2015 Adjusted Pythagorean Record: MAC

Last week, we looked at how MAC teams fared in terms of yards per play. This week, we turn our attention to how the season played out in terms of the Adjusted Pythagorean Record, or APR. For an in-depth look at APR, click here. If you didn’t feel like clicking, here is the Reader’s Digest version. APR looks at how well a team scores and prevents touchdowns. Non-offensive touchdowns, field goals, extra points, and safeties are excluded. The ratio of offensive touchdowns to touchdowns allowed is converted into a winning percentage. Pretty simple actually.

Once again, here are the 2015 MAC standings.

And here are the APR standings sorted by division with conference rank in offensive touchdowns, touchdowns allowed, and APR in parentheses. This includes conference games only with the championship game excluded.

Finally, MAC teams are sorted by the difference between their actual number of wins and their expected number of wins according to APR.

Kent State was the lone MAC school to see a significant difference between their APR and their actual record. Once you look at their underlying offensive performance, the reason for this disparity is quite simple. Kent State scored six, yes six, offensive touchdowns in their eight conference games. This kind of futility often results in a one or zero win campaign. However, Kent State actually opened MAC play 2-1, by clustering their touchdowns at favorable times and playing decent defense. Despite their 2-1 MAC record, the Golden Flashes had already been outscored by 20 points. Over their final six conference games, only one would be decided by less than 13 points and the Golden Flashes would be outscored by more than 18 points per game.

Despite their historical offensive ineptitude, Kent State fans might have at least a little reason for optimism heading into 2016. The following table lists the other MAC teams that have failed to score more than 10 offensive touchdowns in conference play and their follow up performance the next year.

Based on an admitted small sample size, it appears quite difficult to perform so poorly offensively for two consecutive seasons. Each team that scored 10 or fewer offensive touchdowns rebounded to score at least 23 in their epilogue. Three out of four schools also saw their conference record improve. This is perhaps not too surprising since their offenses returned from the abyss. In the interest of curbing the enthusiasm of Kent State fans, it should be noted that three of the four teams also felt compelled to change coaches after their dreadful offensive showings. Eastern Michigan was the only school to retain their coach, while the other three brought in fresh blood (or old fresh blood) to revitalize their teams. Barring an unforeseen set of circumstances, Kent State will be led by Paul Haynes (don’t worry if you didn’t know who their coach was) for the fourth consecutive year in 2016. We’ll see if he is able to coax a similar offensive improvement out of the Golden Flashes.

2015 Yards Per Play: MAC

Our 2015 conference recaps now take us to the Big 10's little brother, the MAC. Here are the 2015 MAC standings.

So we know what each team achieved, but how did they perform? To answer that, here are the Yards Per Play (YPP), Yards Per Play Allowed (YPA) and Net Yards Per Play (Net) numbers for each MAC team. This includes conference play only, with the championship game not included. The teams are sorted by division by Net YPP with conference rank in parentheses.

College football teams play either eight or nine conference games. Consequently, their record in such a small sample may not be indicative of their quality of play. A few fortuitous bounces here or there can be the difference between another ho-hum campaign or a special season. Randomness and other factors outside of our perception play a role in determining the standings. It would be fantastic if college football teams played 100 or even 1000 games. Then we could have a better idea about which teams were really the best. Alas, players would miss too much class time, their bodies would be battered beyond recognition, and I would never leave the couch. As it is, we have to make do with the handful of games teams do play. In those games, we can learn a lot from a team’s Yards per Play (YPP). Since 2005, I have collected YPP data for every conference. I use conference games only because teams play such divergent non-conference schedules and the teams within a conference tend to be of similar quality. By running a regression analysis between a team’s Net YPP (the difference between their Yards per Play and Yards per Play Allowed) and their conference winning percentage, we can see if Net YPP is a decent predictor of a team’s record. Spoiler alert. It is. For the statistically inclined, the correlation coefficient between a team’s Net YPP in conference play and their conference record is around .66. Since Net YPP is a solid predictor of a team’s conference record, we can use it to identify which teams had a significant disparity between their conference record as predicted by Net YPP and their actual conference record. I used a difference of .200 between predicted and actual winning percentage as the threshold for ‘significant’. Why .200? It is a little arbitrary, but .200 corresponds to a difference of 1.6 games over an eight game conference schedule and 1.8 games over a nine game one. Over or under-performing by more than a game and a half in a small sample seems significant to me. In the 2015 season, which teams in the MAC met this threshold? Here are the MAC teams sorted by performance over what would be expected from their Net YPP numbers.

