2024 Adjusted Pythagorean Record: Conference USA

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

Once again, here are the 2024 Conference USA standings.

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

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

I use a game and a half as a somewhat arbitrary standard for determining which teams over or underachieved according to their APR. By that standard, Florida International was the only team that saw their actual record differ significantly from their APR. The Panthers also underachieved relative to their Yards Per Play numbers and we went over some reasons for that last week. 

Champ Vs Champ

Thanks to the expanded College Football Playoff format (byes for the four highest rated conference champions), there was only one bowl game in 2024 that featured two outright conference champions. The Cure Bowl brought together the MAC champion (Ohio) and Conference USA champion (Jacksonville State) in beautiful Orlando, Florida. In the BCS/CFP era (since 1998), 55 bowl games have been contested between outright conference champions. 13 different bowl have hosted these games. They are listed below along with the number of instances and the most recent occurrence. 

It's no surprise the four original BCS bowl games plus the BCS Championship Game have seen the most outright champion matchups. The BCS Championship Game was around for eight seasons (2006-2013), but twice did not feature two outright conference champions. The first came in 2011, when LSU and Alabama staged their Game of The Century rematch and the second came the following year when Independent Notre Dame qualified for the title game. Back in the early days of the BCS, the Liberty Bowl served as a showcase for non-BCS champions, pitting so-called mid-major champions against one another in 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2004. Seven of those eight mid-major champions entered the game ranked in the AP Poll. The Cure Bowl may end up serving as the mid-major showcase in the new world of college football, having hosted a pair of outright mid-major champs in both 2022 and 2024. If you remembered the Arizona, GMAC/Go Daddy, and Poinsettia Bowls existed, much less hosted two outright conference champions, give yourself a hand. 

Before we close, I wanted to mention the year 1998. Thus far, that is the only season in the BCS/CFP era that did not feature a single matchup between outright conference champions. This was mostly due to the three-way tie atop the Big 10 and two-way tie atop the ACC. With no championship games in those leagues, the split titles ensured there was no true champ versus champ bowl game. Since then though, we are currently riding a 26-year streak of at least one champ versus champ matchup in the postseason. 

2024 Yards Per Play: Conference USA

Welcome back to our regularly scheduled programming. After a brief reprieve to offer some NCAA Tournament advice, we return to our sojourn through the 2024 college football season. Next up, Conference USA. 

Here are the 2024 Conference USA standings.

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

College football teams play either eight or nine conference games. Consequently, their record in such a small sample may not be indicative of their quality of play. A few fortuitous bounces here or there can be the difference between another ho-hum campaign or a special season. Randomness and other factors outside of our perception play a role in determining the standings. It would be fantastic if college football teams played 100 or even 1000 games. Then we could have a better idea about which teams were really the best. Alas, players would miss too much class time, their bodies would be battered beyond recognition, and I would never leave the couch. As it is, we have to make do with the handful of games teams do play. In those games, we can learn a lot from a team’s YPP. Since 2005, I have collected YPP data for every conference. I use conference games only because teams play such divergent non-conference schedules and the teams within a conference tend to be of similar quality. By running a regression analysis between a team’s Net YPP (the difference between their Yards Per Play and Yards Per Play Allowed) and their conference winning percentage, we can see if Net YPP is a decent predictor of a team’s record. Spoiler alert. It is. For the statistically inclined, the correlation coefficient between a team’s Net YPP in conference play and their conference record is around .66. Since Net YPP is a solid predictor of a team’s conference record, we can use it to identify which teams had a significant disparity between their conference record as predicted by Net YPP and their actual conference record. I used a difference of .200 between predicted and actual winning percentage as the threshold for ‘significant’. Why .200? It is a little arbitrary, but .200 corresponds to a difference of 1.6 games over an eight game conference schedule and 1.8 games over a nine game one. Over or under-performing by more than a game and a half in a small sample seems significant to me. In the 2024 season, which teams in Conference USA met this threshold? Here are Conference USA teams sorted by performance over what would be expected from their Net YPP numbers.

