2019 Yards Per Play: Conference USA

After six weeks of Power 5 college football, we return to our G5 roots. This week, we examine Conference USA.

Here are the Conference USA standings.

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

College football teams play either eight or nine conference games. Consequently, their record in such a small sample may not be indicative of their quality of play. A few fortuitous bounces here or there can be the difference between another ho-hum campaign or a special season. Randomness and other factors outside of our perception play a role in determining the standings. It would be fantastic if college football teams played 100 or even 1000 games. Then we could have a better idea about which teams were really the best. Alas, players would miss too much class time, their bodies would be battered beyond recognition, and I would never leave the couch. As it is, we have to make do with the handful of games teams do play. In those games, we can learn a lot from a team’s 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 2019 season, which teams in Conference USA met this threshold? Here are Conference USA teams sorted by performance over what would be expected from their Net YPP numbers.

Louisiana Tech significantly exceeded their expected record based on YPP while Middle Tennessee and North Texas saw their records fail to match their per play standards. Louisiana Tech was not lucky in close games (1-1 in one-score league games), but did have the second best in-conference turnover margin (+8) in the league. However, the real reason for the disconnect between Louisiana Tech’s record and per play efficiency was the two games they lost. After beginning the season 8-1 (5-0 in Conference USA), the Bulldogs suspended a handful of players, including starting quarterback J’Mar Smith prior to their road trip to Marshall. The Bulldogs scored just ten points in a loss to the Herd, and with Smith missing the following game against UAB, managed just fourteen points in another defeat. Those losses, ceded the division to UAB. Smith returned for the season finale and the Bulldogs blew out UTSA. In the six conference games Louisiana Tech played at full strength, they outscored their opponents by exactly 100 points while averaging 41 points per game. In the two games they played shorthanded, they managed just 24 total points. Their per play differential was similarly striking.

While the Bulldogs did not have the profile of an undefeated team in their six full strength games, they were much better than the middling team they appeared to be when all their conference games were included. As for the colorful Blue Raiders and Mean Green, it’s much easier to see why they underperformed. Middle Tennessee (0-3) and North Texas (1-3) went a combined 1-6 in one-score conference games. A little better luck here or there, and both would have been back in the postseason. 

Extreme Turnover Margins 
Florida Atlantic enjoyed arguably their best season in school history in 2019. The Owls dropped their first two games in blowout fashion to a playoff participant and perhaps the best mid-major program in recent history. They then proceeded to win eleven of their final twelve games, with each victory coming by at least ten points. They capped their season by dominating the best post-death penalty SMU team in their bowl game. On the strength of that victory, they finished just outside the final polls, narrowly missing out on the first AP ranking in school history as well as nearly becoming the first ranked Conference USA team in a half-decade. Befitting a successful season by a G5 program, the Owls did lose their coach, but they appear set up to contend for another conference crown in 2020. Or are they?

While the Owls had a solid YPP margin against their league foes in 2019 (+1.18), it actually ranked second behind UAB (+1.46). Part of this is due to schedule strength as UAB benefited from playing the four worst teams by YPP in conference play (Rice, UTSA, Old Dominion, and UTEP) as well as a short-handed Louisiana Tech. Still, Florida Atlantic’s YPP margin is well below the one posted by their last championship team in 2017 (+1.68) and that team failed to qualify for a bowl game the next season! However, the real reason Florida Atlantic fans may want to curb their enthusiasm just a bit is because of the team’s historic turnover margin in 2019. In eight conference games (excluding their title game beatdown of UAB), the Owls had a turnover margin of +16. They are just the eighth team since 2005 to have an in-conference turnover margin of at least +2 per game. Here are the other seven along with how their conference record changed the following year.

Six of the other seven teams saw their conference record decline by at least one game and the average decline was about 1.4 wins. Each team managed to finish with a winning conference record the next season, but they were not as dominant. The Owls will have plenty of competition in the East division next season, with Charlotte, Marshall, and Western Kentucky looking to build on solid seasons, Middle Tennessee looking to rebound, and Florida International looking to stick it to their in-state rival. Old Dominion is the only program in the division without a realistic shot at contending. If the Owls are able to repeat as division champs in 2020, Willie Taggart will have earned all the money Florida State is still paying him.

2019 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 2019 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 line of demarcation to determine whether or not a team significantly over or under-performed relative to their APR and by that standard, no team saw their record differ significantly from their APR.

Mike Leach: Pretty Good Coach
That’s not a controversial statement. Definitely not click bait at all. Sure, as some Leach skeptics and cynics will point out, he has never won a conference title. However, Lubbock and Pullman are hardly locales with the resources, infrastructure, and recruiting advantages to win a one. Anyway, with Leach having left Lubbock a decade ago, I thought now would be a good time to compare his ten years at Texas Tech with the ten years following his ignominious firing.

Mike Leach coached the Texas Tech Red Raiders for ten seasons (2000-2009). Since his firing for player abuse, mainly against one particularly well-connected player, three men have coached Texas Tech. In chronological order, they were a former SEC coach with an undefeated season on his resume, a former Texas Tech and NFL quarterback who later became a sought-after college offensive coordinator and NFL head coach, and a coach that guided Utah State to their second ranked finish in fifty years. In other words, the men who followed him were all competent football coaches. Texas Tech was not captained by Mike Locksley or Chris Ash. That makes the success, or lack thereof, in the post-Leach era all the more amazing.

