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.

NIT: Prospecting Forward

With the NIT Final 4 beginning tonite, it begs the question: Does advancing in the NIT correlate with an NCAA tournament bid the following season? To study this I compared NIT Final 4 finalists from 2000-2005 with the lowest seeded at-large teams in the NCAA tournament from the same time period. These teams should be similar in ability, as the NIT Final 4 are usually bubble teams who failed to make the NCAA field. Here are the results by year.

2000

NIT Final 4: Wake Forest (champ), Notre Dame (runner-up), NC St., and Penn St.
Wake Forest, Notre Dame, and Penn St. reached the NCAA tourney the following year. Wake was eliminated in the first round, Notre Dame in the second, and Penn St. in the Sweet 16.

Last 4 At-Large Teams: Indiana St., Dayton, St. Bonaventure, Pepperdine
Only Indiana St. returned to the tournament in 2001. Altough they upset Oklahoma in 2001, they would not have made the tournament had they not beaten the Missouri Valley regular season champ, Creighton, in the conference tourney.

2001

NIT Final 4: Tulsa (champ), Alabama (runner-up), Memphis, Detroit
Tulsa garnered an at-large bid in 2002 and made the second round. Alabama improved drastically, receiving a #2 seed before being upset by Kent St. in the second round. Memphis and Detroit failed to make the NCAA tournament.

Last 4 At-Large Teams: Xavier, Oklahoma St., Providence, Georgetown
Xavier and Oklahoma St. returned to the tourney in 2002. Both were also #7 seeds. Xavier advanced to the second round and Oklahoma St. was beaten in the first round by Kent St.

2002

NIT Final 4: Memphis (champ), South Carolina (runner-up), Temple, Syracuse
Memphis made the field of 65 in 2003, but were bumped in the first round. Syracuse won the national title in 2003 behind fabulous frosh Carmelo Anthony.

Last 4 At-Large Teams: Missouri, Utah, Tulsa, Wyoming
Missouri, Utah, and Tulsa all advanced to the NCAA tournament in 2003. However, Tulsa won the WAC tournament, and may not have garnered a bid had they lost. All three teams advanced to the second round.

2003

NIT Final 4: St. John's (champ), Georgetown (runner-up), Texas Tech, Minnesota
Only Texas Tech made the Big Dance in 2004. They made it to the second round where they were beaten by top seeded St. Joe's.

Last 4 At-Large Teams: Butler, BYU, Southern Illinois, Colorado
Southern Illinois and BYU returned to the NCAA tournament in 2004 and both lost in the first round.

2004

NIT Final 4: Michigan (champ), Rutgers (runner-up), Iowa St., Oregon
Only the Cyclones from Iowa St. were able to make the NCAA tournament in 2005. They were beaten in the second round by eventual champ North Carolina.

Last 4 At-Large Teams: BYU, UTEP, Air Force, Richmond
UTEP returned to the tourney in 2005, but they won the WAC tourney. Had they not won, they may have been left out.

2005

NIT Final 4: South Carolina (champ), St. Joe's (runner-up), Maryland, Memphis
Only Memphis made the jump to the NCAA tournament. They improved dramatically as they received a #1 seed.

Last 4 At-Large Teams: UAB, UCLA, Northern Iowa, NC St.
All 4 at-large teams made a return engagement in 2006. UAB and Northen Iowa lost in the first round. NC St. lost in the second round. UCLA is still alive and in the Final 4.

Conclusions

Of the 24 NIT Final 4 teams, 10 improved and made the NCAA tournament the following year. Of the 6 NIT champs, 3 made the tournament the next year. Of the 24 final at-large teams, 13 returned to the tournament the following year, However, 3 of these teams (Indiana St. in 2001, Tulsa in 2003, and UTEP in 2005) won their respective conference tournaments and may not have gotten in had they not done so. Addtionally, 2005 appears to be an outlier, as all 4 of the final at-large teams returned to the tournament in 2006. Not every situation is the same, players leaving, coaching stability, recruiting, and other factors must be taken into account, but the NIT semi-finalists have about the same chance of making the NCAA tournament the following season as the last few at-large teams. Recent history tells us that at least one of the NIT Final 4 (Louisville, South Carolina, Old Dominion, and Michigan) will make the tourney next year as will one of the last at-large teams (Bradley, Texas A&M, Utah St., and Air Force).

