FBSchedules.com asked a while ago if Notre Dame's strength of schedule is different that selective "Power 5" conference teams. Now with Notre Dame playing in the "final four" later, I thought that I would take a look at strength of schedule (SOS) among teams during the regular season (through December 8th).
Conclusion: Each team has played an average SOS this season. Details on this follow below.
First, how do I measure SOS? SOS is the average of each team's opponent's current production ranking using the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model. Thus team's with a lower SOS numerical value, the stronger the team's SOS.
Thus for the four teams that made the FBS invitational, here is their SOS for this season to date:
Alabama SOS = 63.92;
Clemson SOS = 73.00;
Notre Dame SOS = 75.92;
Oklahoma SOS = 67.77.
Alabama has had the toughest SOS (playing currently ranked #4 Mississippi State and #5 Georgia helped lower their SOS) and Notre Dame had the easiest SOS at 75.92.
So are these two similar or different overall? To answer this, first note that the average SOS for all games played up to December 8th was exactly 70.00. Thus Alabama and Oklahoma both had SOS that was stronger than average and Clemson and Notre Dame had SOS that was weaker than average.
But is Notre Dame's 75.92 that much greater than the "league" average? To answer that, I calculated the SOS standard deviation for this season and it is equal to 9.68. Thus to determine if one team's SOS is similar or different, I evaluate each team's SOS relative to the "league" SOS. Since Notre Dame is within one standard deviation of the "league" SOS, and that Alabama's SOS is within one standard deviation of the "league" SOS, I conclude that each team's SOS is average. Thus both Alabama and Notre Dame have a SOS that is within one standard deviation of the "league" SOS.
What is the current distribution of SOS? Through December 8th, 83 (or 63.8%) have a SOS that is plus or minus one standard deviation of the "league" SOS. Team's with an SOS that is between one and two standard deviations lower than the "league" SOS equal 22 (16.9%), as well as 22 teams with a standard deviation between one and two standard deviations below the "league" SOS. Only 2 teams have a SOS that is greater than two standard deviations (FIU & North Texas) and 1 had an SOS that was less than two standard deviations below the "league" SOS (UCLA).
Historically, SOS has not been statistically significant in determining winning percentage after controlling for points scored, points surrendered and conference affiliation. That is also true for teams at the upper end of the winning percentage distribution using quantile regression.
Showing posts with label NCAA Football Strength of Schedule. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NCAA Football Strength of Schedule. Show all posts
Saturday, December 29, 2018
Friday, August 1, 2014
Strength of Schedule and CFB Playoffs
Here is a different strength of schedule argument for the upcoming NCAA football playoffs - that wins will dominate the discussion and thus SOS will not come into play in the final analysis of who is in and who is out.
My argument is somewhat different. When looking at winning percent for a given season, after taking into account points scored and points surrendered, strength of schedule is statistically insignificant (i.e. it doesn't matter).
My argument is somewhat different. When looking at winning percent for a given season, after taking into account points scored and points surrendered, strength of schedule is statistically insignificant (i.e. it doesn't matter).
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
NCAA FBS Non Conference Strength of Schedule for 2013
Recently the Southeastern Conference announced a new scheduling requirement for their football teams - to play at least one non-conference game against one ACC, Big 12, Big Ten or Pac-12 football team starting in 2016. So, let's take a look at last year's non-conference strength of schedule (SOS) for all of the NCAA FBS conferences.
First, here is the overall non-conference strength of schedule for all ten FBS football conferences (and the independent's grouped as a conference) along with the number of non-conference games played against FCS teams for each conference.
As you can see the "lower" conferences had a tougher (i.e. lower SOS number) non-conference strength of schedule (except for the Sun Belt conference). Of the five major conferences, the SEC has a slight tougher non-conference schedule than the ACC, and the Big 12 has the easiest non-conference schedule last season.
Tomorrow I will look at non-conference SOS for the top five conference against other top five conferences.
Here are all the FBS-FCS games from 2013.
First, here is the overall non-conference strength of schedule for all ten FBS football conferences (and the independent's grouped as a conference) along with the number of non-conference games played against FCS teams for each conference.
| Conf | SOS | FCS |
| IND | 66.138 | 7 |
| MidAmerican | 71.192 | 12 |
| CUSA | 71.895 | 7 |
| MountainWest | 77.589 | 18 |
| SEC | 78.375 | 14 |
| ACC | 79.911 | 16 |
| P12 | 82.649 | 10 |
| Big10 | 83.458 | 11 |
| AAC | 83.650 | 9 |
| SunBelt | 85.450 | 11 |
| Big12 | 88.367 | 8 |
As you can see the "lower" conferences had a tougher (i.e. lower SOS number) non-conference strength of schedule (except for the Sun Belt conference). Of the five major conferences, the SEC has a slight tougher non-conference schedule than the ACC, and the Big 12 has the easiest non-conference schedule last season.
Tomorrow I will look at non-conference SOS for the top five conference against other top five conferences.
Here are all the FBS-FCS games from 2013.
| Team | Opp | Date | Location |
| Air Force | Colgate | 8/31/2013 | Home |
| Akron | James Madison | 9/7/2013 | Home |
| Alabama | Chattanooga | 11/23/2013 | Home |
| Arizona | Northern Ariz. | 8/30/2013 | Home |
| Arizona St. | Sacramento St. | 9/5/2013 | Home |
| Arkansas | Samford | 9/7/2013 | Home |
| Arkansas St. | Ark.-Pine Bluff | 8/31/2013 | Home |
| Army | Morgan St. | 8/30/2013 | Home |
| Auburn | Western Caro. | 10/12/2013 | Home |
| Ball St. | Illinois St. | 8/29/2013 | Home |
| Baylor | Wofford | 8/31/2013 | Home |
| Boise St. | UT Martin | 9/7/2013 | Home |
| Boston College | Villanova | 8/31/2013 | Home |
| Bowling Green | Murray St. | 9/21/2013 | Home |
| Buffalo | Stony Brook | 9/14/2013 | Home |
| BYU | Idaho St. | 11/16/2013 | Home |
| California | Portland St. | 9/7/2013 | Home |
| Central Mich. | New Hampshire | 9/7/2013 | Home |
| Cincinnati | Northwestern St. | 9/14/2013 | Home |
| Clemson | South Carolina St. | 9/7/2013 | Home |
| Clemson | Citadel | 11/23/2013 | Home |
| Colorado | Central Ark. | 9/7/2013 | Home |
| Colorado | Charlestown So | 10/19/2013 | Home |
| Colorado St. | Cal Poly | 9/14/2013 | Home |
| Connecticut | Towson | 8/29/2013 | Home |
| Duke | N.C. Central | 8/31/2013 | Home |
| East Carolina | Old Dominion | 8/31/2013 | Home |
| Eastern Mich. | Howard | 8/31/2013 | Home |
| FIU | Bethune-Cookman | 9/14/2013 | Home |
| Florida | Ga. Southern | 11/23/2013 | Home |
| Florida St. | Bethune-Cookman | 9/21/2013 | Home |
| Fresno St. | Cal Poly | 9/7/2013 | Home |
| Georgia | Appalachian St. | 11/9/2013 | Home |
| Georgia St. | Samford | 8/30/2013 | Home |
| Georgia St. | Chattanooga | 9/7/2013 | Home |
| Georgia St. | Jacksonville St. | 9/21/2013 | Home |
| Georgia Tech | Elon | 8/31/2013 | Home |
| Georgia Tech | Alabama A&M | 11/23/2013 | Home |
