2019 Yards Per Play: Big 12

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

Here are the Big 12 standings.

So we know what each team achieved, but how did they perform? To answer that, here are the Yards Per Play (YPP), Yards Per Play Allowed (YPA) and Net Yards Per Play (Net) numbers for each Big 12 team. This includes conference play only, with the championship game not included. The teams are sorted by Net YPP with conference rank in parentheses.

College football teams play either eight or nine conference games. Consequently, their record in such a small sample may not be indicative of their quality of play. A few fortuitous bounces here or there can be the difference between another ho-hum campaign or a special season. Randomness and other factors outside of our perception play a role in determining the standings. It would be fantastic if college football teams played 100 or even 1000 games. Then we could have a better idea about which teams were really the best. Alas, players would miss too much class time, their bodies would be battered beyond recognition, and I would never leave the couch. As it is, we have to make do with the handful of games teams do play. In those games, we can learn a lot from a team’s YPP. Since 2005, I have collected YPP data for every conference. I use conference games only because teams play such divergent non-conference schedules and the teams within a conference tend to be of similar quality. By running a regression analysis between a team’s Net YPP (the difference between their Yards Per Play and Yards Per Play Allowed) and their conference winning percentage, we can see if Net YPP is a decent predictor of a team’s record. Spoiler alert. It is. For the statistically inclined, the correlation coefficient between a team’s Net YPP in conference play and their conference record is around .66. Since Net YPP is a solid predictor of a team’s conference record, we can use it to identify which teams had a significant disparity between their conference record as predicted by Net YPP and their actual conference record. I used a difference of .200 between predicted and actual winning percentage as the threshold for ‘significant’. Why .200? It is a little arbitrary, but .200 corresponds to a difference of 1.6 games over an eight game conference schedule and 1.8 games over a nine game one. Over or under-performing by more than a game and a half in a small sample seems significant to me. In the 2019 season, which teams in the Big 12 met this threshold? Here are Big 12 teams sorted by performance over what would be expected from their Net YPP numbers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

2019 Adjusted Pythagorean Record: Big 10

Last week we looked at how Big 10 teams fared in terms of yards per play. This week, we turn our attention to how the season played out in terms of the Adjusted Pythagorean Record, or APR. For an in-depth look at APR, click here. If you didn’t feel like clicking, here is the Reader’s Digest version. APR looks at how well a team scores and prevents touchdowns. Non-offensive touchdowns, field goals, extra points, and safeties are excluded. The ratio of offensive touchdowns to touchdowns allowed is converted into a winning percentage. Pretty simple actually.

Once again, here are the 2019 Big 10 standings.

And here are the APR standings with conference rank in offensive touchdowns, touchdowns allowed, and APR in parentheses. This includes conference games only with the championship game excluded.

Finally, Big 10 teams are sorted by the difference between their actual number of wins and their expected number of wins according to APR.

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

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

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

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

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

2019 Yards Per Play: Big 10

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

Here are the Big 10 standings.

So we know what each team achieved, but how did they perform? To answer that, here are the Yards Per Play (YPP), Yards Per Play Allowed (YPA) and Net Yards Per Play (Net) numbers for each Big 10 team. This includes conference play only, with the championship game not included. The teams are sorted by division by Net YPP with conference rank in parentheses.

