First Half Point Differential Part III: The Power Five in 2019

Last week we looked at 1HPD in the Group of Five. This week we examine 1HPD in the power conferences.

Beginning alphabetically as we always do, here are the ACC standings from 2019.

And now the IHPD with conference rank in parentheses.

Its a surprise to no one that Clemson was head and shoulders above the rest of the ACC. The Tigers 1HPD of +182 is more than the combined 1HPD of the other seven teams that finished with a positive differential (+144). However, the Tigers did not lead at halftime of every conference game. They were tied with North Carolina in a game they eventually won by a single point. Speaking of the Tar Heels, while they enter 2020 as the favorites in the Coastal Division, they were actually in fifth in the division in 1HPD and Duke was not very far behind them. Chaos always seems to reign in that half of the ACC, so don't assume Mack has a cakewalk to the ACC Championship Game.

Moving on to the Big 10 standings.

And the Big 10 1HPD.

Ohio State was the only Power Five team to lead at the half in all their conference games (and they played nine lest we forget). The Buckeyes also managed to lead by double-digits at the half in each of their Big 10 games! Wisconsin put up a fight in the conference title game, but that is still quite a feat. On the other end of the spectrum, in a shocking development, Maryland actually finished with the worst 1HPD! While the Terrapins did beat Rutgers (and led by twenty at the half), they trailed by double-digits six times in conference play (Rutgers trailed by double-digits seven times).

Next up is the Big 12.

And the Big 12 1HPD.

Despite Oklahoma and Baylor finishing with two conference losses between them, the Sooners and Bears were hardly dominant. The Big 12 was the lone Power Five conference to not have a team finish in triple digits in 1HPD. If the 2020 season is played, we should have a helluva race in flyover country. Just 38 points separated the third place team (Oklahoma State) from the eighth place team (Texas Tech) in 1HPD. Add to that the fact the ninth place team (West Virginia) is likely to improve in Neal Brown's second season and the perennial punching bag at least showed flashes of competency last season (and is coached by a national champion). I wouldn't go so far as to predict Oklahoma failing to qualify for the Big 12 Championship Game for the first time since its reinstatement, but a title game pitting Iowa State and TCU wouldn't be the most shocking development.

Here are the Pac-12 standings.

And the Pac-12 1HPD.

While the Big 12 had no dominant teams, the Pac-12 had no true dregs. Arizona brought up the rear, but the Wildcats 1HPD of about negative eight points per game was the best of any last place finisher in the Power Five (NC State was second at negative twelve). Oregon had the lowest 1HPD of any Power Five champion. In fact, the Ducks did not lead at the half in four of their nine conference games. By comparison, the other four Power Five champs did not hold a lead five times (out of 34 total conference games).

Finally, here are the SEC standings.

And the SEC 1HPD.

I know its fun to hate on Alabama, but don't go throwing dirt on the Tide just yet. Alabama was nipping at the heels of LSU in 1HPD and if we look at the other seven conference games both teams played, Alabama actually had a better differential (+137 to +113). Of course, that classic in Tuscaloosa does count and lets also give LSU credit for never trailing at the half in any conference game (they were tied against Florida and Auburn). In the East, Georgia finished with a healthy 1HPD margin over Florida and Kentucky and despite the relatively disappointing season, the Bulldogs led by double-digits six times in SEC play (tied with Alabama and LSU for the most double-digit leads).

In the YPP and APR offseason recaps, I sort the teams in each conference by how much they over or under-performed relative to their expected record. Since all the Power Five conferences are grouped together here, I am only going to list those that significantly over or under-performed (a difference of at least .200). We'll start with the overachievers.