Florida International was the only Conference USA team that saw their actual record differ significantly from their expected record based on YPP. The Panthers underachievement ultimately cost head coach Mike McIntyre his job. More on his replacement, Willie Simmons, in a bit. Close games was the culprit. The Panthers finished 1-4 in one-score conference games, losing three games by a field goal or less. 

HBCU to the Rescue

Befitting a league with teams congregated near the bottom of FBS in raw talent, infrastructure, and history, Conference USA teams need to be a bit unconventional when making their head coaching hires. Two of the schools that fired their head coaches (Florida International and Kennesaw State) did just that by hiring two coaches with previous success at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). Florida International hired Willie Simmons and Kennesaw State hired Jerry Mack. Based on the history of previous HBCU head coaches that took FBS jobs, what can we expect from them in their new roles? Unfortunately, there is not much history to speak of. 

Full disclosure, I did not conduct this research on my own, as I would have had to go through a ton of coaching hires, and as I have mentioned before, I have a real job. So, instead I used AI to do the research. I used Perplexity and asked it to provide a list of FBS coaches that had previous head coaching stops at an HBCU. So if this list is wrong, blame Skynet. 

As I mentioned, the list is not very extensive. Simmons and Mack represented a 67% increase in the number of FBS head coaches with previous experience as a head coach of an HBCU. Since there were only three previous coaches to fit this criteria, we'll go through them one by one. 

Willie Jeffries was a trailblazer, coaching South Carolina State for six seasons (1973-1978) before taking the Wichita State head coaching job. He became the first African-American head coach at a predominantly white Division IA (now FBS) school. Wichita State was a lower-tier job in the late 70's, with the Shockers playing in the Missouri Valley Conference and posting just one winning campaign in the fifteen seasons before Jeffries' arrival. Jeffries was not able to turn the program around, finishing with just one winning season during his five-year tenure. As you may or may not know, Wichita State no longer fields a football team, so one can reasonably assume the infrastructure, and not Jeffries was the reason the program failed to thrive. Following his time in Kansas, Jeffries returned to the HBCU ranks, coaching Howard for five seasons (1984-1988) before returning to South Carolina State for thirteen more (1989-2001). He posted winning records at both stops and was elected to the College Football Hall of Fame in 2010. 

If a child was born on the day Willie Jeffries took the Wichita State job, they would have been in their late 30s when another HBCU head coach got an opportunity to lead an FBS team. And if you google Jay Hopson, you will see he is in fact exactly the type of HBCU head coach you would expect to get an FBS job (i.e. he is white). Hopson guided Alcorn State for four seasons before taking the Southern Miss job prior to the 2016 season. He had a decent four-year run at Southern Miss before resigning one game into the 2020 season. 

This was the most publicized HBCU to FBS move. You may notice Deion coached a lot of games in just two seasons at Jackson State, but he actually coached three including the 2021 Spring Season. Coach Prime brought several of his Jackson State players with him to Colorado and while the first season was underwhelming, there is no denying he has brought notoriety and success to a program that has been mediocre to bad for the better part of the past decade. The notoriety should remain, but will the success, after his son and star quarterback along with the reigning Heisman Trophy winner are off to the NFL? 

Willie Simmons has extensive experience as an HBCU head coach, serving in the position for eight seasons between Prairie View and Florida A&M, easily the longest tenure of any HBCU head coach moving to FBS. He never had a losing season at either stop and his last Florida A&M team finished with a perfect record against FCS competition, losing only to South Florida. 

Jerry Mack was head coach at North Carolina Central for four seasons and also never had a losing season. His teams were 26-6 in MEAC play over that span. 

You may notice one thing about these two former HBCU head coaches. They did not jump straight from an HBCU to FBS like the other three coaches. Simmons spent one season at Duke as a position coach before getting the Florida International job. And Mack has not been a head coach for eight years. He bounced around the college ranks, coaching at Rice and Tennessee for a few years and was most recently the running back coach for the Jacksonville Jaguars. I think this speaks more to the ponds FBS administrators are fishing in rather than any shortcomings these gentlemen had leading HBCU programs. For whatever reason (most likely institutional racism), HBCU head coaches rarely get the call up to lead FBS programs. Simmons and Mack had to take other jobs to find that pipeline to their FBS dream despite success in their HBCU roles. Neither Florida International nor Kennesaw State are easy jobs, but I wouldn't be surprised if Simmons or Mack (or both) led their teams to bowls games by 2026. 