The Secret to Not Losing Close Games

March Madness is my favorite time of year. However, I picked Kansas to go to the Final 4, so my bracket is now dust in the wind. So I'd like to switch gears to college football. In particular, I'd like to tackle a topic that is always under debate: Why do some teams lose close games? Is it a lack of senior leadership, good coaching, or something intangible? Let's take a look.

If a team wins close games one year, it stands to reason that the same team would win close games the next year. I conducted a simple regression analysis to determine if this is true. I calculated each Division I-A team's record in close games (games decided by 8 points or less) in 2004. Then I calculated each Division I-A team's record in close games in 2005. I used the 2004 winning percentage as the independent variable and the 2005 winning percentage as the dependent variable. In other words, how does a team's performance in winning close games in 2004 predict their performance in close games the following year. The resulting data may come as a surprise to you. A team's record in close games in 2004, was not a reliable predictor of their record in close games in 2005. In fact it was a terrible predictor. The R squared value is .0019. To those of you who are not familiar with R squared, allow me to explain it. R squared is the percentage of variation in the dependent variable (winning percentage in close games in 2005) that is explained by the independent variable (winning percentage in close games in 2004). Only slightly more than 0% (.19%) of the variation in winning percentage in close games in 2005 is explained by a teams winning percentage in close games in 2004.

So if a team's record in close games one season is not predictive of its record in close games the following season, is it's record in non-close games in one season predictive of its record in non-close games the following season? I conducted another regression analysis, this time using every Division I-A team's record in non-close games (games decided by 9 points or more) in 2004 as the independent variable and every Division I-A's team record in non-close games in 2005 as the dependent variable. So is a team's record in non-close games predictive of their record in non-close games the next year? The answer is sort of. The R squared value for this regression is .338. 33.8% of the variation in a team's record in non-close games in 2005 is explained by their record in non-close games in 2004. While not anywhere near a perfect linear model, a team's record in non-close games in 2004 was a much better predictor of their record in non-close games in 2005 than a team's record in close games in 2004 was a predictor of their record in close games in 2005.

Earlier I promised the secret to not losing close games. And I'm about to deliever. The secret to not losing close games, is to not play them. Close games are analagous to a coin flip. Just because you have flipped several heads in a row, you can be sure you will eventually flip a tail, and perhaps a sequence of tails. Just because a team has won several close games doesn't ensure that they will continue to do so.

Bracket Predictions

It's finally here. March Madness is upon us. All data related to efficiency and tempo come from Ken Pomeroy's site.

Atlanta Bracket

1 Duke Vs. 16 Southern
Duke rolls the SWAC champion. The SWAC has not won a first round game since Southern upset Bobby Cremins and 4th seeded Georgia Tech in 1993.

8 George Washington Vs. 9 UNC-Wilmington
The Seahawks from UNC-dub make their first tourney appearance since falling in heartbreaking fashion to Maryland in 2003. They make their hay on the defensive end of the court, ranking 12th in adjusted defensive efficiency. Methinks they'll put the clamps on a team that but a few short days ago was ranked 6th in the country.

5 Syracuse Vs. 12 Texas A&M
I wonder if a team that was dangerously close to missing the NCAA tournament ever went on a hot streak like Syracuse, won their conference tournament, and received an inflated NCAA seed. Ah yes. Only two years ago, Maryland pulled the same trick. The Terps barely escaped UTEP in the first round, and then lost to ta-da Syracuse in the second round. I don't think this Syracuse team is really that good. I'll take 4 months of data over 4 days anytime. The 12-5 upset streak continues here.

4 LSU Vs. 13 Iona
The Tigers went 14-2 in the SEC and received a seed that was one higher than a team that went 7-9 in the Big East. Go figure. Iona is a dangerous team, but Glenn Davis will be too much inside for the Gaels. Too bad their coach can't suit up and play. Jeff Ruland is a robust 6'10'' and he spent 8 years in the Association.

6 West Virginia Vs. 11 Southern Illinois
Its strength versus strength as West Virginia (rated 12th in adjusted offensive efficiency) goes up against Southern Illinois (rated 9th in adjusted defensive efficiency). If the Salukis agressive man to man defense can contain West Virginia's unique offense, then they have a real shot at winning. I think they can.