Louisville beat one FBS opponent in 2018, but the Cardinals improved to seven regular season wins in their maiden voyage under Scott Satterfield. However, there are a few flashing warning signs if you expect continued improvement in 2020. Despite an 8-5 overall record, the Cardinals were actually outscored in 2019 and in ACC play, they trailed at the half five times. Despite a 5-3 conference record, their 1HPD ranked fifth in the Atlantic Division. NC State and Syracuse probably won't be as bad as they were last season and Florida State is likely to rebound as well. The Cardinals also retain two challenging non-conference games in 2020, as they travel to Notre Dame and host their in-state rival Kentucky. A return to bowl eligibility, even it it means a regression to 6-6 should still be seen as a success as the Cardinals try to move on from Bobby Petrino. A championship repeat by Oregon in the Pac-12 would be quite an accomplishment considering the Ducks lost their starting quarterback in the NFL draft and did not post numbers typically befitting an 8-1 conference record. Tennessee has been one of the hardest teams for me to get a read on this offseason. Were the Volunteers good in 2019? They closed the year on a six-game winning streak, beating three bowl teams in the process (Indiana, Kentucky, and UAB). Their YPP numbers were solid (fifth overall and third in the East). On the other hand, their APR numbers were much less glowing (ninth overall and fourth in the East). They also lost to Georgia State and were pounded by the three best teams on their schedule (Alabama, Florida, and Georgia beat them by a combined 82 points). And since when are Tennessee fans delighted by victories against Indiana, Kentucky, and UAB? Their 1HPD also shows them to be pretty weak. Despite winning five of their eight league games, they were outscored in the first half in conference play and actually trailed at the half five times, including four times by double-digits. The Vols do have the benefit of drawing Arkansas in their rotating cross-division game in 2020, but Alabama, Florida, and Georgia are still on the schedule as well as a non-conference trip to Oklahoma. 8-4 seems like the ceiling for this team with a real possibility of 6-6 or worse.

And now the underachievers.

Earlier I mentioned the Big 12 could have one of the more interesting conference races in the Power Five. Part of the reason for that is because teams like the Red Raiders and Horned Frogs are likely in store for some positive regression in 2020. Texas Tech and TCU combined to finish 5-13 in conference play last season despite outscoring their league foes by seven points in the first half. Those aren't great margins, but are more indicative of a .500 level conference finish. So in effect we have two middling Big 12 teams that were led by a first year head coach and a true freshman quarterback respectively. Both those conditions are often marked by initial inconsistency and then marked improvement as time goes on. Keep an eye on both in the Big 12 race. The only other Power Five team to significantly under-perform relative to their 1HPD was Washington State. In Mike Leach's final season on the Palouse, the Cougars lost twice as many conference games as they won despite outscoring their nine Pac-12 opponents in the first half. The Cougars fielded a very bad defense in 2019 that kept them from closing games. That defense has almost no choice but to improve in 2020. The turnover at the top is always a concern, especially at a locale that does not recruit well, but Washington State can expect to extend their bowl streak to six years in 2020.

Thanks for reading. Check back next Thursday when we see how well 1HPD has done in handicapping conference title games and the College Football Playoff.

First Half Point Differential Part II: The Group of Five in 2019

Last week I introduced the nuanced and complex statistic of First Half Point Differential (1HPD) with a promise to examine the 2019 college football season through that lens. I keep my promises roughly half the time, so enjoy this review of Group of Five conference play from 2019.

American Athletic Conference
Like we always do, we'll start with a look back at the 2019 AAC standings.

And now we'll look at how the conference stacked up in terms if 1HPD in league play (conference rank in parentheses).

The first thing that jumps out is the two best teams by 1HPD did not win their respective divisions. UCF outscored their conference opponents by nearly 100 more points in the first half than the eventual East division winner (Cincinnati), but lost a tight game to the Bearcats and also dropped another close game to Tulsa. The Knights led both games at halftime by the way (by six and eleven points respectively) before frittering away the leads in the second half. However, despite losing a conference game for the first time in nearly three years, the Knights were still a dominant force in the AAC. In the West division, Memphis and Navy finished tied atop the division, but the Tigers won the head to head matchup (despite trailing at the half) and thus the tiebreaker. Elsewhere in the conference, the departing Huskies finished dead last in 1HPD, but they did lead at the half against Temple in the season finale. That marked the first time they led at the half against an AAC foe since 2017. That also happened to be their last conference win. Of course, they went on to lose to the Owls by 32 points.

Conference USA
The CUSA standings.

And the 1HPD.

