Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
  • entries
    78
  • comments
    48
  • views
    34,743

About this blog

A sports analysis blog hosted by lovable, furry old Duquesne. Come here for DUSHEE missives and other sundry wonkish thoughts.

Entries in this blog

 

An introduction to DUSHEE for the uninitiated ...

I'm a little uncertain how this blog thing works, but here's mud in your eye ... Why DUSHEE? A few years ago, on some random college football Saturday, I decided that it wasn't enough for me to just waste the day on the couch watching football ... that I needed to incorporate my two loves, college football and Excel spreadsheets, into one glorious symbiotic whole. And on that day, the Duquesne Ultimate Statistical Heuristic Evaluation of Excellence (I don't remember if that was the original non-sense acronym or not, just go with it) was invented. I did it for a couple of reasons. One, I love putzing around with numbers. It makes me happy. Second, amid the hullabaloo about BCS computer polls, I wanted to better understand how they might be used to analyze performance and what their value was. Using just a few simple and basic performance measures, could I create a ranking system that paralleled both the "human" polls and the other computer ranking systems? Third, being a SABR nerd, I'm fascinated by comparitive techniques that allow you to compare teams of different years and eras. And I think DUSHEE actually does a pretty fair job of doing it. In the following weeks in the lead up to the next season, I'll go into some of the interesting things the numbers tell you. Before we go there, though, I thought it best to start off with a description of the methodology. Many on here have seen and understand it (not that it's all that complicated) but this will serve as a reference for future discussions. Plus, one of the reasons why so many people have a negative predisposition to "computer polls" is that the authors of those polls don't reveal their methodology. I know why they don't; their efforts get them column inches and salaries and name recognition in USA Today and other places and if they told you how they got their numbers, no one would need them to do it. But as we may discuss down the road, I'm not too far off of Sagarin and many of the other polls. He tends to have many of the same "Whaaa?!?!" teams that show up in DUSHEE as appearing to be way better than anyone else thinks they are. Which means either they are way better, or Jeff and I have the same GIGO problems with our models. That's for you to decide. You can criticize the methodology, you can take it and tweak it, you can print it out and use it to line the cat's litter box. I'll take it all into consideration although I've invested way too much time in this to greatly change the way I'm doing it and go back to tweak all the stuff I've already done. So feel free to comment, but don't expect a massive revision of the method. Not until USA Today starts sending me a check too. Keep It Simple, Stupid DUSHEE looks at two numbers for each game between two FBS opponents, margin of victory (i.e., point margin) and yardage margin (i.e., yardage margin). Those two numbers are then compared to how a team's opponent's opponents did against them. For example, let's look at last years' TCU-Baylor game. Why that game? Because we beat their ass. TCU won the game 49-21 (PM = 28) and outgained Baylor 508 to 431 (YM = 77). Baylor, over the course of their season and removing the TCU game from their totals, beat their FBS opponents by an average of 8.7 points and outgained their opponents by an average of 78.5 yards. The difference between how Team A does against Team B in a particular game and how Team B does, on average, in their other 11 (or however many) games is what I'm defining as the Point Differential (PD) and the Yardage Differential (YD). So in this particular game, TCU scored a PD = 28 + 8.7 = 36.7 and a YD = 77 + 78.5 = 155.5. On the other side of the coin, we can look at how Baylor fared in this game. Outside of the Baylor game, TCU was outscored their FBS opponents by 0.9 points per game and outgained their opponents by an average of 29.8 yards per game. So Baylor's PD for the game was (-28 - 0.9 = -28.9) and their YD was (-77 + 29.8 = -47.2). This calulation is made each week for each game and the total PD and YD for each team is summed over the course of the season and averaged. TCU's totals for last year looked like this: Opp: Kan Uva SMU | ISU Bay Ttech | OkSt WVU KSU | Tex OU MichSt PD: -7.40 12.00 9.09 | -17.64 36.73 0.00 | -10.91 0.00 1.82 | 14.58 2.27 2.92 YD: -9.00 119.10 -93.64 | -5.27 155.45 258.18 | -43.45 82.73 40.18 | 29.67 3.91 156.42 Table 1: TCU's point differential (PD) and yardage differential (YD) for each game during the 2013 season TCU's average PD and YD per game for the year was 3.6 and 57.8, meaning we were 3.6 points better against our opponents than their opponents were against them. And we outgained them by 57.8 more yards. The same thing is done for all the other now 124 FBS teams. To this point, everything is a completely objective, and really very simple, statistical analysis. If the NCAA wanted to, they could report a team's PD and YD on their website. But then we get to the slightly subjective part ... There's Room for Me, Sagarin The team with the highest PD and YD (not necessarily the same team) is used as a reference and every other team's PD and YD is "normalized" relative to it. This is a fancy way of saying that you divide each team's score by the highest team's score. Thus the team with the highest PD will get a "normalized" PD of 1. And it follows that the team with the highest YD ... you get the picture. The subjective part comes in when establishing the relative importance of PD vs. YD when establishing a ranking metric. Some would argue that YD is meaningless and PD is the only thing that matters. That sort of analysis is basically what basketball and baseball do with the RPI calculation. As I'll argue in a follow up entry at some point, I think margin of victory is made "noisier" by the randomness of turnovers and other intangible factors that aren't necessarily controlled by the performance of a team. Looking at TCU's numbers from last year in Table 1 shows just how "noisy" a team's performance can be from week to week. Without that noise, a slightly above average team like TCU was last year should play other slightly above average teams to a near tie, lose to better teams by a steadily increasing number as the opponent gets better, and beat worse teams by an increasingly bigger number as the opponent gets weaker. That is rarely the case, but that is not the subject of this entry. So I view yardage margin as a damper on the noise of college football performance. Touchdowns are scored on freak plays, but good teams are going to outgain bad teams on a more consistent basis than they outscore them. I'm not sure the numbers support this theory entirely (hey, a subject for a future post!) but it's my story and I'm sticking to it. So to rank teams, I take the normalized PD and multiply it by 67 and I take the normalized YD and multiply it by 33. This weights points over yards 2:1 and gives a team who leads FBS in both PD and YD a perfect score of 100. I chose 100 because it's 100, the most kickass of all round numbers. And I chose a 2:1 weighting largely because it used to be 3:2 and Uniballer kvetched and moaned that DUSHEE was slandering his poor Kansas State team who had a great PD and a not-so-great YD one year. Completely arbitrary and subjective, but there it is, the basis for the DUSHEE ranking system. The best team in all the land will have a DUSHEE score at or near 100. A middle-of-the-road, mediocre team will be at or near 0, and while I do not normalize the low end to force a team who would be worst in the country in both categories to a score of -100, that is typically pretty close to where the worst team ends up. An Ass out of U and me There are many underlying assumptions that DUSHEE makes as a model, but probably the most important one is that the teams have to be interconnected enough to make this comparison valid. Ideally, the method takes strength of schedule into account implicitly. If you are playing a bad team and barely beat them, you will get a bad score. If you play a bad team and beat them about as badly as another team has, you will get roughly the same score as that team. And DUSHEE will reward "moral" victories. Lose closely to a good team, you will have a high YD and PD. But for a "bad" or "good" team to be established, a team has to play enough teams over some range of oppositional "quality" to make the evaluation. Over the full course of a season, that should be the case. Even a team that plays in a weak conference should have enough basis for comparison if you establish their comparative performance to teams separated by one degree from them. By this method, a team is not only linked to their opponents, but also to their opponent's opponents as a basis for evaluation. So if every team plays 10 FBS opponents and all of those opponents have played 10 opponents, each team is getting compared to 100 teams (minus, of course any repeat teams in the opponent's opponents schedule). That should represent enough connectedness that even teams with really weak or strong schedules are evaluated fairly. If All That Doesn't Have You Positively Orgasmic ... That's probably enough minutia to digest for now, but to tease future entries ... I've run DUSHEE for every season dating back to 2000. Starting in 1999, it seems like the centralized storage of box scores on a single intraweb site vanishes. A few months ago, I discovered that the NCAA.org website mysteriously has hand-written official box scores saved as pdf's from the 1982 season, but nothing between then and 2000. So I ran DUSHEE for 1982. DUSHEE also generates a strength-of-schedule number, a conference strength number, can be used to select the best and worst single game performances in a particular season or week, can be used to evaluate the historical strength of teams and conferences (well, "historically" back to 2000, at least) and all kinds of other cool stuff that I know will keep this audience in rapt attention for the months ahead. So we'll discuss all that, what "computer" polls really tell you, and what the numbers tell you about the performance of college football teams as a whole. And then when the 2013 season rolls around, we'll start to look at those numbers as well.

Duquesne Frog

Duquesne Frog

 

Apologetics for the Patterson Era

Cue the voice of John Facenda ... In the blazing Texas September sun, as the rest of America begins the gradual chill into fall, the heat clings to the Earth here like the tick clings to the mockingbird. Where the zest and frolic of Spring has fallen prey to the searing August scourge and the only life that thrives is the pestilent fire ant, one man also thrives. He thrives not on water, the last drop of which was seen in May, nor on other basic human needs, needs that make mere mortal men weak, like the malnourished babe clinging to the suckled teet for survival. That man thrives not on these mortal trivialities, but on the foolishness of Freshman quarterbacks and the hubris of All-American running backs. Each obsessive hitch of his polyester coaching pants and each compulsive cinch of his grass-stained sneakers are naught but the mundane routine of the shadowy panther, contently licking his fur in the few deceptively calm seconds before vaulting onto his prey in its final desperate moments of life. That man is Legendary Rose Bowl Winning Head Coach Gary Mother Truckin' Patterson of the Texas Christian University Horned Frogs ... Whoa, that got away from me a little. I was just about to break out the video camera and record .There is no question that, with a begrudging assist to Dennis Franchione, without Gary Patterson, the Frogs are not in the Big XII. He probably gets at least some small credit for the increase in applications and enrollment at TCU, the increase in endowment, and the explosion in campus construction that has occurred over the last decade. He certainly gets a lot of the credit for the new Amon Giles Carter Stadium, a stadium that is likely to be called Carter-Patterson Stadium (or Patterson-Carter?) someday in the not-too-distant future. After all, it was in the not-too-distant past when TCU was among the most consistently awful teams in college football. Although it predates the TCU consciousness of the newer students and alumni who now fill a stadium more than half as big as the number of living TCU alumni who walk the planet, the Franchione-Patterson era was ushered into being by the 1-10 season of 1997. That season marked the end of the Pat Sullivan era, an era which, like a few of the seven TCU coaching "eras" which spanned the time between Abe Martin's retirement in 1966 and Franchione's hiring in 1998 (an average of 4.5 years per coach), showed a few very rare glimmers of hope -- for the first time since shortly after King John signed the Magna Carta and winning at asterisk-laden 5-way SWC co-championship in 1994. But after that 1994 season, Sullivan's got to second base with LSU before getting stood up for cheaper date Gerry DiNardo and it was all downhill from there. The only consolation of that final Sullivan year was the heaping plate of schadenfreude enjoyed at the expense of SMU, who blew their first (and last until June Jones arrived) opportunity at a bowl game since the Death Penalty. TCU fans celebrated that win with an ironic dash onto the field to tear down the goal posts; unfortunately, no one clued the Tarrant County Sheriffs onto the ironic intent of the gesture as they pepper sprayed the hell out of some of the fans streaming onto the field.It is with this Waterboy-esque level of pathos into which Franchione and Patterson set foot onto the campus in 1998. Of course their Bobby Boucher turns out to be an unheralded sophomore tailback who will be a Heisman invitee in three years, but I doubt even they had any inkling of that at that time. Not everybody is as smitten with our Gary as we are. He won in mediocre conferences. He only had to win one or two "big" games a year. Look at last year! TCU joins a real conference and they go a game over .500! Bam! Lock it! Ignoring the myriad issues surrounding last season's team and the argument that coaching that band of Freshmen up to the level that they sometimes played may have been his best coaching job yet, let's look at this notion of the "easy" conference being the primary reason for TCU's success over the last decade. The Immediate Impact of the "Soft Conference" Starting in 1996, TCU, SMU, Rice and Houston, cast aside by their big state school brethren (and skirt riders Baylor) were left to fend for themselves and found homes in the new 16-team behemoth WAC (for the former three) and CUSA (for the latter). If TCU succeeded during the Patterson era primarily because of the weaker conference competition, then all of the four schools from the ostensibly "major" Southwest Conference must have immediately competed for conference titles in their new leagues, right? In reality, the four schools all did better after joining their new conferences, but only slightly. Looking at winning percentage of the 4 teams in the 5 years immediately prior (1991-1995) and immediately after (1996-2000) the breakup of the SWC, SMU and Houston averaged roughly 2 more wins a season in the years after the SWC than before, Rice averaged 0.7 more wins a season, and TCU averaged 0.4 more wins. And keep in mind that in 1991, SMU was just in their third season back from the Death Penalty and Houston received their sanctions for John Jenkins' assery during that time. The SMU and Houston teams at the end of the SWC were about as decimated as college football teams could be. They had nowhere to go but up. Years TCU SMU Rice Houston 1991-1995 0.471 0.209 0.427 0.227 1996-2000 0.508 0.413 0.491 0.408 Table 1. Winning percentage for the 4 SWC schools left out of the Big XII in the 5 years before and after the breakup of the SWC Point differential over those same two time periods tells an even more muddled story. Years TCU SMU Rice Houston 1991-1995 -50.4 -143.8 -18.2 -135.8 1996-2000 46.8 -49.4 -25.2 -70.6 Table 2. Average yearly point differential for the 4 SWC schools left out of the Big XII in the 5 years before and after the breakup of the SWC Rice, despite winning 0.7 more games a season, saw a decrease in their point differential after the breakup of the SWC. TCU went from 4 points worse than their opponents on average per game to 4 points better, and Houston and SMU went from being two TDs worse than their opponents on average per game to being within a TD of their opponents. On average, across the 4 teams, changing conferences gave these teams 1.3 wins a season and 5.7 points a game more. And that is if you neglect how historically and artificially horrible SMU and Houston were in those final years of the SWC due to scholarship restrictions and sanctions. The Sullivan-era Frogs needed a lot more than 1.3 wins a season and 5.7 points per game to get to where the Frogs got in 2009 and 2010. And the reality is, the last decade-and-a-half of the SWC was a pretty mediocre era for the SWC, part of what led to its demise. It shouldn't come as a big surprise that the schools who were bad teams at the end of the SWC continued to be bad in their new mediocre conferences. The "Ease" of Going Undefeated in a Non-AQ Conference Another argument of the Patterson detractor is that TCU and other non-AQ schools have a better chance of going undefeated in a season by virtue of their soft conference and that the non-AQ, in effect, has an unfair advantage over the AQ school to get the proper ranking to be qualified for a BCS game. MWC 9 6 105 0.057 WAC 9 9 132 0.068 P12 5 14 143 0.098 SBC 5 9 86 0.105 SEC 6 15 136 0.110 B12 5 17 138 0.123 CUSA 5 16 125 0.128 ACC 5 18 136 0.132 BE 6 16 118 0.136 B10 3 19 136 0.140 MAC 4 20 134 0.149 Table 3. Since 1996, the number of undefeated conference seasons, combined conference champion losses, combined conference games played, and average losing percentage for the conference champion. Table sorted with "easiest" leagues to go undefeated on top and most difficult on bottom. The detractor is correct in that the MWC has been, for whatever reason, the easiest conference in college football in which to go undefeated. However, note that the MAC has been the most difficult conference in which to go undefeated. The Sun Belt, historically one of, if not the, worst conference, is harder to go undefeated in than the Pac 10/12 and about the same difficulty as the vaunted SEC. The Big 10, Big East, and ACC are the conferences with the highest likelihood of a conference champion suffering a loss. It is evident from this that the factors that go into the "ease" with which teams in a particular conference can go undefeated has little to do with the strength of the conference. It appears that the more likely driver is a lack of parity in a conference. The lack of parity in the MWC was discussed in some detail in a previous NMMH entry, and for each of the 6 "easiest" conferences in which to go undefeated, 1-3 dominant teams over the time span we're discussing here are easy to identify (WAC -- Boise, P12 -- USC and Oregon, SBC -- Troy, SEC -- Alabama, Florida, LSU). Also note that outside the MWC and WAC, no conference has had more than 6 undefeated champions over the last 17 seasons. The True Toll of the Mythical "Week-In-Week-Out Pounding" Six schools have transitioned either to or from Non-AQ to AQ conferences over the last 12 years; Louisville, Cincinnati, and USF from CUSA to the Big East in 2005, Utah from the MWC to Pac 12 in 2011, TCU from the MWC to Big 12 in 2012, and Temple, going both directions, from the Big East to the MAC in 2005 and back to the Big East in 2012. Using the DUSHEE metric, we can compare how equivalently performing teams have done relative to their conference performance. Figure 1. DUSHEE score versus year for TCU. Conference affiliation designated by marker. Curve is 3-year moving average. Based on Figure 1, DUSHEE scored the 2003 CUSA team, the 2007 MWC team, and the 2012 Big 12 team all about the same. If we accept that those three teams performed roughly equivalently, then their relative performance within their conference should tell us something about the strength of those conferences, ignoring any year-to-year variability inherent within conference performance. In 2003, TCU went 11-2 overall, 7-1 in conference, and CUSA's average DUSHEE score was -13.6. In 2007, TCU went 8-5 overall, 4-4 in conference, and the MWC's average DUSHEE score was -0.3 In 2012, TCU went 7-6 overall, 4-5 in conference, and the Big XII's average DUSHEE score was 18.2 So clearly there is a correlation between conference strength and on-field success if a team's performance is held constant. But notice that there wasn't a big difference between the 2007 and 2012 TCU teams in terms of on-the-field results. the MWC team was a game better overall and a half game better in conference, even though the 2012 Big XII was significantly better than the 2007 MWC overall. If we look closely at the correlations with the other 5 teams, we can begin to estimate how big a role conference affiliation plays on success. Figure 2. For the 6 teams who have moved from non-AQ to AQ conferences and vice versa (TCU, Utah, Louisville, Cincinnati, USF, and Temple), their conference winning percentage as a function of DUSHEE Score since 2000. The correlation is very weak, but if you take the linear fit as having any value at all (which I'm not sure any statistician would abide), the move from non-AQ to AQ for a mediocre team (DUSHEE = 0) decreases the team's conference winning percentage from roughly 60% to 40% (the difference between 3-5 and 5-3). And the impact of the move appears to decrease as the team's performance improves (i.e., the two linear fits appear to converge with increasing DUSHEE score). What's It All Mean? While there is some justification for the claim that TCU has benefited by the relegation to non-AQ status after the fall of the SWC, that benefit has been over-estimated. At best, TCU has probably gained an extra 1-2 wins per year in their poorer performing years. And in their better years (namely 2009 and 2010) they are unlikely to have benefited much at all. An easier level of competition nominally makes wins easier, but that advantage is mitigated by the severe recruiting and financial disadvantages that playing in non-AQ conferences possesses. Patterson's legacy is intact. Let's just figure out whether his name or Amon's name should be listed first on the stadium.

Duquesne Frog

Duquesne Frog

 

Blind Squirrels Finding Acorns

Any avid college football fan, particularly one who follows one team closely over the course of a season, knows that teams of 18-22 years old kids/men are fickle. The 2005 TCU team starts the season by going into Norman and handing the Sooners the second of just 5 losses they've had at home in the Bob Stoops era. Then the next week they lose to a 5-6 SMU team. Last year's TCU team was all over the map as well, losing badly to a mediocre Iowa State team but whipping a solid Baylor team. In many cases, such imprecision from our college football teams is rationalized away with excuses like "coach didn't get them motivated" or "trap game" or "getting caught at the Indian casino playing poker with a table of hookers shows that Johnny wasn't ready to play." Any one or combination of such excuses might be relevant, but the reality is that college football teams, even the best ones with the most disciplined and senior-laden rosters, are extremely inconsistent. So as we enter the first week of the 2013 college football season and we look over the Frog's schedule and tick off the wins and losses, let's review the 2012 season and look at just how confident we should be when we predict that W in the win column for the SMU game. DUSHEE, guide the way As we've discussed before, Point Differential compares how Team A does against Team B relative to how all of Team B's other opponents have done against them. The Point Differential (PD) tells us that if Team A beats Team B by 10 more points than the average team on Team B's schedule beat them by, then if Team A is consistent, they should be pretty close to 10 points better than the average opponent against every other team on their schedule. Let's take the 2012 TCU team as an example. TCU's average PD for the year was 3.6, meaning that TCU was, on average, 3.62 points better against their opponents than the average team their opponents played. In turn, here were the final PD's for all of TCU's opponents on the year: Kan Uva SMU | ISU Bay Ttech | OkSt WVU KSU | Tex OU MichSt -15.8 -9.6 1.3 | 1.5 9.3 3.8 | 14.3 0.9 18.6 | 8.3 13.9 7.1 Table 1. Season average PD's for TCU's opponents in 2012 So if TCU (and their opponents) had been perfectly consistent in their play, we would have expected the outcome, or margin of victory, for each of those games to have been roughly TCU's PD minus their opponent's PD. So Table 2, we compare the "expected" outcome to the actual outcome: Opp Exp. | Act. Diff Kan 18.4 | 14 -4.4 UVa 13.2 | 20 6.8 SMU 2.3 | 8 5.7 ISU 2.1 | -14 -16.1 Bay -5.7 | 28 33.7 TTech -0.2 | -3 -2.8 OkSt -10.7 | -22 -11.3 WVU 2.7 | 1 -1.7 KSU -15 | -13 -2 Tex -4.7 | 7 12.4 OU -10.3 | -7 3.3 MichSt -3.5 | -1 2.5 Table 2. Based on Point Differential the expected outcome for each of TCU's games last year compared to the actual outcome. Based on this, we would surmise that TCU's worst game of the season was the Iowa State game where an expected 2 point win was in reality a 14 point loss. TCU did 16.1 points worse in that game than the rest of the season indicated they should have done. They followed that game the next week with the game in which they most "out-kicked their coverage" against Baylor. Had both teams performed, on average, as they performed for the season, we should have expected Baylor to have beaten TCU by 6 points. Instead TCU beat Baylor by 4 TDs. From this perspective, the games in which TCU (and their opponents) performed most like their "average" selves were the West Virginia, Kansas State, Tech, and Michigan State games. The Baylor, ISU, Texas and Oklahoma State games were the games most unlike our average performance. Even the Best Are Inconsistent Despite TCU's youth, upheaval, and conference inexperience, TCU was the 44th (out of 124) most consistent team in college football based on standard deviation of PD (13.9 points). By that metric, the most consistent team in college football last season was Troy with a standard deviation of 7.7. Assuming that their performance looks like a normal distribution (i.e., a bell curve) then it is 32% likely (1/e) that in any one game they are at least 7.7 points better or worse than their average PD would predict. And that is the most consistent team in college football. There was a roughly 1-in-3 chance that TCU's play in a given week was TWO TOUCHDOWNS or more off of their "average" performance. Alabama, DUSHEE's (and everybody else's) best team, was the 13th most consistent team in the country, with a standard deviation of 10.1 points. If we repeat the exercise that we did for TCU in Table 2 for Alabama, we get the following: Opp OppPD | Exp Act | Diff Mich 11.5 | 19.6 27 | 7.4 WKU -2.8 | 33.9 35 | 1.1 Ark -4.4 | 35.5 52 | 16.5 FAU -8.4 | 39.5 33 | -6.5 Miss 6.7 | 24.4 19 | -5.4 Mizz 1.9 | 29.2 32 | 2.8 Tenn 0.5 | 30.6 31 | 0.4 MissSt 3.9 | 27.2 31 | 3.8 LSU 15.3 | 15.8 4 | -11.8 A&M 26.3 | 4.8 -5 | -9.8 Aub -8.7 | 39.8 49 | 9.2 Uga 18.7 | 12.4 4 | -8.4 ND 17.9 | 13.2 28 | 14.8 Table 3. Alabama's expected and actual performance Besides the week 3 annihilation of Arkansas, Alabama's most "uncharacteristic" performance was the MNC game against ND. On average, we should have expected Alabama to have beaten ND by two TDs rather than 4. But again, there was a 1-in-3 chance that Alabama's performance could swing at least 20 points on a given night last season. On that night, it swung up two TDs. Understanding this, you begin to see why going undefeated is such a difficult thing to do. Even the best teams in college football will have a game or two where they underperform by a touchdown or more. And if those games come against an opponent whose average performance is only a touchdown worse, or who happens to overperform that week, that team loses, even if it is, statistically, the better team. Alabama was, statistically, 5 points better than A&M. Play that game 100 times and Alabama probably wins 60**. But on that particular day they lost by 5. ** Monte Carlo simulations using an adjusted PD estimate that Alabama would win 55-60% against A&M -- perhaps we'll discuss such simulation techniques on a future post. Selling Oceanfront Property in Kentucky The most inconsistent team in college football in 2012? Kentucky with a standard deviation in PD of 27.1 points. Opp OppPD| Exp Act | Diff L'ville 4.8 | -19.2 -18 | 1.2 KentSt 4.5 | -18.9 33 | 51.9 WKU -2.8 | -11.6 -1 | 10.6 Fla 18.9 | -33.3 -38 | -4.7 SoCar 15.8 | -30.2 -21 | 9.2 MissSt 3.9 | -18.3 -13 | 5.3 Ark -4.4 | -10 -42 | -32 Uga 18.7 | -33.1 -5 | 28.1 Mizz 1.9 | -16.3 -23 | -6.7 Vandy 5.1 | -19.5 -40 | -20.5 Tenn 0.5 | -14.9 -20 | -5.1 Table 4. Kentucky's roller coaster season. Kentucky "should have" lost to Kent State by 19. They beat the Golden Flash by 33. Kentucky "should have" lost to Arkansas by 10. Instead they lost by 42. Vanderbilt treated them similarly. Georgia "should have" beaten Kentucky by 33 but only beat them by 5. If you bet on Kentucky during the 2012 season, you were a fool. In a strikingly odd statistical anomaly, of the 10 most inconsistent teams in college football last year, seven were on TCU's schedule including six from the exceedingly inconsistent Big 12: Kentucky 27.1 SMU 26.5 UCLA 24.3 Arizona 23.8 Oklahoma St. 23.7 Texas Tech 23.1 Baylor 22.4 Texas 21.8 West Virginia 21.5 Kansas 21.4 Table 5: The 10 most inconsistent college football teams of 2012. TCU's opponents are bold. So as maddening as TCU's inconsistency may have felt for fans last year, the Frogs were in reality one of the more consistent teams in their conference. Which is damning with faint praise. So some may accuse me of writing all of this as a hedge against my performance in college pick-em contests. But I assure you my motives are purely analytical. That said, if I do poorly, come to this post to see my excuse. The rest of you suckers just got lucky ...

Duquesne Frog

Duquesne Frog

 

Demystifying the "Computer Poll" in the BCS era

Revenge of the Nerds Back in February, ESPN (The Magazine) ran a cover story about the controversial 2012 MLB AL MVP race between Miguel Cabrera and Mike Trout, which somehow turned into a proxy battle between "old school" baseball men who used their eyes and guts to evaluate players and the new age sabermatrician nerds who could only see what was quantifiable. Qualitative evaluation versus quantitative evaluation. Clint Eastwood in Trouble With the Curve versus Brad Pitt in Moneyball. For those who didn't pay any attention to the controversy, the narrative went something like this. Detroit's Miguel Cabrera won the Triple Crown, leading the league in batting average, home runs and RBIs, the first player to do so in major league baseball since Carl Yastrzemski for the Red Sox in 1967. Cabrera also led his team to the pennant. The old school guys were decidedly in the Miguel Cabrera camp. On the other hand, Mike Trout, center fielder for the California Los Angeles Anaheim Orange County Angels of Anaheim, California, USA, had what many statisticians argued was one of the best seasons in baseball history. Compared to Miguel Cabrera who is an average fielder at a less-critical position (third base) and a slow baserunner, Mike Trout was the textbook definition of the "5-tool" player -- hitting for average, hitting for power, speed, strong arm, strong fielder. Trout, the statisticians claimed was just as strong, if not stronger due to his speed, than Cabrera offensively, and light years ahead of Cabrera defensively while playing what is considered a more critical position. WAR or Wins Above Replacement, an inscrutable statistic designed to try and evaluate players based on their performance in all aspects of their game, not just at the plate, had Trout earning his team 11 wins compared to some schmoe called up from Triple A while Cabrera was good for roughly 7 wins. Trout, the nu skool claimed, was the MVP. The Angels also greatly underperformed as a team, finishing 5 games back in a division led by a team with a small fraction of their payroll. I'll refer you to the linked ESPN article to read more about the details behind the arguments for each player, but one statement made by the author, Sam Miller, I think, sums up the absurdity of this whole argument plus touches on a greater systemic problem in our culture, the fear of the analytical: For Mike Trout supporters, WAR was simple and unimpeachable evidence of a perfect player performing at a nearly unprecedented level. For Miguel Cabrera supporters, WAR was the joyless and inscrutable tool of eggheads, trolls, all of us who never played the game. Cabrera vs. Trout was often reduced to a referendum on the value of data. "This WAR statistic is another way of declaring, 'Nerds win!'" best-selling author Mitch Albom wrote in defense of Cabrera. Albom has it wrong. At the risk of grandiloquence, this is about more than one MVP race, about more than even baseball. We live in a world of disagreement on epochal issues that we can't resolve even when the science is unambiguous: evolution, vaccines and climate change among them. These issues are daunting. Relying on science that's hard to understand can be scary. So the tendency is to cling to the comforts of ideology and tradition -- even when those ideologies are wrong, even when the traditions are outdated. ... Even though I'm a staff writer and editor at Baseball Prospectus, I'm not going to try to convince you that Mike Trout should have beaten Miguel Cabrera for the MVP award. WAR, despite what you might have read, does not take a position on that. But I will try to convince you that WAR represents a chance to respond to the complexity of baseball with something more than ideology or despair. Here, I'm going to resist the strong urge to digress down a more socio-political path in the interest of staying focused. But Miller makes the case that the proxy being fought here really goes beyond baseball or sports. It reflects a general ambivalence, if not animosity, of the misunderstood and analytical. Neither side is wrong. Both players had historically epic seasons. Miguel Cabrera did something that hadn't been done in almost half a century. Mike Trout emerged as potentially the best player of a new generation. The primary difference between the old school and the new school is which, how many, and in what way data is used to assess player excellence. Enter the Computer Poll The "Computer Poll" was introduced into the college football lexicon in 1998 with the advent of the Bowl Championship Series. And immediately, fans hated it. Computers don't watch games! They can't appreciate the one-handed grab of a pass over the middle in traffic or the way a good linebacker can scrape off of a blocking guard and take out the pitch man on an option. It distills football down into numbers and numbers are boring. Why are these nerds trying to ruin football with all this math?!?! And so, as the controversies of each season passed, the "formula" for the "Computer Polls" was tweaked. Margin of victory, despite being perfectly correlated to wins, and wins always a strong traditional method of determining which teams were the best, was continually diminished in importance and finally eliminated in 2004. Added to the BCS equation in an effort to eliminate human biases in evaluating football teams, the weight of the computer poll was continually diminished when the results of the "unbiased" computer polls didn't confirm the biases of the "human" polls. In other words, over the course of the BCS, the methodology by which one might use data to evaluate the relative strength of football teams became something that no statistician would ever devise or agree to. And whatever biases those models sought to reduce, were forced right back into them by people who clearly did not understand the advantages (and disadvantages) of such analytics. A few key points to understand about the Computer Polls: 1) "Computer Polls" are really models Models, if done well, seek to emulate some physical system. Models are built to emulate pumps in a submarine, electronics in a computer, unseen subatomic interactions during the Big Bang. And to paraphrase the notorious scientists/activist James Hansen, not a one of them is right. And that is because the whole point in building a model is to try to boil a intractably complex thing, be it the climate of the Earth's atmosphere or a interaction of 124 college football teams, into a small enough number of essential and understandable elements to be computationally feasible and still representative enough of the intractably complex system to glean meaning from it. No model is going to be able to predict the movement of every atom in the atmosphere nor will it be able to predict the proper alignment of the billions of butterfly effects that had to occur in the right way for TCU to beat Kansas in basketball last year. So the first thing to understand is that models are not the systems themselves. They deviate from reality every time a variable that affects the system isn't considered (and in complex systems there are countless variables), every time a simplifying assumption is made, every time the modeler picks one piece of data to put into it and leaves another out. But the their advantage lies, especially in the era of computers, in the ability to include many more variables than the human brain can process at one time. We've all heard the Transitive Theory of Football before -- in 2012, TCU beat Baylor by 28 and Baylor beat Kansas State by 28, then TCU should beat Kansas State by 56! The reality is that the performance of college football teams is noisy and how a team plays one week may is likely not to be at all representative of how they play in subsequent weeks. In reality, TCU not only didn't beat Kansas State by 56, they lost by 13. But the number of results analyzed in the Transitive Theory of Football (three) is about as much information as the normal human brain can hold at one time. A computer model, while far from capable of evaluating every single variable in a system, can at least evaluate more than a cursory glance over a schedule of results by a human brain. 2) Computer polls are subject to human bias too Computers just crunch the numbers. Aside from HAL, how they crunch the numbers is dependent on the humans who tell them what to do. And how the numbers are crunched is where the human bias of the programmers enters into the model. As discussed in a previous entry, DUSHEE makes a number of assumptions, simplifications, and subjective assessments, as all models do. All of those assumptions and simplifications can be justified to varying degrees of rigor but nonetheless I as the modeler have determined what information I think is important, how much more important some information is than other, and even how much information I'm willing to consider given time limitations. My personal bias goes into every one of those decisions. The same is true for Sagarin's model or Billingley's model or any other model used by the BCS system. Add to that the aforementioned biases that the BCS forces into those models themselves to make the models give them the answers they want to be given. However, a "computer" model, if allowed, does eliminate historical bias; e.g., Texas must be good this year because they've always been good and they always have highly ranked classes, thus I will rank them highly at the beginning of the season and punish them less severely for losses than I might a "non-traditional" power. Fan loyalty bias is reduced or preference for a style of play. Not eliminated, as the modeler could skew the analysis of the stats in favor of a stronger rushing game, but at a minimum, the actual numbers on the field are what is dictating the analysis. 3) Nothing prevents "human" poll voters from using a quantitative analysis or model to determine their own rankings Frank Windegger, who once was a voter in the Harris Poll, could have used DUSHEE, or his own model, to establish how he votes. So could anybody else. In that regard, the "computer poll" is nothing more than a really analytical "human poll." There is nothing inherently "un"human about using data to guide an assessment. Good assessments use data. The "old school" baseball fans were using data to support their assessment that Cabrera was the MVP, namely the "Triple Crown" stats. Nothing inherently wrong with them. They provide insight into important parts of a player's game. Old school pollsters are using data too. They're using the Transitive Theory, they're using strength of schedule, winning percentage, total offense and defense, all kinds of data, both quantitative and pseudo-quantitative. So in light of this, even with the continually diminishing clout of the computer poll during the BCS era, it still has an extremely disproportionate weighting in the BCS calculation, if viewed from a per voter basis. There are 115 Harris voters and 60 voters in the Coaches' Poll accounting for 2/3 of the BCS standings. There are 6 computer polls (ignoring that the biggest outlier gets thrown out) accounting for the other 1/3. So each Harris voter is contributing 0.29% to the BCS standings, each coach is contributing 0.56%, and each computer poll is contributing 5.6%. The computer polls are weighted 10 times more than each individual coach and almost 20 times more than the individual Harris voter. Did anybody put any thought into this? If we accept the argument that the computer polls are superior by eliminating more qualitative bias, why include the human polls at all? However if we then return some of the qualitative bias to the computer polls (by eliminating margin of victory and dictating how the modelers use the numbers to give results more in keeping with the human polls) then why have them weighted as much as they are? The computers were added because we can't trust Lane Kiffin not to vote USC number one when he knows other teams in the country are better but then when the computers tell us some team is Number 1 other than the one the humans voted in, we decide we can't trust the computers either. 4) Despite what you hear, college football's regular season tells you the LEAST of any major sport league about the relative dominance of its teams FBS college football has 124 teams (I think, unless more were added this offseason that I forgot) who play a 12-game season. One the other extreme, Major League Baseball has 30 teams who play a 162-game schedule. While one can and many have argued that the importance of any one individual game is almost nil in baseball and the opposite is true in college football, those making that argument often ignore the flip side of that coin. If we eliminate the inter-league games, at the end of a 144-game season, an MLB team has played every opponent in its league (15 teams, starting this year) at least 8 times. There should be no doubt who the best team in the league is. Playoffs, from the perspective of determining the best team in the league, have no purpose in baseball. They could go back to the pre-expansion era system of the best record in each league playing in the World Series, and no one would have an argument that their team deserved an opportunity. You had 162 games (now 144 in the inter-league era) to prove otherwise. In college football, not only do you only play each opponent only once, but you only play one-tenth of the teams in your "league," meaning, in this case, the FCS. Yes, each game is very important, but the season is statistically insufficient to definitively determine which team or teams are the best in the country. Undefeated, one-loss, even two-loss teams could and have had a case that their team was the best in the country. So in college football, more than any other American major sport, the need to coax out as much information from such a meager statistical sampling is critical if your goal is to determine which teams are the best. And so, I would argue, is the need for extending the season into a playoff. So analytical and statistical approaches should be emphasized. Because for all the bally-hoo nonsense about how "every game is a playoff game" (like Alabama getting knocked out of the "playoff" by A&M last year, right?), the reality is the regular season doesn't give us nearly enough information to determine who the best teams are based on wins and losses alone. If it did, there wouldn't be controversy every single year about who should be playing in the MNC. DUSHEE versus the BCS If computer polls were truly unbiased arbiters of college football excellence, they'd all arrive at the same dispassionate result. But they don't. In fact, their results can vary as wildly as the voters in any of the human polls. Last year, Billingsley had Northern Illinois at 12 while Sagarin had them unranked. The computers had Florida State anywhere from 14 to 24. Clemson, ranked 13 in both human polls was also unranked in Sagarin's. Part of the reason why the computer polls are so universally reviled is because all of them except Colley keep their methodology at least partially obscure. Massey, on his website, compiles the output of 124 different computer polls (not including DUSHEE!), which probably gives the best true estimate of college football team rankings. So how does DUSHEE compare to the computer polls used to determine the BCS MNC participants? I compared the 2012 DUSHEE results to 120 of the 124 computer ranking models (eliminating the ones that did not rank all 124 FCS teams) cataloged on Massey's website by using a simple R-squared correlation measure. An R-squared equal to 1 means that two data sets are perfectly correlated, i.e., the rankings of the two systems from 1 to 124 are identical. The closer the number to 1, the more closely correlated the two data sets. The systems to which DUSHEE correlates most closely are: Bias-Free (link broken) 0.982 Margin Aware Bradley Terry 0.970 Maurer 0.963 McDonald-Seer 0.963 PerformanZ 0.962 Not all of these systems detail their methodology (although the Margin-Aware and Maurer methods do describe a clear emphasis on MOV, much like DUSHEE), but it is probably safe to assume that these five methods most closely resemble DUSHEE. Perhaps not surprisingly, DUSHEE doesn't compare as well with the BCS systems since they expressly do not use margin-of-victory in their formulations: Sagarin 0.939 Massey 0.939 Wolfe 0.931 Colley 0.926 Anderson 0.925 Billingsley 0.916 If you take the compiled standings of all 124 polls on the Massey site, DUSHEE compared to that ranking at an R2 of 0.957. Not bad for a system that only looks at two statistics, if I do say so myself.