| Houston | Southern U. | 8/30/2013 | Home |
| Idaho | Old Dominion | 11/9/2013 | Home |
| Illinois | Southern Ill. | 8/31/2013 | Home |
| Indiana | Indiana St. | 8/29/2013 | Home |
| Iowa | Missouri St. | 9/7/2013 | Home |
| Iowa St. | UNI | 8/31/2013 | Home |
| Kansas | South Dakota | 9/7/2013 | Home |
| Kansas St. | North Dakota St. | 8/30/2013 | Home |
| Kent St. | Liberty | 8/29/2013 | Home |
| Kentucky | Alabama St. | 11/2/2013 | Home |
| La.-Lafayette | Nicholls St. | 9/14/2013 | Home |
| La.-Monroe | Grambling | 9/7/2013 | Home |
| Louisiana Tech | Lamar | 9/7/2013 | Home |
| Louisville | Eastern Ky. | 9/7/2013 | Home |
| LSU | Furman | 10/26/2013 | Home |
| Marshall | Gardner-Webb | 9/7/2013 | Home |
| Maryland | Old Dominion | 9/7/2013 | Home |
| Massachusetts | Maine | 9/7/2013 | Home |
| Memphis | UT Martin | 11/9/2013 | Home |
| Miami (FL) | Savannah St. | 9/21/2013 | Home |
| Michigan St. | Youngstown St. | 9/14/2013 | Home |
| Middle Tenn. | Western Caro. | 8/29/2013 | Home |
| Minnesota | Western Ill. | 9/14/2013 | Home |
| Mississippi St. | Alcorn | 9/7/2013 | Home |
| Missouri | Murray St. | 8/31/2013 | Home |
| Navy | Delaware | 9/14/2013 | Home |
| Nebraska | South Dakota St. | 9/21/2013 | Home |
| Nevada | UC Davis | 9/7/2013 | Home |
| New Mexico St. | Abilene Christian | 10/26/2013 | Home |
| North Carolina | Old Dominion | 11/23/2013 | Home |
| North Carolina St. | Richmond | 9/7/2013 | Home |
| Northern Ill. | Eastern Ill. | 9/21/2013 | Home |
| Northwestern | Maine | 9/21/2013 | Home |
| Ohio | Austin Peay | 9/21/2013 | Home |
| Ohio St. | Florida A&M | 9/21/2013 | Home |
| Oklahoma St. | Lamar | 9/14/2013 | Home |
| Ole Miss | Southeast Mo. St. | 9/7/2013 | Home |
| Oregon | Nicholls St. | 8/31/2013 | Home |
| Oregon St. | Eastern Wash. | 8/31/2013 | Home |
| Pittsburgh | Old Dominion | 10/19/2013 | Home |
| Purdue | Indiana St. | 9/7/2013 | Home |
| Rutgers | Norfolk St. | 9/7/2013 | Home |
| San Diego St. | Eastern Ill. | 8/31/2013 | Home |
| San Jose St. | Sacramento St. | 8/29/2013 | Home |
| SMU | Montana St. | 9/7/2013 | Home |
| South Ala. | Southern Utah | 8/29/2013 | Home |
| South Carolina | Coastal Caro. | 11/23/2013 | Home |
| South Fla. | McNeese St. | 8/31/2013 | Home |
| Syracuse | Wagner | 9/14/2013 | Home |
| TCU | Southeastern La. | 9/7/2013 | Home |
| Temple | Fordham | 9/14/2013 | Home |
| Tennessee | Austin Peay | 8/31/2013 | Home |
| Texas A&M | Sam Houston St. | 9/7/2013 | Home |
| Texas St. | Praire Vew A&M | 9/7/2013 | Home |
| Texas Tech | Stephen F. Austin | 9/7/2013 | Home |
| Toledo | Eastern Wash. | 9/14/2013 | Home |
| Troy | Savannah St. | 9/7/2013 | Home |
| Tulane | Jackson St. | 8/29/2013 | Home |
| UAB | Northwestern St. | 9/21/2013 | Home |
| UNLV | Western Ill. | 9/21/2013 | Home |
| Utah | Weber St. | 9/7/2013 | Home |
| Utah St. | Weber St. | 9/14/2013 | Home |
| Vanderbilt | Austin Peay | 9/7/2013 | Home |
| Virginia | VMI | 9/21/2013 | Home |
| Virginia Tech | Western Caro. | 9/7/2013 | Home |
| Wake Forest | Presbyterian | 8/29/2013 | Home |
| Washington | Idaho St. | 9/21/2013 | Home |
| Washington St. | Southern Utah | 9/14/2013 | Home |
| West Virginia | William & Mary | 8/31/2013 | Home |
| Western Ky. | Morgan St. | 9/21/2013 | Home |
| Western Mich. | Nicholls St. | 9/7/2013 | Home |
| Wisconsin | Tennessee Tech | 9/7/2013 | Home |
| Wyoming | Northern Colo. | 9/14/2013 | Home |
Friday, October 4, 2013
Strength of Schedule Revisited - Part II
Earlier this week I had a comment about why strength of schedule might be statistically insignificant, that being I measure all non-FBS schools as a 126 (for this season since there are 125 FBS schools) in the strength of schedule calculation. So, what I did was take a look at last year's (2012) NCAA FBS data and delete out all the games played by FBS schools against FCS schools and then re-ran the regression controlling for heteroskedasticity (as I have done previously). I plan on re-doing this at the end of the regular season this year and after the post-season (bowl games).
What I found was that strength of schedule is still statistically insignificant (i.e. t-Statistic) is less than two in absolute value, meaning that I am not at least 95% confident that strength of schedule (SOS) is different from zero in a statistic sense. In fact I am not even 20% confident that SOS is different from zero statistically. Given the estimated coefficient on SOS is also almost zero, even if it was significant (and it is not) the amount of impact that it has on winning percent is nearly nothing anyway.
Also note that the regression performs well in terms of R-squared and Adjusted R-Squared, and the probability of the F-Statistic is also very low indicating that all the independent variables are not jointly equal to zero in a statistical sense.
Here is the regression results for the 2012 NCAA FBS season run using E-Views.
What I found was that strength of schedule is still statistically insignificant (i.e. t-Statistic) is less than two in absolute value, meaning that I am not at least 95% confident that strength of schedule (SOS) is different from zero in a statistic sense. In fact I am not even 20% confident that SOS is different from zero statistically. Given the estimated coefficient on SOS is also almost zero, even if it was significant (and it is not) the amount of impact that it has on winning percent is nearly nothing anyway.
Also note that the regression performs well in terms of R-squared and Adjusted R-Squared, and the probability of the F-Statistic is also very low indicating that all the independent variables are not jointly equal to zero in a statistical sense.
Here is the regression results for the 2012 NCAA FBS season run using E-Views.
| Dependent Variable: WINPCT | ||||
| Method: Least Squares | ||||
| Sample: 1 124 | ||||
| Included observations: 124 | ||||
| White Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Standard Errors & Covariance | ||||
| Variable | Coefficient | Std. Error | t-Statistic | Prob. |
| C | 0.441 | 0.059 | 7.525 | 0.000 |
| PF | 0.002 | 0.000 | 20.137 | 0.000 |
| PA | -0.002 | 0.000 | -14.501 | 0.000 |
| SOS | 0.000 | 0.001 | 0.204 | 0.839 |
| R-squared | 0.857 | |||
| Adjusted R-squared | 0.854 | |||
| S.E. of regression | 0.095 | |||
| Sum squared resid | 1.089 | |||
| Log likelihood | 117.598 | |||
| Durbin-Watson stat | 1.860 | |||
| Mean dependent var | 0.491 | |||
| S.D. dependent var | 0.249 | |||
| Akaike info criterion | -1.832 | |||
| Schwarz criterion | -1.741 | |||
| F-statistic | 240.316 | |||
| Prob(F-statistic) | 0.000 | |||
Friday, September 20, 2013
Does Strength of Schedule Matter? - Revisited
In November 2010 I wrote a blog about the impact that strength of schedule has on winning in the NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision. What I concluded was that strength of schedule does not have a statistically significant effect on winning percentage in FBS college football. So I thought that now would be a good time to revisit the strength of schedule argument, as this is the time in the season where teams have played a larger proportion of their games against poor performing FBS teams or against FCS teams. Thus this should be the time where schedule strength should have the greatest impact on winning percent. I collected the data for all 125 teams in the NCAA FBS (winning percent, points scored, points surrendered and a measure of strength of schedule) through the third week of the 2013 regular season, since this seems to be a time period for strength of schedule to have the greatest impact on winning percent.
