Thursday, August 21, 2014
The Degenerates Guide to the 2014 Season: Who Derives the Most ATS Benefit from Playing at Home
In the last post we looked at how teams performed Against the Spread (ATS) versus their conference brethren both at home and away. We isolated the top ten performers in best and worst home record and best and worst road record. In this post, I want to do something a little different, but also something we have examined before (in a different manner). We will try to determine who derives the most benefit in regards to covering the spread at home. We’ll be looking at the actual difference (road ATS winning percentage subtracted from home ATS winning percentage), ratio (home ATS winning percentage divided by road ATS winning percentage), and a composite method (actual difference multiplied by the ratio). For a primer on why I think using these three different methods is a good idea, please take a moment to read the other post. Done? Good. Without further delay, we'll begin with the teams that had the largest difference in their home ATS winning percentage versus their road ATS winning percentage.
Connecticut tops the list for biggest difference between their home and road ATS winning percentage. Considering they have covered more than 70% of the time in their home games, this is not terribly surprising. Of the teams with the biggest difference between their home and road ATS winning percentage, only Toledo covered less than 60% of the time at home. UCF is the only team on this list that did not have a losing ATS record on the road. Most of the teams on this list, outside of UNLV, have experienced a modicum of consistent success since 2005. Connecticut, UCF, Wake Forest, and Wisconsin all played in BCS bowl games. In addition, six teams (the aforementioned four plus East Carolina and Rice) won at least one conference title in that span. Now what if look at the ratio instead of the difference?
Most of the same teams appear on this list. The only new additions are Colorado, Colorado State, and Indiana (with East Carolina and UCF falling off the list). The three newbies, have relatively pedestrian home ATS marks (Colorado even has a losing record), but make up for it be being even worse on the road. With the new additions, we see a relative drop off in team quality. Colorado has not advanced to the postseason since 2007, ditto for Indiana, and Colorado State has just three bowl appearances since 2005. At the top of the list, UNLV has amazingly covered twice as often in Sin City as they have when leaving Las Vegas. And what about when we look at Composite Homefield Advantage (CHA)?
No new teams join the list when we use CHA. Connecticut, UNLV, and to a lesser extent Rice stand out as deriving the largest benefit when playing at home versus playing on the road. How does this ATS list compare to the standard won/loss difference from the post back in July? Eight teams appeared in at least one top-ten metric (difference, ratio, or composite) when looking at standard won/loss record and ATS record. Those teams are Connecticut, Colorado, Indiana, Rice, UCLA, UNLV, Wake Forest, and Wisconsin. These eight teams have been significantly better at home than on the road when evaluated by either their overall won/loss record or their ATS record.
Tuesday, August 19, 2014
The Degenerates Guide to the 2014 Season: The Best and Worst Home and Road ATS Records
A few weeks ago in a series of posts, I looked at the home and road performance of every IA team in conference play since 2005. Now I am going to take another look at home and road performance, but this time based only on the spread. If a team loses, but covers, that is counted as a win in this analysis. Let’s get started with the best home teams since 2005. These ten teams have posted the best home conference winning percentage Against the Spread (ATS). For bookkeeping purposes, ties are not counted as half-wins and half-losses, but are instead excluded.
The top two teams in home ATS performance may come as a surprise to a few readers. But then again, maybe not. As you may remember, Rice and Connecticut were two teams that saw some of the biggest difference between their home and road performance in actual wins and losses. I am a little surprised Oregon makes this list as I thought they would be a shade over-valued when playing at home considering they have all the criteria of a team the betting public favors. They have been an elite team for the past few years, have a sexy offense, and feature avant-garde uniforms. Other minor surprises on this list include former Conference USA standouts UCF and East Carolina. And which teams have been deplorable at home?
If you have been betting on Syracuse at home over the last decade, you would have been better off buying some scratch offs. The least surprising team on this list is LSU. I chronicled the magic and mystery that is Les Miles against the spread here. It probably doesn’t mean anything since such a small number of college football teams play in a dome, but Idaho and Syracuse play their home games indoors and have struggled mightily against the number there. The other two teams in this study who extensively played in domes were Tulane and Minnesota. Tulane’s home ATS mark is 13-19 (.406) and Minnesota was 8-8 before moving into their new outdoor stadium (where they have also covered exactly half the time). Tulane is set to open their own outdoor stadium this season leaving Syracuse and Idaho, along with IA neophytes Georgia State and Texas-San Antonio, to represent the last bastion of dome teams. Some more tidbits on teams that have struggled ATS at home: Before hiring Tim DeRuyter, Fresno State was even worse. Under Pat Hill from 2005 to his firing in 2011, the Bulldogs went just 6-20-1 (.231) ATS at home. Michigan State’s appearance on this list may be surprising to some. A significant portion of their poor record can be laid at the feet of noted psychopath John L Smith (1-7 home ATS mark), but the Spartans have not been as strong as one would think ATS at home under Mark Dantonio (11-16-1). Now, which teams have been road warriors?
Western Kentucky, a team that lost its first 18 games overall and first ten conference games as a IA member holds down the top spot. Joining the Hilltoppers as the other two teams to post ATS road marks greater than 70% are fellow mid-majors Ball State and Louisiana-Monroe. All told, three teams that spent their entire existence for the 2005-2013 time period in the Sun Belt appear on this list (the two Louisiana schools and Western Kentucky). It is also worth noting that two teams that appear on this list also posted very low home winning percentages ATS (Bowling Green and West Virginia). In fact, of the ten best road teams, all except Ohio State and Virginia Tech posted losing ATS marks at home. Speaking of Ohio State, they are the only team to appear on the best home and best road ATS lists. And finally, I present the teams with the worst ATS road records.
The Runnin’ Rebels from UNLV own the distinction of posting the worst ATS road winning percentage. If you lived in Vegas, would you ever want to leave? Two teams from Colorado struggled when they left the thin mountain air. Of course, Colorado and Colorado State didn’t exactly light things up at home, posting a combined 36-36-1 ATS mark on their home fields. Idaho is the only team to appear on the worst home and worst road ATS lists indicating they are a bad bet no matter where they play.
Before we conclude, here are a few more ATS tidbits. It appears the homefield advantage has been priced out of the Smurf Turf. Boise State has posted the best overall home record since 2005 (34-2 versus conference foes), but their ATS mark in that span is only 17-19. The Broncos have been particularly atrocious the past few seasons. After going 9-3 ATS in home conference games from 2005-2007, the Broncos are just 8-16 ATS in those contests since 2010 (including 2-10 since joining the Mountain West in 2011). The public is now giving Boise too much credit when they play at home. South Florida has also been particularly atrocious at home recently. The Bulls have gone just 2-14 ATS at home since 2010, first under Skip Holtz (1-11) and then under Willie Taggart (1-3) after posting good numbers under Jim Leavitt (10-5-1). As for teams heading in the opposite direction, Baylor is 16-7 ATS at home in the Big 12 since Art Briles took over in 2008 after posting a 3-9 ATS mark in their final three seasons in Waco under Guy Morriss. Baylor is also a sizzling 11-1 ATS at home since 2011. Finally, I want to shed some light on one of the best moneymakers of the last decade, who also happens to be my favorite coach, and is perhaps the best coach in NCAA history. Under Bill Snyder, the Kansas State Wildcats have gone 18-7 ATS at home (would rank second in home ATS win percentage) and 16-7-1 ATS on the road (would rank fourth in road ATS win percentage). Those are phenomenal numbers, especially over such a relatively large number of seasons. That’s all for now. Stay tuned for the next post where we’ll look at the teams with the biggest different between their home and road ATS performance.
Before we conclude, here are a few more ATS tidbits. It appears the homefield advantage has been priced out of the Smurf Turf. Boise State has posted the best overall home record since 2005 (34-2 versus conference foes), but their ATS mark in that span is only 17-19. The Broncos have been particularly atrocious the past few seasons. After going 9-3 ATS in home conference games from 2005-2007, the Broncos are just 8-16 ATS in those contests since 2010 (including 2-10 since joining the Mountain West in 2011). The public is now giving Boise too much credit when they play at home. South Florida has also been particularly atrocious at home recently. The Bulls have gone just 2-14 ATS at home since 2010, first under Skip Holtz (1-11) and then under Willie Taggart (1-3) after posting good numbers under Jim Leavitt (10-5-1). As for teams heading in the opposite direction, Baylor is 16-7 ATS at home in the Big 12 since Art Briles took over in 2008 after posting a 3-9 ATS mark in their final three seasons in Waco under Guy Morriss. Baylor is also a sizzling 11-1 ATS at home since 2011. Finally, I want to shed some light on one of the best moneymakers of the last decade, who also happens to be my favorite coach, and is perhaps the best coach in NCAA history. Under Bill Snyder, the Kansas State Wildcats have gone 18-7 ATS at home (would rank second in home ATS win percentage) and 16-7-1 ATS on the road (would rank fourth in road ATS win percentage). Those are phenomenal numbers, especially over such a relatively large number of seasons. That’s all for now. Stay tuned for the next post where we’ll look at the teams with the biggest different between their home and road ATS performance.
Saturday, August 16, 2014
The Degenerates Guide to the 2014 Season: Win Total Under Plays
In the last post, I gave you my top five 'over' win total plays for the 2014 college football season. In this post, we'll take a look at the five teams that I think are due to go 'under' their respective preseason win totals.
Duke under 8.5 @ -150
Last season was a historic one for Duke. The Blue Devils won ten games for the first time in school history, finished the season ranked for the first time since 1961, and nearly sent Johnny Manziel out a loser in the Chick-Fil-A Bowl. But alas, Duke enjoyed some extreme good fortune in their run to the ACC Championship Game, going 4-1 in close games during the regular season, while posting a middling yard per play differential (-.01) in conference games. The Blue Devils will probably win all four of their non-conference games in 2014 (Elon, @ Troy, Kansas, and Tulane), but they would still need to win five conference games to beat this number. Drawing Syracuse (more on them later) and Wake Forest from the Atlantic Division is a nice start, but the Blue Devils could be underdogs in all six of their Coastal Division games. Assuming they win the other six contests, asking them to split their Coastal Division matchups is asking a little too much.
Syracuse under 5.5 @ +120
Syracuse went bowling and finished with a winning record last season (their third bowl in four years), despite losing three games by a combined 147 points. The Orange didn't do anything particularly well, and actually finished more than two wins clear of their Adjusted Pythagorean Record. Combine those lackluster peripherals with an imposing schedule, and the Orange are a good bet to finish with a losing record. In non-conference action, they play Villanova, at Central Michigan, Maryland, and versus Notre Dame in East Rutherford, New Jersey. The Orange can be expected to beat Villanova, but Central Michigan on the road will be a test. Assuming they beat both the Wildcats and the Chippewas, the Orange will likely be underdogs against the Terrapins and Irish. If the Orange manage a 2-2 non-conference mark, they would need four conference wins to cash in for the 'over'. The Orange have the misfortune of hosting both Louisville and Florida State in conference play. Even assuming they pull an upset of one of those teams, the Orange would still need to split their remaining six games (NC State, Duke, @ Wake Forest, @ Clemson, @ Pitt, and @ Boston College). I can't imagine them doing that. Plus, you more than double your money if the Orange come up short. What's not to like?
Tennessee under 5.5 @ +120
The Volunteers have now endured four consecutive losing seasons! Maybe firing The Great Pumpkin wasn't such a bright idea? Tennessee has a brutal schedule in 2014, so the streak could reach a half-decade. Outside the SEC, the Volunteers face solid mid-major squads in Utah State and Arkansas State at home, before travelling to Oklahoma and hosting Chattanooga. The Oklahoma game is likely a lost cause, and Chattanooga is a sure win. I don't expect the Vols to actually lose to Arkansas State, but Utah State could give Tennessee all they want over the season's first weekend. If the Vols lose to the Aggies, you can go ahead and cash this ticket because they would need four conference wins to go 'over' the total. Drawing Alabama (at home) and Ole Miss (on the road) out of the SEC West is not the prescription for getting back to the postseason. Tennessee has a decent shot at getting to six wins in 2014, but I would say its a 50/50 proposition at best, and based on the payout for this bet, Vegas has it pegged closer to 55% the Vols hit the 'over'.
