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. 

2024 Adjusted Pythagorean Record: Big 10

Last week we looked at how Big 10 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 10 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 10 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 to determine if any teams significantly overachieved or underachieved relative to their APR. By that standard, Michigan State overachieved while Southern Cal and Wisconsin underachieved. Michigan State was not particularly fortunate in close games (2-1 record in one-score Big 10 games), but the Spartans were blown out in nearly all of their conference defeats. Five of their six Big 10 losses came by at least 20 points. Meanwhile, Southern Cal was quite unlucky in their close game performance. The Trojans finished 2-5 in one-score Big 10 games, with all of their losses coming by a touchdown or less and three coming by a field goal or less. Wisconsin is a little tougher to get a read on as the Badgers were 0-1 in close games, but scored more touchdowns that they allowed despite winning just a third of their Big 10 games. Wisconsin really ran up the score against Purdue and Rutgers, beating the Boilermakers and Scarlet Knights by a combined 81 points and artificially inflating their APR. 

Indiana and Dramatic Improvements in Conference Record

Curt Cignetti certainly has some bluster. During a press conference shortly after his hiring, Cignetti famously said: It's pretty simple. I win. Google me. Cignetti made good on that drunken boast by winning eleven games and guiding the Hoosiers to the expanded College Football Playoff. In conference play, Indiana improved their conference record by an incredible seven games, going from 1-8 to 8-1. What are reasonable expectations after such an immense improvement? To answer that question, I looked at all BCS/Power conference teams that improved their conference record by more than .500 from one season to the next. Between 1998 and 2023, 25 teams (roughly one per season) accomplished this feat, making it much more common than I anticipated. Those teams are listed chronologically in the table below. 

Auburn, in Gus Malzahn's first season on The Plains took the biggest leap, improving by an incredible .875 in going from zero SEC wins to seven. That Auburn team and five others have an asterisk by their name as they were led by first year coaches, much like Indiana was in 2024. We'll get back to that in a moment. In the meantime, the cumulative improvement of those 25 teams is summarized below. 

So what are reasonable expectations for Indiana in 2025? Well, lets look to the past. How did those other 25 teams perform the next season after making big strides?

In the aggregate, they declined in conference winning percentage by nearly .250! That's roughly two wins over an eight game conference schedule or two and a quarter wins over a nine game schedule (as the Hoosiers play in the Big 10). 18 of the 25 teams (72%) saw their conference win percentage decline while only 3 of 25 (12%) further improved their conference win percentage. 

Indiana was not the only Power conference team that improved significantly from 2023 to 2024. A trio of Big 12 teams also improved their fortunes substantially. 

Arizona State won the Big 12 and, like Indiana, made the expanded College Football Playoff. BYU and Colorado didn't reach those heights, but they came oh so close, finishing tied with the Sun Devils and Iowa State Cyclones atop the Big 12 standings. Inquisitive readers (if any) may be wondering why I did not save this post for the Big 12 YPP and APR recaps. Simple. Those three teams were not led by a first year coach. Kenny Dillingham and Coach Prime were in their second seasons at Arizona State and Colorado respectively, while Kalani Sitake somehow just finished his ninth season at BYU. Do first year head coaches that drastically improve their teams' fortunes fare differently in their follow up campaigns? The answer may surprise you. 

Unfortunately, our sample size is quite small (six coaches), but the results are not far off from the aggregate of all coaches that significantly improved their teams' conference record. Those six coaches lost about .227 in conference winning percentage the next season (compared to .247 for all coaches regardless of tenure). Five of six saw their conference record decline the following season with only Urban Meyer at Ohio State maintaining his a perfect league mark in his second season. 

If we use history as our guide, Indiana fans should expect to win about five or six conference games in 2025. That probably won't be enough to get them into the College Football Playoff, but consecutive winning Big 10 records is something that has happened just three times at Indiana in the past 60 years!

2024 Yards Per Play: Big 10

Two conferences down, seven to go. This week we head to the midwest where the current national champion resides. This is how things played out in the Big 10 in 2024. 

Here are the 2024 Big 10 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 10 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 10 met this threshold? Here are Big 10 teams sorted by performance over what would be expected from their Net YPP numbers.

Maryland was the sole Big 10 team that saw their actual record differ significantly from their expected record based on YPP. Off three consecutive bowl appearances (and victories), Maryland won just a single conference game in 2024. This was their worst conference performance since posting an identical 1-8 mark in Mike Locksley's first season (2019). The Terps were not unlucky in close games (1-1 conference record), but they did have the second worst in-conference turnover margin (-8) in Big 10 play. They were also a victim of fourth down variance. In conference play, they converted just 10 of 27 fourth down attempts (thats an extra seventeen 'hidden' turnovers). Meanwhile, Big 10 opponents converted 11 of 14 fourth down attempts. Despite my initial misgivings at his hiring, Locksley has built a solid mid-level Big 10 program in College Park and I expect the Terps be much more respectable in 2025. 