Lane Kiffin's parting gift for FAU was a second conference title in three seasons, but the Owls were not nearly as dominant in 1HPD as they were two years ago. In 2017, they outscored their eight league opponents by nearly twice as many points (+121) in the first half of games. Out West, UAB won their second consecutive division title, but the Blazers actually finished just behind Southern Miss in 1HPD. The Eagles had the division in their talons after beating UAB by the odd score of 37-2, but dropped their final two conference games to Western Kentucky and FAU (a pair of East division foes) to give the division to UAB.

Mid-American
The MAC standings.

The MAC 1HPD.

Did the wrong team win? Despite a 1HPD that was nearly double that of the second best team in the conference, Buffalo did not even win the East division. The Bulls opened conference play with back-to-back losses to Miami and Ohio, but were dominant down the stretch, save for a wild comeback by Kent State. The Bulls actually led at halftime in all eight of their conference games, something no other Group of Five team can boast.  At the other end of the spectrum, Akron did not win a game (in conference play or otherwise) and their 1HPD was indicative of that performance.

Mountain West
Here are the Mountain West standings.

And the Mountain West 1HPD.

Boise won the conference and had the best 1HPD. The interesting thing about the Mountain West is that every team in the Mountain Division, with the notable exception of New Mexico, finished with a positive 1HPD. In the West Division, Hawaii was the only team to finish with a significantly positive 1HPD (Fresno State was slightly above water at +6). With such a scoring imbalance, it probably won't surprise you that the five teams from the Mountain Division not named New Mexico went 13-2 against the West, with both losses coming to San Diego State.

Sun Belt
Finally, the Sun Belt standings.

And the Sun Belt 1HPD.

The two best teams in the conference won their respective divisions and met in the league title game. I was a little surprised at Appalachian State's 1HPD. I figured they would have been more dominant considering they are arguably the best Sun Belt team of all time and the first to finish the season ranked.

In the YPP and APR offseason recaps, I sort the teams in each conference by how much they over or under-performed relative to their expected record. Since all the Group of Five conferences are grouped together here, I am only going to list those that significantly over or under-performed (a difference of at least .200). We'll start with the overachievers.

Cincinnati had a great shot at winning the AAC, holding a lead against Memphis in the AAC Championship Game with under five minutes to play, until the Tigers prevailed. The Bearcats have won 22 games over the past two seasons, but can probably expect some regression in 2020. In Conference USA, a pair of first year coaches exceeded expectations. Will Healy guided the 49ers to the first bowl game in school history and Tyson Helton helped the Hilltoppers get back to the postseason. However, I wouldn't fancy either of these teams as contenders in the East this season. The 49ers were outscored in the first half of their conference games and Healy has a history of regressing after breakthrough seasons. He followed up an eight-win campaign at Austin Peay with a losing record. Meanwhile, despite Helton's background as an offensive coach, the Hilltoppers were led by their defense in 2019. A losing season by either or both in 2020 would not be that shocking. Air Force rebounded from back-to-back losing seasons and featured perhaps the best team of Troy Calhoun's tenure. However, despite cresting, the Falcons were unable to wrest the division away from Boise State and I wouldn't expect them to be able to in 2020 either. Finally, elsewhere in the Mountain West, Nevada managed to qualify for a second consecutive bowl game despite very bad first half numbers. The Wolfpack trailed by double-digits in half their conference games. Despite upheaval within the division (four of the six teams are breaking in new head coaches), I expect Nevada to finish with a losing record in 2020.

And now the underachievers.

Houston underachieved in the AAC, spoiling Dana Holgorsen's debut. It should be noted they still put up solid first half numbers despite the absence of quarterback D'Eriq King for seven of their eight conference games. King won't be back in 2020, but his backup earned valuable experience. Despite winning double-digit games for the third consecutive season, UCF actually underachieved in 2019. The Knights are the favorite heading into 2020, not just in the AAC, but also in terms of finishing as the highest ranked Group of Five team. In Conference USA, Rice actually outscored their opponents in the first half despite posting a losing league record. A tough non-conference schedule with games against Army, Houston, and LSU could keep the Owls out of the postseason, but if you are looking for a sleeper to win a wide open Conference USA, the Owls are a fine pick. Their in-state brethren have won just two games over the past three seasons, but I expect the Miners to dig deep and get to at least three wins in 2020. As I mentioned previously, Buffalo was arguably the best team in the MAC last season which is something considering the talent they lost to the NFL and the transfer portal. If the 2020 season is played, the Bulls will be the best MAC team since Western Michigan in 2016. Colorado State and Fresno State both finished with losing conference records despite outscoring their opponents in the first half. And both now have new head coaches stepping into good situations. Finally, South Alabama has a chance to make a third year leap under Steve Campbell after posting decent numbers hardly befitting a 1-7 outfit.