College football teams play either eight or nine conference games. Consequently, their record in such a small sample may not be indicative of their quality of play. A few fortuitous bounces here or there can be the difference between another ho-hum campaign or a special season. Randomness and other factors outside of our perception play a role in determining the standings. It would be fantastic if college football teams played 100 or even 1000 games. Then we could have a better idea about which teams were really the best. Alas, players would miss too much class time, their bodies would be battered beyond recognition, and I would never leave the couch. As it is, we have to make do with the handful of games teams do play. In those games, we can learn a lot from a team’s YPP. Since 2005, I have collected YPP data for every conference. I use conference games only because teams play such divergent non-conference schedules and the teams within a conference tend to be of similar quality. By running a regression analysis between a team’s Net YPP (the difference between their Yards Per Play and Yards Per Play Allowed) and their conference winning percentage, we can see if Net YPP is a decent predictor of a team’s record. Spoiler alert. It is. For the statistically inclined, the correlation coefficient between a team’s Net YPP in conference play and their conference record is around .66. Since Net YPP is a solid predictor of a team’s conference record, we can use it to identify which teams had a significant disparity between their conference record as predicted by Net YPP and their actual conference record. I used a difference of .200 between predicted and actual winning percentage as the threshold for ‘significant’. Why .200? It is a little arbitrary, but .200 corresponds to a difference of 1.6 games over an eight game conference schedule and 1.8 games over a nine game one. Over or under-performing by more than a game and a half in a small sample seems significant to me. In the 2019 season, which teams in the Big 10 met this threshold? Here are Big 10 teams sorted by performance over what would be expected from their Net YPP numbers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

2019 Adjusted Pythagorean Record: ACC

Last week we looked at how ACC teams fared in terms of yards per play. This week, we turn our attention to how the season played out in terms of the Adjusted Pythagorean Record, or APR. For an in-depth look at APR, click here. If you didn’t feel like clicking, here is the Reader’s Digest version. APR looks at how well a team scores and prevents touchdowns. Non-offensive touchdowns, field goals, extra points, and safeties are excluded. The ratio of offensive touchdowns to touchdowns allowed is converted into a winning percentage. Pretty simple actually.

Once again, here are the 2019 ACC standings.

And here are the APR standings with conference rank in offensive touchdowns, touchdowns allowed, and APR in parentheses. This includes conference games only with the championship game excluded.

Finally, ACC teams are sorted by the difference between their actual number of wins and their expected number of wins according to APR.

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

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

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

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

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

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

2019 Yards Per Play: ACC

The second conference we come to in our alphabetized recap of 2019 is the ACC. Here are the ACC standings.

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

College football teams play either eight or nine conference games. Consequently, their record in such a small sample may not be indicative of their quality of play. A few fortuitous bounces here or there can be the difference between another ho-hum campaign or a special season. Randomness and other factors outside of our perception play a role in determining the standings. It would be fantastic if college football teams played 100 or even 1000 games. Then we could have a better idea about which teams were really the best. Alas, players would miss too much class time, their bodies would be battered beyond recognition, and I would never leave the couch. As it is, we have to make do with the handful of games teams do play. In those games, we can learn a lot from a team’s YPP. Since 2005, I have collected YPP data for every conference. I use conference games only because teams play such divergent non-conference schedules and the teams within a conference tend to be of similar quality. By running a regression analysis between a team’s Net YPP (the difference between their Yards Per Play and Yards Per Play Allowed) and their conference winning percentage, we can see if Net YPP is a decent predictor of a team’s record. Spoiler alert. It is. For the statistically inclined, the correlation coefficient between a team’s Net YPP in conference play and their conference record is around .66. Since Net YPP is a solid predictor of a team’s conference record, we can use it to identify which teams had a significant disparity between their conference record as predicted by Net YPP and their actual conference record. I used a difference of .200 between predicted and actual winning percentage as the threshold for ‘significant’. Why .200? It is a little arbitrary, but .200 corresponds to a difference of 1.6 games over an eight game conference schedule and 1.8 games over a nine game one. Over or under-performing by more than a game and a half in a small sample seems significant to me. In the 2019 season, which teams in the ACC met this threshold? Here are ACC teams sorted by performance over what would be expected from their Net YPP numbers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2019 Adjusted Pythagorean Record: AAC

Last week we looked at how AAC teams fared in terms of yards per play. This week, we turn our attention to how the season played out in terms of the Adjusted Pythagorean Record, or APR. For an in-depth look at APR, click here. If you didn’t feel like clicking, here is the Reader’s Digest version. APR looks at how well a team scores and prevents touchdowns. Non-offensive touchdowns, field goals, extra points, and safeties are excluded. The ratio of offensive touchdowns to touchdowns allowed is converted into a winning percentage. Pretty simple actually.