UCLA under 9.5 @ even
Do you know the last time UCLA won ten games in the regular season? Cade McNown was quarterbacking the team (and using ill-gotten handicap stickers). Don't buy into the Bruin hype. Yes, the Bruins could win their third Pac-12 South title in four years, but their yard per play differential was not befitting an elite team last season (+.17 in Pac-12 play). Keep in mind, Oregon and Stanford are still on the schedule. Those two teams held the UCLA offense, led by 'Heisman darkhorse Brett Hundley', to 24 total points last year. Granted, the Bruins get to host both teams this season, but even if they manage another 6-3 conference record, they will not make it over this win total. That is not even considering their non-conference dates at Virginia and versus Texas in Arlington. The Bruins are a huge favorite against the Cavs, but traveling cross-country for a Noon kickoff could produce a strange result. In addition, while the Bruins will probably be favored over Texas, the Longhorns are still a dangerous team. Getting this win total at even money is like stealing.
Washington State under 5.5 @ +105
Washington State managed to play in their first bowl game in a decade last season, but the Cougars were far from a good team. Just because you have a high volume of passes does not mean you have a great passing offense. The Cougars finished ninth in the Pac-12 in yards per play despite being conducted by Air Raid impresario Mike Leach. Assuming they beat Rutgers on opening night, the Cougars should sweep their three non-conference games. However, once the harrowing Pac-12 season begins, the Cougars could potentially be favored in just one game (home versus Cal). The Cougars lost big last season (all five of their league losses came by at least ten points with an average margin of defeat of nearly 27 points) and unless they engineer some stark improvement, getting to six wins will prove too difficult.
Outside of these five teams, there are a two others I saw that I could almost advise you to take.
South Carolina under 9.5 @ -125
I think Gamecock fans and the nation in general will realize just how much Connor Shaw meant to the team. For my money, he's the best quarterback in South Carolina history (Todd Ellis be damned). Would it really be that big of a shock if the Gamecocks lost two SEC games and then lost at Clemson?
Oklahoma under 10.5 @ -115
The Sooners are getting a lot of hype heading into the 2014 season thanks to one phenomenal performance. Granted, it did happen against Alabama, but over the course of nine Big 12 games, Oklahoma scored exactly as many offensive touchdowns as they allowed! Those are not numbers befitting a national title contender. Still, with all their big games coming at home, they may not lose twice in 2014.
Duke under 8.5 @ -150
Last season was a historic one for Duke. The Blue Devils won ten games for the first time in school history, finished the season ranked for the first time since 1961, and nearly sent Johnny Manziel out a loser in the Chick-Fil-A Bowl. But alas, Duke enjoyed some extreme good fortune in their run to the ACC Championship Game, going 4-1 in close games during the regular season, while posting a middling yard per play differential (-.01) in conference games. The Blue Devils will probably win all four of their non-conference games in 2014 (Elon, @ Troy, Kansas, and Tulane), but they would still need to win five conference games to beat this number. Drawing Syracuse (more on them later) and Wake Forest from the Atlantic Division is a nice start, but the Blue Devils could be underdogs in all six of their Coastal Division games. Assuming they win the other six contests, asking them to split their Coastal Division matchups is asking a little too much.
Syracuse under 5.5 @ +120
Syracuse went bowling and finished with a winning record last season (their third bowl in four years), despite losing three games by a combined 147 points. The Orange didn't do anything particularly well, and actually finished more than two wins clear of their Adjusted Pythagorean Record. Combine those lackluster peripherals with an imposing schedule, and the Orange are a good bet to finish with a losing record. In non-conference action, they play Villanova, at Central Michigan, Maryland, and versus Notre Dame in East Rutherford, New Jersey. The Orange can be expected to beat Villanova, but Central Michigan on the road will be a test. Assuming they beat both the Wildcats and the Chippewas, the Orange will likely be underdogs against the Terrapins and Irish. If the Orange manage a 2-2 non-conference mark, they would need four conference wins to cash in for the 'over'. The Orange have the misfortune of hosting both Louisville and Florida State in conference play. Even assuming they pull an upset of one of those teams, the Orange would still need to split their remaining six games (NC State, Duke, @ Wake Forest, @ Clemson, @ Pitt, and @ Boston College). I can't imagine them doing that. Plus, you more than double your money if the Orange come up short. What's not to like?
Tennessee under 5.5 @ +120
The Volunteers have now endured four consecutive losing seasons! Maybe firing The Great Pumpkin wasn't such a bright idea? Tennessee has a brutal schedule in 2014, so the streak could reach a half-decade. Outside the SEC, the Volunteers face solid mid-major squads in Utah State and Arkansas State at home, before travelling to Oklahoma and hosting Chattanooga. The Oklahoma game is likely a lost cause, and Chattanooga is a sure win. I don't expect the Vols to actually lose to Arkansas State, but Utah State could give Tennessee all they want over the season's first weekend. If the Vols lose to the Aggies, you can go ahead and cash this ticket because they would need four conference wins to go 'over' the total. Drawing Alabama (at home) and Ole Miss (on the road) out of the SEC West is not the prescription for getting back to the postseason. Tennessee has a decent shot at getting to six wins in 2014, but I would say its a 50/50 proposition at best, and based on the payout for this bet, Vegas has it pegged closer to 55% the Vols hit the 'over'.
UCLA under 9.5 @ even
Do you know the last time UCLA won ten games in the regular season? Cade McNown was quarterbacking the team (and using ill-gotten handicap stickers). Don't buy into the Bruin hype. Yes, the Bruins could win their third Pac-12 South title in four years, but their yard per play differential was not befitting an elite team last season (+.17 in Pac-12 play). Keep in mind, Oregon and Stanford are still on the schedule. Those two teams held the UCLA offense, led by 'Heisman darkhorse Brett Hundley', to 24 total points last year. Granted, the Bruins get to host both teams this season, but even if they manage another 6-3 conference record, they will not make it over this win total. That is not even considering their non-conference dates at Virginia and versus Texas in Arlington. The Bruins are a huge favorite against the Cavs, but traveling cross-country for a Noon kickoff could produce a strange result. In addition, while the Bruins will probably be favored over Texas, the Longhorns are still a dangerous team. Getting this win total at even money is like stealing.
Washington State under 5.5 @ +105
Washington State managed to play in their first bowl game in a decade last season, but the Cougars were far from a good team. Just because you have a high volume of passes does not mean you have a great passing offense. The Cougars finished ninth in the Pac-12 in yards per play despite being conducted by Air Raid impresario Mike Leach. Assuming they beat Rutgers on opening night, the Cougars should sweep their three non-conference games. However, once the harrowing Pac-12 season begins, the Cougars could potentially be favored in just one game (home versus Cal). The Cougars lost big last season (all five of their league losses came by at least ten points with an average margin of defeat of nearly 27 points) and unless they engineer some stark improvement, getting to six wins will prove too difficult.
Outside of these five teams, there are a two others I saw that I could almost advise you to take.
South Carolina under 9.5 @ -125
I think Gamecock fans and the nation in general will realize just how much Connor Shaw meant to the team. For my money, he's the best quarterback in South Carolina history (Todd Ellis be damned). Would it really be that big of a shock if the Gamecocks lost two SEC games and then lost at Clemson?
Oklahoma under 10.5 @ -115
The Sooners are getting a lot of hype heading into the 2014 season thanks to one phenomenal performance. Granted, it did happen against Alabama, but over the course of nine Big 12 games, Oklahoma scored exactly as many offensive touchdowns as they allowed! Those are not numbers befitting a national title contender. Still, with all their big games coming at home, they may not lose twice in 2014.
Thursday, August 14, 2014
The Degenerates Guide to the 2014 Season: Win Total Over Plays
In this edition of the Degenerates Guide, I will give you five teams that I think are poised to hit the 'over' on their projected win totals. I will include the team, the win total they must go 'over', and the price you must pay to take them. Without further adieu, here are my five top picks.
Arizona over 6.5 wins @ -175
While the price on this wager is a little high (you would need to bet 175 dollars in order to win 100), projecting Arizona to get to seven regular season wins does not require a large leap of faith. Rich Rod's first two Wildcats teams have finished with identical 7-5 regular season records. in both campaigns, they are 6-0 in non-conference play, and they should easily match that in 2014. Arizona's three non-conference opponents are all mid-majors. The Wildcats host both UNLV and Nevada, and hit the road to face Texas-San Antonio. In conference play, the Wildcats enjoy five home games, with Cal, Southern Cal, Colorado, Washington, and Arizona State all travelling to Tucson. Cal and Colorado should be easy victories, and even a pessimist could expect one win against the trio of Southern Cal, Washington, and Arizona State. If that comes to fruition, the Wildcats would need to win just one of their league road games to hit the over. In their quartet of road games, the Wildcats travel to Oregon, Washington State, UCLA, and Utah. Oregon and UCLA are probably out of the question, but I think the Wildcats can split in their trips to Pullman and Salt Lake City respectively. The Wildcats were not especially lucky or unlucky last season, but were pretty deserving of their 4-5 Pac-12 record. The only concern I have is they will be breaking in a new starting quarterback for the second consecutive season. However, whomever Rich Rod chooses to be his guy will have three non-conference tuneups to get acclimated to the rugged Pac-12.
Florida over 7.5 @ -130
Ah Florida. What can be said about your 2013 season that hasn't already been said? Fewest wins since 1979, first bowlless campaign since 1990, a loss to Georgia Southern when they were still a IAA team (two of your guys even blocked each other), and the worst loss to your in-state rival since 1988. Lost in all the hoopla though is this fact: Florida still fielded the best defense in the SEC last season, permitting conference foes just over five yards per play. Hell, even using the playbook of Amos Alonzo Stagg, they almost won at South Carolina. Remember, they almost won the SEC two seasons ago with the defense and running game formula. The Gators will lose one non-conference game (at Florida State) and one conference game (at Alabama), but in between, their only other true road games are Vanderbilt and Tennessee. I might even take a flyer on the Gators to win the SEC East.
Indiana over 5.5 @ +110
Can Kevin Wilson finally get his Hoosiers over the hump? The Hoosiers have improved in the win column each season under Wilson, going from one, to four, to five wins. Their conference win total has also improved, going from zero, to two, to three wins. If Indiana can get to three Big 10 wins this season, they will probably go bowling for the first time since 2007. Wilson had the Hoosiers humming on offense last season, as the team ranked third in the conference in yards per play (behind Ohio State and Wisconsin). However, the defense was another issue, as the team ranked dead last in permitting over seven yards per play. The offense returns eight starters, including the dynamic quarterback duo of Nate Sudfeld and Tre Roberson. The defense returns nine starters, and cannot possibly be any worse than they were last season. The Hoosiers face a pair of tough road games in non-conference play, travelling to Bowling Green and Missouri. The Hoosiers waxed a solid Bowling Green team in Bloomington last season, but a road game at a MAC power will not be an easy win. The Missouri game is a likely loss, and the other non-conference clashes at home against Indiana State and North Texas are likely wins. In conference play, the Hoosiers host Maryland, Michigan State, Penn State, and Purdue. If the Hoosiers can split those games, bowl eligibility should hinge on them winning one of their league road games against Iowa, Michigan, Rutgers, or Ohio State. Michigan and Ohio State are probably lost causes, and Iowa will be a challenge, but conference neophyte Rutgers presents a great shot at a road scalp. Perhaps the best news for Indiana fans is that Wisconsin is not on the schedule. The Badgers have beaten the Hoosiers by 63, 52, 48, and 48 points the past four seasons.
Nebraska over 8 @ even
Bo Pelini has probably hit the proverbial ceiling at Nebraska, but you know how many times he has lost more than four games in Lincoln? Never. And let's not forget, despite their disappointing play last season, the Huskers actually won nine games, including five in the Big 10, despite an in-conference turnover margin of -16. That's right, on average, in every Big 10 game, the Huskers spotted their opponent two turnovers and still won more than they lost. Suffice it to say, they won't be -16 in Big 10 play this season. The schedule is not too imposing either. There is a tricky non-conference road game at Fresno State and a home clash with Miami (first game since the 2001 Rose Bowl), but 3-1 should be the floor outside the league. In conference play, the Huskers travel to both Michigan State and Wisconsin, but avoid both Ohio State and Michigan. At worst, Nebraska should push, and if the Huskers beat Miami at home, there should be nothing stopping you from doubling your money.