As always, thanks for reading. We'll be back next Thursday with a look at 1HPD in the Power Five. Enjoy the 4th and wear a damn mask.

First Half Point Differential Part I: An Introduction

The primary reason I started this blog nearly fifteen years ago was to make predictions. In that decade and a half, I have made a lot of them. Some good, and some not so good. In my never ending quest to make better predictions, I try to think of stats that can identify teams poised for positive and negative regression. My offseason posts on Yards per Play (YPP) and the Adjusted Pythagorean Record (APR) are two that I am quite proud of. I don't want to spoil the rest of the post, but I think I have found another: first half point differential.

So what is first half point differential (1HPD)? Unlike advanced stats, it is easy to define and calculate. It is simply the scoring margin (positive or negative) in the first half of a game. In the 2019 College Football National Championship Game, LSU led Clemson 28-17 at the half. The 1HPD for LSU was +11 and -11 for Clemson. Simple stuff. With more than ample time on my hands, I calculated the 1HPD for all FBS teams in conference play back to the first season of the College Football Playoff (2014). That is six seasons worth of data. What did that data show? I thought you would never ask.

For starters, 1HPD in conference play is positively correlated to a team's conference record. In fact, with an R squared value of .72, the correlation is stronger than YPP in conference play (which surprised me). So if 1HPD has a strong correlation with conference success, what happened to those teams that saw their expected record based on 1HPD differ significantly from their actual record? Wow, its like your reading my mind.

For YPP, I consider a difference of .200 between actual and expected record significant, so I used the same logic here. Between 2014 and 2018 101 FBS teams saw their actual record differ significantly from their expected record. 52 teams under-performed relative to their expected record and 49 exceeded their expected record. Those teams that under-performed tended to see their conference record improve the next season.

The average team improved by 1.41 wins in conference play and nearly 70% of the teams improved by at least one win.

On the other hand, the teams that exceeded their expected record more often than not declined the following season.

The average team won about 1.80 fewer games the next season and more than three quarters of the teams declined by at least one win.

It certainly appears 1HPD is a solid way to identify teams that might regress or rebound the next season. Intrepid readers might recall the title of this post and wonder what comes next. Well, next Thursday, I'll give you a rundown of the 1HPD for Group of 5 teams from 2019 and try to identify some teams to watch assuming we have a season in 2020. In two weeks, we'll look at the Power 5 and then in three weeks we'll see if 1HPD can be used to handicap conference title games and the College Football Playoff. Stay tuned!

2019 Adjusted Pythagorean Record: Sun Belt

Last week we looked at how Sun Belt 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 Sun Belt 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, Sun Belt 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 an arbitrary threshold to determine if a team significantly over or underperformed relative to their APR. By that standard, Arkansas State significantly exceeded their APR. The Red Wolves finished 4-1 in close conference games, meaning eighty percent of their league wins came by a touchdown or less. South Alabama significantly undershot their expected record based on APR. They also underperformed relative to their expected record based on YPP and we went over some reasons for that last week.

Paul Petrino: The Sun Belt Savant
Even hardcore college football fans may have a hard time recalling Paul Petrino. They are probably intimately familiar with his brother, but like Bill Dooley, Paul is often overshadowed by his sibling. This is doubly true now that Idaho has dropped down to the FCS level. Despite the fact that Idaho no longer plays in the FBS, I like to highlight forgotten or overlooked greatness on this blog, and Paul Petrino's Against the Spread (ATS) record in the Sun Belt is one for the ages.