To investigate what the effect of strength of schedule has on NCAA FBS winning percentage, I conducted a statistical analysis using linear regression. The regression just fits a line to the underlying data and estimates the impact and statistical significant (if any) of the independent variables on the dependent variable. For our purposes, the dependent variable is winning percentage and the independent variables are points scored, points surrendered and strength of schedule.
The results are that points scored is positive and statistically significant (has a statistical impact with at least a 95% level of confidence), that points surrendered is negative and statistically significant, and that strength of schedule is statistically no different from zero using a 95% confidence level. I have also adjusted for heteroskedasticity (unequal scatter in the data) and adjusted for the different FBS conferences and in each case the overall conclusion remains the same.
In other words, for the "league" as a whole schedule strength does not affect whether teams win or lose. Another way of thinking about this is that high quality teams win against high quality opponents and low quality opponents and low quality opponents lose to both high quality and low quality opponents on average. This schedule strength issue seems to be a reason to discount the performance of "inferior" teams - think Boise State and Utah a few years ago or most likely Louisville this season. Yet while this may be a prevailing attitude among many college football fans, especially fans of the "high class" conferences - this perception does not hold up to statistical scrutiny.
To investigate what the effect of strength of schedule has on NCAA FBS winning percentage, I conducted a statistical analysis using linear regression. The regression just fits a line to the underlying data and estimates the impact and statistical significant (if any) of the independent variables on the dependent variable. For our purposes, the dependent variable is winning percentage and the independent variables are points scored, points surrendered and strength of schedule.
The results are that points scored is positive and statistically significant (has a statistical impact with at least a 95% level of confidence), that points surrendered is negative and statistically significant, and that strength of schedule is statistically no different from zero using a 95% confidence level. I have also adjusted for heteroskedasticity (unequal scatter in the data) and adjusted for the different FBS conferences and in each case the overall conclusion remains the same.
In other words, for the "league" as a whole schedule strength does not affect whether teams win or lose. Another way of thinking about this is that high quality teams win against high quality opponents and low quality opponents and low quality opponents lose to both high quality and low quality opponents on average. This schedule strength issue seems to be a reason to discount the performance of "inferior" teams - think Boise State and Utah a few years ago or most likely Louisville this season. Yet while this may be a prevailing attitude among many college football fans, especially fans of the "high class" conferences - this perception does not hold up to statistical scrutiny.
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Texas After Week 3 in 2013
As I mentioned yesterday, since there is some interest in the University of Texas, I have decided to take a more in depth look at the Longhorns for the last two weeks using the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model. (There is not enough variation in the data for the model to be very reliable for the first week. I could run it and it would come out OK, but not good enough for such a small sample of games).
FYI: 2013 NCAA FBS Top 25 for Week 3 (link at bottom of blog for week two)
This past weekend the Texas Longhorns lost to Mississippi (aka Ole Miss) and the week before lost to BYU. As I have written about earlier, Texas has not really been an elite team since 2009 with final season rankings of #70 in 2010, #46 in 2011 and #53 in 2012. The last two seasons Texas has been above average in terms of on-field production, but the Longhorns are no where near competing at a national championship level.
At the end of the second week of the regular season, the Longhorns lost (21-40) to BYU and fired their defensive coach as a result. At the end of that week, Texas was the #72 most productive team in the NCAA FBS (which is below average). On the bright side they had the #18 most productive offense, but the #117 most productive defense. In other words, their were only eight other teams in the NCAA FBS that had a defense with lower productivity. In terms of strength of schedule, Texas had an 82.5 versus an 82.94 for the "league" as a whole, meaning that Texas was playing an average strength of schedule.
This past weekend also saw the Longhorns losing to #64 ranked Mississippi going into the game. Mississippi ended up as the #41 ranked team at the end of last week. Looking at the Longhorns, even though they lost the game they improved their overall ranking to #64 (slightly below average). On the offensive side their rank slipped to #22 and their defensive rank improved to #98. Like the previous week, their strength of schedule was 79 as compared to a 78.98 for the "league" as a whole, meaning that they have played a schedule that is average to the league.
It looks like it might be a long season for Longhorn fans, given that they are rather average and their future schedule (other than Iowa State) is against teams currently ranked better than Texas.
FYI: 2013 NCAA FBS Top 25 for Week 3 (link at bottom of blog for week two)
This past weekend the Texas Longhorns lost to Mississippi (aka Ole Miss) and the week before lost to BYU. As I have written about earlier, Texas has not really been an elite team since 2009 with final season rankings of #70 in 2010, #46 in 2011 and #53 in 2012. The last two seasons Texas has been above average in terms of on-field production, but the Longhorns are no where near competing at a national championship level.
At the end of the second week of the regular season, the Longhorns lost (21-40) to BYU and fired their defensive coach as a result. At the end of that week, Texas was the #72 most productive team in the NCAA FBS (which is below average). On the bright side they had the #18 most productive offense, but the #117 most productive defense. In other words, their were only eight other teams in the NCAA FBS that had a defense with lower productivity. In terms of strength of schedule, Texas had an 82.5 versus an 82.94 for the "league" as a whole, meaning that Texas was playing an average strength of schedule.
This past weekend also saw the Longhorns losing to #64 ranked Mississippi going into the game. Mississippi ended up as the #41 ranked team at the end of last week. Looking at the Longhorns, even though they lost the game they improved their overall ranking to #64 (slightly below average). On the offensive side their rank slipped to #22 and their defensive rank improved to #98. Like the previous week, their strength of schedule was 79 as compared to a 78.98 for the "league" as a whole, meaning that they have played a schedule that is average to the league.
It looks like it might be a long season for Longhorn fans, given that they are rather average and their future schedule (other than Iowa State) is against teams currently ranked better than Texas.
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Nebraska Under Bo Pelini
December 2007 the University of Nebraska hired Bo Pelini as their new head football coach. Given that Pelini has five seasons under his belt, I thought that I would look at the University of Nebraska's program using the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model.
First let's take a look at the production of the Husker's football team starting with the 2008 season and move forward in time. Nebraska finished 9-4 in 2008 overall. The Huskers were the #34 most productive team in the Football Bowl Subdivision using my Complex Invasion College Football Production Model Ranking, with the #17 ranked most productive offense and the #92 most productive defense. All of this against a tougher (strength of schedule (SOS) = 51.62) than the 2008 season's average SOS of 62.94. Nebraska's most impressive victory came against the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model #29 ranked Kansas Jayhawks (45 - 35) and their worst performance was a 30-35 loss to Complex Invasion College Football Production Model #47 ranked Virginia Tech.
In 2009 in terms of the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model the Husker's were ranked #16 in terms of overall production, which is an improvement from 2008. In terms of offense and defense, the team switched with their offense dropping to #53 and their defense increasing to #9 in the nation. Nebraska faced a strength of schedule equal to 58.43 - which is average as compared to the average SOS for 2009 of (62.97) and finished 8-4 in the regular season and 9-4 overall. The Cornhusker's best win was against the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model #8 University of Oklahoma Sooners (10-3) and their worst loss was to the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model #83 Iowa State (7-9).
In 2010 in terms of the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model, Nebraska finished the regular season at 9-3 and lost their bowl game to Washington to finish 9-4 during the 2010 season. The University of Nebraska finished again as the #16 most productive team overall in the football bowl subdivision with the #27 ranked offense and the #12 ranked defense. The Husker's faced an average strength of schedule of 68.86 as compared to the overall league SOS of 63.05. Nebraska's best win using the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model was against #12 Oklahoma State (51-41) and their worst loss was to the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model #86 Washington (7-19). This was also the last year that Nebraska played in the Big 12.