3 Iowa Vs. 14 Northwestern St.
Iowa lost to Northwestern this year, and they will be challenged by Northwestern St. The Demons ran roughshod over the Southland Conference going 15-1. They also defeated Oklahoma St. in Stillwater and played close games at Texas A&M, Wichita St., Utah St., and Missouri, as well as an overtime thriller against Iowa St. in Honolulu.

7 Cal Vs. 10 NC St.
A rematch of a first round game from 2003. This one may be a real snoozer until the last few minutes as both teams like to slow the pace. NC St. is 206th nationally in adjusted tempo and Cal is 294th. The Wolfpack has struggled lately losing 5 of 7, including 2 in a row to my alma mater. Expect their slide to continue here. However, any fan calling for Herb Sendek's ouster should face facts: 5 straight NCAA tourney appearances. Les Robinson had 5 straight ACC play-in game appearances, and top shelf coaches aren't exactly lining up to coach the Pack. Be happy with what you have.

2 Texas Vs. 15 Penn
It would be nice if the Ivies would allow some new blood into the NCAA tourney. It seems as if Penn or Princeton win the thing every year. It's been a solid decade since an Ivy league school has beaten a higher seeded team (Princeton won a game as a 5 seed in 1998), and that streak will add one more year to the ledger after this game.

1 Duke Vs. 9 UNC-Wilmington
Wilmington got the mid-major kiss of death in receiving the 9 seed. After a hard fought first round game with George Washington, their reward is the Duke Blue Devils. I think Wilmington can make it a game for the first 20 minutes with their stingy defense (12 in adjusted defensive efficiency), but Duke is no slouch themselves (19th in adjusted defensive efficiency).

4 LSU Vs. 12 Texas A&M
The rebuilding job Billy Gillispie has done at Texas A&M (in only his second season) will get a lot of play after their upset of Syracuse. However, they don't have anyone who can stop Glenn Davis either.

3 Iowa Vs. 11 Southern Illinois
If you're a betting man, take the under in this game. Both teams are slow (Iowa 209th in adjusted tempo, Southern Illinois 318th) and play tough defense (Iowa 2nd in adjusted defensive efficiency, Southern Illinois 9th). Baskets will be at a premium and the Salukis will be dicounted out of the tourney.

2 Texas Vs. 7 Cal
Cal is an overrated 7th seed. 3rd place in the Pac 10 didn't mean what it usually does this season. Texas has a relatively easy go of it in earning a place in the Sweet 16.

1 Duke Vs. 4 LSU
If Duke is a top seed and doesn't make the Final 4, they almost always go down to a 4 or 5 in the Sweet 16 (2000 against Florida, 2002 against Indiana, and 2005 against Michigan St.) I think LSU pulls of the upset and I can't wait for the Sheldon Williams/Glenn Davis matchup.

2 Texas Vs. 3 Iowa
This is a rematch of a late November game that Texas won 68-59 in Kansas City. While the Hawkeyes have a good defense, their offense is not in Texas' league. Texas is 2nd in adjusted offensive efficiency and Iowa is 105th. The Texas D is also stout (8th in adjusted defensive efficiency).

2 Texas Vs. 4 LSU
When mulling over this game, I decided I couldn't pick a team to go to the Final 4 that had lost games by 31, 21, and 18 points. So I'm going with the semi-cinderella Tigers to advance to Indy.

Oakland Bracket

1 Memphis Vs. 16 Oral Roberts
The Tigers, rated the weakest number 1 seed by the committee get the strongest 16th seed by a longshot. However, Memphis should still be able to handle Ned Flanders' alma mater with relative ease.

8 Arkansas Vs. Bucknell
Stan Heath returns to the NCAA tournament for the first time since he lead Kent St. to the Elite 8 in 2002. His stay won't be as long this go round. Bucknell beat Syracuse and played Villanova tough for 20 minutes. They won't be in awe of Arkansas.

5 Pittsburgh Vs. 12 Kent St.
Kent St. also returns to the tourney for the first time since Heath was their coach in 2002. The 5-12 game is usually ripe for an upset, but I don't see it happening here.

4 Kansas Vs. 13 Bradley
If Kansas gets past this game, I think they are Final 4 worthy. However, the Braves are no slouch. They have won 7 of their last 8, with their only defeat coming to the Salukis in the Missouri Valley title game. The Jayhawks will win a squeaker, lead by the #1 defense in the nation (tops in adjusted defensive efficiency).