Let’s get things started with the basic won/loss record for the ten years with Leach and the ten years after Leach.

Under Leach, the Red Raiders won nearly twice as often as they lost. Under his three replacements, the Red Raiders won slightly fewer games than they lost. But I can hear the Leach counter arguments now: His teams feasted on non-conference patsies. Look at the Big 12 record. As you wish.

Under Leach, the Red Raiders never won a division title, but after a 3-5 conference record in his first season, they never finished below .500 in Big 12 play during the remainder of his tenure. In fact after beginning his Big 12 career 16-16, his last six teams averaged more than five conference wins per season (31-17). Contrast that with the three gentlemen that have succeeded him. I didn’t realize this until I was pulling the numbers, but Texas Tech has not finished with a winning Big 12 record since Leach was fired! In the last ten seasons, the only current Big 12 teams that have not finished with a winning conference record are Texas Tech and Kansas! You can make the argument that finishing with a winning record is somewhat tougher in the modern Big 12 since the league plays nine conference games and a true round-robin schedule. However, while divisional play and an eight-game league season theoretically made it easier to finish with a .500 record, keep in mind Leach coached Texas Tech during the time period that Oklahoma and Texas won two combined national titles and played for three others. During his time in Lubbock, he did avoid the ascendance of Baylor, but having the Longhorns and Sooners, not to mention the Aggies and Cowboys, as division rivals did not provide the Red Raiders an easy path to bowl eligibility.

Before we sign off for this week, let’s look at AP top 25 finishes for the Red Raiders under Leach and in the ten seasons since his departure.

Under Leach, the Red Raiders finished ranked during half of his tenure, with a peak finish of twelfth in 2008. Unsurprisingly, with the team topping out at 8-5 in both 2012 and 2013, the Red Raiders have not finished in the final polls since he left. In fact, Leach is responsible for nearly half of Texas Tech’s all-time ranked finishes (eleven total).

I don’t think Red Raider and college football fans in general appreciate what Mike Leach did at Texas Tech. Once a coach makes a college football outpost successful for several years, the natural assumption is the momentum will continue unabated without them. Texas Tech is a perfect counterexample to that line of thinking. A cursory look at his record does not do the Mike Leach era justice, but a closer examination shows just how much he accomplished at a difficult job.

2019 Yards Per Play: Big 12

As the month of February draws to a close, we come to the fourth conference in our offseason sojourn, the Big 12.

Here are the 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 2019 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.

Both teams from The Sunflower State saw their actual record differ significantly from their expected record. For Kansas State, and their first year head coach Chris Klieman, the difference was positive. The Wildcats were a solid 3-2 in one-score conference games and also boasted a non-offensive touchdown net ratio of +3. The Wildcats returned three kickoffs for touchdowns in Big 12 play while allowing none. Those kickoff returns kept them close in a loss to West Virginia, provided the winning margin in a victory over Texas Tech, and extended the margin in a tight game with Iowa State. Meanwhile, Kansas, also led by a first year (for them) head coach, went 1-2 in one-score games and finished tied for last in in-conference turnover margin at -8.

Purple Magic Continues in Manhattan
I have made no secret of my affinity for Bill Snyder on this blog. Regarded by me, often seen as the authority on all things college football (don’t bother looking it up), as the best college football coach in history, 2019 marked just the fourth season Snyder was not roaming the sidelines in the past thirty years. His replacement, Chris Klieman, did a fine Snyder impression, at least in regards in doing more with less, if not in general curmudgeonyness. Allow me to explain what I mean.

When Bill Snyder initially revitalized (or vitalized if you want to get technical) the Kansas State program in the mid-90s, one of the ways he managed to acquire talent was through the junior college ranks (JUCOs). A somewhat novel way to recruit talent to an outpost like Manhattan, Kansas was to take chances on players that could not get into FBS institutions out of high school or were forced to leave FBS institutions once they arrived. As an early adopter of the strategy, this netted Snyder a number of talented players that otherwise may have never considered Kansas State. As the new decade dawned and the Clinton era of prosperity gave way the Bush era of recession and war crimes, Kansas State’s early adopter advantage of using JUCOs began to diminish. After winning the Big 12 for the first time in 2003, the Wildcats finished with losing records in Bill Snyder’s final two seasons. He retired following the 2005 season and Ron Prince took over. He guided the Wildcats to the postseason in 2006, but posted consecutive losing seasons in 2007 and 2008 before being fired. Instead of bringing in a new coach, the Wildcats coaxed Snyder out of retirement. His second tenure lasted ten seasons and featured eight bowl appearances, another Big 12 title, and three appearances in the final AP Poll. He continued scouring the JUCO ranks for talent, but in his second tenure, Snyder’s teams also boasted an uncanny ability to consistently and significantly outperform their expected record based on YPP. Emphasizing special teams, red zone defense, and playing at a slow pace to limit the number of possessions, the Wildcats routinely hung with, and often beat superior teams. Using the same blueprint, Klieman managed to do the same thing in 2019.

