The Best Losing Team of the Past Decade

A few weeks ago I analyzed the worst 10 win teams since 1995. Now I want to do the opposite or something like that. What were the beast teams with losing records during the same time span? Here are my best guesses. Under each team, 6 characteristics will be listed: their record, their point differential, their Pythagorean record, their record in close games, their record against teams with winning records, and their opponent’s winning percentage.

Purdue 1995

Record: 4-6-1

Point Differential: +13

Pythag: 5.81-5.29

Close Games: 1-4-1

Winning Records: 1-5-1

Opp Win %: .593 (75-51-3)

1995 was Jim Colletto’s penultimate season in West Lafayette. It had the potential to end with Purdue’s first bowl bid since 1984. However, the Boilers extremely poor record in close games doomed them to yet another losing season. The highlight of the season was probably the finale the Boilers drubbed rival Indiana by a score of 51-14. Mike Alstott rushed for 264 yards and three touchdowns in his final college game. Purdue would continue their losing ways the following year, slipping to 3-8 in 1996. However, Joe Tiller arrived in 1997 and the Boilers have been a consistent winner in the Big 10 since.

West Virginia 1995

Record: 5-6

Point Differential: +43

Pythag: 6.69-4.31

Close Games: 0-3

Winning Records: 0-5

Opp Win %: .472 (58-65-2)

One of the close losses suffered by the West Virginia Mountaineers was to the aforementioned Purdue Boilermakers on Labor Day Weekend by a 26-24 score. Although West Virginia benefited from a relatively easy schedule, they did not catch any breaks in close games going 0-3. They lost to every team with a winning record they played, and defeated all but one of the teams on their schedule that finished with losing records. Losing seasons were not common under legendary head coach Don Nehlen and the Mountaineers would actually flirt with perfection the following season beginning the year 7-0 before falling to Miami on a blocked punt in late October and finishing 8-4.

UCLA 1996

Record: 5-6

Point Differential: +12

Pythag: 5.74-5.26

Close Games: 1-2

Winning Records: 1-5

Opp Win %: .609 (78-50)

The Bruins went 4-4 in the Pac 10 in 1996, but thanks to their non-conference schedule, finished out of the bowl picture. Two of their three non-conference games were road showdowns against Tennessee (10-2) and Michigan (8-4). The other was a home date against Louisiana-Monroe. Replacing Tennessee and Michigan with some hyphenated opponents would have meant a postseason invite. Something was indeed Bruin in Los Angeles as the UCLA improved to 10-2 in 1997 and won the Cotton Bowl.

Alabama 1997

Record: 4-7

Point Differential: -2

Pythag: 5.45-5.55

Close Games: 0-4

Winning Records: 2-5

Opp Win %: .609 (78-50)

The Crimson Tide began the year 4-3, but lost their final four contests to finish 4-7 in Mike Dubose’s inaugural season. Their last 4 games were against Louisiana Tech (9-2), Louisiana State (9-3), Mississippi State (7-4), and Auburn (10-3). The Tide lost to Louisiana Tech by 6 and Auburn by 1 point. Despite their paltry win total, Alabama proved they could play with anyone by defeating Southern Mississippi (9-3) and Mississippi (8-4). Alabama improved to 7-5 the following season despite being outscored by their opponents. Dubose was on the hot seat heading into the 1999 season, when Shaun Alexander helped lead Alabama to the SEC Championship, postponing Dubose’s imminent departure.

Colorado 1997

Record: 5-6

Point Differential: +5

Pythag: 5.61-5.39

Close Games: 2-3

Winning Records: 2-6

Opp Win %: .662 (88-45)

Colorado was the victim of a horrific schedule in 1997. They faced an amazing 4 teams with at least 10 wins (they beat one of them), including the two national champions. If you’re curious, those teams were Colorado State (11-2), Kansas State (11-1), Michigan (12-0), and Nebraska (13-0). Overall, Colorado faced 8 teams with winning records, and played well against most of them. They knocked off Colorado State and Wyoming (7-6) and lost to the Huskers by a mere three points (their closest game point-wise all season although the Missouri game did go to overtime thanks to Matt Davison’s heroics). Colorado rebounded and won the Aloha Classic with an 8-4 record in 1998.

Central Florida 1997

Record: 5-6

Point Differential: +71

Pythag: 6.84-416

Close Games: 0-4

Winning Records: 1-4

Opp Win %: .590 (69-48)

In just their second season of Division IA football, Central Florida, behind quarterback Daunte Culpepper, nearly enjoyed a winning season. Since they had no conference affiliation, the Golden Knights were forced to take to the road for seven of their contests. Their road odyssey included trips to Mississippi (8-4), South Carolina (5-6), national champion Nebraska (13-0), Auburn (10-3), and Mississippi State (7-4). They lost to Mississippi by a single point, to South Carolina by two points, and to Mississippi State by seven points. They even gave the Huskers a run for their money before losing by 14. Their schedule did include a home data against a non-Division IA team (Samford), otherwise their schedule was quite strong. The highlight of the season was probably a 34-17 win over Toledo (9-3) in the finale. Culpepper stayed in school and in 1998 Central Florida went 9-2, but was left out of the bowl picture.

LSU 1998

Record: 4-7

Point Differential: +58

Pythag: 6.71-4.29

Close Games: 0-5

Winning Records: 2-7

Opp Win %: .621 (82-50)

Fresh off a 9-3 season that culminated with an Independence Bowl win over Notre Dame, great things were expected for the LSU Tigers. LSU began the season 3-0, but would only win one of their final 8 contests. Lady Luck was not on their side. 5 of their 7 losses were by a combined 19 points. Their schedule was also very difficult as they faced 5 teams with at least 9 wins. Unlike most of the other teams on this list, LSU did not improve the following year. They fell even farther to 3-8 and Gerry DiNardo was given his walking papers.

Oklahoma State 1998

Record: 5-6

Point Differential: +7

Pythag: 5.65-5.35

Close Games: 0-3

Winning Records: 1-5

Opp Win %: .545 (72-60)

Coming off an 8-4 season and an appearance in the Alamo Bowl the Pokes looked to be in fine shape under head coach Bob Simmons. Entering his fourth season, Simmons had improved the Cowboys record each season during his tenure. Coupled with returning quarterback Tony Lindsay who had taken the helm the previous season as a freshman and the Cowboys looked to be well on their way to a successful season. However, a 2-4 start doomed the Pokes to a losing season. The main difference in their booming 1997 campaign and the disappointing 1998 season was the schedule. In 1997 they avoided Big 12 North heavyweights Kansas State and Nebraska and were also fortunate because perennial power Texas fell on hard times (4-7). In 1998 they played both Kansas State and Nebraska as well as a revitalized Texas team (9-3).

Auburn 1999

Record: 5-6

Point Differential: -3

Pythag: 5.42-5.58

Close Games: 2-2

Winning Records: 2-6

Opp Win %: .639 (76-43)

In 1998, the Auburn Tigers had almost as many coaches (2) as wins (3). 1999 marked the maiden voyage of former Mississippi head man Tommy Tuberville on the Alabama plains. The Tigers improved by two wins to 5-6 and had their schedule not been so tough (7 of their opponents had at least twice as many wins as losses), they could have gone bowling. As it was, Tuberville certainly set the program back on the right track.

Notre Dame 1999

Record: 5-7

Point Differential: +17

Pythag: 6.36-5.64

Close Games: 3-4

Winning Records: 1-6

Opp Win %: .601 (86-57)

1999 was a year of streaks for the Fighting Irish. After opening the season with a blowout of Kansas, the Irish lost 3 in a row, and then won 4 in a row, before finally losing their final 4 games. For the most part, Notre Dame beat the teams they were supposed to and lost to the teams they should have. Their best win was over Bob Stoops’ first Oklahoma team that finished 7-5. Their worst loss was to a 5-6 Pittsburgh team.

Arizona 2000

Record: 5-6

Point Differential: +17

Pythag: 5.95-5.05

Close Games: 1-3

Winning Records: 0-4

Opp Win %: .570 (73-55)

After beginning the season 5-1, the Wildcats lost their final 5 games. Three of those games were against Oregon (10-2), Washington (11-1), and Oregon State (11-1). Arizona kept the first two games close losing to Oregon by 4 and Washington by 3. Ultimately, the five-game losing streak cost head coach Dick Tomey his job, and the Wildcats have not had a winning season since. Draw your own conclusions.