Utah over 4.5 @ -175
Like Arizona, you have to pay a steep price to get the Utes, but I think they are worth it. Despite their 2-7 mark in the Pac-12 last season, the Utes should have won about two more conference games based on their Adjusted Pythagorean Record. Like Nebraska, the Utes also had a poor turnover margin in Pac-12 play (-12) and can expect that mark to get a little better this season. The Utes will probably only manage two non-conference wins, as they have to travel to Michigan in their third game, meaning they will need to win one third of their Pac-12 contests to cash in. It certainly will not be easy, but with Washington State and Colorado on the schedule, the Utes need only find another conference win in their remaining seven games.
Well, these are my five picks to cash in on the 'over'. In the next post, we'll examine the five teams I think are solid 'under' plays.
Arizona over 6.5 wins @ -175
While the price on this wager is a little high (you would need to bet 175 dollars in order to win 100), projecting Arizona to get to seven regular season wins does not require a large leap of faith. Rich Rod's first two Wildcats teams have finished with identical 7-5 regular season records. in both campaigns, they are 6-0 in non-conference play, and they should easily match that in 2014. Arizona's three non-conference opponents are all mid-majors. The Wildcats host both UNLV and Nevada, and hit the road to face Texas-San Antonio. In conference play, the Wildcats enjoy five home games, with Cal, Southern Cal, Colorado, Washington, and Arizona State all travelling to Tucson. Cal and Colorado should be easy victories, and even a pessimist could expect one win against the trio of Southern Cal, Washington, and Arizona State. If that comes to fruition, the Wildcats would need to win just one of their league road games to hit the over. In their quartet of road games, the Wildcats travel to Oregon, Washington State, UCLA, and Utah. Oregon and UCLA are probably out of the question, but I think the Wildcats can split in their trips to Pullman and Salt Lake City respectively. The Wildcats were not especially lucky or unlucky last season, but were pretty deserving of their 4-5 Pac-12 record. The only concern I have is they will be breaking in a new starting quarterback for the second consecutive season. However, whomever Rich Rod chooses to be his guy will have three non-conference tuneups to get acclimated to the rugged Pac-12.
Florida over 7.5 @ -130
Ah Florida. What can be said about your 2013 season that hasn't already been said? Fewest wins since 1979, first bowlless campaign since 1990, a loss to Georgia Southern when they were still a IAA team (two of your guys even blocked each other), and the worst loss to your in-state rival since 1988. Lost in all the hoopla though is this fact: Florida still fielded the best defense in the SEC last season, permitting conference foes just over five yards per play. Hell, even using the playbook of Amos Alonzo Stagg, they almost won at South Carolina. Remember, they almost won the SEC two seasons ago with the defense and running game formula. The Gators will lose one non-conference game (at Florida State) and one conference game (at Alabama), but in between, their only other true road games are Vanderbilt and Tennessee. I might even take a flyer on the Gators to win the SEC East.
Indiana over 5.5 @ +110
Can Kevin Wilson finally get his Hoosiers over the hump? The Hoosiers have improved in the win column each season under Wilson, going from one, to four, to five wins. Their conference win total has also improved, going from zero, to two, to three wins. If Indiana can get to three Big 10 wins this season, they will probably go bowling for the first time since 2007. Wilson had the Hoosiers humming on offense last season, as the team ranked third in the conference in yards per play (behind Ohio State and Wisconsin). However, the defense was another issue, as the team ranked dead last in permitting over seven yards per play. The offense returns eight starters, including the dynamic quarterback duo of Nate Sudfeld and Tre Roberson. The defense returns nine starters, and cannot possibly be any worse than they were last season. The Hoosiers face a pair of tough road games in non-conference play, travelling to Bowling Green and Missouri. The Hoosiers waxed a solid Bowling Green team in Bloomington last season, but a road game at a MAC power will not be an easy win. The Missouri game is a likely loss, and the other non-conference clashes at home against Indiana State and North Texas are likely wins. In conference play, the Hoosiers host Maryland, Michigan State, Penn State, and Purdue. If the Hoosiers can split those games, bowl eligibility should hinge on them winning one of their league road games against Iowa, Michigan, Rutgers, or Ohio State. Michigan and Ohio State are probably lost causes, and Iowa will be a challenge, but conference neophyte Rutgers presents a great shot at a road scalp. Perhaps the best news for Indiana fans is that Wisconsin is not on the schedule. The Badgers have beaten the Hoosiers by 63, 52, 48, and 48 points the past four seasons.
Nebraska over 8 @ even
Bo Pelini has probably hit the proverbial ceiling at Nebraska, but you know how many times he has lost more than four games in Lincoln? Never. And let's not forget, despite their disappointing play last season, the Huskers actually won nine games, including five in the Big 10, despite an in-conference turnover margin of -16. That's right, on average, in every Big 10 game, the Huskers spotted their opponent two turnovers and still won more than they lost. Suffice it to say, they won't be -16 in Big 10 play this season. The schedule is not too imposing either. There is a tricky non-conference road game at Fresno State and a home clash with Miami (first game since the 2001 Rose Bowl), but 3-1 should be the floor outside the league. In conference play, the Huskers travel to both Michigan State and Wisconsin, but avoid both Ohio State and Michigan. At worst, Nebraska should push, and if the Huskers beat Miami at home, there should be nothing stopping you from doubling your money.
Utah over 4.5 @ -175
Like Arizona, you have to pay a steep price to get the Utes, but I think they are worth it. Despite their 2-7 mark in the Pac-12 last season, the Utes should have won about two more conference games based on their Adjusted Pythagorean Record. Like Nebraska, the Utes also had a poor turnover margin in Pac-12 play (-12) and can expect that mark to get a little better this season. The Utes will probably only manage two non-conference wins, as they have to travel to Michigan in their third game, meaning they will need to win one third of their Pac-12 contests to cash in. It certainly will not be easy, but with Washington State and Colorado on the schedule, the Utes need only find another conference win in their remaining seven games.
Well, these are my five picks to cash in on the 'over'. In the next post, we'll examine the five teams I think are solid 'under' plays.
Monday, August 11, 2014
The Degenerates Guide to the 2014 Season: Making a Mockery of the Spread
Hello and welcome to our third installment of the Degenerates Guide to the 2014 Season. This is of course, my never-ending effort to give you an ever-so-slight advantage against the house. In this edition we’ll examine teams that drastically over or under-perform against the spread in a given week and see what happens to them in their next game.
Before we get started, let’s define what we mean by over or under-perform against the spread. Consider a hypothetical game. Team A is favored over Team B by 4 points. With the game tied in the waning minutes, Team A scores a late touchdown, kicks the extra point and wins by seven. With this result, Team A over-performed against the spread by three points, while Team B under-performed by three points. This result is not a dramatic departure from the expected result. The point spread pretty much nailed this game and whether or not you rejoiced in or cursed at the outcome had a great deal to do with randomness or luck. Now, consider a similar game where Team A is favored over Team B by 4 points. In this game, Team A takes an early lead and never looks back, winning by 30 points. In this scenario, Team A over-performed against the spread by 26 points, while Team B under-performed by 26 points. While randomness and luck played a small role in the outcome, its effect was muted thanks to the ease with which Team A dispatched Team B. This is the type of game we will be examining. Do teams that radically over-perform against the spread come crashing back to earth the next week? Do they continue their run of great play? Do teams that drastically under-perform against the spread bounce back the following week? Do they continue their listless play? Or is there performance the following week in either case unpredictable?
In attempting to answer these questions, I looked at each occurrence where a team either under or over-performed against the spread by at least 20 points in the past two regular seasons (2012 and 2013). I only considered games involving two IA opponents. It would seem that for every over-performance there would be a corresponding under-performance so the number of both instances would be the same. Here is why this is not the case. After the game with the over or under-performance, some teams played IAA opponents in their next game. These were not included. In addition, in some cases, after the game with the over or under-performance, some teams did not have a scheduled game (their regular season was over) and others did. Alright, with that housekeeping out of the way, let’s get to analyzing.
In the two year sample, 235 teams over-performed against the spread by at least 20 points and played a follow-up game that met the criteria for inclusion explained above. Those 235 teams combined for an overall record of 121-107-7 Against the Spread (ATS). This is a winning percentage of 53.1% which is slightly above the 52.4% needed to turn a profit. This result is surprising to me. I figured teams that over-performed based on the spread would provide value when betting against them in their next game. If we separate those 235 teams in their next games as favorites or underdogs, we can further isolate an advantage. 157 of the 235 teams were favorites the next week. Those teams posted an ATS mark of 84-67-6 which equates to a winning percentage of 55.6%. Conversely 76 of the 235 teams were underdogs in their next game. Those teams went just 37-38-1 ATS for a winning percentage of 49.3%. Two teams were neither favored or underdogs in their next game (pick ‘em). Neither covered. Hence, my advice is that when teams significantly over-perform against the spread, take a flyer on them in their next game if they are favored. Otherwise, stay away.
Now let’s look at the teams that under-performed against the spread by at least 20 points. 224 teams under-performed against the spread by at least 20 points and played a follow-up game that met the criteria for inclusion explained above. Those 224 teams combined for an overall record of 97-123-4 ATS. This is a winning percentage of just 44.1%. Once again, the results are surprising to me. I figured drastically under-performing against the spread would make these teams under-valued and a solid play the next week. Ah, but facts occasionally make fools of us all. Can we find more advantages if we break these down by favorites and underdogs? Glad you asked. The answer is a resounding ‘Yes’. When these teams that under-perform against the spread are favored in their next game (as was the case 88 times in the past two seasons), they managed just a 32-56 ATS mark. This winning percentage of 36.4% means going against these teams when they are favorites has typically been a great idea. However, when they are underdogs, the advantages disappear. 136 of the 224 teams were underdogs in their next game. These teams posted an ATS mark of 65-67-4 which equates to a winning percentage of 49.2%. These teams provide no value in betting either for or against them.
So, to sum things up: When teams drastically over-perform against the spread, they are a good play in their next game if they are favored. When teams radically under-perform against the spread, betting against them in their next game is a great idea if they are a favorite. If a team does not fit either of these criteria, take a pass on them, unless you enjoy coin flips.
Before we get started, let’s define what we mean by over or under-perform against the spread. Consider a hypothetical game. Team A is favored over Team B by 4 points. With the game tied in the waning minutes, Team A scores a late touchdown, kicks the extra point and wins by seven. With this result, Team A over-performed against the spread by three points, while Team B under-performed by three points. This result is not a dramatic departure from the expected result. The point spread pretty much nailed this game and whether or not you rejoiced in or cursed at the outcome had a great deal to do with randomness or luck. Now, consider a similar game where Team A is favored over Team B by 4 points. In this game, Team A takes an early lead and never looks back, winning by 30 points. In this scenario, Team A over-performed against the spread by 26 points, while Team B under-performed by 26 points. While randomness and luck played a small role in the outcome, its effect was muted thanks to the ease with which Team A dispatched Team B. This is the type of game we will be examining. Do teams that radically over-perform against the spread come crashing back to earth the next week? Do they continue their run of great play? Do teams that drastically under-perform against the spread bounce back the following week? Do they continue their listless play? Or is there performance the following week in either case unpredictable?
In attempting to answer these questions, I looked at each occurrence where a team either under or over-performed against the spread by at least 20 points in the past two regular seasons (2012 and 2013). I only considered games involving two IA opponents. It would seem that for every over-performance there would be a corresponding under-performance so the number of both instances would be the same. Here is why this is not the case. After the game with the over or under-performance, some teams played IAA opponents in their next game. These were not included. In addition, in some cases, after the game with the over or under-performance, some teams did not have a scheduled game (their regular season was over) and others did. Alright, with that housekeeping out of the way, let’s get to analyzing.
In the two year sample, 235 teams over-performed against the spread by at least 20 points and played a follow-up game that met the criteria for inclusion explained above. Those 235 teams combined for an overall record of 121-107-7 Against the Spread (ATS). This is a winning percentage of 53.1% which is slightly above the 52.4% needed to turn a profit. This result is surprising to me. I figured teams that over-performed based on the spread would provide value when betting against them in their next game. If we separate those 235 teams in their next games as favorites or underdogs, we can further isolate an advantage. 157 of the 235 teams were favorites the next week. Those teams posted an ATS mark of 84-67-6 which equates to a winning percentage of 55.6%. Conversely 76 of the 235 teams were underdogs in their next game. Those teams went just 37-38-1 ATS for a winning percentage of 49.3%. Two teams were neither favored or underdogs in their next game (pick ‘em). Neither covered. Hence, my advice is that when teams significantly over-perform against the spread, take a flyer on them in their next game if they are favored. Otherwise, stay away.