Duquesne Frog

Duquesne Frog

 

A Historical Perspective of College Football (Part 1 -- TCU-centric)

If you liked my last post, you're gonna love this one.   Prior to looking at college basketball team performance metrics from a historical perspective, I started by looking at the same numbers for college football.  Using the same fantastic site, College Football Reference, I pulled the yearly SRS (Simple Rating System) and a 5-year moving average for each team over their history and plotted them over time.  Unlike the basketball numbers which only go back to 1950, the college football SRS scores have been calculated throughout most of the whole history of college football, even back into the 1890's in some cases.   This first post will look at the conferences that TCU has been a part of.  The next post will look at the rest of college football.  We'll start the same way we started the basketball post, by looking at the Texas colleges   Texas Schools Here is the history of Texas college football teams going back to 1903, when the first SRS scores for Texas, A&M, and TCU were calculated.  According to the SRS metric, the 1947 Texas team is the best team in the history of the state while the Longhorns of the early 1970s was the best program.  The 1955 Horned Frogs were the best TCU team by the SRS metric, followed closely by the 1938 MNC team and the 2014 team.  Also note that other than the Houston Cougars of the early 1970s, those late 1950's Frogs were the best program in the history of the state that didn't wear burnt orange.     Acknowledging that this is a busy chart, we break up this history into 3 eras.  The first couple of decades of the 20th century were dominated by Texas and A&M, but things start getting a little more competitive around the time the Great Depression hits:     There have only been 3 significant eras in which Texas was not the dominant team in the state.  The first two, from 1930-1940 and from 1956-1961, were dominated by the Horned Frogs.  World War II was bad for every Texas team, except the Longhorns, the only school whose moving SRS trended up during the war.  Another interesting trend is that the performance of the private schools seems to be pretty closely correlated during this time.  While TCU tended to peak higher than the others, when TCU was good, SMU, Rice, and to a lesser extent, Baylor (they got good in the '50s, not so much in the '30s) were also good.  When TCU was bad, all the private schools tended to be bad.   Then comes the protracted dismal mediocrity of TCU football leading up to the dissolution of the SWC ...     This period of time shows most of the third era not dominated by UT, the Sherrill/Slocum A&M years which emerge from the precipitous decline of SMU after the death penalty and the wild oscillations of Houston, caught in a morbid cycle of cheating and draconian punishment.  We'll talk a little more about the collapse of the SWC in the next section.   Then we have the post-SWC years:     This era is notable for the slow and steady rise of the Frogs, the bottoming out and then rapid ascent of Baylor, and then the emergence of perhaps a 4th era of non-Longhorn dominance with Baylor, TCU, and A&M outperforming Texas over the last 3-4 years.   SWC Again, since the SWC was pretty much the same schools as above, sans UTEP, UNT, and Texas State, avec Arkansas, and Tech and Houston only appear after they joined, respectively, this will look similar to the above chart.     Perhaps the thing that stands out the most to me is the fact that Arkansas was a non-factor in the conference until 1960 or so.  And they had fallen off significantly from their early 80s high before they left for the SEC in 1992.  Which indicates that it wasn't the move to the SEC that hurt the Hogs; they had been sliding toward mediocrity for the better part of the decade prior.   The next chart shows the early years.  The short tenures of the Oklahoma schools are included, but not Southwestern's sole year as a member.  SMU was added as Oklahoma left and TCU was added as Oklahoma State (nee Oklahoma A&M) left.  Not surprisingly, the AP MNC teams (1939 A&M and 1938 TCU) were the best teams of this era.     Next we see the true heyday of the conference, from the end of WWII through the early 1960's.  From 1947-1961 (and if you ignore Tech who struggled for a number of years after being admitted to the SWC, you can expand the time frame out to 1968), not a single program in the conference had a below average 5-year MAV.  By the end of this heyday, Texas and Arkansas had clearly separated from the rest of the conference and the other schools were all in states of relative decline, but until the late 1960's, every program in the conference was better than most.  Despite the parity during these years, Texas was the dominant program throughout, save for the brief era of Frog predominance in the late 50s -- the seven best individual seasons during this time were all by the Longhorns, the best being the 1947 team.     Then we come to the end.  If you take a snapshot of the early 80s, the conference still looks pretty salty.  Texas and Arkansas have come back to the pack a little bit but are still very good.  Jackie Sherrill has begun to make A&M relevant, Houston comes into the league immediately competitive, and SMU gets really good.  Of course, in hindsight, we know why this all happened ... A&M, Houston, and SMU were all blatantly cheating.  But setting that aside, the SWC circa 1980 is still a damn fine football conference.   But then things go bad quickly.  A&M, Houston, and SMU all get hit with NCAA sanctions and fall precipitously.  Texas and Arkansas continue to slide.  Then Arkansas bolts to the SEC.  Houston miraculously starts getting good again, then gets busted for cheating again, and then gets really bad very quickly.     A few notes about the 1984 TCU team.  A common mythology about the Wacker-led Frogs is that the team was on the verge of ascendancy before the NCAA levied the "Living Death Penalty" on the Frogs in 1985.  However, based on the SRS metric at least, there isn't a lot of evidence to support either an emerging Frog powerhouse or a sharp decline after the sanctions hit.  The 1984 team was the beneficiary of a particularly weak conference that year.  TCU had an SRS around 6 (i.e., the Frogs were about 6 points better, on average, than an average college football team), which is good, especially compared to the teams immediately before and after, but not spectacular.  The teams with higher SRS that season, SMU, Arkansas, and Texas, were all only a few points higher than the Frogs that year.  And when looking at the 5-year MAV, the Frogs had climbed a little from their late 1970s low, but the program was remarkably and consistently mediocre from 1979 through the end of the conference, staying between an SRS of 0 to -5.  Compare the Frog's MAV to Houston's over the same time period.  Cougar fans could reasonably argue that they suffered two "Living Death Penalties" over a 15-year period, with two performance declines that followed NCAA sanctions that rivaled the decline SMU suffered after the Actual Death Penalty.   Which leads to another point.  At the time when the conference collapsed, there were four teams with above average MAVs and four teams with below average MAVs.  All politics aside, it was the four above average teams that were invited to the Big 12 and the four below average teams that were left behind.  In some alternate universe, if Houston had not suffered the severe NCAA sanctions imposed during the Jenkins era and had remained at least above average for the remaining half-decade, would the Cougars have bumped Baylor or Tech as the fourth invitee to the Big 12?  Houston never had the political clout that Baylor had, and probably not even the clout Tech had, but would the legislature have felt pressure to get the other state school invited?  Enough to get five Texas teams invited to the Big 12?  Or would that have caused Nebraska to blow the whole merger up before it started?  If Houston had stayed good, would there have been a Big 12?   All told, the SWC at the time of the collapse was an awfully mediocre football conference.  Probably more on par with the MWC conference we played in (perhaps not even as strong at the top as that conference, but probably not quite as weak at the bottom either) than with the current slate of "Power 5" conferences.   But of course, that alternate universe is not ours.  In ours, the Frogs then joined the ...   WAC/MWC (preceded by the Rocky Mountain/Mountain States Athletic/Skyline Conference)   As was the case with the basketball charts, the WAC/MWC chart is a holy mess of schools across multiple conferences.  Since I was primarily interested in the dynastic strength of programs over time more than a rigorous history of conference membership, I thought it more interesting to look at programs across conferences.  So forgive the messiness ...   The first chart shows the conference around the time of TCU's inclusion.     As we entered, BYU was still king with an emergent Colorado State and Air Force.  And you can see right off the bat why the "Gang of 5" might have been less than enthused about the teams added to their conference.  Rice, TCU, SMU, Tulsa, San Jose, and UNLV all come in in 1996 as well below average teams; of the members prior to that season, only the soon-to-be abandoned UTEP was as bad as the six new teams.  The MWC splits after the 1998 season, leaving all the new additions behind and Urban Meyer's Utes begin to ascend, topped off by the best ever WAC/MWC team in 2004.  Boise joins the WAC after we leave in 2000, becoming with Fresno, the only good WAC programs for much of the 2000s.   TCU joins the MWC in 2005 and the conference quickly becomes the three-headed Hydra monster of TCU, Utah, and BYU.  A declining Fresno leaves Boise as the only good team in the WAC and they join the MWC after Utah and BYU bolt in 2011.  The WAC folds as a football conference after the 2012 season and the MWC is left with a declining Boise, and a sharply ascendant Utah State and San Diego State.   The next chart shows the WAC prior to the failed 16-team experiment.  This conference started out as the Rocky Mountain Conference and included Colorado, Colorado College, Colorado School of Mines, Denver, and Utah State.  The Colorado schools were all pretty dominant in the early days of the conference but began to decline rapidly as World War II approached and were not invited to the Mountain States/Skyline Conference when it formed in 1938.  Utah had the first period of dominance in the early Depression era.  BYU was surprisingly uncompetitive and remained so all the way into the early 1970s.     After WWII, Colorado leaves and joins the then Big 7 and is replaced by Montana.  In 1963, the WAC was formed, leaving out Montana, Denver, and Utah State and adding New Mexico, Arizona, and Arizona State.  ASU is one of, if not the, dominant program in the conference (bumping Wyoming's decade-long run of relative dominance) until they and Arizona leave for the PAC 10 after the 1977 season.  UTEP joins in 1968, and after the Arizona schools leave, San Diego State, Hawaii, and Air Force join in consecutive years.  At this point, BYU emerges as the dominant program.   CUSA/AAC   Ever so briefly, the Frogs were in Conference USA.  CUSA was formed the year after the SWC dissolved, with Houston landing there while the rest of the SWC rejects went to the WAC.  Many of the founding members of CUSA were playing as football independents prior to forming the conference, but most had spent some time in the Missouri Valley Conference at some point.  A lot of teams have come in and out of CUSA and most of the original members are now in the American Athletic Conference (AAC) which formed after the dissolution of the Big East as a football conference.  In the chart below, the schools shown after the formation of the AAC are a hodge-podge of teams currently in both conferences, but I didn't include many of the WAC and Sun Belt teams that moved to CUSA after the AAC split.  The chart is busy enough already, and those teams are accounted for in Part 2.     When the conference formed, USM, ECU, Louisville, and Memphis all enter having been consistently average over the previous decade.  Cincinnati had been pretty bad in the early 1990s but had pulled themselves up to nearly average by the time the CUSA formed.  Tulsa, who had largely been in league with these other schools, went to the WAC initially, but joined CUSA with SMU and Rice after they defected from the WAC.   The first decade of CUSA was dominated buy Southern Miss.  Tulane was bad at the outset of the conference, but became competitive in quickly with the Shaun King-led undefeated 1998 team, then quickly faded back into mediocrity.  Louisville was becoming ascendant just as they left to join the Big East, culminating with the best ever CUSA season in 2004.  The ascendant Louisville years coincide with TCU's brief tenure in the conference, and USM, Louisville, and TCU all battled for conference supremacy in the early 2000, but all three programs were far from world-beaters at the time with SRS MAVs around 5.   In 2005, the conference underwent a wholesale change of members as Louisville, Cincinnati, and USF went to the Big East, TCU went to the Mountain West, and Army went Independent.  Tulsa, SMU, Rice, and UTEP came over from the WAC; UCF joined, and Marshall moved from the MAC.  From this point, the conference has seen the emergence of Houston, Tulsa, and UCF.   The next chart shows the history of most of the founding members of CUSA before starting the conference.  This history includes a very incomplete history of some of the Missouri Valley teams that showed up on their schedules often throughout their histories.     Of all the CUSA founders, Tulsa has been playing "big time" college football the longest, dating back to their inclusion in the Missouri Valley prior to the Great Depression.  At that time the conference included former SWC outcast Oklahoma State/A&M and schools like Grinnell, Creighton, Drake, and Washington(Mo).  Tulsa largely dominated these early years.  As many of these schools began to drop down in classification and Oklahoma State left to join the Big 8, Cincinnati and North Texas appear in the mid 1950s followed by Memphis, USM, Louisville and New Mexico State in the 1960s.  Tulane leaves the SEC and starts playing many of these schools in 1966 and East Carolina appears in 1977.  Memphis was the strongest team of the group during the 1960s.  The 70s saw Memphis, Tulane, and ECU battling for supremacy and the 80s saw the dominance of USM.   Tune in next week when we talk about the Big 6/7/8/12/XII-II and the rest of college football.

Duquesne Frog

Duquesne Frog

 

These Teams are Keeping You From a 2013 DUSHEE Poll!!!

As Levi Stubbs would say, this one gonna be short ... I believe I've alluded to this before, but the way DUSHEE runs, every team in FBS must have played at least two games against FBS opponents before any numbers can be generated. Even then, the amount of information isn't particularly robust, but that is the minimum threshold past which zeros are no longer in the denominator and DUSHEE doesn't throw its hands up in disgust and leave the room. So as I track the season, this fact gives a little insight into some of the softer early season schedules. Going into this week there are 17 FBS schools who have only played one game against FBS opponents. Everybody has played at least one. Those 17 are: Pac-12: Arizona State, Colorado Big-12: Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, West Virginia AAC: UConn, Houston, SMU ACC: Clemson, Georgia Tech, NC State MWC: Fresno, San Diego State, San Jose State Indies: Navy SBC: Texas State Now in Colorado and Fresno's defense, they wouldn't be on the list if their game against each other last week hadn't been cancelled. And you'll note that the SEC and Big 10 do not have any schools on the list. And half of the Big 12 IS on the list. Tsk tsk. If all 17 of these schools played a FBS opponent this week, I could publish DUSHEE results next week. But alas, three schools are preventing the inaugural 2013 ranking: Colorado, Iowa State, and Navy. Again, Colorado is on the list due to acts of God, so they deserve a pass. However Navy and Iowa State have no such excuse. Not only is Iowa State on the list of schools who will still have only played 1 FBS opponent in the first 4 weeks of the season, but to add insult to injury, they are 0-2, having lost to FCS Northern Iowa and Iowa. Fortunately for them, they had Bye as their opponent in both weeks 2 and 4. Navy has at least taken advantage of their patsy schedule, sitting at 2-0 with wins over Indiana and Delaware. Navy's schedule this year is plain silly. Notre Dame is the only team with even a chance of being top 25 when they play. After that, it's probably a toss-up between Indiana and Pitt for the Midshipmen's toughest opponent. So to the veritable throng of DUSHEE enthusiasts filling my inbox with exhortations to publish the first ranking this week, I feel ya. But send those nastygrams to the AD's at Iowa State and Navy, not to me. I cannot feed DUSHEE what I don't have.

Duquesne Frog

Duquesne Frog

 

Week 6 DUSHEE Rankings

For all us glum TCU fans, DUSHEE comes in this Sunday morning with good news. One, despite hanging 73 on WVU, Baylor has fallen out of the top spot, ceding to Lee Corso's alma mater, Florida State. Two, despite losing to Oklahoma and showing only the slightest pulse of an offense, TCU is now on the cusp of the top 25. That's right Frog fans, despite how you feel today, DUSHEE is here to totally blow sunshine up your collective asses and boost your self esteem with participation ribbons galore! Sarcasm aside, given the still small sampling, by DUSHEE standards, TCU has had the 11th hardest schedule in college football. And while LRBWHCGMFP and most of the TCU faithful do not accept moral victories, DUSHEE rewards them in spades. Here are the 15 toughest schedules in college football right now, and some other schedules of note: 1 WVU 29.90 2 Tennessee 29.76 3 Cal 28.26 4 Virginia 28.20 5 Washington 28.03 6 Georgia 28.00 7 Utah 23.88 8 ASU 21.95 9 SMU 19.48 10 Florida 18.06 11 TCU 17.75 12 Colorado 15.80 13 Arizona 15.69 14 BC 15.61 15 VaTech 15.36 15 Buffalo 15.36 33 Oklahoma St. 7.17 41 Iowa St. 5.45 62 Oklahoma -1.27 75 Texas -3.13 89 Kansas -5.59 93 Baylor -7.15 104 Texas Tech -11.42 105 Kansas St. -13.30 So despite being 2-3 (1-3 in games that DUSHEE actually takes into account), those losses have all come in close games against top 35 opponents. So TCU's PMs, in particular, are not bad at all. TCU's PM (15.9) ranks 23rd in the country. Their YM (61.4) is 41st. Here are TCU's game-by-game totals: Opp: LSU Ttech SMU OU PM: 13.00 17.33 14.33 19.00 YM: -80.40 234.67 50.67 40.75 By this metric, TCU's performance against OU was very similar to their performance against SMU. The difference was quality of opponent. So weep not, Frog nation! DUSHEE says to keep your head up! You're not doing so bad! Now, Danny's mom brought you all juice boxes and rice krispies treats. Everybody take ONE!!! And yes, TCU is ahead of Oklahoma. Don't worry about that. Full rankings by team: Rank Team PD YD Points 1 Florida St. 49.08 344.60 94.93 2 Baylor 44.50 407.11 93.74 3 Washington 38.27 332.35 79.18 4 Oregon 34.46 240.96 66.57 5 Louisville 33.31 226.58 63.84 6 Clemson 32.54 185.85 59.49 7 Alabama 30.21 74.40 47.27 8 Georgia 21.57 217.99 47.11 9 UCLA 24.00 175.76 47.01 10 Miami (FL) 23.30 186.96 46.95 11 Florida 19.83 232.10 45.89 12 Ohio St. 22.53 153.27 43.18 13 Nebraska 22.13 124.40 40.28 14 Utah 19.33 169.83 40.16 15 LSU 22.58 99.40 38.88 16 Indiana 22.94 89.81 38.59 17 Stanford 21.77 99.57 37.78 18 Arizona 17.96 148.04 36.51 19 Missouri 22.63 50.48 34.98 20 Iowa 17.57 111.63 33.03 21 Arizona St. 15.21 139.37 32.06 22 Texas A&M 17.42 87.29 30.85 23 Wisconsin 10.52 167.63 27.95 24 Texas Tech 18.83 22.29 27.51 25 South Carolina 10.00 170.20 27.45 26 TCU 15.92 61.42 26.71 27 Virginia Tech 11.68 97.33 23.84 28 BYU 8.50 137.37 22.74 29 Ohio 12.65 50.60 21.36 30 Oklahoma 8.85 105.90 20.66 31 Boise St. 7.13 129.06 20.19 32 Fresno St. 9.12 92.68 19.96 33 Tennessee 10.53 53.60 18.72 34 Pittsburgh 9.29 71.67 18.49 35 Illinois 12.04 14.71 17.63 36 UCF 9.55 51.43 17.21 37 Michigan 11.68 10.49 16.79 38 Georgia Tech 7.02 80.52 16.11 39 N.C. State 6.25 93.42 16.10 40 Mississippi St. 7.18 68.98 15.40 41 Penn St. 6.37 67.97 14.20 42 Marshall 4.40 99.93 14.10 43 USC 5.30 83.88 14.03 44 Utah St. 4.05 102.73 13.86 45 Auburn 10.36 -4.90 13.74 46 Kentucky 4.53 92.58 13.69 47 Oregon St. 3.46 88.77 11.92 48 Mississippi 7.69 15.88 11.78 49 East Carolina 7.34 19.24 11.58 50 Iowa St. 4.83 59.83 11.45 51 Houston 6.49 24.54 10.85 52 Michigan St. 3.08 76.09 10.37 53 Kansas St. 6.21 5.58 8.93 54 Oklahoma St. 4.35 35.77 8.84 55 Boston Coll. 6.60 -3.92 8.70 56 Arkansas 2.73 60.62 8.64 57 Notre Dame 4.07 30.75 8.05 58 West Virginia 5.13 9.44 7.76 59 Ball St. 5.50 -30.87 5.01 60 Syracuse 5.42 -39.96 4.15 61 Northwestern 2.29 12.33 4.13 62 Toledo 2.08 -6.88 2.29 63 California -4.83 107.21 2.09 64 Texas 2.04 -12.84 1.74 65 Buffalo 2.13 -20.44 1.24 66 Washington St. 0.13 -12.71 -0.86 67 Virginia -2.27 3.65 -2.80 68 UT-San Antonio -6.11 61.10 -3.39 69 West. Kentucky -5.95 53.18 -3.81 70 Maryland -3.08 1.96 -4.05 71 Northern Illinois 0.70 -63.87 -4.22 72 North Texas 0.91 -71.24 -4.54 73 Memphis -3.71 6.42 -4.54 74 Duke -4.63 0.15 -6.30 75 Rice -3.67 -22.01 -6.80 76 South Alabama -5.50 6.69 -6.97 77 Rutgers -3.60 -27.56 -7.15 78 Wyoming -0.99 -81.48 -7.95 79 Navy -0.36 -102.08 -8.77 80 Bowling Green -5.43 -25.93 -9.52 81 Colorado -6.56 -22.56 -10.78 82 Minnesota -0.25 -133.50 -11.16 83 North Carolina -7.38 -26.57 -12.23 84 Vanderbilt -4.93 -69.90 -12.40 85 South Florida -8.40 -16.33 -12.79 86 Florida Atlantic -8.75 -40.51 -15.23 87 LA Lafayette -8.19 -57.23 -15.82 88 SMU -12.08 5.08 -16.08 89 Tulsa -12.57 -15.62 -18.42 90 San Diego St. -11.63 -51.27 -20.03 91 Cincinnati -14.08 -11.33 -20.14 92 Army -10.92 -71.62 -20.71 93 Middle Tenn. St. -8.70 -113.70 -21.10 94 San Jose St. -13.25 -53.13 -22.39 95 Temple -7.63 -167.71 -24.01 96 Connecticut -11.17 -113.00 -24.40 97 Texas St. -5.21 -215.15 -24.55 98 Nevada -12.87 -93.90 -25.17 99 New Mexico -12.87 -97.05 -25.44 100 Wake Forest -10.92 -134.58 -25.81 101 Akron -14.08 -85.18 -26.13 102 UNLV -15.75 -88.94 -28.71 103 Tulane -13.30 -131.30 -28.80 104 LA Monroe -18.80 -59.20 -30.46 105 Colorado St. -11.63 -187.81 -31.09 106 Hawaii -18.10 -85.38 -31.63 107 Kansas -14.50 -147.61 -31.76 108 Kent St. -12.70 -202.24 -33.72 109 Purdue -22.22 -51.42 -34.49 110 Arkansas St. -17.65 -134.42 -34.98 111 Louisiana Tech -20.73 -113.33 -37.49 112 UTEP -20.20 -154.47 -40.09 113 UAB -24.15 -184.45 -47.92 114 Massachusetts -24.46 -180.13 -47.99 115 Air Force -24.03 -212.97 -50.07 116 East. Michigan -28.25 -154.50 -51.09 117 Troy -27.80 -166.60 -51.45 118 Cent. Michigan -29.00 -178.60 -54.06 119 W. Michigan -29.35 -181.42 -54.77 120 Idaho -28.53 -218.03 -56.61 121 Southern Miss -37.80 -187.75 -66.82 122 Florida Intl. -35.54 -226.90 -66.91 123 New Mexico St. -35.75 -268.49 -70.56 124 Miami (OH) -34.10 -355.50 -75.36 Rankings by conference: Rank Team P/G Y/G Score Conf 5 Louisville 33.31 226.58 63.84 AAC 36 UCF 9.55 51.43 17.21 AAC 51 Houston 6.49 24.54 10.85 AAC 73 Memphis -3.71 6.42 -4.54 AAC 77 Rutgers -3.60 -27.56 -7.15 AAC 85 South Florida -8.40 -16.33 -12.79 AAC 88 SMU -12.08 5.08 -16.08 AAC 91 Cincinnati -14.08 -11.33 -20.14 AAC 95 Temple -7.63 -167.71 -24.01 AAC 96 Connecticut -11.17 -113.00 -24.40 AAC 1 Florida St. 49.08 344.60 94.93 ACC 6 Clemson 32.54 185.85 59.49 ACC 10 Miami (FL) 23.30 186.96 46.95 ACC 27 Virginia Tech 11.68 97.33 23.84 ACC 34 Pittsburgh 9.29 71.67 18.49 ACC 38 Georgia Tech 7.02 80.52 16.11 ACC 39 N.C. State 6.25 93.42 16.10 ACC 55 Boston Coll. 6.60 -3.92 8.70 ACC 60 Syracuse 5.42 -39.96 4.15 ACC 67 Virginia -2.27 3.65 -2.80 ACC 70 Maryland -3.08 1.96 -4.05 ACC 74 Duke -4.63 0.15 -6.30 ACC 83 North Carolina -7.38 -26.57 -12.23 ACC 100 Wake Forest -10.92 -134.58 -25.81 ACC 12 Ohio St. 22.53 153.27 43.18 B10 13 Nebraska 22.13 124.40 40.28 B10 16 Indiana 22.94 89.81 38.59 B10 20 Iowa 17.57 111.63 33.03 B10 23 Wisconsin 10.52 167.63 27.95 B10 35 Illinois 12.04 14.71 17.63 B10 37 Michigan 11.68 10.49 16.79 B10 41 Penn St. 6.37 67.97 14.20 B10 52 Michigan St. 3.08 76.09 10.37 B10 61 Northwestern 2.29 12.33 4.13 B10 82 Minnesota -0.25 -133.50 -11.16 B10 109 Purdue -22.22 -51.42 -34.49 B10 2 Baylor 44.50 407.11 93.74 B12 24 Texas Tech 18.83 22.29 27.51 B12 26 TCU 15.92 61.42 26.71 B12 30 Oklahoma 8.85 105.90 20.66 B12 50 Iowa St. 4.83 59.83 11.45 B12 53 Kansas St. 6.21 5.58 8.93 B12 54 Oklahoma St. 4.35 35.77 8.84 B12 58 West Virginia 5.13 9.44 7.76 B12 64 Texas 2.04 -12.84 1.74 B12 107 Kansas -14.50 -147.61 -31.76 B12 42 Marshall 4.40 99.93 14.10 CUSA 49 East Carolina 7.34 19.24 11.58 CUSA 68 UT-San Antonio -6.11 61.10 -3.39 CUSA 72 North Texas 0.91 -71.24 -4.54 CUSA 75 Rice -3.67 -22.01 -6.80 CUSA 86 Florida Atlantic -8.75 -40.51 -15.23 CUSA 89 Tulsa -12.57 -15.62 -18.42 CUSA 93 Middle Tenn. St. -8.70 -113.70 -21.10 CUSA 103 Tulane -13.30 -131.30 -28.80 CUSA 111 Louisiana Tech -20.73 -113.33 -37.49 CUSA 112 UTEP -20.20 -154.47 -40.09 CUSA 113 UAB -24.15 -184.45 -47.92 CUSA 121 Southern Miss -37.80 -187.75 -66.82 CUSA 122 Florida Intl. -35.54 -226.90 -66.91 CUSA 28 BYU 8.50 137.37 22.74 Ind 57 Notre Dame 4.07 30.75 8.05 Ind 79 Navy -0.36 -102.08 -8.77 Ind 92 Army -10.92 -71.62 -20.71 Ind 120 Idaho -28.53 -218.03 -56.61 Ind 123 New Mexico St. -35.75 -268.49 -70.56 Ind 29 Ohio 12.65 50.60 21.36 MAC 59 Ball St. 5.50 -30.87 5.01 MAC 62 Toledo 2.08 -6.88 2.29 MAC 65 Buffalo 2.13 -20.44 1.24 MAC 71 Northern Illinois 0.70 -63.87 -4.22 MAC 80 Bowling Green -5.43 -25.93 -9.52 MAC 101 Akron -14.08 -85.18 -26.13 MAC 108 Kent St. -12.70 -202.24 -33.72 MAC 114 Massachusetts -24.46 -180.13 -47.99 MAC 116 East. Michigan -28.25 -154.50 -51.09 MAC 118 Cent. Michigan -29.00 -178.60 -54.06 MAC 119 W. Michigan -29.35 -181.42 -54.77 MAC 124 Miami (OH) -34.10 -355.50 -75.36 MAC 31 Boise St. 7.13 129.06 20.19 MWC 32 Fresno St. 9.12 92.68 19.96 MWC 44 Utah St. 4.05 102.73 13.86 MWC 78 Wyoming -0.99 -81.48 -7.95 MWC 90 San Diego St. -11.63 -51.27 -20.03 MWC 94 San Jose St. -13.25 -53.13 -22.39 MWC 98 Nevada -12.87 -93.90 -25.17 MWC 99 New Mexico -12.87 -97.05 -25.44 MWC 102 UNLV -15.75 -88.94 -28.71 MWC 105 Colorado St. -11.63 -187.81 -31.09 MWC 106 Hawaii -18.10 -85.38 -31.63 MWC 115 Air Force -24.03 -212.97 -50.07 MWC 3 Washington 38.27 332.35 79.18 P10 4 Oregon 34.46 240.96 66.57 P10 9 UCLA 24.00 175.76 47.01 P10 14 Utah 19.33 169.83 40.16 P10 17 Stanford 21.77 99.57 37.78 P10 18 Arizona 17.96 148.04 36.51 P10 21 Arizona St. 15.21 139.37 32.06 P10 43 USC 5.30 83.88 14.03 P10 47 Oregon St. 3.46 88.77 11.92 P10 63 California -4.83 107.21 2.09 P10 66 Washington St. 0.13 -12.71 -0.86 P10 81 Colorado -6.56 -22.56 -10.78 P10 69 West. Kentucky -5.95 53.18 -3.81 SBC 76 South Alabama -5.50 6.69 -6.97 SBC 87 LA Lafayette -8.19 -57.23 -15.82 SBC 97 Texas St. -5.21 -215.15 -24.55 SBC 104 LA Monroe -18.80 -59.20 -30.46 SBC 110 Arkansas St. -17.65 -134.42 -34.98 SBC 117 Troy -27.80 -166.60 -51.45 SBC 7 Alabama 30.21 74.40 47.27 SEC 8 Georgia 21.57 217.99 47.11 SEC 11 Florida 19.83 232.10 45.89 SEC 15 LSU 22.58 99.40 38.88 SEC 19 Missouri 22.63 50.48 34.98 SEC 22 Texas A&M 17.42 87.29 30.85 SEC 25 South Carolina 10.00 170.20 27.45 SEC 33 Tennessee 10.53 53.60 18.72 SEC 40 Mississippi St. 7.18 68.98 15.40 SEC 45 Auburn 10.36 -4.90 13.74 SEC 46 Kentucky 4.53 92.58 13.69 SEC 48 Mississippi 7.69 15.88 11.78 SEC 56 Arkansas 2.73 60.62 8.64 SEC 84 Vanderbilt -4.93 -69.90 -12.40 SEC

Duquesne Frog

Duquesne Frog

 