Colorado 2000

Record: 3-8

Point Differential: -32

Pythag: 4.73-6.27

Close Games: 1-6

Winning Records: 1-6

Opp Win %: .626 (82-49)

Colorado was doubly unlucky in 2000. They finish could not catch a break within games (going 1-6 in close games) nor between games; facing seven teams with winning records including 4 with at least 10 wins (Colorado State, Washington, Kansas State, and Nebraska). They also faced two more teams with 9 wins (Texas and Iowa State). Thankfully, they avoided the eventual national champion, Oklahoma Sooners. Colorado bounced back in 2001, winning the Big 12 and participating in the Fiesta Bowl.

Utah 2000

Record: 4-7

Point Differential: +27

Pythag: 6.29-4.71

Close Games: 0-4

Winning Records: 1-2

Opp Win %: .465 (59-68)

Before Utah was led out of the wilderness by Urban Meyer, they were a middling Mountain West team that could not catch a break. The Utes were in the vicinity of victories in four of their defeats. Although their schedule strength is relatively weak, they did lose three times to Pac 10 schools (Arizona, California, and Washington State).

Arizona State 2001

Record: 4-7

Point Differential: +13

Pythag: 5.73-5.27

Close Games: 0-1

Winning Records: 0-5

Opp Win %: .551 (70-57)

Former Boise State head man Dirk Koetter, revitalized the offense in his inaugural season in the desert. However, the regressed and the Sun Devils struggled through a 4-7 season. Close games were not the culprit for the Devils’ struggles. Most of the Sun Devils’ games were blowouts. In their 4 wins their average margin of victory was 30.5. In their 7 losses, their average margin of defeat was 15.6. Remove the 2 point loss to Washington and the average jumps to 19.5. The Devils’ offense continued to improve in 2002, but the defense continued their laissez faire approach to tackling and the team improved to only 8-6.

Oregon State 2001

Record: 5-6

Point Differential: +28

Pythag: 6.17-4.83

Close Games: 1-3

Winning Records: 1-4

Opp Win %: .576 (78-50)

After their 11-1 2000 season that included a thrashing of Notre Dame in the Fiesta Bowl, the Beavers were saddled with great expectations. Sports Illustrated even ranked them number 1 in their preview issue. It took only one week for those dreams to be dashed. In the first game of the season, the Beavers were ambushed in Fresno and the world was introduced to David Carr and Pat Hill. After that humbling defeat, the Beavers could not get back on track. They began the season 1-3, and despite winning four of their last six games, they could not qualify for a bowl game. Beside Fresno (11-3) the Beavers also faced Washington State (10-2) and Oregon (11-1) in a strong Pac 10. Proving they were better than their record, Oregon State improved to 8-5 in 2002.

Illinois 2002

Record: 5-7

Point Differential: +39

Pythag: 6.84-5.16

Close Games: 2-3

Winning Records: 2-5

Opp Win %: .555 (86-69)

After a surprise Big 10 championship in 2001, Ron Turner’s Illini fell on some hard luck in 2002. If you’ll remember, the 2001 incarnation if the Illini was on the worst 10-win teams of the last decade list, so this year’s version really wasn’t dramatically worse, just a lot less lucky. The Illini began the season 1-5 before rebounding to win 4 of their last 6 to finish strong. However, the bottom fell out in 2003 as the Illini slumped to 1-11.

Alabama 2003

Record: 4-9

Point Differential: -2

Pythag: 6.45-6.55

Close Games: 0-6

Winning Records: 2-9

Opp Win %: .679 (114-54)

The Crimson Tide had an unbelievable difficult schedule in 2003. They played 11 teams with winning records, and amazingly almost have the teams they played (6) won at least 10 games. The Tide were also agonizingly close in most of their losses as well, going 0-6 in close games. Alabama rebounded in 2004 finishing 6-6 before breaking through in 2005 and going 10-2.

Arkansas 2004

Record: 5-6

Point Differential: +58

Pythag: 6.75-4.25

Close Games: 1-3

Winning Records: 0-6

Opp Win %: .617 (79-49)

The Hogs suffered their first losing season under head coach Houston Nutt. They were certainly capable of playing with the big boys, at least at home. They lost by 2 to Texas (11-1) and by 6 to Georgia (10-2). Road games were a different beast as they were only able to slip by Mississippi State (3-8) by 3 points.

Kansas 2004

Record: 4-7

Point Differential: +27

Pythag: 6.20-4.80

Close Games: 1-5

Winning Records: 1-6

Opp Win %: .598 (79-53)

Despite the fact that they finished 4-7, 2004 was still a historic year for the Jayhawks. They beat in-state rival Kansas State for the first time since 1992. With a little bit of luck (they were 1-5 in close games) and perhaps some better officiating (against Texas) the Jayhawks may have made three straight bowl trips under Mark Mangino.

NC State 2004

Record: 5-6

Point Differential: +46

Pythag: 6.73-4.276

Close Games: 2-4

Winning Records: 1-5

Opp Win %: .564 (66-51)

The first year of the post-Phillip Rivers era resulted in Chuck Amato’s first losing season as a head coach. The Pack went from scoring over 37 points per game to a mere 24 per game. Aside from the narrow victory over Virginia Tech, the Pack could not break through against good teams either, posting a 1-5 record against winning teams. Despite an even poorer performance from the offense in 2005, the pack improved to 7-5.

Arkansas 2005

Record: 4-7

Point Differential: +12

Pythag: 5.78-5.22

Close Games: 0-4

Winning Records: 0-6

Opp Win %: .630 (75-44)

The Hogs make the list two seasons in a row. In the last two years Arkansas has gone a cumulative 1-7 in close games and has yet to beat a team with a winning record (0-12). If one team is going to come from nowhere to shock the world in 2006, the smart money is on Houston Nutt’s boys.

Connecticut 2005

Record: 5-6

Point Differential: +61

Pythag: 7.11-3.89

Close Games: 1-1

Winning Records: 0-4

Opp Win %: .478 (55-60)

After a successful initial season in the Big East in 2004, the Huskies nearly fell to the bottom of the league in 2005. Like Arizona State circa 2001, close games were not to blame for the Huskies poor record. Nearly every game they played was a laugher one way or the other. They won their 5 games by an average of 31 points. Their 6 losses came by an average of 15.7 points.

Pittsburgh 2005

Record: 5-6

Point Differential: +24

Pythag: 6.11-4.89

Close Games: 0-3

Winning Records: 0-5

Opp Win %: .552 (64-52)

2005 was a banner year for Pittsburgh football. Unfortunately, it was the pro team that enjoyed the fruits of a championship. In his first season, head coach Dave Wannstedt suffered some terrible luck (0-3 in close games) and some terrible defeats (losing to Ohio and Rutgers). With Tyler Palko returning for his senior season, and with the fortune of hosting nearly every tough game on the schedule (Virginia, Michigan State, Louisville, and West Virginia), the Panthers may rebound quite well in 2006.

Washington State 2005

Record: 4-7

Point Differential: +22

Pythag: 5.90-5.10

Close Games: 1-5

Winning Records: 1-5

Opp Win %: .598 (70-47)

Hard luck does not begin to describe the Cougars season in 2005. Not only did they finish 1-5 in close games, those 5 losses occurred in a span of 6 weeks. Despite the best efforts of Jerome Harrison (1900 rushing yards) Washington State could not catch a break.

Here’s the tail of the tape. Below is the best of each team in each category (or worst in terms of close games which indicate a fair amount of luck).

Point Differential: +71; Central Florida 1997

Pythag: 7.11-3.89; Connecticut 2005

Close Games: 0-6; Alabama 2003

Winning Record: 2-9; Alabama 2003

Opp Win%: .679 (114-54); Alabama 2003

So who is the best of the losing teams? I have to say Alabama circa 2003. Their schedule was ridiculous and their luck was horrendous. Colorado from 1997 is a close second thanks to having to play both national champions. Your thoughts?

Consistent Part Deux

About a month ago I blogged about consistency in the Big 12 conference. Now I'm going to examine consistency in the Pac 10 for the same time span (1996-2005). Amazingly in that 10 season span, every team in the Pac 10 has won at least 10 games (or won the conference) and had a losing season. If Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were alive today and football fans, they would surely enjoy Pac 10 football. Here are the 10 teams ranked by standard deviation of seasonal winning percentage from most consistent to least consistent.