Once again, here are the 2019 AAC standings.

And here are the APR standings with conference rank in offensive touchdowns, touchdowns allowed, and APR in parentheses. This includes conference games only with the championship game excluded.

Finally, AAC teams are sorted by the difference between their actual number of wins and their expected number of wins according to APR.

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

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

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

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

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

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

2019 Yards Per Play: AAC

We begin our offseason recaps as we have in the past with the American Athletic Conference. Here are the AAC standings.

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

College football teams play either eight or nine conference games. Consequently, their record in such a small sample may not be indicative of their quality of play. A few fortuitous bounces here or there can be the difference between another ho-hum campaign or a special season. Randomness and other factors outside of our perception play a role in determining the standings. It would be fantastic if college football teams played 100 or even 1000 games. Then we could have a better idea about which teams were really the best. Alas, players would miss too much class time, their bodies would be battered beyond recognition, and I would never leave the couch. As it is, we have to make do with the handful of games teams do play. In those games, we can learn a lot from a team’s YPP. Since 2005, I have collected YPP data for every conference. I use conference games only because teams play such divergent non-conference schedules and the teams within a conference tend to be of similar quality. By running a regression analysis between a team’s Net YPP (the difference between their Yards Per Play and Yards Per Play Allowed) and their conference winning percentage, we can see if Net YPP is a decent predictor of a team’s record. Spoiler alert. It is. For the statistically inclined, the correlation coefficient between a team’s Net YPP in conference play and their conference record is around .66. Since Net YPP is a solid predictor of a team’s conference record, we can use it to identify which teams had a significant disparity between their conference record as predicted by Net YPP and their actual conference record. I used a difference of .200 between predicted and actual winning percentage as the threshold for ‘significant’. Why .200? It is a little arbitrary, but .200 corresponds to a difference of 1.6 games over an eight game conference schedule and 1.8 games over a nine game one. Over or under-performing by more than a game and a half in a small sample seems significant to me. In the 2019 season, which teams in the AAC met this threshold? Here are AAC teams sorted by performance over what would be expected from their Net YPP numbers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Over/Under Win Totals

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Games of the Year

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conference Champion Bets

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

Reckless Parlay 1:
$10 to win $110

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

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

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

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

Two out of four.

Reckless Parlay 2:
$10 to win $60

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Magnificent Seven: Bowl Season

Despite Troy Calhoun's best efforts to ruin my weekend, we managed to close the regular season on a positive note. We've done well in bowl games the past few seasons, so we'll try to keep that up. The bowls are listed in chronological order. The first pick is from December 21st and the last is from January 4th. I hope you make enough money to pay off your bloated holiday credit card bills. As always, home teams in BOLD.

Last Week: 4-3
Overall: 52-44-2

Las Vegas Bowl @ Las Vegas, Nevada
Boise State +3.5 Washington
The surprising retirement of Chris Petersen at Washington pretty much demanded these two teams be matched up in the postseason. Petersen, as you probably know, guided Boise to lofty heights during his eight-year tenure in 'The Gem State’. The Broncos finished with unblemished regular season records three times and wound up in the top-ten of the final poll four times during his eight year run. Bryan Harsin has helped the the Broncos maintain their standing as one of the best mid-major programs in the nation, and while they have not reached the same pinnacle as they did under Petersen, the two coaches have remarkably similar resumes when we look at how the Broncos did under Petersen without Kellen Moore at quarterback.