The Count of Monte Carlo

I've never been to Monte Carlo. But I kinda like the music. Monte Carlo is the stuff of James Bond and European royalty. I don't want to be presumptuous, but most of you reading probably will never go to Monte Carlo. But I'm here to show you how you can bring all the intrigue and prestige of Monte Carlo to your mother's basement or wherever it is you spend your free time playing around with sports statistics on your computer. Monte Carlo simulations have a wide applicability in science and engineering. They're used to model the spread of diseases, radiation, traffic, and many other natural phenomena. At a really basic level, the Monte Carlo technique assumes that while the likelihood of any one particular event happening is essentially random, the collection of a large number of those random events results in behavior that is quite predictable. Roll a (non-loaded) die once and between 1 and 6, you have no idea what will come up. The individual event is random. But if you track the results of the individual rolls, you will see that as you accumulate more and more results, the behavior of the die becomes very predictable. Given a large number of rolls, 1 will come up 16.67% of the time, 2 will come up 16.67% of the time, 3 will come up 16.67% of the time, and so on up to 6. To apply this to college football, we've discussed in the past about the randomness of a team's performance on a given play or even in a given game. TCU beats Oklahoma in Norman, then loses the next week to SMU. But over the course of a season, those random fluctuations average out to some mean level of performance, somewhere between the outliers. If the 2005 TCU team played Oklahoma 100 times, it might have lost 75 of them. And had they played SMU 100 times, they might have won 75. If those games were decided on the basis of coin flips at those odds, TCU beating Oklahoma was the equivalent of flipping two coins and getting heads twice while any other result (heads-tails, tails-heads, tails-tails) would have resulted in a loss to Oklahoma. That pair of games resulted in two consecutive improbable results. Improbable, but not impossible. And fundamentally random. But using information from the 10-12 other rolls of the dice for those two teams that year, we can actually begin to estimate just how unlikely those results were. So how do we determine what the odds of a victory in a particular game is? Let's assume that a team's performance is "normal." That is, a team is just as likely to play a touchdown worse than their average performance as they are to play a touchdown better. And a team is just as likely to be two touchdowns worse than their average performance than two touchdowns better, but less likely than they are to be one touchdown worse or better. In other words, their performance fits the famous "bell curve." Take your favorite performance metric. Obviously, I'm partial to DUSHEE, but you can use Sagarin, the SRS, or whatever metric ESPN is using these days to assess their win probabilities. At the end of the 2005 season, using the DUSHEE metric and ignoring the effect of yardage, TCU was roughly 15 points better against their opponents than an average team was against their opponents. Oklahoma was roughly 10 points better than average. So you can see based on this metric alone, TCU beating Oklahoma, even in Norman if you give the Sooners the customary 3-4 points for home-field advantage, was not an upset based on their mean performance. In reality, the game was pretty close to a coin flip. Also that year, TCU's standard deviation about that average +15 performance was about 12.5 points. Worded another way, roughly 75% of their performances that year were between 2.5 and 27.5 (+15-12.5 and +15+12.5) better than the average team's performance. Go out another standard deviation on either side, and you would capture 95% of the team's performances. So that TCU team was good. Ranked 17th in the country based on DUSHEE. But it wasn't so good that a below average performance wasn't possible. in fact, that TCU team gave about a 10% chance of producing a below-average performance. Oklahoma, on the other hand, had a standard deviation of 10.6 points. They were a little more consistent than TCU. With three things, we can generate a Monte Carlo simulation of TCU-vs.-OU outcomes; a random number generator (the die in our previous analogy), the teams' average performance, and the teams' standard deviation about that average performance. Want the 2005 TCU team to play the 2005 OU team 100 times? 1000 times? A billion times? The equation that governs the likelihood a randomized event distributed about a mean is an ugly one: but Bill Gates gives us a handy little function in Excel that takes care of the math for us (the NORMINV function for those of you playing along at home) which solves for 'x' in the above equation if you give it F (the roll of the dice), mu (the average performance -- +15 for the 2005 TCU team), and sigma (the standard deviation). On a spreadsheet, I've got 1030 games "simulated" between those OU and TCU teams. A screen shot of the first 31 of those games appears below: Column O is the randomly generated F(x) for TCU and Column P is the simulated performance result for TCU. Columns Q and R are the corresponding values for OU. Column S is the "outcome" of the simulated game, taking TCU's performance and subtracting OU's performance. The value could be viewed as the margin of victory for that simulated game. A positive value means TCU won; a negative value means OU won. Cell P5 counts the number of times TCU won and divides by the total number of simulated games; Cell R5 computes the same number for OU. So you can see, our Monte Carlo simulation predicts that TCU had a 53% probability to beat OU that year. Slightly better than a coin flip. But looking down through that list of the first 30 simulated "games" out of the 1030, you can see that OU "won" 20 of those first 31, including 7 in a row at one stretch. At another point TCU "beat" OU 6 of 7. In the top right of the spreadsheet are the maximum, minimum and average MOV for the 1000+ game series. So in one of the 1000+ games TCU beat OU by 65; in another OU beat TCU by 80. On average TCU beats OU by 2. If we repeat this process for the 2005 TCU-SMU matchup, SMU's mean performance that year was about -7.5 below average with a standard deviation of almost 26 points (extremely inconsistent). Using these numbers in our Monte Carlo simulator and SMU had about a 23% chance of winning that game. I don't know if that makes anybody feel any better or worse about losing to SMU that year. Probably not. Maybe Kenny Rogers can help soothe the pain ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVlRx2U-xUA

Duquesne Frog

Duquesne Frog

 

Week 12 Rankings

DUSHEE was also unimpressed with the Frogs close call in Lawrence, dropping TCU from 2nd to 8th in this week's ranking. DUSHEE was also quite impressed with Baylor's performance this week against Bye, moving them up from 4th to 1st ... that's right, DUSHEE now has Baylor as the #1 team in the land. Lest any of you accuse me of instituting personal bias in the DUSHEE model. So how did this happen? Well, Baylor gained a point during the bye, meaning that the had net movement in the DUSHEE Scores of their prior opponents upward. Then everyone above them lost points in the DUSHEE score: Alabama dropped about 1.5 points, TCU dropped 4.5, and Ohio State dropped a little over 0.5 points. It's a little hard to discern which teams gave Baylor their Bye push, but Buffalo (yes, Buffalo) got a PD of 26.3 in blowing out Akron. That's probably where Baylor got their push. Wisconsin was a big mover up the poll, going from 16th to 5th in the wake of their blowout of Nebraska. And almost on the 44th anniversary of the plane crash involving the Marshall football team, DUSHEE has seen fit to lift Marshall up to 6th. We are Marshall!!! This weeks ranking: Rank Team P/G Y/G Score 1 Baylor 24.35 235.61 27.65 2 Alabama 24.78 220.36 27.19 3 Ohio St. 25.43 189.43 26.13 4 Mississippi 26.22 151.87 24.84 5 Wisconsin 21.74 210.98 24.72 6 Marshall 23.92 166.56 24.02 7 Michigan St. 20.64 193.35 23.13 8 TCU 23.32 150.10 22.82 9 Auburn 21.28 166.03 22.23 10 Georgia 22.67 132.79 21.55 _______________________________________ 11 Oregon 23.01 84.04 19.41 12 Mississippi St. 20.45 118.26 19.36 13 Oklahoma 19.36 114.13 18.44 14 Miami (FL) 16.34 133.82 17.38 15 Nebraska 17.06 101.03 16.27 16 Arkansas 14.07 118.01 15.10 17 LSU 15.47 97.69 15.04 18 Georgia Tech 15.11 100.36 14.94 19 Kansas St. 15.66 82.48 14.43 20 UCLA 12.28 99.83 13.03 _______________________________________ 21 Florida St. 14.37 69.14 12.93 22 Boise St. 10.14 123.13 12.73 23 Louisville 10.90 90.13 11.63 24 Louisiana Tech 13.99 44.79 11.50 25 West Virginia 8.29 122.11 11.44 26 USC 12.05 67.76 11.32 27 Tennessee 11.52 69.71 11.06 28 Notre Dame 8.91 92.93 10.44 29 Clemson 8.00 100.59 10.21 30 Arizona St. 10.54 54.07 9.65 _______________________________________ 31 Stanford 7.30 91.72 9.31 32 Virginia Tech 8.80 66.17 9.07 33 Arizona 10.10 38.24 8.58 34 Florida 7.68 41.87 7.15 35 Minnesota 7.59 41.57 7.08 36 BYU 5.47 57.60 6.44 37 Missouri 8.55 15.00 6.43 38 Memphis 9.37 3.21 6.40 39 Penn St. 4.57 68.84 6.39 40 Duke 9.67 -6.21 6.15 _____________________________________ 41 Colorado St. 6.83 29.85 6.00 42 Georgia Southern 5.48 47.76 5.97 43 Navy 5.71 40.77 5.78 44 Texas A&M 6.46 17.59 5.16 45 Boston Coll. 3.69 53.72 5.06 46 Virginia 1.47 70.39 4.39 47 Texas 3.87 34.22 4.24 48 Arkansas St. 3.46 31.77 3.85 49 East Carolina -1.22 86.40 3.37 50 Utah 6.99 -30.03 3.21 ______________________________________ 51 South Carolina 2.68 25.28 3.01 52 Michigan 1.68 39.02 3.01 53 Cincinnati 3.17 9.75 2.59 54 Nevada 4.99 -19.55 2.38 55 UCF 1.23 29.60 2.25 56 Northwestern 0.97 32.60 2.23 57 Utah St. 3.86 -14.29 1.88 58 Pittsburgh -1.84 53.98 1.39 59 Houston 1.74 -4.64 0.93 60 Air Force 1.99 -15.33 0.58 ____________________________________ 61 W. Michigan 2.29 -19.67 0.57 62 Rutgers -0.58 14.96 0.34 63 Iowa -1.37 13.34 -0.27 64 Syracuse -2.14 21.16 -0.40 65 Washington 2.85 -54.93 -0.76 66 Toledo -2.79 13.41 -1.21 67 Purdue -0.73 -15.43 -1.24 68 Washington St. -5.23 41.96 -1.45 69 Appalachian State -5.85 43.72 -1.78 70 UAB -2.00 -11.30 -1.88 _____________________________________ 71 LA Lafayette -1.50 -20.77 -2.01 72 N.C. State -2.53 -7.62 -2.05 73 Maryland 0.42 -49.82 -2.13 74 Rice -2.47 -18.66 -2.55 75 California -1.08 -39.04 -2.61 76 Colorado -6.29 23.58 -3.05 77 Oregon St. -4.65 -5.97 -3.39 78 West. Kentucky -2.30 -40.67 -3.50 79 UTEP -5.22 -15.71 -4.24 80 Kentucky -4.25 -31.61 -4.36 ______________________________________ 81 Cent. Michigan -6.06 -6.98 -4.38 82 Middle Tenn. St. -3.57 -45.67 -4.59 83 Temple 0.01 -95.77 -4.63 84 South Alabama -5.70 -19.68 -4.75 85 North Carolina -5.90 -36.69 -5.71 86 San Jose St. -13.26 41.97 -6.81 87 San Diego St. -8.68 -31.03 -7.29 88 Ohio -8.65 -38.74 -7.65 89 Bowling Green -6.34 -73.78 -7.80 90 Florida Intl. -5.60 -91.63 -8.17 _______________________________________ 91 Oklahoma St. -6.27 -83.24 -8.21 92 Wyoming -8.98 -47.12 -8.27 93 Northern Illinois -8.48 -71.99 -9.14 94 Illinois -6.21 -103.72 -9.17 95 Texas St. -10.75 -43.05 -9.25 96 Texas Tech -12.05 -32.39 -9.61 97 Ball St. -5.76 -119.33 -9.62 98 Miami (OH) -9.48 -71.58 -9.79 99 Iowa St. -8.66 -84.20 -9.85 100 Tulane -13.60 -27.27 -10.39 ________________________________________ 101 Kansas -10.35 -74.96 -10.53 102 Massachusetts -11.76 -57.35 -10.62 103 Buffalo -12.91 -47.88 -10.92 104 Hawaii -9.55 -94.82 -10.96 105 Indiana -11.19 -76.58 -11.17 106 LA Monroe -13.13 -53.41 -11.34 107 UT-San Antonio -10.30 -107.07 -12.05 108 Akron -12.30 -81.20 -12.13 109 New Mexico -10.49 -118.77 -12.75 110 Old Dominion -13.51 -84.44 -13.10 ________________________________________ 111 Florida Atlantic -11.67 -111.78 -13.19 112 Idaho -15.97 -58.20 -13.46 113 Southern Miss -13.98 -87.81 -13.57 114 Connecticut -15.01 -78.22 -13.79 115 Fresno St. -14.83 -129.48 -16.16 116 Vanderbilt -15.49 -129.96 -16.62 117 South Florida -14.97 -160.70 -17.76 118 Troy -18.67 -109.87 -17.77 119 Army -16.57 -146.93 -18.17 120 Kent St. -17.78 -149.49 -19.09 ______________________________________ 121 Tulsa -20.48 -144.56 -20.66 122 North Texas -19.71 -164.78 -21.12 123 Wake Forest -16.06 -218.30 -21.29 124 UNLV -20.97 -151.08 -21.30 125 New Mexico St. -23.27 -148.07 -22.69 126 Georgia State -25.34 -158.56 -24.57 127 East. Michigan -30.66 -240.26 -32.08 128 SMU -32.83 -256.70 -34.33 By Conference: Rank Team PD YD Score 38 Memphis 9.37 3.21 6.40 49 East Carolina -1.22 86.40 3.37 53 Cincinnati 3.17 9.75 2.59 55 UCF 1.23 29.60 2.25 59 Houston 1.74 -4.64 0.93 83 Temple 0.01 -95.77 -4.63 114 Connecticut -15.01 -78.22 -13.79 117 South Florida -14.97 -160.70 -17.76 121 Tulsa -20.48 -144.56 -20.66 128 SMU -32.83 -256.70 -34.33 _____________________________________ 14 Miami (FL) 16.34 133.82 17.38 18 Georgia Tech 15.11 100.36 14.94 21 Florida St. 14.37 69.14 12.93 23 Louisville 10.90 90.13 11.63 29 Clemson 8.00 100.59 10.21 32 Virginia Tech 8.80 66.17 9.07 40 Duke 9.67 -6.21 6.15 45 Boston Coll. 3.69 53.72 5.06 46 Virginia 1.47 70.39 4.39 58 Pittsburgh -1.84 53.98 1.39 64 Syracuse -2.14 21.16 -0.40 72 N.C. State -2.53 -7.62 -2.05 85 North Carolina -5.90 -36.69 -5.71 123 Wake Forest -16.06 -218.30 -21.29 _______________________________________ 3 Ohio St. 25.43 189.43 26.13 5 Wisconsin 21.74 210.98 24.72 7 Michigan St. 20.64 193.35 23.13 15 Nebraska 17.06 101.03 16.27 35 Minnesota 7.59 41.57 7.08 39 Penn St. 4.57 68.84 6.39 52 Michigan 1.68 39.02 3.01 56 Northwestern 0.97 32.60 2.23 62 Rutgers -0.58 14.96 0.34 63 Iowa -1.37 13.34 -0.27 67 Purdue -0.73 -15.43 -1.24 73 Maryland 0.42 -49.82 -2.13 94 Illinois -6.21 -103.72 -9.17 105 Indiana -11.19 -76.58 -11.17 _____________________________________ 1 Baylor 24.35 235.61 27.65 8 TCU 23.32 150.10 22.82 13 Oklahoma 19.36 114.13 18.44 19 Kansas St. 15.66 82.48 14.43 25 West Virginia 8.29 122.11 11.44 47 Texas 3.87 34.22 4.24 91 Oklahoma St. -6.27 -83.24 -8.21 96 Texas Tech -12.05 -32.39 -9.61 99 Iowa St. -8.66 -84.20 -9.85 101 Kansas -10.35 -74.96 -10.53 ____________________________________ 6 Marshall 23.92 166.56 24.02 24 Louisiana Tech 13.99 44.79 11.50 70 UAB -2.00 -11.30 -1.88 74 Rice -2.47 -18.66 -2.55 78 West. Kentucky -2.30 -40.67 -3.50 79 UTEP -5.22 -15.71 -4.24 82 Middle Tenn. St. -3.57 -45.67 -4.59 90 Florida Intl. -5.60 -91.63 -8.17 100 Tulane -13.60 -27.27 -10.39 107 UT-San Antonio -10.30 -107.07 -12.05 110 Old Dominion -13.51 -84.44 -13.10 111 Florida Atlantic -11.67 -111.78 -13.19 113 Southern Miss -13.98 -87.81 -13.57 122 North Texas -19.71 -164.78 -21.12 ______________________________________ 28 Notre Dame 8.91 92.93 10.44 36 BYU 5.47 57.60 6.44 43 Navy 5.71 40.77 5.78 119 Army -16.57 -146.93 -18.17 _____________________________________ 61 W. Michigan 2.29 -19.67 0.57 66 Toledo -2.79 13.41 -1.21 81 Cent. Michigan -6.06 -6.98 -4.38 88 Ohio -8.65 -38.74 -7.65 89 Bowling Green -6.34 -73.78 -7.80 93 Northern Illinois -8.48 -71.99 -9.14 97 Ball St. -5.76 -119.33 -9.62 98 Miami (OH) -9.48 -71.58 -9.79 102 Massachusetts -11.76 -57.35 -10.62 103 Buffalo -12.91 -47.88 -10.92 108 Akron -12.30 -81.20 -12.13 120 Kent St. -17.78 -149.49 -19.09 127 East. Michigan -30.66 -240.26 -32.08 _______________________________________ 22 Boise St. 10.14 123.13 12.73 41 Colorado St. 6.83 29.85 6.00 54 Nevada 4.99 -19.55 2.38 57 Utah St. 3.86 -14.29 1.88 60 Air Force 1.99 -15.33 0.58 86 San Jose St. -13.26 41.97 -6.81 87 San Diego St. -8.68 -31.03 -7.29 92 Wyoming -8.98 -47.12 -8.27 104 Hawaii -9.55 -94.82 -10.96 109 New Mexico -10.49 -118.77 -12.75 115 Fresno St. -14.83 -129.48 -16.16 124 UNLV -20.97 -151.08 -21.30 _______________________________________ 11 Oregon 23.01 84.04 19.41 20 UCLA 12.28 99.83 13.03 26 USC 12.05 67.76 11.32 30 Arizona St. 10.54 54.07 9.65 31 Stanford 7.30 91.72 9.31 33 Arizona 10.10 38.24 8.58 50 Utah 6.99 -30.03 3.21 65 Washington 2.85 -54.93 -0.76 68 Washington St. -5.23 41.96 -1.45 75 California -1.08 -39.04 -2.61 76 Colorado -6.29 23.58 -3.05 77 Oregon St. -4.65 -5.97 -3.39 ________________________________________ 42 Georgia Southern 5.48 47.76 5.97 48 Arkansas St. 3.46 31.77 3.85 69 Appalachian State -5.85 43.72 -1.78 71 LA Lafayette -1.50 -20.77 -2.01 84 South Alabama -5.70 -19.68 -4.75 95 Texas St. -10.75 -43.05 -9.25 106 LA Monroe -13.13 -53.41 -11.34 112 Idaho -15.97 -58.20 -13.46 118 Troy -18.67 -109.87 -17.77 125 New Mexico St. -23.27 -148.07 -22.69 126 Georgia State -25.34 -158.56 -24.57 ______________________________________ 2 Alabama 24.78 220.36 27.19 4 Mississippi 26.22 151.87 24.84 9 Auburn 21.28 166.03 22.23 10 Georgia 22.67 132.79 21.55 12 Mississippi St. 20.45 118.26 19.36 16 Arkansas 14.07 118.01 15.10 17 LSU 15.47 97.69 15.04 27 Tennessee 11.52 69.71 11.06 34 Florida 7.68 41.87 7.15 37 Missouri 8.55 15.00 6.43 44 Texas A&M 6.46 17.59 5.16 51 South Carolina 2.68 25.28 3.01 80 Kentucky -4.25 -31.61 -4.36 116 Vanderbilt -15.49 -129.96 -16.62

Duquesne Frog

Duquesne Frog

 

DUSHEE's Take on the CFP, TCU, and the Peach Bowl

In case you hadn't stewed on the outcome of the CFP enough, here comes DUSHEE to try and shed at least a little light on what happened to the Frogs and college football in general over the last few weeks. First, here are the critical DUSHEE numbers for each of the top 6 in the CFP final rankings for each FBS game played: Alabama Opp: WVU FAU USM| Fla Miss Ark | A&M Tenn LSU | MissSt Aub Mizz PD: 14.00 33.36 23.70 | 29.22 8.50 8.60 | 66.40 16.30 15.50 | 23.90 21.40 36.91 YD: 247.40 413.45 170.40 | 578.00 179.90 -93.90 | 435.10 84.30 112.00 | -3.20 2.10 239.09 Score: 21.33 42.29 24.06 | 47.51 14.39 1.18 | 65.37 14.95 15.76 | 15.78 14.37 36.20 Best games: A&M (65.37), Fla (47.51) Worst Games: Ark (1.18), Aub (14.37) Oregon Opp: MichSt Wyo WSU | Zona UCLA Wash | Cal Stan Utah | Col OreSt Zona PD: 44.90 22.80 -4.20 | 0.42 19.00 34.27 | 13.90 39.00 27.00 | 25.64 22.20 49.17 YD: 241.50 64.30 58.70 | -40.00 -19.73 242.55 | -17.30 188.00 13.40 | 381.36 180.60 438.83 Score:41.64 18.32 0.05 | -1.66 11.71 34.61 | 8.43 35.12 18.65 | 35.58 23.56 54.06 Best games: Zona 2 (54.06), MichSt (41.64) Worst games: Zona 1 (-1.66), WSU (0.05) Florida State Opp: OkSt Clem NCSU | Wake Syr ND | L'ville Uva MiaFl | BC Fla GaTech PD: -0.60 15.00 15.70 | 28.50 11.00 8.45 | 22.10 14.30 7.70 | 6.80 11.44 14.55 YD: 33.80 13.80 14.20 | 174.60 73.10 -107.55 | 185.60 165.50 9.70 | 129.50 68.00 95.91 Score: 1.24 10.67 11.16 | 27.47 10.88 0.42 | 23.73 17.56 5.60 | 10.81 10.93 14.35 Best games: Wake (27.47), L'ville (23.73) Worst games: ND (0.42), OkSt (1.24) Ohio State Opp: Navy VaTech KentSt | Cin Mary Rut | PSU Ill MichSt | Minn Ind Mich | Wisc PD: 19.40 -14.40 58.70 | 33.45 26.50 35.20 | 9.91 35.20 37.20 | 12.60 5.40 13.64 | 78.55 YD: 32.30 21.30 419.60 | 315.27 126.10 192.70 | 121.27 206.30 249.20 | 203.50 66.70 68.64 | 513.09 Score: 14.50 -8.57 59.48 | 37.59 23.78 32.81 | 12.49 33.47 36.88 | 18.27 6.83 12.42 | 77.24 Best games: Wisc (77.24), KentSt (59.48) Worst games: VaTech (-8.57), Ind (6.83) Baylor Opp: SMU Buf ISU | Tex TCU WVU | Kan OU OkSt |Ttech KSU PD: 16.09 43.38 6.30 | 22.18 31.70 -12.40 | 31.50 52.55 15.90 | -11.40 25.10 YD: 301.09 327.75 126.90 | 72.27 506.00 -63.90 | 241.30 353.00 110.80 | -215.50 258.80 Score: 25.33 44.81 10.35 | 18.29 45.67 -11.37 | 32.70 52.15 15.97 | -18.05 29.28 Best games: TCU (45.67), Buf (44.81) Worst games: TTech (-18.05), WVU (-11.37) TCU Opp: Minn SMU OU| Bay OkSt Ttech | WVU KSU Kan | Tex ISU: PD: 30.20 28.09 19.82 | 19.90 29.10 46.90 | 4.10 36.10 -14.70 | 40.73 40.40 YD: 174.90 150.55 115.18 | -121.90 370.40 338.90 | 123.10 217.00 -97.50 | 97.36 373.30 Score: 28.61 26.03 18.80 | 7.36 37.36 47.70 | 8.70 34.59 -14.53 | 31.87 45.04 Best games: TTech (47.70), ISU (45.04) Worst games: Kan (-14.53), Bay (7.36) To reiterate, a PD or YD of 0 in a particular game means that the team performed as well against that opponent as the average team did in terms of points and yards, respectively. A PD of 10 means the team was roughly 10 points better against that opponent than the average team was, a YD of 100 means the team outgained the opponent by 100 more yards than the average team did. Negative differentials mean the team performed worse than the average team. And the Score is the PD adjusted by the YD based on how much the YD deviates from a typical performance given the team's PD. Alabama played like an average team (Score between +/-7) once -- against Arkansas. Even in their loss to Ole Miss, they were still 2 touchdowns better against Mississippi than the average team was. Oregon played like an average team twice -- against Arizona the first time and against Washington State. Florida State was average three times (Notre Dame, Oklahoma State, and Miami). Ohio State was average once (Indiana) and significantly below average once (Virginia Tech). The same could be said for TCU (Kansas the significantly below average performance)., although technically their "average" performance against Bayloy fell just above the +/-7 range. Baylor, notably, was well below average twice, both in their loss to WVU and against Tech ... in fact DUSHEE rated the performance against Tech as almost a touchdown worse than their performance against WVU. The flip side of the worst loss coin is the best win. In this category, Florida State was a clear underperformer. While all of the other 5 schools in the top six had at least two games with DUSHEE scores over 40, FSU's best performance of the year was a 27.47 score against Wake Forest, a 43-3 win in week 6. Florida State only had two games all season with a score above 20; meanwhile TCU and Ohio State had 7 and Baylor, Alabama, and Oregon had 6, , Both Alabama an Ohio State had, as discussed in previous posts, historically high DUSHEE scores in individual games, Alabama a 65.37 score against Texas A&M and Ohio State a 77.24 against Wisconsin. Both games were certainly outliers for both teams. Conference Strength The strength of a conference is up for considerable interpretation. If you take the average of all the strengths of teams in your conference, DUSHEE rates out the conferences this way: SEC 9.75 B10 4.94 B12 4.80 P10 4.77 ACC 4.07 MWC -4.39 CUSA -4.71 AAC -6.00 MAC -8.97 SBC -9.54 By this metric, the SEC was the best conference by a considerable margin; perhaps the best way of interpreting this is by saying the average SEC team was roughly 5-6 points better than the average B1G, Big 12, Pac 10, or ACC team. And there wasn't a significant difference between the average teams in the rest of the "Power 5" conferences. I suspect such an assessment will be controversial on this board where the notion that the Big 12 was one of, if not THE, best conference and that the Big 10 was the worst. Based on team averaged performance, such a notion is disputable. Although the way in which each conference arrived at the same average was a little different. The Big 12 was all over the map. Half of the conference was ranked 30 or better, with 4 teams in the top 20 and 2 in the top 10. Three teams could be placed in the average category: Texas, Oklahoma State, and Tech (barely); and two teams were awful: Kansas and Iowa State. The Big 12 was the only "Power 5" conference to have two teams rated 100 or worse. 3 TCU 25.51 158.30 24.68 6 Baylor 20.08 183.50 22.29 13 Oklahoma 16.35 110.62 16.27 17 Kansas St. 14.92 82.68 13.95 28 West Virginia 6.62 103.69 9.44 51 Texas 1.64 31.93 2.64 88 Oklahoma St. -4.04 -65.02 -5.85 90 Texas Tech -9.36 -7.34 -6.60 110 Iowa St. -12.27 -113.89 -13.70 116 Kansas -13.70 -123.10 -15.10 The ACC had 5 teams ranked 32 or better, but none higher than 14. Then they had a large core of 8 average(using the same +/-7 metric) teams and really only one really bad team -- Wake. The ACC was largely competent but not spectacular. Nobody that really should have been in consideration for the CFP but really only one terrible team. 14 Georgia Tech 15.85 101.75 15.50 21 Miami (FL) 9.50 122.58 12.28 22 Florida St. 12.91 71.35 12.07 26 Louisville 9.32 92.09 10.68 27 Clemson 8.30 102.64 10.51 32 Boston Coll. 5.79 63.76 6.95 40 Virginia Tech 5.61 47.46 6.04 45 Virginia 2.59 56.24 4.46 47 Pittsburgh 1.71 63.17 4.20 62 N.C. State -0.33 13.53 0.43 65 Duke 4.18 -54.43 0.15 78 Syracuse -5.82 -4.75 -4.11 79 North Carolina -3.59 -36.53 -4.17 121 Wake Forest -13.18 -189.43 -17.97 DUSHEE was generally far more impressed with the Big 10 and far less impressed with the Pac 12 (particularly at the top) than most other college football pundits and rankers. The Pac 12 had one really good team (Oregon), three teams at the very bottom of the top 25, and everyone else in the conference fits in the average category. The Pac 12 was the sole conference without one truly awful team (ranked 100 or worse). 5 Oregon 24.51 144.35 23.34 23 UCLA 11.13 92.78 11.92 24 Stanford 9.48 95.02 10.93 25 USC 11.60 65.33 10.90 31 Arizona 10.09 14.58 7.43 35 Arizona St. 8.44 12.92 6.25 57 Washington 4.82 -23.99 2.05 64 Utah 2.68 -31.40 0.26 71 Washington St. -7.50 55.46 -2.31 72 California -2.71 -17.30 -2.65 85 Oregon St. -6.18 -25.72 -5.37 86 Colorado -7.31 -13.15 -5.51 Meanwhile the B1G, was pretty evenly distributed. DUSHEE had both Ohio State and Michigan State as elite, Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Minnesota as solid, 8 average teams, and one really bad team (Indiana). 1 Ohio St. 27.03 195.07 27.48 4 Michigan St. 22.57 197.16 24.61 12 Wisconsin 14.24 168.93 17.68 19 Nebraska 14.07 86.68 13.58 30 Minnesota 8.48 43.36 7.76 44 Penn St. 3.10 59.92 4.98 48 Iowa 2.11 40.95 3.39 54 Michigan 0.79 35.23 2.24 70 Northwestern -2.46 -4.44 -1.85 75 Rutgers -4.31 -18.55 -3.77 80 Maryland -1.29 -68.27 -4.17 89 Illinois -4.06 -77.75 -6.48 91 Purdue -6.70 -46.48 -6.72 100 Indiana -9.47 -67.32 -9.58 In particular, let's look at Wisconsin's season since their assault at the hands of Ohio State probably prevented a Big 12 entrant into the CFP: Opp: LSU BGSU USF| Nwstern Ill Mary | Rut Pur Neb | Iowa Minn OhSt PD: 3.40 47.00 6.40 | -10.90 1.10 45.20 | 33.00 8.20 52.90 | 6.50 15.90 -37.83 YD:-1.30 438.91 107.10 | 14.80 104.00 263.60 | 199.30 193.60 575.00 | 68.20 193.60 -129.67 Score: 2.20 52.62 9.46| -6.55 5.78 42.92 | 31.66 14.85 63.15 | 7.64 19.99 -31.51 Wisconsin had two epically big games against Nebraska (59-24) and Bowling Green (68-17, keeping in mind that Bowling Green, while nonetheless a bad team, was still a bad team who played for the MAC championship) and two other very strong performances against Maryland (52-7) and Rutgers (37-0). Outside of the Ohio State debachle, Wisconsin's worst performance was the loss to Northwestern (14-20) and average performances against LSU, Illinois, and Iowa. Prior to the Ohio State game, DUSHEE had Wisconsin ranked 5th and dropped them to 12th after. At this point in the season, moving seven spots in the poll, particularly at the top or bottom, is a big jump. Each game is only 1/12 of each team's ranking. Largely on the strength of that loss to Ohio State, Wisconsin was the 2nd most inconsistent team in the country with a standard deviation of 26.4 points, behind Louisiana Tech. That means that Wisconsin was as likely to obtain a DUSHEE score of 45 as it was a score of -7. Based on the metrics used by DUSHEE, the B1G wasn't an inferior conference and Ohio State was a really good team. Doesn't make TCU's drop from 3rd to 6th any less sucky. But an argument can be made that they deserved to be in; moreso than can be made for Florida State, certainly. Strength of Schedule If we use the same technique we use to assess conference strength, average all the opponents' season-long scores for each team, the strengths of schedule for the 6 playoff teams plus 2, we get the following: 5 Alabama 7.72 33 Florida State 3.78 39 Oregon 3.26 47 Ohio State 2.35 65 TCU 0.04 73 Baylor -1.10 This is another factor that went against the Big 12, keeping in mind that FCS opponents are ignored in the DUSHEE rankings. Minnesota meant that TCU had the next-to-worst strength of schedule compared to Baylor's worst. When accounting for both teams playing the worst team in FBS, SMU, and both playing in the conference with two teams ranked over 100, neither Baylor nor TCU's schedule come out looking all that strong. The Peach Bowl Let's take a look at Mississippi's season. Opp: Boise Vandy ULaLa | Mem Bama A&M | Tenn LSU Aub | Ark MissSt PD: 38.25 22.40 44.40 | 37.90 27.64 18.00 | 35.00 4.50 4.90 | -25.50 33.80 YD: 204.33 288.40 224.90 | 396.10 96.36 -166.60 | 205.30 -51.90 109.90 | 40.30 192.60 Score: 35.41 28.92 40.51 | 44.47 23.10 3.92 | 33.29 0.48 8.60 | -15.05 31.87 Mississippi's year appears to be a tale of two seasons. Through the Alabama victory, Ole Miss was awesome, at least 3 TD's better than the average team against everybody they played. They whipped 2 of the 3 best non-Power 5 schools (Memphis 24-3 and Boise 35-13) and then gave Alabama their only loss (23-17). Then they beat A&M but got badly outgained, whipped Tennessee, then played like an average to below average team against LSU, Auburn, and Arkansas. In the Egg Bowl, they returned to their early season form. On the year, TCU ended up 3rd in the DUSHEE rankings with a score of 24.68, while Mississippi were ranked 8th with a score of 21.41. The difference between these two scores is almost exactly the Vegas line for the game of TCU (-3). TCU was a little more consistent than Ole Miss (standard deviation of 17.9 versus 20.6). In fact, Mississippi was the 12th most inconsistent team in the country. Using these numbers and using 5000 simulated games, TCU wins 55% of the time against Ole Miss on a neautral field. Ole Miss, BTW, also had the 3rd toughest schedule in the country (9.42) behind Auburn (12.34) and Arkansas (11.04). Vandy and ULaLa are the only two below average teams Mississippi played this year. So in conclusion, DUSHEE thinks Vegas has it about right on the Peach Bowl, thinks that Ohio State wasn't really that bad of a pick, and that the Big 10 was actually a little underrated. But it also thinks TCU should have been in the playoff too ...