In the eleven seasons (ten for Snyder and one for Klieman) since Snyder returned from his first retirement, Kansas State exceeded their expected record based on YPP by far more than any other Big 12 team. The following table lists the average amount each Big 12 team has over or under-performed relative to their expected YPP record since 2009. I have also included the number of seasons each team played in the Big 12 since the membership has changed significantly.

No other Big 12 team exceeded their expected record by more than an insignificant amount on average over the past eleven seasons. Being insignificantly above or below average is what one might expect as the sample size increases and the random close game or turnover luck evens out. However, over an eleven year span, Kansas State exceeded their expected YPP record on average by .159. To put this is in another context, this is the equivalent of about 1.25 game in an eight game conference season and 1.4 games over a nine game schedule. In addition, this is not the result of one massive season of Wildcat exceptionalism. Kansas State has finished as the biggest overachiever in the Big 12 five times in eleven seasons and has underachieved relative to YPP just once.

Obviously, one season is not a large enough sample to make any bold proclamations about Klieman's future at Kansas State. However, it was a great start, particularly in regards to how well the Wildcats performed relative to their YPP numbers. Were I a Kansas State fan, I would be cautiously optimistic the experienced FCS national champion coach could continue the wizardry in Manhattan.

2019 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 2019 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 line of demarcation to determine whether or not a team significantly over or under-performed relative to their APR and by that standard, no team saw their record differ significantly from their APR. Michigan State came close, but I found something more interesting about the Spartans I wanted to discuss.

East V West
Prior to the 2014 season, the Big 10 scrapped the maligned Leaders and Legends division format in favor of the more geographically inclined (if uncreative) East and West. The conference also added Maryland and Rutgers and has been stable, membership wise, for the past six seasons. In those six seasons, the Big 10 East has dominated the West in the Big 10 Championship Game. The East champion has won all six meetings, with three of the victories coming by double-digits. However, the West has held their own against the East in the regular season interdivision showdowns.

The East has finished with a winning record against the West just three times in six seasons and outside of 2017, the results have been pretty even with neither division finishing more than a game up on the other. Most college football fans and Big 10 aficionados in particular, probably assume the Big 4 in the East (Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, and Penn State) are doing all the heavy lifting for the division with the remaining filler (Indiana, Maryland, and Rutgers) dragging the East’s record down. And those college football fans would be mostly right. Or 75% right to put a number on it.

Michigan State has not pulled their weight for the East, finishing with the same interdivision record as Indiana. In fact, since their College Football Playoff appearance in 2015, the Spartans are 4-8 against Big 10 West opponents. Mark Dantonio surprisingly stepped down immediately following the second National Signing Day, so the task of reinvigorating the program falls to Mel Tucker.The schedule is daunting with Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State, but Tucker’s long term success will probably come down to whether or not he can beat the trio of Big 10 West teams that annually dot the schedule.

Thanks for reading. Next week we move to flyover country and the Big 12.

2019 Yards Per Play: Big 10

After examining the coastal elites (or lack thereof) in the ACC, we now turn our attention to the heartland of America and the Big 10.

Here are the 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 division by Net YPP with conference rank in parentheses.

College football teams play either eight or nine conference games. Consequently, their record in such a small sample may not be indicative of their quality of play. A few fortuitous bounces here or there can be the difference between another ho-hum campaign or a special season. Randomness and other factors outside of our perception play a role in determining the standings. It would be fantastic if college football teams played 100 or even 1000 games. Then we could have a better idea about which teams were really the best. Alas, players would miss too much class time, their bodies would be battered beyond recognition, and I would never leave the couch. As it is, we have to make do with the handful of games teams do play. In those games, we can learn a lot from a team’s 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 2019 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.

No Big 10 team significantly over or under-performed relative to their expected record based on YPP. Northwestern was on track for a winless Big 10 season despite bad, but far from horrific YPP margins, but the Wildcats dominated Illinois in their season finale to avoid both the goose egg and showing up on this list.

The Worst Ever Ranked Teams
Last offseason in the Big 10 YPP post, I examined some of the worst head coaches (by win percentage) to ever get a second head coaching job. The post was basically a hit piece on incoming Maryland coach Mike Locksley. To the surprise of no one, Locksley fell on his face in his first full year coaching the Terrapins. Maryland defeated an FCS team, a team that went winless in the Big 10, and a team that finished with the second worst conference record in the ACC. They lost their other nine games by an average of more than thirty points per game and ended the year on a seven game losing streak. However, in the process, Maryland did manage to do something truly historic.