March Madness Intermission: Using In-Conference Net Efficiency to Predict the NCAA Tournament

Frequent readers of this blog know I use in-conference yards per play, adjusted pythagorean records, and first half point differential to handicap college football teams. I hadn't thought about using something similar to try and predict NCAA Tournament results until recently. In an attempt to do this, I looked at in-conference efficiency margins (courtesy of Ken Pom) from the six power conferences in college basketball (ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, Pac-12, and SEC) to see how well they predicted wins in the NCAA Tournament. Results for the five tournaments between 2019 and 2024 are below. Note this only includes wins in the full field (First Four games are excluded). 

Well, that didn't work out so well. For the uninitiated, R squared is a statistical term that outlines the variation in the dependent variable (NCAA Tournament wins) explained by the independent variable (in-conference efficiency margin). Something that is perfectly correlated would have an R squared value of 1. In this instance, a little more than 22% of the variation in NCAA Tournament wins (by power conference teams) is explained by their in-conference efficiency margin. It does show there is a correlation, but its not very strong. Oh well, end of post. Or is it?

How well does in-conference efficiency margin predict a team's eventual seed? 

The answer, is much better. Nearly half (49%) the variation in NCAA Tournament seeding among power conference teams is explained by in-conference efficiency margin. With that being the case, we can use the resulting trend line from this relationship to retroactively predict each power conference team's seed and see which teams were over or under seeded. We might expect those teams that were significantly over or under seeded to over or underperform in the NCAA Tournament. Is that true? Let's start by looking at teams that were under seeded by at least four spots. 

That's a pretty strong track record. Despite being seeded worse than their first round opponents, these teams posted a cumulative NCAA Tournament record of 9-9. They went a collective 5-4 in the first round, with two teams making the Sweet 16 and one making the Final Four. Also not included in these numbers is that three of these teams needed to win First Four games to even make the main field (Notre Dame, Pitt, and UCLA). 

How about the teams that were over seeded by at least four spots. 

You might look at the overall record and think these teams were successful in their NCAA Tournament trips. However, note that all seven were top 3 seeds. All won their first round game, but these seven teams collectively went 3-4 in second round games. The two number one seeds that were drastically over seeded both crapped out in the second round and no team from this list made the Final Four. 

So who fits the criteria in this year's NCAA Tournament? We'll start with teams that were under seeded by at least four spots. 

I did go to an ACC school, but I don't have loser SEC energy and root for the league above all else (I hate Duke and North Carolina), so don't blame rampant homerism for these numbers. Yes, you are reading that chart correctly. Louisville had the in-conference efficiency margin of a one or two seed (+19 per one hundred possessions). The Cardinals are in a tough spot in the 8/9 game, but they could give Auburn some trouble in the second round, especially with the game in Rupp Arena. As for the Tar Heels, in my humble opinion, they did not deserve (achievement) a spot in the tournament, but the metrics (performance) rate them a solid tourney team. I wouldn't be shocked if they upset Ole Miss in the first round. 

Now what about the over seeded teams?

Only one team was over seeded by at least four spots and wouldn't you know it, its a team with a recent track record of losing early and a new coach who has never won an NCAA Tournament game. 

Before we close, as always, please take a look at my magnum opus from the canceled tournament five years ago (sorry St John's and Michigan State) and thanks for reading. Things look to be trending toward an inevitable Duke/Florida showdown in the championship game, but I think we'll have a damn good time getting there. 

Next week, we resume our offseason recaps by checking in on Conference USA. 

March Madness Intermission: High Seed, Mediocre Conference Record

Before we get started, here is a little peek behind the curtain. I have a full time day job, so I begin researching and writing these posts in January and February in the hopes they will be relevant when the NCAA Tournament rolls around. With the SEC on track to put more than a baker's dozen in the tournament, I figured at least one would meet the criteria of this post: .500 conference record and a seed of 6 or better. Alas, that did not come to pass. So, instead of using this post to make your picks for this year's bracket, file it away for future use. 