The following season (2011) resulted in a similar end of season win-loss record (9-4) and saw a small decline in Nebraska's production in terms of the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model as the Husker's were the #23 most productive team in the Football Bowl Subdivision with the offense ranked using the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model at #57 and their defense was ranked #16. Nebraska played against a tougher SOS (37.54) as compared to the league average SOS of 63.57. Note that this is the first year that Nebraska played in the Big 10 as opposed to the Big 12 Nebraska's best win was a (24-3) victory over #4 ranked Michigan State and their worst loss was to #37 South Carolina (13-30).
This past season (2012) the Husker's finished the regular season at 10-3 and lost the Capital One Bowl (as I predicted) against the University of Georgia to finish the season overall at 10-4. Nebraska again played against a tougher SOS 51.86 which is greater than one standard deviation of schedule strengths given the "league's" SOS for 2012 of 65.53. In terms of the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model, Nebraska finished as the #35 ranked team overall with the #18 ranked offense, but having the #75 ranked defense. The Husker's best game that season was a 42-13 victory over #29 ranked Arkansas State using my Complex Invasion College Football Production Model and their worst performance was a 30-36 loss to #36 ranked UCLA Bruins using the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model.
First let's take a look at the production of the Husker's football team starting with the 2008 season and move forward in time. Nebraska finished 9-4 in 2008 overall. The Huskers were the #34 most productive team in the Football Bowl Subdivision using my Complex Invasion College Football Production Model Ranking, with the #17 ranked most productive offense and the #92 most productive defense. All of this against a tougher (strength of schedule (SOS) = 51.62) than the 2008 season's average SOS of 62.94. Nebraska's most impressive victory came against the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model #29 ranked Kansas Jayhawks (45 - 35) and their worst performance was a 30-35 loss to Complex Invasion College Football Production Model #47 ranked Virginia Tech.
In 2009 in terms of the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model the Husker's were ranked #16 in terms of overall production, which is an improvement from 2008. In terms of offense and defense, the team switched with their offense dropping to #53 and their defense increasing to #9 in the nation. Nebraska faced a strength of schedule equal to 58.43 - which is average as compared to the average SOS for 2009 of (62.97) and finished 8-4 in the regular season and 9-4 overall. The Cornhusker's best win was against the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model #8 University of Oklahoma Sooners (10-3) and their worst loss was to the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model #83 Iowa State (7-9).
In 2010 in terms of the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model, Nebraska finished the regular season at 9-3 and lost their bowl game to Washington to finish 9-4 during the 2010 season. The University of Nebraska finished again as the #16 most productive team overall in the football bowl subdivision with the #27 ranked offense and the #12 ranked defense. The Husker's faced an average strength of schedule of 68.86 as compared to the overall league SOS of 63.05. Nebraska's best win using the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model was against #12 Oklahoma State (51-41) and their worst loss was to the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model #86 Washington (7-19). This was also the last year that Nebraska played in the Big 12.
The following season (2011) resulted in a similar end of season win-loss record (9-4) and saw a small decline in Nebraska's production in terms of the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model as the Husker's were the #23 most productive team in the Football Bowl Subdivision with the offense ranked using the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model at #57 and their defense was ranked #16. Nebraska played against a tougher SOS (37.54) as compared to the league average SOS of 63.57. Note that this is the first year that Nebraska played in the Big 10 as opposed to the Big 12 Nebraska's best win was a (24-3) victory over #4 ranked Michigan State and their worst loss was to #37 South Carolina (13-30).
This past season (2012) the Husker's finished the regular season at 10-3 and lost the Capital One Bowl (as I predicted) against the University of Georgia to finish the season overall at 10-4. Nebraska again played against a tougher SOS 51.86 which is greater than one standard deviation of schedule strengths given the "league's" SOS for 2012 of 65.53. In terms of the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model, Nebraska finished as the #35 ranked team overall with the #18 ranked offense, but having the #75 ranked defense. The Husker's best game that season was a 42-13 victory over #29 ranked Arkansas State using my Complex Invasion College Football Production Model and their worst performance was a 30-36 loss to #36 ranked UCLA Bruins using the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model.
Monday, June 24, 2013
Maryland after Friedgen
The University of Maryland bought out the head coaching contract of Ralph Friedgen in 2010. So given there has been some time since his departure, I thought that I would return and look at Maryland's performance under head football coach Randy
Edsall over the last two years (who was the former head football coach of the University of Connecticut) as compared to the 2008, 2009 and 2010 seasons under head football coach Ralph Friedgen.
First let's take a look at the production of the University of Maryland Terrapins football team for the last three years under Friedgen. Starting with the 2008 season, the Univ. of Maryland football team finished 8-5 overall including a Humanitarian Bowl victory over Nevada. Maryland finished as the #70 most productive team in the Football Bowl Subdivision using my Complex Invasion College Football Production Model Ranking, which is below average for the "league" as a whole. The Terrapins were below average on offense, with the #77 ranked most productive offense. On the defensive side of the ball, Maryland was almost average - with the #62 most productive defense. All of this against an average (strength of schedule (SOS) = 57.46) than the 2008 season's average SOS of 62.94. Maryland's most impressive victory came against the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model #14 ranked California Bears of the Pac 10, and their worst performance was a 31-0 loss to the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model #94 ranked University of Virginia Cavaliers.
In 2009, in terms of the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model Maryland was ranked #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 - which is average as compared to the average SOS for 2009 of (62.97) and finished 2-10 in the regular season. Maryland's best win was against the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model #11 Clemson and their worst loss was to the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model #100 Virginia again.
In what turns out to be head coach Friedgen's last year (2010) as head football coach in terms of the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model Maryland finished the regular season at 8-4 and was victorious in the Military Bowl over East Carolina to finish 9-4. Maryland finished as the #28 most productive team overall in the football bowl subdivision with the #45 ranked offense and the #21 ranked defense. The Terps faced an average strength of schedule of 63.85 as compared to the overall league SOS of 63.05. Maryland's best win using the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model was against #37 North Carolina State and their worst loss was to the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model #50 Clemson Tigers.
Notice that Maryland had significantly increased their on-field production in 2010 as compared to 2009 or 2008, and yet Friedgen was bought out. So how has the football team performed under the last two seasons under new head football coach Randy Edsall?
Under Edsall's tenure Maryland has been rather pitiful. Starting with the first year with Edsall in charge (2011) we see that Maryland finished the regular season at 2-10 and in terms of the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model the Terrapins were the #96 most productive team in the Football Bowl Subdivision. Maryland played against an average SOS (64.50) as compared to the league average SOS of 63.57. Maryland's offense from the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model was ranked #84 and their defense was ranked #96. All-in-all not the best start for Edsall.
The big news for Maryland in 2012 was the announcement that they will be changing conferences, moving from the ACC to the Big 10. I have a short overview of the Terps in 2012 around the time of their announcement. Now that the season is complete, let's take a final look at the Terps in 2012. Edsall's team finished 4-8 overall playing against a SOS of 67.50 which is within the average range of schedule strengths given the "league's" SOS for 2012 was 65.53. In terms of the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model, Maryland finished as the #94 ranked team overall with the #114 offense, but having the #33 defense. So while Maryland had difficulty with the football last season, they were above average without the ball. The Terps best game was a 27-20 win over #86 Complex Invasion College Football Production Model ranked Virginia, and their worst performance was a 17-20 loss over Complex Invasion College Football Production Model ranked #100 Boston College.
Maryland's defensive productivity is a glimmer of hope for next season given an otherwise dismal season. If Maryland's defense can replicate their defensive performance from 2012 and improve their offensive performance, Maryland looks to be much better overall. Those are two big "ifs", but that is why they play the games.
First let's take a look at the production of the University of Maryland Terrapins football team for the last three years under Friedgen. Starting with the 2008 season, the Univ. of Maryland football team finished 8-5 overall including a Humanitarian Bowl victory over Nevada. Maryland finished as the #70 most productive team in the Football Bowl Subdivision using my Complex Invasion College Football Production Model Ranking, which is below average for the "league" as a whole. The Terrapins were below average on offense, with the #77 ranked most productive offense. On the defensive side of the ball, Maryland was almost average - with the #62 most productive defense. All of this against an average (strength of schedule (SOS) = 57.46) than the 2008 season's average SOS of 62.94. Maryland's most impressive victory came against the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model #14 ranked California Bears of the Pac 10, and their worst performance was a 31-0 loss to the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model #94 ranked University of Virginia Cavaliers.