Worst Losses by Championship Game Participants

2024 introduced us to the brave new world of college football. No longer must a team play nearly flawless ball over three months. The introduction of the four team college football playoff a decade ago meant certain teams (i.e. traditional powers, usually in the SEC or Big 10) often got one mulligan. Now with the playoff at twelve, those teams now get (at least) two mulligans. Case in point, your 2024 champs, the Ohio State Buckeyes. Ohio State lost a tight game at Oregon in October, but were expected to have a shot at revenge against the Ducks in the Big 10 Championship Game. But then, in the final weekend of the regular season, Ohio State tripped over their own dicks in a shocking home loss to a decent, but flawed Michigan team. In any previous season, even the wacky 2007 edition, Ohio State would have been relegated to a meaningless New Year's Six Bowl or worse. But with the playoff committee tasked with finding twelve participants instead of four, Ohio State easily qualified, and proceeded to realize their potential by winning four consecutive games en route to the national title. They even exacted revenge on Oregon, albeit about a month later than most initially anticipated. I'm not implying this is a bad thing. Ohio State was one of the best college football teams in 2024. Its just that plenty of teams in college football's long history have arguably been the best team in a particular year, but lacked the opportunity to 'prove it on the field' after suffering one or more defeats over the course of the regular season. I expect in a half-decade, if not sooner, we'll adjust our internal thermostat and not think twice about a team that wins the title with two or perhaps even three losses. 

The team that Ohio State defeated in the national championship game also entered with a loss. Notre Dame famously lost at home to Northern Illinois in their home opener. The Huskies ended up being a bowl level MAC team, but the result was one of the more shocking upsets of the 2024 season. With both title game participants having at least one loss, it got me to thinking about which champion or runner up suffered the worst loss in the BCS/CFP era (since 1998). In order to access the severity of the loss, I included three factors: the venue (home, away, or neutral), the margin, and the opponent's end of season SRS ranking from College Football Reference. After conducting this research, eight teams really stood out to me. In reverse order, these are what I deem to be the eight teams with the worst losses entering their respective championship game. 

This year's Buckeyes are on the list primarily for the quantity of their losses more so than their quality. The Oregon loss is quite respectable coming on the road by a single point against an elite opponent. The Michigan loss was certainly a shock at the time, but it was close, and the Wolverines ended up having a solid SRS. 

LSU is also on the list primarily for losing twice. Had the Tigers dropped either one of these games and not both, they would be pretty reasonable losses for a title game participant. Both were close, against solid teams, and one even came on the road. 

This one is forgotten by a lot of folks thanks to what happened in the rematch in the SEC Championship Game, but Georgia got waxed by Auburn in Jordan Hare. The Tigers went on a 40-3 run after falling behind 7-0. 

This one happened in the Big 12 Championship Game, but was one of the most shocking results of the 2003 season. Oklahoma entered having won just a single game by fewer than two touchdowns all year and left allowing 35 consecutive points to a very good Kansas State team. 

Another early aughts Big 12 slaughter, but this was a week before the Big 12 Championship Game. Nebraska entered as the consensus number two team in the nation (behind Miami), having not won a game by fewer than ten points all season. This game was more competitive than the final score, as Nebraska was only outgained by 30 yards, but committed four turnovers to turn this into a laugher. 

Most of the previous teams on this list suffered a late loss that threatened to derail their title hopes. However, the 2014 Buckeyes got their bad loss out of the way early. In the second game of the season, Ohio State lost at home to a mediocre Virginia Tech team that ended up with a losing record in the ACC. The Buckeyes scored 21 points in this game, but would not score fewer than 31 in any of their remaining thirteen games on the way to their first national title since 2002. 

Another mostly forgotten game, that like the previous entry, happened early in the season. Florida State had lost just one ACC game in their first six seasons in the league, but scored a season low seven points and lost as a massive favorite against a team that would lose the following week to 2-9 Baylor. College football is wild sometimes. 

While the game was close, the venue and quality of opponent make this my choice for worst loss by a title game participant in the BCS/CFP era. Notre Dame is the only title game participant to loss to a non-power conference opponent. While the Huskies are a quality MAC program, their SRS ranking of 65th is the worst of any team to beat a conference title participant (second worst is 1998 NC State at 40th). 