Before we dive into Petrino's ATS mark as head coach of the Vandals, here is a quick history of Idaho's nomadic existence since they returned to FBS in 1996. The Vandals played in the Big West for five seasons (1996-2000) before becoming a charter member of the Sun Belt in 2001. They only lasted four seasons in the fledgling conference before joining the WAC in 2005. The Vandals stayed in the WAC until the conference dissolved following the 2012 season. They played as an independent for one season before rejoining the Sun Belt in 2014. After four seasons, they dropped down to the FCS level where they currently reside in the Big Sky Conference. Petrino coached the team for the entirety of their second run in the Sun Belt (and their one season as an independent). During those four seasons, the Vandals did not post a great Sun Belt record, finishing 13-19 in league play. They did win six games league games in 2016, but in the other three seasons, their conference record was 7-17. However, even though they weren't winning games on the field, they were cleaning up for those brave enough to bet on them in Sun Belt games.

From 2014-2017, Idaho posted a phenomenal ATS record of 24-8 in conference play. That was by far the best of any Sun Belt team in that span.

The Vandals were especially good on the road, failing to cover just once in an away conference game over those four seasons.

This amazing ATS run is likely just a lot of noise and randomness. Idaho was just 5-7 ATS in non-conference games over the same time period. I doubt Petrino had a horseshoe or other lucky trinket he deployed specifically for conference games. Still, this is further proof that amazing things happen all the time in college football if you know where to look. A coach with a receding hairline, a much famous older brother, and a career record of 28-55 was a veritable ATM for degenerates a few seasons ago.

That concludes our YPP and APR rundowns of the 2019 season. I hope we get to do this for 2020, but I have my doubts. As a resident of South Carolina, it pains me to say I have probably seen more folks with Confederate memorabilia than masks on my trips to the grocery and drug stores. Another spike in infections could certainly jeopardize the 2020 season, not to mention the health of many people in this nation. If we don't get a 2020 season, I think I will do weekly YPP and APR lookbacks at other seasons. I have only been doing them since 2015, so we missed out on a lot. Want to know how YPP saw the SEC in 2005 or how APR saw the Big East in 2007? If the 2020 season is canceled, that will be your consolation. In the meantime, content will be sporadic on the blog over the summer. I'm working on a few projects, so there will be posts, just not weekly. Check back every now and then, and as always, thanks for reading.

2019 Yards Per Play: Sun Belt

This week, our final YPP takes us to the Sun Belt.

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

Georgia Southern significantly exceeded their expected record based on YPP thanks to a solid mark in close conference games (3-1) and the best in-conference turnover margin in the Sun Belt (+8). The Eagles were very protective of the ball in conference play, committing just two turnovers over their eight-game conference schedule. Meanwhile, South Alabama undershot their expected record based on YPP. The Jaguars were not exceptionally bad in close games (1-2 in one conference games), but their poor offense coupled with a lackluster turnover margin (-4 in Sun Belt play) kept them in the league basement despite decent peripherals.

Arkansas State and Preseason College Football
Watch any college football pregame show in late August or early September and you'll no doubt hear the talking heads emphasizing the fact that unlike the NFL, college football has no dress rehearsal. There are no preseason games to work out the kinks. Come Labor Day Weekend (and maybe a little before), the games count and teams have to work through their issues in real time. While this is technically true, Arkansas State head coach Blake Anderson has done of good job of manufacturing preseason games for his Red Wolves.

Anderson has been the head coach in Jonesboro for six seasons. During that span, his teams have been to six bowl games and won a pair of Sun Belt titles. And after three consecutive years of one and done head coaches, he has provided some much needed stability for the program. The Red Wolves have been very successful in the Sun Belt, posting a 36-12 conference record under Anderson, second only to Appalachian State in that span (41-7). However, the Red Wolves have not played very well against non-Sun Belt opponents. Excluding games against FCS teams (they did lose once), the Red Wolves are 4-13 against non-conference opponents in the regular season under Anderson. Obviously some of those games are against Power Five opponents that Arkansas State is not expected to win. So let's remove those from the equation. When we remove the eight games against Power Five opponents, Arkansas State looks a little better. Their record of 4-5 against other Group of Five opponents is mediocre, but a far cry from their .750 conference winning percentage.

Let's examine their non-conference record another way; through the lens of the point spread. Their Against the Spread (ATS) record against G5 regular season opponents is one game worse than their actual record at 3-6. Their conference ATS record also gets worse, but they are still covering the number more than 60% of the time in Sun Belt play.