Duquesne Frog

Duquesne Frog

 

Week 11 Rankings -- I've Got Bad News and I've Got Bad News

DUSHEE is a sentient being. He senses the derision and scoffing being heaped on him by certain individuals among the Frog Faithful. He has heard your criticism and feels hurt and defensive. The argument seems to be why and how teams with more losses, in some cases several more and in "weaker" conferences, can be ranked above the Frogs. The answer is that DUSHEE makes no evaluation based on the win-loss binary. It definitively does not view a close win against one of the worst teams in the country as an indication of a better performance than a close loss against a top-25 team. Quite the contrary. Kansas, despite losing to TCU, earned a significantly higher DUSHEE score for losing to the Frogs than TCU did for beating Kansas. Prior to Saturday, TCU had a 13 average point differential and a 195 average yard differential against their opponents than their opponents had against their other opponents. Kansas' comparative numbers were -31 points and -256 yards. By beating Kansas by 6 and outgaining them by 163 (and keep in mind that 105th ranked Rutgers beat Kansas by 13 and outgained them by 177), TCU's performance was almost 4 touchdowns and 100 yards BELOW AVERAGE compared to Kansas' prior opponents. Meanwhile Kansas performance against TCU was a touchdown and 40 yards ABOVE AVERAGE compared to TCU's prior opponents. Looking at this another way, Saturday, Kansas played against TCU more like you would expect an average Nebraska, Oregon, or Cal (teams averaging close to a 7 PD and 40 YD on the year) would have played against them while TCU played Kansas more like you would expect an average New Mexico State or Eastern Michigan to play against them. Still better than Kansas, but not better than probably some 110 teams in FBS. So it is in this implicit way DUSHEE rewards close losses against good teams (which, aside from Saturday, TCU has been) and punishes close wins against bad teams (which, aside from Saturday, Kansas has most definitively been). Voter polls do not traditionally operate in this way. Close wins against bad teams are not punished (at least not much) and close losses against good teams are often punished pretty severely even if the close lose almost exactly matches the expectation set up by the ranking prior to the game (one of the real stupidities of the "human" polling, IMO). West Virginia and Tennessee are high because they have both played among the most difficult schedules and been largely competitive in every game despite losing many of them. DUSHEE takes the philosophy that if the 4th best team in the country loses close games against each of the three teams better than them, they are still the 4th best team in the country despite having 3 losses. Boise's losses have either come against decent teams where they turned the ball over a lot (EIGHT turnovers against Utah State, the definition of flukey) or against bad teams that they dominated in every other statistical category other than turnovers and points (New Mexico, whom they outgained by 230 yards, held a 40-11 first down margin, etc.) Bowling Green lost competitive games to Tennessee and Memphis, both teams in the top 20. By far, their worst performance of the year was a tight win against Purdue. In the dead time between the regular season and the bowls, we'll dive into the numbers of some of these questionable teams a little more. But suffice it to say, DUSHEE only looks at two statistics and the numbers are what they are. TCU dropped 5.5 points in the Kansas game, falling to 22nd. Here is how the Frogs' week-to-week performance looks as of this week: Minn SMU Ttech | Tex KSU ISU | WVU OkSt Kan 2.11 -0.75 6.78 | 42.22 -1.57 15.88 | 37.86 -1.63 -29.13 145.7 113.0 214.1 | 240.2 19.4 120.3 | 364.3 306.8 -116.1 8.26 4.81 14.59 | 39.45 -0.13 16.24 | 42.37 13.34 -24.88 The Kansas State game has no fallen into negative territory overall. The Frogs have had a negative PD in 4 games now (SMU, KSU, OSU, KU). Kansas was the first game of the season where the Frogs have had a negative YD. Next Opponent: Oklahoma And the news goes from bad to worse as the Sooners' impressive road win against Baylor (and Clemson's weak performance against ACC doormat Syracuse) launched the Sooners into the #1 slot, meaning that the Frogs will get the privilege of following up a game against the worst team in the country with a game against the best team in the country. Here is the Sooners' week-to-week: Akr Tenn Tulsa | WVU Tex KSU | Ttech Kan ISU | Bay 36.00 17.50 13.33 | 26.43 -13.33 53.29 | 43.44 26.00 29.38 | 42.00 314.4 110.6 181.7 | 100.3 -180.9 362.3 | 258.6 256.3 289.0 | 348.1 38.78 16.87 17.43 | 22.34 -17.40 52.56 | 41.12 29.38 33.17 | 44.37 Oklahoma has followed up that increasingly improbable performance against the Longhorns with 5 consecutive dominant performances. Really dominant. Scary dominant. Even prior to the Texas game, the Sooners had a few other moments of looking mortal, coming from behind to beat Tennessee in double overtime and only beating an okay Tulsa team by 2 TDs. The Frogs have only had 2 performances all year with a DUSHEE score above 20 (Texas and West Virginia). Oklahoma has had 7. DUSHEE has Oklahoma as an 18-point favorite against the Frogs in Norman. Top 3/Bottom 3 of the Week 46.99 @Marshall (52-463) vs. FIU (0-209) 46.02 Southern Miss (65-682)@ Rice (10-214) 44.37 Oklahoma (44-511) @ Baylor (34-416) -46.96 @Rice (10-214) vs. Southern Miss (65-682) -45.03 @Hawaii (14-437) vs. Fresno (42-455) -38.37 FIU (0-209) @ Marshall (52-463) Overall Ranking Rank Team P/G Y/G Score 1 Oklahoma 27.40 204.03 27.86 2 Clemson 24.36 239.45 27.50 3 Alabama 24.42 200.10 25.69 4 Baylor 22.23 179.52 23.26 5 Ohio St. 20.52 143.30 20.42 6 Notre Dame 20.34 136.77 19.99 7 Mississippi 16.97 175.91 19.59 8 Bowling Green 15.68 137.49 16.92 9 Memphis 13.78 149.50 16.22 10 West Virginia 14.90 127.95 15.95 ____________________________________________ 11 USC 17.07 96.07 15.90 12 North Carolina 18.69 66.30 15.58 13 Houston 16.51 85.63 15.03 14 Navy 17.73 60.95 14.68 15 Michigan 14.59 90.83 14.00 16 Florida 14.09 96.05 13.91 17 Tennessee 15.12 79.56 13.82 18 Mississippi St. 15.32 76.35 13.81 19 Appalachian State 12.47 111.18 13.54 20 Stanford 13.86 85.97 13.29 _______________________________________________ 21 Boise St. 9.35 142.51 12.94 22 TCU 7.97 156.40 12.67 23 LSU 13.13 82.08 12.61 24 Florida St. 12.54 87.95 12.50 25 Arkansas 10.23 117.68 12.36 26 Oklahoma St. 15.17 46.73 12.31 27 Wisconsin 11.77 94.63 12.30 28 Iowa 11.50 83.29 11.59 29 Toledo 12.50 63.78 11.33 30 Cincinnati 7.12 119.57 10.37 ________________________________________________ 31 W. Michigan 8.81 91.53 10.18 32 Michigan St. 11.18 50.90 9.85 33 UCLA 7.88 89.05 9.44 34 West. Kentucky 8.64 65.72 8.85 35 BYU 8.02 68.72 8.58 36 N.C. State 7.83 68.04 8.42 37 Air Force 5.70 96.18 8.32 38 Southern Miss 5.54 95.68 8.19 39 Utah 11.70 6.49 8.11 40 Texas Tech 6.16 77.55 7.75 _________________________________________________ 41 Louisiana Tech 7.29 61.45 7.75 42 Washington 8.99 30.91 7.45 43 Pittsburgh 7.59 46.22 7.24 44 Nebraska 7.11 47.59 6.98 45 Oregon 7.07 44.80 6.82 46 California 7.21 41.02 6.73 47 Louisville 4.10 82.52 6.61 48 Texas A&M 7.77 26.13 6.41 49 Penn St. 7.77 23.17 6.27 50 Georgia Southern 5.39 56.09 6.23 ________________________________________________ 51 Georgia 5.93 42.86 5.97 52 Georgia Tech 5.79 42.16 5.84 53 Cent. Michigan 5.90 35.63 5.61 54 Marshall 8.33 -0.87 5.51 55 Northern Illinois 6.59 22.27 5.44 56 Utah St. 6.34 21.62 5.25 57 Washington St. 4.10 47.61 4.97 58 San Diego St. 3.73 37.42 4.25 59 Arizona St. 2.74 21.01 2.82 60 Temple 6.47 -32.34 2.79 ________________________________________________ 61 Illinois 2.93 16.61 2.74 62 Middle Tenn. St. 0.59 46.40 2.58 63 Vanderbilt 0.83 40.82 2.48 64 Minnesota -0.28 55.59 2.43 65 Northwestern 3.32 1.02 2.26 66 Virginia Tech 3.06 1.80 2.12 67 South Florida 3.32 -13.23 1.59 68 Auburn 2.38 -2.63 1.46 69 Duke 0.67 9.28 0.89 70 Indiana 1.24 -9.68 0.37 _________________________________________________ 71 Iowa St. -0.81 13.35 0.09 72 Arkansas St. 0.02 -7.99 -0.36 73 East Carolina 0.13 -21.86 -0.94 74 Miami (FL) -1.67 3.39 -0.96 75 Kansas St. 2.47 -60.16 -1.19 76 Arizona -2.54 5.80 -1.42 77 Boston Coll. -3.23 13.50 -1.52 78 Maryland -2.45 -6.30 -1.93 79 Ohio -4.46 10.74 -2.47 80 Missouri -1.92 -28.02 -2.60 _________________________________________________ 81 Tulsa -4.29 -18.56 -3.73 82 Colorado St. -5.00 -16.14 -4.09 83 Virginia -4.91 -18.32 -4.14 84 Buffalo -3.98 -49.24 -4.97 85 Akron -6.53 -17.32 -5.17 86 Massachusetts -5.42 -49.76 -5.95 87 Connecticut -4.61 -61.47 -5.97 88 Texas -4.51 -75.30 -6.55 89 Troy -6.90 -43.91 -6.66 90 Kentucky -7.54 -53.85 -7.56 __________________________________________________ 91 South Carolina -4.98 -93.95 -7.74 92 Wake Forest -8.74 -46.02 -7.99 93 San Jose St. -8.40 -51.42 -8.02 94 UNLV -10.63 -85.98 -11.13 95 Syracuse -6.62 -145.84 -11.27 96 Nevada -10.55 -90.14 -11.27 97 Purdue -9.70 -119.96 -12.11 98 Florida Intl. -9.90 -119.23 -12.21 99 Wyoming -15.45 -46.76 -12.50 100 Florida Atlantic -12.82 -92.06 -12.88 ___________________________________________________ 101 SMU -14.05 -78.01 -13.04 103 South Alabama -16.08 -51.12 -13.12 104 Georgia State -14.94 -68.08 -13.16 105 Rutgers -12.20 -112.23 -13.41 106 New Mexico -11.22 -149.63 -14.52 107 LA Lafayette -15.34 -102.13 -15.03 108 Colorado -15.27 -104.99 -15.11 109 Ball St. -12.56 -146.28 -15.25 110 Army -15.38 -115.83 -15.70 _______________________________________________________ 111 Old Dominion -17.23 -105.37 -16.44 112 Kent St. -17.49 -120.35 -17.32 113 UT-San Antonio -17.79 -116.10 -17.32 114 Idaho -18.56 -109.43 -17.52 115 Oregon St. -16.95 -142.21 -17.99 116 Miami (OH) -20.74 -95.22 -18.31 117 Rice -20.05 -119.02 -18.96 118 UNC-Charlotte -22.53 -117.43 -20.55 119 Tulane -19.74 -158.62 -20.62 120 Texas St. -18.98 -170.79 -20.69 _______________________________________________________ 121 Fresno St. -19.58 -183.20 -21.67 122 North Texas -23.19 -156.67 -22.83 123 East. Michigan -23.81 -163.84 -23.58 124 New Mexico St. -24.89 -157.67 -24.01 125 UCF -22.88 -209.47 -25.10 126 UTEP -25.93 -167.54 -25.17 127 LA Monroe -26.55 -169.76 -25.68 128 Hawaii -26.70 -194.14 -26.93 129 Kansas -27.54 -224.91 -28.93 By Conference Rank Team PD YD Score AAC 9 Memphis 13.78 149.50 16.22 13 Houston 16.51 85.63 15.03 14 Navy 17.73 60.95 14.68 30 Cincinnati 7.12 119.57 10.37 60 Temple 6.47 -32.34 2.79 67 South Florida 3.32 -13.23 1.59 73 East Carolina 0.13 -21.86 -0.94 81 Tulsa -4.29 -18.56 -3.73 87 Connecticut -4.61 -61.47 -5.97 101 SMU -14.05 -78.01 -13.04 119 Tulane -19.74 -158.62 -20.62 125 UCF -22.88 -209.47 -25.10 ACC 2 Clemson 24.36 239.45 27.50 12 North Carolina 18.69 66.30 15.58 24 Florida St. 12.54 87.95 12.50 36 N.C. State 7.83 68.04 8.42 43 Pittsburgh 7.59 46.22 7.24 47 Louisville 4.10 82.52 6.61 52 Georgia Tech 5.79 42.16 5.84 66 Virginia Tech 3.06 1.80 2.12 69 Duke 0.67 9.28 0.89 74 Miami (FL) -1.67 3.39 -0.96 77 Boston Coll. -3.23 13.50 -1.52 83 Virginia -4.91 -18.32 -4.14 92 Wake Forest -8.74 -46.02 -7.99 95 Syracuse -6.62 -145.84 -11.27 B1G 5 Ohio St. 20.52 143.30 20.42 15 Michigan 14.59 90.83 14.00 27 Wisconsin 11.77 94.63 12.30 28 Iowa 11.50 83.29 11.59 32 Michigan St. 11.18 50.90 9.85 44 Nebraska 7.11 47.59 6.98 49 Penn St. 7.77 23.17 6.27 61 Illinois 2.93 16.61 2.74 64 Minnesota -0.28 55.59 2.43 65 Northwestern 3.32 1.02 2.26 70 Indiana 1.24 -9.68 0.37 78 Maryland -2.45 -6.30 -1.93 97 Purdue -9.70 -119.96 -12.11 105 Rutgers -12.20 -112.23 -13.41 BXII-II 1 Oklahoma 27.40 204.03 27.86 4 Baylor 22.23 179.52 23.26 10 West Virginia 14.90 127.95 15.95 22 TCU 7.97 156.40 12.67 26 Oklahoma St. 15.17 46.73 12.31 40 Texas Tech 6.16 77.55 7.75 71 Iowa St. -0.81 13.35 0.09 75 Kansas St. 2.47 -60.16 -1.19 88 Texas -4.51 -75.30 -6.55 129 Kansas -27.54 -224.91 -28.93 CUSA 34 West. Kentucky 8.64 65.72 8.85 38 Southern Miss 5.54 95.68 8.19 41 Louisiana Tech 7.29 61.45 7.75 54 Marshall 8.33 -0.87 5.51 62 Middle Tenn. St. 0.59 46.40 2.58 98 Florida Intl. -9.90 -119.23 -12.21 100 Florida Atlantic -12.82 -92.06 -12.88 111 Old Dominion -17.23 -105.37 -16.44 113 UT-San Antonio -17.79 -116.10 -17.32 117 Rice -20.05 -119.02 -18.96 118 UNC-Charlotte -22.53 -117.43 -20.55 122 North Texas -23.19 -156.67 -22.83 126 UTEP -25.93 -167.54 -25.17 Indies 6 Notre Dame 20.34 136.77 19.99 35 BYU 8.02 68.72 8.58 110 Army -15.38 -115.83 -15.70 MAC 8 Bowling Green 15.68 137.49 16.92 29 Toledo 12.50 63.78 11.33 31 W. Michigan 8.81 91.53 10.18 53 Cent. Michigan 5.90 35.63 5.61 55 Northern Illinois 6.59 22.27 5.44 79 Ohio -4.46 10.74 -2.47 84 Buffalo -3.98 -49.24 -4.97 85 Akron -6.53 -17.32 -5.17 86 Massachusetts -5.42 -49.76 -5.95 109 Ball St. -12.56 -146.28 -15.25 112 Kent St. -17.49 -120.35 -17.32 116 Miami (OH) -20.74 -95.22 -18.31 123 East. Michigan -23.81 -163.84 -23.58 MWC 21 Boise St. 9.35 142.51 12.94 37 Air Force 5.70 96.18 8.32 56 Utah St. 6.34 21.62 5.25 58 San Diego St. 3.73 37.42 4.25 82 Colorado St. -5.00 -16.14 -4.09 93 San Jose St. -8.40 -51.42 -8.02 94 UNLV -10.63 -85.98 -11.13 96 Nevada -10.55 -90.14 -11.27 99 Wyoming -15.45 -46.76 -12.50 106 New Mexico -11.22 -149.63 -14.52 121 Fresno St. -19.58 -183.20 -21.67 128 Hawaii -26.70 -194.14 -26.93 P12 11 USC 17.07 96.07 15.90 20 Stanford 13.86 85.97 13.29 33 UCLA 7.88 89.05 9.44 39 Utah 11.70 6.49 8.11 42 Washington 8.99 30.91 7.45 45 Oregon 7.07 44.80 6.82 46 California 7.21 41.02 6.73 57 Washington St. 4.10 47.61 4.97 59 Arizona St. 2.74 21.01 2.82 76 Arizona -2.54 5.80 -1.42 108 Colorado -15.27 -104.99 -15.11 115 Oregon St. -16.95 -142.21 -17.99 SBC 19 Appalachian State 12.47 111.18 13.54 50 Georgia Southern 5.39 56.09 6.23 72 Arkansas St. 0.02 -7.99 -0.36 89 Troy -6.90 -43.91 -6.66 103 South Alabama -16.08 -51.12 -13.12 104 Georgia State -14.94 -68.08 -13.16 107 LA Lafayette -15.34 -102.13 -15.03 114 Idaho -18.56 -109.43 -17.52 120 Texas St. -18.98 -170.79 -20.69 124 New Mexico St. -24.89 -157.67 -24.01 127 LA Monroe -26.55 -169.76 -25.68 SEC 3 Alabama 24.42 200.10 25.69 7 Mississippi 16.97 175.91 19.59 16 Florida 14.09 96.05 13.91 17 Tennessee 15.12 79.56 13.82 18 Mississippi St. 15.32 76.35 13.81 23 LSU 13.13 82.08 12.61 25 Arkansas 10.23 117.68 12.36 48 Texas A&M 7.77 26.13 6.41 51 Georgia 5.93 42.86 5.97 63 Vanderbilt 0.83 40.82 2.48 68 Auburn 2.38 -2.63 1.46 80 Missouri -1.92 -28.02 -2.60 90 Kentucky -7.54 -53.85 -7.56 91 South Carolina -4.98 -93.95 -7.74

Duquesne Frog

Duquesne Frog

 

What Does It Mean When Someone Has a 60% Chance of Winning?

Much ado was made during the 2016 presidential election about the analytical odds placed on Trump/Clinton winning the White House.  In particular, the oddsmakers had Clinton as the universal favorite on election day, at odds (as memory serves) anywhere from 60-80%.  And when Trump won, many took the opportunity to slam "inaccuracy" of the analytics.   But what does it mean when one claims that someone's odds of winning are 60%?  Where does that number come from?  If an analysis puts the odds of something happening at 70% and that something doesn't happen, does it mean that the analysis was wrong (spoiler: almost certainly, but probably not in the way you think)? Or did something improbable simply happen (spoiler: also almost certainly)?   At the crux of understanding of this topic, we first have to get comfortable with the concept of uncertainty.  Those in the science/statistics game are trained to get comfortable with the concept, but it is not a concept that humans necessarily have a natural affinity for.  In fact, uncertainty makes most people really uncomfortable.  We don't like to think of forces that act on us as being in any way random.  "Everything happens for a reason," we love to tell ourselves.   But whether we like uncertainty or not, every halfway complex interaction that occurs is fraught with uncertainty and randomness.  The variables at play are many and unaccountable with the time and hardware available to us in the moment to assess them.  Did that man in Pennsylvania see an ad right before the election that made him change his vote?  Did that woman in Wisconsin have a child get sick the morning of the election which caused her not to vote when she would have?   Now don't worry ... I'm not going to talk politics here.  We're going to use college football for our example, but the principles apply to the political example too.   So how does someone determine the odds of a team winning?   First, you need some data.  For this example, we'll use DUSHEE's modified Point Differential metric.  And let's take two teams, totally at random ... say TCU and Oklahoma.   As I write this, TCU has played 11 DUSHEE-recognized games, Oklahoma has played 12.  The week-to-week DUSHEE score for each team is as follows:   TCU   Ark SMU OkSt   WVU KSU Kan ISU Tex OU Ttech Bay   6.73 23.06 29.01   1.27 22.70 27.09 4.76 24.46 6.23 15.29 7.33 OU UTEP OhSt Tulane Bay   ISU Tex KSU Ttech OkSt TCU Kan WVU 33.05 48.65 42.30 -0.38   5.41 16.49 14.68 25.28 35.24 33.94 14.30 36.17   In theory, the DUSHEE score should represent how many points better (or worse) the team performed than an average team would have performed against that team.  You will note that there is a fair amount of variability in how each team has performed game-to-game.  TCU has bounced between 1.27 (against WVU) and 29.01 (Oklahoma State) for an average of 15.27.  Oklahoma has played between -0.38 (against Baylor) and 48.65 (Ohio State) for an average of 25.43.   On average, Oklahoma has been about 10 points better than the Frogs.  However, the Sooners' performance has also been much more inconsistent -- their worst performance was worse than TCU's and their best performance was (much) better.  The range (best minus worst) of Oklahoma's performance (49.0) has been much greater than TCU's (27.7).   So while you are more likely to get a 40+ point differential performance from OU (they've done it twice, TCU hasn't even hit 30), OU is also more likely to give a negative point differential performance than TCU is.   You Are Such a Standard Deviant   The most common method for measuring this spread is standard deviation.  I'm going to assume that most of you have heard the term and I'm going to assume that the majority either know what it means or don't care enough to spend time going into it here.  I talked a bit about it in a blog post several years ago on the Monte Carlo method.   But I do need to make a few points about standard deviation before we proceed.  First, using standard deviation (or any assessment of spread) is a bit dicey when talking about as few data points as we have here (11-12 games).  Second, standard deviation is based on the assumption that the data being analyzed has a "normal" or "bell-curve" distribution; i.e., a team is more likely to perform at or near their average performance than they are further away from average.   Go back to the game-to-game data for each team above and you can see how well that second assumption holds up.  TCU, in particular, has only played one game near their average (last week, against Tech), and has instead shown more of a binomial distribution with five games grouped closely around 5 and five games grouped around 25.     TCU's is not a distribution that looks particularly bell-curvy.  More bathtubby.  And Oklahoma's distribution doesn't exactly look like a bell curve either.  But let's take our lack of data points excuse and use it to ignore our lack of bell-curviness.  We'll assume that the non-normal distribution of the data is because we just don't have enough data points and that as the Frogs continued to play more hypothetical games, they'd get more "average" performances and start making their bathtub look more like a bell.  There is no reason to expect that teams would not have a normal distribution given enough data.   So if you do the calculation, TCU's mean performance is currently at 15.3 with a standard deviation of 10.6.  Statistically, that means that there is a roughly 63% probability that TCU's DUSHEE Score in any one game will be between 4.7 and 25.9 (15.3 +/- 10.6).   Oklahoma's mean performance is currently 25.4 with a standard deviation of 15.5, meaning that we should expect 63% of Oklahoma's games to be between 9.9 and 40.9.   So, while Oklahoma has been better, on average, than the Frogs, they've also been more inconsistent.   Revisiting the French Riviera   So we can use these numbers to run what you often hear called "simulated" games.  There are any number of ways you can go about "simulating" a game.  You could play a bunch of games on your Xbox and assume the programmers have accurately accounted for each player's ability and matchups with opposing players and coaching and play-calling and all those other intangibles that make up the outcome of a game.  You could go far deeper into the analytics than I do with DUSHEE and have a far more complex multi-variate determination of outcome.   Perhaps the most simple way to "simulate" many games against two teams is to assume that the two teams' performances over many games will follow a normal distribution based on the limited set of data we talked about above.  So if we assume that the average and range of performance the teams have demonstrated so far is typical (and it might not be ... for instance the fact that Oklahoma has proven to be less consistent over 12 games than the Frogs have might be over-estimated given the limited data), then we can begin to predict how the teams would perform against each other over many, many games.   So if we take TCU's and Oklahoma's mean and standard deviations that we calculated above and use them to determine how the teams will perform over a 10,000 game season, the distribution in the figure above begins to look like this:     Now there are some bell curves.   Facing Baker Mayfield 10,000 Times   So we've made a lot of assumptions at this point.  Many of them questionably asserted, but not totally unreasonable.   Now we bring randomness into play (which is where the "Monte Carlo" comes in to it).  Using a random number generator, you weigh the result of the random number within the bounds of the performance bell curve for each team (this is done using the "NORMINV" function in Excel, for anyone playing along at home).  Thus, outcomes near the mean of the bell curve are more likely than outcomes far from the mean.  A random number (between 0 and 1) is generated for TCU and another random number is generated for Oklahoma; if the random number is near 0.5, the team performs at its mean.  As the random number approaches 0, the team's performance moves out in to the left tail of the bell curve; approaching 1, the team is in the right tail.   So to simulate TCU and Oklahoma facing off 10,000 times (DUSHEE predicts the probability that Mayfield would make an obscene gesture toward the TCU sideline after taking out a Arlington police officer with a warmup pass at 3%), you generate 10,000 random numbers for TCU and 10,000 for Oklahoma and you pair them up.  If the random number for Oklahoma lands at a location on its bell curve further to the right than TCU's, Oklahoma wins.  You can see from the bell curves above that Oklahoma has much more real estate in the 30 to 80 range than TCU does ... so when Oklahoma lands in this range, they are very likely to win.   If you play this simulation out, on a neutral field (i.e., not giving any advantage to the home team), Oklahoma wins somewhere between 70-72% of the time.  The distribution of outcomes looks like this:     So, when you begin to look at these games in a probabilistic manner, you can convince yourself pretty easily that the H2H argument as the be all, end all is a very incomplete picture.  No one thinks Syracuse is a better team than Clemson.  Yet, on October 13, Syracuse beat Clemson 27-24 in the Carrier Dome.  If you run the same simulation I just showed for TCU-Oklahoma and give Syracuse the DUSHEE-calculated 3.4 points for home field advantage, Clemson beats Syracuse 87% of the time by an average margin of 23 points.  But 13% of the time, Syracuse wins, just a little worse than the odds of rolling a six on a cubic die.   Closing Asides and Thoughts   As stated above, on average, home field is giving a 3.4 point advantage to the home team.  When a team's DUSHEE score is boosted by that amount, it improves the team's chances of winning by about 3-5%.   And if you are skeptical about whether Oklahoma's inconsistency relative to TCU's is real (as I am), if you give Oklahoma the same standard deviation as TCU's, Oklahoma's chances of winning go up to 75%.  By tightening Oklahoma's bell curve, Oklahoma becomes less likely to blow TCU out, but since that right tail portion of Oklahoma's bell curve is beyond TCU's right tail bell curve, Oklahoma was going to win those games anyway.  Conversely, it also becomes less likely that Oklahoma will play a stinker (left tail of the bell curve) where TCU actually has a chance to win.  So we kinda need to hope that Oklahoma's relative inconsistency (compared to the Frogs) over 12 games is real.   So take it easy on Nate Silver and his ilk over "missing" on the 2016 election.  Their predictions are only as good as the data they have and Quinnipiac polls (as measures of how people are going to vote) are probably worse data sources than college football games.  The uncertainty in those polls is why they were still giving Trump a 20-40% chance to win.  Basically the odds of flipping two coins and getting two heads.  About the odds we have against Oklahoma.   So you're telling me there's a chance ...