Now let’s look at the teams that under-performed against the spread by at least 20 points. 224 teams under-performed against the spread by at least 20 points and played a follow-up game that met the criteria for inclusion explained above. Those 224 teams combined for an overall record of 97-123-4 ATS. This is a winning percentage of just 44.1%. Once again, the results are surprising to me. I figured drastically under-performing against the spread would make these teams under-valued and a solid play the next week. Ah, but facts occasionally make fools of us all. Can we find more advantages if we break these down by favorites and underdogs? Glad you asked. The answer is a resounding ‘Yes’. When these teams that under-perform against the spread are favored in their next game (as was the case 88 times in the past two seasons), they managed just a 32-56 ATS mark. This winning percentage of 36.4% means going against these teams when they are favorites has typically been a great idea. However, when they are underdogs, the advantages disappear. 136 of the 224 teams were underdogs in their next game. These teams posted an ATS mark of 65-67-4 which equates to a winning percentage of 49.2%. These teams provide no value in betting either for or against them.
So, to sum things up: When teams drastically over-perform against the spread, they are a good play in their next game if they are favored. When teams radically under-perform against the spread, betting against them in their next game is a great idea if they are a favorite. If a team does not fit either of these criteria, take a pass on them, unless you enjoy coin flips.
Wednesday, August 06, 2014
The Degenerates Guide to the 2014 Season: Extreme ATS Teams
In the second installment of the Degenerates Guide to the 2014 Season, I will continue to help you look for ways to gain a slight edge on the point spread for the coming season. In this post we’ll take a look at how teams that are extremely successful or extremely ineffective Against the Spread (ATS) perform ATS the following year. How do we define extremely successful or extremely ineffective? It’s a little arbitrary, but for the purposes of this piece, an extremely successful ATS team will be one with two or fewer regular season ATS defeats. Similarly, an extremely ineffective ATS team will be one with two or fewer regular season ATS wins. Only games against other IA opponents were included. Games against IAA schools were not considered, even if there was a betting line at the time of the game. I examined every IA college football team since 2005 to determine which ones met these criteria.
So which teams were among the most successful ATS? 30 teams finished with two or fewer ATS defeats since 2005. These include a few national champions (2005 Texas and 2008 Florida), but also a diverse group of mid-majors (2006 Central Michigan, 2010 Hawaii, and 2011 Louisiana Tech to name a few). How did these teams perform the following season ATS? Overall, the 30 teams posted a losing ATS mark the following season, covering just over 48% of the time. This is not surprising, since teams tend to regress to the mean, and extreme performances are unlikely to be repeated. However, this does not mean betting against these teams with reckless abandon is a prudent decision. Remember, if you want to turn a profit, you need to win more than 52.4% of your wagers and the win percentage going against these teams is only 51.8%. So these teams don’t post amazing ATS results the following year, but there is not enough of an advantage to make them worth playing. What if we dig a little deeper? If we examine how these teams perform in different roles, can we isolate a potential advantage? Yes we can. When these successful ATS performers come into a game as a favorite the next year, they cover only about 46% of the time (46.3%). In addition, when they enter a game as a double-digit favorite, they cover just 44% of the time. Going against these teams when they are favored or heavily favored can provide some small advantages.
So which teams from 2013 were extremely successful ATS and could provide some advantages when wagering against this year? Three teams from 2013 fit the criteria, and two of them played in the BCS National Championship Game. Florida State went 10-1-1 ATS in the regular season and Auburn went 10-2, making a mint for their backers last season. Houston also performed quite well in 2013, going 9-2 ATS. Scanning the opening week lines for 2014, all three are favored by double-digits meaning Arkansas, Oklahoma State, and Texas-San Antonio look to be solid plays over Labor Day Weekend.
What about the ineffective teams? 27 teams finished with two or fewer ATS victories since 2005. No great teams appear on this list, but a few mediocre squads (2006 Iowa, 2007 Alabama, and 2008 Fresno State) can be found among the dregs (2008 Washington and 2012 New Mexico State to name a few). How did these teams perform the following season ATS? Overall, the 27 teams improved, but still posted a losing ATS mark, covering just 49.5% of the time. Like their successful brethren, this winning percentage provides no value either on either side. Again, we need to dig a little deeper to find some advantageous scenarios. When these ineffective ATS teams were favored, they covered 53.2% of the time and when they were double-digit favorites, they covered 55% of the time. Those were the only instances when these teams provided marginal value either betting for or against them.
So which teams from 2013 were extremely ineffective ATS and could provide some advantages when wagering on this year? Four teams from 2013 fit the criteria, and all ranged from bad to horrendous. Colorado was the only team from a BCS conference that was extremely ineffective, posting a 2-9 ATS record. A pair of MAC teams, Eastern Michigan, and Miami of Ohio went 2-9 and 2-9-1 ATS respectively while UTEP managed just a 2-10 ATS mark. Perusing the opening lines for 2014, the only team from the quartet that is favored is Colorado. The Buffaloes are a small favorite against their in-state rivals Colorado State. The Buffs don’t inspire a great deal of confidence, but they are probably worth a small play here.
Based on recent history, it appears Auburn, Florida State, and Houston are solid plays against when they are favored, and particularly when they are large favorites in 2014. Similarly, Colorado, Eastern Michigan, Miami of Ohio, and UTEP appear to be solid plays for in the rare instances when they are favored in 2014. As always, if you make any cash using these angles, feel free to send some my way. Until next time.
So which teams were among the most successful ATS? 30 teams finished with two or fewer ATS defeats since 2005. These include a few national champions (2005 Texas and 2008 Florida), but also a diverse group of mid-majors (2006 Central Michigan, 2010 Hawaii, and 2011 Louisiana Tech to name a few). How did these teams perform the following season ATS? Overall, the 30 teams posted a losing ATS mark the following season, covering just over 48% of the time. This is not surprising, since teams tend to regress to the mean, and extreme performances are unlikely to be repeated. However, this does not mean betting against these teams with reckless abandon is a prudent decision. Remember, if you want to turn a profit, you need to win more than 52.4% of your wagers and the win percentage going against these teams is only 51.8%. So these teams don’t post amazing ATS results the following year, but there is not enough of an advantage to make them worth playing. What if we dig a little deeper? If we examine how these teams perform in different roles, can we isolate a potential advantage? Yes we can. When these successful ATS performers come into a game as a favorite the next year, they cover only about 46% of the time (46.3%). In addition, when they enter a game as a double-digit favorite, they cover just 44% of the time. Going against these teams when they are favored or heavily favored can provide some small advantages.
So which teams from 2013 were extremely successful ATS and could provide some advantages when wagering against this year? Three teams from 2013 fit the criteria, and two of them played in the BCS National Championship Game. Florida State went 10-1-1 ATS in the regular season and Auburn went 10-2, making a mint for their backers last season. Houston also performed quite well in 2013, going 9-2 ATS. Scanning the opening week lines for 2014, all three are favored by double-digits meaning Arkansas, Oklahoma State, and Texas-San Antonio look to be solid plays over Labor Day Weekend.
What about the ineffective teams? 27 teams finished with two or fewer ATS victories since 2005. No great teams appear on this list, but a few mediocre squads (2006 Iowa, 2007 Alabama, and 2008 Fresno State) can be found among the dregs (2008 Washington and 2012 New Mexico State to name a few). How did these teams perform the following season ATS? Overall, the 27 teams improved, but still posted a losing ATS mark, covering just 49.5% of the time. Like their successful brethren, this winning percentage provides no value either on either side. Again, we need to dig a little deeper to find some advantageous scenarios. When these ineffective ATS teams were favored, they covered 53.2% of the time and when they were double-digit favorites, they covered 55% of the time. Those were the only instances when these teams provided marginal value either betting for or against them.
So which teams from 2013 were extremely ineffective ATS and could provide some advantages when wagering on this year? Four teams from 2013 fit the criteria, and all ranged from bad to horrendous. Colorado was the only team from a BCS conference that was extremely ineffective, posting a 2-9 ATS record. A pair of MAC teams, Eastern Michigan, and Miami of Ohio went 2-9 and 2-9-1 ATS respectively while UTEP managed just a 2-10 ATS mark. Perusing the opening lines for 2014, the only team from the quartet that is favored is Colorado. The Buffaloes are a small favorite against their in-state rivals Colorado State. The Buffs don’t inspire a great deal of confidence, but they are probably worth a small play here.
Based on recent history, it appears Auburn, Florida State, and Houston are solid plays against when they are favored, and particularly when they are large favorites in 2014. Similarly, Colorado, Eastern Michigan, Miami of Ohio, and UTEP appear to be solid plays for in the rare instances when they are favored in 2014. As always, if you make any cash using these angles, feel free to send some my way. Until next time.
Saturday, August 02, 2014
The Degenerates Guide to the 2014 Season: Losing to and Scraping by Lower Division Teams
The season is slowly skulking its way to the present. In the interest of preparing you dear reader for the coming season, I will be offering a Degenerates Guide to the 2014 Season. The posts over the next few weeks will emphasize the less savory angle of college football. We’ll openly discuss the point spread and hope the feds do not shut us down. My goal will be to prepare you to make prudent thought out bets either legitimately in Las Vegas, illegitimately with a bookmaker of your choice, or when filling out your weekly parlay card. This first post will deal with the ramifications games against lower division teams.
One of the consequences of expanding the college football schedule to twelve games is that quite often teams play foes from lower divisions (typically IAA or even occasionally Division II or Division III) to add a win to the ledger and bring in some gate receipts. Of the 128 teams playing IA football in 2014, 103 will play at least one game against a IAA or other lower division opponent. Sometimes, despite the challenges before them (less money, inferior players, playing on the road), these lower division teams will rise up and win a game. Perhaps the three most famous recent examples are Appalachian State over Michigan in 2007, James Madison over Virginia Tech in 2010, and Georgia Southern over Florida in 2013. Incidentally, Appalachian State and Georgia Southern are making the move to IA this season. While those are three memorable examples, lower division opponents have actually beaten IA teams 64 times since 2005! How have those teams that were beaten fared the next week Against the Spread (ATS)? One might hypothesize that a large upset, as is typically the case when a IA team loses to a lower division team, might lead the losing team to be undervalued the following week. Is this the case? Glad you asked. I looked at the 64 times a team lost to a lower division opponent and then examined their ATS performance the following week. In a single instance (Georgia State last season), the losing team played another lower division opponent the following week and lost. That leaves us with 63 observations. In those 63 instances, the team that lost to a lower division opponent went 30-33 ATS in their next game. Our hypothesis then appears to be incorrect. These teams, on average, do not tend to be undervalued by the public in the game following their loss as they have a losing mark ATS. So then, does it make sense to always go against these teams? Not at all. Betting against these teams would have yielded a winning percentage of .524, but this is exactly the mark one would need to break even when the ‘juice’ is added to the gambling equation.
What if we break it down further? How did these teams perform as favorites or underdogs in their next game? Teams that lost to lower division opponents were underdogs 48 times in their next game. Their ATS mark was 24-24 in said games. No value on either side. Perhaps not surprisingly, teams that lost to lower division opponents were favorites just 14 times in their next game. They went 5-9 ATS in those games. Shrewd readers will note than 48 plus 14 equals 62, which is of course, not 63. That is because in one instance, a team that lost to a lower division opponent was a pick ‘em in their next game (they won and covered by the way). There may be some value in going against teams that lost to lower division opponents in the rare instance when they are favored in their next game, but the sample size is relatively small, so I would only wager with your friends money.
When teams actually lose to lower division opponents, their ATS results in the next game are mostly random and provide no value, but what happens when they have a close call, but don’t actually lose? We’ll define a close call as any game that is decided by eight points or fewer (one possession). Since 2005, IA teams have played tight games with lower division teams 92 times. 91 times they had a scheduled game after their close call (we’re disregarding Wisconsin’s escape against Cal Poly in 2008 as it was the final regular season game for the Badgers). In those 90 games, the team that suffered a close call finished 58-33 ATS for a winning percentage of .637. For those of you who don’t know any better, that is a phenomenal winning percentage for a 91-game sample size.
