Houston
10	LSU
11	Clemson
12	Stanford
13	Georgia
14	Western Kentucky
15	Baylor
16	Florida State
17	Arkansas
18	South Florida
19	Louisiana Tech
20	Wisconsin
21	Toledo
22	Iowa
23	Bowling Green
24	Michigan
25	Georgia Southern

Larry Coker Fired by UTSA

Larry Coker has been fired by UTSA.  Coker was the first head football coach at UTSA.  Here is a look at the UTSA program under Coker and well as his contract.

Larry Coker [2012-2015]

2012
In UTSA's first season as a member of the Football Bowl Subdivision, the Roadrunners finished the regular season at 8-4, but were bowl ineligible since they played four FCS schools going 4-0, but only one of those wins counts towards bowl eligibility, so really the Roadrunners were 4-4 in the FBS.  The Roadrunners played against a “much easier” strength of schedule, meaning the Roadrunners strength of schedule was more than two standard deviation higher than the the "league" average strength of schedule.  UTSA's best regular season victory against in-state rival #99 ranked Texas State by a score of (38-31) and their worst loss was to #64 ranked Rice by a score of (14-34).  UTSA finished the season as the #84 ranked team overall, with the #102 ranked offense and the #40 ranked defense using the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model from the data provided from www.cfbstats.com.

2013
The Roadrunners finished the regular season at 7-5 and were bowl eligible, but uninvited.  The Roadrunners played against an “average” strength of schedule, meaning that UTSA's SOS was plus or minus one standard deviation of the "league" average SOS.  UTSA's best regular season victory against #33 ranked North Texas by a score of (21-13) and UTSA's worst loss was to #50 ranked Rice by a score of (21-27).  The Roadrunners finished the season as the #66 ranked team overall, with the #67 ranked offense and the #63 ranked defense using the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model from the data provided from www.cfbstats.com.

2014
UTSA finished the regular season at 5-7, while playing against an “average” strength of schedule and were bowl ineligible.  UTSA's best regular season victory against #9 ranked Louisiana Tech by a score of (27-20) and their worst loss was to #107 ranked Florida Atlantic by a score of (37-41).  UTSA finished the season as the #100 ranked team overall, with the #120 ranked offense and the #34 ranked defense using the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model from the data provided from www.cfbstats.com.

2015
At the conclusion of the regular season, UTSA fired head football coach Larry Coker after going 3-9.  UTSA played against an “easier” strength of schedule, meaning that the Roadrunners SOS was between one and two standard deviations greater than the "leagues" average SOS.  UTSA's best victory was against #109 ranked Rice by a score of (34-24) and their worst loss was to #126 ranked North Texas by a score of (23-30).  UTSA's production rankings are:  #105 team overall, with the #108 offense and the #89 ranked defense using the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model from the data provided from www.cfbstats.com.