6 Indiana Vs. 11 San Diego St.
The two coaches are the story in this game. One is a former Big 10 coach and the other will soon be a former Big 10 coach. San Diego St. has had a good season, but their best win is over fellow Mountain West member Air Force. I can't forsee them pulling an upset. Mike Davis lives to coach the Hoosiers another day.

3 Gonzaga Vs. 14 Xavier
If you thought Gonzaga's defense was bad last year, it's even worse this season. They were 119th last year and are 162nd now. Barely escaping the likes of Loyola Marymount, San Diego, and St. Mary's in the West Coast Conference does not inspire much confidence. If I had any guts at all, I'd take the X-men. But I don't.

7 Marquette Vs. 10 Alabama
The Tide has lost 2 in a row, including an ugly loss at Mississippi St., and look primed for another first round exit. Marquette, in the tourney for the first time since their Final 4 run in 2003, will make it to round 2.

2 UCLA Vs. 15 Belmont
The Bruins won the Pac 10 by a game over Washington. Ben Howland has rebuilt the Bruins since coming cross-country from Pitt. West coast Bruins take out the east coast Bruins.

1 Memphis Vs. 9 Bucknell
The Tigers are the trendy 'first top seed to fall'. They may be, but it won't be in the second round.

4 Kansas Vs. 5 Pittsburgh
This game is worthy of a Sweet 16 or Elite 8 showdown. According to Ken Pomeroy's adjusted ratings, both teams are in the top 10 (Kansas 4th and Pitt 8th). I like the baby Jayhawks to advance.

3 Gonzaga Vs. 6 Indiana
If the Zags defensive limitations don't catch up with them against Xavier, they will against Indiana.

2 UCLA Vs. 7 Marquette
Is an upset Bruin in round 2? At least one 2 seed drops every year before the Sweet 16, but it won't be UCLA.

1 Memphis Vs. 4 Kansas
Many people refuse to pick Kansas to go any further because they are a young team. Syracuse circa 2003: 'Melo and G-Mac helped lead the Orange to the NCAA championship. Kansas pulls off a minor upset over Memphis.

2 UCLA Vs. 6 Indiana
The journey ends here for Mike Davis as UCLA advamces to the regional final.

2 UCLA Vs. 4 Kansas
This should be a classic regional final. Kansas is the top ranked team in terms of adjusted defensive efficiency and UCLA is 6th. UCLA's offense is a little better (13th in adjusted offensive efficiency versus 29th for Kansas), but the young Jayhawks will outlast the Bruins.

Washington Bracket

1 Connecticut Vs. 16 Albany
Congrats to Albany for making their first ever tourney appearance. However, the Huskies should make quick work of the Great Danes.

8 Kentucky Vs. 9 UAB
A rematch of the second round game in 2004 where the Blazers upset the top seeded Wildcats. Expect more of the same here.

5 Washington Vs. 12 Utah St.
As happy as I am to see Utah St. and coach Stew Morrill in the NCAA tourney, I can't help but feel Hofstra and Missouri St. were more deserving. Perhaps the committee was making it up to the Aggies when they got shafted with 24-3 record in 2004. The Aggies will slow the pace (309th in adjusted tempo) which should frustrate Washington (16th in adjusted tempo). Both teams are very effcient on offense(23rd in adjusted offensive efficiency for Utah St. and 10th for Washington). Two guys you've never heard of, Nate Harris and Jaycee Carroll will light up Washington and lead Utah St. to the second round.

4 Ilinois Vs. 13 Air Force
Air Force is another selection that perplexed me, and by all accounts every analyst from Jay Bilas to Joe Lunardi. Their stay in the tourney will not be long.

6 Michigan St. Vs. George Mason
If one of George Mason's best players (Tony Skinn) had not been suspended for checking another players credential, they would be the pick here. Michigan St. went a mediocre 8-8 in the Big 10. They'll do enough to survive this round, but thats all.

3 North Carolina Vs. 14 Murray St.
Murray St. is no stranger to strong teams, having played relatively close games with Cincinnati (an OT loss), Tennessee, and Southern Illinois. However, they haven't encountered anyone like Tyler Hansbrough yet.