Only two teams in the MAC met the threshold, with both just barely eclipsing the magic number. Ohio had the statistical profile of a slightly below average MAC team, but managed to win more than half their games and finish second in the MAC East. The Bobcats were 2-0 in one-score league games, but were hardly extremely lucky in that category. No, the most likely explanation for Ohio exceeding their YPP numbers is the fact that they played good, but not great in most of their wins, while they were absolutely destroyed in each of their three losses. Ohio won five games, and while three games by double-digits, their average MAC win was by just over 16 points. Meanwhile, each of their three league losses came by at least 24 points and two were by at least 35 points. On the other side of the coin, Massachusetts, in their MAC swan song, had a better statistical profile than Ohio, but won less than half as many games as the Bobcats. The Minutemen were a little unlucky, going 1-3 in one-score MAC games, but were not significantly unlucky. Whereas Ohio played horrendously in their three losses (being outscored by 97 points), Massachusetts was competitive in almost all their games. The Minutemen dropped their six league games by a total of 66 points. The Minutemen were consistently below average, but probably deserved an extra win or two based on how they played. The Minutemen end their disappointing quadrennial sojourn in the MAC with a 7-25 league record.

Frank Solich is the dean of MAC coaches, having joined the Bobcats prior to the 2005 season. Under his guidance, the Bobcats have experienced great success. They have played in three MAC Championship Games, made seven bowl appearances, and spent time in the top 25 of the AP Poll. However, the one accomplishment that has eluded Solich during his tenure is a MAC title. Here are the cumulative MAC standings since Solich has been in Athens, Ohio.

The Bobcats are tied for fourth overall in MAC winning percentage (and tied for first among teams from the East with Bowling Green) since 2005. However, while the three teams ahead of and tied with them have combined for eight titles, the Bobcats have not been able to break through. Meanwhile, Buffalo, Miami, and Akron have combined to win about a third of their league games since 2005, but own three league championships! As a wise man once said: I’d rather be lucky than good.

In another interesting piece of statistical minutia, Toledo does not even have a MAC Championship Game appearance despite posting the third best league mark since 2005! Part of this is because they play in the stronger MAC West where Northern Illinois has won six consecutive division titles under three different head coaches.

2015 Adjusted Pythagorean Record: Conference USA

Last week, we looked at how Conference USA teams fared in terms of yards per play. This week, we turn our attention to how the season played out in terms of the Adjusted Pythagorean Record, or APR. For an in-depth look at APR, click here. If you didn’t feel like clicking, here is the Reader’s Digest version. APR looks at how well a team scores and prevents touchdowns. Non-offensive touchdowns, field goals, extra points, and safeties are excluded. The ratio of offensive touchdowns to touchdowns allowed is converted into a winning percentage. Pretty simple actually.

Once again, here are the 2015 Conference USA standings.

And here are the APR standings sorted by division with conference rank in offensive touchdowns, touchdowns allowed, and APR in parentheses. This includes conference games only with the championship game excluded.

Finally, the Conference USA teams are sorted by the difference between their actual number of wins and their expected number of wins according to APR.

No team significantly over or under performed relative to their expected record based on APR. That being the case, let's talk about offense in Conference USA.

With Western Kentucky enjoying a phenomenal offensive campaign (and season in general) culminating with their first ever finish in the final AP Poll, I decided to look back at the eleven years of Conference USA YPP and APR data I have collected to determine the best offense Conference USA has seen 2005. The following table lists the top team for each season since 2005 in Conference USA in Yards per Play and Offensive Touchdowns. The actual number of yards per play and touchdowns are also listed. Since Conference USA has played an eight-game league slate for the entire period (2005-2015), there is no need to adjust the touchdowns to a per game basis. I decided to use both metrics as the best offense should be able to move the ball well and pay off drives by scoring touchdowns.