Duquesne Frog

Duquesne Frog

2018 End of Regular Season DUSHEE

Army-Navy has been played, closing out the 2018 regular season.  Not to be Debbie Downer, but it has been a turd of a season, both as a TCU fan and a college football fan.  The Frogs, albeit showing some guts in getting through Baylor and Oklahoma State to get to the Cheez-It, had a disappointing season.  Alabama and Clemson are, for the 15th year in a row, the odds on favorites to make the NC game and the underdog challengers are two of the usuals themselves.  Same old, same old.  I don't think UCF is one of the 4 best teams in the country, but I'd be a hell of a lot more interested in the CFP if they were in the tournament.   But luckily for all you TFH subscribers, you have DUSHEE to keep you keen and interested.   None of the Top 12 moved in the rankings.  The gap tightened between Bama and Clemson, now with less than 3-points separating the top two teams.  NC-State fans can shelter from their Snowmageddon warmed by the solace that they rose the most in the rankings this week, riding their 55-point blowout of East Carolina to an 8-spot and over 4-point rise in DUSHEE to get back into the top 25.  ECU, conversely, experienced the largest drop, falling 10 spots and 4.5 points.    UConn sealed the bottom spot, almost 10 points worse than New Mexico State.  To give you a sense of how bad UConn was this year, their TOP rated DUSHEE performance all season was in Week 1 in a 39-point loss to UCF.  They earned a -16.15 DUSHEE score for that performance.  And that was as good as they did all year.   TCU's week-to-week hasn't really changed much since I posted their numbers in the Week 13 blog post (Ohio State went up a little, UT and OU went down a little), and Cal's numbers are in the Bowl Preview.   So we'll jump to the Best and Worst Performers.   It is a pretty rare circumstance for the loser of a game to wind up in the top performers for the week, but Georgia did that in earning a 34.15 DUSHEE score while losing to Alabama by a TD.  It is not all that uncommon for a losing team to get a better score than a winning team; generally happening when a bad team keeps a game close against a good team.  I know this is a hard concept for many to wrap their brains around when in the traditional AP poll mindset ... the team that loses must drop!  But the goal of DUSHEE is to measure the relative strength of the teams, so if a good team goes into a game, say, 13 points better than another team, but only beats them by 7, that is an indication that the gap between those two teams isn't as large as was originally thought.  And that is what happened in the Georgia-Alabama game.  Georgia went in as a 13-point underdog (per DUSHEE) against the best team in the country.  They lost to that team by 7 and outgained them by almost 60.    And that is the big flaw in the AP poll.  When two teams who are close to each other in the rankings play a close game, there is no reason to change their rankings relative to each other.  That is an indication that you had them ranked correctly to begin with.  There is no need to punish the loser by dropping them in the rankings.  Statistically, the teams were about even.  So despite losing, Georgia crept closer to Alabama, closing their gap with the Tide by a little more than 2 points.   Championship Week Top 3 Performers 55.96 -- NC State vs. ECU (55 MOV, 544 YM) 34.15 -- Georgia vs. Alabama (-7 MOV, 59 YM) 29.99 -- Clemson vs. Pitt (32 MOV, 229 YM)   Championship Week Bottom 3 Performers -54.55 ECU at NCSU (-55 MOV, -544 YM) -24.20 Akron at South Carolina (-25 MOV, -134 YM) -20.51 Marshall at VaTech (-21 MOV, 16 YM)   And since we are in year-end mode, let's track down the top and bottom 10 performances for the whole year.    2018 Season Top 10 63.66 - Clemson at Wake (60 MOV, 449 YM) (Week 6) 55.96 - NC State vs. E. Carolina (55 MOV, 544 YM) (Week 14) 53.97 - Ohio vs. Buffalo (35 MOV, 364 YM) (Week 12) 53.84 - Oklahoma vs. Fla. Atlantic (49 MOV, 326 YM) (Week 1) 53.38 - Alabama vs. Arkansas St. (50 MOV, 208 YM) (Week 2) 52.38 - Alabama at Mississippi (55 MOV, 269 YM) (Week 3) 51.54 - Michigan vs. Penn St. (35 MOV, 219 YM) (Week 10) 51.43 - Mississippi vs. La-Monroe (49 MOV, 399 YM) (Week 6) 51.42 - Alabama vs. Missouri (29 MOV, 352 YM) (Week 7) 50.54 - Clemson vs. Ga. Southern (31 MOV, 455 YM) (Week 3)   2018 Season Bottom 10 -62.98 UNLV vs. New Mexico (-36 MOV, -336 YM) (Week 6) -59.78 La-Monroe at Mississippi (-49 MOV, -399 YM) (Week 6) -58.71 UConn at E. Carolina (-34 MOV, -383 YM) (Week 12) -57.87 UConn at Boise St. (-55 MOV, -629 YM) (Week 2) -57.81 Liberty at Auburn (-53 MOV, -397 YM) (Week 12) -57.46 Old Dominion at Liberty (-42 MOV, -290) (Week 1) -56.58 Duke vs. Wake (-52 MOV, -266 YM) (Week 13) -54.55 E. Carolina at NC State (-55 MOV, -544 YM) (Week 14) -53.82 Texas St. at Rutgers (-28 MOV, -247 YM) (Week 1) -52.84 Rutgers at Kansas (-41 MOV, -270 YM) (Week 3)   Overall Ratings Regular Season Final     Rank Team PD YD Score Rk +/- Score +/- 1 Alabama  36.16 265.88 36.99 0 -1.30 2 Clemson  33.17 249.73 34.21 0 0.26 3 Georgia  25.54 185.56 26.02 0 0.91 4 Michigan  21.99 199.80 24.34 0 -0.14 5 Oklahoma  19.62 155.95 20.64 0 -0.41 6 Mississippi St.  18.01 148.26 19.19 0 -0.36 7 Ohio St.  17.57 153.04 19.13 0 0.33 8 UCF  20.28 98.78 18.30 0 -0.20 9 Notre Dame  17.32 113.45 17.04 0 -0.21 10 Missouri  16.75 113.10 16.65 0 -0.53 11 Penn St.  16.80 96.26 15.87 0 -0.35 12 Texas A&M  12.83 143.03 15.48 0 -0.25 13 Boise St.  15.06 108.02 15.27 2 0.13 14 Fresno St.  16.86 83.18 15.27 -1 -0.22 15 West Virginia  15.01 99.66 14.84 2 -0.22 16 Cincinnati  13.53 114.34 14.56 0 -0.58 17 Appalachian State 14.65 91.41 14.19 -3 -1.10 18 LSU  14.17 89.52 13.78 0 -0.51 19 Iowa  14.34 83.19 13.59 0 -0.16 20 Washington St.  12.64 105.29 13.53 0 -0.19 21 Utah St.  16.49 50.55 13.44 0 -0.11 22 N.C. State  11.35 95.12 12.17 8 4.15 23 Ohio  12.04 83.43 12.07 0 -0.20 24 Washington  10.97 96.78 12.00 1 0.52 25 Utah  12.05 75.17 11.68 -3 -1.06 26 Temple  11.81 69.03 11.22 -2 -0.66 27 Florida  10.67 71.65 10.59 0 0.01 28 Army  10.30 54.54 9.51 -2 -1.83 29 Miami (FL)  7.45 67.37 8.23 0 -0.09 30 Auburn  9.75 31.94 8.05 -2 -0.49 31 Kentucky  9.24 37.67 7.99 0 0.02 32 North Texas  5.99 62.68 7.03 1 -0.13 33 Purdue  7.40 43.03 7.02 -1 -0.16 34 Texas  7.86 31.00 6.74 1 -0.12 35 Wisconsin  5.05 67.14 6.62 1 -0.16 36 UAB 4.88 58.86 6.10 1 -0.63 37 Michigan St.  5.34 52.01 6.08 1 -0.13 38 Syracuse  7.26 24.38 6.02 1 0.22 39 Buffalo  5.67 45.55 5.98 -5 -1.05 40 South Carolina  6.74 21.90 5.55 2 0.20 41 Iowa St.  6.93 17.59 5.47 -1 -0.27 42 Memphis  4.87 35.71 4.98 -1 -0.59 43 Oklahoma St.  4.46 38.56 4.84 0 -0.33 44 Stanford  7.44 -10.58 4.45 1 -0.18 45 Florida Atlantic  0.92 77.85 4.38 1 -0.24 46 BYU  2.80 44.73 4.04 1 -0.27 47 Middle Tenn. St.  3.78 22.12 3.59 3 0.38 48 Oregon  4.30 14.64 3.58 0 -0.19 49 Vanderbilt  5.72 -12.73 3.20 2 0.05 50 Georgia Tech  2.66 27.52 3.10 -1 -0.26 51 Marshall  2.50 27.90 3.02 -7 -1.78 52 Arizona St.  3.57 12.37 2.98 0 -0.14 53 Arkansas St.  1.11 37.01 2.53 0 -0.40 54 Texas Tech  2.39 16.94 2.41 0 -0.19 55 Boston Coll.  4.24 -11.06 2.29 7 0.69 56 Pittsburgh  2.95 5.45 2.23 1 -0.06 57 Nebraska  -0.34 50.34 2.21 -1 -0.15 58 Virginia  2.29 11.10 2.07 5 0.46 59 Air Force  0.49 31.57 1.86 0 -0.12 60 Miami (OH)  2.12 8.06 1.80 -2 -0.35 61 Houston  3.50 -11.79 1.76 -6 -0.69 62 Toledo  3.85 -19.18 1.64 -1 -0.20 63 Southern Miss  -1.42 51.01 1.53 -3 -0.33 64 Maryland  1.99 -3.64 1.15 1 -0.11 65 Minnesota  1.67 -2.49 0.99 -1 -0.29 66 TCU  -0.84 26.43 0.72 0 -0.15 67 Northwestern  2.21 -22.92 0.36 0 -0.45 68 Troy  1.09 -8.41 0.32 0 -0.25 69 Arizona  -3.90 57.62 0.19 0 -0.20 70 Mississippi  -3.37 47.31 0.05 2 -0.05 71 Georgia Southern 4.27 -58.39 0.02 0 -0.12 72 East. Michigan  0.15 -1.70 0.02 -2 -0.18 73 Wyoming  -1.03 4.54 -0.47 0 -0.25 74 USC  -0.86 -3.67 -0.75 0 -0.25 75 San Diego St.  -0.90 -6.00 -0.89 0 -0.23 76 Northern Illinois  -0.45 -24.20 -1.47 3 0.89 77 Nevada  -3.26 9.03 -1.73 -1 -0.27 78 Florida Intl.  -0.15 -37.79 -1.93 -1 -0.18 79 California  -1.89 -16.97 -2.08 -1 -0.18 80 Indiana  -3.72 -1.17 -2.54 1 0.03 81 LA Lafayette  -3.58 -6.27 -2.69 6 0.87 82 UCLA  -3.50 -7.63 -2.70 -2 -0.33 83 W. Michigan  -7.03 31.77 -3.15 0 0.03 84 Duke  -1.51 -48.52 -3.36 -2 -0.27 85 Baylor  -5.51 3.40 -3.51 0 -0.17 86 Colorado  -5.36 -0.83 -3.61 0 -0.18 87 Tulane  -4.21 -24.74 -4.01 -3 -0.78 88 Kansas St.  -1.47 -64.02 -4.08 0 -0.16 89 Wake Forest  -3.23 -44.28 -4.30 1 0.28 90 Tennessee  -3.93 -38.75 -4.50 -1 -0.24 91 Louisiana Tech  -6.29 -20.28 -5.17 0 -0.10 92 Virginia Tech  -5.72 -45.49 -6.02 6 2.35 93 Florida St.  -7.66 -28.17 -6.47 2 0.74 94 UNC-Charlotte -8.89 -11.94 -6.50 -2 -0.36 95 South Florida  -7.77 -48.87 -7.55 -2 -0.53 96 SMU  -6.68 -73.89 -8.03 0 -0.20 97 Hawaii  -8.07 -56.48 -8.12 0 -0.12 98 Navy  -6.57 -79.94 -8.25 3 0.68 99 North Carolina  -10.42 -31.50 -8.47 0 -0.09 100 Kansas  -7.39 -77.96 -8.70 0 -0.18 101 LA Monroe  -10.74 -49.29 -9.55 1 -0.02 102 Ball St.  -9.71 -78.83 -10.29 1 0.04 103 Arkansas  -12.82 -51.70 -11.05 1 -0.28 104 East Carolina  -15.16 -32.76 -11.70 -10 -4.58 105 Tulsa  -11.75 -93.75 -12.37 0 -0.28 106 Colorado St.  -16.57 -52.72 -13.60 0 -0.10 107 West. Kentucky  -13.37 -99.00 -13.71 0 -0.16 108 UNLV  -13.73 -107.53 -14.36 0 -0.13 109 Coastal Carolina -13.16 -120.88 -14.63 0 0.00 110 Georgia State -14.80 -109.38 -15.16 1 0.22 111 Old Dominion -16.27 -93.52 -15.38 -1 -0.45 112 Liberty -14.00 -126.36 -15.45 0 -0.01 113 Akron  -14.78 -157.71 -17.50 0 -0.90 114 Massachusetts -17.99 -118.56 -17.74 0 -0.17 115 Rutgers  -17.30 -131.61 -17.91 0 -0.18 116 New Mexico  -14.47 -172.44 -18.00 0 -0.24 117 Texas St. -17.68 -138.18 -18.48 1 -0.09 118 Illinois  -18.66 -125.56 -18.52 -1 -0.17 119 Cent. Michigan  -18.47 -132.25 -18.72 0 -0.13 120 Bowling Green  -20.31 -111.84 -18.96 0 -0.17 121 South Alabama -20.29 -126.44 -19.65 0 -0.32 122 Kent St.  -20.27 -132.98 -19.96 0 -0.14 123 Oregon St.  -20.91 -131.45 -20.30 0 0.14 124 UTEP  -20.88 -136.14 -20.51 0 -0.07 125 San Jose St.  -17.27 -187.97 -20.62 0 -0.13 126 Louisville  -23.28 -124.69 -21.56 0 0.27 127 Rice  -21.15 -163.87 -22.04 0 -0.07 128 UT-San Antonio -19.89 -210.67 -23.47 0 -0.20 129 New Mexico St.  -24.55 -157.34 -23.99 0 0.01 130 Connecticut  -31.53 -265.40 -33.88 0 -0.74   By Conference AAC 8 UCF  20.28 98.78 18.30 16 Cincinnati  13.53 114.34 14.56 26 Temple  11.81 69.03 11.22 42 Memphis  4.87 35.71 4.98 61 Houston  3.50 -11.79 1.76 87 Tulane  -4.21 -24.74 -4.01 95 South Florida  -7.77 -48.87 -7.55 96 SMU  -6.68 -73.89 -8.03 98 Navy  -6.57 -79.94 -8.25 104 East Carolina  -15.16 -32.76 -11.70 105 Tulsa  -11.75 -93.75 -12.37 130 Connecticut  -31.53 -265.40 -33.88   ACC 2 Clemson  33.17 249.73 34.21 22 N.C. State  11.35 95.12 12.17 29 Miami (FL)  7.45 67.37 8.23 38 Syracuse  7.26 24.38 6.02 50 Georgia Tech  2.66 27.52 3.10 55 Boston Coll.  4.24 -11.06 2.29 56 Pittsburgh  2.95 5.45 2.23 58 Virginia  2.29 11.10 2.07 84 Duke  -1.51 -48.52 -3.36 89 Wake Forest  -3.23 -44.28 -4.30 92 Virginia Tech  -5.72 -45.49 -6.02 93 Florida St.  -7.66 -28.17 -6.47 99 North Carolina  -10.42 -31.50 -8.47 126 Louisville  -23.28 -124.69 -21.56   B1G 4 Michigan  21.99 199.80 24.34 7 Ohio St.  17.57 153.04 19.13 11 Penn St.  16.80 96.26 15.87 19 Iowa  14.34 83.19 13.59 33 Purdue  7.40 43.03 7.02 35 Wisconsin  5.05 67.14 6.62 37 Michigan St.  5.34 52.01 6.08 57 Nebraska  -0.34 50.34 2.21 64 Maryland  1.99 -3.64 1.15 65 Minnesota  1.67 -2.49 0.99 67 Northwestern  2.21 -22.92 0.36 80 Indiana  -3.72 -1.17 -2.54 115 Rutgers  -17.30 -131.61 -17.91 118 Illinois  -18.66 -125.56 -18.52   BXII-II 5 Oklahoma  19.62 155.95 20.64 15 West Virginia  15.01 99.66 14.84 34 Texas  7.86 31.00 6.74 41 Iowa St.  6.93 17.59 5.47 43 Oklahoma St.  4.46 38.56 4.84 54 Texas Tech  2.39 16.94 2.41 66 TCU  -0.84 26.43 0.72 85 Baylor  -5.51 3.40 -3.51 88 Kansas St.  -1.47 -64.02 -4.08 100 Kansas  -7.39 -77.96 -8.70   CUSA 32 North Texas  5.99 62.68 7.03 36 UAB 4.88 58.86 6.10 45 Florida Atlantic  0.92 77.85 4.38 47 Middle Tenn. St.  3.78 22.12 3.59 51 Marshall  2.50 27.90 3.02 63 Southern Miss  -1.42 51.01 1.53 78 Florida Intl.  -0.15 -37.79 -1.93 91 Louisiana Tech  -6.29 -20.28 -5.17 94 UNC-Charlotte -8.89 -11.94 -6.50 107 West. Kentucky  -13.37 -99.00 -13.71 111 Old Dominion -16.27 -93.52 -15.38 124 UTEP  -20.88 -136.14 -20.51 127 Rice  -21.15 -163.87 -22.04 128 UT-San Antonio -19.89 -210.67 -23.47   Indies 9 Notre Dame  17.32 113.45 17.04 28 Army  10.30 54.54 9.51 46 BYU  2.80 44.73 4.04 112 Liberty -14.00 -126.36 -15.45 114 Massachusetts -17.99 -118.56 -17.74 129 New Mexico St.  -24.55 -157.34 -23.99   MAC 23 Ohio  12.04 83.43 12.07 39 Buffalo  5.67 45.55 5.98 60 Miami (OH)  2.12 8.06 1.80 62 Toledo  3.85 -19.18 1.64 72 East. Michigan  0.15 -1.70 0.02 76 Northern Illinois  -0.45 -24.20 -1.47 83 W. Michigan  -7.03 31.77 -3.15 102 Ball St.  -9.71 -78.83 -10.29 113 Akron  -14.78 -157.71 -17.50 119 Cent. Michigan  -18.47 -132.25 -18.72 120 Bowling Green  -20.31 -111.84 -18.96 122 Kent St.  -20.27 -132.98 -19.96   MWC 13 Boise St.  15.06 108.02 15.27 14 Fresno St.  16.86 83.18 15.27 21 Utah St.  16.49 50.55 13.44 59 Air Force  0.49 31.57 1.86 73 Wyoming  -1.03 4.54 -0.47 75 San Diego St.  -0.90 -6.00 -0.89 77 Nevada  -3.26 9.03 -1.73 97 Hawaii  -8.07 -56.48 -8.12 106 Colorado St.  -16.57 -52.72 -13.60 108 UNLV  -13.73 -107.53 -14.36 116 New Mexico  -14.47 -172.44 -18.00 125 San Jose St.  -17.27 -187.97 -20.62   P12 20 Washington St.  12.64 105.29 13.53 24 Washington  10.97 96.78 12.00 25 Utah  12.05 75.17 11.68 44 Stanford  7.44 -10.58 4.45 48 Oregon  4.30 14.64 3.58 52 Arizona St.  3.57 12.37 2.98 69 Arizona  -3.90 57.62 0.19 74 USC  -0.86 -3.67 -0.75 79 California  -1.89 -16.97 -2.08 82 UCLA  -3.50 -7.63 -2.70 86 Colorado  -5.36 -0.83 -3.61 123 Oregon St.  -20.91 -131.45 -20.30   SBC 17 Appalachian State 14.65 91.41 14.19 53 Arkansas St.  1.11 37.01 2.53 68 Troy  1.09 -8.41 0.32 71 Georgia Southern 4.27 -58.39 0.02 81 LA Lafayette  -3.58 -6.27 -2.69 101 LA Monroe  -10.74 -49.29 -9.55 109 Coastal Carolina -13.16 -120.88 -14.63 110 Georgia State -14.80 -109.38 -15.16 117 Texas St. -17.68 -138.18 -18.48 121 South Alabama -20.29 -126.44 -19.65   SEC 1 Alabama  36.16 265.88 36.99 3 Georgia  25.54 185.56 26.02 6 Mississippi St.  18.01 148.26 19.19 10 Missouri  16.75 113.10 16.65 12 Texas A&M  12.83 143.03 15.48 18 LSU  14.17 89.52 13.78 27 Florida  10.67 71.65 10.59 30 Auburn  9.75 31.94 8.05 31 Kentucky  9.24 37.67 7.99 40 South Carolina  6.74 21.90 5.55 49 Vanderbilt  5.72 -12.73 3.20 70 Mississippi  -3.37 47.31 0.05 90 Tennessee  -3.93 -38.75 -4.50 103 Arkansas  -12.82 -51.70 -11.05    

Duquesne Frog

Duquesne Frog

 

Week 5 DUSHEE Rankings

Allow me to apologize in advance. Baylor is the number one team in the land according to DUSHEE. Now wait, wait. ... WAIT! Remember the discussion from the first NMMH blog post. Teams are not well "interconnected," as Sagarin puts it, at this point. Baylor's ranking is coming based on the results of two games, against Buffalo and ULaMon. And because Buffalo put a pretty decent whooping on UConn this week, Buffalo isn't looking as bad (51st) in the rankings as they probably are in reality. Hang 70 on a fair-to-middlin' team (or at least a team that appears fair-to-middlin after a few games into the season) and your PM and YM will be high. Very high. Point is this. Right now Baylor is sporting a PD of 54 and a YD of 397.5. Since 2000, the largest PD any team has had at the conclusion of the season was the 2005 Texas team at 38.4 and the largest YD was the 2000 Florida State team at 282. So unless this year's Baylor team is perhaps the best team in the history of college football, do not expect those numbers to stay anywhere close to where they are. Not only will they fall as they play close games against better opponents but expect their scores against Buffalo and ULaMon (especially Buffalo) to fall as the season progresses and those teams fall in the rankings. As a basis for comparison, Texas Tech was the top ranked team in DUSHEE at this point last season with a PD of 31.1 and a YD of 332. They ended up ranked 39th with a PD of 3.8 and a YD of 100.8. This begs a question: Why not cap blowouts? Other ranking systems do that and there may be some validity to the argument for doing so. The reason why I don't is because the selection of the cap is arbitrary and I'm trying to put in as few arbitrary judgements into the methodology as possible. Where do I cap it? 28? 35? Why? Do I cap yardage too? Again, where? I'd argue that the fact that Baylor can hang 70 on Buffalo while most other teams cannot is relevant information. Capping their 57-point victory to 28 or some other arbitrary value artificially brings them down to a level of a far greater number of teams who have the ability to beat Buffalo by a similar score. So I'm not convinced blowouts of that magnitude should be thrown out or their effect reduced. I'd prefer to let a more complete and rounded field of competition affect the numbers. But nonetheless mock away. DUSHEE probably deserves it. The Frogs, by the way, open the polls at 42nd with a PD of 10.0 and a YD of 43.2. Here are the rankings by team, followed by the rankings by conference. Rank Team PD YD Points 1 Baylor 54.08 397.50 100.00 2 Washington 50.56 381.83 94.33 3 Oregon 40.44 180.61 65.10 4 Clemson 35.33 223.67 62.34 5 Louisville 33.22 223.39 59.70 6 Georgia 27.73 289.40 58.38 7 Florida St. 32.56 214.50 58.14 8 UCLA 30.42 215.19 55.55 9 Iowa 29.63 126.54 47.21 10 Alabama 31.71 80.00 45.92 11 Florida 18.33 272.17 45.31 12 Arizona St. 22.53 208.17 45.19 13 Arizona 21.81 168.47 41.00 14 Utah 19.33 169.67 38.04 15 Miami (FL) 19.36 164.03 37.60 16 Stanford 20.17 135.67 36.25 17 LSU 19.87 130.30 35.43 18 Virginia Tech 17.13 171.08 35.42 19 South Carolina 15.17 198.67 35.28 20 Illinois 24.94 41.39 34.34 21 Penn St. 17.13 156.58 34.21 22 Nebraska 18.56 134.61 34.16 23 Ohio St. 16.79 150.79 33.32 24 Wisconsin 11.75 181.63 29.63 25 Texas A&M 17.63 92.21 29.49 26 N.C. State 12.22 146.50 27.30 27 Mississippi St. 14.22 112.06 26.92 28 Syracuse 18.83 28.33 25.68 29 Missouri 16.78 33.78 23.59 30 Oregon St. 7.58 169.92 23.50 31 Oklahoma 9.96 131.60 23.26 32 West Virginia 10.28 110.67 21.92 33 Texas Tech 16.17 1.83 20.18 34 Auburn 13.33 42.73 20.07 35 Oklahoma St. 8.42 114.25 19.91 36 California 5.89 149.94 19.74 37 UCF 9.79 85.21 19.20 38 Mississippi 14.67 10.00 19.00 39 Georgia Tech 6.67 126.67 18.77 40 BYU 3.88 147.38 17.04 41 Kentucky 5.42 121.38 16.79 42 TCU 10.00 43.17 15.97 43 Houston 8.53 60.00 15.55 44 Tennessee 10.79 14.54 14.58 45 Iowa St. 7.83 57.83 14.51 46 Indiana 12.17 -9.83 14.26 47 Ohio 10.22 15.67 13.96 48 Utah St. 5.23 78.10 12.96 49 USC 4.07 86.13 12.19 50 Boise St. 3.17 82.54 10.78 51 Buffalo 9.33 -12.50 10.52 52 Notre Dame 5.57 39.93 10.21 53 East Carolina 8.92 -15.17 9.79 54 Maryland 3.33 67.17 9.71 55 Pittsburgh 3.38 34.25 7.02 56 Fresno St. 4.33 17.33 6.81 57 Washington St. 2.73 39.29 6.64 58 Michigan 3.35 21.81 5.97 59 Rice 3.15 16.27 5.25 60 Texas 3.67 7.48 5.16 61 Northwestern 4.33 -4.44 5.00 62 Ball St. 5.83 -37.92 4.08 63 Arkansas 1.38 7.50 2.33 64 Northern Illinois 6.39 -82.36 1.08 65 Virginia -1.00 0.17 -1.22 66 Duke -3.13 23.42 -1.93 67 Toledo -1.38 -7.17 -2.30 68 UT-San Antonio -7.13 64.43 -3.49 69 Rutgers -0.28 -37.89 -3.49 70 West. Kentucky -7.71 69.46 -3.78 71 Kansas St. 1.83 -78.83 -4.27 72 Boston Coll. 0.06 -60.36 -4.94 73 Wyoming 0.75 -76.81 -5.45 74 South Alabama -4.56 -27.56 -7.93 75 Marshall -7.78 12.94 -8.56 76 Bowling Green -6.21 -20.83 -9.42 77 North Carolina -4.83 -46.63 -9.86 78 Colorado -11.50 42.33 -10.73 79 Minnesota 2.67 -178.60 -11.52 80 Navy -4.25 -77.50 -11.70 81 Michigan St. -9.89 2.47 -12.05 82 North Texas -1.00 -131.56 -12.16 83 San Jose St. -8.67 -18.56 -12.28 84 Cincinnati -8.33 -34.28 -13.17 85 Army -8.67 -32.33 -13.42 86 San Diego St. -10.81 -10.25 -14.24 87 Texas St. -0.78 -167.50 -14.87 88 Vanderbilt -6.63 -103.79 -16.82 89 Connecticut -8.28 -81.61 -17.03 90 Memphis -8.89 -72.78 -17.05 91 Akron -9.71 -61.50 -17.13 92 Florida Atlantic -11.03 -97.43 -21.76 93 Tulsa -15.00 -60.92 -23.64 94 LA Monroe -15.67 -68.50 -25.10 95 SMU -20.44 -26.94 -27.56 96 Middle Tenn. St. -13.58 -131.35 -27.73 97 South Florida -18.08 -76.42 -28.75 98 Nevada -14.17 -139.88 -29.16 99 Colorado St. -11.17 -185.17 -29.21 100 LA Lafayette -13.89 -144.83 -29.23 101 Kansas -15.67 -152.33 -32.05 102 Louisiana Tech -19.92 -98.83 -32.88 103 Kent St. -16.08 -161.38 -33.32 104 East. Michigan -21.50 -80.83 -33.35 105 Tulane -18.04 -133.92 -33.47 106 New Mexico -20.54 -97.19 -33.52 107 UNLV -19.88 -117.67 -34.39 108 Purdue -23.06 -77.15 -34.98 109 Hawaii -19.73 -131.02 -35.32 110 Arkansas St. -20.17 -144.42 -36.97 111 Temple -16.00 -214.33 -37.61 112 UAB -26.25 -136.89 -43.88 113 UTEP -23.73 -182.90 -44.58 114 W. Michigan -26.75 -158.54 -46.30 115 Massachusetts -24.83 -209.78 -48.18 116 Florida Intl. -26.89 -205.61 -50.38 117 Idaho -26.63 -212.83 -50.66 118 Air Force -24.33 -248.67 -50.79 119 Cent. Michigan -33.75 -133.58 -52.90 120 Southern Miss -34.33 -129.54 -53.29 121 Wake Forest -27.38 -254.46 -55.04 122 Troy -34.96 -155.67 -56.23 123 New Mexico St. -30.70 -278.13 -61.12 124 Miami (OH) -32.08 -415.83-74.27 Rank Team PD YD Score Conf 5 Louisville 33.22222 223.39 59.70 AAC 37 UCF 9.791667 85.21 19.20 AAC 43 Houston 8.527778 60.00 15.55 AAC 69 Rutgers -0.27778 -37.89 -3.49 AAC 84 Cincinnati -8.33333 -34.28 -13.17 AAC 89 Connecticut -8.27778 -81.61 -17.03 AAC 90 Memphis -8.88889 -72.78 -17.05 AAC 95 SMU -20.4444 -26.94 -27.56 AAC 97 South Florida -18.0833 -76.42 -28.75 AAC 111 Temple -16 -214.33 -37.61 AAC 4 Clemson 35.33333 223.67 62.34 ACC 7 Florida St. 32.55556 214.50 58.14 ACC 15 Miami (FL) 19.36111 164.03 37.60 ACC 18 Virginia Tech 17.125 171.08 35.42 ACC 26 N.C. State 12.22222 146.50 27.30 ACC 28 Syracuse 18.83333 28.33 25.68 ACC 39 Georgia Tech 6.666667 126.67 18.77 ACC 54 Maryland 3.333333 67.17 9.71 ACC 55 Pittsburgh 3.375 34.25 7.02 ACC 65 Virginia -1 0.17 -1.22 ACC 66 Duke -3.125 23.42 -1.93 ACC 72 Boston Coll. 0.055556 -60.36 -4.94 ACC 77 North Carolina -4.83333 -46.63 -9.86 ACC 121 Wake Forest -27.375 -254.46 -55.04 ACC 9 Iowa 29.625 126.54 47.21 B10 20 Illinois 24.94444 41.39 34.34 B10 21 Penn St. 17.125 156.58 34.21 B10 22 Nebraska 18.55556 134.61 34.16 B10 23 Ohio St. 16.79167 150.79 33.32 B10 24 Wisconsin 11.75 181.63 29.63 B10 46 Indiana 12.16667 -9.83 14.26 B10 58 Michigan 3.354167 21.81 5.97 B10 61 Northwestern 4.333333 -4.44 5.00 B10 79 Minnesota 2.666667 -178.60 -11.52 B10 81 Michigan St. -9.88889 2.47 -12.05 B10 108 Purdue -23.0625 -77.15 -34.98 B10 1 Baylor 54.08333 397.50 100.00 B12 31 Oklahoma 9.958333 131.60 23.26 B12 32 West Virginia 10.27778 110.67 21.92 B12 33 Texas Tech 16.16667 1.83 20.18 B12 35 Oklahoma St. 8.416667 114.25 19.91 B12 42 TCU 10 43.17 15.97 B12 45 Iowa St. 7.833333 57.83 14.51 B12 60 Texas 3.666667 7.48 5.16 B12 71 Kansas St. 1.833333 -78.83 -4.27 B12 101 Kansas -15.6667 -152.33 -32.05 B12 53 East Carolina 8.916667 -15.17 9.79 CUSA 59 Rice 3.145833 16.27 5.25 CUSA 68 UT-San Antonio -7.13333 64.43 -3.49 CUSA 75 Marshall -7.77778 12.94 -8.56 CUSA 82 North Texas -1 -131.56 -12.16 CUSA 92 Florida Atlantic -11.0333 -97.43 -21.76 CUSA 93 Tulsa -15 -60.92 -23.64 CUSA 96 Middle Tenn. St. -13.5833 -131.35 -27.73 CUSA 102 Louisiana Tech -19.9167 -98.83 -32.88 CUSA 105 Tulane -18.0417 -133.92 -33.47 CUSA 112 UAB -26.25 -136.89 -43.88 CUSA 113 UTEP -23.7292 -182.90 -44.58 CUSA 116 Florida Intl. -26.8889 -205.61 -50.38 CUSA 120 Southern Miss -34.3333 -129.54 -53.29 CUSA 40 BYU 3.875 147.38 17.04 Ind 52 Notre Dame 5.566667 39.93 10.21 Ind 80 Navy -4.25 -77.50 -11.70 Ind 85 Army -8.66667 -32.33 -13.42 Ind 117 Idaho -26.6333 -212.83 -50.66 Ind 123 New Mexico St. -30.7 -278.13 -61.12 Ind 47 Ohio 10.22222 15.67 13.96 MAC 51 Buffalo 9.333333 -12.50 10.52 MAC 62 Ball St. 5.833333 -37.92 4.08 MAC 64 Northern Illinois 6.388889 -82.36 1.08 MAC 67 Toledo -1.375 -7.17 -2.30 MAC 76 Bowling Green -6.20833 -20.83 -9.42 MAC 91 Akron -9.70833 -61.50 -17.13 MAC 103 Kent St. -16.0833 -161.38 -33.32 MAC 104 East. Michigan -21.5 -80.83 -33.35 MAC 114 W. Michigan -26.75 -158.54 -46.30 MAC 115 Massachusetts -24.8333 -209.78 -48.18 MAC 119 Cent. Michigan -33.75 -133.58 -52.90 MAC 124 Miami (OH) -32.0833 -415.83 -74.27 MAC 48 Utah St. 5.229167 78.10 12.96 MWC 50 Boise St. 3.166667 82.54 10.78 MWC 56 Fresno St. 4.333333 17.33 6.81 MWC 73 Wyoming 0.75 -76.81 -5.45 MWC 83 San Jose St. -8.66667 -18.56 -12.28 MWC 86 San Diego St. -10.8056 -10.25 -14.24 MWC 98 Nevada -14.1667 -139.88 -29.16 MWC 99 Colorado St. -11.1667 -185.17 -29.21 MWC 106 New Mexico -20.5417 -97.19 -33.52 MWC 107 UNLV -19.875 -117.67 -34.39 MWC 109 Hawaii -19.7292 -131.02 -35.32 MWC 118 Air Force -24.3333 -248.67 -50.79 MWC 2 Washington 50.55556 381.83 94.33 P10 3 Oregon 40.44444 180.61 65.10 P10 8 UCLA 30.41667 215.19 55.55 P10 12 Arizona St. 22.52778 208.17 45.19 P10 13 Arizona 21.80556 168.47 41.00 P10 14 Utah 19.33333 169.67 38.04 P10 16 Stanford 20.16667 135.67 36.25 P10 30 Oregon St. 7.583333 169.92 23.50 P10 36 California 5.888889 149.94 19.74 P10 49 USC 4.066667 86.13 12.19 P10 57 Washington St. 2.729167 39.29 6.64 P10 78 Colorado -11.5 42.33 -10.73 P10 70 West. Kentucky -7.70833 69.46 -3.78 SBC 74 South Alabama -4.55556 -27.56 -7.93 SBC 87 Texas St. -0.77778 -167.50 -14.87 SBC 94 LA Monroe -15.6667 -68.50 -25.10 SBC 100 LA Lafayette -13.8889 -144.83 -29.23 SBC 110 Arkansas St. -20.1667 -144.42 -36.97 SBC 122 Troy -34.9583 -155.67 -56.23 SBC 6 Georgia 27.72917 289.40 58.38 SEC 10 Alabama 31.70833 80.00 45.92 SEC 11 Florida 18.33333 272.17 45.31 SEC 17 LSU 19.86667 130.30 35.43 SEC 19 South Carolina 15.16667 198.67 35.28 SEC 25 Texas A&M 17.625 92.21 29.49 SEC 27 Mississippi St. 14.22222 112.06 26.92 SEC 29 Missouri 16.77778 33.78 23.59 SEC 34 Auburn 13.33333 42.73 20.07 SEC 38 Mississippi 14.66667 10.00 19.00 SEC 41 Kentucky 5.416667 121.38 16.79 SEC 44 Tennessee 10.79167 14.54 14.58 SEC 63 Arkansas 1.375 7.50 2.33 SEC 88 Vanderbilt -6.625 -103.79 -16.82 SEC

Duquesne Frog

Duquesne Frog

 

Week 7 DUSHEE Rankings

DUSHEE went pretty easy on us, dropping us down to 10. Baylor now leads the country in Yardage Differential, coming in 3rd overall. Auburn had a big enough statistical lead that it remains 1 despite losing to now #2 MissSt. Marshall creeps up another spot ... if I get some time this week I'm want to focus on their performance. And Eastern Mich. almost pulled itself out of the cellar with their win but is still barely behind SMU for worst team in the country. Rank Team PD YD Score 1 Auburn 35.72 260.40 36.86 2 Mississippi St. 33.18 174.13 30.84 3 Baylor 23.01 275.10 29.12 4 Mississippi 28.35 195.89 28.71 5 Alabama 22.52 266.52 28.36 6 Nebraska 25.00 221.44 27.76 7 Marshall 25.64 190.20 26.62 8 Ohio St. 23.20 164.50 23.71 9 Georgia 25.56 132.08 23.66 10 TCU 27.46 77.64 22.20 ________________________________________________ 11 Oklahoma 26.47 88.16 22.06 12 Stanford 19.79 168.91 21.66 13 Michigan St. 20.86 147.66 21.30 14 Texas A&M 17.26 146.03 18.82 15 LSU 18.96 100.97 17.70 16 USC 16.48 127.30 17.37 17 Tennessee 19.47 87.37 17.36 18 Florida St. 19.57 85.40 17.33 19 Notre Dame 17.23 115.56 17.28 20 Clemson 16.70 119.10 17.10 ________________________________________________ 21 Kansas St. 16.03 127.98 17.09 22 Oregon 19.73 72.02 16.76 23 Virginia Tech 16.25 117.20 16.70 24 Miami (FL) 14.88 131.95 16.53 25 Arkansas 14.83 126.24 16.21 26 UCLA 16.23 93.12 15.49 27 Louisville 13.35 128.74 15.35 28 Wisconsin 11.22 142.47 14.62 29 Florida 15.07 48.73 12.49 30 Boston Coll. 9.06 128.15 12.46 _________________________________________________ 31 Arizona 11.88 82.93 12.07 32 Georgia Tech 12.82 67.98 11.95 33 Virginia 7.04 136.18 11.52 34 UAB 9.27 75.06 9.94 35 Pittsburgh 5.65 119.75 9.77 36 Penn St. 6.19 106.24 9.45 37 Arizona St. 6.70 92.50 9.10 38 West Virginia 3.66 130.62 8.98 39 South Carolina 8.48 57.32 8.53 40 BYU 7.44 53.37 7.64 _______________________________________________ 41 Boise St. 3.99 94.96 7.42 42 Texas 4.68 85.24 7.39 43 Navy 6.32 60.93 7.27 44 Rutgers 3.84 91.10 7.13 45 Syracuse 3.33 96.92 7.08 46 Northwestern 5.41 69.13 7.07 47 Utah 10.30 2.33 6.98 48 Duke 10.27 -5.09 6.59 49 Kentucky 7.14 29.34 6.23 50 Minnesota 7.55 21.63 6.12 ___________________________________________________ 51 Oklahoma St. 9.06 -5.65 5.76 52 Iowa St. 5.91 27.09 5.30 53 Louisiana Tech 8.30 -5.29 5.27 54 Memphis 7.80 -1.65 5.12 55 Washington 12.02 -58.61 5.08 56 Michigan 3.33 49.83 4.72 57 Colorado St. 6.25 7.10 4.52 58 Oregon St. 2.88 44.03 4.12 59 Missouri 7.39 -17.29 4.06 60 Arkansas St. 1.70 56.87 3.98 ____________________________________________________ 61 Georgia Southern 3.96 22.26 3.76 62 Washington St. 0.57 61.31 3.45 63 Iowa 3.16 17.22 2.97 64 East Carolina -0.60 65.87 2.90 65 West. Kentucky 1.22 36.66 2.65 66 Utah St. 3.22 4.62 2.38 67 Colorado -5.40 61.08 -0.54 68 Maryland 3.65 -61.10 -0.63 69 California -0.12 -14.64 -0.81 70 Nevada 1.34 -37.76 -1.00 _____________________________________________________ 71 N.C. State -1.83 1.60 -1.14 72 Akron -1.90 -13.28 -1.93 73 Rice -4.66 -3.38 -3.27 74 UCF 0.01 -69.80 -3.49 75 South Alabama -4.37 -26.44 -4.24 76 Illinois -3.08 -47.28 -4.42 77 Temple 1.18 -105.20 -4.49 78 Florida Intl. -0.91 -86.98 -4.96 79 Houston -3.71 -54.63 -5.21 80 Middle Tenn. St. -4.88 -50.80 -5.80 ____________________________________________________ 81 Purdue -2.89 -77.69 -5.82 82 Air Force -5.51 -45.48 -5.95 83 North Carolina -5.77 -45.77 -6.14 84 Hawaii -6.51 -38.96 -6.29 85 Indiana -5.65 -52.54 -6.40 86 Texas Tech -9.83 -11.08 -7.11 87 San Jose St. -14.01 22.03 -8.24 88 UT-San Antonio -5.35 -96.53 -8.40 89 Cincinnati -6.32 -103.25 -9.39 90 Toledo -10.86 -49.88 -9.74 _____________________________________________________ 91 Cent. Michigan -12.52 -49.75 -10.84 92 W. Michigan -9.19 -96.22 -10.95 93 Kansas -11.68 -63.74 -10.98 94 Miami (OH) -12.22 -83.25 -12.32 95 Vanderbilt -9.89 -135.06 -13.36 96 San Diego St. -15.96 -87.85 -15.04 97 Ohio -14.82 -105.10 -15.14 98 Ball St. -11.24 -154.09 -15.21 99 Tulane -19.37 -46.78 -15.26 100 Bowling Green -13.71 -122.58 -15.28 _______________________________________________________ 101 Fresno St. -15.11 -113.00 -15.73 102 Army -15.47 -110.38 -15.84 103 LA Monroe -17.32 -94.98 -16.30 104 UTEP -16.28 -110.89 -16.41 105 Old Dominion -16.18 -120.60 -16.83 106 Troy -19.83 -74.54 -16.95 107 Northern Illinois -16.80 -115.73 -17.00 108 Connecticut -19.83 -83.45 -17.40 109 Buffalo -21.02 -70.75 -17.56 110 Texas St. -17.50 -118.15 -17.59 __________________________________________________________ 111 Wyoming -15.91 -143.70 -17.81 112 Massachusetts -18.28 -129.76 -18.69 113 South Florida -16.06 -172.06 -19.33 114 Idaho -20.08 -125.72 -19.69 115 Florida Atlantic -17.23 -172.46 -20.12 116 Wake Forest -13.38 -231.21 -20.50 117 New Mexico -18.74 -166.31 -20.82 118 LA Lafayette -22.26 -121.69 -20.94 119 Tulsa -19.67 -166.52 -21.45 120 Southern Miss -24.72 -161.15 -24.55 ___________________________________________________________ 121 New Mexico St. -27.34 -133.39 -24.91 122 North Texas -25.45 -164.94 -25.23 123 Georgia State -26.70 -159.93 -25.81 124 Appalachian State -28.66 -161.85 -27.22 125 Kent St. -27.02 -199.38 -28.00 126 UNLV -31.94 -207.65 -31.69 127 SMU -38.92 -261.78 -39.06 128 East. Michigan -35.74 -314.73 -39.59 By Conference Rank Team PD YD Score 54 Memphis 7.80 -1.65 5.12 64 East Carolina -0.60 65.87 2.90 74 UCF 0.01 -69.80 -3.49 77 Temple 1.18 -105.20 -4.49 79 Houston -3.71 -54.63 -5.21 89 Cincinnati -6.32 -103.25 -9.39 108 Connecticut -19.83 -83.45 -17.40 113 South Florida -16.06 -172.06 -19.33 119 Tulsa -19.67 -166.52 -21.45 127 SMU -38.92 -261.78 -39.06 _____________________________________________________ 18 Florida St. 19.57 85.40 17.33 20 Clemson 16.70 119.10 17.10 23 Virginia Tech 16.25 117.20 16.70 24 Miami (FL) 14.88 131.95 16.53 27 Louisville 13.35 128.74 15.35 30 Boston Coll. 9.06 128.15 12.46 32 Georgia Tech 12.82 67.98 11.95 33 Virginia 7.04 136.18 11.52 35 Pittsburgh 5.65 119.75 9.77 45 Syracuse 3.33 96.92 7.08 48 Duke 10.27 -5.09 6.59 71 N.C. State -1.83 1.60 -1.14 83 North Carolina -5.77 -45.77 -6.14 116 Wake Forest -13.38 -231.21 -20.50 _______________________________________________________ 6 Nebraska 25.00 221.44 27.76 8 Ohio St. 23.20 164.50 23.71 13 Michigan St. 20.86 147.66 21.30 28 Wisconsin 11.22 142.47 14.62 36 Penn St. 6.19 106.24 9.45 44 Rutgers 3.84 91.10 7.13 46 Northwestern 5.41 69.13 7.07 50 Minnesota 7.55 21.63 6.12 56 Michigan 3.33 49.83 4.72 63 Iowa 3.16 17.22 2.97 68 Maryland 3.65 -61.10 -0.63 76 Illinois -3.08 -47.28 -4.42 81 Purdue -2.89 -77.69 -5.82 85 Indiana -5.65 -52.54 -6.40 ___________________________________________________________ 3 Baylor 23.01 275.10 29.12 10 TCU 27.46 77.64 22.20 11 Oklahoma 26.47 88.16 22.06 21 Kansas St. 16.03 127.98 17.09 38 West Virginia 3.66 130.62 8.98 42 Texas 4.68 85.24 7.39 51 Oklahoma St. 9.06 -5.65 5.76 52 Iowa St. 5.91 27.09 5.30 86 Texas Tech -9.83 -11.08 -7.11 93 Kansas -11.68 -63.74 -10.98 ___________________________________________________________ 7 Marshall 25.64 190.20 26.62 34 UAB 9.27 75.06 9.94 53 Louisiana Tech 8.30 -5.29 5.27 65 West. Kentucky 1.22 36.66 2.65 73 Rice -4.66 -3.38 -3.27 78 Florida Intl. -0.91 -86.98 -4.96 80 Middle Tenn. St. -4.88 -50.80 -5.80 88 UT-San Antonio -5.35 -96.53 -8.40 99 Tulane -19.37 -46.78 -15.26 104 UTEP -16.28 -110.89 -16.41 105 Old Dominion -16.18 -120.60 -16.83 115 Florida Atlantic -17.23 -172.46 -20.12 120 Southern Miss -24.72 -161.15 -24.55 122 North Texas -25.45 -164.94 -25.23 _____________________________________________________________ 19 Notre Dame 17.23 115.56 17.28 40 BYU 7.44 53.37 7.64 43 Navy 6.32 60.93 7.27 102 Army -15.47 -110.38 -15.84 ___________________________________________________________ 72 Akron -1.90 -13.28 -1.93 90 Toledo -10.86 -49.88 -9.74 91 Cent. Michigan -12.52 -49.75 -10.84 92 W. Michigan -9.19 -96.22 -10.95 94 Miami (OH) -12.22 -83.25 -12.32 97 Ohio -14.82 -105.10 -15.14 98 Ball St. -11.24 -154.09 -15.21 100 Bowling Green -13.71 -122.58 -15.28 107 Northern Illinois -16.80 -115.73 -17.00 109 Buffalo -21.02 -70.75 -17.56 112 Massachusetts -18.28 -129.76 -18.69 125 Kent St. -27.02 -199.38 -28.00 128 East. Michigan -35.74 -314.73 -39.59 ____________________________________________________________ 41 Boise St. 3.99 94.96 7.42 57 Colorado St. 6.25 7.10 4.52 66 Utah St. 3.22 4.62 2.38 70 Nevada 1.34 -37.76 -1.00 82 Air Force -5.51 -45.48 -5.95 84 Hawaii -6.51 -38.96 -6.29 87 San Jose St. -14.01 22.03 -8.24 96 San Diego St. -15.96 -87.85 -15.04 101 Fresno St. -15.11 -113.00 -15.73 111 Wyoming -15.91 -143.70 -17.81 117 New Mexico -18.74 -166.31 -20.82 126 UNLV -31.94 -207.65 -31.69 ________________________________________________________________ 12 Stanford 19.79 168.91 21.66 16 USC 16.48 127.30 17.37 22 Oregon 19.73 72.02 16.76 26 UCLA 16.23 93.12 15.49 31 Arizona 11.88 82.93 12.07 37 Arizona St. 6.70 92.50 9.10 47 Utah 10.30 2.33 6.98 55 Washington 12.02 -58.61 5.08 58 Oregon St. 2.88 44.03 4.12 62 Washington St. 0.57 61.31 3.45 67 Colorado -5.40 61.08 -0.54 69 California -0.12 -14.64 -0.81 ___________________________________________________________________ 60 Arkansas St. 1.70 56.87 3.98 61 Georgia Southern 3.96 22.26 3.76 75 South Alabama -4.37 -26.44 -4.24 103 LA Monroe -17.32 -94.98 -16.30 106 Troy -19.83 -74.54 -16.95 110 Texas St. -17.50 -118.15 -17.59 114 Idaho -20.08 -125.72 -19.69 118 LA Lafayette -22.26 -121.69 -20.94 121 New Mexico St. -27.34 -133.39 -24.91 123 Georgia State -26.70 -159.93 -25.81 124 Appalachian State -28.66 -161.85 -27.22 __________________________________________________________________ 1 Auburn 35.72 260.40 36.86 2 Mississippi St. 33.18 174.13 30.84 4 Mississippi 28.35 195.89 28.71 5 Alabama 22.52 266.52 28.36 9 Georgia 25.56 132.08 23.66 14 Texas A&M 17.26 146.03 18.82 15 LSU 18.96 100.97 17.70 17 Tennessee 19.47 87.37 17.36 25 Arkansas 14.83 126.24 16.21 29 Florida 15.07 48.73 12.49 39 South Carolina 8.48 57.32 8.53 49 Kentucky 7.14 29.34 6.23 59 Missouri 7.39 -17.29 4.06 95 Vanderbilt -9.89 -135.06 -13.36