It should also be noted that three of Arkansas State's four G5 victories have come against teams that have finished 4-8 or worse (Tulsa and UNLV twice).

The Sun Belt is typically the worst FBS conference, but using the point spread to level the playing field, Arkansas State has played much better against their conference foes than against other G5 opponents. It sure seems like there is more at play here than mere randomness. My theory? Anderson knows his team has no shot to make the College Football Playoff and only an infinitesimal chance to play in a New Year's Six Bowl. Thus, he treats the non-conference schedule, even against teams Arkansas State can theoretically compete with, as a chance to iron things out in preparation for the conference season. All that matters is Sun Belt play and a chance to win a conference title. In all six seasons, the schedule has played out the same way. Arkansas State opens with four non-conference games (three in 2017 thanks to a cancelation) and then eight Sun Belt contests. Despite the occasional rough start in the non-conference, by the time league play starts, Arkansas State is hitting their stride.

2019 Adjusted Pythagorean Record: SEC

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

Ole Miss and Tennessee were the two teams that saw their actual record differ significantly from their APR. Ole Miss undershot their APR as well their expected record based on YPP and we went over some reasons for that last week. Meanwhile, Tennessee won nearly two more games than we might expect based on their ratio of touchdowns scored and allowed. The Vols were 2-0 in one-score conference games, beating both Kentucky and Missouri by four points, but they weren't exceptionally lucky in close games. The bigger culprit is their performance in their three conference losses. The Vols lost to Alabama, Florida, and Georgia (the three best teams on their schedule) by a combined 82 points. While three of their conference wins did come by double-digits, the combined margin in their five SEC victories was only 56 points.

Whatever Happened to the Conference Championship Game Shockers?
When it comes to conference championship games, the SEC is the OG. When the league expanded to twelve teams in 1992, it also instituted a divisional structure and created a conference title game to match up those two division champs. The Big 12 followed suit a few years later and after the turn of the century, the ACC got in on the fun. Post conference realignment, the Big 10 and Pac-12 also added title games. Thirty years ago, the idea of such an exhibition was a novelty, but now it is an accepted part of college football. Every FBS conference puts on a title game the first weekend in December. With the title game ensconced in the college football zeitgeist, I thought now would be a good time to examine the results of all the title games for the Power Five conferences and see if there was anything to be gleamed from the data. As the SEC has the most robust back catalog of championship games, they are the obvious place to start. The table below lists the following vital statistics about the SEC Championship Game: The straight up record of the favored team, the average spread, the largest spread, the largest upset relative to the spread, and the most recent upset.

Favored teams have done pretty well in the SEC. The favored team has won a little more than 82% of the time. The average spread being nearly ten points surprised me as did the most recent upset (I thought for sure Auburn was favored in both 2013 and 2017, but they were not). While the most recent upset was just six seasons ago, that spread was very tight. Prior to that, the next most recent upset came in 2009 in a matchup of undefeated teams. The largest upsets came two seasons apart, with Freddie Milons out-rushing Shaun Alexander in a beatdown of the Gators in 1999 and LSU ending Tennessee's national title hopes in 2001.

The record of the favorite in the SEC seems pretty good and the average spread seems pretty high, but without something to compare it to, it means nothing. So lets look at the other Power Five conferences starting with the Big 12.

Suddenly the SEC's average spread doesn't look that big. The average Big 12 spread has been nearly twelve points! In addition, while the first Big 12 title game featured the biggest upset, three of the four upsets have come from double-digit underdogs with Kansas State being both a victim (1998) and a suspect (2003). That Kansas State victory also marked the last time an underdog won with the favorite (usually Oklahoma) riding a ten game winning streak.

Now here is the ACC.

Like the Big 12, the ACC favorite has posted a similar overall record and similar spread margin. The average spread has increased significantly over the past four seasons, with Clemson being favored on average by more than twenty points in their past four trips to the title game. The Tigers are also the last team to pull off an outright upset.

Next up, the Big 10.

While the Big 10 favorite has won just over half the time, I think that can be attributed to the narrow margin of the average spread. Prior to the last two games (where Ohio State was a double-digit favorite in both) the average spread was under four and a half points.