Maryland did not begin the season in the top 25 of the AP Poll. Why would they? The team was coming off a 5-7 campaign and had not won more than seven games in a season in nearly a decade. However, thanks to an easy opening schedule, the Terrapins were able to build some momentum a fortnight into the season. Maryland recorded a dominating 79-0 victory against Howard in their season opener and followed that up with an impressive (at the time) six touchdown win against a ranked Syracuse team. Two weeks into the season, Maryland climbed into the polls at number 21. All they had to do to maintain their perch in the AP Poll was win on the road against an AAC team that was on its third head coach in nine months. The heretofore explosive Maryland offense managed just 17 points against Temple and fell out of the rankings, never to be seen again in 2019. After the loss, Maryland managed just one victory the rest of the way and in the process became the worst team (record wise) in the past thirty seasons (since 1989) to ever start the season unranked and later enter the polls. In my opinion, this is a more impressive feat than being the worst team to ever start the season ranked in the preseason AP Poll. Once you get outside of the top fifteen, the preseason AP Poll is a lot of guess work and conjecture buoyed by a brutally long offseason packed with narratives. By contrast, a team that is unranked in the preseason, but later enters the poll and still ends up being bad has provided the pollsters with at least one, and in Maryland’s case two, data points in their evaluation.

Who are the other members of this illustrious rogues' gallery of bad teams? Along with Maryland, six other teams since 1989 have started the season unranked in the AP Poll, later entered the poll, and won four games are fewer. They are presented below for your viewing pleasure.

Some interesting minutia before I close: South Carolina achieved the highest ranking of these teams at 19th. The Gamecocks opened the 1993 season by winning at fourteenth ranked Georgia and spring boarding into the polls. They followed that victory with a one point loss at Arkansas and despite being 2-1, 3-3, and 4-4 at various points in the season, the closing stretch of Tennessee, Florida, and Clemson (all ranked at the time South Carolina played them) doomed the Gamecocks to a 4-7 finish. Despite not being ranked in the preseason AP Poll, Stanford was actually ranked by the time they played their first game in 1994. The Cardinal had a bye week over Labor Day Weekend and moved up to 24th by the time they headed to Northwestern for their opener. The Cardinal tied the Wildcats and fell out of the poll for the remainder of the season. UCLA did not even get to play a game as a ranked team in 2008. They opened the season by upsetting eighteenth ranked Tennessee in their first game under Rick Neuheisel. They moved into the rankings following the game, but had a bye before their second game. During the bye, they fell out of the polls and were walloped by BYU 59-0 in their next game. Needless to say, they did not sniff the polls for the rest of the season.

I know we have a lot of fun at Mike Locksley’s expense on this blog, but I give credit where credit is due. Locksley’s three wins in 2019 equaled his career total going in to the 2019 season and actually upped his career winning percentage to a sterling .130. Check back next week when we give the Big 10 the APR treatment.

2019 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 2019 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.

I use a game and a half as a line of demarcation to determine whether or not a team significantly over or under-performed relative to their APR and by that standard, no team saw their record differ significantly from their APR. Thus we can move on to more important affairs.

Only 90's Kids Will Understand
The ACC has been around since 1953 and in those 67 seasons, no team has done what Clemson has over the past five seasons. The Tigers are on a streak of five consecutive outright conference titles. Of course, framing their accomplishment in this manner does a bit of a disservice to the 90’s version of Florida State. The Seminoles won or shared the conference title for nine consecutive seasons (1992-2000), but since there was no division structure or conference title game, their 1995 (Virginia) and 1998 (Georgia Tech) titles were shared, meaning they never won more than three consecutive outright titles.

With the ACC closely resembling its 90’s self (one dominant team and a host of decent to bad teams), I decided to look and see how the Clemson teams of the past five seasons compared to Florida State’s first five seasons in the ACC (1992-1996). Unfortunately, I don’t have access to individual game box scores, so I am not able to calculate YPP or APR data for those great Florida State teams. Instead, scoring margin in conference play will have to suffice. This analysis will include regular season conference play only, so any non-conference games and the ACC Championship Game for Clemson will not be included. Let’s start by looking at Florida State. Here are the Seminoles ACC scoring margins for their first five seasons.

I was surprised how (relatively) competitive the rest of the ACC was in Florida State’s first season. The Seminoles still outscored their conference opponents by over 20 points per game, but two teams (Clemson and Georgia Tech) played them within a touchdown and another (Virginia) only lost by ten points. I was surprised how dominant the 1993 team (and eventual national champion) was. The Seminoles allowed just 51 points in their eight ACC games, pitching three shutouts, and holding six teams to seven points or fewer while winning by more than 40 points per game. The Seminoles slipped a little in 1994 and remained at about the same level in terms of scoring margin from 1994 through 1996 with the offense picking up the defense’s slack in 1995 and vice-versa in 1996. Now let’s look at the same numbers for Clemson.

The Tigers were somewhat dominant against their conference opponents from 2015 through 2017, but their Death Star was not fully operational until 2018. After beating their ACC foes by fourteen and a half points per game in 2017 (a number the classic Seminole teams would scoff at), Clemson has more than doubled that scoring margin over the past two season. Despite that uptick, Clemson’s scoring margin during their five year ACC title run is about a touchdown less than Florida State’s during their first five seasons in the conference. Clemson would need to maintain their current level of play for another three seasons or so before we could credibly talk about them in the same breath as those 90’s Florida State teams. Before we close this post, I also included Florida State and Clemson’s collective conference record over these five seasons as well as their number of one-score victories.