Duquesne Frog

Duquesne Frog

 

Week 8 DUSHEE Rankings

Some pretty big swings in the rankings this week as Alabama, propelled by certainly the biggest PD of this season and probably one of the biggest since I've been doing this, is now first in the rankings. Alabama's PD against A&M was 72.2 and the next highest PD on the season has been Auburn's 55.2 against LSU in week 6. I haven't had a chance to go back and see what the highest PD's in DUSHEE history have been, but I'd be surprised if 72.2 is not the highest. Alabama's YD of 561 against A&M was the third highest of the season behind Alabama's 640 in week 4 against Florida and Nebraska's 565 in week 1 against Florida Atlantic. TCU climbed a spot to 9 getting a big boost in YD and staying about level in PD. DUSHEE doesn't think much of Oklahoma State, ranking them a very middling 64th. TCU is now the highest rated Big 12-2 school, one spot ahead of Baylor. And SMU for the first time has usurped Eastern Michigan for the worst team in FBS ... Rank Team PD YD Score 1 Alabama 29.29 324.42 35.54 2 Auburn 34.57 247.67 35.27 3 Mississippi 29.73 202.10 29.79 4 Mississippi St. 31.45 167.11 29.21 5 Ohio St. 28.91 199.91 29.14 6 Nebraska 25.48 231.47 28.41 7 Michigan St. 23.88 203.63 25.97 8 Marshall 26.73 153.73 25.41 9 TCU 27.78 138.97 25.38 10 Baylor 17.29 232.53 23.00 11 Oklahoma 23.94 118.53 21.81 12 LSU 22.18 125.98 21.00 13 Oregon 23.31 106.00 20.77 14 Georgia 22.86 93.34 19.85 15 Notre Dame 17.21 134.52 18.12 16 West Virginia 11.34 189.19 16.90 17 USC 16.18 120.35 16.73 18 Miami (FL) 15.23 132.93 16.71 19 Kansas St. 17.80 93.09 16.46 20 Arkansas 14.44 133.44 16.21 21 Clemson 14.84 123.42 15.98 22 Wisconsin 11.69 141.01 14.76 23 Florida St. 18.12 54.17 14.75 24 Stanford 12.18 130.75 14.57 25 Virginia Tech 13.66 105.52 14.31 26 UCLA 13.32 101.34 13.88 27 Louisville 11.50 115.91 13.39 28 Arizona 12.69 87.15 12.76 29 Virginia 8.08 147.76 12.68 30 Arizona St. 10.32 112.00 12.41 31 Tennessee 12.27 60.25 11.15 32 Boston Coll. 8.75 102.55 10.90 33 Texas A&M 8.48 97.39 10.46 34 Memphis 10.85 23.64 8.40 35 Boise St. 4.57 106.44 8.30 36 Pittsburgh 4.37 102.33 7.96 37 Penn St. 4.88 95.18 7.95 38 Florida 7.16 55.64 7.52 39 BYU 6.03 61.25 7.04 40 Northwestern 5.65 62.64 6.86 41 Georgia Tech 7.03 37.10 6.52 42 Georgia Southern 6.64 41.21 6.46 43 Utah 9.72 -10.52 5.96 44 Syracuse 3.44 71.84 5.84 45 Louisiana Tech 8.87 -3.04 5.76 46 Duke 9.43 -13.43 5.63 47 Minnesota 6.20 16.44 4.94 48 Missouri 11.29 -56.63 4.73 49 Michigan 3.21 50.77 4.65 50 South Carolina 5.16 21.22 4.49 51 Oregon St. 3.47 42.70 4.42 52 Rutgers 0.84 71.92 4.11 53 UAB 2.75 45.19 4.06 54 Colorado St. 5.39 9.09 4.04 55 East Carolina 0.52 68.52 3.73 56 Texas 1.42 51.33 3.48 57 Navy 2.19 29.51 2.92 58 Arkansas St. 0.52 45.80 2.61 59 Maryland 6.67 -48.90 2.03 60 Washington St. -1.53 39.97 0.95 61 Houston 3.13 -23.22 0.94 62 Nevada 4.64 -44.29 0.90 63 Utah St. 1.46 -3.55 0.80 64 Oklahoma St. 5.65 -60.63 0.77 65 Iowa 1.40 -7.87 0.55 66 Kentucky 0.19 -0.13 0.12 67 Washington 7.20 -101.10 -0.19 68 Iowa St. 0.06 -9.76 -0.44 69 N.C. State -1.52 5.69 -0.73 70 South Alabama -1.69 3.19 -0.97 71 Middle Tenn. St. -0.44 -39.43 -2.24 72 Colorado -6.52 40.21 -2.36 73 Florida Intl. -1.42 -38.97 -2.87 74 UCF -0.15 -69.07 -3.51 75 West. Kentucky -2.96 -31.32 -3.52 76 Purdue -1.76 -50.30 -3.65 77 Akron -3.47 -30.58 -3.82 78 North Carolina -3.64 -32.24 -4.02 79 California -2.08 -58.15 -4.26 80 Air Force -4.17 -51.96 -5.34 81 Rice -6.81 -17.18 -5.38 82 Toledo -7.06 -29.12 -6.14 83 Temple -2.73 -91.95 -6.36 84 UT-San Antonio -5.22 -68.53 -6.86 85 San Jose St. -12.76 31.32 -6.96 86 Illinois -5.48 -69.79 -7.10 87 W. Michigan -5.99 -75.28 -7.71 88 Texas Tech -10.33 -20.89 -7.91 89 Cent. Michigan -9.97 -27.83 -8.02 90 Cincinnati -5.44 -97.10 -8.42 91 Indiana -7.06 -92.37 -9.27 92 San Diego St. -11.34 -36.76 -9.38 93 Hawaii -9.34 -71.93 -9.77 94 LA Lafayette -12.08 -45.24 -10.28 95 Miami (OH) -10.71 -82.18 -11.20 96 Ohio -11.77 -81.60 -11.87 97 Florida Atlantic -12.08 -94.08 -12.70 98 Northern Illinois -13.83 -75.54 -12.95 99 Ball St. -9.02 -149.15 -13.37 100 Fresno St. -12.87 -98.16 -13.42 101 Kansas -14.88 -98.86 -14.80 102 Vanderbilt -12.21 -138.23 -14.96 103 Wyoming -14.56 -116.10 -15.44 104 Tulane -19.47 -49.88 -15.44 105 UTEP -15.11 -115.19 -15.76 106 Idaho -17.32 -86.13 -15.80 107 Bowling Green -14.10 -130.11 -15.82 108 Appalachian State -17.52 -85.93 -15.92 109 Old Dominion -15.06 -122.40 -16.08 110 Southern Miss -16.83 -106.56 -16.48 111 LA Monroe -17.85 -93.01 -16.49 112 Massachusetts -16.72 -114.10 -16.78 113 Connecticut -20.04 -70.51 -16.84 114 New Mexico -14.82 -142.72 -16.92 115 South Florida -14.81 -168.40 -18.18 116 Buffalo -22.13 -89.29 -19.16 117 Kent St. -18.84 -138.71 -19.40 118 Georgia State -21.08 -126.13 -20.28 119 Army -20.85 -146.38 -21.12 120 Tulsa -21.19 -143.38 -21.20 121 Texas St. -22.01 -156.17 -22.38 122 Wake Forest -16.82 -230.34 -22.58 123 New Mexico St. -25.78 -152.00 -24.69 124 Troy -27.36 -136.63 -24.99 125 UNLV -28.23 -183.37 -27.87 126 North Texas -27.56 -197.12 -28.10 127 East. Michigan -34.45 -297.88 -37.67 128 SMU -41.41 -286.11 -41.72 By Conference 34 Memphis 10.85 23.64 8.40 55 East Carolina 0.52 68.52 3.73 61 Houston 3.13 -23.22 0.94 74 UCF -0.15 -69.07 -3.51 83 Temple -2.73 -91.95 -6.36 90 Cincinnati -5.44 -97.10 -8.42 113 Connecticut -20.04 -70.51 -16.84 115 South Florida -14.81 -168.40 -18.18 120 Tulsa -21.19 -143.38 -21.20 128 SMU -41.41 -286.11 -41.72 18 Miami (FL) 15.23 132.93 16.71 21 Clemson 14.84 123.42 15.98 23 Florida St. 18.12 54.17 14.75 25 Virginia Tech 13.66 105.52 14.31 27 Louisville 11.50 115.91 13.39 29 Virginia 8.08 147.76 12.68 32 Boston Coll. 8.75 102.55 10.90 36 Pittsburgh 4.37 102.33 7.96 41 Georgia Tech 7.03 37.10 6.52 44 Syracuse 3.44 71.84 5.84 46 Duke 9.43 -13.43 5.63 69 N.C. State -1.52 5.69 -0.73 78 North Carolina -3.64 -32.24 -4.02 122 Wake Forest -16.82 -230.34 -22.58 5 Ohio St. 28.91 199.91 29.14 6 Nebraska 25.48 231.47 28.41 7 Michigan St. 23.88 203.63 25.97 22 Wisconsin 11.69 141.01 14.76 37 Penn St. 4.88 95.18 7.95 40 Northwestern 5.65 62.64 6.86 47 Minnesota 6.20 16.44 4.94 49 Michigan 3.21 50.77 4.65 52 Rutgers 0.84 71.92 4.11 59 Maryland 6.67 -48.90 2.03 65 Iowa 1.40 -7.87 0.55 76 Purdue -1.76 -50.30 -3.65 86 Illinois -5.48 -69.79 -7.10 91 Indiana -7.06 -92.37 -9.27 9 TCU 27.78 138.97 25.38 10 Baylor 17.29 232.53 23.00 11 Oklahoma 23.94 118.53 21.81 16 West Virginia 11.34 189.19 16.90 19 Kansas St. 17.80 93.09 16.46 56 Texas 1.42 51.33 3.48 64 Oklahoma St. 5.65 -60.63 0.77 68 Iowa St. 0.06 -9.76 -0.44 88 Texas Tech -10.33 -20.89 -7.91 101 Kansas -14.88 -98.86 -14.80 8 Marshall 26.73 153.73 25.41 45 Louisiana Tech 8.87 -3.04 5.76 53 UAB 2.75 45.19 4.06 71 Middle Tenn. St. -0.44 -39.43 -2.24 73 Florida Intl. -1.42 -38.97 -2.87 75 West. Kentucky -2.96 -31.32 -3.52 81 Rice -6.81 -17.18 -5.38 84 UT-San Antonio -5.22 -68.53 -6.86 97 Florida Atlantic -12.08 -94.08 -12.70 104 Tulane -19.47 -49.88 -15.44 105 UTEP -15.11 -115.19 -15.76 109 Old Dominion -15.06 -122.40 -16.08 110 Southern Miss -16.83 -106.56 -16.48 126 North Texas -27.56 -197.12 -28.10 15 Notre Dame 17.21 134.52 18.12 39 BYU 6.03 61.25 7.04 57 Navy 2.19 29.51 2.92 119 Army -20.85 -146.38 -21.12 77 Akron -3.47 -30.58 -3.82 82 Toledo -7.06 -29.12 -6.14 87 W. Michigan -5.99 -75.28 -7.71 89 Cent. Michigan -9.97 -27.83 -8.02 95 Miami (OH) -10.71 -82.18 -11.20 96 Ohio -11.77 -81.60 -11.87 98 Northern Illinois -13.83 -75.54 -12.95 99 Ball St. -9.02 -149.15 -13.37 107 Bowling Green -14.10 -130.11 -15.82 112 Massachusetts -16.72 -114.10 -16.78 116 Buffalo -22.13 -89.29 -19.16 117 Kent St. -18.84 -138.71 -19.40 127 East. Michigan -34.45 -297.88 -37.67 35 Boise St. 4.57 106.44 8.30 54 Colorado St. 5.39 9.09 4.04 62 Nevada 4.64 -44.29 0.90 63 Utah St. 1.46 -3.55 0.80 80 Air Force -4.17 -51.96 -5.34 85 San Jose St. -12.76 31.32 -6.96 92 San Diego St. -11.34 -36.76 -9.38 93 Hawaii -9.34 -71.93 -9.77 100 Fresno St. -12.87 -98.16 -13.42 103 Wyoming -14.56 -116.10 -15.44 114 New Mexico -14.82 -142.72 -16.92 125 UNLV -28.23 -183.37 -27.87 13 Oregon 23.31 106.00 20.77 17 USC 16.18 120.35 16.73 24 Stanford 12.18 130.75 14.57 26 UCLA 13.32 101.34 13.88 28 Arizona 12.69 87.15 12.76 30 Arizona St. 10.32 112.00 12.41 43 Utah 9.72 -10.52 5.96 51 Oregon St. 3.47 42.70 4.42 60 Washington St. -1.53 39.97 0.95 67 Washington 7.20 -101.10 -0.19 72 Colorado -6.52 40.21 -2.36 79 California -2.08 -58.15 -4.26 42 Georgia Southern 6.64 41.21 6.46 58 Arkansas St. 0.52 45.80 2.61 70 South Alabama -1.69 3.19 -0.97 94 LA Lafayette -12.08 -45.24 -10.28 106 Idaho -17.32 -86.13 -15.80 108 Appalachian State -17.52 -85.93 -15.92 111 LA Monroe -17.85 -93.01 -16.49 118 Georgia State -21.08 -126.13 -20.28 121 Texas St. -22.01 -156.17 -22.38 123 New Mexico St. -25.78 -152.00 -24.69 124 Troy -27.36 -136.63 -24.99 1 Alabama 29.29 324.42 35.54 2 Auburn 34.57 247.67 35.27 3 Mississippi 29.73 202.10 29.79 4 Mississippi St. 31.45 167.11 29.21 12 LSU 22.18 125.98 21.00 14 Georgia 22.86 93.34 19.85 20 Arkansas 14.44 133.44 16.21 31 Tennessee 12.27 60.25 11.15 33 Texas A&M 8.48 97.39 10.46 38 Florida 7.16 55.64 7.52 48 Missouri 11.29 -56.63 4.73 50 South Carolina 5.16 21.22 4.49 66 Kentucky 0.19 -0.13 0.12 102 Vanderbilt -12.21 -138.23 -14.96

Duquesne Frog

Duquesne Frog

 

DUSHEE Week 10

Highlights: Frogs stand pat at 5. Mississippi State falls another spot and Michigan State climbs up to 3. Tech is 100th ... 1 Alabama 26.48 271.34 30.86 2 Auburn 29.80 200.97 29.65 3 Michigan St. 24.26 220.73 26.92 4 Mississippi 27.61 172.12 26.78 5 TCU 26.33 169.87 25.82 6 Ohio St. 24.95 184.29 25.60 7 Oklahoma 26.69 149.90 25.09 8 Baylor 18.59 214.09 22.81 9 Mississippi St. 24.93 126.64 22.78 10 Nebraska 21.26 151.76 21.56 _______________________________________ 11 Marshall 22.15 126.49 20.92 12 LSU 22.04 125.75 20.82 13 Oregon 23.40 98.03 20.37 14 Wisconsin 18.03 156.06 19.62 15 Kansas St. 19.93 105.34 18.41 16 Miami (FL) 17.30 141.04 18.40 17 Georgia 18.28 100.63 17.09 18 Notre Dame 15.18 123.56 16.13 19 Arkansas 14.28 128.56 15.78 20 West Virginia 12.76 138.26 15.24 ________________________________________ 21 Florida St. 17.19 68.05 14.78 22 Clemson 12.16 132.28 14.54 23 UCLA 12.02 115.55 13.64 24 USC 13.33 83.24 12.94 25 Boise St. 9.27 138.55 12.92 26 Arizona St. 12.06 92.26 12.53 27 Georgia Tech 12.53 75.43 12.03 28 Louisville 10.51 92.21 11.49 29 Stanford 8.86 111.21 11.32 30 Georgia Southern 10.65 76.65 10.83 ____________________________________________ 31 Louisiana Tech 13.83 31.62 10.76 32 Florida 11.06 63.20 10.45 33 Virginia Tech 8.28 86.22 9.71 34 Arizona 10.75 50.60 9.63 35 Tennessee 9.72 64.66 9.63 36 Texas A&M 5.82 62.68 6.93 37 BYU 5.79 54.31 6.50 38 Boston Coll. 5.51 57.69 6.48 39 Penn St. 3.97 75.74 6.33 40 Memphis 7.47 14.40 5.68 ___________________________________________ 41 Missouri 8.61 -20.82 4.72 42 Michigan 3.34 51.02 4.71 43 Colorado St. 5.48 20.57 4.66 44 Pittsburgh 1.08 80.89 4.66 45 Virginia 0.67 81.99 4.44 46 Iowa 3.90 24.94 3.82 47 Duke 8.21 -34.95 3.77 48 South Carolina 3.27 29.54 3.62 49 Utah 7.95 -39.89 3.36 50 East Carolina -2.41 84.39 2.50 __________________________________________ 51 Houston 4.92 -21.95 2.21 52 Nevada 4.82 -26.76 1.91 53 Navy 0.79 27.96 1.89 54 Syracuse -0.23 38.70 1.73 55 Utah St. 2.46 -1.42 1.57 56 Texas 0.29 24.91 1.40 57 Northwestern 0.22 19.72 1.11 58 Minnesota 1.12 6.64 1.07 59 Kentucky 1.25 2.74 0.97 60 Purdue 0.49 4.89 0.57 ______________________________________ 61 Rutgers -2.18 41.31 0.56 62 Arkansas St. -1.62 29.85 0.37 63 N.C. State -1.02 7.05 -0.34 64 UCF 0.26 -13.08 -0.46 65 W. Michigan -0.33 -13.35 -0.87 66 Cincinnati 0.34 -24.39 -0.96 67 Washington 3.68 -75.14 -1.20 68 Maryland 2.06 -59.87 -1.54 69 Air Force -1.11 -16.55 -1.55 70 Toledo -2.99 7.17 -1.64 ____________________________________ 71 Washington St. -5.99 45.21 -1.79 72 Colorado -6.41 37.00 -2.47 73 Rice -4.02 -0.26 -2.69 74 South Alabama -3.98 -5.72 -2.93 75 LA Lafayette -3.44 -22.93 -3.41 76 California -2.21 -47.44 -3.78 77 UAB -4.25 -20.48 -3.83 78 San Jose St. -9.69 50.57 -4.00 79 Iowa St. -2.89 -46.97 -4.21 80 Oregon St. -4.99 -22.68 -4.43 ________________________________________ 81 Middle Tenn. St. -3.31 -59.36 -5.10 82 Cent. Michigan -7.73 -1.50 -5.23 83 Appalachian State -8.51 -0.23 -5.69 84 Ball St. -1.88 -92.11 -5.74 85 Oklahoma St. -3.93 -65.12 -5.79 86 North Carolina -5.93 -38.59 -5.83 87 UTEP -5.92 -47.22 -6.24 88 Temple -0.11 -127.10 -6.26 89 Illinois -4.75 -79.88 -7.05 90 Florida Intl. -5.84 -65.74 -7.09 ________________________________________ 91 Akron -6.94 -58.77 -7.49 92 West. Kentucky -7.64 -78.49 -8.91 93 Wyoming -9.28 -60.78 -9.14 94 Hawaii -9.58 -67.06 -9.65 95 Florida Atlantic -8.99 -83.95 -10.08 96 San Diego St. -12.19 -53.11 -10.71 97 Idaho -13.75 -43.36 -11.28 98 UT-San Antonio -9.34 -104.98 -11.34 99 Indiana -9.92 -100.10 -11.49 100 Texas Tech -14.16 -46.80 -11.72 _________________________________________ 101 Ohio -12.50 -78.61 -12.16 102 LA Monroe -15.04 -49.63 -12.44 103 Miami (OH) -11.65 -99.15 -12.59 104 Northern Illinois -13.20 -88.81 -13.13 105 Connecticut -13.90 -83.42 -13.33 106 Southern Miss -13.77 -99.20 -14.01 107 Bowling Green -12.26 -122.28 -14.12 108 Massachusetts -14.92 -93.29 -14.49 109 Tulane -18.54 -53.07 -14.94 110 Buffalo -17.56 -71.16 -15.17 __________________________________________ 111 Texas St. -16.02 -95.71 -15.34 112 Old Dominion -15.42 -113.51 -15.81 113 Vanderbilt -14.59 -141.29 -16.60 114 South Florida -12.76 -168.05 -16.69 115 New Mexico -13.89 -165.31 -17.31 116 Kansas -17.80 -115.90 -17.51 117 Fresno St. -15.94 -146.11 -17.74 118 Tulsa -19.16 -119.43 -18.59 119 Army -17.84 -139.57 -18.69 120 Wake Forest -14.14 -204.74 -19.39 ____________________________________________ 121 Kent St. -19.07 -144.01 -19.72 122 Troy -23.62 -132.35 -22.19 123 New Mexico St. -22.29 -159.44 -22.62 124 UNLV -22.94 -152.52 -22.72 125 Georgia State -23.55 -167.52 -23.85 126 North Texas -25.58 -195.99 -26.59 127 East. Michigan -30.92 -268.14 -33.66 128 SMU -37.68 -267.92 -38.16 By Conference: 40 Memphis 7.47 14.40 5.68 50 East Carolina -2.41 84.39 2.50 51 Houston 4.92 -21.95 2.21 64 UCF 0.26 -13.08 -0.46 66 Cincinnati 0.34 -24.39 -0.96 88 Temple -0.11 -127.10 -6.26 105 Connecticut -13.90 -83.42 -13.33 114 South Florida -12.76 -168.05 -16.69 118 Tulsa -19.16 -119.43 -18.59 128 SMU -37.68 -267.92 -38.16 ___________________________________________ 16 Miami (FL) 17.30 141.04 18.40 21 Florida St. 17.19 68.05 14.78 22 Clemson 12.16 132.28 14.54 27 Georgia Tech 12.53 75.43 12.03 28 Louisville 10.51 92.21 11.49 33 Virginia Tech 8.28 86.22 9.71 38 Boston Coll. 5.51 57.69 6.48 44 Pittsburgh 1.08 80.89 4.66 45 Virginia 0.67 81.99 4.44 47 Duke 8.21 -34.95 3.77 54 Syracuse -0.23 38.70 1.73 63 N.C. State -1.02 7.05 -0.34 86 North Carolina -5.93 -38.59 -5.83 120 Wake Forest -14.14 -204.74 -19.39 ___________________________________________ 3 Michigan St. 24.26 220.73 26.92 6 Ohio St. 24.95 184.29 25.60 10 Nebraska 21.26 151.76 21.56 14 Wisconsin 18.03 156.06 19.62 39 Penn St. 3.97 75.74 6.33 42 Michigan 3.34 51.02 4.71 46 Iowa 3.90 24.94 3.82 57 Northwestern 0.22 19.72 1.11 58 Minnesota 1.12 6.64 1.07 60 Purdue 0.49 4.89 0.57 61 Rutgers -2.18 41.31 0.56 68 Maryland 2.06 -59.87 -1.54 89 Illinois -4.75 -79.88 -7.05 99 Indiana -9.92 -100.10 -11.49 ______________________________________________ 5 TCU 26.33 169.87 25.82 7 Oklahoma 26.69 149.90 25.09 8 Baylor 18.59 214.09 22.81 15 Kansas St. 19.93 105.34 18.41 20 West Virginia 12.76 138.26 15.24 56 Texas 0.29 24.91 1.40 79 Iowa St. -2.89 -46.97 -4.21 85 Oklahoma St. -3.93 -65.12 -5.79 100 Texas Tech -14.16 -46.80 -11.72 116 Kansas -17.80 -115.90 -17.51 _____________________________________________ 11 Marshall 22.15 126.49 20.92 31 Louisiana Tech 13.83 31.62 10.76 73 Rice -4.02 -0.26 -2.69 77 UAB -4.25 -20.48 -3.83 81 Middle Tenn. St. -3.31 -59.36 -5.10 87 UTEP -5.92 -47.22 -6.24 90 Florida Intl. -5.84 -65.74 -7.09 92 West. Kentucky -7.64 -78.49 -8.91 95 Florida Atlantic -8.99 -83.95 -10.08 98 UT-San Antonio -9.34 -104.98 -11.34 106 Southern Miss -13.77 -99.20 -14.01 109 Tulane -18.54 -53.07 -14.94 112 Old Dominion -15.42 -113.51 -15.81 126 North Texas -25.58 -195.99 -26.59 ____________________________________________ 18 Notre Dame 15.18 123.56 16.13 37 BYU 5.79 54.31 6.50 53 Navy 0.79 27.96 1.89 119 Army -17.84 -139.57 -18.69 ________________________________________________ 65 W. Michigan -0.33 -13.35 -0.87 70 Toledo -2.99 7.17 -1.64 82 Cent. Michigan -7.73 -1.50 -5.23 84 Ball St. -1.88 -92.11 -5.74 91 Akron -6.94 -58.77 -7.49 101 Ohio -12.50 -78.61 -12.16 103 Miami (OH) -11.65 -99.15 -12.59 104 Northern Illinois -13.20 -88.81 -13.13 107 Bowling Green -12.26 -122.28 -14.12 108 Massachusetts -14.92 -93.29 -14.49 110 Buffalo -17.56 -71.16 -15.17 121 Kent St. -19.07 -144.01 -19.72 127 East. Michigan -30.92 -268.14 -33.66 _______________________________________________ 25 Boise St. 9.27 138.55 12.92 43 Colorado St. 5.48 20.57 4.66 52 Nevada 4.82 -26.76 1.91 55 Utah St. 2.46 -1.42 1.57 69 Air Force -1.11 -16.55 -1.55 78 San Jose St. -9.69 50.57 -4.00 93 Wyoming -9.28 -60.78 -9.14 94 Hawaii -9.58 -67.06 -9.65 96 San Diego St. -12.19 -53.11 -10.71 115 New Mexico -13.89 -165.31 -17.31 117 Fresno St. -15.94 -146.11 -17.74 124 UNLV -22.94 -152.52 -22.72 ________________________________________________ 13 Oregon 23.40 98.03 20.37 23 UCLA 12.02 115.55 13.64 24 USC 13.33 83.24 12.94 26 Arizona St. 12.06 92.26 12.53 29 Stanford 8.86 111.21 11.32 34 Arizona 10.75 50.60 9.63 49 Utah 7.95 -39.89 3.36 67 Washington 3.68 -75.14 -1.20 71 Washington St. -5.99 45.21 -1.79 72 Colorado -6.41 37.00 -2.47 76 California -2.21 -47.44 -3.78 80 Oregon St. -4.99 -22.68 -4.43 __________________________________________________ 30 Georgia Southern 10.65 76.65 10.83 62 Arkansas St. -1.62 29.85 0.37 74 South Alabama -3.98 -5.72 -2.93 75 LA Lafayette -3.44 -22.93 -3.41 83 Appalachian State -8.51 -0.23 -5.69 97 Idaho -13.75 -43.36 -11.28 102 LA Monroe -15.04 -49.63 -12.44 111 Texas St. -16.02 -95.71 -15.34 122 Troy -23.62 -132.35 -22.19 123 New Mexico St. -22.29 -159.44 -22.62 125 Georgia State -23.55 -167.52 -23.85 _______________________________________________________ 1 Alabama 26.48 271.34 30.86 2 Auburn 29.80 200.97 29.65 4 Mississippi 27.61 172.12 26.78 9 Mississippi St. 24.93 126.64 22.78 12 LSU 22.04 125.75 20.82 17 Georgia 18.28 100.63 17.09 19 Arkansas 14.28 128.56 15.78 32 Florida 11.06 63.20 10.45 35 Tennessee 9.72 64.66 9.63 36 Texas A&M 5.82 62.68 6.93 41 Missouri 8.61 -20.82 4.72 48 South Carolina 3.27 29.54 3.62 59 Kentucky 1.25 2.74 0.97 113 Vanderbilt -14.59 -141.29 -16.60

Duquesne Frog

Duquesne Frog

 

Musings Going into the 2015 Season

I've been struggling to come up with some blog ideas to pass the time until the beathlessly-anticipated first DUSHEE ranking does come out, marking the official beginning of college football season. This morning, the Google News aggregator passed this article from the Detroit News before my eyes, the audaciously named "Top three things to know about college football analytics" by one Ed Feng, a fellow engineer. http://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports/college/2015/09/18/feng-top-three-things-to-know-about-college-football-analytics/72385374/ In his article, he presents some interesting data and reaches a number of conclusions, some of which appear to be justified by the data and others not so much. First in his introduction he makes a point that I've made on these pages numerous times, the college football season provides one of the least rich data sets of any popular American sport: "College football also presents challenges due to a lack of data. The 12-game regular season seems like spare change compared to the 82 games for the NBA or 162 for MLB. Moreover, football offers almost no numbers on important players such as offensive linemen.". The other piece of this is that in addition to the lack of games each team plays, there is a glut of teams all nominally counted in the population of teams. There are 125 teams playing in the FBS. Each only plays roughly 10% of the other teams in the league. Now we get to the three things. I'm not sure why these are the "top" three things we should know about college football analytics, but we'll blame the headline writer for that. Thing 1: Last Year Matters Here Feng really makes two assertions: 1) there is a vast disparity in resources among the 125 teams in the FBS and because of that 2) past performance is a predictor of future results. To me, the obvious place to look for evidence in support of these assertions would be to look for correlation between athletic budgets and revenue, alumni bases, attendance, etc., to performance over time. Instead he focuses on assertion #2 and attempts to correlate team performance from 2013 to 2014. We've discussed here the striking lack of consistency that a team of college football players shows from game-to-game within a season (http://www.thefroghorn.com/index.php/blog/2/entry-39-blind-squirrels-finding-acorns/). The data he shows indicates to me that, not surprisingly, the consistency doesn't improve when you add the variables of player and leadership turnover from season-to-season into the mix: Feng looks at this data set and sees evidence of "strong persistence" from season-to-season in team performance. However, take away the diagonal line which biases the mind toward seeing a correlation in a blob of data points where, at best, only a very weak correlation exists, and I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that data set "strongly" shows anything. "Strong" correlation would show a concentration of data points on or near that diagonal line instead of a blob of points that is ever-so-slightly skewed in the direction of correlation. The fact that the data set IS such a random scattering tells me that the correlation of the previous season's results to the upcoming season's results is very weak and that the 70% prediction rate claimed is due to the high count of "body bag" games where a many teams on the top right portion of that chart play teams on the bottom left. Thing 2: Predicting Turnovers Nothing will split the nu-skool college football analytics advocate from the old-school football fan/writer than the randomness of the turnover. Both camps agree on the importance of the turnover on the outcome of the game (http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2013/8/23/4649718/college-football-turnover-margin-winning-percentage), but the two sides strongly disagree on the ability a team has to generate turnovers (and prevent their own) by either sheer will or strength of play. Analytics will tell you without equivocation that turnover margin is one of the most random metrics from season-to-season you can find (http://grantland.com/features/nfl-stats-predicting-success/, http://www.advancedfootballanalytics.com/index.php/home/research/general/79-examining-luck-in-nfl-turnovers). Teams, even those in the NFL which possess far more season-to-season roster cohesiveness than college teams, do not have the ability to maintain high turnover margins consistently. (The one exception to this has been the recent vintage Patriots who have consistently not fumbled at a level far exceeding any other team in the league, evidence used by many that they have, at minimum, uniquely discovered some competitive advantage, and most probably that they are cheating. http://www.wsj.com/articles/patriots-always-keep-a-tight-grip-on-the-ball-1422054846) Feng here presents one of the few instances of evidence for some modicum of predictability in turnovers that I've seen in the correlation between quarterback accuracy and interception rate: Even here, the correlation isn't rock-solid, but it is weakly there, and as Feng states: Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it's reasonable to think that less accurate quarterbacks tend to throw more interceptions. Sometimes an errant quarterback throws the ball at his receiver's ankles, other times it goes to the other team.. The randomness and unpredictability of turnovers is why I don't use turnover margin explicitly in DUSHEE, although it is there in its impact on point margin. There is no question that turnovers have a strong impact on point margin. And it is, in part, why you see so much variability in a team's performance from game-to-game and season-to-season. Thing 3: Efficiency, Efficiency, Efficiency While in most respects I fall into the nu-skool analytics camp, the focus on efficiency, or looking at statistics on a per-play basis, is not one with which I am fully on board. First and foremost, the game is not played on a per-play basis, it is played on a per-game basis. If you are a successful grind-it-out, huddle-up, milk-the-clock kind of offense and can keep the opponent's offense off the field, you will be viewed poorly on an efficiency basis. In my mind, if you put 500 yards of total offense against an opponent, not only doesn't it matter whether it took you 50 or 80 plays to do it, it might actually be preferable in some cases to do it in 80 plays (i.e., less "efficiently") because you are helping out your defense more by keeping them off the field and giving the opposing offenses fewer opportunities to score. This was always the failing of the run-and-shoot offenses of the Jerry Glanville era. Yes they moved the ball and scored lots of points quickly (read, efficiently) but they also kept their defenses on the field for lots of plays. This was the raison d'être for Gary Patterson offenses prior to the Meachum/Cumbie era and a pretty successful one ... grind it out, score points in a methodical fashion, don't put your defense in bad situations. So, from a performance evaluation standpoint, I'm still not convinced that the per-game basis is not more indicative of a team's quality than the per-play basis. Whither DUSHEE So, I don't think Dr. Feng has convinced me that any of this portends any necessary changes to DUSHEE for the upcoming season. However, one significant factor that DUSHEE should account for but doesn't is the effect of home field. As it currently stands, DUSHEE does not distinguish between performance at home versus away, though pretty much any analytical approach shows a clear advantage (usually 3-5 points) to playing at home. As of this writing, I still haven't formulated how I want to change DUSHEE to account for it, but I have decided I need to come up with some basis for doing so. Stay tuned ...