Let’s dig a little deeper and see if we exhume any other relevant information. How do those teams involved in close calls with lower division opponents do when they are underdogs in their next game? In 57 instances, the teams that endured close calls were 35-22 in their next game (winning percentage of .614). What about as favorites? In 34 instances, they were 23-11 (.676 winning percentage). Enduring a close call, but not actually losing appears to precede a situation where an astute gambler can take advantage of public perception. Consider that in terms of actually winning their next game, teams that were underdogs won just 14 of 57 contests (.246 winning percentage). However, they covered the spread 35 times. This seems to indicate that the lines in those follow up games were artificially inflated because of the teams’ poor performance against the lower division foe. Similarly, the teams that were favored after their close call covered nearly as often (23 times) as they won overall (27 times) in their 34 follow up games. In these instances, the line was artificially deflated by their poor prior performance.
Why does this phenomenon exist? I’ll pose a few explanations, but I’d love to hear your thoughts.
1. There is not a lot of ‘interconnectedness’ between divisions of college football. Wisconsin and Ohio State face a similar slate of opponents because they are in the same conference. Wisconsin and Cal Poly probably face zero common opponents. The computer ratings used by casinos to develop initial point spreads may have trouble determining just how good some of these lower division teams are, and by extension how tough an opponent they represent. For example, North Dakota State has won the past three IAA championships. Certainly they are better than some IA teams. But where would they rank in terms of IA quality? Are they the 90th best IA team? 80th? 50th? 30th? It’s hard to say with such a small sample size against IA opponents and very little interconnectedness. I realize this doesn’t explain why when teams lose to IAA teams there is no predictive value about their performance in the next game.
2. The general public underestimates how good lower division teams can be. While the initial point spread stems from a computer rating system, the spread is adjusted based on public perception. Before they are released, spreads are calibrated to draw action on both sides of the wager, and after release they can move up or down based on significant wagering on one side. When a team has a close call with a lower division opponent, these are probably the thought processes going through the minds of most bettors: ‘Team A barely beat William and Mary. I can’t believe they are such a small underdog against Team B. Team B will mop the floor with them.’ Or: ‘Team A barely beat Eastern Illinois. I can’t believe they are favored against Team B this week. Team B will probably win this game outright.’
3. The stigma of almost losing to a lower division opponent is the same as actually losing. When teams actually lose to lower division opponents, their results in the next game are basically random. When teams almost lose to lower division opponents, the general public treats it as a loss. Thus, the spreads are artificially inflated or deflated.
Well, that’s all for this edition. Remember, if a team loses to a lower division opponent, stay away from them the next week. However, if they almost lose, they are probably a good play in their next game. Keep in mind, if you win any cash using this strategy, feel free to float some my way.
One of the consequences of expanding the college football schedule to twelve games is that quite often teams play foes from lower divisions (typically IAA or even occasionally Division II or Division III) to add a win to the ledger and bring in some gate receipts. Of the 128 teams playing IA football in 2014, 103 will play at least one game against a IAA or other lower division opponent. Sometimes, despite the challenges before them (less money, inferior players, playing on the road), these lower division teams will rise up and win a game. Perhaps the three most famous recent examples are Appalachian State over Michigan in 2007, James Madison over Virginia Tech in 2010, and Georgia Southern over Florida in 2013. Incidentally, Appalachian State and Georgia Southern are making the move to IA this season. While those are three memorable examples, lower division opponents have actually beaten IA teams 64 times since 2005! How have those teams that were beaten fared the next week Against the Spread (ATS)? One might hypothesize that a large upset, as is typically the case when a IA team loses to a lower division team, might lead the losing team to be undervalued the following week. Is this the case? Glad you asked. I looked at the 64 times a team lost to a lower division opponent and then examined their ATS performance the following week. In a single instance (Georgia State last season), the losing team played another lower division opponent the following week and lost. That leaves us with 63 observations. In those 63 instances, the team that lost to a lower division opponent went 30-33 ATS in their next game. Our hypothesis then appears to be incorrect. These teams, on average, do not tend to be undervalued by the public in the game following their loss as they have a losing mark ATS. So then, does it make sense to always go against these teams? Not at all. Betting against these teams would have yielded a winning percentage of .524, but this is exactly the mark one would need to break even when the ‘juice’ is added to the gambling equation.
What if we break it down further? How did these teams perform as favorites or underdogs in their next game? Teams that lost to lower division opponents were underdogs 48 times in their next game. Their ATS mark was 24-24 in said games. No value on either side. Perhaps not surprisingly, teams that lost to lower division opponents were favorites just 14 times in their next game. They went 5-9 ATS in those games. Shrewd readers will note than 48 plus 14 equals 62, which is of course, not 63. That is because in one instance, a team that lost to a lower division opponent was a pick ‘em in their next game (they won and covered by the way). There may be some value in going against teams that lost to lower division opponents in the rare instance when they are favored in their next game, but the sample size is relatively small, so I would only wager with your friends money.
When teams actually lose to lower division opponents, their ATS results in the next game are mostly random and provide no value, but what happens when they have a close call, but don’t actually lose? We’ll define a close call as any game that is decided by eight points or fewer (one possession). Since 2005, IA teams have played tight games with lower division teams 92 times. 91 times they had a scheduled game after their close call (we’re disregarding Wisconsin’s escape against Cal Poly in 2008 as it was the final regular season game for the Badgers). In those 90 games, the team that suffered a close call finished 58-33 ATS for a winning percentage of .637. For those of you who don’t know any better, that is a phenomenal winning percentage for a 91-game sample size.
Let’s dig a little deeper and see if we exhume any other relevant information. How do those teams involved in close calls with lower division opponents do when they are underdogs in their next game? In 57 instances, the teams that endured close calls were 35-22 in their next game (winning percentage of .614). What about as favorites? In 34 instances, they were 23-11 (.676 winning percentage). Enduring a close call, but not actually losing appears to precede a situation where an astute gambler can take advantage of public perception. Consider that in terms of actually winning their next game, teams that were underdogs won just 14 of 57 contests (.246 winning percentage). However, they covered the spread 35 times. This seems to indicate that the lines in those follow up games were artificially inflated because of the teams’ poor performance against the lower division foe. Similarly, the teams that were favored after their close call covered nearly as often (23 times) as they won overall (27 times) in their 34 follow up games. In these instances, the line was artificially deflated by their poor prior performance.
Why does this phenomenon exist? I’ll pose a few explanations, but I’d love to hear your thoughts.
1. There is not a lot of ‘interconnectedness’ between divisions of college football. Wisconsin and Ohio State face a similar slate of opponents because they are in the same conference. Wisconsin and Cal Poly probably face zero common opponents. The computer ratings used by casinos to develop initial point spreads may have trouble determining just how good some of these lower division teams are, and by extension how tough an opponent they represent. For example, North Dakota State has won the past three IAA championships. Certainly they are better than some IA teams. But where would they rank in terms of IA quality? Are they the 90th best IA team? 80th? 50th? 30th? It’s hard to say with such a small sample size against IA opponents and very little interconnectedness. I realize this doesn’t explain why when teams lose to IAA teams there is no predictive value about their performance in the next game.
2. The general public underestimates how good lower division teams can be. While the initial point spread stems from a computer rating system, the spread is adjusted based on public perception. Before they are released, spreads are calibrated to draw action on both sides of the wager, and after release they can move up or down based on significant wagering on one side. When a team has a close call with a lower division opponent, these are probably the thought processes going through the minds of most bettors: ‘Team A barely beat William and Mary. I can’t believe they are such a small underdog against Team B. Team B will mop the floor with them.’ Or: ‘Team A barely beat Eastern Illinois. I can’t believe they are favored against Team B this week. Team B will probably win this game outright.’
3. The stigma of almost losing to a lower division opponent is the same as actually losing. When teams actually lose to lower division opponents, their results in the next game are basically random. When teams almost lose to lower division opponents, the general public treats it as a loss. Thus, the spreads are artificially inflated or deflated.
Well, that’s all for this edition. Remember, if a team loses to a lower division opponent, stay away from them the next week. However, if they almost lose, they are probably a good play in their next game. Keep in mind, if you win any cash using this strategy, feel free to float some my way.
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
The Best and Worst Home and Road Records
A few weeks ago we looked at which teams derived the most benefit from playing at home. This post involves much less analysis and is more of a data dump or description. Enjoy.
So we know which teams have been ‘relatively’ stronger at home when compared to their road performance. Now we want to know which teams have been better at home with no adjustments. These ten teams have posted the best home conference records since 2005.
No shocker here. The infamous Smurf Turf and the Norman plains have proven a tough test for WAC, Mountain West, and Big 12 opponents over the past decade. Only four teams, TCU – more on them later, San Diego State, Texas Tech, and Kansas State have won conference games at Boise State or Oklahoma since 2005. The only real minor surprises on this list are probably Houston, East Carolina, and Northern Illinois. Seven teams on this list have played in BCS bowls and Houston nearly earned a BCS bowl invite until, ironically, they lost at home to Southern Miss in the Conference USA Championship Game in 2011.
Now which teams have the worst home marks since 2005?
Only three teams, Duke, New Mexico State, and Washington State have won less than one fifth of their conference home games the past nine seasons. The Blue Devils and Cougars appear to be somewhat on the upswing, with both having participated in bowl games last season. Meanwhile, the Aggies from New Mexico State are still looking for their first bowl appearance since 1960, but at least they have a conference now. Other interesting tidbits: Two dome teams (Syracuse and Idaho) appear on this list. What does that imply? Mainly that Syracuse and Idaho have tended to be pretty bad since 2005, with a few minor exceptions. Eastern Michigan has averaged just 3678 in per game attendance the past three seasons. Fans of the Eagles are not missing much.
Which teams have been road warriors?
Boise State not only has the best home record over this span, but they have also been nearly as untouchable on the road. Four of the teams with the best road conference records have either played for or won a national title (Alabama, Ohio State, Oregon, and Texas). In addition to those four, Boise State, Georgia, TCU, and Virginia Tech have played in multiple BCS bowl games. TCU also owns the distinction of having won at both Boise State (2011) and Oklahoma (2005), the two best home teams. However, their win over Oklahoma came when the Sooners and Horned Frogs were not conference opponents. The real surprise on this list is probably Ball State. The Cardinals have been sporadic bowl participants, first under Brady Hoke (2007 and 2008) and currently under Pete limbo (2012 and 2013), but their dominating road performance was certainly unexpected.
And finally, I present the worst road teams.
New Mexico State nearly took the mantle of being the worst home and road team since 2005. The Aggies road winning percentage is just more than half that of Indiana and UNLV, the silver medalists in road ineptitude. To me, the most interesting fact about any team on this list is Kansas. The Jayhawks have been absurdly bad over the past five seasons, winning just three Big 12 games in that span. However, you may remember that in 2007, they enjoyed a season for the ages, rising to number two in the polls and winning the Orange Bowl. In 2007, the Jayhawks won all four of their Big 12 road games, but in the other eight seasons, have won just a pair.
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Homefield Advantage and Overtime
Last week, I examined homefield advantage and tried to determine which teams benefited the most from playing at home versus playing on the road. This week, I want to explore another aspect of homefield advantage.
According to a study, located here, homefield advantage dissipates over time. No, this doesn’t mean that the Boston Red Sox and Chicago Cubs should move out of their 100 year old stadiums if they want to win more home games. It means that homefield advantage is strongest earlier in games. In other words, the home team benefits the most from homefield advantage (increased adrenaline, benefit of calls, increased nervousness for their opponent, disruptive crowd noise, and a host of other dynamics that may or may not be contributing factors) early in games and as time elapses, the homefield advantage lessens. To test if this phenomenon is true, I looked at every overtime game in IA (or FBS) college football since 2005 that was a non-neutral site affair (i.e. one team was playing at home). I then simply looked to see if the home team won or lost the overtime game. In 287 overtime games, the home team won just 142. Their overall record was 142-145. For the non-statistically inclined, that means home teams won just over 49% of the time (.4948 win percentage), which is of course, less than half. So there seems to be a great deal of merit to the idea that home field advantage dissipates over the course of a game.
Before we leave this issue, I want to delve a little further and look at the betting favorite in the overtime game. Thanks to the great Phil Steele and his college football annual, I have historic point spread data and can determine which team was favored by the Vegas oddsmakers to win each game before it started. My friends, this is where things start to get interesting. The home team was favored in 194 of the overtime games. They won 106 of them (I did not check to see if they covered the point spread as this was not the intent of the study). The 106-88 record works out to a winning percentage of .5464 meaning if the home team was favored, they won in overtime nearly 55% of the time. Now, what about the other side of the coin? If the home team was an underdog, as they were in 91 instances, they won only 36 times. The 36-55 record works out to a winning percentage of .3956, meaning home underdogs won overtime games under 40% of the time. Astute observers will note that 194 and 91 do not add up to the 287 observations mentioned in the previous paragraph. That is because on two occasions, the home team was even money to win against the team they were hosting. The home team lost both of those, but we can’t draw a great deal of conclusions from a sample size of two.