Since the NCAA Tournament expanded to 64 teams in 1985, there have been 21 instances of a team finishing with a .500 or worse conference record and earning a top 6 seed in the NCAA Tournament. How have those 21 teams performed? Did the rigors of their conference schedule prepare them for a one and done tournament against the best teams from around the country? Those 21 teams are listed chronologically below along with their conference, conference record, seed, and NCAA Tournament performance. The five teams with asterisks won their respective conference tournaments before entering the NCAA Tournament. 

If you just glanced at the overall record and saw 22-20, you might think these teams had average tournament runs. And you would be wrong. One team on this list wrecks the average for everyone. 

Connecticut entered the 2011 Big East Tournament having lost four of five games, to finish 9-9 and tied for ninth with Villanova and Marquette in the conference standings. Still, the league was deep, eventually sending a then unheard of eleven teams to the NCAA Tournament, so the Huskies were not in danger of missing the Big Dance. The opened the conference tournament with easy wins against DePaul and Georgetown, before rolling off a string of close victories against the top teams in the conference (Pitt, Syracuse, and Louisville) en route to five wins in five days to secure the Big East's automatic bid. In the NCAA Tournament, they benefitted from some chaos, never facing a top seeded team (beat 2 seed San Diego State in the Regional Semifinal) and outlasting 8 seed Butler in the National Championship Game. If we remove Connecticut, the other 20 teams that finished with mediocre conference records, but entered the NCAA Tournament with a top 6 seed went just 16-20. If we break things down even further, Connecticut stands out as even more of an outlier. 

More than half of the 21 teams lost in the first round. And this is significant, as each team entered their first round game favored. 15 of the 21 (71%) failed to advance past the first weekend, only three won a game in the Sweet 16, and Connecticut was the only team to advance to the Final Four. Here is the first round record of each team by seed.

Compare that with the win percentage of all 3, 4, 5, and 6 seeds in the 64-team era. 

'Normal' teams seeded between 3 and 6 win their first round games nearly 73% of the time. Those teams seeded between 3 and 6 that had mediocre or worse conference records lose more often than they win in the first round! The good book may say that iron sharpens iron, but when it comes to NCAA Tournament performance, the results have been quite dull. 

March Madness Intermission: The Few, The Proud, The Machine

Gonzaga, a school with two NCAA Tournament bids before his promotion to head coach, will be making their 25th appearance under Mark Few (and 26th in a row overall). The Bulldogs will also be seeking a tenth consecutive appearance in the Sweet 16. That's fairly impressive, especially considering the Bulldogs (for now) don't play in a power conference. However, this tournament appearance is a bit unusual, as the Bulldogs enter as just an 8 seed. Gonzaga has not been lower than a five seed since 2016 and have been a top-four seed in eight of their past eleven tournament appearances. With that in mind, what can we expect from this 'down' Gonzaga team? 

Under Mark Few, Gonzaga is 43-24 in the NCAA Tournament and an impressive 21-3 in the first round. But as I mentioned earlier, at least in recent history, Gonzaga has been a high seed, so we would expect them to stroll into the second round more often than not. Let's break down Gonzaga's tournament performance under Few in different seed tiers. 

When I think NCAA tournament seeding, I think of the seeds in seven different buckets based on their likelihood of winning their first round game. For the unfamiliar, in the first round of the NCAA Tournament, 1 seeds play 16 seeds, 2 seeds play 15 seeds, and so on down to 8 seeds playing 9 seeds. 

Gonzaga has never been lower than a 12 seed in the NCAA Tournament under Few, so we can ignore the bottom two seed tiers. We'll go through the other five in order beginning with those Gonzaga teams that entered their first round game as heavy favorites. I have also included Gonzaga's record under Few in subsequent rounds of the tournament to get a more robust view of their performance. 

Gonzaga has generally done quite well under Few as a top two seed, posting a 20-7 straight up record, while advancing to two final fours, and finishing a perfect 7-0 in the first round.  