What do you think? Do you agree with this list? Did I mess the order up or leave some worthy losses off entirely?

2024 Adjusted Pythagorean Record: ACC

Last week we looked at how ACC 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 ACC 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, ACC teams are sorted by the difference between their actual number of wins and their expected number of wins according to APR.

No ACC teams saw their actual record differ significantly from their APR, so we will move on to more pressing issues. 

A Brief History of Non-Conference Conference Games

One of the unfortunate consequences of conference expansion is that former conference rivals don't see each other as much as they used to. With some conferences roughly double the size they were thirty years ago, some teams are resorting to filling out their non-conference schedule with conference opponents. NC State and Virginia will do just that in 2025 and 2026. Being the curious type, I used my recent Stathead subscription (would recommend) to search the Sports Reference database for all such instances of non-conference conference games. They are listed below along with a brief narrative. I also included recent bowl games between conference opponents as that will be a more common occurrence with the expanded College Football Playoff. First though, the regular season matchups. 

Non-Conference Conference Games

Cal and Colorado played a non-conference game in Berkeley as members of the Pac-10 and Big 12 respectively in 2010. Cal dominated the Buffaloes in the final season of the Dan Hawkins era. Colorado, along with Utah, joined the Pac-10 (renamed the Pac-12) in 2011 with the return game in Boulder already on the schedule. The league left the game as is and counted it as a non-conference game. Cal won again, but this one was much closer. Had this game counted in the conference standings, it would not have impacted the league race. Both the Bears and Buffaloes finished with losing conference records and were not in contention for the league title. 

Before meeting in Winston-Salem in 2019, Wake Forest and North Carolina had played just once since 2012. The in-state rivals that played every season between 1944 and 2004 scheduled the first premeditated non-conference conference game. Wake won the 2019 edition. Had this been a legitimate conference game, it would not have significantly impacted the ACC race as both teams finished with identical 4-4 marks in the ACC. However, the return game two years later in Chapel Hill would have drastically impacted the conference race. Wake entered the game with an 8-0 record and the highest ranking in school history (10th). The Demon Deacons appeared to be on their way to a 9-0 start as they led 45-27 in the third quarter and were up two touchdowns entering the fourth. The Tar Heels scored 24 consecutive points to take a double digit lead and held on to win by three. Wake lost to Clemson a few weeks later, but won their other league games and represented the Atlantic Division in the ACC Championship Game. Had this game replaced one of Wake's other cross-division games, there would have been a three-way tie atop the Atlantic Division (Clemson, NC State, and Wake). I'm unsure how the conference would have broken this hypothetical tie, but it likely would have resulted in a different conference title matchup. 

After losing Oklahoma and Texas to the SEC, the Big 12 raided the Pac-12, adding Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, and Utah to the league. Two of those former Pac-12 schools (Arizona and Utah) already had games with Big 12 schools on the books. Utah played Baylor in Waco in 2023 and the return game was already set for Salt Lake City in 2024. Meanwhile, Arizona was already scheduled to play another destruction of Wildcats in Manhattan. Arizona and Kansas State are set for the return game in Tucson in 2025. 

Navy joined the AAC in 2015 and their service academy rivals joined in 2024. Despite playing in the same conference, America's Game will retain its standalone spot in December after the conference championship game is contested. This author hopes to see the Black Knights and Midshipmen playing each other on back to back weekends in the near future. 

Postseason Games Between Conference Foes

Note this list is confined to the BCS/CFP era (since 1998), so the Orange Bowl after the 1978 season and any other postseason game happening prior to the modern era are not considered. 

This was a mostly forgotten game between two Mountain West also rans (combined 13-11 record entering the game) that was not even broadcast on traditional television. As least the game ended up being good, with Nevada scoring a late touchdown to win.

The 2011 BCS Championship Game was somewhat consequential as it not only delivered Nick Saban his third national title and denied Les Miles his second, it also set the stage for the creation of the College Football Playoff. The fourth edition of that College Football Playoff gave us a classic as Alabama defeated Georgia in overtime thanks to heroics from Tua Tagovailoa and DeVonta Smith. Georgia retuned the favor four years later to win their first national title in four decades.

This past season's Rose Bowl was a rematch of a regular season classic. The rematch was not quite as competitive as Ohio State raced out to a 34-0 lead and never looked back. 

Though it was not nearly as meaningful as this year's Rose Bowl, we must remember the Alamo Bowl. BYU won eleven games for the second time in five seasons and ended Heisman winner Travis Hunter's college career on a sour note.