Oregon .1528
Stanford .1741
Arizona State .1742
UCLA .1767
Oregon State .2032
Arizona .2109
California .2178
Southern Cal .2203
Washington State .2379
Washington .2479

The Ducks rate as the most consistent team of the past 10 years. However, their standard deviation would only rate as the 7th most consistent if they played in the Big 12. In one of sports nice little coincidences, the Ducks won 6 games in 1996 and increased their win total by exactly one game until 2001 when they peaked with 11 wins. The Huskies of Washington rate as the least consistent having gone from perennial contender in the late 90's to doormat the last two seasons. Southern Cal may be a heavy favorite to win their fifth consecutive conference title, but if the Pac 10 has been anything in the past decade, its anything but predictable.

The Measure of a Man

Does height have any effect on how well college quarterbacks play? Of course it does. The average Division I quarterback is taller than the average man. Coaches (whether accurate or not) are biased toward taller players. We know there is a difference between groups (quarterbacks and average joes), but is there a difference within groups? Are taller quarterbacks better passers? Are shorter quarterbacks better runners? To answer these questions, I sampled every Division IA quarterback that threw at least 100 passes last season. I set up an excel file and included four facts about each quarterback: their height in inches, their completion percentage, their TD/INT ratio, and their cummulative rushing yards. I then made three seperate graphs with height as the independent variable and the other three variables as the dependent variables. I also ran a regression analysis and determined the r squared value for height and each dependent variable. Unfortunately, I don't yet know how to transpose the graphs onto this blog so you'll have to take my word for it. Here are the r squared values for each set of variables.

Height and Completion %: .0028
Height and TD/INT Ratio: .0003
Height and Rushing Yards: .0596

No r squared value is very high. Completion percentage and TD/INT ratio both have minute positive relationships with height. Rushing yardage actually has a negative relationship with height. Although it is still very weak, it is exponentially more correlated with height than completion percentage or TD/INT ratio. All in all, this exercise was a lot like getting a degree from an online university: A lot of work and little to show for it. The reason their is no real discernable difference in height is beacuse of the lack of variation in height among college quarterbacks. Of the 140 quarterbacks who threw 100 passes last season, only 5 were under 6 feet and only 18 were over 6 foot 4. Maybe the ACLU can file on suit on the lack of diversity.

How Accurate is the Pythagorean Theorem in College Football?

I doth believe UCLA is in for a decline.

In baseball, the Pythagorean Theorem is a often a better indicator of team strength and usually a better predictor of future performance than a team's actual record. Is this also true in college football? Only one way to find out. I wanted to know which variable was a better predictor of each BCS school's 2005 winning percentage: their 2004 winning percentage or their 2004 Pythagorean winning percentage.

R squared for 2004 win %: .4070
R squared for 2004 Pythagorean win %: .5108

Both variables explain a significant portion of the variability of the 2005 record. However, the Pythagorean winning percentage is a better predictor as it explains roughly 25% more of the variance than the standard winning percentage.

It should be noted that most teams' winning percentages are close to their winning percentages as predicted by the Pythagorean Theorem. Now let's shift gears and focus on those teams who had a significant disparity in their winning percentage and their Pythagorean winning percentage. The cutoff point for 'significant disparity' is an arbitrary one, but I chose .100. That means if a team had a winning percentage of .750, but only a Pythagorean winning percentage of .64, they are included in this portion of the study. 22 teams from 2004 fit this criteria. If you're curious, those teams are listed at the bottom of this article. Using the same methodology as the previous study, I looked to see how well the 2004 winning percentage of these teams predicted their 2005 winning percenatage and then how well their 2004 Pythagorean winning percentage predicted their 2005 winning percentage. Here are the results.

R Squared for 2004 win %: .0428
R Squared for 2004 Pythagorean win %: .3097

When we examine only teams with a significant difference in actual and expected winning percentage the predictive power of their actual record practically disappears. The predictive power of the Pythagorean method is much smaller as well, but a relationship can still be deciphered.

The final study is the same as the first, but this time with the 22 teams with significant differences removed.

R Squared for 2004 win %: .5750
R Squared for 2004 Pythagorean win %: .5826

This result is pretty logical. When a team's actual record closely matches its predicted record, both do a pretty good job of predicting the team's record the next year.

With this data, we can conclude that the Pythagorean Theorem is applicable to college football, and when prospecting forward it is best to look at a team's ratio of points scored to points allowed rather than their actual record.

Who Wins Close Games?

Previously on this blog, I've debunked the fallacy that teams have an 'ability' to win close games. Now I want to take another look. Two writers for baseball prospectus, Rany Jazayerli and Keith Woolner, discovered that bullpen strength influences which teams win close games in Major League Baseball. Does team defensive strength have a similar effect in college football? To answer this question I selected the top 5 defensive teams in terms of scoring defense for each of the past six seasons (2000-2005), a sample of 30 teams. Then I selected the top 5 offensive teams in terms of scoring defense for the past six seasons, another sample of 30 teams. Then I determined each team's record in close games (games decided by 1 score = 8 points or less). Here is the year by year examination of the top 5 scoring offense and top 5 scoring defenses in terms of their record in close games.

2000

Defensive Teams Offensive Teams

Texas Christian 0-2 Boise State 1-2
Florida State 1-1 Miami (Fla) 1-1
Toledo 1-1 Florida State 1-1
Western Michigan 2-2 Nebraska 2-1
Miami (Fla) 1-1 Virginia Tech 2-0

Total: 5-7 .417 Total: 7-5 .583

2001

Defensive Teams Offensive Teams
Miami (Fla) 1-0 BYU 5-0
Virginia Tech 0-2 Florida 0-2
Texas 1-1 Miami (Fla) 1-0
Oklahoma 2-1 Fresno State 2-2
Florida 0-2 Hawaii 3-3

Total: 4-6 .400 Total: 11-7 .611

2002

Defensive Teams Offensive Teams
Kansas State 2-2 Boise State 0-0
Ohio State 7-0 Kansas State 2-2
North Texas 2-3 Miami (Fla) 2-1
Georgia 5-1 Bowling Green 1-0
Alabama 2-1 Oklahoma 1-1

Total: 18-7 .720 Total: 6-4 .600

2003

Defensive Teams Offensive Teams
LSU 3-0 Boise State 3-1
Nebraska 1-0 Miami (Ohio) 2-0
Georgia 2-2 Oklahoma 1-1
Miami (Fla) 5-1 Texas Tech 2-2
Oklahoma 1-1 Southern Cal 0-1

Total: 12-4 .750 Total: 8-5 .615

2004

Defensive Teams Offensive Teams
Auburn 3-0 Louisville 2-1
Virginia Tech 4-2 Boise State 3-1
Southern Cal 4-0 Utah 0-0
Florida State 3-3 Bowling Green 0-1
Penn State 1-3 Fresno State 1-2

Total: 15-8 .652 Total: 6-5 .545

2005

Defensive Teams Offensive Teams
Alabama 3-1 Texas 2-0
Miami (Fla) 2-2 Southern Cal 2-1
Virginia Tech 1-1 Louisville 1-1
Georgia 3-3 Texas Tech 2-2
Texas 2-0 Fresno State 0-4

Total: 11-7 .611 Total: 7-8 .467

The 30 strong defensive teams posted a combined record of 65-39 in close games (.625). The 30 strong offensive teams posted a combined record of 45-34 in close games (.570). So it appears strong defensive teams do win more than their fair share of close games. Furthermore, 13 of the 30 strong defensive teams posted winning records in close games, 12 posted .500 records, and only 5 posted losing records. 12 of the strong offensive teams posted winning records in close games, 10 posted .500 records, 6 posted losing records, and 2 had no record.

No statistical study is complete without a control group. To find a control group, I randomly selected 5 teams for each season (numbering each team alpahebtically and using a random number generator) to be the basis for comparison. These team ranged from great (Penn State 2005 and LSU 2003) to medicore (South Carolina 2004) to awful (Duke 2000). Here are those teams and their respective records in close games.