In 2009, in terms of the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model Maryland was ranked #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 - which is average as compared to the average SOS for 2009 of (62.97) and finished 2-10 in the regular season. Maryland's best win was against the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model #11 Clemson and their worst loss was to the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model #100 Virginia again.
In what turns out to be head coach Friedgen's last year (2010) as head football coach in terms of the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model Maryland finished the regular season at 8-4 and was victorious in the Military Bowl over East Carolina to finish 9-4. Maryland finished as the #28 most productive team overall in the football bowl subdivision with the #45 ranked offense and the #21 ranked defense. The Terps faced an average strength of schedule of 63.85 as compared to the overall league SOS of 63.05. Maryland's best win using the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model was against #37 North Carolina State and their worst loss was to the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model #50 Clemson Tigers.
Notice that Maryland had significantly increased their on-field production in 2010 as compared to 2009 or 2008, and yet Friedgen was bought out. So how has the football team performed under the last two seasons under new head football coach Randy Edsall?
Under Edsall's tenure Maryland has been rather pitiful. Starting with the first year with Edsall in charge (2011) we see that Maryland finished the regular season at 2-10 and in terms of the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model the Terrapins were the #96 most productive team in the Football Bowl Subdivision. Maryland played against an average SOS (64.50) as compared to the league average SOS of 63.57. Maryland's offense from the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model was ranked #84 and their defense was ranked #96. All-in-all not the best start for Edsall.
The big news for Maryland in 2012 was the announcement that they will be changing conferences, moving from the ACC to the Big 10. I have a short overview of the Terps in 2012 around the time of their announcement. Now that the season is complete, let's take a final look at the Terps in 2012. Edsall's team finished 4-8 overall playing against a SOS of 67.50 which is within the average range of schedule strengths given the "league's" SOS for 2012 was 65.53. In terms of the Complex Invasion College Football Production Model, Maryland finished as the #94 ranked team overall with the #114 offense, but having the #33 defense. So while Maryland had difficulty with the football last season, they were above average without the ball. The Terps best game was a 27-20 win over #86 Complex Invasion College Football Production Model ranked Virginia, and their worst performance was a 17-20 loss over Complex Invasion College Football Production Model ranked #100 Boston College.
Maryland's defensive productivity is a glimmer of hope for next season given an otherwise dismal season. If Maryland's defense can replicate their defensive performance from 2012 and improve their offensive performance, Maryland looks to be much better overall. Those are two big "ifs", but that is why they play the games.
Monday, January 21, 2013
2012-2013 NCAA FBS Conference Strength of Schedule
Last year I wrote about NCAA FBS Conference strength of schedule (SOS), so I thought that I would continue that for this year. Now that all the NCAA bowl games have been completed - and I have some free time to work on this - here is the NCAA FBS Conference SOS's for the 2012-2013 season (including bowl games).
As a reminder, here is how I measure a team's strength of schedule for a season, (with an adjustment of including four new teams this year, making the total of 124 NCAA FBS schools, instead of 120 as when I originally wrote the blog post). For conference strength of schedule, I take each team's individual strength of schedule within one conference and average of all of those strength of schedules to find the conference strength of schedule. For example, let's suppose the four independent's were a "conference", then for Army, BYU, Navy and Notre Dame I am taking the average of each of the four schools individual strength of schedule measures to calculate their conference SOS.
The "league" as a whole has an average strength of schedule of 65.53, and a standard deviation of 9.55. The reason that the "league" average SOS is it not equal to 62.50 - which would be the average of 1 through 124, since there are currently 124 NCAA FBS schools - is because NCAA FBS teams play teams in the football championship subdivision (FCS) and I do not have a model to rank them, so each FCS school is given a rank of #125 for the season. Given the number of FCS schools on FBS teams schedule, the average for all FBS schools increases to 63.53 from 62.50, which is not that much of a difference.
Here are the results - with the SEC having the most difficult strength of schedule for the 2012-13 NCAA FBS season.
As a reminder, here is how I measure a team's strength of schedule for a season, (with an adjustment of including four new teams this year, making the total of 124 NCAA FBS schools, instead of 120 as when I originally wrote the blog post). For conference strength of schedule, I take each team's individual strength of schedule within one conference and average of all of those strength of schedules to find the conference strength of schedule. For example, let's suppose the four independent's were a "conference", then for Army, BYU, Navy and Notre Dame I am taking the average of each of the four schools individual strength of schedule measures to calculate their conference SOS.
The "league" as a whole has an average strength of schedule of 65.53, and a standard deviation of 9.55. The reason that the "league" average SOS is it not equal to 62.50 - which would be the average of 1 through 124, since there are currently 124 NCAA FBS schools - is because NCAA FBS teams play teams in the football championship subdivision (FCS) and I do not have a model to rank them, so each FCS school is given a rank of #125 for the season. Given the number of FCS schools on FBS teams schedule, the average for all FBS schools increases to 63.53 from 62.50, which is not that much of a difference.
Here are the results - with the SEC having the most difficult strength of schedule for the 2012-13 NCAA FBS season.
| Conference | SOS |
| SEC | 55.53 |
| Big12 | 57.29 |
| Pac 12 | 59.32 |
| Big10 | 61.99 |
| Big East | 62.70 |
| Ind | 64.89 |
| ACC | 65.47 |
| CUSA | 70.56 |
| Sun Belt | 72.49 |
| MidAmerican | 72.88 |
| WAC | 73.38 |
| Mountain West | 73.97 |
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Kentucky Football Under Head Coach Joker Phillips
The University of Kentucky has announced that Joker Phillips will not return as head football coach for next season. So let's take a look at Kentucky's football program using the lens of the complex invasion college football model over his tenure as head football coach at Kentucky.
Joker Phillips took the reigns of the Kentucky football program from Rich Brooks in the 2010 season, going 6-6 in the regular season and losing (27-10) to Pittsburgh in the BBVA Compass Bowl. Kentucky finished the season as the #48 ranked team in the nation, with the 35th ranked offense and the #78 ranked defense (using my model). Kentucky's best win that season was against #30 ranked South Carolina and their worst loss was to #92 Mississippi. Kentucky was 2-6 against SEC opponents that season and played against a final strength of schedule of 62.69 as compared to an overall league average strength of schedule equal to 62.92. Thus Kentucky played against almost exactly an average strength of schedule in 2010.
The 2011 season was not good for Kentucky football. While the team finished 5-7 overall, they were not really even that good according to the complex invasion college football model. Kentucky finished ranked #109 overall (only Mississippi was worse in the SEC) with the #118 ranked offense and the #95 ranked defense. In other words, Kentucky had the third worst offense in all of the FBS in 2011. Kentucky's best win was against #48 ranked Central Michigan and their worst loss was against #86 ranked Louisville. Kentucky finished 2-6 in the SEC with wins over Mississippi and Tennessee, both way below average in their ranking from the model's perspective. Kentucky also faced an easier than average strength of schedule with their strength of schedule of 73.00 as compared to the average strength of schedule of 63.49.
This season has also been below average. Kentucky at the time of the announcement that Joker Phillips will not return is 1-9 and 0-7 in conference play. In fact, Kentucky is currently the worst SEC football team according to the complex invasion college sport model. Kentucky's only win is against #42 ranked Kent State. Kentucky (according to the complex invasion college football model) is the #116 ranked team overall in the Football Bowl Subdivision with the #116 ranked offense and the #99 ranked defense. In Kentucky's defense, they have played a strength of schedule equal to 39.00 as compared to the average strength of schedule of 67.87 as of last week. Even still, this was not enough for Phillips to remain as head football coach.