After winning two one score games in their first season in the conference, Florida State did not play in another one-score conference game until their infamous defeat at Virginia, a span of 24 straight games (or three full conference seasons). By contrast the longest Clemson has gone between one-score conference games is a little more than one season (ten games). As always, thanks for reading. Check back next week when we take a YPP dive through the Big 10.

2019 Yards Per Play: ACC

The second conference we come to in our alphabetized recap of 2019 is the ACC. Here are the ACC 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 ACC team. This includes conference play only, with the championship game not included. The teams are sorted by division by Net YPP with conference rank in parentheses.

College football teams play either eight or nine conference games. Consequently, their record in such a small sample may not be indicative of their quality of play. A few fortuitous bounces here or there can be the difference between another ho-hum campaign or a special season. Randomness and other factors outside of our perception play a role in determining the standings. It would be fantastic if college football teams played 100 or even 1000 games. Then we could have a better idea about which teams were really the best. Alas, players would miss too much class time, their bodies would be battered beyond recognition, and I would never leave the couch. As it is, we have to make do with the handful of games teams do play. In those games, we can learn a lot from a team’s 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 2019 season, which teams in the ACC met this threshold? Here are ACC teams sorted by performance over what would be expected from their Net YPP numbers.

Virginia was the lone ACC team that saw their expected record based on YPP differ significantly from their actual record. The Cavaliers exceeded their expected conference won/loss record and in the process won the Coastal Division for the first time. Their division title means every team in the Coastal has won the division at least once. In 2020, Virginia will attempt to become the first repeat division winner since Virginia Tech (2010 and 2011). Virginia was not especially fortunate in close games (3-2 in one-score conference games), but thanks to the malaise of the non-Clemson portion of the conference, they were able to string together enough wins to become the Tiger’s sacrificial lamb in the ACC Championship Game.

One Ranked Team 
The ACC was not a strong conference in 2019. I doubt even the most ardent Packer and Durham fan would argue otherwise. There was one elite team, Clemson, and a slew of decent to bad teams. Befitting a conference with one powerhouse and a lot of lightweights, Clemson was the lone ACC team that finished ranked in the final edition of the AP Poll. For an ostensible power conference, this is a rare ‘accomplishment’. To find out how rare, I looked up the last time each power conference finished with one ranked team. I included the five current power conferences (ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac-12, and SEC), a former power conference in the BCS era (Big East), and the two conferences that practically merged to form the Big 12 (Big 8 and Southwest Conference). Here is the last time each conference had only one team ranked in the final AP Poll with commentary to follow.

ACC: 1988
I should note the AP Poll was only twenty teams strong in 1988 (instead of 25). 1988 was a lot like 2019. Clemson was clearly the best team in the conference, although this time they did lose a close game to a team from the Tar Heel state. And just like 2019, Virginia finished second. 1988 was interesting in that no other ACC team entered the polls at any point during the season. At least 2019 saw Syracuse, Virginia, Virginia Tech, and Wake Forest with a ranking beside their name at some point.

Big East: 2012
In its final season, the Big East saw Louisville finish as the lone ranked team. The Cardinals pulled off a massive Sugar Bowl upset of Florida to finish ranked thirteenth. Louisville entered that game ranked 22nd, so had the game gone to form, it’s quite possible the Big East would have finished its final season with zero ranked teams (something that also happened in 2010).

Big Eight: 1983
The year Tom Osborne nearly won his first national title was also the only time the Oklahoma Sooners under Barry Switzer did not finish the season ranked in the final poll. The Sooners opened the season ranked second in the country, but four losses later, they were out of the polls. Once again, the AP Poll went just twenty deep in 1983.

Big Ten: 1982
On January 1st, 1983, Michigan lost the Rose Bowl to UCLA dropping them out of the final AP Poll, and leaving Ohio State as the lone ranked team from the Big 10.

Big 12: Never 
In every year of its existence, the Big 12 has had at least two teams finish ranked. In fact, the conference has had at least three teams finish ranked every year except 2006.

Pac-12: 1999
Oregon was probably the best team in the then Pac-10 in 1999, but they lost twice in conference play and did not get the opportunity to play eventual champion Stanford. While the Ducks were the lone team to finish ranked, seven of the league’s ten members entered the AP Poll at some point in 1999 (Cal, Oregon State, and Washington State were the only teams that did not).

SEC: 1943
Yes, if you go back far enough, even the mighty SEC has a down year now and then. For some reason, only four SEC schools fielded football teams in 1943 (and two of them are not even in the league any more). Do they even care about football in the south? I did some follow-up research and it appears there was a minor geopolitical conflict in 1943.

Southwest Conference: 1993
As the conference was circling the drain, Texas A&M won their third straight SWC title and for the third year in a row, finished as the lone ranked team.

Thanks for reading. We'll be back next week with an APR look at the ACC. Spoiler, Clemson does pretty well in that metric.

2019 Adjusted Pythagorean Record: AAC

Last week we looked at how AAC 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 2019 AAC 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, AAC 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 line of demarcation to determine whether or not a team significantly over or under-performed relative to their APR. Temple was the only team that saw their expected record differ significantly from their APR. The Owls finished with a winning conference record despite allowing more touchdowns than they scored. The Owls were not especially fortunate in close games, finishing 2-1 in one-score AAC contests. No, the disconnect between their record and APR can be explained by a pair of blowouts. The Owls lost to SMU and UCF in back-to-back weeks by a combined 66 points. In their five conference wins, the Owls only outscored their opponents by 62 total points (thirty total points in the four non-Connecticut games). Those uncharacteristic spankings tempered their overall APR numbers.