2000

Minnesota 1-4
Duke 0-2
Kansas State 3-1
Southern Miss 3-3
Nevada 2-0

Total: 9-10 .474

2001

Miami (Ohio) 4-3
Mississippi State 2-5
Clemson 4-2
Oklahoma 2-1
Rice 5-1

Total: 17-12 .586

2002

Eastern Michigan 3-1
Louisiana Tech 2-1
Miami (Ohio) 3-3
Virginia 4-2
Colorado 2-2

Total: 14-9 .609

2003

Vanderbilt 0-2
Minnesota 3-2
UTEP 1-2
LSU 3-0
Memphis 1-2

Total: 8-8 .500

2004

Florida State 3-3
South Carolina 2-2
East Carolina 1-2
Hawaii 2-1
San Jose State 1-1

Total: 9-9 .500

2005

Kansas 1-0
Toledo 1-1
Mississippi 2-2
Penn State 3-1
Connecticut 1-1

Total: 8-5 .615

The 30 random teams had a cummulative winning percentage in close games of .551 (65-53). If your memory is short, that is less than the winning percentage of the strong defensive (.625) and offensive (.570) teams. Of those 30 random teams, 14 posted winning records, 9 posted .500 records, and 7 posted losing records. That's actually more teams with winning records, but also more with losing records for the control group.

Judging from this data, strong defensive teams do appear to win more than their fair share of close games. However, there are several important issues to discuss. Foremost, points allowed may not be the best method to rate defenses. Many factors account for scoring points. A team with the best defense may not finish as the top ranked scoring defense if their offense has many turnovers that put them in bad spots or if their special teams do likewise. Perhaps yardage or even yards per play is a better indicator of a defense's true strength. A second problem is schedule strength. The teams in BCS conferences are usually the best defensive teams thanks to the talent they are able to recruit. However, their schedules are also more difficult because they play other BCS schools who are also able to recruit the best talent. For this reason, their points allowed may be higher than small-conference schools that enjoy easier schedules. For example, in 2002 North Texas had the 3rd ranked scoring defense. They shut out 3 teams that season. One of those teams was non-Division IA Nicholls State and the other two were Louisiana Lafayette (averaged 16.92 points per game) and Idaho (averaged 23.75 points per game). The Mean Green did have a stout defense in 2002 (they held Texas, TCU, and Arizona below their seasonal averages), but they were definitely not the third best in the nation. Even though this study is not perfect, something can still be gleaned. Winning close games, while still heavily determined by luck and pure randomness, seem to be a skill that strong defensive teams somewhat possess.

Steady as She Goes: Addendum

Last week, I posted a small regression analysis of year to year correlation of points scored versus points allowed. In the past week, I have been conducting similar analyses for previous seasons. Here are the results:

Correlation of points per game:
2004-2005: .3375
2003-2004: .3740
2002-2003: .3602
2001-2002: .1415
2000-2001: .2625

Correlation of points allowed per game:
2004-2005: .4108
2003-2004: .2935
2002-2003: .3606
2001-2002: .3868
2000-2001: .4159

If I had stopped after the second regression analysis, I would have concluded that offensive and defensive correlation from year to year was essentially random. However, after looking at 5 seasons worth of data, I am inclined to believe that year to year correlations between defense are more consistent that year to year correlations between offense. The correlation coefficient for defense was higher than offense for 3 of the 5 seasons, lower for only 1 season, and almost equal for another. Furthermore, the range for the correlation coefficient for defense was much smaller (.1224) than the same range for offense (.2325). Thus I believe the conslusion I reached last week remains correct (somewhat). Your thoughts?

Steady as She Goes

In keeping with the spirit of my previous post about consistency, I decided to conduct a little study to see which aspects of a college football team's performance are more consistent over time. Executing the study was simple, I simply calculated how many points per game each Division IA team scored in 2004 and determined how well they predicted each team's points per game in 2005 by using the r squared (correlation coefficient). Here's a technical definition. In laymen's terms, the r squared is the percentage of variation in the 2005 numbers that are explained by the 2004 numbers. I then did the same thing with each Division IA team's defense. The results are below, and to me they are a bit surprsing.

Correlation of points per game 2004-2005: .3375

Correlation of points allowed per game 2004-2005: .4108

Defense, at least from 2004-2005, is more consistent than offensive perfromance. This seems counter-intuitive because defense is a game of reactions. The offense dictates not only the pace, but also the personnel that the defense must have on the field. Later on this week, I will post the correlation for 2003-2004 and also 2002-2003 if I have time. If this holds true, it could be good news for teams like Georgia Tech and Alabama that have had good defenses for a few years running, but have been derailed by below-average offenses. Additionally, it could be bad news for teams like Notre Dame that had dramatic offensive improvements in 2005, but had similar defensive results. Of course, this data is at the macro level, and it would be prudent to consider each case individually when attempting to prospect how each team will do in 2006 relative to their 2005 numbers (graduating players, change in coaching style, etc.). As always, your thoughts on this seemingly counter-intuitive phenomenon are welcome.

Consistent

There are several different levels of consistentcy in college football. Some teams consistently win 6-7 games and go to a low-tier bowl, others win 10-11 and play in the BCS, while some are consistently pummelled by the opposition and win only 2-3 games. The Big 12 Conference has been around for 10 years. Which teams have been the most consistent in terms of winning percentage year in and year out, and which have run the gauntlet from also ran to greatness? Here are the 12 teams ranked by standard deviation of seasonal winning percentage from most consistent to least consistent.

Texas Tech .066
Baylor .103
Kansas .112
Missouri .129
Texas A&M .133
Oklahoma St. .141
Colorado .167
Nebraska .176
Texas .179
Kansas St. .200
Iowa St. .223
Oklahoma .258

The Red Raiders rate as the most consistent team with a standard deviation of only 6.6% in winning percentage. In their 10 years of play in the Big 12, they have never finished with a losing record, and have never won more than 9 games. Baylor is the second most consistent team, never posting a winning record and recording 4 seasons of 3 wins and 3 seasons of 2 wins. Texas Tech has been by far the most consistent team, as the difference in standard deviation between themselves and the second place Baylor Bears is nearly the same as the distance between Baylor and the sixth most consistent team (or team with about average consistentcy if that makes any sense), the Oklahoma St. Cowboys. Oklahoma has been the least consistent team. The primary reason for this is that they never won more than 5 games in the 3 seasons before Bob Stoops arrival. During his tenure in Norman, the Sooner have won more than 10 games 5 times, and have won at least twice as many as they have lost in all but one season. Iowa St. is the second most inconsistent team with finishes of 1-10, 7-7, and 9-3. I don't know how much insight this lends if any, but I just thought it was interesting.

The Worst 10-win Team of the Last Decade

The worst 10-win team of the past decade is a category akin to the ugliest supermodel, and weakest strongman. A few days ago, I said Mississippi State circa 1999 may be the worst 10-win team ever. That was a dramatic overstatement. With neither the time nor the energy to traverse NCAA football’s long and storied history, I decided to take a look at the worst 10-win teams since 1996. Let’s take a stroll down memory lane and examine some of these bad-good teams. Under each team, 6 characteristics will be listed: their record, their point differential, their Pythagorean record, their record in close games, their record against teams with winning records, and their opponent’s winning percentage.

Kansas 1995

Record: 10-2

Point Differential: +84

Pythag: 7.91-4.09

Close Games: 3-0

Winning Records: 4-2

Opp Win %: .515 (70-66-1)

In Glenn Mason’s penultimate season in Lawrence, the Jayhawks went 10-2 and won the Aloha Bowl. Kansas played six teams with winning records, but two of them were over Cincinnati and Texas Christian who both finished (6-5), as well as their bowl win over 7-5 UCLA. They did manage to beat 10-2 Colorado, but in their other two games against dominant teams (10-2 Kansas State and 12-0 Nebraska), they were beaten by a combined 82-10 score.

Army 1996

Record: 10-2

Point Differential: +155

Pythag: 9.32-2.68

Close Games: 1-1

Winning Records: 3-2

Opp Win%: .465 (53-61)

In their most recent winning season, Army posted a very solid point differential, but their schedule was very weak. Their opponent’s winning percentage does not include two games they played against non Division I-A opponents Yale and Lafayette. They also beat Duke (0-11), Tulane, and Rutgers (both 2-9). Their best win was over fellow service academy Navy (9-3). In their bowl game, they did give Auburn (8-4) all they could handle before succumbing by 3 points.