Other head coaches fired:
Idaho's Akey.
Joker Phillips took the reigns of the Kentucky football program from Rich Brooks in the 2010 season, going 6-6 in the regular season and losing (27-10) to Pittsburgh in the BBVA Compass Bowl. Kentucky finished the season as the #48 ranked team in the nation, with the 35th ranked offense and the #78 ranked defense (using my model). Kentucky's best win that season was against #30 ranked South Carolina and their worst loss was to #92 Mississippi. Kentucky was 2-6 against SEC opponents that season and played against a final strength of schedule of 62.69 as compared to an overall league average strength of schedule equal to 62.92. Thus Kentucky played against almost exactly an average strength of schedule in 2010.
The 2011 season was not good for Kentucky football. While the team finished 5-7 overall, they were not really even that good according to the complex invasion college football model. Kentucky finished ranked #109 overall (only Mississippi was worse in the SEC) with the #118 ranked offense and the #95 ranked defense. In other words, Kentucky had the third worst offense in all of the FBS in 2011. Kentucky's best win was against #48 ranked Central Michigan and their worst loss was against #86 ranked Louisville. Kentucky finished 2-6 in the SEC with wins over Mississippi and Tennessee, both way below average in their ranking from the model's perspective. Kentucky also faced an easier than average strength of schedule with their strength of schedule of 73.00 as compared to the average strength of schedule of 63.49.
This season has also been below average. Kentucky at the time of the announcement that Joker Phillips will not return is 1-9 and 0-7 in conference play. In fact, Kentucky is currently the worst SEC football team according to the complex invasion college sport model. Kentucky's only win is against #42 ranked Kent State. Kentucky (according to the complex invasion college football model) is the #116 ranked team overall in the Football Bowl Subdivision with the #116 ranked offense and the #99 ranked defense. In Kentucky's defense, they have played a strength of schedule equal to 39.00 as compared to the average strength of schedule of 67.87 as of last week. Even still, this was not enough for Phillips to remain as head football coach.
Other head coaches fired:
Idaho's Akey.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
2011 NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision and Strength of Schedule
Today I want to focus on the impact of a NCAA FBS team's strength of schedule on their winning percentage. To do this, I will look at a simple model of NCAA FBS production where team performance (as measured by winning percentage) is a function of team points scored and opponents points scored. Using a simple linear regression reveals three helpful results. One is that the estimated marginal impact of a point scored is positive and statistically significant and a point surrendered is negative and statistically significant; second is that the estimated marginal impact of a point scored and a point surrendered is equal when rounded to three decimal places in absolute value; and third that this very simple model "explains" about 83% of the variation in winning percent for the 2011 NCAA FBS season.
Frankly, the first better be true since wins are defined to occur if points scored are greater than points surrendered. The second is more interesting in that I conclude that scoring more points is equally as important as preventing the opponent from scoring more points in terms of the impact on winning. The third is helpful to show that at least this model is useful in evaluating team performance.
Many have argued that the strength of a teams schedule should also be included in modeling team performance and in evaluating better quality teams. I have previously disagreed on this point, but am willing to re-evaluate the impact of strength of schedule on team winning percentage. To evaluate the impact of strength of schedule, I will need a measure of strength of schedule for each NCAA FBS team and then use this measure to determine the statistical significant of strength of schedule on team winning percent. Running the numbers using the simple model above I find that strength of schedule is statistically insignificant (i.e. statistically strength of schedule has zero impact on NCAA FBS winning percent during the 2011-2012 football season). You may be thinking that my measure of strength of schedule is incorrect, so I also ran the numbers using Jeff Sagarin's strength of schedule measure for only the 120 NCAA FBS teams and found the exact same result - strength of schedule is statistically insignificant.
But what about teams in different FBS conferences? If we take into account teams in different football conferences (and group the four independent schools as one conference) does that make a difference? I like the way you think - so I ran the numbers when adjusting for teams in the different NCAA FBS conferences and points scored and points surrendered only and got very similar results as in the simple production model above. Statistically the estimated coefficients (marginal impact) are all statistically significant at the 99% level of confidence, so I am at least 99% confident that the variation in points scored, points surrendered and the adjustment for each of the ten NCAA FBS conferences plus the independent teams are different from zero. Now I did this as a check on the effect that conferences have on winning percentage, and I find that different conferences have different effects on winning percentage (though small) and that they are statistically significant.
So now let's add a measure of a teams strength of schedule. Whether I use my own or the Sagarin measure I still find that strength of schedule is statistically insignificant with respect to team winning percent.
Thus, I conclude that strength of schedule "does not matter" (since strength of schedule is statistically insignificant) in terms of how well NCAA FBS teams performed in 2011-2012.
Frankly, the first better be true since wins are defined to occur if points scored are greater than points surrendered. The second is more interesting in that I conclude that scoring more points is equally as important as preventing the opponent from scoring more points in terms of the impact on winning. The third is helpful to show that at least this model is useful in evaluating team performance.
Many have argued that the strength of a teams schedule should also be included in modeling team performance and in evaluating better quality teams. I have previously disagreed on this point, but am willing to re-evaluate the impact of strength of schedule on team winning percentage. To evaluate the impact of strength of schedule, I will need a measure of strength of schedule for each NCAA FBS team and then use this measure to determine the statistical significant of strength of schedule on team winning percent. Running the numbers using the simple model above I find that strength of schedule is statistically insignificant (i.e. statistically strength of schedule has zero impact on NCAA FBS winning percent during the 2011-2012 football season). You may be thinking that my measure of strength of schedule is incorrect, so I also ran the numbers using Jeff Sagarin's strength of schedule measure for only the 120 NCAA FBS teams and found the exact same result - strength of schedule is statistically insignificant.
But what about teams in different FBS conferences? If we take into account teams in different football conferences (and group the four independent schools as one conference) does that make a difference? I like the way you think - so I ran the numbers when adjusting for teams in the different NCAA FBS conferences and points scored and points surrendered only and got very similar results as in the simple production model above. Statistically the estimated coefficients (marginal impact) are all statistically significant at the 99% level of confidence, so I am at least 99% confident that the variation in points scored, points surrendered and the adjustment for each of the ten NCAA FBS conferences plus the independent teams are different from zero. Now I did this as a check on the effect that conferences have on winning percentage, and I find that different conferences have different effects on winning percentage (though small) and that they are statistically significant.
So now let's add a measure of a teams strength of schedule. Whether I use my own or the Sagarin measure I still find that strength of schedule is statistically insignificant with respect to team winning percent.
Thus, I conclude that strength of schedule "does not matter" (since strength of schedule is statistically insignificant) in terms of how well NCAA FBS teams performed in 2011-2012.
Friday, January 20, 2012
2011-2012 NCAA FBS & Strength of Schedule
Today, let's take a look at conference strength of schedule in 2011-12 season. In a previous post I go through how I measure a team's strength of schedule for a season, and I am using that same measure for each team. I am also including all the bowl games from last season as well. Since I am going to present a conference strength of schedule, I thought that I would explain how I am measuring it - just to be clear.
Conference strength of schedule is measured by taking each team's individual strength of schedule and taking the average of all of those strength of schedules for the team's in their conference. For example, let's suppose the four independent's were a "conference", then for Army, BYU, Navy and Notre Dame I am taking the average of each of the four schools individual strength of schedule measures.
I will also present an average of all the team's strength of schedule, which is 63.13. Why is it not equal to 60.50 - which would be the average of 1 through 120, since there are currently 120 NCAA FBS schools? That is because NCAA FBS teams play teams in the football championship subdivision (FCS) and I do not have a model to rank them, so each FCS school is given a rank of #121 for the season. Given the number of FCS schools on FBS teams schdule, the average for all FBS schools increases to 63.13 from 60.50.
Here are the results - with the Big 12 having the most difficult strength of schedule for the 2011-12 NCAA FBS season.