I'm Your Stepping Stone
In the Playoff era (since 2014), the AAC has been the preeminent Group of Five conference. The league has had at least one member institution finish ranked in the final AP Poll each season, has grabbed four of the six available NY6 slots (no other conference has more than one), and sent more coaches to Power Five jobs than nearly the rest of the Group of Five combined. The following table lists the AAC coaches that have leveled up each offseason.

After not having any coaches leave for Power Five jobs in the first offseason of the Playoff era, the American has sent at least one coach to a Power Five job each of the past five offseasons. With eight coaches moving to the big time, the AAC is well ahead of the other Group of Five leagues. Here is how the other four G5 conferences have fared in terms of sending their coaches to Power Five jobs.

The other four conferences have all sent coaches to the Power Five at about the same rate. The MAC, Mountain West, and Sun Belt have all seen three coaches get Power Five jobs while Conference USA has had two such coaches.

While the AAC has sent the most coaches to Power Five jobs, it’s fair to question their success (or lack thereof) once they get those bigger jobs. Hiring coaches is often a crapshoot, but some of the more notable AAC graduations have already been fired. Chad Morris did not finish his second season at Arkansas, Willie Taggart lasted less than two seasons at Florida State (although that was his second job after leaving South Florida), and Scott Frost has yet to lead Nebraska to the postseason. For comparison, I have included the aggregate winning percentage at the Power Five level of the coaches from each Group of Five conference. Note that Taggart’s time at Oregon and Florida State are included here.

Thanks for reading. Check back next week when we look at the yards per play numbers for the ACC.

2019 Yards Per Play: AAC

We begin our offseason recaps as we have in the past with the American Athletic Conference. Here are the AAC 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 AAC team. This includes conference play only, with the championship game not included. The teams are sorted by division by Net YPP with conference rank in parentheses.

College football teams play either eight or nine conference games. Consequently, their record in such a small sample may not be indicative of their quality of play. A few fortuitous bounces here or there can be the difference between another ho-hum campaign or a special season. Randomness and other factors outside of our perception play a role in determining the standings. It would be fantastic if college football teams played 100 or even 1000 games. Then we could have a better idea about which teams were really the best. Alas, players would miss too much class time, their bodies would be battered beyond recognition, and I would never leave the couch. As it is, we have to make do with the handful of games teams do play. In those games, we can learn a lot from a team’s 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 2019 season, which teams in the AAC met this threshold? Here are AAC teams sorted by performance over what would be expected from their Net YPP numbers.

The AAC saw a pair of teams significantly exceed their expected record based on YPP and saw one team significantly under perform. Cincinnati finished ranked in the AP top 25 for the second consecutive season and while they managed to beat a few good teams (most notably UCF) and hang tough with Memphis in back-to-back weeks, they also narrowly edged East Carolina and South Florida and needed a blocked extra point returned for two to hold off Temple. Overall, the Bearcats finished 4-0 in one-score conference games during the regular season and finished with the best in-conference turnover margin of any AAC team (+7). SMU was also ranked in the AP top 25 for much of the season, but crapped the bed in their bowl game to finish unranked. The Mustangs were not especially fortunate in close games like the Bearcats, finishing 3-2 in one-score conference games nor did they boast an amazing turnover margin (+3 in AAC play). The slight advantages in those two areas helped them overcome their defensive struggles (allowed 6.65 yards play over their final five conference games) and mediocre statistical profile. Tulsa was on the other end of the spectrum. Despite a mediocre yards per play margin, they won just twice in conference play. They were not especially unlucky in close games (1-2 in one-score AAC games), nor was their turnover margin especially poor (-1 in AAC play). The culprit was non-offensive touchdowns. The Golden Hurricane allowed four non-offensive touchdowns while scoring just one of their own. Two of those touchdowns (an interception and a kickoff return) came against Houston in a game Tulsa lost by ten points. Another (a fumble return) came against Tulane in a game the Golden Hurricane lost by twelve. Those mostly random non-offensive scores made the Golden Hurricane look much worse than they actually were.

What a Con
2019 marks the end of an illustrious run for Connecticut in the AAC. The Huskies have grown tired of conference living and will be setting out as an independent beginning with the 2020 campaign. While the Huskies have served as a functional bye for their conference opponents over the past two seasons, they were not always quite this bad. In the early days of the AAC (2015), the Huskies actually qualified for a bowl game (and beat the eventual Group of Five NY6 representative). The years since that legendary St. Petersburg Bowl have not been kind. The Huskies moved on from Bob Diaco after a three win season in 2016 and attempted to recapture their (relative) glory days of the late aughts by bringing back Randy Edsall. Edsall won just two conference games in three seasons of work in the AAC and leaves with a nineteen game conference losing streak. However, perhaps more impressive than the losing streak is the streak of games in which Connecticut was expected to lose. The Huskies have not been favored against another AAC opponent since their 2017 conference opener against East Carolina (which they lost). How does that streak of 23 straight games as a conference underdog compare to other notable streaks since 2005? Well, it’s not even close to the longest streak, which I bet you can guess if you think about it for just a second.