Wyoming 1996

Record: 10-2

Point Differential: +180

Pythag: 9.14-2.86

Close Games: 4-2

Winning Records: 3-2

Opp Win%: .429 (60-80)

Another team with a solid point differential, but weak schedule. Joe Tiller parlayed this solid season into a gig at Purdue. The Cowboys best win was over Colorado State (7-5). They did suffer close losses to San Diego State (8-3) and Brigham Young (14-1), but they also narrowly defeated Iowa State (2-9), Idaho (6-5), and Air Force (6-5). Other cupcake wins, albeit by a much large margin, were over Hawaii (2-10), UNLV (1-11), San Jose State (3-9), Western Michigan (2-9), Fresno State (4-7), and Southern Methodist (5-6). Although they were undefeated entering November (9-0), their loss to Brigham Young in the WAC Championship Game cost them a bowl bid despite the gaudy record.

Air Force 1997

Record: 10-3

Point Differential: +89

Pythag: 9.27-3.73

Close Games: 5-2

Winning Record: 4-1

Opp Win%: .493 (69-71)

Air Force had a solid point differential and Pythagorean record, but they played several close games and the only good team they beat was Colorado State (11-2). The other winning teams include non-bowl invitees Rice and Navy (both 7-4), Wyoming (7-6), and the Las Vegas Bowl loss (by 28 points) to Oregon (7-5). They also lost to Fresno State (6-6) and San Jose State (4-7).

Georgia Tech 1998

Record: 10-2

Point Differential: +131

Pythag: 8.46-3.54

Close Games: 4-0

Winning Record: 5-1

Opp Win%: .518 (72-67)

Probably the best of the worst 10-win teams if that makes any sense. Good point differential, but were 4-0 in close games and although they beat some good teams (Georgia, Notre Dame, and Virginia were all 9-3) they lost to Boston College (4-7), got annihilated by the only elite team they played (Florida State beat them by 27 in Atlanta), and four of their wins were over 3-8 teams (Wake Forest, Clemson, Maryland, and New Mexico State).

Miami (Ohio) 1998

Record: 10-1

Point Differential: +175

Pythag: 9.57-1.43

Close Games: 3-0

Winning Record: 2-1

Opp Win%: .384 (48-77)

Good point differential, but a ridiculously easy schedule. Their best win is a 3-point victory over North Carolina (7-5). Beat five teams with 3 or fewer wins including Kent State (0-11) and Ball State (1-10). However, they did play only 4 home games versus 7 road dates which has to count for something.

Boise State 1999

Record: 10-3

Point Differential: +153

Pythag: 9.61-3.39

Close Games: 4-1

Winning Record: 4-1

Opp Win%: .472 (59-66)

The Broncos also beat two non-Division IA opponents, further lowering their strength of schedule. Three of the teams with winning records they beat were mediocre at best: Louisville (7-5), Idaho (7-4), and New Mexico State (6-5). They played only 4 road games (the bowl game was played at home on the Smurf Turf) and lost 3 of them. Their losses were to UCLA (4-7), Hawaii (9-4), and North Texas (2-9). Their lone road win was a 6-point victory over Utah State (4-7).

Mississippi State 1999

Record: 10-2

Point Differential: +99

Pythag: 9.15-2.85

Close Games: 5-1

Winning Record: 1-2

Opp Win%: .464 (64-74)

As discussed a few days ago, Mississippi State beat one team with a winning record, and enjoyed a three-game stretch where they won by 2, 1, and 1 points respectively.

Brigham Young 2001

Record: 12-2

Point Differential: +194

Pythag: 9.93-4.07

Close Games: 5-0

Winning Record: 3-2

Opp Win%: .435 (70-91)

In early December 2001, Brigham Young was contemplating suing the BCS because they were likely to be on the outside looking in despite a 13-0 record. One 27-point loss to Hawaii later and the BCS could have sued the Cougars for impersonating a college football team. The Cougars played almost no one of note until their bowl loss to Louisville (11-2). Half of their wins came against teams with 3 or fewer wins. Give them credit for playing 7 road games in the regular season.

Illinois 2001

Record: 10-2

Point Differential: +105

Pythag: 8.13-3.87

Close Games: 4-0

Winning Record: 3-2

Opp Win%: .514 (72-68)

The Fighting Illini parlayed an easy Big 10 schedule (they played two league teams with winning records: Michigan and Ohio State) into a surprise Big 10 title. They lost to Michigan by 25, beat Ohio State, and squeaked by losing league teams Wisconsin, Penn State, and Northwestern by 7, 5, and 6 points respectively. They did manage to beat Louisville (11-2), whom you’ll see later, but lost their bowl game to the SEC Champion LSU Tigers. This season appears to be a fluke, as the Illini have a record of 11-35 since their Sugar Bowl appearance.

Louisville 2001

Record: 11-2

Point Differential: +171

Pythag: 10.32-2.68

Close Games: 2-0

Winning Record: 4-1

Opp Win%: .486 (69-73)

Add a victory over a non-Division IA team to the Cardinals strength of schedule. They did beat a flawed 12-2 Brigham Young team, but their best win in the regular season is either Colorado State or Cincinnati (both 7-5).

Marshall 2001

Record: 11-2

Point Differential: +143

Pythag: 8.90-4.10

Close Games: 3-1

Winning Record: 4-2

Opp Win%: .512 (64-61)

Two of Marshall’s 11 wins were over non-Division IA competition. Three of the winning teams they beat were Northern Illinois and Kent State (both 6-5) and Miami of Ohio (7-5). In their lone game against an elite team, they lost to Florida (10-2) by 35. They also lost to Toledo (10-2) who you’ll read about later.

Syracuse 2001

Record: 10-3

Point Differential: +87

Pythag: 8.73-4.27

Close Games: 2-1

Winning Record: 5-3

Opp Win%: .571 (88-66)

Syracuse’s opponents had a very good record, but this is skewed by Miami of Florida (12-0) and Tennessee (11-2). They lost those games by a combined score of 9-92, showing they were not ready for prime time. The winning teams they beat were pedestrian at best: Central Florida (6-5), Auburn (7-5), Pittsburgh (7-5), Virginia Tech (8-4), and Boston College (8-4). Besides Miami, the Big East was down in 2001, and the Orangemen took advantage by turning in a second-place finish that is not as strong as it looked at the time.

Toledo 2001

Record: 10-2

Point Differential: +110

Pythag: 8.14-3.86

Close Games: 5-1

Winning Record: 3-1

Opp Win%: .418 (56-78)

Holy Toledo! The Rockets played a large number of close games, and won almost all of them. Besides the aforementioned Marshall (11-2), the other winning teams the Rockets knocked off were Cincinnati (7-5) in the Motor City Bowl and Northern Illinois (6-5). Four of their wins were over teams with 3 wins or less, including winless Navy. They also lost to 5-6 Ball State.

Colorado State 2002

Record: 10-4

Point Differential: +86

Pythag: 8.86-5.14

Close Games: 7-2

Winning Record: 4-3

Opp Win%: .520 (93-86)

Nine of their 14 games could have gone either way. They won just about every one. They do have some impressive victories over Virginia and Colorado (both 9-5), but they also squeaked by some run of the mill squads. These include Louisville (7-6) by 3, Nevada (5-7) by 4, Wyoming (2-10) by 8, and New Mexico (7-7) by 8. They also lost to UNLV (5-7).

Hawaii 2002

Record: 10-4

Point Differential: +113

Pythag: 9.05-4.95

Close Games: 3-2

Winning Record: 1-3

Opp Win%: .463 (76-88)

Hawaii also beat a non-Division IA team to further lower their strength of schedule. The only winning team they beat was Fresno State (9-5). They left the islands for only 5 of their 14 games. Two of their wins were over Tulsa (1-11) and UTEP (2-10). They also lost to Brigham Young (5-7).

Marshall 2002

Record: 11-2

Point Differential: +142

Pythag: 9.19-3.81

Close Games: 5-0

Winning Record: 4-1

Opp Win%: .443 (66-83)

The Thundering Herd added a win over a non-Division IA team. In their only encounter with an upper-echelon team, they lost to Virginia Tech by 26. They won every close game they played, including a 5 point win over Central Michigan (4-8) and a 3 point win over Ohio (4-8). The four winning teams they beat were pedestrian at best: Central Florida (7-5), Miami of Ohio (7-5), Toledo (9-5), and Louisville (7-6). Besides Virginia Tech, they also lost to Akron (4-8).