This is no knock on Petersen, who won two Pac-12 titles at Washington, but I don’t think Harsin often gets the credit he deserves for upholding Boise State’s place in the college football zeitgeist after Petersen departed. But I digress. So what can we expect from this incarnation of the Las Vegas Bowl? Probably Washington struggling to score points. Outside of a turnover-aided 51 point outburst at Arizona, the Huskies averaged just under 23 points per game in Pac-12 play and just over fifteen points per game on the road. Quarterback Jacob Eason’s numbers look good on the surface (nearly eight yards per throw and 22 touchdown passes), but he averaged over ten yards per pass and threw ten touchdowns in their three non-conference games against Eastern Washington, Hawaii, and BYU. His numbers were more pedestrian against Pac-12 opponents. The Washington defense remained stout, keeping the Huskies in pretty much every game this season. They ranked third in the conference (behind the two conference title game participants) in yards allowed per play. That defense will need to be on point against a Boise State team that dealt with quarterback injuries and still finished with one of the best offenses in the Mountain West. In fact, had the Broncos gone to Jaylon Henderson when Hank Brockmire Backmeier was out with an injury against BYU, the Broncos may have finished the regular season without a loss. Henderson has been the starting quarterback the past four games, and the Broncos have averaged 40 points per game in that span. Boise State has a solid track record against Power Five opponents under Harsin, going 7-5 straight up. The Broncos are a middling 6-6 ATS against Power Five opponents, but are 4-2 ATS as an underdog. Harsin also has a solid track record in bowl games, posting a 3-1 mark at Boise State, including two outright wins as an underdog (to Pac-12 teams no less). The Broncos may be disappointed they missed out on a New Year’s Six bowl, but they should relish the opportunity to get a shot at a regional Power Five opponent. If any team is disappointed by being in this game, it is probably Washington. The Huskies began the season in the top-fifteen and come in having played in three consecutive New Year’s Six games. They will probably want to send Petersen off a winner, but that might be easier said than done. Take the Broncos and the points. Before we move on, if you are wary of this game because the Broncos, as a ranked team, are an underdog to an unranked team, do not fret. I looked into it, and since 2005, ranked teams that are underdogs to unranked teams in bowl games are 5-8 straight up and 7-6 ATS. Those are hardly numbers that will move me off a side I like. See table for specifics.

Gasparilla Bowl @ Tampa, Florida
Marshall +17.5 UCF
Like a lot of bowl games this postseason (and in postseason’s past), this is a renewal of old acquaintances. The Thundering Herd and Knights were both members of the MAC from 2002-2004 and then Conference USA from 2005-2012. The two teams played for eleven consecutive years, with the Herd winning all three of the games as members of the MAC and the Knights winning all eight as members of Conference USA. The Knights got the call up to what amounts to Quadruple A in 2013, when they joined the American Athletic Conference. Since joining the AAC, UCF has played in three prestigious bowl games, getting a grandfathered Fiesta Bowl appearance in 2013 and finishing unbeaten the past two regular seasons to nab a Peach and another Fiesta Bowl bid respectively. UCF is one of only eight mid-major programs to appear in a BCS/New Year’s Six bowl since 1998. I wanted to see how those other mid-major programs performed when they appeared in less prestigious bowl games the following season. Those results are summarized in the following table.

First off, some clarification. UCF was technically in a BCS conference in 2013, just like you can technically be pulled over for driving one mile per hour over the posted speed limit. Also, I did not include Western Michigan in the analysis as they were bowl eligible in the season after they played in the Cotton Bowl, but were not extended an invitation to a bowl game. For what its worth, they lost and failed to cover in their next bowl game against BYU. Obviously, we are working with a small sample size here, but motivation could be a factor when teams coming off major bowl appearances have to settle for a less prestigious bowl game the next season. The eleven teams have a losing ATS record (4-7) and have lost outright three times as a favorite. UCF is in an especially unique position, having played in two consecutive major bowl games against SEC opponents. There is a real possibility they overlook Marshall. In addition to potentially taking Marshall lightly, this spread just seems really high. I like to use the Simple Rating System at College Football Reference as a starting point when handicapping games. Based on the SRS scores for both teams, this spread should be about ten points on a neutral field. Even applying a small homefield advantage for UCF playing in their home state, this number would still be south of two touchdowns. Finally, Marshall head coach Doc Holliday has a track record of bowl game success. In his previous six bowl appearances at Marshall, his teams are 6-0 straight up and ATS with two outright victories as an underdog. I wouldn’t read too much into Josh Heupel’s bowl debut against the current top-ranked team, but Holliday is a more proven commodity on the bowl circuit. I think UCF is a very good team that was a little unfortunate to not win their third straight AAC title. Full disclosure, when I head to Vegas next summer, I will be looking for some UCF AAC futures and potentially looking to play their win total ‘over’. I also expect them to win this game. UCF has more talent, a better record, and plays in a better conference. However, this spread is just too high. A three touchdown fourth quarter lead would not be safe from the dreaded backdoor cover. Maybe UCF plays up the disrespect angle that has aggravated the larger college football universe for the past three seasons and crushes Marshall, but I think there will be some disinterest on the UCF sideline and I know what I’m getting with Doc Holliday. If Marshall gets blown out and fails to cover, I’ll happily be your huckleberry.