The biggest takeaway from this study is that the point spread does a bettor (pun alert) job of picking the winner of overtime games than the venue. Head coaches might do well to keep this bit of information in mind when deciding whether to play for overtime or attempt to win in regulation. The notion of playing for overtime at home should be weighed against the quality of the opponent (as indicated in the point spread of the game) in determining the correct course of action. A prime example of a head coaches’ understanding of this notion comes from Brady Hoke’s decision to go for two against Ohio State after a late score in last year’s game. The Buckeyes came in as a 16-point favorite over Hoke’s Wolverines, so even though the game was in Ann Arbor, the two point call was a smart play.
According to a study, located here, homefield advantage dissipates over time. No, this doesn’t mean that the Boston Red Sox and Chicago Cubs should move out of their 100 year old stadiums if they want to win more home games. It means that homefield advantage is strongest earlier in games. In other words, the home team benefits the most from homefield advantage (increased adrenaline, benefit of calls, increased nervousness for their opponent, disruptive crowd noise, and a host of other dynamics that may or may not be contributing factors) early in games and as time elapses, the homefield advantage lessens. To test if this phenomenon is true, I looked at every overtime game in IA (or FBS) college football since 2005 that was a non-neutral site affair (i.e. one team was playing at home). I then simply looked to see if the home team won or lost the overtime game. In 287 overtime games, the home team won just 142. Their overall record was 142-145. For the non-statistically inclined, that means home teams won just over 49% of the time (.4948 win percentage), which is of course, less than half. So there seems to be a great deal of merit to the idea that home field advantage dissipates over the course of a game.
Before we leave this issue, I want to delve a little further and look at the betting favorite in the overtime game. Thanks to the great Phil Steele and his college football annual, I have historic point spread data and can determine which team was favored by the Vegas oddsmakers to win each game before it started. My friends, this is where things start to get interesting. The home team was favored in 194 of the overtime games. They won 106 of them (I did not check to see if they covered the point spread as this was not the intent of the study). The 106-88 record works out to a winning percentage of .5464 meaning if the home team was favored, they won in overtime nearly 55% of the time. Now, what about the other side of the coin? If the home team was an underdog, as they were in 91 instances, they won only 36 times. The 36-55 record works out to a winning percentage of .3956, meaning home underdogs won overtime games under 40% of the time. Astute observers will note that 194 and 91 do not add up to the 287 observations mentioned in the previous paragraph. That is because on two occasions, the home team was even money to win against the team they were hosting. The home team lost both of those, but we can’t draw a great deal of conclusions from a sample size of two.
The biggest takeaway from this study is that the point spread does a bettor (pun alert) job of picking the winner of overtime games than the venue. Head coaches might do well to keep this bit of information in mind when deciding whether to play for overtime or attempt to win in regulation. The notion of playing for overtime at home should be weighed against the quality of the opponent (as indicated in the point spread of the game) in determining the correct course of action. A prime example of a head coaches’ understanding of this notion comes from Brady Hoke’s decision to go for two against Ohio State after a late score in last year’s game. The Buckeyes came in as a 16-point favorite over Hoke’s Wolverines, so even though the game was in Ann Arbor, the two point call was a smart play.
Thursday, July 10, 2014
Who Derives the Most Benefit from Playing at Home?
Homefield advantage exists. This much we know. What we don’t know is what exactly is homefield advantage and how can we quantify it? Determining what homefield advantage is and the voluminous variables that go into it would require a great undertaking. Unfortunately, I am lazy and impatient, so I will only make an attempt to quantify it, at least to a small degree. In order to quantify homefield advantage (at least as it exists in college football), I looked at every college football conference game since 2005 (nine seasons) that was played at a non-neutral site and compiled each school’s record in both home and away conference games. Neutral site games, such as the annual Florida/Georgia showdown in Jacksonville were not included. I made judgment calls about a few teams, primarily Arkansas but some other teams as well, and considered their games in Little Rock to be home games. I then looked at the difference between each teams’ winning percentage at home versus their winning percentage on the road. But what is the best way to examine the ‘difference’ in winning percentage? The simplest way would be to subtract the road winning percentage from the home winning percentage. But is this the best way? Consider this thought experiment (I will use a sample size of ten so the percentages are easy to calculate): Suppose Team A is a juggernaut in their conference and wins nine of their ten home games in our sample. On the road, though they do suffer an occasional defeat, they are still a force to be reckoned with, winning six of their ten contests. In the same conference, Team B is a perennial loser. However, they are reasonably tough at home, winning four of their ten games. On the road, they merely serve as punching bags or cannon fodder, winning just once in ten games. If we use the difference in their home and road winning percentage, both teams come out with a difference of .300. That would be .900 minus .600 for Team A and .400 minus .100 for Team B. However, I would make the argument that in fact, Team B has the greater homefield advantage (receives the greatest boost from playing at home). If we use the ratio of the winning percentages (home win percentage divided by road winning percentage), we obtain a much different result. Team A has a ratio of 1.5 (.900 divided by .600), while Team B was a ratio of 4 (.400 divided by .100). While Team A is nearly unbeatable at home, they are also solid on the road. Team B on the other hand, is a lost cause on the road, but when they play in the friendly confines, they are almost average. Finally, in an attempt to get the best of both worlds, let’s multiply the difference by the ratio to get our final rating. Let’s call this rating the Composite Homefield Advantage, or CHA for short. For Team A, their CHA would be .450 (.300 multiplied by 1.5). For Team B, their CHA would be 1.2 (.300 multiplied by 4).
Alright, let’s stop dealing in theoretical though experiments like an 18th century philosopher and look at some real data. Which teams have the largest difference between their home winning percentage and road winning percentage? The results will probably be a little shocking. Neophytes Georgia State, South Alabama, Texas-San Antonio, and Texas State were not included in this table (if they qualified) because they have been playing conference games for at most two seasons.
Apparently homefield advantage is quite pronounced in locales such as Storrs, Huntington, El Paso, Los Angeles, Jonesboro, Winston-Salem, Las Vegas, Dallas, Houston, and Madison. If you asked a casual observer, they would probably only list Wisconsin out of these ten as a team that enjoyed a significant boost from playing at home. What’s interesting about this list is that while most of these teams are not national powers, five have won their conference at least once since 2005 (Arkansas State, Connecticut, Rice, Wake Forest, and Wisconsin), with a sixth and seventh (Marshall and SMU) having played in their league title game. Another interesting detail is that only four teams (Connecticut, UCLA, Wake Forest, and Wisconsin) played in BCS conferences, while four of the ten teams (Marshall, Rice, SMU, and UTEP) played in Conference USA at some point SMU joined the American prior to the 2013 season).
Now let’s take a look at which teams had the largest ratios when dividing their home winning percentage by their road winning percentage. Neophytes not included.
There is a little overlap, with Connecticut, Marshall, UNLV, and UTEP appearing on both lists. The least surprising team on this list is probably Colorado. The Buffalos have a reputation for being much stronger at home in the thin air of Boulder and this manifests itself in the data. In fact, before their move to the Pac-12, their Big 12 numbers were even more pronounced (13-11 at home versus just 4-20 on the road). Using the ratio method delivers a few more BCS conference teams (Colorado, Indiana, Kansas, and Ole Miss) added to Connecticut for a total of five. It also produces our first dome team, and yet another (former) member of Conference USA, Tulane. So add Las Cruces, Bloomington, Boulder, New Orleans, Lawrence, and Oxford to the milieus that produce a large homefield advantage.
Now if we use the CHA method mentioned above, these are the top homefield advantage teams. Once again, neophytes not included.
There are no new entries from the previous two lists, but a quartet (or even a pair) of teams stand tall using CHA. Connecticut, UNLV, UTEP, and Marshall have all enjoyed a significant disparity in success at home versus on the road. What do all four of these teams have in common? For starters, they are all non-traditional powers. No member of the quartet has enjoyed great success at the national level. Marshall fans, I realize your team was a IAA power under Jim Donnan and then Bob Pruett, but that success was long ago and on a different plane of football. However, being non-traditional powers does not seem to be a likely reason for their homefield advantage. What else do they have in common? Most could potentially present weather and environmental challenges to their conference opponents. During their run in the Big East, Connecticut had the opportunity to host South Florida and Louisville, two teams that play in warmer climates, as well as a dome team in Syracuse. Las Vegas is a desert and can be extremely unforgiving early in the season and is over 2000 feet above sea level. El Paso is another desert city that can be extremely hot early in the season or bitterly cold late in the year with an even higher elevation than Las Vegas (over 3000 feet above sea level). Huntington does not appear to confer any significant weather related advantages to the Thundering Herd, but it does share another trait in common with the other three in that it is relatively isolated from its conference brethren. When Conference USA was in its twelve team format (2005-2012), Marshall was within 500 miles of only one league opponent (East Carolina). UTEP, another Conference USA staple, was not within 500 miles of any conference foe, with SMU being the closest at 650 miles away. During their time in the Big East (2005-2012), Connecticut was close to two conference opponents (Rutgers and Syracuse), with the Knights only 185 and the Orange 270 miles away. Every other league member was at least 500 miles away. UNLV was not closer than 300 miles to any conference mate during the majority of the Mountain West’s makeup, with San Diego State (330 miles) and BYU (375 miles) being the closest. Being geographically isolated can have a positive impact on home performance and a negative impact on road performance, so that is a likely reason all four of these teams have such divergent home and road winning percentages.
With that being said, it does bear mentioning that the most geographically isolated team in college football did not see a significant difference in their home and road play from 2005 to 2013. Hawaii won more often at home (21-14) than they did on the road (17-19), but during these nine years they tended to be either very good at home and on the road (see 2006, 2007, and 2010) or equally inept in any locale (see 2012 and 2013).
One final thought on geography before I leave you. While West Virginia has not enjoyed any significant advantage in Morgantown since joining the Big 12 (3-6 at home and on the road), I think they will see a significant disparity in their home and road splits (assuming the conference affiliation stays as it is) since they are so far removed from the rest of their Big 12 opponents. Stay tuned for the next post where I’ll examine how homefield advantage manifests itself in overtime games.
Alright, let’s stop dealing in theoretical though experiments like an 18th century philosopher and look at some real data. Which teams have the largest difference between their home winning percentage and road winning percentage? The results will probably be a little shocking. Neophytes Georgia State, South Alabama, Texas-San Antonio, and Texas State were not included in this table (if they qualified) because they have been playing conference games for at most two seasons.
Now let’s take a look at which teams had the largest ratios when dividing their home winning percentage by their road winning percentage. Neophytes not included.
Now if we use the CHA method mentioned above, these are the top homefield advantage teams. Once again, neophytes not included.
With that being said, it does bear mentioning that the most geographically isolated team in college football did not see a significant difference in their home and road play from 2005 to 2013. Hawaii won more often at home (21-14) than they did on the road (17-19), but during these nine years they tended to be either very good at home and on the road (see 2006, 2007, and 2010) or equally inept in any locale (see 2012 and 2013).
One final thought on geography before I leave you. While West Virginia has not enjoyed any significant advantage in Morgantown since joining the Big 12 (3-6 at home and on the road), I think they will see a significant disparity in their home and road splits (assuming the conference affiliation stays as it is) since they are so far removed from the rest of their Big 12 opponents. Stay tuned for the next post where I’ll examine how homefield advantage manifests itself in overtime games.
Monday, June 23, 2014
Even the Losers: UTEP
Over the past three seasons, 210 teams have participated in bowl games.
47 of those teams had losing records in the years immediately preceding
their bowl game. This semi-regular piece will showcase the losers from
2013 who just might find themselves participating in Capital One Bowl
Week in 2014. In this installment, we head to the west Texas town of El Paso.