Michigan 2002

Record: 10-3

Point Differential: +96

Pythag: 8.78-4.22

Close Games: 6-2

Winning Record: 6-3

Opp Win%: .602 (100-66)

This team is probably one of the weaker Lloyd Carr coached Michigan teams. The Wolverines played a ton of close games, and despite the fact that their Big 10 schedule allowed them to engage several winning teams; very few of them were elite. Ohio State (14-0), Iowa (11-2), and Notre Dame (10-3), we’ll talk about them soon, skew the strength of schedule. It’s no surprise Michigan lost all three of these games. The other six winning teams they played (and beat) were Washington (7-6), Penn State (9-4), Purdue (7-6), Minnesota (8-5), Wisconsin (8-6), and Florida (8-5).

Notre Dame 2002

Record: 10-3

Point Differential: +73

Pythag: 8.65-4.35

Close Games: 6-1

Winning Record: 6-3

Opp Win%: .563 (94-73)

The quintessential phrase ‘luck of the Irish’ rings true for this team. They began the season 8-0, beating several strong teams, albeit by the slimmest of margins. That all changed when they finally lost a close game to Boston College. They ended the season by showing they did not belong among college footballs upper class, but rather among the proletariat, by losing to Southern Cal (11-2) and NC State (11-3) by a combined score of 72-17. Early on the Irish also struggled to put away mediocre Purdue (7-6), as well as also-rans Michigan State (4-8) and Navy (2-10), winning those games by 7, 4, and 7 points respectively. Proving they were playing way over their heads, the team slumped to 5-7 in 2003.

Texas Christian 2002

Record: 10-2

Point Differential: +139

Pythag: 9.12-2.88

Close Games: 3-2

Winning Record: 5-0

Opp Win%: .434 (66-86)

The winning record category is deceptive. Those winning teams they beat include Sun Belt Champion North Texas (8-5), Louisville (7-6), Southern Mississippi (7-6), Tulane (8-5), and Colorado State (10-4) who was discussed earlier. Their 2 losses were to Cincinnati (7-7) and East Carolina (4-8).

Iowa 2004

Record: 10-2

Point Differential: +81

Pythag: 8.20-3.8

Close Games: 5-0

Winning Record: 6-2

Opp Win%: .582 (82-59)

Iowa skated through their Big 10 schedule through the thinnest of margins. They defeated Penn State (4-7), Purdue (7-5), and Minnesota (7-5) all by 2 points. Out of conference they beat Iowa State (7-5) by 7 and in the Capital One Bowl they knocked off Louisiana State (9-3) by 5. In their 2 losses, they were soundly thumped by Arizona State (9-3) and Michigan (9-3) by a combined score of 74-24. Like most teams that win a lot of close games one year, the Hawkeyes regressed the next season to 7-5 by going 0-3 in close games.

Navy 2004

Record: 10-2

Point Differential: +96

Pythag: 8.29-3.71

Close Games: 4-0

Winning Record: 1-0

Opp Win%: .354 (40-73)

Head coach Paul Johnson helped Navy to a 10-win season in 2004. It was probably the worst 10-win season on this list, but I don't think you will hear too many Navy fans complain. Navy played one team with a winning record all season, New Mexico (7-5) in the Emerald Bowl, whom they defeated. They also beat 2 non-Division IA teams. Their losses were to Notre Dame (6-6) by 18 points and to Tulane (5-6) by 32 points.

Tennessee 2004

Record: 10-3

Point Differential: +83

Pythag: 8.36-4.64

Close Games: 6-1

Winning Record: 4-2

Opp Win%: .549 (84-69)

The 2004 incarnation of the Tennessee Volunteers are probably the luckiest team on this list. They were an amazing 6-1 in close games, losing only to Notre Dame by 4 points. Their other 2 losses were both to Auburn (13-0) by 24 and 10 points respectively. The blowout win over Texas A&M (7-5) in the Cotton Bowl raised expectations heading into 2005, but like most teams that win a lot of close games one year, their luck changed the following year. The Vols finished 5-6 in 2005, highlighted by a mediocre 3-3 record in close games. Incidentally, one handsome devil predicted the fall of Tennessee.

UCLA 2005

Record: 10-2

Point Differential: +59

Pythag: 6.95-5.05

Close Games: 4-0

Winning Record: 4-1

Opp Win%: .482 (67-72)

An early November game against Arizona (3-8) says all there is to say about UCLA. Coming off a narrow win over Stanford (5-6) and standing 8-0, the Bruins were stomped by the Wildcats by 38 points. Two weeks later, the Southern Cal Trojans demolished them 47. UCLA was a decent team that lucked onto a 10-win season. They are certainly destined to sink like the Titanic in 2005.

Here’s the tail of the tape. Below is the worst of each team in each category (or best in terms of close games which indicate a fair amount of luck).

Point Differential: +59; UCLA 2005

Pythag: 6.95-5.05; UCLA 2005

Close Games: 5-0; Brigham Young 2001, Marshall 2002, and Iowa 2004

Winning Record: 1-0; Navy 2004

Opp Win%: .354 (40-73); Navy 2004

I have to anoint the 2004 edition of the Naval Academy as the worst 10-win team of the last decade. They played one team with a winning record and had an awful strength of schedule (especially when you include their 2 wins over non-Division IA teams). As far as the worst 10-win team from a BCS conference, well that honor goes to the 2005 UCLA Bruins. Your thoughts?

Is Dick Vermeil a Hall of Fame Coach?

The Crying Game

The retirement of players, the recent departure of Jacksonville receiver Jimmy Smith a perfect example, often gives rise to a debate over whether that particular individual is worthy of enshrinement into the Hall of Fame. Well, it seems we know a lot about what makes a Hall of Fame player in most sports, but what about a Hall of Fame coach? I decided to try and tackle this question by looking at the career of the recently retired Dick Vermeil and comparing his resume to the other 13 modern-era coaches in the Hall of Fame. Each coach will be listed with their regular season record, regular season winning percentage, # of division titles, # of conference titles, # of league titles (Super Bowls and NFL/AFL titles prior to the Super Bowl), playoff record, and playoff winning percentage.

George Allen
Record: 116-47-5
Win %: .705
Division: 3
Conference: 1
League: 0
Playoff Record: 2-7
Playoff Win %: .222

Paul Brown
Record: 166-100-6
Win %: .621
Division: 7
Conference: 3
League: 3
Playoff Record: 4-8
Playoff Win %: .333

Weeb Ewbank
Record: 130-129-7
Win %: .502
Division: 4
Conference: 3
League: 3
Playoff Record: 4-1
Playoff Win %: .800

Joe Gibbs
Record: 140-76
Win %: .648
Division: 6
Conference: 4
League: 3
Playoff Record: 17-6
Playoff Win %: .739

Bud Grant
Record: 158-96-5
Win %: .620
Division: 10
Conference: 4
League: 0
Playoff Record: 10-13
Playoff Win %: .435

Tom Landry
Record: 250-162-6
Win %: .605
Division: 12
Conference: 5
League: 2
Playoff Record: 21-16
Playoff Win %: .568

Marv Levy
Record: 143-112
Win %: .561
Division: 6
Conference: 4
League: 0
Playoff Record: 11-8
Playoff Win %: .579

Vince Lombardi
Record: 96-34-6
Win %: .728
Division: 6
Conference: 5
League: 5
Playoff Record: 10-2
Playoff Win %: .833

John Madden
Record: 103-32-7
Win %: .750
Division: 7
Conference: 1
League: 1
Playoff Record: 9-7
Playoff Win %: .563

Chuck Noll
Record: 193-148-1
Win %: .566
Division: 10
Conference: 4
League: 4
Playoff Record: 16-8
Playoff Win %: .666

Don Shula
Record: 328-156-6
Win %: .676
Division: 14
Conference: 6
League: 2
Playoff Record: 19-17
Playoff Win %: .528

Hank Stram
Record: 131-97-10
Win %: .571
Division: 4
Conference: 3
League: 2
Playoff Record: 5-3
Playoff Win %: .625

Bill Walsh
Record: 92-59-1
Win %: .609
Division: 6
Conference: 3
League: 3
Playoff Record: 10-4
Playoff Win %: .714