Camping World Bowl @ Orlando, Florida
Iowa State +3.5 Notre Dame
You know Matt Campbell has brought the Iowa State program a long way when a seven win regular season is seen as a disappointment. However, when viewed through the prism of the point spread, the 7-5 record is somewhat disappointing. The Cyclones were underdogs in just two games all season! They managed to cover both of those games against the Hawkeyes and Sooners, but lost by a point in each. Overall, their five losses came by a combined 21 points with four coming by a touchdown or less. A historic season was within reach, but the Cyclones will have to settle for a third consecutive bowl game and a chance to knock off a marquee program in Notre Dame. The Irish lost the two games they were expected to lose (to Georgia and Michigan), but won the other ten against varying degrees of competition. After a stirring comeback against Virginia Tech, the Irish cruised to the finish, winning their final four games by an average of 29 points. Despite the blowout nature of those final four wins, one can quibble with the strength of that quartet of victims. Duke and Stanford both finished with losing records, Boston College barely qualified for a bowl game, and Notre Dame is much more talented than Navy. Despite the strong close to the season, the Irish were not selected to participate in a New Year’s Six bowl. Considering they qualified for the College Football Playoff last season, the Cyclones may not have their undivided attention in the Camping World Bowl. The Irish have also parted ways with their offensive coordinator since the end of the regular season, so that side of the ball may not be in peak form. Iowa State is an amazing 18-8-1 ATS as an underdog under Matt Campbell, so they are no stranger to playing teams with more talent and better pedigree. Both previous bowl appearances under Campbell have been close games with the Cyclones covering both games as an underdog and winning one outright. I expect a similar result in this spot with the hook giving you even more reason to back Iowa State.

First Responder Bowl @ Dallas, Texas
Western Kentucky -3.5 Western Michigan
The Tyson Helton era at Western Kentucky began rather inauspiciously. The Hilltoppers lost outright against an FCS team and seemed destined to follow up their 3-9 2018 season with another losing campaign. But the Hilltoppers rallied, winning eight of their last eleven games, including a road thrashing of an SEC team. That thrashing earned Chad Morris his official walking papers (not that he wouldn’t have been fired even if the Hogs had won) and was doubly sweet as it was co-authored by a former Arkansas quarterback who apparently was not good enough to play for Morris. Despite the offensive outburst against the Hogs (the Hilltoppers scored a season high 45 points in the game), Western Kentucky was an old-school defense-first team in 2019. The Hilltoppers finished second in yards allowed per play in Conference USA, holding league foes below five yards per snap. After allowing over seven yards per play in their opener to Central Arkansas, only three other opponents eclipsed six yards per play against the Hilltoppers, and two of them were Power Five teams (Louisville and Arkansas). The Hilltoppers will be looking for their third nine win season in the past five years against a Western Michigan team that may still be reeling from their season finale. With a 5-2 conference record, and the tiebreaker over their fellow directional Michigan conference rival, the Broncos needed to win at struggling Northern Illinois to secure a spot in the MAC Championship Game. The Broncos were up to the challenge, notching their fewest points scored on the season (14) in an upset loss that handed the division to the Chippewas. Despite owning prohibitive victories over both MAC Championship Game participants, the Broncos were forced to watch the Redhawks upset the Chippewas in Detroit and claim the glory that comes with winning a MAC title. Statistically, Western Michigan was a middling MAC team, posting a yards per play margin that ranked eighth (of twelve teams) in the conference. Couple that with the fact that MAC teams have done quite poorly in bowl games both straight up and ATS in recent years (see table below) and a spread that is just north of a field goal makes Western Kentucky an easy play.