As a 3 or 4 seed Gonzaga has also done well. Though, as we would expect, they have not done as well in this role as they have as a 1 or 2 seed. Still, Gonzaga is perfect in the first round (5-0) and has advanced to the Sweet 16 four times and the Elite 8 once. 

Gonzaga has only been a mid-level favorite two times in two and a half decades under Few. Small sample size is an issue here, but this also marks the first of Gonzaga's first round defeats. 

Gonzaga has been in a toss up game in the first round seven times and has won five times. However, in this seed range, they are 1-4 in second round games, having advanced past the first weekend just once when seeded here. 

Finally, befitting the progress the program has made under Few, Gonzaga has only been a true underdog seed just three times under Few (most recently in 2016). They are a perfect 3-0 in this role under Few and have advanced to the Sweet 16 twice. 

Under Few, Gonzaga, like most college basketball teams, has performed better when they have had better seeds (duh). Gonzaga is 30-12 in the NCAA Tournament under Few as a top four seed, including a perfect 12-0 in the first round. Obviously, the Bulldogs are not a top four seed this year. However, even when they have not earned a high seed, the Bulldogs have taken care of business in the first round, posting a 9-3 record when seeded 5 through 12. As someone who may be a little biased towards Few and Gonzaga, most of those first round defeats can be explained away. The first occurred 23 years ago when the Bulldogs were a 6 seed and lost to Wyoming. The second came when Gonzaga entered the NCAA Tournament with their most regular season losses under Few (10). And the third came against Steph Curry. Gonzaga has not lost in the first round since George W. Bush was president. 

Gonzaga enters the NCAA Tournament with eight losses. Assuming they do not win the national championship, they will finish with nine losses, which would be their most since 2011. However, all the efficiency metrics rate (KenPom, Bart Torvik, and BPI) rate them as a fringe top ten team. Advance the Bulldogs past the first round in your bracket without hesitation. Their potential second round game with Houston should be a classic and could be quite unfair to the top seed in the Midwest Region. However, as I mentioned earlier, Gonzaga is just 1-4 in second round games under Few when seeded between 7 and 10. I think their run of consecutive Sweet 16s will end at 9. 

2024 Adjusted Pythagorean Record: Big 12

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

Once again, here are the 2024 Big 12 standings.

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

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

I use a game and a half as a somewhat arbitrary demarcation to determine if a team's conference record differed significantly from their APR. By that standard, six teams, or roughly forty percent of the conference, saw their actual record differ significantly from their APR. BYU, Houston, and West Virginia exceeded their APR, while Cincinnati, Oklahoma State, and UCF underachieved relative to their APR. BYU finished with a +8 turnover margin in Big 12 play which buoyed them to a tie atop the conference standings. Houston was 2-0 in close conference games, which is not an outrageous record, but the Cougars were blown out in all six of their league defeats. All their Big 12 losses came by double digits with the average margin of defeat totaling more than 21 points per game. West Virginia finished 3-0 in one-score Big 12 games, and like Houston, all their losses came in blowout fashion. The Mountaineers four conference losses came by an average of nearly 23 points. As for the underachievers, Cincinnati finished 1-3 in one-score Big 12 games while Oklahoma State was 0-3 in such contests. Oklahoma State also finished with the worst in-conference turnover margin of any Big 12 team (-11). As for UCF, we went over the multitude of reasons for their underperformance in YPP last week and those same reasons apply here. 

Free Fallin'

A couple weeks ago, we examined teams that made dramatic improvements in their conference records (specifically Indiana) and what that might mean for their fortunes heading into 2025. This week, we're going to look at the opposite. That is, teams that saw significant declines in their conference record. From the beginning of the BCS era (1998) through 2023, 17 power conference teams saw their conference winning percentage decline by more than .500 in one season. Those 17 teams are listed chronologically in the table below. 

With NIL, less restrictive transfer rules, and conference expansion, the trend seems to be accelerating as an incredible five power conference teams saw their conference winning percentage decline by more than .500 between 2023 and 2024. Two of those teams play in the Big 12 (one used to), but our focus is going to be on one in particular. 