Conference strength of schedule is measured by taking each team's individual strength of schedule and taking the average of all of those strength of schedules for the team's in their conference. For example, let's suppose the four independent's were a "conference", then for Army, BYU, Navy and Notre Dame I am taking the average of each of the four schools individual strength of schedule measures.
I will also present an average of all the team's strength of schedule, which is 63.13. Why is it not equal to 60.50 - which would be the average of 1 through 120, since there are currently 120 NCAA FBS schools? That is because NCAA FBS teams play teams in the football championship subdivision (FCS) and I do not have a model to rank them, so each FCS school is given a rank of #121 for the season. Given the number of FCS schools on FBS teams schdule, the average for all FBS schools increases to 63.13 from 60.50.
Here are the results - with the Big 12 having the most difficult strength of schedule for the 2011-12 NCAA FBS season.
| Conference | SOS |
| Big12 | 54.48 |
| SEC | 57.38 |
| Big East | 58.78 |
| Big10 | 58.95 |
| Ind | 61.04 |
| ACC | 61.64 |
| Pac 12 | 62.64 |
| CUSA | 65.91 |
| Mountain West | 67.53 |
| MidAmerican | 68.43 |
| WAC | 68.77 |
| Sun Belt | 71.10 |
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Virginia Extends Mike London's Contract
The University of Virginia has extended the contract of head football coach Mike London. So let's take a look at how Virginia has performed over the two years of London's tenure at Virginia.
At the end of the season the Virginia Cavaliers were 8-5 and the NCAA FBS production model's measure of their strength of schedule (SOS) was equal to 65.05. Virginia's best win was against #23 ranked Florida State, and their worst loss was against #79 ranked Auburn (bowl loss). The Cavaliers are the #60 ranked team overall, with the #63 ranked offense and the #44 ranked defense.
In 2010 Virginia finished 4-8 (two of those wins against FCS teams). Virginia's SOS was 64.58, and their best wins was over #25 Miami (Florida) and their worst loss was against #111 Duke. Virginia finished with the #75 ranked team overall, the #77 ranked offense and the #61 ranked defense.
At the end of the season the Virginia Cavaliers were 8-5 and the NCAA FBS production model's measure of their strength of schedule (SOS) was equal to 65.05. Virginia's best win was against #23 ranked Florida State, and their worst loss was against #79 ranked Auburn (bowl loss). The Cavaliers are the #60 ranked team overall, with the #63 ranked offense and the #44 ranked defense.
In 2010 Virginia finished 4-8 (two of those wins against FCS teams). Virginia's SOS was 64.58, and their best wins was over #25 Miami (Florida) and their worst loss was against #111 Duke. Virginia finished with the #75 ranked team overall, the #77 ranked offense and the #61 ranked defense.
Monday, January 9, 2012
2012 NCAA FBS National Championship Game
Tonight is the last of the 35 bowls this season and is the "national championship" game as voted by a select number of NCAA FBS coaches, a long list of voters in the Harris Poll and a few "computer" models. The game tonight is a rematch of the game earlier this season between the University of Alabama and Louisiana State University, both of the SEC. So let's take a look at the basic numbers from the NCAA FBS production model to get a fix on tonight's game.
This season the Louisiana State University Tigers are 13-0 and the NCAA FBS production model's measure of their strength of schedule (SOS) was equal to 58.54. LSU's best win was against currently ranked #1 Alabama, and they do not have a worst loss. To date, the Tigers are the #3 ranked team overall, with the #7 ranked offense and the #4 ranked defense.
The Alabama Crimson Tide are 11-1 with a strength of schedule equal to 61.00. Alabama's best win was against currently ranked #27 Arkansas, and their worst loss was against currently ranked #3 LSU. To date, the Crimson Tide are the #1 ranked team overall, with the #19 ranked offense and the #1 ranked defense.
The NCAA FBS production model ranks Alabama better than LSU, and hence expect Alabama to win the BCS National Championship Bowl today.
This season the Louisiana State University Tigers are 13-0 and the NCAA FBS production model's measure of their strength of schedule (SOS) was equal to 58.54. LSU's best win was against currently ranked #1 Alabama, and they do not have a worst loss. To date, the Tigers are the #3 ranked team overall, with the #7 ranked offense and the #4 ranked defense.
The Alabama Crimson Tide are 11-1 with a strength of schedule equal to 61.00. Alabama's best win was against currently ranked #27 Arkansas, and their worst loss was against currently ranked #3 LSU. To date, the Crimson Tide are the #1 ranked team overall, with the #19 ranked offense and the #1 ranked defense.
The NCAA FBS production model ranks Alabama better than LSU, and hence expect Alabama to win the BCS National Championship Bowl today.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
2012 GoDaddy Bowl
Today we have the Arkansas State Red Wolves out of the SunBelt conference facing the Northern Illinois University Huskies out of the Mid-American Conference in the GoDaddy.com Bowl.
This season the Arkansas State Red Wolves are 10-2 and the NCAA FBS production model's measure of their strength of schedule (SOS) was equal to 83.75. Arkansas State's best win was against currently ranked #45 FIU, and their worst loss was against currently ranked #48 Illinois. To date, the Red Wolves are the #20 ranked team overall, with the #41 ranked offense and the #14 ranked defense.
The Northern Illinois Huskies are 10-3 with a strength of schedule equal to 73.08. Northern Illinois's best win was against currently ranked #17 Toledo, and their worst loss was against currently ranked #120 Kansas (the worst team in the football bowl subdivision). To date, the Huskies are the #50 ranked team overall, with the #10 ranked offense and the #103 ranked defense.
The NCAA FBS production model ranks Arkansas State better than Northern Illinois, and hence expect Arkansas State to win the GoDaddy.com Bowl today.
This season the Arkansas State Red Wolves are 10-2 and the NCAA FBS production model's measure of their strength of schedule (SOS) was equal to 83.75. Arkansas State's best win was against currently ranked #45 FIU, and their worst loss was against currently ranked #48 Illinois. To date, the Red Wolves are the #20 ranked team overall, with the #41 ranked offense and the #14 ranked defense.
The Northern Illinois Huskies are 10-3 with a strength of schedule equal to 73.08. Northern Illinois's best win was against currently ranked #17 Toledo, and their worst loss was against currently ranked #120 Kansas (the worst team in the football bowl subdivision). To date, the Huskies are the #50 ranked team overall, with the #10 ranked offense and the #103 ranked defense.
The NCAA FBS production model ranks Arkansas State better than Northern Illinois, and hence expect Arkansas State to win the GoDaddy.com Bowl today.
Monday, January 2, 2012
2012 Tostitos Fiesta Bowl
The Tostitos Fiesta Bowl has one of the most anticipated game with the Stanford Cardinal of the Pac 12 conference facing the Oklahoma State Cowboys of the Big 12 conference.
This season the Stanford Cardinal are 11-1 and the NCAA FBS production model's measure of their strength of schedule (SOS) was equal to 73.08. Standford's best win was against currently ranked #21 USC, and their only loss was against currently ranked #8 Oregon. To date, the Cardinal is the #10 ranked team overall, with the #8 ranked offense and the #47 ranked defense.
The Oklahoma State Cowboys are 11-1 with a strength of schedule equal to 59.58. Oklahoma State's best win was against currently ranked #16 Oklahoma, and their only loss was against currently ranked #99 Iowa State. To date, the Cowboys are the #2 ranked team overall, with the #2 ranked offense and the #38 ranked defense.
The NCAA FBS production model ranks Oklahoma State better than Stanford, and hence expect Oklahoma State to win the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl today.
This season the Stanford Cardinal are 11-1 and the NCAA FBS production model's measure of their strength of schedule (SOS) was equal to 73.08. Standford's best win was against currently ranked #21 USC, and their only loss was against currently ranked #8 Oregon. To date, the Cardinal is the #10 ranked team overall, with the #8 ranked offense and the #47 ranked defense.