Birmingham Bowl @ wait for it... Birmingham, Alabama
Boston College +7 Cincinnati
Despite a six bowl appearances in seven seasons, the Steve Addazio era is over at Boston College. Don't weep for him though. He has already landed on his feet at Colorado State. Former Eagle Rich Gunnell will lead them in their bowl game. Gunnell played for the Eagles when they made back-to-back ACC Championship Games in 2007 and 2008, so the team should rally around an interim coach just a decade removed from playing for the team. Despite getting fired, this may have been one of Addazio's best coaching jobs. After losing starting quarterback Anthony Brown to injury halfway through the season, the Eagles leaned even more into their old-school ground based attack, averaging 56 carries per game over the final six games of the season. Over the course of the 2019 season, the Eagles ran the ball more than every FBS team save the three service academies. The run heavy attack was also very explosive. Outside of games against elite teams (Clemson and Notre Dame), the Eagles averaged nearly 36 points per game and over five yards per carry. Of course, with an offense that good, it obviously begs the question: Why did the team finish 6-6? That can be explained by the play of the defense. The Eagles finished dead last in the ACC in yards allowed per play, permitting over six and a half yards every time their conference opponents snapped the ball. Normally, teams with a defense that bad are hard to back, but I believe the Eagles have a favorable matchup with Cincinnati. The Bearcats nearly ran the table in the AAC despite finishing with an even yards per play margin. The Bearcats are probably not as good as their lofty record. There are also a couple of trends that point to fading Cincinnati. Had Cincinnati beaten Memphis in the AAC Championship Game last week, they may have qualified for a New Year's Six bowl as the top-ranked Group of Five team (in the discussion with a one-loss Boise State). In the short history of the College Football Playoff, there have been three instances of an AAC team losing in the conference title game while being in position to grab the New Year's Six bid had they won (Temple in 2015, Navy in 2016, and Memphis in 2017). All three of those teams lost their bowl games, with Temple and Memphis losing outright as favorites. As always, we are dealing with a small sample, but the Bearcats may not be as motivated to beat a middling ACC team in Birmingham as they would a good Big 10 team in the Cotton Bowl. Finally, as I noted last season, Group of Five teams are not a good bet when laying points against Power Five teams in the postseason. Since 2005, mid-majors (and I do not use the term in the pejorative sense) are just 11-17-1 ATS when favored against major conference teams. Take the Eagles to keep this one close.

Gator Bowl @ Jacksonville, Florida
Tennessee -2 Indiana
After a three-year hiatus, the Hoosiers and Volunteers managed to return to the postseason in 2019. Both teams did most of their heavy lifting against non-bowl teams. Tennessee faced eight bowl teams on the season and managed just a 3-5 record against that octet, beating Kentucky, Mississippi State, and UAB. While each of their five losses came against a postseason participant, two of those also came to Group of Five teams (BYU and Georgia State). However, Indiana fared even worse against bowl teams, finishing 0-4 in such games. Despite playing in a Power Five conference that features nine conference games, the Hoosiers managed to avoid playing any quality teams outside their own division. The Hoosiers fortuitous schedule saw them avoid facing Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, or Wisconsin in their cross-division games. Instead they were treated to clashes against Nebraska, Northwestern, and Purdue. Couple that with a non-conference schedule that included an FCS team, a MAC team, and a Connecticut squad doing their best impression of an FCS team and Indiana managed to beat no one of note during the regular season. If you do some basic math, you can figure out Indiana and Tennessee went a combined 12-0 against teams that are not playing in bowl games. While both teams beat up on the soft underbelly of their respective conferences, Tennessee also managed to put up solid per play numbers. They outgained SEC opponents by nearly seven tenths of a yard per play. Those are not numbers befitting a national title contender (LSU outgained SEC opponents by over two and a half yards per play), but they are solid. And, I will note this includes all eight of their conference games. The losses to Alabama, Florida, and Georgia are included in there. Meanwhile, Indiana was actually outgained on a per play basis in the Big 10. The Hoosiers were underwater by about a tenth of a yard per play and this was despite getting to play Rutgers! If you follow college football, I shouldn’t have to tell you that Tennessee recruits at a higher level than Indiana. While the Volunteers have been an average recruiter by SEC standards (which is still great nationally) over the past few seasons, Indiana has been near the bottom of the Big 10 in recruiting. The Volunteers are more talented, have faced a tougher schedule, and have a track record of pounding Big 10 teams in Florida in recent years. Meanwhile, Indiana has not won a bowl game since 1991. Bowl bids and eight win seasons don’t come around that often for Indiana, so the Hoosiers should be motivated for this game, but don’t forget Tennessee is no longer the annual postseason participant they once were. The Volunteers are coming off consecutive losing seasons and want to show signs of progress as they close the second year of the Jeremy Pruitt era. You’re getting the Volunteers at a discount in this spot. Take them to easily cover this number.