Mike Gundy, along with Kyle Whittingham, is the second longest tenured FBS coach (behind Kirk Ferentz). 2024 was Gundy's twentieth in Stillwater and it was arguably his worst. It was definitely his worst relative to preseason expectations. The Cowboys finished winless in conference play for the first time since 1994. After playing in the conference championship game the year prior, Oklahoma State saw their conference record decline by seven games (.778 in winning percentage). Can Gundy pull out of the nose dive and revitalize the program or are the Cowboys in for a continued slide into irrelevance? To answer that question, let's look at how the previous 17 teams fared the season after their precipitous decline. 

The good news for Oklahoma State is that things will probably not get any worse. Collectively, those 17 teams increased their cumulative conference winning percentage from .184 to .464. That translates to about two and half more wins on average. Overall, 14 of the 17 teams improved their conference record the following season, three held steady, and none declined. 

If nothing else, Oklahoma State should marginally improve in 2025. However, Gundy's situation is unique. As I mentioned earlier, he has been in his current position for two decades. What if we just looked at coaches from the previous list that had been on the job for at least a decade before suffering a precipitous decline in conference record? Four coaches (but five instances) fit the criteria. And the results are a mixed bag. 

Paul Pasqualoni did not have a losing season at Syracuse until 2002, his twelfth in upstate New York. His first eleven seasons saw the Orange finish ranked seven times and even win a few Big East titles. The Orange got back to six wins in 2003, but their conference record did not improve and Syracuse did not finish with a winning record for the rest of his tenure, topping out at 6-6 twice. One season after playing for the national title, Mack Brown and Texas finished with a losing record in his thirteenth season in Austin. The Longhorns improved slightly in 2011, but they ceded control of the Big 12 to Oklahoma and lost at least four games in each of his final three seasons. After qualifying for the College Football Playoff in 2015, Michigan State won just three games in Mark Dantonio's tenth season. The Spartans bounced back quickly, winning ten games in 2017, but posted back-to-back 7-6 campaigns in Dantonio's final two seasons. And finally, we have Captain Boomerang himself, Pat Fitgerald, who pulled the feat off two times in four seasons. In Fitgerald's thirteenth season in Evanston, the Wildcats played in the Big 10 Championship Game. The next season, they finished 3-9. They bounced back in the Covid-shortened 2020 season and again played in the Big 10 Championship Game. However, once the world returned to relative normalcy, the Wildcats returned to the bottom of the Big 10 standings in 2021. The Wildcats stayed bad in 2022 and Fitgerald was fired for off the field issues prior to the 2023 season. 

While Oklahoma State should improved in 2025, Gundy's best days may be behind him. The other long-tenured coaches on this list were able to rebound somewhat, but they were never fully able to pull out of the skid. Each coach ended their tenure with mediocre or worse records. Perhaps Gundy can defy this historical trend, but I would wager the best run in modern Oklahoma State football history is likely over. 

Thanks as always for your continued support. Next week, we pause our football recaps for one week. Instead, we'll offer you three posts with some NCAA Tournament bracket advice. If you make any cash based on that advice, we gladly accept donations. 

2024 Yards Per Play: Big 12

We continue our sojourn through the 2024 college football season. This week, its the Big 12's turn. 

Here are the 2024 Big 12 standings.

So we know what each team achieved, but how did they perform? To answer that, here are the Yards Per Play (YPP), Yards Per Play Allowed (YPA) and Net Yards Per Play (Net) numbers for each Big 12 team. This includes conference play only, with the championship game not included. The teams are sorted by Net YPP with conference rank in parentheses.