And finally our man, Dick Vermeil
Record: 120-109
Win %: .524
Division: 3
Conference: 2
League: 1
Playoff Record: 6-5
Playoff Win %: .545

Where does Vermeil stack up in each category? He actually has more total wins than Bill Walsh, John Madden, Vince Lombardi, and George Allen. However, he significantly trails each man in winning percentage. In fact, the only Hall of Fame coach who has a worse winning percentage than Vermeil is Weeb Ewbank. Of course, Ewbank did coach three championship squads (1958 and 1959 Baltimore Colts and the 1968 New York Jets). Vermeil has won the fewest division titles of any coach on this list, but those titles came with three different franchises so that has to count for something. Vermeil won more conference titles than both John Madden and George Allen, and won those titles with two different franchises. He was one league championship, giving him more than George Allen, Bud Grant, and Marv Levy. He has more playoff wins that Paul Brown, Weeb Ewbank, George Allen, and Hank Stram. It should be noted in those days that often one playoff win was all that was required for a championship since only the two best teams advanced to the postseason. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, Vermeil has more postseason wins that George Allen on this list but no one else. Vermeil's postseason winning percentage is also better than both George Allen and Paul Brown. So, let's return to the question posed in the heading: Is Dick Vermeil a Hall of Fame Coach? On the one hand, he has a Super Bowl title, but so does Barry Switzer. He has taken three teams to the postseason, including two to the Super Bowl. Hall of Famer Marv Levy was never able to get the Chiefs to the playoffs when he coached them before arriving in Buffalo., so there is something to be said for that. The Eagles and Rams were both doormats before he took over. When the Eagles made the playoffs in his thrid season (1978) it was their first postseason appearance since 1960 and their first winning season since 1966. The Rams Super Bowl triumph in his third season (1999) was their first playoff berth since 1989 and first winning season in the same span. So he does have a history of revitalizing franchises (or at least being there when they happen to revitalize). On the other hand, his career winning percentage is very low and he made only six postseason appearances in 15 seasons. Additionally, you have to factor in the slew of contemporaries he has coached against who will also be eligible for the Hall of Fame one day. Would you take him over Bill Belichick, Bill Cowher, Mike Holmgren, Bill Parcells, Tony Dungy, Jeff Fisher, Mike Shanahan, Marty Schottenheimer, Andy Reid, or Jon Gruden? In my opinion, Vermeil narrowly misses the cut for the Hall of Fame.

The Worst 10-win Team of All-Time

I know I've been critical in this space of the 2005 incarnation of the UCLA Bruins, going so far as to call them the worst 10-win team of all-time. Well, I may have been a little hasty in giving them that distinction. Here's a quick rundown of the 1999 Mississippi State Bulldogs. By 1999, Jackie Sherrill had revived the football program in Starkville, Mississippi. Heading into his ninth season at the school, the Bulldogs had participated in 4 bowl games and had 5 winning seasons. Prior to his arrival, they had not played in a bowl game since 1981. Mississippi State began the 1999 season 8-0 and rose to #10 in the BCS rankings. They would finish the season with a final record of 10-2, concluding with a victory over Clemson in the Peach Bowl. Here in no particular order are the reasosn why the team was not that strong.

1. They played 4 road games. Mississippi State's four road games were against Vanderbilt (5-6), Auburn (5-6), Alabama (10-3), and Arkansas (8-4). They lost to 'Bama and Arkansas and defeated Auburn by two points.

2. They performed very well in close games. The Bulldogs were 5-1 in games decided by 7 points or less. This includes a remarkable three-game streak where they defeated Auburn by 2, Louisiana State by 1, and Kentucky by 1 point.

3. Their point differential is very small. They outscored their opponents by 99 points on the year (255-156). This gives them only 9.14 expected wins instead of the 10 they had. If we include only conference games, they outscored their opponents by only 35 points (156-121). They went 6-2 in conference play but had only 5.17 expected wins.

4. Their schedule sucked. They played 3 teams with winning records. The aforementioned losses to Alabama and Arkansas along with a 3 point win over rival Ole Miss. The other teams they played include: Middle Tennessee State (3-8), Memphis (5-6), Oklahoma State (5-6), South Carolina (0-11), Vanderbilt (5-6), Auburn (5-6), Louisiana State (3-8), Kentucky (6-6), and Clemson (6-6).

There you have it. They may not have a medal for their efforts, but the 1999 Missisippi State Bulldogs might be the worst 10-win team ever. Look for a post shortly where I examine all the weak 10-win teams of the past decade or so. Any ideas on what the 'winner' of this derby should be known as?

The Return of the King?

On Sunday, Greg Maddux continued his early season wizardry by holding the St. Louis Cardinals scoreless through 7 innings to run his record to 4-0. His ERA through 4 starts is a microscopic 0.99. Is Maddux's success simply a product of small sample size or has he been able to compensate for his dimished skills by making changes in his pitching? Let's look at the numbers. First, let's examine the three key components that pitchers themselves are able to exert great control over: walks, homeruns, and strikeouts. Here are Maddux's walks (this includes walks plus hit batters), homeruns, and strikeouts allowed per 9 innings since 2001. In addition, his runs allowed (earned plus unearned runs) are also included.

2001 1.31 BB/9 0.77 HR/9 6.68 SO/9 3.32 RA/9
2002 2.21 BB/9 0.63 HR/9 5.33 SO/9 3.03 RA/9
2003 1.69 BB/9 0.99 HR/9 5.11 SO/9 4.62 RA/9
2004 1.78 BB/9 1.48 HR/9 6.39 SO/9 4.36 RA/9
2005 1.72 BB/9 1.16 HR/9 5.44 SO/9 4.48 RA/9
2006 1.65 BB/9 0.33 HR/9 5.93 SO/9 0.99 RA/9

The pattern is pretty evident. Maddux's walk totals have remained relatively stable. His strikeouts have decreased since 2001, but have jumped around a bit. The one statistic that clearly jumps out is his homerun rate. Since 2002, his homerun rate has increased every season, and not coincidentally, his runs allowed per nine innings has almost mimicked this increase. Maddux seems to have reversed that trend in 2006. His strikeout and walk rates are pretty similar to his 2004 and 2005 numbers. The big difference is that he has cut his homer rate by over 75% from its high of 1.48 per nine innings in 2004. From 2003-2005, Greg Maddux was no longer Greg Maddux because he was wild within the strikeout zone. It would appear he has been able to rectify that problem.

Has schedule strength benefited Maddux? Let's take a look. He has started 2 games against St. Louis, and one game each against Los Angeles and Cincinnati. St. Louis ranks 10th in the 16 team NL in runs scored, LA is 6th, and Cincinnati is 1st. In regards to homeruns, LA is 14th, St. Louis is 9th, and Cincinnati is 1st. It appears schedule strength has been a little tougher than average for Maddux in regards to runs scored, and about average for homeruns hit. So Maddux has not parlayed an easy schedule into his 4-0 start.

All seems well, but one statistic appears to be a red flag. Here is Maddux's ground ball to fly ball ratio for 2001-2006.

2001 1.84
2002 2.23
2003 1.84
2004 1.78
2005 1.96
2006 1.39

Maddux has allowed homeruns at a lower rate, but his groundball to flyball ratio is actually at an all-time low. This means he is allowing a higher percentage of flyballs. And of course, flyballs are the ones that tend to go over the fence. While it is obvious Maddux's ERA will not remain 0.99 on the season, I think he is in for some serious regression unless he drastically improves his groundball ratio. Those flyballs are eventually going to turn into homeruns. Be very wary about starting Maddux on your fantasy team.

Come On Up for the Rising

It seems as if every year so far this decade some college football program rises from (relative) obscurity and becomes a fixture in the national championship race. What did all of these teams have in common, and what teams care candidates to rise this season?

2000
The dawning of the millenium saw two prestigious programs that had fallen on hard times return to glory.

Oklahoma
Breakout Year: The Sooners went 13-0 under second year coach Bob Stoops and won the national championship.
Epilogue: Following their breakout season, Oklahoma has won 2 Big 12 titles, played for 2 national titles, played in 3 BCS bowls, won more than 10 games 4 times, gone a cummulative 55-11 (.833) and never lost more than 4 games.
Prologue: In Stoops' first season, 1999, Oklahoma went 7-5 (5-3 in the Big 12). However, they were 0-2 in close games (games decided by 8 points or less). Their expected record based on points scored and points allowed was 9.8-2.2. They had the same starting quarterback, Josh Heupel, in 1999 and the following season when they won the national championship.