Finally, here are the numbers for the Pac-12.

Favored teams have done quite well in the nine Pac-12 title games, with Oregon's victory over Utah representing one of only two times an underdog has won outright (Stanford over Arizona State in 2013 was the other).

So now we can try to answer the question I posed earlier. Where have all the upsets gone? For starters, there haven't been that many to begin with. Overall, favored teams are 61-18 in Power Five conference title games (just north of a 77% winning percentage). Favorites of at least a touchdown are 41-8 (nearly 84%) and double-digit favorites are 26-4 (almost 87%) with the last double-digit underdog to win outright being Florida State in 2005.

Also, consider the four teams to lose as double-digit favorites: Kansas State, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Virginia Tech. Nebraska (at least in 1996) and Oklahoma are powerhouses, but Kansas State and Virginia Tech may have arguably possessed less raw talent than the teams they were favored to crush (Texas A&M and Florida State).

I have a limited understanding of statistics, but I think what may be going on here is a Poisson Distribution. It's not deadly and doesn't involve the thousands of women Bret Michaels slept with, but instead refers to the probability of a given number of events occurring. For the reasons outlined above (and a whole lot of randomness), there was a cluster of upsets between 1996 and 2005 (seven favorites of at least a touchdown lost in that span) and we've just been going through a dry spell since. Similarly in college basketball, there were four fifteen seeds that defeated two seeds between 1991 and 2001. Then we went more than a decade without one before having two in 2012 and another in 2013, followed by another in 2016. There have been a few close calls since Clemson pulled the last upset as a touchdown underdog in 2011 (Georgia on two occasions against Alabama, Baylor taking Oklahoma to overtime last season, and Georgia Tech against Florida State to name a few). It will happen. Just give it some time. You probably won't see it coming which will make it even better.

2019 Yards Per Play: SEC

This week, our offseason sojourn takes us to the SEC, the home of the reigning national champs.

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

Ole Miss was the only SEC team that saw their actual record differ significantly from their expected record based on YPP. The Rebels finished 0-3 in one-score conference games, including a memorable one-point loss in the Egg Bowl that may have cost Matt Luke his job. The Rebels also dropped two non-conference games by one score, bringing their overall close game mark to 0-5. Lane Kiffin is actually stepping into a better situation than you might otherwise expect in taking over a 4-8 team in college football's toughest division. If the 2020 season is actually played, a bowl bid for the Rebels wouldn't surprise me.

The Worst SEC Team Ever (In the Past Fifteen Years)
It can be tough to realize we are witnessing history in the moment. Even though the 2019 college football season is still a vivid memory for many fans, I think there is a reasonable case to be made it featured the worst SEC team of the last decade and a half. And no, I'm not referring to the one that lost at home to San Jose State and was blown out by Western Kentucky.

Despite winning a conference game in 2019, Vanderbilt put up the worst Net YPP numbers I have on record (since 2005). While YPP is a useful tool for rating teams, I know its not perfect and far from the definitive word on team strength. With that in mind, I decided to look at SEC teams through that lens in addition to a few others and see where last year's Vanderbilt team ranked. Were they really that bad or were their numbers artificially depressed by the strength of the conference overall? Read on to find out.

As I mentioned previously, Vanderbilt had the worst Net YPP of any SEC team since 2005. Here are the other four SEC teams that make up the bottom five of Net YPP.

Vanderbilt is the lone team to finish three yards per play underwater and they were more than a half yard worse than the second worst team (Houston Nutt's final Ole Miss squad).

Regular readers know another metric I like to use to rate teams is the Adjusted Pythagorean Record (APR). While that post will be going up next week, I can give you a sneak peak of where Vanderbilt ranked in that category in 2019. Last. However, they did finish better than two other SEC teams since 2005.

Note that two Derek Mason coached Vanderbilt teams appear on this list. I know the Vandy job is tough, but he has put some really bad teams on the field in his six seasons in Nashville.

YPP and APR only include data from conference games in their ratings. However, I think its also important to look at how SEC teams did in non-conference games to get a better idea of how good (or in this case bad) they were historically. The Simple Rating System (SRS) from Sports Reference rates teams according to how many points they are above or below the average team. Using this metric, here are the bottom five SEC teams since 2005.