7 Wichita St. Vs. 10 Seton Hall
The Sockers have been oh so close to getting in the dance the last 2 years, finishing second in the Missouri Valley Conference in 2004 and 2005. This season, they won the regular season title to all but guarantee an NCAA bid. Seton Hall is a bit of a wildcard in the tourney having beaten Syracuse, NC St., Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, and West Virginia; while at the same time losing to Richmond, Northwestern, Rutgers (twice), Notre Dame, St. John's, and DePaul. I like the Shockers in this one.

2 Tennessee Vs. 15 Winthrop
How did Winthrop manage a 15 seed? I though for sure they would be a 14 at the lowest and possibly a 13. They beat Marquette, and played close games at Alabama, South Carolina, Auburn, and Memphis. Their RPI is a respectable 73. Oh well, they'll have to settle for playing perhaps the weakest 2 seed in the field. Tennessee has lost 4 of 6 since their scalding 19-3 start. Winthrop will keep it close, but the Vols will prevail.

1 Connecticut Vs. 9 UAB
The Huskies will be in for a second round test against UAB and their press. UAB is the best team in the nation at forcing turnovers. This combined with the fact that the Huskies are terrible at forcing turnovers (315th nationally) will keep the game close. However, the Huskies, with their superior front line, will end UAB's Sweet 16 hopes.

4 Illinois Vs. 12 Utah St.
Utah St.'s surprising run to the second round will end quickly at the hands of the Illini.

3 North Carolina Vs. 6 Michigan St.
Michigan St. may be a tad overrated, but the battle inside in this game should be vintage. Tyler Hansbrough against Paul Davis. I'll call it a draw, but Carolina's supporting cast (Wes Miller, Reyshawn Terry, and David Noel) will lead them to the Sweet 16.

2 Tennessee Vs. 7 Wichita St.
A 2 seed always goes down in the second round. Tennessee is the weakest 2, so I think Wichita St. will shock 'em.

1 Connecticut Vs. 4 Illinois
A classic Sweet 16 battle between 2 teams that could both make a run to Indy. If James Augustine can hold his own inside, the Illini have a chance. I don't think he will.

3 North Carolina Vs. 7 Wichita St.
Wichita St.'s cinderella run ends here.

1 Connecticut Vs. 3 North Carolina
The Tar Heels are half way to defending their 2005 national championship. Connecticut will prove too much in the regional final and advace to Indy.

Minneapolis Bracket

1 Vilanova Vs. 16 Monmouth/Hampton
No 16 seed has even beaten a 1. That trend continues as Monmouth falls.

8 Arizona Vs. 9 Wisconsin
Both these teams have their share of bad losses. Wisconsin lost to Wake Forest, North Dakota St., Purdue, and Northwestern. Wisconsin has also lost 3 in a row. Arizona lost to Houston, Oregon, Oregon St., and Southern Cal. I'll take the Wildcats in this one.

5 Nevada Vs. 12 Montana
Another perplexing committee decision, how did Montana get a 12 seed? They beat one team in the RPI top 100 (Stanford), and lost to 5 teams below the RPI 100, including 2 below 200. And they finished 2nd in their conference in the regular season. My mom doesn't like it when I swear, so I'll gladly tell her the only 'f' word I'll be saying in this game is Fazekas.

4 Boston College Vs. 13 Pacific
Congrats to the Pacific Tigers for making their 3rd straight tourney appearance. They are also seeking their 3rd straight first round win. It won't happen here as Jared Dudley 'Do Right' leads the Eagles to round 2.

6 Oklahoma Vs. 11 Wisconsin-Mailwaukee
Last year Milwaukee made a run to the Sweet 16. This year's Milwaukee team, while seeded higher, is not as good. Oklahoma squeaks by the Panthers.

3 Florida Vs. South Alabama
Those chants of 'USA, USA' will not help the Jaguars as they fall to Florida.

7 Georgetown Vs. 10 Northern Iowa
The Hoyas return to the tourney for the first time since 2001. They made the Sweet 16 in 2001 thanks to a first round upset by the Hampton Pirates. If this game were played in December, Northern Iowa would have a real shot (they beat LSU and Iowa before conference play started). However, Northen Iowa has struggled of late losing 5 of 7. Make it 6 of 8.

2 Ohio St. Vs. 15 Davidson
A rematch of a 2002 first round tourney game. In s strange conincidence, a week after that game I met some Davidson basketball players at a Wake Forest frat party. Nice guys they were. Unfortunately, this team seems destined to suffer the same fate as those gentlemen.