Duquesne Frog

Duquesne Frog

 

DUSHEE Bowl Preview

This season, to prepare for the bowls, I'm expanding on a bit I did two years ago and looking at the predictive capability of my scrappy little model.  So we're going to look at what DUSHEE says compared to Vegas bookies, Jeff Sagarin, and ESPN's FPI ranking.    ESPN's FPI results in a number that is very comparable to DUSHEE; it is a point total relative to an average FBS team.  Sagarin's system scale is different; the best team in the country is generally around a 100, but the difference in two teams' scores is effectively the point spread between the two teams.   For 28 of the 39 bowl games, DUSHEE, Sagarin, FPI and Vegas come to a unanimous consensus about the favorite, although there can be considerable variation among the four as to the point spread.   Since there are two formulations for DUSHEE, 1) the original which looks solely at point and yardage margins compared to how the other teams compared against the same opponent, and 2) the revised which deemphasizes statistical outliers and emphasizes strength-of-schedule, I'll provide numbers for both formulations and the average of the two to see how well each of the three predict outcomes.   First, we'll start with the bowl our readers probably care about the most ... the Cactus Bowl.   Liberty Bowl   Just kidding.  The Liberty Bowl is one of the 11 bowl games where the 4 predictors do not come to a consensus and is one of two where the lack of consensus comes from the Vegas bookies.  Here are the numbers for the two teams:   Team Record    DO    DR Sag FPI SoS Georgia  7-5 1.51 2.18 73.19 7.40 0.73 TCU  6-6 3.55 5.03 74.53 10.10 1.16   In the following table and all of the ones that follow, DO means DUSHEE Original Formulation, DR is DUSHEE Revised, DA is the average of the two DUSHEE models, Sag is Sagarin and FPI is, well, FPI.  Ignore the sign in front of the number; it is just used to account for which of the two teams is the favorite.   DO Fav DDO DR Fav DDR DA Fav DUSHEE Avg Vegas Fav Vegas Sag Fav DSag FPI Fav DFPI TCU  -2.04 TCU  -2.85 TCU  -2.44 Georgia  1 TCU  -1.34 TCU  -2.7   The "computer" models all agree that the Frogs are a slight favorite with Sagarin at roughly 1.5-points and DUSHEE Revised at almost 3-points.  However, Vegas, at the moment, has the Dawgs as a 1-point favorite.  As we will see, the agreement between the models (a range of less than 4-points between all of the predictors) is quite tight compared to some of the other games.   New Years Six   Orange: Team Record DO DR Sag FPI SoS Florida St.  9-3 15.99 21.43 87.35 21.50 5.55 Michigan  10-2 32.77 36.95 99.74 27.80 3.18 DO Fav DDO DR Fav DDR DA Fav DUSHEE Avg Vegas Fav Vegas Sag Fav DSag FPI Fav DFPI Michigan  -16.79 Michigan  -15.52 Michigan  -16.15 Michigan  -6.5 Michigan  -12.39 Michigan  -6.3   The models are unanimous that Michigan is the favorite, but DUSHEE and Sagarin think Michigan is a significantly larger favorite than either Vegas or the FPI does.   Peach: Team Record DO DR Sag FPI SoS Alabama  13-0 37.11 45.21 105.37 31.70 6.77 Washington  12-1 24.52 26.25 97.89 26.10 -0.22 DO Fav DDO DR Fav DDR DA Fav DUSHEE Avg Vegas Fav Vegas Sag Fav DSag FPI Fav DFPI Alabama  12.60 Alabama  18.96 Alabama  15.78 Alabama  16.5 Alabama  7.48 Alabama  5.6   In this case, DUSHEE and Vegas are on the same page, placing Alabama as a 2TD+ favorite, but Sagarin and the FPI have the game at a TD or less.   Fiesta: Team Record DO DR Sag FPI SoS Clemson  12-1 25.65 30.08 94.50 25.80 3.99 Ohio St.  11-1 34.82 40.78 102.06 28.10 5.37 DO Fav DDO DR Fav DDR DA Fav DUSHEE Avg Vegas Fav Vegas Sag Fav DSag FPI Fav DFPI Ohio St.  -9.17 Ohio St.  -10.71 Ohio St.  -9.94 Ohio St.  -3 Ohio St.  -7.56 Ohio St.  -2.3   Like the Orange Bowl, DUSHEE and Sagarin agree that Ohio State is a 7-10 point favorite but Vegas and the FPI have the game around a field goal.   Cotton: Team Record DO DR Sag FPI SoS W. Michigan  13-0 17.94 15.09 84.62 13.00 -5.60 Wisconsin  10-3 17.82 22.13 90.62 17.80 5.14 DO Fav DDO DR Fav DDR DA Fav DUSHEE Avg Vegas Fav Vegas Sag Fav DSag FPI Fav DFPI W. Michigan  0.12 Wisconsin  -7.04 Wisconsin  -3.46 Wisconsin  -7.5 Wisconsin  -6.00 Wisconsin  -4.8   The Cotton Bowl illuminates the difference between the two DUSHEE formulations.  Western Michigan and Wisconsin have the biggest strength-of-schedule disparity of any two bowl opponents.  Original DUSHEE, which does account for strength of schedule but does not emphasize it to the degree that Revised DUSHEE does, has Western Michigan as an ever-so-slight favorite.  Revised DUSHEE, Sagarin, and Vegas all have Wisconsin at about a TD favorite, with the FPI putting the game a little closer.  This will be an interesting game to see play out.   Rose: Team Record DO DR Sag FPI SoS Penn St.  11-2 16.69 19.59 91.97 18.00 3.37 USC  9-3 16.41 21.29 90.65 20.30 4.99 DO Fav DDO DR Fav DDR DA Fav DUSHEE Avg Vegas Fav Vegas Sag Fav DSag FPI Fav DFPI Penn St.  0.28 USC  -1.70 USC  -0.71 USC  -7 Penn St.  1.32 USC  -2.3   The Rose is another interesting case in that all the models have the game as a near toss-up except for Vegas which has the Trojans as a TD favorite.  It is conceivable that bettors are giving USC a home-field advantage boost which would account for some of the disparity, but even with the 3-points, Vegas likes USC more than any of the computer models do.   Sugar: Team Record DO DR Sag FPI SoS Auburn  8-4 17.54 21.16 84.64 20.10 6.32 Oklahoma  10-2 19.23 22.39 90.29 21.90 2.66 DO Fav DDO DR Fav DDR DA Fav DUSHEE Avg Vegas Fav Vegas Sag Fav DSag FPI Fav DFPI Oklahoma  -1.70 Oklahoma  -1.24 Oklahoma  -1.47 Oklahoma  -5.5 Oklahoma  -5.65 Oklahoma  -1.8   DUSHEE and the FPI have Oklahoma as a slight favorite, Vegas and Sagarin like them a little more.   Other Big XII-II and Bowls   Aside from TCU and Oklahoma, four other conference mates managed to become bowl eligible. Three are unanimous underdogs in their matchups.   Cactus: Team Record DO DR Sag FPI SoS Baylor  6-6 1.91 3.06 67.00 7.40 -0.54 Boise St.  10-2 13.25 12.41 79.05 11.00 -2.08 DO Fav DDO DR Fav DDR DA Fav DUSHEE Avg Vegas Fav Vegas Sag Fav DSag FPI Fav DFPI Boise St.  -11.34 Boise St.  -9.35 Boise St.  -10.35 Boise St.  -7.5 Boise St.  -12.05 Boise St.  -3.6   Only the FPI has this game within a touchdown and both DUSHEE and Sagarin think the Broncos are at least two-score (as in football scores, not Gettysburg Address scores) favorites.  Given Baylors' nose dive at the end of the season, it seems like the Broncos are a safe bet, if you are a betting man.   Russell Athletic: Team Record DO DR Sag FPI SoS Miami (FL)  8-4 11.98 12.17 82.72 16.00 1.63 West Virginia  10-2 10.05 11.40 82.25 14.10 1.13 DO Fav DDO DR Fav DDR DA Fav DUSHEE Avg Vegas Fav Vegas Sag Fav DSag FPI Fav DFPI Miami (FL)  1.92 Miami (FL)  0.77 Miami (FL)  1.35 Miami (FL)  3 Miami (FL)  0.47 Miami (FL)  1.9   The models are all unanimous in favor of the Hurricanes, but they are also unanimous that this is a close matchup.  Vegas has the largest spread at 3-points and all the models are within 2.5 points.   Texas: Team Record DO DR Sag FPI SoS Texas A&M  8-4 5.81 8.65 81.03 16.20 4.16 Kansas St.  8-4 4.90 4.69 81.36 11.30 0.31 DO Fav DDO DR Fav DDR DA Fav DUSHEE Avg Vegas Fav Vegas Sag Fav DSag FPI Fav DFPI Texas A&M  0.91 Texas A&M  3.96 Texas A&M  2.44 Texas A&M  2 Kansas St.  -0.33 Texas A&M  4.9   This should also be a tight game with the FPI giving the Aggies a 5-point advantage and Sagarin giving the Fighting Snyders a not-quite-half-point advantage.  Vegas splits the difference at a 2-point Agricultural spread.   Alamo: Team Record DO DR Sag FPI SoS Colorado  10-3 16.06 20.77 89.05 16.30 6.14 Oklahoma St.  9-3 6.72 7.81 82.93 15.40 1.62 DO Fav DDO DR Fav DDR DA Fav DUSHEE Avg Vegas Fav Vegas Sag Fav DSag FPI Fav DFPI Colorado  -9.34 Colorado  -12.96 Colorado  -11.15 Colorado  -3 Colorado  -6.12 Colorado  -0.9   All of the models are unanimous about Colorado in the sequel to the epic Bram Kohlhausen show of last year.  However, DUSHEE was pretty down on Oklahoma State this year in comparison to other models.  While most models had OSU easily in the Top-25, DUSHEE had the Cowboys at 33 and 32.  DUSHEE dinged the Pokes for below average performances against Central Michigan, Baylor, Kansas, and Oklahoma, with that Baylor loss in week 4 looking worse and worse as the season went along.  Thus, DUSHEE has Colorado as a double-digit favorite while the other models all have Colorado between a 1-to-6 point favorite.   Other Bowls of Texas Note   Las Vegas: Team Record DO DR Sag FPI SoS Houston  9-3 14.19 15.71 81.10 10.60 -0.45 San Diego St.  10-3 8.40 4.69 72.07 6.30 -6.44 DO Fav DDO DR Fav DDR DA Fav DUSHEE Avg Vegas Fav Vegas Sag Fav DSag FPI Fav DFPI Houston  5.79 Houston  11.02 Houston  8.41 Houston  3.5 Houston  9.03 Houston  4.3   The models are unanimous for Houston with Vegas being the least enthusiastic about their chances.  A big discrepancy in Strength-of-Schedule between these two teams which means Revised DUSHEE likes Houston even more than Original DUSHEE which litkes the Cougars a lot more than Vegas or the FPI.  Sagarin and the DUSHEE Average are about on the same page for Houston.    Armed Forces: Team Record DO DR Sag FPI SoS Navy  9-3 6.54 7.67 73.73 4.80 1.50 Louisiana Tech  8-4 7.69 4.24 67.27 3.60 -5.39 DO Fav DDO DR Fav DDR DA Fav DUSHEE Avg Vegas Fav Vegas Sag Fav DSag FPI Fav DFPI Louisiana Tech  -1.15 Navy  3.43 Navy  1.14 Louisiana Tech  -3.5 Navy  6.46 Navy  1.2   Another big Strength-of-Schedule disparity probably is the cause of such a mixed bag of predictions here with Original DUSHEE and Vegas leaning toward Terry Bradshaw's alma mater and Revised DUSHEE and everyone else leaning toward Roger Dodger's alma mater.   Heart of Dallas: Team Record DO DR Sag FPI SoS Army  7-5 -0.89 -5.12 63.12 -1.80 -5.40 North Texas  5-7 -15.64 -19.55 50.84 -15.40 -3.93 DO Fav DDO DR Fav DDR DA Fav DUSHEE Avg Vegas Fav Vegas Sag Fav DSag FPI Fav DFPI Army  14.75 Army  14.44 Army  14.59 Army  10 Army  12.28 Army  13.6   No one thinks this will be a close game, not because Army is a juggernaut but because North Texas is a ridiculous bowl team.  All 4 computer models have North Texas as the worst team playing in a bowl, edging out 6-7 Hawaii and miles from anybody else.  Regardless of method, all agree that the Mean Green are on the order of two touchdowns WORSE than and AVERAGE FBS team.  And Army is about an average FBS team.  Again I wonder if bettors are giving UNT a home-field boost playing a county away from home.   Sun: Team Record DO DR Sag FPI SoS Stanford  9-3 6.68 9.14 84.15 14.40 3.41 North Carolina  8-4 3.52 4.99 78.74 14.10 1.93 DO Fav DDO DR Fav DDR DA Fav DUSHEE Avg Vegas Fav Vegas Sag Fav DSag FPI Fav DFPI Stanford  3.17 Stanford  4.14 Stanford  3.65 Stanford  3.5 Stanford  5.41 Stanford  0.3   Everyone likes Stanford in the bowl that gives a warm feeling in the heart of any TCU fan over the age of 40.  Sagarin likes the Trees the most, FPI the least.  Only 5 points separate any of the predictions.   Independence: Team Record DO DR Sag FPI SoS N.C. State  6-6 5.44 9.42 74.72 7.40 4.80 Vanderbilt  6-6 -2.18 -0.62 72.15 5.70 2.69 DO Fav DDO DR Fav DDR DA Fav DUSHEE Avg Vegas Fav Vegas Sag Fav DSag FPI Fav DFPI N.C. State  7.62 N.C. State  10.03 N.C. State  8.82 N.C. State  4 N.C. State  2.57 N.C. State  1.7   Yes, I know that this game is neither in Texas nor includes a Texas team, but it is right across the border.  It involves two mediocre teams from good conferences and everyone agrees that Philip Rivers' alma mater is slightly less mediocre than the Fightin' Robber Barons of Nashville.  This a game where DUSHEE likes a team far more than the others.   All the Others   All the rest of the that I haven't discussed to this point are captured in the table below.     DO Fav DDO DR Fav DDR DA Fav D Avg Vegas Fav Vegas Sag Fav DSag FPI Fav DFPI New Mexico Albuquerque, NM New Mexico  -4.05 New Mexico  -4.07 New Mexico  -4.06 New Mexico  -7 New Mexico  -5.40 New Mexico  -6.4 Camelia Montgomery, AL Toledo  -4.81 Toledo  -7.25 Toledo  -6.03 Appalachian State 1 Toledo  -0.52 Toledo  -0.5 Cure Orlando, FL UCF  2.05 UCF  6.12 UCF  4.09 UCF  6 UCF  4.64 UCF  4.6 New Orleans New Oleans, LA Southern Miss  6.38 Southern Miss  8.16 Southern Miss  7.27 Southern Miss  3.5 LA Lafayette  -1.15 Southern Miss  4.6 Miami Beach Miami, FL Tulsa  -12.79 Tulsa  -14.39 Tulsa  -13.59 Tulsa  -11.5 Tulsa  -19.98 Tulsa  -9.2 Boca Raton Boca Raton, FL West. Kentucky  11.38 West. Kentucky  10.71 West. Kentucky  11.05 West. Kentucky  4.5 West. Kentucky  1.03 West. Kentucky  3.9 Poinsettia San Diego, Ca BYU  4.83 BYU  3.80 BYU  4.31 BYU  9 BYU  11.68 BYU  13.2 Potato Boise, ID Colorado St.  -12.59 Colorado St.  -17.19 Colorado St.  -14.89 Colorado St.  -13.5 Colorado St.  -10.48 Colorado St.  -9.2 Bahamas Nassau, BA Old Dominion -6.41 Old Dominion -2.31 Old Dominion -4.36 Old Dominion -4 Old Dominion -6.65 Old Dominion -5.4 Dollar General Mobile, AL Troy  9.11 Troy  10.11 Troy  9.61 Troy  3.5 Troy  3.11 Troy  5.3 Hawai'i Honolulu, HI Middle Tenn. St.  -10.04 Middle Tenn. St.  -8.13 Middle Tenn. St.  -9.09     Middle Tenn. St.  -2.28 Middle Tenn. St.  -9.7 St. Petersburg St. Petersburg, FL Mississippi St.  4.60 Mississippi St.  11.44 Mississippi St.  8.02 Mississippi St.  13 Mississippi St.  13.41 Mississippi St.  16.0 Quick Lane Detroit, MI Maryland  2.32 Maryland  2.72 Maryland  2.52 Maryland  1 Maryland  1.63 Maryland  0.2 Military Annapolis, MD Temple  21.26 Temple  19.57 Temple  20.42 Temple  13 Temple  15.81 Temple  8.8 Holiday San Diego, Ca Washington St.  -16.00 Washington St.  -18.64 Washington St.  -17.32 Washington St.  -6.5 Washington St.  -6.45 Washington St.  -8.7 Pinstripe New York, NY Northwestern  -0.68 Northwestern  -1.44 Northwestern  -1.06 Pittsburgh  5.5 Pittsburgh  3.43 Pittsburgh  5.3 Foster Farms Santa Clara, CA Utah  -3.20 Utah  -4.60 Utah  -3.90 Utah  -8 Utah  -9.32 Utah  -9.8 Birmingham Birmingham, AL South Florida  -18.35 South Florida  -17.60 South Florida  -17.98 South Florida  -10.5 South Florida  -15.02 South Florida  -10.1 Belk Charlotte, NC Virginia Tech  -11.39 Virginia Tech  -7.61 Virginia Tech  -9.50 Virginia Tech  -7 Virginia Tech  -6.78 Virginia Tech  -6.6 Music City Nashville, TN Tennessee  -0.49 Tennessee  -2.16 Tennessee  -1.32 Tennessee  -3 Nebraska  0.76 Tennessee  -7.2 Arizona Tucson, AZ Air Force  11.83 Air Force  13.75 Air Force  12.79 Air Force  13.5 Air Force  15.13 Air Force  12.4 Citrus Orlando, FL Louisville  5.67 Louisville  0.43 Louisville  3.05 LSU  -3.5 LSU  -2.57 Louisville  0.6 TaxSlayer Jacksonville, FL Georgia Tech  0.46 Kentucky  -2.04 Kentucky  -0.79 Georgia Tech  3.5 Georgia Tech  6.70 Georgia Tech  3.8   A few notes on these games:   1) I'm not sure why, but there is no Vegas line for the Middle Tennessee - Hawaii game.   2) There are a few games where DUSHEE is in noticeable disagreement with the other predictors/models.  DUSHEE likes Toledo in the Camellia, Western Kentucky in the Boca Raton, Troy in the Dollar General (new candidate for top-5 worst Bowl Sponsor Names), and Washington State in the Holiday a lot more than the others.  DUSHEE likes Northwestern in the Pinstripe when the others all have Pitt as a 3.5-point or greater favorite.  Revised DUSHEE is the only model that likes Kentucky over Georgia Tech.  And DUSHEE is significantly less favorable toward Utah against Indiana than the others.  Northwestern and Western Kentucky were arguably the biggest DUSHEE WTF teams of the year so it is not surprising that DUSHEE favors them more than the others.  DUSHEE has also been noticeably undersold on Pitt this season.   3) DUSHEE does not encourage gambling, but if one were inclined to make wagers based on the advice of DUSHEE, he would steer you toward Washington State (-6.5) against Minnesota in the Holiday, Michigan (-6.5) against Florida State in the Orange, Colorado (-3) against Oklahoma State in the Alamo, South Florida (-10.5) against South Carolina in the Birmingham, and Toledo (+1) against Appalachian State in the Camellia.   4) DUSHEE's highest confidence picks are Temple, South Florida, Washington State, Michigan and Alabama.  Lowest confidence picks are USC, Kentucky, Northwestern, Navy, and Tennessee.   So there you have it everybody.  After the bowls are over, we'll come back to this and see how DUSHEE fared.  Two seasons ago, DUSHEE did pretty well.  Last year, I petered out before bowl season and never kept track.   Correction: Where's the Outback Bowl, mate?   As Newbomb so astutely pointed out, I totally missed the Outback Bowl between Florida and Iowa.  And it turns out, the numbers for this game are notable.   Team Record DO DR Sag FPI SoS Florida 8-4 6.59 7.58 79.58 12.60 1.96 Iowa 8-4 6.77 7.58 84.01 12.60 1.30

  DO Fav DDO DR Fav DDR DA Fav D Avg Vegas Fav Vegas Sag Fav DSag FPI Fav DFPI Iowa -0.18 Iowa 0.00 Iowa -0.09 Florida 2.5 Iowa -4.43 Even 0.0   DUSHEE Original, DUSHEE Revised, and FPI all could not have this game more even.  You have to go out to the FIFTH decimal place in Revised DUSHEE to give Iowa the edge.  The FPI listing only goes to one decimal place.  Sagarin likes Iowa by 4.5, Vegas likes Florida by 2.5.  This game couldn't be more of a coin flip and becomes the new lowest DUSHEE confidence pick.  Which of course probably means that it will be a blowout.

Duquesne Frog

Duquesne Frog

 

2016-2017 TCU Basketball In Perspective

In a Numbers Make Me Horned first, we're going to turn away from college football and DUSHEE (although not team performance metrics) and try to put this most recent TCU basketball season in some perspective.   A running gag among some on this board, there has been a revisionist tendency by some to elevate the Billy Tubbs years as putting TCU among the elite programs in the country.  It was, by some measures, the pinnacle of TCU basketball, challenged only by the brief run of success had by the Killer Frogs of the mid-1980s.  But that pinnacle consisted of a single NCAA tournament bid, followed by an unceremonious 1st round exit at the hands of a 12-seed Florida State team, and two NIT bids.   The Frogs have made the NCAA tournament seven times (1952, 1953, 1959, 1968, 1971, 1987, and 1998), but four of those times were in the 1950's and 60's, when the NCAA tournament was arguably less prestigious than the NIT. The 1953, 1968 and 1971 teams were 16-9, 15-11 and 15-12, respectively.   This season was the Frogs' seventh NIT bid (1983, 1986, 1992, 1997, 1999, 2005, 2017).   Then there were all the years in between.  Since 1950, the Frogs have had 19 seasons of single digit wins   So how special was the 2017 Frogs NIT run in the program's history?  How does it compare to the other teams in the conference and in the state?  Just how dismal has TCU basketball been otherwise?   To assess this, I went to College Basketball Reference and used their SRS metric (Simple Rating System), which uses a similar approach as DUSHEE, to plot team performance as a function of time.  SRS, like DUSHEE, provides a relative performance compared to an average team (SRS = 0).  College Basketball reference only has SRS calculated back to the 1949-1950 season.    Then, in addition to a marker for each team's performance in a given year, I plotted a 5-year moving average (MAV) for each team as an indicator of program strength during the time the senior class was at the school.  Thus the MAV value in a given year, say 2000, is the average SRS score of the 1995-1996, 1996-1997,1997-1998, 1998-1999, and 1999-2000 seasons.  By following the MAV curve, you can qualitatively assess when a program is ascendant, declining, or keeping performance level.  Because I'm plotting the MAV in the last year of the 5-year envelope, it will often appear that the MAV is lagging the actual year-to-year performance.   Texas Schools:   This plot is the collective basketball history of most of the Texas D-1 schools since 1950, the bold purple line showing TCU's MAV.  From 1955 until 1984, TCU was a below average D-1 program during that three decade period.  For a 5-year stretch in the late 1970's, TCU and Rice needed binoculars to be able to see the rest of the state; and the rest of the state, particularly outside of Houston and UTEP, wasn't all that spectacular.  That's just how bad TCU was during that stretch.   But the Frogs did become sharply ascendant during the end of that period, becoming solidly middle-of-the-pack in the state in the late 1980s (Jamie Dixon's tenure as a player) before a slow decline through the mid-1990s.  Then Tubbs made the program sharply ascendant again, briefly challenging Tom Penders' UT teams as the best program in the state before another steady decline into another decade of mediocrity from 2005-2015.   But if you look at the tip of that peak during the Tubbs' era, and look for the little purple triangles that mark the year-to-year SRS scores for TCU around that peak, you can see that the peak is largely driven by one single year, the 1997-1998 NCAA team.  Based on the SRS metric, that team had the highest score of any team in the state from 1985 forward, and behind only the 1968 and 1983 Houston teams since 1950.  Also note that this past season's TCU team has the second highest SRS score of any TCU team, the only other TCU team to exceed a single season SRS over 15.   Houston and UTEP dominated the state from the mid-1960s until almost the mid-1990s, when Texas became the most consistently high-performing team in the conference, which it held until about 2012.  SMU showed some early dominance in the 1950s and Baylor has emerged the top power in the state over the last few years.   Southwest Conference:   This chart has a lot of the same data as the previous chart, but includes only the SWC teams for the years in which the teams were actually in the conference.  So Tech arrives in 1961, Houston doesn't arrive until 1977, and Arkansas, which wasn't included in the previous figure, disappears after 1992, four years before everybody else disappears.  Perhaps the most interesting thing to note here is how awful a basketball conference the SWC was during most of the 1960s and 1970s.  From 1968-1973, there was not a single SWC program with an above-average SRS 5-year MAV.  And even into the 1980s, only the addition of Houston and the ascendancy of Nolan Richardson's Hogs made the conference look halfway respectable.  Arkansas left on a very high note; its 1990-1991 team had, by far, the highest SRS score (27.3) in the conference from 1950 on.   WAC/MWC:   As we all remember, after the demise of the SWC, we joined the new and "improved" 16-team WAC, which shortly after we joined broke apart into the MWC and the Leftovers WAC.  This hybrid chart shows all the teams that were in the WAC prior to the MWC split and then the teams that joined the WAC after the split; thus after 1998, this chart shows all the teams in both conferences.  Thus TCU shows up twice, from 1996-1997 through 2000-2001 as a part of the WAC, and then from 2005-2006 through 2011-2012 as a part of the MWC.  The "WAC Folds" line marks when the WAC ceased to exist as a football conference; I recognize that the WAC still has life as a basketball conference, but a man only has so much time to account for so many basketball teams.  Note that during this time, while Utah, Tulsa, BYU, UNLV, UNM, and Fresno all vied for the best program in these conferences, the 1997-1998 TCU team has the highest single season SRS score.  In fact, even if you take the WAC back to it's predecessor days (next chart), that TCU team had the highest SRS in conference history, dating back to 1950.  Higher than Rick Majerus', Keith Van Horn-led, Final Four Utes, higher than Bill Self's best Tulsa team.     Conference USA/American Athletic:   This chart, like the WAC/MWC one, shows multiple related conferences on one chart; the teams that formed the original CUSA, the core of which formed the eventual American Athletic Conference, leaving behind a gutted and transformed CUSA.  I didn't try to add all the new teams in the modern CUSA.  This conference was always dominated by three teams, Cincinnati, Louisville, and Memphis.  TCU was already on the way down from their 1998 peak and was never really a factor in this conference.   Big 7/8/XII/XII-II:   Our current home.  TCU and Tech have battled for the cellar of the Big XII-II throughout our short time in the conference, but both teams appear to be sharply ascendant.  This chart goes a long way to show just how good a basketball conference this is right now.  Going back to the very first chart with all the Texas teams and the current TCU program is squarely middle-of-the-pack. In the Big XII-II, we are, by this metric, the worst team in the conference, and with Tech, the two worst programs by a significant margin.   The other interesting thing to note, going back historically, is that from 1950 to 1980 or so, while Kansas was (with Kansas State) the best program in the conference, it was only by nature of a fairly weak conference.  Kansas really didn't become a true national power (by the SRS metric, at least) until it and (Billy Tubbs-led) Oklahoma began to rise in the late-1980s.  Then, unlike Oklahoma, Kansas has stayed at an elite level over the better part of the last three decades.  No one has really come close to Kansas' supremacy since OU's decline in the early-1990s.   The best ever Big XII team based on SRS?  The 1987-1988 Oklahoma team coached by one Billy Tubbs.  The SRS metric seems to really like Billy, Chuck ...   Completing TCU's basketball journey to date, let's take a look at some of the other major conferences' histories.   Big East:   I figured I'd start with our coach's old conference, to give a sense of what he and Ben Howland did with the Pitt program prior to coming to TCU.  The Big East formed as a basketball conference beginning with the 1979-1980 season with members from a number of other conferences.  At the time of its formation, Notre Dame (which didn't actually join the conference until a few years later), Syracuse, and Georgetown were the top teams until the mid-1990s.  At that point, UConn became and remained the top program in the conference until about 2005 when a bunch of teams, including Pitt (bold blue line), Louisville, Villanova, and WVU all reached about the same consistent level until the football schools all left the Big East after the 2012-2013 season.  Aside from a brief rise from 1985-1990, Pitt basketball had not been anything other than a pretty average program, and sometimes terrible (around 1970).   PAC 12:   Those John Wooden UCLA teams were pretty good.   SEC:   The late-2000s Florida team is the only program to be able to say it was clearly better than Kentucky over the last seven decades.   ACC:   The ACC started out as kinda a crappy basketball conference.  From 1970 on, however, pretty salty.   B1G:   Perhaps the most evenly competitive of all the major conferences. Illinois, Ohio State, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin , and even Purdue have all had at least a brief claim to be the best program in the conference.  Only Northwestern has been consistently mediocre over the last seven decades.