Kansas has not been favored in a Big 12 game since 2009! The league has lost four teams and added two since the last time Kansas was favored. The Huskies are not even a third of the way to catching the Jayhawks and with the Huskies leaving the AAC, they won’t have a chance to cut into the lead this season. Of course, the Jayhawks streak is still active, and assuming things continue unabated as they have for the last decade, we may see their streak reach triple digits this November.

With so many of the longest conference underdog steaks currently active, I decided to include a separate table of active streaks of at least ten games.

Eight of the ten FBS conferences are represented with the ACC and MAC the lone holdouts. We’ll see you same time next week when we look at the AAC through the prism of the Adjusted Pythagorean Record.

Strangers in the Field Part V: How'd we Do?

I thought about never retiring this blog after my atrocious bowl season picks, but I know you were waiting with bated breath for another post. As I have done the past few years, I went to Vegas over the summer and made some wagers. Here is how they turned out.

Over/Under Win Totals

Auburn over 7.5 wins -115 ($30 to win $26.10)
Going off the trend regarding preseason top ten teams that finish unranked, I figured Auburn would improve upon their 7-5 2018 regular season and cash this ticket. The Tigers were quite fortunate to beat Oregon in the opener, and were 4-2 overall in close games during the regular season, but were probably the right side considering they beat this number by a game and a half.


Boise State under 10 wins +120 ($30 to win $25)
Despite this ticket being a loser, I think it was the right side. Excluding their lone regular season loss against BYU, the Broncos trailed in six of their other eleven games. They trailed in the second half of five of those games, including three times by double digits! Give the Broncos credit for their clutch play in winning those contests, but in the long run, they probably should have lost at least one more game.

Colorado over 3.5 wins -155 ($20 to win $12.90)
I was probably fortunate to cash this ticket as four of the Buffs five wins came by three points or less. Of course, three of their seven losses also came by a touchdown or less, so they weren’t exceptionally lucky in close games.

Florida State over 7.5 wins -110 ($40 to win $36.35)
After the Seminoles blew that big lead in the opener against Boise, this ticket was destined for the trash. The ACC was down in 2019, but the non-conference losses to Boise State and Florida meant the Seminoles would have no margin for error in the conference outside of an expected loss to Clemson.

Indiana 6 wins +110 ($30 to win $33)
I bet the under as the Hoosiers have four built in losses by virtue of the division they play in. Unfortunately, the Hoosiers won every game that looked like a tossup or potential loss in the preseason. They beat Maryland by six, Nebraska by seven, and Purdue by three. Oh, and Northwestern also fielded on of the worst offenses in FBS. This bet was probably bad, but was Indiana really eight win quality in 2019?

Notre Dame under 9.5 wins -140 ($40 to win $28.55)
With road games at Georgia and Clemson on the schedule, I figured the best Notre Dame could finish was 10-2. With seven other Power Five teams on the schedule, I figured the Irish would stumble at least one more time. Alas, close victories against Southern Cal and Virginia Tech (with Bud Foster calling the worst three man rush two minute defense I have ever seen), Bryce Perkins fumbling all over the field in the Virginia game, and Stanford’s decline allowed the Irish to get to double digit wins.

Oklahoma State over 7 wins -130 ($40 to win $30.75)
After a 3-3 start, the Pokes won four of their last five games to get this one home. I was probably a little fortunate this one cased, but at worst I was probably looking at a push.

Pittsburgh over 5.5 wins -165 ($30 to win $18.20)
This bet ended up hitting, but not for the reasons I envisioned. I thought Mark Whipple would keep the Pitt offense near the top of the ACC, but the defense carried the team to seven regular season wins.

Rutgers over 2.5 wins -165 ($20 to win $12.10)
With Massachusetts and Liberty on the non-conference schedule, I though the Knights would need just one conference win to hit the over. They took care of business against the Minutemen and Flames, but their closest conference loss came by 21 points to Penn State.

Southern Cal over 7 wins -130 ($50 to win $38.45)
I figured with the talent on hand and the addition of Air Raid concepts, Southern Cal would rebound from their 5-7 campaign in 2018. They made me sweat it out by losing their starting quarterback in the opener and losing to BYU after a 2-0 start, but behind Kedon Slovis, the Trojans did not lose another game they were favored to win the rest of the way. This bet wasn’t assured of cashing until they beat UCLA in the regular season finale, but I felt pretty good about a push once November rolled around.

Texas under 9 wins -110 ($20 to win $18.20)
I didn’t think Texas was back after their Sugar Bowl performance against Georgia. The Longhorns lost some close games (seven points each to LSU and Oklahoma), but also needed a field goal at the buzzer to edge Kansas. After the Longhorns lost to LSU and Oklahoma, I felt pretty good about at least getting this to push, but TCU, Iowa State, and Baylor came through for me to easily cash this ticket.