1 Villanova Vs. 8 Arizona
Wildcats versus Wildcats. The cats from Philly take out the cats from Tucson.

4 Boston College Vs. 5 Nevada
Boston College played a little over their heads in the ACC tournament. The Eagles defense will be their undoing (1ooth in adjusted defensive efficiency) against the Wolfpack (22nd in adjusted defensive efficiency). Also don't forget that this game is in Salt Lake City, so the crowd may be a little partisan towards Nevada.

3 Florida Vs. 6 Oklahoma
I don't trust either of these teams as far as I can throw them. Florida under Billy Donovan had a history of losing to teams seeded below them. While I don't know if this is indemic to the team or simply the result of random chance, I don't have faith in picking them to go very far. Oklahoma on the other hand has been walking on egg shells since January. At one point they won 4 games in a row by a single point. If they had gone 2-2 in those contests, we could be looking at one of the last teams in or out of the tourney. In a game like this, I'll take the higher seed.

2 Ohio St. Vs. 7 Georgetown
Georgetown definitely has a chance with their deliberate (329th in adjusted tempo) but efficient (11th in adjusted offensive efficiency) offense. However, I think Thad Matta and Ohio St. advance.

1 Villanova Vs. 5 Nevada
The Wolfpack's cinderella run ends in the Sweet 16.

2 Ohio St. Vs. 3 Florida
I wouldn't rank either of these teams in the top 8 of the country, but one of them will be after this game. I'll go with the Buckeyes because of my trust issues with the Gators.

1 Villanova Vs. 2 Ohio St.
The Buckeyes will lose, but expectations will be sky-high next year with the recruiting hall Thad Matta has.

Final 4

4 LSU Vs. 4 Kansas
In the cinderella half of the bracket, Glenn Davis and LSU face off against the young Jayhawks. Sasha Kaun and the rest of the Jayhawks will contain 'Big Baby' and advance to the national title game.

1 Connecticut Vs. 1 Villanova
In the chalk half of the bracket, we get a rubber match between the 2 Big East titans. Both teams won on their respective home floors in the regular season. Connecticut will take the rubber match and advance to the championship game on Monday night.

1 Connecticut Vs. 4 Kansas
The Jayhawks run will end just short of the championship as Connecticut wins its second title in 3 years.

Of George and Joe

Two years ago, an unheralded Atlantic 10 team stormed through an undefeated regular season, and had but one loss by the time the NCAA tournament rolled around. They were given a widely disputed #1 seed and proceeded to March to the regional final where they were bested on a last second shot by #2 seed Oklahoma St. This year another Atlantic 10 team has a chance to enter the NCAA tournament with but one defeat. Do they have the ability to make a simlar tournament run? Let's examine St. Joseph's circa 2004 and this year's incarnation of George Washington.

The number of NCAA tournament teams that a squad has beaten is a pretty decent indicator of their abilities. Here are the records of St. Joe's and George Washington against tournament bound teams and those teams respective RPIs and tournament seeds. For George Washington, I used teams that are projected to be in the NCAA tournament from ESPN.

St. Joe's: 6-1
defeated Gonzaga (RPI 9, NCAA seed 2) on neutral court in New York
defeated Boston College (22, 6) at home
defeated Pacific (65, 12) at home
defeated Richmond (47, 11) away
defeated Dayton (40, 10) at home
defeated Xavier (35, 7) away
lost to Xavier (35, 7) on neutral court in Dayton

George Washington: 0-1
lost to NC St (RPI 40, projected seed 6) away

St. Joe's wins this round in a romp. Gonzaga, Boston College, Pacific, and Xavier all won games in the NCAA tournament, and the X-men advanced all the way to the Elite 8. In their only game against probable NCAA tournament competition, George Washington lost. Their best win was over Maryland (RPI 47), a team that projects to be one of the last teams left out. If George Washington is upset in the Atlantic 10 tournament, then they can add at least one more victory over a tournament team to their resume, as they have beaten every team in the conference once.

Did both teams pad their resumes with cupcakes? Here are the victories for both squads over the dregs of the NCAA based on their RPI.