The Oklahoma State Cowboys are 11-1 with a strength of schedule equal to 59.58. Oklahoma State's best win was against currently ranked #16 Oklahoma, and their only loss was against currently ranked #99 Iowa State. To date, the Cowboys are the #2 ranked team overall, with the #2 ranked offense and the #38 ranked defense.
The NCAA FBS production model ranks Oklahoma State better than Stanford, and hence expect Oklahoma State to win the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl today.
2012 Rose Bowl
The Rose Bowl (called the "Grandaddy of them all" mainly due to the size of its payout) pitting the traditional Big 10 and Pac 10 er, Pac 12 champions, and this year we have the Wisconsin Badgers of the Big 10 (with 12 schools) and the Oregon Ducks of the Pac 12. Given the recent announcement that the Big 10 and the Pac 12 are extending their inter-conference relationship both on the field with more inter conference scheduling and off the field with inter conference academic opportunities, this game is the start of this innovative way of extending each of the two brands and also increasing each conferences revenues.
This season the Wisconsin Badgers are 11-2 and the NCAA FBS production model's measure of their strength of schedule (SOS) was equal to 69.77. Wisconsin's best win was against currently ranked #15 Michigan State in the Big 10 Conference Championship game, and their worst loss was against currently ranked #56 Ohio State. To date, the Badgers are the #5 ranked team overall, with the #3 ranked offense and the #37 ranked defense.
The Oregon Ducks are 11-2 with a strength of schedule equal to 65.69. Oregon's best win was against currently ranked #10 Stanford, and their worst loss was against currently ranked #21 USC. To date, the Ducks are the #8 ranked team overall, with the #5 ranked offense and the #66 ranked defense.
The NCAA FBS production model ranks Wisconsin better than Oregon, and hence expect Wisconsin to win the Rose Bowl today.
This season the Wisconsin Badgers are 11-2 and the NCAA FBS production model's measure of their strength of schedule (SOS) was equal to 69.77. Wisconsin's best win was against currently ranked #15 Michigan State in the Big 10 Conference Championship game, and their worst loss was against currently ranked #56 Ohio State. To date, the Badgers are the #5 ranked team overall, with the #3 ranked offense and the #37 ranked defense.
The Oregon Ducks are 11-2 with a strength of schedule equal to 65.69. Oregon's best win was against currently ranked #10 Stanford, and their worst loss was against currently ranked #21 USC. To date, the Ducks are the #8 ranked team overall, with the #5 ranked offense and the #66 ranked defense.
The NCAA FBS production model ranks Wisconsin better than Oregon, and hence expect Wisconsin to win the Rose Bowl today.
2012 Taxslayer.com Gator Bowl
The Gator Bowl pits the University of Florida Gators of the SEC against the Ohio State University Buckeyes of the Big 10 conference. According to the NCAA FBS production model this should be a very competitive and close game. Let's take a look at the numbers.
This season the Florida Gators are 6-6 and the NCAA FBS production model's measure of their strength of schedule (SOS) was equal to 54.67. Florida's best win was against currently ranked #36 Vanderbilt, and their worst loss was against currently ranked #80 Auburn. To date, the Gators are the #53 ranked team overall, with the #?? ranked offense and the #?? ranked defense.
The Ohio State Buckeyes are 6-6 with a strength of schedule equal to 55.92. Ohio State's best win was against currently ranked #5 Wisconsin, and their worst loss was against currently ranked #90 Purdue. To date, the Buckeyes are the #56 ranked team overall, with the #69 ranked offense and the #30 ranked defense.
The NCAA FBS production model ranks Florida better than Ohio State, and hence expect Florida to win the Gator Bowl today.
This season the Florida Gators are 6-6 and the NCAA FBS production model's measure of their strength of schedule (SOS) was equal to 54.67. Florida's best win was against currently ranked #36 Vanderbilt, and their worst loss was against currently ranked #80 Auburn. To date, the Gators are the #53 ranked team overall, with the #?? ranked offense and the #?? ranked defense.
The Ohio State Buckeyes are 6-6 with a strength of schedule equal to 55.92. Ohio State's best win was against currently ranked #5 Wisconsin, and their worst loss was against currently ranked #90 Purdue. To date, the Buckeyes are the #56 ranked team overall, with the #69 ranked offense and the #30 ranked defense.
The NCAA FBS production model ranks Florida better than Ohio State, and hence expect Florida to win the Gator Bowl today.
2012 Outback Bowl
The Outback Bowl pits Michigan State Spartans from the Big 10 conference against the Georgia Bulldogs from the Southeastern conference. Both teams are the conference championship runners-up.
This season the Michigan State Spartans are 10-3 and the NCAA FBS production model's measure of their strength of schedule (SOS) was equal to 64.85. Michigan State's best win was against currently ranked #5 Wisconsin, and their worst loss was against currently ranked #58 Notre Dame. To date, the Spartans are the #15 ranked team overall, with the #28 ranked offense and the #17 ranked defense.
The Georgia Bullogs are 10-3 with a strength of schedule equal to 56.77. Georgia's best win was against currently ranked #11 Georgia Tech, and their worst loss was against currently ranked #7 South Carolina. To date, the Bulldogs are the #28 ranked team overall, with the #58 ranked offense and the #8 ranked defense. Note: Georgia has three losses (#3 LSU, #6 Boise State and #7 South Carolina - wow!)
The NCAA FBS production model ranks Michigan State better than Georgia, and hence expect Michigan State to win the Outback Bowl today.
This season the Michigan State Spartans are 10-3 and the NCAA FBS production model's measure of their strength of schedule (SOS) was equal to 64.85. Michigan State's best win was against currently ranked #5 Wisconsin, and their worst loss was against currently ranked #58 Notre Dame. To date, the Spartans are the #15 ranked team overall, with the #28 ranked offense and the #17 ranked defense.
The Georgia Bullogs are 10-3 with a strength of schedule equal to 56.77. Georgia's best win was against currently ranked #11 Georgia Tech, and their worst loss was against currently ranked #7 South Carolina. To date, the Bulldogs are the #28 ranked team overall, with the #58 ranked offense and the #8 ranked defense. Note: Georgia has three losses (#3 LSU, #6 Boise State and #7 South Carolina - wow!)
The NCAA FBS production model ranks Michigan State better than Georgia, and hence expect Michigan State to win the Outback Bowl today.
Friday, December 30, 2011
2011 Insight Bowl
Tonight the Iowa Hawkeyes from the Big 10 conference face the Oklahoma Sooners from the Big 12 conference in the Insight Bowl tonight.
This season the Iowa Hawkeyes are 7-5 and the NCAA FBS production model's measure of their strength of schedule (SOS) was equal to 72.92. Iowa's best win was against currently ranked #14 Michigan, and their worst loss was against currently ranked #101 Minnesota. To date, the Hawkeyes are the #54 ranked team overall, with the #42 ranked offense and the #49 ranked defense.
The Oklahoma Sooners are 9-3 with a strength of schedule equal to 54.42. Oklahoma's best win was against currently ranked #9 Florida State, and their worst loss was against currently ranked #100 Texas Tech. To date, the Sooner's are the #16 ranked team overall, with the #16 ranked offense and the #27 ranked defense.
The NCAA FBS production model ranks Oklahoma better than Iowa, and hence expect Oklahoma to win the Insight Bowl today.
This season the Iowa Hawkeyes are 7-5 and the NCAA FBS production model's measure of their strength of schedule (SOS) was equal to 72.92. Iowa's best win was against currently ranked #14 Michigan, and their worst loss was against currently ranked #101 Minnesota. To date, the Hawkeyes are the #54 ranked team overall, with the #42 ranked offense and the #49 ranked defense.
The Oklahoma Sooners are 9-3 with a strength of schedule equal to 54.42. Oklahoma's best win was against currently ranked #9 Florida State, and their worst loss was against currently ranked #100 Texas Tech. To date, the Sooner's are the #16 ranked team overall, with the #16 ranked offense and the #27 ranked defense.
The NCAA FBS production model ranks Oklahoma better than Iowa, and hence expect Oklahoma to win the Insight Bowl today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)