Once again, last year's Vanderbilt team comes out on top. How did they rate so low despite beating a decent Missouri team? Take a look at that non-conference schedule. They lost by double digits to a bad Purdue team, barely escaped a MAC team at home, and were blown out at home by the second worst team in the Mountain West. The SEC was a great conference in 2019, but all Vanderbilt's losses came by at least seventeen points and their only victory by more than a touchdown came against East Tennessee State. As no other team appears in the bottom five of all three metrics, much less the very bottom of two, I christen the 2019 incarnation of Vanderbilt the worst SEC team since 2005.

2019 Adjusted Pythagorean Record: Pac-12

Last week we looked at how Pac-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 Pac-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, Pac-12 teams are sorted by the difference between their actual number of wins and their expected number of wins according to APR.

Both schools from the Evergreen State significantly under-performed relative to their APR. Washington State finished 1-3 in one-score conference games and also finished dead last in in-conference turnover margin (-13). Their brethren from Seattle were even worse in one-score Pac-12 games, finishing 0-4. By contrast, each of Washington's four league wins came by at least twelve points. No team significantly exceeded their APR, but Colorado came close. Perhaps Mel Tucker saw the writing on the wall in regards to how good Colorado actually was and this contributed to him taking the Michigan State job.

When the Meek Inherit the Earth
Last week I used the 247 Talent Composite to try and find value when elite teams were underdogs to non-elites. For the past five years, there has not been any value to be had. This week, I will be doing the same thing, but different. Or maybe doing a different thing the same way. Instead of looking at elite teams as underdogs, I wanted to look at what happens when the dregs of college football are favored. The methodology is explained in the next paragraph, so if you only want the results, skip down.

Using the 247 Talent Composite, I calculated the mean and standard deviation talent ratings for all Power Five teams (and Notre Dame) for the years 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019. As I mentioned last week, I ignored the Group of Five teams because with the exception of about five teams per season, Power Five teams all have more 'talent' than Group of Five teams. Using the mean and standard deviation, I determined which Power Five teams were more than one standard deviation below average in terms of raw talent. Whereas about two teams per season were at least two standard deviations above average, no team was more than two standard deviations below average in any season. On average, about eleven teams per season were at least one standard deviation below average. Once I determined the teams, I looked at all instances where these 'dregs' of the Power Five were favored against any other Power Five team that was not a dreg and calculated how they fared against the spread. I also separated out instances where they were extreme favorites (three points on the road, six points at a neutral site, and nine points at home). With that out of the way, here are the results.

Seventeen schools have been one standard deviation below average in raw talent at least once in the past five seasons. Some of them are obvious (Wake Forest) and others are a little shocking (Arizona -- RIP Kevin Sumlin). They are listed in the table below.

Five schools have been one standard deviation below average in all five seasons. Four of those schools have been at least moderately successful in that span (Boston College, Kansas State, Wake Forest, and Washington State) and the other is Kansas.

So how did these dregs of Power Five football (talent-wise) fare against the spread when they were favored against more talented Power Five teams? As you might expect, not that great.

They covered 42.5% of the time as favorites and were marginally better as extreme favorites (44.4%). Here are how the individual teams performed as favorites.

When you break things down by team, the Washington State Cougars stand out. They were favored 23 times in the past five seasons against more talented Power Five teams which is more than double the number of times of the second most favored team (Virginia). They were an extreme favorite 14 times, which is more than three times as often as any other team. They are also one of three teams (Wake Forest and Indiana are the other two) to post a winning ATS record as a favorite. Some statistically inclined folks might call them an outlier. When we remove them from the equation, the record of these Power Five dregs as favorites comes into clearer focus.

Excluding Washington State, these talent-challenged Power Five teams covered less than 37% of the time and just under 32% of the time as extreme favorites. When filling out a parlay card, you may have intuitively believed betting against a team like Purdue as a favorite was a good idea. Data has confirmed your intuitions. When a team with inferior talent is favored against a more talented team, betting against them has proven profitable at the window the past five seasons, especially when you don't bet against Mike Leach.