Some teams were able to do one or the other, but the best should be proficient at both. For example, in 2005, UAB, quarterbacked by Darrell Hackney and coached by lesser Mack Brown moved the ball efficiently, but only scored 29 offensive touchdowns in their eight league games (fourth best in the conference). Failing to finish drives is one reason the Blazers managed just a 3-5 conference record despite their moving the ball well. Similarly, SMU in 2010 advanced to the Conference USA Championship Game and led the league in yards per play, but scored just 28 touchdowns (seventh in the league). That being said, the best offense in Conference USA should probably be tops in their respective season by both measures. Western Kentucky in 2015 certainly fits that bill. Led by quarterback Brandon Doughty, the Hilltoppers averaged nearly eight yards per play against league foes and scored more than six touchdowns per game (or more than one and a half per quarter). However, even those phenomenal numbers pale in comparison to the ones posted by Houston in 2011. The Cougars, with future NFL players Case Keenum and Patrick Edwards and coached by Kevin Sumlin averaged more than eight yards per play and scored seven touchdowns per game against Conference USA foes! Plus, the Cougars did this in a stronger league. With Conference USA losing members to the American Athletic Conference and resorting to poaching ersatz schools from the Sun Belt, WAC, and FCS, the Hilltoppers did not face nearly as much resistance from their conference opponents.

2015 Yards Per Play: Conference USA

After six weeks of power conference analysis, we make our triumphant return to the Group of Five. Here are the 2015 Conference USA standings.

So we know what each team achieved, but how did they perform? To answer that, here are the Yards Per Play (YPP), Yards Per Play Allowed (YPA) and Net Yards Per Play (Net) numbers for each Conference USA team. This includes conference play only, with the championship game not included. The teams are sorted by division by Net YPP with conference rank in parentheses.

College football teams play either eight or nine conference games. Consequently, their record in such a small sample may not be indicative of their quality of play. A few fortuitous bounces here or there can be the difference between another ho-hum campaign or a special season. Randomness and other factors outside of our perception play a role in determining the standings. It would be fantastic if college football teams played 100 or even 1000 games. Then we could have a better idea about which teams were really the best. Alas, players would miss too much class time, their bodies would be battered beyond recognition, and I would never leave the couch. As it is, we have to make do with the handful of games teams do play. In those games, we can learn a lot from a team’s Yards per Play (YPP). Since 2005, I have collected YPP data for every conference. I use conference games only because teams play such divergent non-conference schedules and the teams within a conference tend to be of similar quality. By running a regression analysis between a team’s Net YPP (the difference between their Yards per Play and Yards per Play Allowed) and their conference winning percentage, we can see if Net YPP is a decent predictor of a team’s record. Spoiler alert. It is. For the statistically inclined, the correlation coefficient between a team’s Net YPP in conference play and their conference record is around .66. Since Net YPP is a solid predictor of a team’s conference record, we can use it to identify which teams had a significant disparity between their conference record as predicted by Net YPP and their actual conference record. I used a difference of .200 between predicted and actual winning percentage as the threshold for ‘significant’. Why .200? It is a little arbitrary, but .200 corresponds to a difference of 1.6 games over an eight game conference schedule and 1.8 games over a nine game one. Over or under-performing by more than a game and a half in a small sample seems significant to me. In the 2015 season, which teams in Conference USA met this threshold? Here are the Conference USA teams sorted by performance over what would be expected from their Net YPP numbers.