Armed Forces Bowl @ Fort Worth, Texas
Southern Miss +7 Tulane
The Golden Eagles and Green Wave were founding member of the football branch of Conference USA and played each other for 28 straight years between 1979 and 2006. These two would seem to be natural mid-major rivals as they likely dip into the same recruiting pool and are separated by just 115 miles or so. However, this tilt in the Armed Forces Bowl will be their first meeting since 2010. Historically, Southern Miss has dominated this rivalry, winning 23 of the thirty games, including the last six and 19 of the past 22. Tulane’s last victory in this series came way back in 2002 when future Buffalo Bills standout J.P. Losman was quarterbacking the team. Obviously, a lot has changed since these teams last met nearly a decade ago. Tulane is now a member of arguably the strongest Group of Five conference, the AAC while Southern Miss is still slumming in Conference USA. Tulane will be making consecutive bowl appearances for just the second time in school history while Southern Miss is appearing in their fourth bowl in five years (they were also bowl eligible last season, but were not invited). Both teams are led by coaches entering their fourth season who achieved success at the FCS level. Tulane marks the fourth stop for head coach Willie Fritz, who previously coached in Division II, the FCS, and lower level FBS (Sun Belt) ranks before getting the job in New Orleans. While it’s obvious the team has improved under Fritz, I expected more. His four teams have all failed to win more than six regular season games and his record in conference play is just 12-20. While the Green Wave technically tied for the AAC West division title last season, they were still outscored on the year and needed a last second two-point conversion to even qualify for a bowl game. This is not intended to bash Willie, I loved the hire and I love the option (the Green Wave have evolved from the option offense Fritz ran at Georgia Southern), but I just expected Tulane to win more. Perhaps my expectations were too high. For the Golden Eagles, Jay Hopson is also in his fourth season after having spent four successful seasons at Alcorn State. In my opinion, the Golden Eagles, like the Green Wave, have also been a little disappointing. While they have been bowl eligible each season under Hopson, they have also finished with five losses each year and have yet to even tie for a division title. This year was especially disappointing with the Eagles dropping their final two games of the year to hand the division title to UAB. Those two defeats could certainly take their toll on the psyche of the team, but with the Eagles missing out on a bowl last season despite six wins, I think they will be motivated to play in this game. I understand why Tulane is favored, but I have a hard time figuring out why the spread is seven points. Here are the teams Tulane has beaten this season along with their record and SRS rank.

The only bowl eligible team they beat was Florida International and by SRS, the best team they beat was Tulsa. For comparison’s sake, Southern Miss currently ranks 80th in the SRS which would represent Tulane’s third best win this season and best win away from New Orleans. The Green Wave have lost five of six and their offense has averaged less than five yards per play during their current three-game losing streak. Take Southern Miss to cover this number in the rivalry renewal.