College football teams play either eight or nine conference games. Consequently, their record in such a small sample may not be indicative of their quality of play. A few fortuitous bounces here or there can be the difference between another ho-hum campaign or a special season. Randomness and other factors outside of our perception play a role in determining the standings. It would be fantastic if college football teams played 100 or even 1000 games. Then we could have a better idea about which teams were really the best. Alas, players would miss too much class time, their bodies would be battered beyond recognition, and I would never leave the couch. As it is, we have to make do with the handful of games teams do play. In those games, we can learn a lot from a team’s YPP. Since 2005, I have collected YPP data for every conference. I use conference games only because teams play such divergent non-conference schedules and the teams within a conference tend to be of similar quality. By running a regression analysis between a team’s Net YPP (the difference between their Yards Per Play and Yards Per Play Allowed) and their conference winning percentage, we can see if Net YPP is a decent predictor of a team’s record. Spoiler alert. It is. For the statistically inclined, the correlation coefficient between a team’s Net YPP in conference play and their conference record is around .66. Since Net YPP is a solid predictor of a team’s conference record, we can use it to identify which teams had a significant disparity between their conference record as predicted by Net YPP and their actual conference record. I used a difference of .200 between predicted and actual winning percentage as the threshold for ‘significant’. Why .200? It is a little arbitrary, but .200 corresponds to a difference of 1.6 games over an eight game conference schedule and 1.8 games over a nine game one. Over or under-performing by more than a game and a half in a small sample seems significant to me. In the 2024 season, which teams in the Big 12 met this threshold? Here are Big 12 teams sorted by performance over what would be expected from their Net YPP numbers.

Texas Tech and Iowa State significantly exceeded their expected record based on YPP while UCF underachieved (by an historic margin). Texas Tech was 5-1 in one-score Big 12 games, with all but one of their league wins coming by a touchdown or less. Iowa State was solid in close Big 12 games (3-1 record), but was especially fortunate in their fourth down defense. Big 12 opponents converted just five of thirteen fourth down opportunities, gifting the Cyclones with eight hidden turnovers. Meanwhile, UCF undershot their expected YPP winning percentage by the third largest margin of any power conference team I have tracked (since 2005). Only Nebraska (2021) and Illinois (2006) underachieved more. How did UCF accomplish this feat? They didn't do the little things. They were 1-3 in one-score conference games, had a -8 turnover margin in Big 12 play, struggled making field goals (just four of ten in conference play), while their Big 12 foes could not miss (13 of 15). In addition, their defense could not get off the field on fourth down, permitting conversions on eleven of fifteen fourth down attempts in Big 12 play. And finally, they allowed five non-offensive touchdowns in Big 12 play while scoring just one. Those non-offensive touchdowns were decisive in losses to Arizona State (allowed a punt block and interception touchdown) and Utah (threw two pick sixes). It truly takes a village. 

Underwater Conference Championship Game Participants

I live in South Carolina, so I cannot place any sports bets in the state. However. about two hours away across the northern border, there is a native person's casino I visit on occasion. I made the trek in early December and bet on Clemson in the ACC Championship Game (a result that was never in doubt). However, based on how things played out on Championship Saturday, I could have made another bet and not been nearly as stressed that evening. Arizona State closed as a slight favorite against Iowa State in the Big 12 Championship Game and dominated the Cyclones en route to their first conference title in nearly 30 years. I didn't see a big advantage for either side in the title game, but I should have looked closer. 

Iowa State became just the 17th team to qualify for a power conference championship game while posting a negative (underwater) YPP margin. Those 17 teams have fared quite poorly in their respective title games. 

Their straight up record is 2-15, with one of those victories coming in a battle of two teams that entered with negative YPP margins (the ACC in 2008 was dead ass mid as the kids might say). Ignoring that 2008 ACC Championship Game, underwater championship game participants are 1-14 straight up and only slightly better at 2-12-1 ATS. My alma mater is the only underwater team outside of that 2008 game to win a conference championship and that was nearly two decades ago. So if the opportunity presents itself again in 2025 or beyond, I will be gassing up the Fiesta and heading north to bet against an underwater power conference championship game participant. 

So Iowa State was almost destined to lose the 2024 Big 12 Championship Game. Using those other teams that were underwater as a guide, what can we expect from Iowa State in 2025?

Unfortunately, Cyclones fans can probably plan weddings and bar mitzvahs for the first weekend in December. Historically, their league record will probably not be as good in 2025. 11 of the 16 underwater teams saw their record decline (69%), three held steady (19%), and only two improved (13%). Collectively, the teams lost about .241 points of winning percentage in conference play which would equate to about two additional league losses for Iowa State.