Only one team saw a significant disparity between their expected record based on YPP and their actual record. That team was Rice. The Owls were average on the offensive side of the ball, ranking seventh of thirteen teams. However, defensively, the Owls were a sieve, undeserving of their raptor nickname. The Owls ranked dead last defensively, permitting over seven yards per play (more than a half yard worse than second to last North Texas). They did have the misfortune of taking on the top three offenses in Conference USA (Western Kentucky, Southern Miss, and Louisiana Tech), during which they allowed 156 points. However, they also faced the bottom four offenses (Florida Atlantic, UTSA, UTEP, and Charlotte), so the schedule makers cannot be blamed for their harrowing defensive showing. How did the Owls manage to win three games despite such unflattering peripherals? Unlike most teams that significantly exceed their YPP numbers, close games and turnovers are not the culprit here. The Owls went just 1-1 in one-score league games and actually had a negative in-conference turnover margin. No, the reason for the difference is the fact that the Owls played horribly in their losses and just alright in their wins. In their three wins, they outscored North Texas, Florida Atlantic, and Charlotte (three teams that combined for just five wins against FBS opponents I might add) by 35 points. However, in their five league losses, they were outscored by 132 points. For the Rice Owls, this was certainly not the first time they had drastically exceeded their expected YPP record. In fact, among mid-major (Group of Five) teams since 2005 (the year my YPP numbers go back to), Rice has exceeded their expected record the most.

Over a long sample size (eleven seasons), Rice has exceeded their expected conference record by an average of .186 percentage points per season. For an eight game conference schedule, this works out to nearly a game and a half per season! The man responsible for most of this success is David Bailiff. Over his nine-year tenure, the Owls have exceeded their expected record by about .181 percentage points per season. You may notice this is slightly below their cumulative average of .186. This is thanks to Todd Graham’s one season in charge. In 2006, the Owls were an amazing .452 percentage points ahead of where they would have been expected to finish based on their YPP numbers (thanks to a 5-1 mark in one-score conference games). Graham bolted for Tulsa after the fluky season, and while he has been a decent over-performer at his numerous stops since (exceeding his expected record on average by about .084 percentage points) his successor has toiled in relative obscurity and accomplished quite a bit at a very difficult job. Just for the sake of completeness, I would also like to point out the job Pete Lembo did over five years at Ball State.

He also consistently exceeded pedestrian or worse YPP numbers and produced a pair of bowl teams at Ball State before leaving to become Maryland’s special teams coordinator.

2015 Adjusted Pythagorean Record: Big 12

Last week, we looked at how Big 12 teams fared in terms of yards per play. This week, we turn our attention to how the season played out in terms of the Adjusted Pythagorean Record, or APR. For an in-depth look at APR, click here. If you didn’t feel like clicking, here is the Reader’s Digest version. APR looks at how well a team scores and prevents touchdowns. Non-offensive touchdowns, field goals, extra points, and safeties are excluded. The ratio of offensive touchdowns to touchdowns allowed is converted into a winning percentage. Pretty simple actually.

Once again, here are the 2015 Big 12 standings.

And here are the APR standings sorted by rank with conference rank in offensive touchdowns, touchdowns allowed, and APR in parentheses. This includes conference games only.

Finally, the Big 12 teams are sorted by the difference between their actual number of wins and their expected number of wins according to APR.

Oklahoma State was the only team that saw their actual record differ significantly from their APR. The Cowboys also exceeded their expected record based on Net YPP, so we won't bother examining them again. Instead, lets talk about the bonkers season Texas Tech enjoyed.

A few weeks ago, I unveiled a new stat I called the ‘Excitement Index’. Basically it measured how often offensive touchdowns were scored in a team’s games. Boston College rated as the least exciting team since 2005 by this measure. I also indicated a team from 2015 rated pretty highly. That team played its home games in Lubock, Texas. The Texas Tech Red Raiders and their opponents combined to score an amazing 104 touchdowns in nine conference games. Perhaps no game was more indicative of their season than their back-and-forth 55-52 loss to TCU. The top ten teams since 2005 in the ‘Excitement Index’ are listed below.

Let’s take a moment to celebrate the absurdity of Louisiana Tech’s 2012 season. The Bulldogs, as you may remember, played in the sendoff season for the Western Athletic Conference. The league had just seven teams, including two FBS novices (Texas State and Texas-San Antonio), so there were only six conference games. The Bulldogs and their opponents averaged just over eleven and a half offensive touchdowns in those six contests. Louisiana Tech spent parts of that season in the top 25 before finishing 8-4. Their 8-4 record was not good enough for a bowl bid. This is somewhat ironic considering just three years later there were not enough bowl teams and the NCAA had to use a bullcrap metric to place teams in bowl games. But I digress.