St. Joe's
wins over RPI 100+ teams: 15
wins over RPI 200+ teams: 2
wins over RPI 300+ teams: 0

George Washington
wins over RPI 100+ teams: 19
wins over RPI 200+ teams: 11
wins over RPI 300+ teams: 4

Again, St. Joe's wins. Before the NCAA tournament started in 2004, St. Joe's had 27 wins. More than half came against teams with RPIs over 100. However, only 2 came against teams with RPIs greater than 200, and none against teams with RPIs over 300. George Washington currently has 26 victories. More thna half have come against teams with RPIs over 100. In addidtion to this, more than 40% of their total victories have come against teams rated 200 or higher by the RPI.

We've examined the schedule, now let's look at how the teams rate according to RPI.

St. Joe's: pre-NCAA RPI 3

George Washington: pre-NCAA RPI 22

Finally let's look at both teams adjusted Pythagorean rank. The adjusted pythagorean rank is the team's winning percentage based on their points scored and points allowed, and also adjusted for competition. This is a little stat compiled by Ken Pomeroy.

St. Joe's: Pythagorean winning percentage .949 (ranked 6th in the country)

George Washington: Pythagorean winning percentage .814 (ranked 52nd in the country)

I think it's safe to say that this year's George Washington team is nowhere near as good as the 2004 St. Joseph's Hawks. St. Joe's played a more difficult schedule and was much more dominant over their opposition than George Washington. George Washington has parlayed a ridiculously easy schedule into a top 10 poll ranking, and a likely top 4 NCAA tournament seed. However, their bloated won/loss mark will not do them any good when they are engaged in a second round tussle against a talented #5 seed in 11 days. Expect them to make an early departure from Bracketville and come nowhere close to achieving the success St. Joe's enjoyed.

The Winner's Curse

With March Madness officially underway, I thought now would be a good time to test out an old theory that sportscasters occasionally toss out when covering a conference tournament game from one of the big 6 conferences. That theory asserts that winning the conference tournament may not necessarily be a good thing. They site fatigue and complacency as two factors that could contribute to an early exit from the NCAA tournament. Is this in fact true? Are conference tournament champions more likely than other teams to be upset once the NCAA tournament starts? Let's take a look.

For this study I looked at all conference tournament champs from 1999-2005. First we'll examine first round upsets. During those 7 years, conference champions of the big 6 conferences received a seed between 3-7 14 times. This study will focuse only on 1st and 2nd round upsets becuase that is where the majority of upsets (in the sense of a large difference in seeding) occur. Let's start with the first round. Only twice big 6 tournament champs they lose in the first round. Oklahoma in 2001 (to 13 seed Indiana St.) and Syracuse in 2006 (to 13 seed Vermont). That's roughly 14.3% of the time. During that same time span, 126 non-champs received a seed between 3-7. Those teams lost 37 times. That's roughly 29.4% of the time. Of course, conference tournament champs have also been given their fair share of 1 and 2 seeds, but I decided not to inlcude those in the study since 1 seeds have never lost in the first round and 2 seeds have lost only 4 times. Incidentally, a 2 seed was beaten during the time of this study (Iowa St. by Hampton in 2001), but they were not a non-champ.

Switching our focuse to second round upsets:

A conference tournament champ has been given a 1 seed 13 times since 1999. They have lost in the second round to an 8/9 seed twice. This comes out to 15.4%. During this same time frame, non-champs have been upset 3 times in the 15 instances when they were awarded 1 seeds. That's 20%.

The big 6 tourney champs have received 2 seeds 9 times. Only once have they been beaten by a 7/10 seed in the second round. That's 11.1%. Non-champs that were seeded 2 have lost 13 times in 18 instances. That's a staggering 72.2%.

Champs have been awarded a 3 seed and advanced to the second round 5 times. They have lost in the second round to a 6/11 seed twice. This comes out to 40%. Non-champs have been a 3 seed 21 times. They have lost to a 6/11 seed 9 times. That's 42.9%.

Finally, champs have been given a 4 seed and faced a 12 seed in the second round 4 times. They have lost in the second round to a 12 seed once. That's 25%. I declined to include losses to 5 seeds because a 5 seed defeating a 4 is not really an upset. In the same time span, non-champs have been seeded 4 and faced a 12 seed 4 times. They have lost 3 times to those 12 seeds. That's 75%.

While the sample size of data is indeed small, the data seems to indicate the exact opposite of what the announcers are implying. In every instance, conference tourney champions performed as well or better than their similarly seeded non-champ counterparts. Don't let the logic of fatigue and complacency disuade you from picking conference tournament champions from advancing deep into the NCAA tournament.