TCU over 7.5 wins +110 ($30 to win $33)
My blind faith in Gary Patterson was not rewarded. The Horned Frog offense looked lost for much of the season and the Frogs misses out on a bowl for the first time since 2013. Realistically, I should have stayed away since this number was more than seven. At seven I could justify the bet with the possibility of a push, but at seven and a half, it was just a bad bet.

Wake Forest over 5.5 wins -160 ($50 to win $31.25)
After a close victory against Utah State in the opener, I didn’t have to sweat this one at all. The Demon Deacons began the year 5-0 and cashed this ticket around mid-October.

Tampa Bay over 6.5 wins +105 ($30 to win $31.50)
Despite Jameis Winston’s propensity to keep the Bucs and their opponents in the game, we managed to get this one home. For a while, I thought the football gods were against me as Tampa opened the season 3-7 with a late missed field goal and a botched call costing them two games. They then won four in a row so I didn’t have to sweat out the last two weeks of the season.Overall, Tampa probably should have won eight or nine games, (3-6 record in close games and outscored their opponents on the year), so I think this was a good bet.

Games of the Year

September 13th
Houston +7 Washington State-110 ($30 to win $27.25)
I was right that Washington State would decline in 2019, but I didn’t anticipate Houston struggling as well. The Cougars (Houston edition) needed a late score to push this number, but they actually led at halftime and this game turned on a failed fourth down conversion by Houston in the second half.

September 21st
Oklahoma State +9.5 Texas-110 ($30 to win $27.25)
I doubled down on fading Texas and the Cowboys responded by getting a backdoor cover. Probably not the best bet I made all season, but the Cowboys had plenty of opportunities to win this game outright.

October 26th
TCU +3.5 Texas -110 ($30 to win $27.25)
I tripled down on fading Texas and TCU got the outright win by ten points at home.

November 2nd
Southern Cal +1 Oregon -110 ($30 to win $27.25)
The Trojans went up 10-0 early in this game, but turnovers and special teams gaffes made it a laugher early in the second half. Many were calling for Clay Helton’s firing after this embarrassing performance, but the Trojans rebounded and won their final three regular season games.

November 16th
Auburn +6.5 Georgia -110 ($50 to win $45.45)
This one hurt. The Tigers fell behind 21-0 before coming alive in the fourth quarter and cutting the lead to seven points. The Tigers actually got the ball back twice with a chance to tie, but a bad pass and another failed fourth down sealed the loss.

November 23rd
Baylor +6 Texas -110 ($30 to win $27.25)
I quadrupled down on fading Texas. Baylor was actually favored by about a touchdown in this game and the outcome was never in doubt.

November 30th
Stanford +4 Notre Dame -110 ($30 to win $27.25)
While I bought the Baylor game at a great price, I bought at a terrible price here. Notre Dame was about a seventeen point favorite when they traveled to Palo Alto. Stanford actually led 17-7 in the second quarter, but the Irish scored 31 straight points to put the game away.

November 30th
Florida State +13.5 Florida -110 ($30 to win $27.25)
Once again, placing my faith in Willie Taggart was a bad idea. Still waiting on the Seminoles to get their first defensive stop in this game.

December 14th
Navy +8 Army -110 ($50 to win $45.45)
Probably the best bet I ever made. Navy was a significant favorite by the time this game kicked off and I didn’t have to sweat it at all.

Conference Champion Bets

Tampa Bay Bucs to win the NFC South +1000 ($10 to win $100)
The Bucs were definitely better in 2019 than they were in 2018, but the Saints also reside in this division. They pretty much had it wrapped up by late October.

Reckless Parlay 1:
$10 to win $110

Game 1: August 24th
Miami +7 Florida
Winner.

Game 2: August 30th
Wake Forest -3.5 Utah State
Nope by a half point.

Game 3: August 31st
Michigan -31.5 Middle Tennessee State
Nope.

Game 4: August 31st
Auburn -2.5 Oregon
Winner.

Two out of four.

Reckless Parlay 2:
$10 to win $60

Game 1: September 8th
Tennessee +5.5 Cleveland
Winner.

Game 2: September 8th
Arizona +2 Detroit
Winner.

Game 3: September 9th
Denver +2.5 Oakland
Nope.

Money Wagered: $800
Money Won: $774.55
Return on Investment: -3.18%

If not for the bet on Tampa Bay to win the division and the two reckless parlays, I would have actually a small (very small) profit this trip. I was a few points from a very prosperous trip, as I lost the Auburn/Georgia game by a half a point and was a point away in the Notre Dame/Virginia Tech game from seeing the Irish go under their win total. All in all, I think I was a little unfortunate to lose money this year. Oh well, here's to better luck next season.

Tonight's title game is the final college football game until August. However, Statistically Speaking will help you get through the long offseason by starting the YPP and APR conference reviews on Thursday. For those that aren't regular readers, we'll review each FBS conference through the lens of Yards per Play (YPP) and the Adjusted Pythagorean Record (APR) with one post per week. As always, we'll go alphabetically starting with the AAC. That will get us close to Memorial Day and then I'll have some more sporadic posts over the summer until the football season begins anew. As always, thanks for reading and feel free to drop a comment should you feel the urge. See you on Thursday.