Miami
Breakout Year: The Canes went 11-1, and defeated Florida in the Sugar Bowl.
Epilogue: Since 2000, the Canes have won 1 national title, played for another, won 3 Big East titles, played in 3 BCS games, have a cummulative record of 53-9 (.855), and have never lost more than 3 games.
Prologue: In 1999, the Canes were coming off vicious sanctions and they finished 9-4 (just 2 seasons removed from a losing record). They were 2-2 in close games and their expected record was 10.8-2.2. The Canes integrated a new starting quarterback in 2000 as Ken Dorsey took over for Kenny Kelly.

2002
Two seasons later, 2 additional prestigious programs rose from the depths.

Southern Cal
Breakout Year: The Trojans finished 11-2 and knocked off Iowa in the Orange Bowl.
Epilogue: Depending on your persuasion, USC has won either 1 or 2 national titles since 2002 and played for a 2nd or 3rd. They have 3 Pac 10 titles, a cummulative record of 37-2 (.949), and have not lost more than 1 game.
Prologue: In 2001, USC finished 6-6 under first year coach Pete Carroll. However, they were an astoundingly unlucky 1-5 in close games. Their expected record was 8.4-3.6. They returned the same quarterback in 2002, Carson Palmer.

Ohio State
Breakout Year: The Buckeyes went 14-0 and upset Miami for the national championship.
Epilogue: Ohio State has played in 2 BCS bowls with a cummulative record of 29-8 (.784) and has not lost more than 4 games since winning the national title.
Prologue: In Jim Tressel's first season, Ohio State went 7-5. They were 2-4 in close games and had an expected record of 7.7-4.3. Ohio State had a new starting quarterback in 2002. Craig Krenzel took over for the departing Steve Bellisari. However, Krenzel had started 2 games (Illinois and Michigan) in 2001 when Bellisari was suspended for a DUI violation.

2003
2003 saw a resurgence in Death Valley.

LSU
Breakout Year: The Bayou Bengals went 13-1 and won the national title.
Epilogue: In the 2 seasons since their national championship campaign, LSU has gone 20-5 (.800) and played for an SEC title.
Prologue: In 2002, LSU went 8-5. They were 2-1 in close games and had an expected record of 8.8-4.2. Though not in his first season, Nick Saban was relatively new at LSU. It was his 3rd season there. LSU had different quarterbacks in their breakout season (Matt Mauck) and in the year before their breakout season (Marcus Randall).

2004
Another group of tigers made the leap in 2004.

Auburn
Breakout Year: Auburn went 13-0, but were left out of the national title game.
Epilogue: Auburn went 9-3 last season.
Prologue: Auburn was expected to be a title contender in 2003, but began the season 0-2 and finished 8-5. They were 3-1 in close games and had an expected record of 9.8-3.2. Auburn not only returned their same quarterback the following season (Jason Campbell), but also their two starting tailbacks (Cadillac Willams and Ronnie Brown).

In 2005, Penn State, Alabama and Notre Dame have to be considered breakout candidates, but we'll have to wait and see if they can continue their resurgence.

So what do these 6 teams have in common? In the year before their breakout season, half had losing records in close games (indicating they were a bit unlucky). All 6 underperfomed their expected won/loss record. Half had new coaches in the year before their breakout season. Miami was under sanctions so Butch Davis has to be considered relatively new. Nick Saban was only in his 3rd year at LSU. Only Tommy Tuberville at Auburn had an extended tenure at his school (5 years). In addition, each program also had winning traditions. So which teams share some of the same characteristics? Let's take a look.

South Carolina
Pros: 2nd year coach, returning quarterback
Cons: winning record in close games (4-3), actually went 7-5 which is better than their expected record (6.1-5.9), not much of a winning tradition

Mississippi
Pros: 2nd year coach, allegedly a great recruiting class (16th by rivals.com)
Cons: 2-2 in close games, went 3-8 but actually only had 2.6 expected wins, don't return starting quarterback (maybe a good thing since they only scored 13.5 points per game), play in the SEC West (Bama, Auburn, LSU, Arkansas)

Pittsburgh
Pros: 2nd year coach, 0-3 in close games, went 5-6 but had 6.1 expected wins, return starting quarterback Tyler Palko
Cons: 2nd year coach is Dave Wandstedt

Michigan State
Pros: 4th year head coach, 1-2 in close games, went 5-6 but had 6.6 expected wins, return starting quarterback Drew Stanton
Cons: Very helter-skelter team historically

Florida
Pros: 2nd year coach, good tradition, returning quarterback (Chris Leak)
Cons: 3-2 in close game, went 9-3 but had 8.7 expected wins, tough schedule

Notre Dame
Pros: 2nd year coach, returning quarterback (Brady Quinn), 2-2 in close games
Cons: went 9-3 but only 8.7 estimated wins, tough schedule

So that's my take. What do you think?

An Open Letter to Herb Sendek

Methinks the NC St. faithful will soon find out what Cinderella sang about in in 1988. You don't know what you got till it's gone. Over the weekend, Herb Sendek took the reigns of the Arizona St. Sun Devils and left Raleigh on his own accord. Hard to blame the guy considering all the heat he has been under despite his recent success. Seems making 5 straight NCAA tournaments is not enough in the capital city. The NC St. faithful also want him to hold his own against Duke, UNC, and Wake. While Sendek has struggled as of late against the other North Carolina schools, it is important to look at the overall body of work. When Sendek arrived on the NC St. campus in 1996, the Wolfpack had struggled through 5 straight losing seasons under Les Robinson. Sendek immediately turned the program around. He posted winning records and NIT appearances during his first 4 seasons. His fifth year was a disappointment as NC St. slumped to a losing record. However, in year 6 the Pack returned to the NCAA tourney for the first time since 1991. They even won a game over defending national semifinalist Michigan St. before succumbing to #2 seed Connecticut in the 2nd round. NC St. returned to the tourney the following season, falling to Cal in a nailbiter in round 1. The next season was arguably the best for NC St. in 16 years. The Pack got their highest tourney seed (#3) since 1988. The fact that they were upset in the second round by Vanderbilt should not lessen the accomplishment. Although the regular season would be a struggle the following year, the postseason would more than make up for it. NC St. sputtered to a 7-9 finish in the ACC, but still managed to snag an at-large big to the NCAA tournament. They defeated the Charlotte 49ers in the first round and then upset Connecticut in the 2nd round to advance to the Sweet 16 for the first time since 1989. This past season, the Pack again made the field of 65 and won a game for the 4th time in 5 seasons. And Sendek has done all this depsite producing exactly one NBA draft pick in his tenure at NC St. Compare this to the plethora of players Duke and UNC have sent to the pros in the 10 years Sendek has been at NC St. Heck even Wake has seen a handful of players drafted. Some may interpret this as an indictment of Sendek's coaching ability, when in reality he has gotten the most out of the players he has. You can't make chicken salad out of chicken sh*t, but Sendek has at least concocted an edible goulash.

The problem with the NC St. faithful is that they believe they are UNC and Duke. As a Wake alum, sorry to disappoint you, but we fall a notch below those two powers in the college basketball food chain. Let's be realistic, NC St. was last a national power under Norm Sloan in the mid to late 1970's. They were a solid program under the cheater Jim Valvano in the 1980's, but winning that title in 1983 was probably the worst thing to happen to Wolfpack fan's perception of themselves. Newsflash, NC St. was not the best team in 1983. I say this not to demean their accomplishment, but to put the program into perspective. They rode a fluky hot streak to national prominence, and somehow feel entitled to make another tournament run as a low seed. Pack fans also seem to think that NC St. is a high profile job that will attract numerous established coaches (Rick Barnes, Rick Pittino, etc.). While it's possible the Pack may luck out and get a very good mid-major coach assistant to be their new coach, no established coach is going to pick up and move to Raleigh. They have not been an elite program since the Ford administration. To steal a line from the aforementioned Pittino, "Everett Case, Norm Sloan, David Thompson, and Tommy Burleson ain't walking through that door." As a Wake fan, I'm more than happy to see Herb Sendek leave the ACC. In all likelihood, that's one less game where Skip Prosser gets outcoached. I wish him well in Tempe.