UTEP
2013 Record: 2-10 (1-7 Conference USA)
Summary:
After nine years and moderate success (three bowl appearances) under Mike Price, the Miners began a new era in 2014 when Sean Kugler took the reigns. The Miners opened 2013 with a high-scoring loss to New Mexico and followed that up with a high-scoring win over New Mexico State, giving them an even record against teams from the Land of Enchantment. 1-1 was as good as it would get for the Miners in 2013. They lost nine of their final ten games with each defeat save one, a 38-35 loss to Louisiana Tech, coming by double digits. The Miners did pound Florida International to earn their second win of the year in mid-November, but the season's shining moment may have been when they gained an early 7-0 lead on Johnny Manziel and Texas A&M in College Station. Alas, the Aggies scored the final 57 points of the game and were not seriously challenged.
What Did the Miners Do Well?
Beat the teams they were better than. No doubt about it, UTEP was awful in 2013. They ranked 116th in the Simple Rating System (SRS) metric. Only two teams on their schedule, New Mexico State and Florida International, were worse based on the SRS. UTEP pummeled those teams by a combined 44 points. They didn't win any other games, but they crushed the teams they were better than. Go Miners!
What Didn't the Miners Do Well?
Play defense. UTEP played twelve games in 2013. In eleven of those games, their opponents averaged at least six and a half yards per play. Only Florida International failed to bury the UTEP defense. The Miners also allowed at least 32 points in ten of their twelve games. Perhaps not surprisingly, in the two games where they held their opponents under 30, they won.
The Miners Over the Past Four Years:
The following table lists UTEP's performance (in conference play only) in a few key categories and their respective conference rank in those categories. To help you read the table here is a handy translator.
Conf: The Conference UTEP played in. With the ever-changing college football landscape, this is helpful.
Coach: Who was leading these yahoos into battle?
Rec: Conference Record
YPP: Yards per play. The number of yards per play the Miners averaged in conference play.
YPA: Yards per play allowed. The number of yards per play the Miners allowed in conference play.
Net: Yards per play net. The difference in YPP and YPA. Higher is better.
OTD: Offensive touchdowns. Touchdowns scored by the offense (no kick, punt, interception, or other returns are counted) in conference play.
DTD: Defensive touchdowns. Touchdowns allowed by the defense (no kick, punt, interception, or other returns are counted) in conference play.
Pythag: Adjusted Pythagorean Record. Take offensive touchdowns and defensive touchdowns and plug them into a handy formula to estimate the number of conference wins. For a full rundown of the APR, continue reading here.
As you can see from the table, UTEP has not been particularly good, even within the confines of Conference USA over the past four seasons. In their lone bowl season of 2010, UTEP leveraged an incredibly easy schedule to a bowl invitation. Their six wins that season came over Arkansas-Pine Bluff (IAA), New Mexico State (2-10 record), New Mexico (1-11), Memphis (1-11), Rice (4-8), and SMU (7-7). Plus, they also lost to esteemed outfits like UAB (4-8), Tulane (4-8), Houston (5-7), and Marshall (5-7). The Miners continued their below average play over the final two seasons of the Mike Price regime, but nearly garnered another bowl invitation in 2011 before losing four of their final five games to finish 5-7. The bottom continued to fall out under Sean Kugler, as UTEP posted their worst statistical season in a decade. We need to give Kugler a few years to right the proverbial ship, but early returns were not promising.
The 2014 Schedule:
Outside of Conference USA, UTEP plays a pair of familiar foes. The Miners have played some combination of New Mexico or New Mexico State each season since 2003. In that span, the Miners have been pretty successful against both schools, posting a stellar 8-2 mark against New Mexico State and a 3-2 record against New Mexico. In 2014, the Miners host the Aggies (State) and travel to Albuquerque to take on the Lobos. In their other two non-conference games, the Miners also have a home/road split, but these two figure to be tougher, as both teams come from the Big 12. The Miners visit Bill Snyder and Kansas State while hosting Ryan Gosling lookalike Kliff Kingsbury and Texas Tech. A split of those four games would be about the best UTEP could hope for and a 1-3 or even 1-4 mark would not be surprising. In conference play, the Miners host IA neophyte Old Dominion, Middle Tennessee, North Texas, and Southern Miss. Two of those teams were bowl eligible last season (Middle Tennessee and North Texas), while Old Dominion went 8-4 as they transitioned to IA football, and Southern Miss won the conference just three short years ago. The Miners will probably win at least one of their home games, but they could be betting underdogs in each one. When they hit the road in conference play, they will meet Louisiana Tech, Rice, Texas-San Antonio, and Western Kentucky. Rice, Texas-San Antonio, and Western Kentucky all finished with winning records last season and Louisiana Tech has won 21 games over the past three seasons. Suffice it to say, if UTEP posts a strong (or even mediocre) record in 2014, they will have earned it.
Reason for Optimism:
Jameill Showers. For those who may not know, Showers was beaten out by Johnny Manziel as the starting quarterback for Texas A&M prior to the 2012 season. Showers transferred to UTEP and posted decent numbers for the Miners before an injury against Rice in the seventh game forced him to miss the rest of the season. In the three conference games Showers saw significant action in, the Miners averaged 4.87 yards per play. Those are hardly imposing numbers. However, in the five games where he saw little to no action, the team averaged just 4.81 yards per play. If we ignore the victory over Florida International, the Miners averaged just 4.33 yards per play in conference games during which Showers did not participate or participated sparingly. If Showers can improve and stay healthy during his second season in El Paso, the Miner offense could conceivably move to middle of the pack in Conference USA.
Final Prognosis:
UTEP has not finished with a winning record since 2005, and that trend appears likely to continue nearly a decade later in 2014. The non-conference schedule, featuring a pair of Big 12 teams, is not conducive for a great start. There are also no IAA opponents on the slate, and while New Mexico and New Mexico State have struggled mightily in recent years, the Lobos actually beat the Miners last season. Even if the Miners beat both New Mexico teams, they would still need to break even in Conference USA to even qualify for a bowl. Five of their eight conference opponents were bowl eligible last season and Old Dominion has been a IAA power under Bobby Wilder and appears poised to make the most of their jump to IA. Finally, the two lightweights on their conference slate, Louisiana Tech and Southern Miss, have tasted success in the not too distant past, with both winning league crowns in 2011. I think the 2014 season has to be dubbed a success (or at least a mark of progress) if the Miners can double up last season's win total and earn a quartet of victories.
UTEP
2013 Record: 2-10 (1-7 Conference USA)
Summary:
After nine years and moderate success (three bowl appearances) under Mike Price, the Miners began a new era in 2014 when Sean Kugler took the reigns. The Miners opened 2013 with a high-scoring loss to New Mexico and followed that up with a high-scoring win over New Mexico State, giving them an even record against teams from the Land of Enchantment. 1-1 was as good as it would get for the Miners in 2013. They lost nine of their final ten games with each defeat save one, a 38-35 loss to Louisiana Tech, coming by double digits. The Miners did pound Florida International to earn their second win of the year in mid-November, but the season's shining moment may have been when they gained an early 7-0 lead on Johnny Manziel and Texas A&M in College Station. Alas, the Aggies scored the final 57 points of the game and were not seriously challenged.
What Did the Miners Do Well?
Beat the teams they were better than. No doubt about it, UTEP was awful in 2013. They ranked 116th in the Simple Rating System (SRS) metric. Only two teams on their schedule, New Mexico State and Florida International, were worse based on the SRS. UTEP pummeled those teams by a combined 44 points. They didn't win any other games, but they crushed the teams they were better than. Go Miners!
What Didn't the Miners Do Well?
Play defense. UTEP played twelve games in 2013. In eleven of those games, their opponents averaged at least six and a half yards per play. Only Florida International failed to bury the UTEP defense. The Miners also allowed at least 32 points in ten of their twelve games. Perhaps not surprisingly, in the two games where they held their opponents under 30, they won.
The Miners Over the Past Four Years:
The following table lists UTEP's performance (in conference play only) in a few key categories and their respective conference rank in those categories. To help you read the table here is a handy translator.
Conf: The Conference UTEP played in. With the ever-changing college football landscape, this is helpful.
Coach: Who was leading these yahoos into battle?
Rec: Conference Record
YPP: Yards per play. The number of yards per play the Miners averaged in conference play.
YPA: Yards per play allowed. The number of yards per play the Miners allowed in conference play.
Net: Yards per play net. The difference in YPP and YPA. Higher is better.
OTD: Offensive touchdowns. Touchdowns scored by the offense (no kick, punt, interception, or other returns are counted) in conference play.
DTD: Defensive touchdowns. Touchdowns allowed by the defense (no kick, punt, interception, or other returns are counted) in conference play.
Pythag: Adjusted Pythagorean Record. Take offensive touchdowns and defensive touchdowns and plug them into a handy formula to estimate the number of conference wins. For a full rundown of the APR, continue reading here.
The 2014 Schedule:
Outside of Conference USA, UTEP plays a pair of familiar foes. The Miners have played some combination of New Mexico or New Mexico State each season since 2003. In that span, the Miners have been pretty successful against both schools, posting a stellar 8-2 mark against New Mexico State and a 3-2 record against New Mexico. In 2014, the Miners host the Aggies (State) and travel to Albuquerque to take on the Lobos. In their other two non-conference games, the Miners also have a home/road split, but these two figure to be tougher, as both teams come from the Big 12. The Miners visit Bill Snyder and Kansas State while hosting Ryan Gosling lookalike Kliff Kingsbury and Texas Tech. A split of those four games would be about the best UTEP could hope for and a 1-3 or even 1-4 mark would not be surprising. In conference play, the Miners host IA neophyte Old Dominion, Middle Tennessee, North Texas, and Southern Miss. Two of those teams were bowl eligible last season (Middle Tennessee and North Texas), while Old Dominion went 8-4 as they transitioned to IA football, and Southern Miss won the conference just three short years ago. The Miners will probably win at least one of their home games, but they could be betting underdogs in each one. When they hit the road in conference play, they will meet Louisiana Tech, Rice, Texas-San Antonio, and Western Kentucky. Rice, Texas-San Antonio, and Western Kentucky all finished with winning records last season and Louisiana Tech has won 21 games over the past three seasons. Suffice it to say, if UTEP posts a strong (or even mediocre) record in 2014, they will have earned it.
Reason for Optimism:
Jameill Showers. For those who may not know, Showers was beaten out by Johnny Manziel as the starting quarterback for Texas A&M prior to the 2012 season. Showers transferred to UTEP and posted decent numbers for the Miners before an injury against Rice in the seventh game forced him to miss the rest of the season. In the three conference games Showers saw significant action in, the Miners averaged 4.87 yards per play. Those are hardly imposing numbers. However, in the five games where he saw little to no action, the team averaged just 4.81 yards per play. If we ignore the victory over Florida International, the Miners averaged just 4.33 yards per play in conference games during which Showers did not participate or participated sparingly. If Showers can improve and stay healthy during his second season in El Paso, the Miner offense could conceivably move to middle of the pack in Conference USA.
Final Prognosis:
UTEP has not finished with a winning record since 2005, and that trend appears likely to continue nearly a decade later in 2014. The non-conference schedule, featuring a pair of Big 12 teams, is not conducive for a great start. There are also no IAA opponents on the slate, and while New Mexico and New Mexico State have struggled mightily in recent years, the Lobos actually beat the Miners last season. Even if the Miners beat both New Mexico teams, they would still need to break even in Conference USA to even qualify for a bowl. Five of their eight conference opponents were bowl eligible last season and Old Dominion has been a IAA power under Bobby Wilder and appears poised to make the most of their jump to IA. Finally, the two lightweights on their conference slate, Louisiana Tech and Southern Miss, have tasted success in the not too distant past, with both winning league crowns in 2011. I think the 2014 season has to be dubbed a success (or at least a mark of progress) if the Miners can double up last season's win total and earn a quartet of victories.
Sunday, June 08, 2014
Even the Losers: Kent State
Over the past three seasons, 210 teams have participated in bowl games.
47 of those teams had losing records in the years immediately preceding
their bowl game. This semi-regular piece will showcase the losers from
2013 who just might find themselves participating in Capital One Bowl
Week in 2014. For our fourteenth installment, we will finally touch on the Mid-American Conference and the Kent State Golden Flashes.
Kent State
2013 Record: 4-8 (3-5 MAC)
Summary:
Fresh off their first bowl appearance since the Nixon administration, Kent State began 2013 with a new coach as Paul Haynes took over for Darrell Hazell, who migrated to Purdue after the successful. 2012 campaign. The Golden Flashes opened 2013 in rather inauspicious fashion, edging IAA Liberty 17-10. The Golden Flashes quickly turned their attention to MAC play the following week, when they hosted eventual MAC champion Bowling Green. The Falcons dimmed the Flashes 41-22. Even a Kent State homer realized the next two games would be ugly. And said homer would have been eerily prescient as LSU and Penn State beat the Golden Flashes by a combined score of 79-13. The Golden Flashes returned to MAC play the following week and unloaded their frustrations on Western Michigan in a 32-14 win. Entering October, the Golden Flashes were 2-3, but with a 1-1 league mark, still had designs on a solid finish and potential bowl bid. Alas, they would not win another game until after Veteran's Day, losing five consecutive games with three coming by double-digits. At 2-8, the Flashes had every right to phone it in and prepare for 2014, but they bludgeoned Miami of Ohio and Ohio by a combined score of 68-19 to end their season on a positive note.
What Did the Golden Flashes Do Well?
Not much. Kent State was not a terrible team in 2013, but they were embarrassingly mediocre in the MAC and nationally on both sides of the ball. As a cop out, why don't we go with make extra points. The Golden Flashes converted on each of their 29 extra points in 2013, becoming one of 37 teams to finish with a flawless extra point game. As an added bonus, they were also successful on both their two-point conversion attempts, proving that on untimed plays, the Flashes were fantastic.
What Didn't the Golden Flashes Do Well?
Kick field goals. While Kent State's kickers Anthony Melchiori and Brad Miller made all their extra points, they did not do so well when it came to making kicks worth three times as many points. As a team, the Golden Flashes made just 10 of 18 field goal attempts on the season. Their field goal percentage, just south of 56%, ranked 113th nationally in 2013.
The Golden Flashes Over the Past Four Years:
The following table lists Kent State's performance (in conference play only) in a few key categories and their respective conference rank in those categories. To help you read the table here is a handy translator.
Conf: The Conference Kent State played in. With the ever-changing college football landscape, this is helpful.
Coach: Who was leading these yahoos into battle?
Rec: Conference Record
YPP: Yards per play. The number of yards per play the Golden Flashes averaged in conference play.
YPA: Yards per play allowed. The number of yards per play the Golden Flashes allowed in conference play.
Net: Yards per play net. The difference in YPP and YPA. Higher is better.
OTD: Offensive touchdowns. Touchdowns scored by the offense (no kick, punt, interception, or other returns are counted) in conference play.
DTD: Defensive touchdowns. Touchdowns allowed by the defense (no kick, punt, interception, or other returns are counted) in conference play.
Pythag: Adjusted Pythagorean Record. Take offensive touchdowns and defensive touchdowns and plug them into a handy formula to estimate the number of conference wins. For a full rundown of the APR, continue reading here.
In 2010 and 2011, first under Doug Martin, and then under Darrell Hazell, the Golden Flashes fielded a phenomenal mid-major defense, but could not get over the proverbial hump thanks to some major incompetence on offense. The Golden Flashes fielded those strong defenses with the aid of just a single (thus far) NFL player, Ishmaa'ily Kitchen, a defensive lineman. That number may soon double with Roosevelt Nix, an undrafted defensive lineman who was signed by the Atlanta Falcons. In 2012, the offense roared to life, and while the defense regressed from superb to solid, the Golden Flashes enjoyed a dream season. As you can tell by the numbers though, the Golden Flashes were not quite as good as their undefeated record would indicate. A host of factors conspired to allow them to contend for a BCS bowl. For starters, they boasted an in-conference turnover margin of +9 which was second in the MAC. They also scored six unconventional (or non-offensive) touchdowns in their eight conference games. The electrifying Dri Archer (who makes defenses quiver) returned two kickoffs for touchdowns in MAC action (he added a third against Towson), the defense returned a pair of interceptions for touchdowns, and also a pair of fumbles, giving the Golden Flashes an additional three quarters of a touchdown per game over their MAC schedule. While huge plays by special teams and defense are certainly vital to winning football games, they are highly volatile and unpredictable events. Case in point, the team scored just one non-offensive touchdown in 2013 (another kickoff return by Archer). Thus, while the Golden Flashes were certainly a worse team in 2013, the drop off from their magical 2012 season was not as pronounced as the won/loss record would indicate.
The 2014 Schedule:
In non-conference play, the Golden Flashes can prepare for at least a pair of losses, as they travel to Ohio State and Virginia. The Ohio State game is a lost cause, and while a MAC team did beat Virginia in Charlottesville last year, the Cavaliers should be improved this season, and it would be hard to imagine it happening in consecutive years. Plus, the Golden Flashes are just 2-19 against BCS conference opponents in the last decade. In their other two non-conference games, Kent State will host Army and South Alabama. Kent State and Army have played three times in the past eight years, with Kent State winning the most recent edition in 2012. They have also played the Jaguars from South Alabama twice in the past three seasons, losing to them last season in Mobile, and beating the Jaguars (when they were still a IAA team) in 2011. Kent State should be favored over Army, but the South Alabama game is intriguing. In just their second year of IA football, the Jaguars finished 6-6 last season, with wins over the aforementioned Kent State, as well as bowl bound squads Tulane and Louisiana-Lafayette. The game is in Ohio, but Kent State will likely not be an overwhelming favorite. A 2-2 record in non-conference action should please even the most optimistic Kent State supporter. In conference play, the Golden Flashes host Akron, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Toledo. As far as home schedules go, that one is pretty solid. A 3-1 mark at home would not be surprising. However, their road schedule is a different matter. The Golden Flashes face last season's two MAC title game participants (Bowling Green and Northern Illinois) on the road, as well as another bowl participant (Buffalo), and Miami. The Golden Flashes will likely be underdogs, and perhaps prohibitively, in three of those games.
Reason for Optimism:
The Golden Flashes weren't that bad last year. Sure Kent State was noncompetitive against LSU and Penn State, but most MAC schools would struggle just as much against those two teams. In conference play, based on the number of touchdowns scored and allowed, the Golden Flashes should have finished with an additional conference win. Plus, the Golden Flashes did all this with a freshman under center and with Dri Archer limited by injuries. Last season's Kent State squad was on par with the 2010 and 2011 teams, so its not like they have a huge hole to climb out of to return to contention.
Final Prognosis:
We'll know early on in 2014 if Kent State has legitimate bowl aspirations in 2014. They open with a pair of home games, against Ohio and South Alabama. Win them both and a bowl game appears a likely proposition. Split the pair, and the Golden Flashes probably top out at 6-6. Lose them both, and it is probably time to start looking forward to 2015. The big key for 2014 will be how Kent State plays at home. The Golden Flashes play six home games, and if they can sweep both Army and South Alabama in non-conference play, they would only need to get win four league games to qualify for a bowl. I'm thinking in the ten games not involving Ohio State and Virginia, the Golden Flashes win six of them. That will get them to bowl eligibility, but a bowl bid will depend on how the other MAC schools perform.
Kent State
2013 Record: 4-8 (3-5 MAC)
Summary:
Fresh off their first bowl appearance since the Nixon administration, Kent State began 2013 with a new coach as Paul Haynes took over for Darrell Hazell, who migrated to Purdue after the successful. 2012 campaign. The Golden Flashes opened 2013 in rather inauspicious fashion, edging IAA Liberty 17-10. The Golden Flashes quickly turned their attention to MAC play the following week, when they hosted eventual MAC champion Bowling Green. The Falcons dimmed the Flashes 41-22. Even a Kent State homer realized the next two games would be ugly. And said homer would have been eerily prescient as LSU and Penn State beat the Golden Flashes by a combined score of 79-13. The Golden Flashes returned to MAC play the following week and unloaded their frustrations on Western Michigan in a 32-14 win. Entering October, the Golden Flashes were 2-3, but with a 1-1 league mark, still had designs on a solid finish and potential bowl bid. Alas, they would not win another game until after Veteran's Day, losing five consecutive games with three coming by double-digits. At 2-8, the Flashes had every right to phone it in and prepare for 2014, but they bludgeoned Miami of Ohio and Ohio by a combined score of 68-19 to end their season on a positive note.
What Did the Golden Flashes Do Well?
Not much. Kent State was not a terrible team in 2013, but they were embarrassingly mediocre in the MAC and nationally on both sides of the ball. As a cop out, why don't we go with make extra points. The Golden Flashes converted on each of their 29 extra points in 2013, becoming one of 37 teams to finish with a flawless extra point game. As an added bonus, they were also successful on both their two-point conversion attempts, proving that on untimed plays, the Flashes were fantastic.
What Didn't the Golden Flashes Do Well?
Kick field goals. While Kent State's kickers Anthony Melchiori and Brad Miller made all their extra points, they did not do so well when it came to making kicks worth three times as many points. As a team, the Golden Flashes made just 10 of 18 field goal attempts on the season. Their field goal percentage, just south of 56%, ranked 113th nationally in 2013.
The Golden Flashes Over the Past Four Years:
The following table lists Kent State's performance (in conference play only) in a few key categories and their respective conference rank in those categories. To help you read the table here is a handy translator.
Conf: The Conference Kent State played in. With the ever-changing college football landscape, this is helpful.
Coach: Who was leading these yahoos into battle?
Rec: Conference Record
YPP: Yards per play. The number of yards per play the Golden Flashes averaged in conference play.
YPA: Yards per play allowed. The number of yards per play the Golden Flashes allowed in conference play.
Net: Yards per play net. The difference in YPP and YPA. Higher is better.
OTD: Offensive touchdowns. Touchdowns scored by the offense (no kick, punt, interception, or other returns are counted) in conference play.
DTD: Defensive touchdowns. Touchdowns allowed by the defense (no kick, punt, interception, or other returns are counted) in conference play.
Pythag: Adjusted Pythagorean Record. Take offensive touchdowns and defensive touchdowns and plug them into a handy formula to estimate the number of conference wins. For a full rundown of the APR, continue reading here.
The 2014 Schedule:
In non-conference play, the Golden Flashes can prepare for at least a pair of losses, as they travel to Ohio State and Virginia. The Ohio State game is a lost cause, and while a MAC team did beat Virginia in Charlottesville last year, the Cavaliers should be improved this season, and it would be hard to imagine it happening in consecutive years. Plus, the Golden Flashes are just 2-19 against BCS conference opponents in the last decade. In their other two non-conference games, Kent State will host Army and South Alabama. Kent State and Army have played three times in the past eight years, with Kent State winning the most recent edition in 2012. They have also played the Jaguars from South Alabama twice in the past three seasons, losing to them last season in Mobile, and beating the Jaguars (when they were still a IAA team) in 2011. Kent State should be favored over Army, but the South Alabama game is intriguing. In just their second year of IA football, the Jaguars finished 6-6 last season, with wins over the aforementioned Kent State, as well as bowl bound squads Tulane and Louisiana-Lafayette. The game is in Ohio, but Kent State will likely not be an overwhelming favorite. A 2-2 record in non-conference action should please even the most optimistic Kent State supporter. In conference play, the Golden Flashes host Akron, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Toledo. As far as home schedules go, that one is pretty solid. A 3-1 mark at home would not be surprising. However, their road schedule is a different matter. The Golden Flashes face last season's two MAC title game participants (Bowling Green and Northern Illinois) on the road, as well as another bowl participant (Buffalo), and Miami. The Golden Flashes will likely be underdogs, and perhaps prohibitively, in three of those games.
Reason for Optimism:
The Golden Flashes weren't that bad last year. Sure Kent State was noncompetitive against LSU and Penn State, but most MAC schools would struggle just as much against those two teams. In conference play, based on the number of touchdowns scored and allowed, the Golden Flashes should have finished with an additional conference win. Plus, the Golden Flashes did all this with a freshman under center and with Dri Archer limited by injuries. Last season's Kent State squad was on par with the 2010 and 2011 teams, so its not like they have a huge hole to climb out of to return to contention.
Final Prognosis:
We'll know early on in 2014 if Kent State has legitimate bowl aspirations in 2014. They open with a pair of home games, against Ohio and South Alabama. Win them both and a bowl game appears a likely proposition. Split the pair, and the Golden Flashes probably top out at 6-6. Lose them both, and it is probably time to start looking forward to 2015. The big key for 2014 will be how Kent State plays at home. The Golden Flashes play six home games, and if they can sweep both Army and South Alabama in non-conference play, they would only need to get win four league games to qualify for a bowl. I'm thinking in the ten games not involving Ohio State and Virginia, the Golden Flashes win six of them. That will get them to bowl eligibility, but a bowl bid will depend on how the other MAC schools perform.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)