Duquesne Frog

Duquesne Frog

 

A Historical Perspective on College Football (Part II -- The Power 5 and the Rest)

Last week, in Part I, we discussed all of TCU's past lives; as a team in the state of Texas, and in the SWC, WAC, and Conference USA.   This week, we will focus on TCU's current conference, the rest of the "Power 5," and a few other conferences like the Big East and the MAC.   And away we go ...   Big 6/7/8/12/XII-II   TCUs current conference was always closely intertwined with its old one.  The Oklahoma schools started in the SWC before Oklahoma founded the Big 6 and Oklahoma State turned the conference into the Big 8.  Then when the SWC went belly up, half the conference merged with the Big 8 to form the Big 12.  In between, Texas and Oklahoma remained each other's primary rival, often to the chagrin of their in-state rivals.   The first chart shows the history of the conference after the expansion to 12.     At the time of the expansion, Nebraska was dominant, playing elite MNC-level football.  Colorado was at a peak but was about the start a slow decline after the McCartney era was exposed and Bill Snyder was getting Kansas State to a pretty elite level.  A&M comes in as the best program of the Texas schools but is in decline.     Then around 2002, Nebraska and Kansas State begin to decline and Texas and Oklahoma begin to rise and those two schools dominate the conference for the next decade.  It is at this point that Nebraska, Colorado, A&M, and Missouri leave, resulting in the entry of TCU and West Virginia.  Texas falls off while Oklahoma State and Baylor emerge as contenders with Oklahoma remaining pretty elite.   The 2005 Texas team ekes out the 2008 Oklahoma team as the best single season in the Big 12 history.  The 2014 Frogs are the highest rated team in the Big XII-II's short history.   The history of the Big 6/7/8 prior to the addition of the Texas schools appears below.     The Big 6/7/8 started out as the original Missouri Valley Conference, with Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa State as charter members with Drake and Washington (Mo).  Kansas State and Grinnell would join shortly after, and Oklahoma joined as Drake, Washington, and Grinnell dropped out of "big time" college football.  From 1928-1947, the conference was six teams.  The addition of Colorado (from the precursor of the WAC, see Part I) in 1948 made the conference seven, and Oklahoma State in 1960 (from the Missouri Valley) formed the Big 8.   During this entire time, the conference was pretty well dominated by two teams -- Nebraska and Oklahoma.  Nebraska dominated the first three decades up until WWII.  After the war, Oklahoma took over as the dominant team for two decades.  Then after the OU-NU hegemony was challenged for a few years by Missouri and Kansas in the early 1960s, Nebraska and Oklahoma vaulted to super-elite status in the late 1960s and remained there for the next two decades when Oklahoma fell apart after Barry Switzer left to coach the Cowboys and Colorado started to emerge.   The clear heyday of the Big 8 was the decade of the 70s when NU and OU were out-of-this-world good and even the perennial bottom-dwellers Kansas State and Iowa State put together decent programs.  Note that aside from this period, Kansas State was consistently atrocious from WWII until about 1990 when Bill Snyder came aboard.  The 1973 Oklahoma team was rated the best in conference history, but pretty much any Nebraska or Oklahoma team from 1970-1974 could have been considered one of the best of all time.   PAC12 (previously the Pacific Coast Conference/Athletic Association of Western Universities/PAC-8/PAC-10)   The schools that would become the PAC-8 started out in the Pacific Coast Conference with Idaho and Montana.  The plot below shows the conference during the PCC years.     Throughout these years, Idaho and Montana struggled to be competitive, generally always comprising the bottom of the standings.  USC emerged as the dominant team in the late 1920s and early 30s, but then came back to the pack prior to WWII.  From that point on, the conference was very evenly competitive with Stanford, Cal, and UCLA all vying for championships most years and many of the other teams, at least briefly, becoming competitive.   In 1959, the California schools and Washington rid themselves of the Oregon schools, Washington State, and Idaho (Montana had left the PCC in 1949) and formed the AAWU.  Washington State was let back in the club in 1962 and the Oregon schools in 1964 when the conference became known as the PAC-8.  For the purposes of continuity, the following chart, which shows the conference from 1960 on, doesn't reflect these rejections and readmittances.     With the official formation of the PAC-8, USC reemerged as the dominant program through the early 1980s (by which point the Arizona schools had moved over from the WAC, see Part I) followed by strong years from UCLA and Washington in the late 80s and 90s.  Note that the USC program at the time of the Sun Bowl was going through its lowest point since the early 1960s.  One of the many ways in which the football gods were smiling on us in 1998.  The Trojans once again re-emerge as the dominant team of the mid-to-late 2000s and then Oregon leveraged that Nike money to get good in the current decade.  Utah and Colorado join in the 2011 season with Utah being solid, middle-of-the-pack and Colorado mostly battling with Washington State for the cellar.   Aside from an extended two decades of bad play from Oregon State at the end of the last century, the PAC has been a pretty competitive conference throughout.  The best ever single season was the 1972 USC team and the highest program marks were reached by the Pete Carroll USC teams of the mid 2000s and the USC teams of the early 1930s.   SEC (previously the Southern Conference)   If you thought the 16-team WAC was the most insane conference ever devised, you probably weren't around for the Southern Conference, which was the precursor of both the SEC and the ACC.  The teams that founded both of those conferences plus a whole bunch of other teams played together in the Southern Conference, which at its greatest extent was a TWENTY-THREE team conference.  It is not immediately obvious how scheduling was handled during this time; there were no official divisions but it does seem like the schools who would become the SEC mostly played each other and the schools that became the ACC mostly played each other.  Some schools played eight conference games; others played four.   The chart below shows the ridiculous history of the Southern Conference up to the time when the SEC split in 1933.  I don't expect you to be able to figure out which squiggle belongs to which school.  Just trust me when I tell you that the top squiggles chronologically are Vanderbilt (yes, Vanderbilt was once good in football), Auburn, Georgia Tech, Alabama, and Tennessee.  The 1917 Rambin' Wreck was the dominant single season team of the era.     The conference at this time also included schools like Tulane, Sewanee, Washington and Lee, and the Virginia Military Institute.  The last two of these teams were left out of the SEC  but remained in the Southern Conference along with most of the teams that would become the ACC.   Next we see the early years of the SEC.  Sewanee hangs on until 1939, battling Mississippi State for the cellar.  Tulane is initially quite competitive, with a 5-year MAV that generally hovered just below Alabama, Tennessee, and an emerging LSU up until WWII.  After the war, Tulane falls off, replaced by Georgia and Georgia Tech, the latter of which became the clear dominant team in the mid-1950s.  Mississippi, which was a clear bottom-feeder in the Southern Conference caps off a slow ascent and becomes the top program in the conference in the late 1950s and early 60s when Alabama takes over.      It is at this point that Georgia Tech and Tulane leave the conference; Tech still very competitive (Tulane not as much).  It is also at this point that Kentucky, Vandy, and Mississippi State set up shop as the bottom programs in the conference, a distinction they will maintain through most of the remaining history of the conference.     Alabama remains the dominant team of the 70s and early 80s when the retirement of Bear Bryant marks the beginning of their decline as a program (although still good enough to grab an MNC for Gene Stallings in 1992).  During Bama's decline, Florida, Ole Miss, and Georgia rise until the early 1990s when Florida and Tennessee pull ahead of the rest of the conference where they will stay for about a decade.  South Carolina and Arkansas join the conference at this time, staying firmly middle-of-the-pack throughout their history.   As we all know, Alabama has re-emerged as the dominant team in the conference over the last half decade, during which time A&M and Missouri join the conference, also shoring up the middle of the conference.   The best ever single season for the SEC was the 1971 Alabama team and 1975 marked the pinnacle of the Alabama program, although another few strong years from Nick Saban might get the most recent incarnation of the Tide in the same rarefied air.   ACC (preceded by the same Southern Conference)   For the first three decades in the history of the ACC, refer to the first chart in the SEC section above.  Trust me, they're in there.  After the SEC splits, the Southern Conference becomes a little easier to digest.     You'll note that at the time of the SEC split, the top programs in the Southern Conference were most of the ones that left, with the notable exception of Mississippi State.  In the vacuum left by the SEC schools, Duke and UNC rose quickly, and in particular Duke (yes, Duke) was the dominant force in the Southern Conference up until the ACC formed in 1953.  Schools were added to the conference in the wake of the SEC split including Wake Forest and then Virginia left after 1937 only to return after the ACC formation.  Once again, the newly formed conference split from the poorer performers as Davidson, Richmond, Virginia Tech, the Citadel, VMI and Furman, many of whom had been added with Wake Forest back in the late 1930s.   Compared to the other 'Power 5' conferences, the ACC has easily the least auspicious beginnings.  Maryland emerges as the first dominant team in the ACC but falls off quickly and then the conference slides into a pretty mediocre state.  Duke, NC State, and UNC all take turns as the "top" program in the conference but by 1970 (the year South Carolina leaves and goes independent) the ACC has more teams with below average MAVs than above average.  If I were to tell you in 1970 that between the ACC and SWC one conference was going to collapse and the other was going to become one of the five elite conferences in college football, I think most people would have put their money on the ACC for the collapse.  But the conference made some very strategic moves that the SWC didn't make. Like ...     ... making wise expansion choices.  The ACC initially added Georgia Tech in 1983.  Georgia Tech was not immediately a big player in the conference and Maryland, UNC, and Clemson all made big improvements in play in the late 70s and early 80s.  Then everybody except Clemson fell off and the conference started looking pretty mediocre again until they scored Florida State who would thoroughly dominate the ACC from 1992 until their next expansion move in 2004.  This move was the first of two death blows the ACC landed on the Big East, grabbing Miami, Virginia Tech, and BC.  This immediately added two teams that would become mainstays at the top of the conference, even if Miami would never replicate their Big East success.  Then they ACC landed the second blow, adding Pitt, Louisville, and Syracuse.  Combined with Duke and Wake showing some improvement of late making the bottom of the conference not look so atrocious, the ACC is now a clear "Power 5," even if arguably the weakest.   The best ever ACC team was the 1993 Florida State team.   B1G   The Big 10 began with seven teams in 1896 (shown below back to 1892 because the data was there) -- Purdue, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, and U of Chicago.  Indiana and Iowa joined in 1899 and Ohio State in 1912, giving the league ten actual teams until Chicago left in 1939.  The chart below shows the conference for this era.  The conference was pretty equitable during its first 5 decades with Purdue and Minnesota dominating the 1890s, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Chicago the 1900s, Minnesota the 1910s, Michigan the 1920s, and Minnesota, Purdue, Ohio State and even Northwestern all vying for supremacy during the Depression.  Only Indiana never really maintained a competitive program at any point of the conference's early years.  Clearly, by WWII, the University of Chicago was struggling to remain competitive.   The 1940 Michigan and Minnesota teams edge out the 1917 Minnesota team as the best single-season teams during this era.     Once Chicago drops, the Big 10 had nine teams for 14 years until Michigan State was added in 1953.  It's not only the modern Big 10 that can't seem to maintain the correct number of teams.    After WWII, Michigan has the first extended era of dominance from 1942 through 1952.  Parity reigned again through most of the 50s and 60s with Michigan State, Ohio State, Iowa, and Purdue all staking a claim to the top program in the conference during the period.  Once again, Indiana is really the only program never to get consistently into the upper echelon during this period.      By 1970, several Big 10 programs have taken severe downturns, including Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, and most notably Northwestern which goes from a MAV of 15 in 1962 to -10 by 1980, about where the U of Chicago was when they dropped out of the conference 40 years before.  In a trend of one- or two-team dominance that is noticeable in most of the major conferences in the 1970s (Texas and Arkansas in the SWC, Oklahoma and Nebraska in the Big 8, Alabama in the SEC, USC in the PAC-10), the Big 10 is dominated by Michigan and Ohio State throughout the decade.  The 1947 Michigan team, 1973 Ohio State team, and 1944 Ohio State team were the best of the era.   Ohio State, and to a lesser extent Michigan, come down to the pack a little in the 1980s as Iowa, Illinois and Michigan State improve.  In the 90s, the conference becomes a three-headed monster with the admittance of Penn State in 1993 (making the Big 10 eleven), the resurgence of Ohio State, and continued elite play of Michigan throughout the decade.  The new millennia sees Penn State decline leaving Ohio State and Michigan at the top.  Michigan finally starts to decline in the late 2000s, replaced by Penn State and Wisconsin as Ohio State's primary competition over the last decade.  Wisconsin's resurgence in the 1990s is stark, going from bottom-dwellers (with Northwestern) in 1990 to top-tier status in two decades.  During this time, Northwestern, Illinois, Minnesota, Purdue, and of course Indiana are never particularly competitive.   Also during this time, the conference adds Nebraska (2011), Maryland (2014), and Rutgers (2014).  Only Nebraska is above average since joining.  The 1994 Penn State team is the top team of the era.     Big East and the Eastern Independents   The Big East started as a basketball conference in the 1979 but in 1991 became a football conference.  The conference was formed from the Big East basketball schools that played D1-A football (BC, Syracuse, and Pitt) and from a number of other eastern independents (Miami, WVU, Rutgers, VaTech, and Temple).  Notre Dame, while never football member of the Big East, is included here because they were among the eastern independents from which the conference was born and played in the conference in other sports.  Army and Navy are also included in these charts for any years where they weren't parts of other conferences (e.g., Army in CUSA starting in 1998)     The conference was immediately dominated by Miami, coming into the conference at their zenith.  Lou Holtz had Notre Dame riding high at this point as well.  By 2000, Miami had come down a little and Syracuse and Virginia Tech emerged as serious contenders.  Then in 2004, the Big East's two bellwethers at the time, Miami and Virginia Tech left for the ACC, followed by Boston College the following year.  Those schools were replaced by UConn (a Big East basketball school moving up to play D1-A football), and Cincinnati, Louisville, and South Florida from CUSA, but the death spiral had begun.  WVU emerged as the class of the conference during these final years before leaving for the Big XII-II after the 2011 season.  Pitt, Syracuse, and Louisville leave for the ACC the following year and the conference folds.   The 2001 Miami team was the best single season in Big East history.   Prior to the formation of the Big East, most of the eastern schools, particularly in the north and mid-Atlantic where the ACC and SEC didn't have a footprint, played as independents.  In some respects they were in a de facto conference as most of these schools played each other on a yearly basis, or nearly so, but they never officially formed.  Not until the Big East.   The military academies and Penn State had SRS numbers dating back to the 1890s.  Army is the dominant team in these early years, followed by Pitt and Notre Dame starting around 1915.  Knute Rockne had Notre Dame as the dominant force in the northeast during the 1920s and early 30s when Pitt emerges again just before WWII.  The war drives Pitt into a prolonged funk that lasts until they recruit Tony Dorsett and Dan Marino but launches Notre Dame and the military academies, particularly Army, to stratospheric heights.     After the war, Notre Dame and the academies come back to Earth (albeit Notre Dame more slowly) and by 1960 the northeast is lacking in many good programs.  Syracuse and Penn State are the best of a tepid lot.  Rutgers, as always, is terrible at this time.  Then in the late 1960s, Ara Parseghian returns Notre Dame to elite status while Penn State, Pitt, and Florida State all emerge by 1980 into serious national contenders.   The 1943 Notre Dame team was the greatest team of the Independent era and arguably the best of all time.  I'm not sure why Notre Dame got so much talent during the war when so many other non-military academy schools struggled, but alas they did.   SBC/CUSA   The Sun Belt, much like her other "mid-major" brethren, has been turned over, almost entirely by the ACC/Big East/AAC/CUSA/WAC upheaval of the last few years, and so their chart is also a bit of a mess.  The SBC was created in 1976 but didn't become a D1-A/FBS conference until the 2001 season. with Arkansas State, Louisiana-Lafayette, Middle Tennessee, New Mexico State, North Texas, Idaho, and Louisiana-Monroe as the founding football members.  Utah State and Troy joined in the following two years.  Then the shuffling started.   In 2005, Utah State, Idaho, and New Mexico State left to join the WAC after the MWC pilfered the WAC to replace TCU, Utah, and BYU.  The Sun Belt adds Floridas Atlantic and International, then Western Kentucky in 2009.  Eight years later, the SBC sheds MTSU, FIU, FAU, and UNT when all leave to go to CUSA after the AAC forms with mostly CUSA teams.  Western Kentucky follows suit a year later.  New Mexico State and Idaho return after the WAC collapses and are joined by Texas State, Appalachian State, South Alabama, Georgia Southern, and Georgia State during the 2013-2014 seasons, most of whom playing their first FBS football.   So the chart below has all of these teams, plus the teams that are still remaining in the current version of CUSA.  It is a mess.  Make what you will of it ...     MAC   And last but not least, we take a look at the history of MACtion.  The MAC was formed in 1946 and became a D1-A conference in 1962 with Ohio, Miami (OH), Western Michigan, Toledo, Kent State, Bowling Green, and Marshall and the seven initial members.  Marshall was booted after the 1969 season then Eastern Michigan, Central Michigan, Ball State and Northern Illinois were all added between 1971-1975.  During most of this time, the conference was led by Miami, interrupted by a brief meteoric rise and fall of Toledo around 1970.   After 1980, the conference as a whole started a slow decline with no program having a better than average MAV from 1982 until 1997.  During this time Central Michigan, Bowling Green, and Miami all vied for the top spot in the conference.  Northern Illinois left after the 1985 season, replaced by Akron in 1992.  Then in 1997, Northern Illinois and Marshall returned, with Marshall immediately becoming the top team in the conference until the left again to go to CUSA in 2005.  Buffalo was added in 1998.  The conference then had brief experiments with Central Florida, Temple, and Massachusetts from 2000-2015, during which time conference play improved and NIU, CMU, and Toledo emerged as the top conference teams.   The best ever MAC program was the Ben Roethlisberger-led Miami Red Hawks in 2003.  

Duquesne Frog

Duquesne Frog

 

The Inaugural 2017 DUSHEE Rankings

If you just want the rankings and don't care about my jibber-jabber, scroll down to the bottom of this post.  But I encourage you to read the jibber-jabber to allow me to explain some of the crazy stuff you see in the rankings.  And as an aside, the addition of Coastal Carolina in the Sun Belt and the rising of the UAB Phoenixes/Blazers from the ashes has raised the number of FBS teams to 130 for this season.   I'm always quite apprehensive putting out DUSHEE, particularly these early ones when some teams still only have two games against FBS competition.  This year, I'm particularly apprehensive, because DUSHEE has come up with some rankings that ... well, shall we say ... go against conventional wisdom.  But rather than shirk from the mocking and cower from the slings and arrows of outrageous slander, I'm going to use this as an opportunity to elucidate the pitfalls of such analyses and look at some of the oddities that appear in the inaugural DUSHEE for 2017.   To get the big one out of the way early, DUSHEE is not as down on Baylor as the rest of the college football world.  In fact, the initial DUSHEE (original formulation, because extra-crispy DUSHEE is even higher on the Rapey Bears) has the winless Bears ranked .... 24th.  Yes, DUSHEE has Baylor as a top 25 team.  So let's look at why.   First, as far as DUSHEE is concerned, the loss to Liberty never happened.  Generally that's not a big deal because most teams beat their patsies by huge margins and they can be ignored.  When an FBS team loses to their patsy, that's a big piece of information that gets ignored, because I have a hard enough time keeping track of FBS teams without doubling the population of teams.   Outside of Liberty, DUSHEE has Baylor's strength of schedule is the 5th hardest in FBS (TCU's schedule ranks 4th, BTW).  UTSA is ranked 37th (based on 2 games, a 17-10 win against Baylor and a 44-14 win against Texas State), Duke is 25th, OU is 8th, and K-State is 60th.  Baylor in particular, gets a lot of mileage in DUSHEE for their 8-point loss to Oklahoma.   Opp:  UTSA @ Duke  OU @ KSU PD: 23.00 -11.00 27.33 7.50 YD: 253.00 -25.67 223.67 197.00 Score: 27.99 -8.62 29.41 14.86   So right now, Baylor's point differential against UTSA (which is inflated due to the fact that UTSA's only other FCS game was a blowout win against Texas State .... PD = -7+30 = 23) and Oklahoma are quite high, despite being losses.  Baylor played UTSA and OU closer than their opponents did.  Baylor played OU closer than Ohio State did.   Of course, one would expect Baylor's point differential against UTSA to go down as UTSA plays more teams and presumably doesn't blow out every other team on their schedule.  But right now, Baylor's score against UTSA is based solely on a comparison with Texas State.  And since Baylor played UTSA significantly better than Texas State did, they get a high point differential.   Which is why you should be wary of any data-based ranking system when the data is scarce.  If Baylor is still getting a DUSHEE score of 28 points for the UTSA game by week 10, then UTSA will have destroyed the rest of Conference USA and is probably in the top 25.  But I suspect that the UTSA score will drop significantly by then.  That said, UTSA doesn't exactly have a murderer's row of opponents the rest of the way out, which is why I created the extra crispy DUSHEE.  But that version of DUSHEE rewards Baylor even more for their tough schedule than original recipe.   Which leads us to Team That Will Cause Frog Horn Incredulity #2: Ohio State.  DUSHEE has the Ohio State team that got blown out at home to Oklahoma as the #1 team in the country.  Barely, but they are not quite 0.4 points above Alabama and a point above Clemson.  And the opponent that is putting Ohio State on top?  UNLV, the team that lost to Howard.   The Ohio State-UNLV situation is a similar one to the Baylor-UTSA situation above.  Ohio State beat UNLV by 33 points and outgained the Runnin' Rebels by 404 yards.  That is being compared to UNLV's other two FBS games, a 28-point win over Idaho and a 28-point win over San Jose State.  That makes Ohio State's point differential over UNLV 61 points (33+28).  And as with the Baylor-Liberty tilt, DUSHEE doesn't know UNLV-Howard was ever played.  When you blow out a team that has only blown out other teams, you get a really high point differential.  UNLV isn't going to blow out the rest of their schedule.  That number will come down and Ohio State's ranking will come down.   And while there are a number of other teams that will doubtlessly make you question my sanity, the final team at which will take a look is Central Florida.  The inaugural DUSHEE has UCF as the 4th ranked team in the country.  And while I don't think UCF is actually the 4th best team in the country, UCF has been impressive and under the radar.  So far, UCF has blown out Florida International 61-17, Maryland (the team that beat Texas in Austin) 38-10, and Memphis (who took down Ole Miss) 40-13.  None of those opponents are world beaters by any stretch, but Maryland and Memphis aren't total patsies either and UCF pounded them both.  I have no doubt that the Knights are being over-rated here, but I do think this is a team that is currently under the radar nationally that is probably a lot better than pollsters are giving them credit.   The Frogs enter the rankings at number 6 and DUSHEE has the Big 12 barely ahead of the ACC and Big 10 as the best conference (on average) in FBS.  Note that the letters 'SEC' were nowhere in that sentence.  For the first time that I can remember since doing this DUSHEE experiment, the SEC not only isn't the top-ranked conference, they are the LOWEST ranked conference of the "Power 5."  And since the vast majority of OOC games are in the books, I wouldn't expect the SEC to be able to make up enough ground to challenge the top conferences by the season's end.  This is arguably a historic down year for the conference.  I'm sure we will be getting a bunch of stories about the inferiority of the SEC on ESPN over the next few weeks. [/sarcasm]   Conference Rankings B12 13.44 ACC 13.43 B10 13.28 P12 7.99 SEC 5.28 AAC 0.17 MWC -8.01 MAC -15.68 SBC -15.75 CUSA -15.85   Rank by Team Rank-Team-PD-YD-DUSHEE Score 1 Ohio St.  39.20 324.60 42.37 2 Alabama  41.53 285.93 41.99 3 Clemson  36.50 339.83 41.34 4 UCF  38.83 235.17 37.65 5 Miami (FL)  35.50 232.25 35.29 6 TCU  36.92 205.64 34.90 7 Penn St.  37.90 169.23 33.73 8 Oklahoma  28.60 272.75 32.72 9 Georgia  32.98 161.04 30.04 10 Virginia Tech  26.13 231.04 28.98 11 Wisconsin  27.50 167.33 26.70 12 Oklahoma St.  23.03 218.82 26.30 13 Notre Dame  29.07 116.45 25.20 14 USC  24.70 139.60 23.45 15 Michigan  19.08 197.29 22.59 16 Maryland  23.50 132.72 22.31 17 Auburn  21.17 160.60 22.15 18 Oregon  18.63 170.17 20.93 19 Florida St.  17.69 122.08 17.90 20 Arizona  16.67 131.14 17.67 21 Michigan St.  13.19 160.02 16.80 22 Mississippi St.  14.50 131.25 16.23 23 Louisville  9.44 194.75 16.03 24 Baylor  11.71 162.00 15.91 25 Duke  11.77 144.81 15.09 26 Georgia Tech  7.03 203.58 14.87 27 Washington  16.21 73.46 14.48 28 West Virginia  11.67 125.83 14.07 29 Texas Tech  13.08 96.83 13.57 30 Iowa  17.40 35.63 13.38 31 Washington St.  9.81 134.85 13.29 32 Boise St.  9.46 107.17 11.67 33 Stanford  14.83 2.03 9.99 34 N.C. State  9.13 71.23 9.65 35 Purdue  9.46 63.50 9.48 36 SMU  11.21 28.21 8.88 37 UT-San Antonio 0.00 174.83 8.75 38 Arkansas  7.17 74.53 8.51 39 Colorado St.  6.88 74.42 8.31 40 Texas  7.75 62.13 8.27 41 South Florida  6.85 61.81 7.66 42 Indiana  9.25 21.94 7.26 43 Colorado  9.19 20.17 7.13 44 Texas A&M  6.75 51.75 7.09 45 Wake Forest  8.31 25.83 6.83 46 Virginia  3.11 74.67 5.81 47 UCLA  4.17 59.18 5.74 48 Minnesota  6.54 18.85 5.30 49 Houston  6.17 11.35 4.68 50 Iowa St.  6.75 -6.97 4.15 51 Memphis  8.17 -30.17 3.94 52 W. Michigan  7.67 -33.79 3.42 53 Navy  2.35 22.38 2.69 54 Arizona St.  4.23 -8.73 2.39 55 Northwestern  3.42 1.17 2.34 56 San Diego St.  5.50 -27.00 2.32 57 Pittsburgh  0.38 39.81 2.24 58 Fresno St.  0.53 35.06 2.11 59 Utah  3.03 -1.50 1.94 60 Kansas St.  4.00 -25.89 1.37 61 North Texas  -3.44 71.92 1.31 62 Kentucky  7.10 -68.83 1.29 63 Syracuse  -4.50 72.77 0.64 64 Appalachian State -2.33 17.78 -0.67 65 Northern Illinois  -2.11 7.53 -1.03 66 Nebraska  -1.77 0.07 -1.17 67 Southern Miss  -5.56 47.22 -1.34 68 Tulane  -2.00 -8.56 -1.76 69 LSU  -6.00 42.42 -1.88 70 New Mexico  -3.67 6.98 -2.10 71 Florida  2.17 -71.25 -2.12 72 UNLV  1.75 -74.83 -2.58 73 Boston Coll.  -1.73 -30.57 -2.68 74 Florida Atlantic  1.06 -73.40 -2.96 75 Vanderbilt  2.00 -87.73 -3.06 76 Tennessee  -2.87 -25.30 -3.18 77 California  -4.58 -9.77 -3.54 78 Cincinnati  -5.33 -3.92 -3.75 79 North Carolina  -4.83 -14.73 -3.96 80 Miami (OH)  -6.19 -11.69 -4.71 81 Troy  -5.52 -24.15 -4.89 82 Coastal Carolina -9.14 15.51 -5.32 83 South Carolina  -1.50 -88.47 -5.43 84 Air Force  -5.78 -33.22 -5.51 85 Ohio  -3.83 -67.68 -5.94 86 Tulsa  -3.38 -80.00 -6.26 87 Rutgers  -6.98 -43.17 -6.81 88 Toledo  -3.33 -100.00 -7.23 89 New Mexico St.  -9.73 -19.85 -7.48 90 Arkansas St.  -8.54 -37.54 -7.57 91 Illinois  -2.25 -137.10 -8.36 92 Temple  -4.48 -110.23 -8.50 93 Marshall  -5.92 -103.33 -9.11 94 Georgia State -12.00 -27.42 -9.37 95 East. Michigan  -9.92 -57.58 -9.49 96 UAB -15.11 -21.72 -11.16 97 Louisiana Tech  -12.46 -86.13 -12.61 98 Hawaii  -22.04 39.32 -12.73 99 Army  -11.54 -111.75 -13.29 100 Buffalo  -7.42 -169.67 -13.43 101 Mississippi  -17.25 -57.78 -14.39 102 Utah St.  -12.46 -123.31 -14.47 103 West. Kentucky  -11.44 -137.22 -14.49 104 LA Monroe  -12.63 -121.75 -14.51 105 Wyoming  -11.81 -149.83 -15.37 106 BYU  -13.83 -144.13 -16.43 107 Kansas  -20.17 -68.89 -16.89 108 Oregon St.  -19.67 -89.92 -17.61 109 Middle Tenn. St.  -20.13 -88.93 -17.87 110 East Carolina  -21.50 -93.83 -19.03 111 Ball St.  -17.67 -152.63 -19.41 112 Idaho  -17.28 -166.11 -19.83 113 Florida Intl.  -22.25 -125.58 -21.12 114 Cent. Michigan  -25.48 -85.35 -21.26 115 Massachusetts -24.97 -100.67 -21.68 116 Missouri  -22.75 -163.86 -23.36 117 LA Lafayette  -22.03 -182.28 -23.80 118 Connecticut  -24.11 -161.39 -24.15 119 Old Dominion -21.51 -209.19 -24.80 120 Akron  -20.04 -231.92 -24.96 121 Kent St.  -28.15 -210.69 -29.30 122 Nevada  -27.08 -225.83 -29.35 123 Texas St. -33.08 -148.88 -29.50 124 South Alabama -32.94 -198.29 -31.88 125 Georgia Southern -30.17 -280.83 -34.16 126 Bowling Green  -35.00 -247.10 -35.70 127 UNC-Charlotte -42.17 -199.83 -38.11 128 San Jose St.  -36.70 -277.47 -38.35 129 Rice  -37.23 -282.65 -38.96 130 UTEP  -36.78 -297.57 -39.41   By Conference AAC 4 UCF  38.83 235.17 37.65 36 SMU  11.21 28.21 8.88 41 South Florida  6.85 61.81 7.66 49 Houston  6.17 11.35 4.68 51 Memphis  8.17 -30.17 3.94 53 Navy  2.35 22.38 2.69 68 Tulane  -2.00 -8.56 -1.76 78 Cincinnati  -5.33 -3.92 -3.75 86 Tulsa  -3.38 -80.00 -6.26 92 Temple  -4.48 -110.23 -8.50 110 East Carolina  -21.50 -93.83 -19.03 118 Connecticut  -24.11 -161.39 -24.15 ACC 3 Clemson  36.50 339.83 41.34 5 Miami (FL)  35.50 232.25 35.29 10 Virginia Tech  26.13 231.04 28.98 19 Florida St.  17.69 122.08 17.90 23 Louisville  9.44 194.75 16.03 25 Duke  11.77 144.81 15.09 26 Georgia Tech  7.03 203.58 14.87 34 N.C. State  9.13 71.23 9.65 45 Wake Forest  8.31 25.83 6.83 46 Virginia  3.11 74.67 5.81 57 Pittsburgh  0.38 39.81 2.24 63 Syracuse  -4.50 72.77 0.64 73 Boston Coll.  -1.73 -30.57 -2.68 79 North Carolina  -4.83 -14.73 -3.96 B1G 1 Ohio St.  39.20 324.60 42.37 7 Penn St.  37.90 169.23 33.73 11 Wisconsin  27.50 167.33 26.70 15 Michigan  19.08 197.29 22.59 16 Maryland  23.50 132.72 22.31 21 Michigan St.  13.19 160.02 16.80 30 Iowa  17.40 35.63 13.38 35 Purdue  9.46 63.50 9.48 42 Indiana  9.25 21.94 7.26 48 Minnesota  6.54 18.85 5.30 55 Northwestern  3.42 1.17 2.34 66 Nebraska  -1.77 0.07 -1.17 87 Rutgers  -6.98 -43.17 -6.81 91 Illinois  -2.25 -137.10 -8.36 BXII-II 6 TCU  36.92 205.64 34.90 8 Oklahoma  28.60 272.75 32.72 12 Oklahoma St.  23.03 218.82 26.30 24 Baylor  11.71 162.00 15.91 28 West Virginia  11.67 125.83 14.07 29 Texas Tech  13.08 96.83 13.57 40 Texas  7.75 62.13 8.27 50 Iowa St.  6.75 -6.97 4.15 60 Kansas St.  4.00 -25.89 1.37 107 Kansas  -20.17 -68.89 -16.89 CUSA 37 UT-San Antonio 0.00 174.83 8.75 61 North Texas  -3.44 71.92 1.31 67 Southern Miss  -5.56 47.22 -1.34 74 Florida Atlantic  1.06 -73.40 -2.96 93 Marshall  -5.92 -103.33 -9.11 96 UAB -15.11 -21.72 -11.16 97 Louisiana Tech  -12.46 -86.13 -12.61 103 West. Kentucky  -11.44 -137.22 -14.49 109 Middle Tenn. St.  -20.13 -88.93 -17.87 113 Florida Intl.  -22.25 -125.58 -21.12 119 Old Dominion -21.51 -209.19 -24.80 127 UNC-Charlotte -42.17 -199.83 -38.11 129 Rice  -37.23 -282.65 -38.96 130 UTEP  -36.78 -297.57 -39.41 Indies 13 Notre Dame  29.07 116.45 25.20 99 Army  -11.54 -111.75 -13.29 106 BYU  -13.83 -144.13 -16.43 115 Massachusetts -24.97 -100.67 -21.68 MAC 52 W. Michigan  7.67 -33.79 3.42 65 Northern Illinois  -2.11 7.53 -1.03 80 Miami (OH)  -6.19 -11.69 -4.71 85 Ohio  -3.83 -67.68 -5.94 88 Toledo  -3.33 -100.00 -7.23 95 East. Michigan  -9.92 -57.58 -9.49 100 Buffalo  -7.42 -169.67 -13.43 111 Ball St.  -17.67 -152.63 -19.41 114 Cent. Michigan  -25.48 -85.35 -21.26 120 Akron  -20.04 -231.92 -24.96 121 Kent St.  -28.15 -210.69 -29.30 126 Bowling Green  -35.00 -247.10 -35.70 MWC 32 Boise St.  9.46 107.17 11.67 39 Colorado St.  6.88 74.42 8.31 56 San Diego St.  5.50 -27.00 2.32 58 Fresno St.  0.53 35.06 2.11 70 New Mexico  -3.67 6.98 -2.10 72 UNLV  1.75 -74.83 -2.58 84 Air Force  -5.78 -33.22 -5.51 98 Hawaii  -22.04 39.32 -12.73 102 Utah St.  -12.46 -123.31 -14.47 105 Wyoming  -11.81 -149.83 -15.37 122 Nevada  -27.08 -225.83 -29.35 128 San Jose St.  -36.70 -277.47 -38.35 P12 14 USC  24.70 139.60 23.45 18 Oregon  18.63 170.17 20.93 20 Arizona  16.67 131.14 17.67 27 Washington  16.21 73.46 14.48 31 Washington St.  9.81 134.85 13.29 33 Stanford  14.83 2.03 9.99 43 Colorado  9.19 20.17 7.13 47 UCLA  4.17 59.18 5.74 54 Arizona St.  4.23 -8.73 2.39 59 Utah  3.03 -1.50 1.94 77 California  -4.58 -9.77 -3.54 108 Oregon St.  -19.67 -89.92 -17.61 SBC 64 Appalachian State -2.33 17.78 -0.67 81 Troy  -5.52 -24.15 -4.89 82 Coastal Carolina -9.14 15.51 -5.32 89 New Mexico St.  -9.73 -19.85 -7.48 90 Arkansas St.  -8.54 -37.54 -7.57 94 Georgia State -12.00 -27.42 -9.37 104 LA Monroe  -12.63 -121.75 -14.51 112 Idaho  -17.28 -166.11 -19.83 117 LA Lafayette  -22.03 -182.28 -23.80 123 Texas St. -33.08 -148.88 -29.50 124 South Alabama -32.94 -198.29 -31.88 125 Georgia Southern -30.17 -280.83 -34.16 SEC 2 Alabama  41.53 285.93 41.99 9 Georgia  32.98 161.04 30.04 17 Auburn  21.17 160.60 22.15 22 Mississippi St.  14.50 131.25 16.23 38 Arkansas  7.17 74.53 8.51 44 Texas A&M  6.75 51.75 7.09 62 Kentucky  7.10 -68.83 1.29 69 LSU  -6.00 42.42 -1.88 71 Florida  2.17 -71.25 -2.12 75 Vanderbilt  2.00 -87.73 -3.06 76 Tennessee  -2.87 -25.30 -3.18 83 South Carolina  -1.50 -88.47 -5.43 101 Mississippi  -17.25 -57.78 -14.39 116 Missouri  -22.75 -163.86 -23.36            

Duquesne Frog

Duquesne Frog

 

DUSHEE Week 12 (2017)

DUSHEE still loves the Ojai-uh Bucks and has now moved three SEC teams into slots 2-4.  A playoff final 4 that would be enough to make college football fans in every other part of the country outside the southeast and Ohio vomit.   The Frogs slid yet another spot to 14th.  The Frogs slow trickle down through the standings seems to be due to a general drop in the performance of the Big XII-II as a whole as the conference dropped from the 2nd spot to the 4th spot, passed by both the ACC and SEC this week.  DUSHEE has rewarded those conferences for blowing out their patsies this week (although again, remember that Mercer and the Citadel are ignored in the ranking).   It was a big week for the non-Power 5 schools (what is the euphemism ESPN has come up with for them?) as Boise (19), Memphis (21), and Florida Atlantic (22) all found their way into the top 25.  All three of those schools are out of the top 25 in the DUSHEE Extra Crispy rankings (29, 30, and 38, respectively) which punish poor schedule strength more (86th, 78th, and 85th, respectively).  The Frogs, BTW, are 12th in the Extra Crispy poll (28th SOS).    Frogs Week-to-Week   It was a middlin' performance for the Frogs; the point differential among the Frogs' better numbers of the year, but for the second time this season, TCU went negative in yardage differential (WVU the other instance). In general, the Frogs have not done well in yardage differential; on average, teams have a yardage differential to point differential ratio of 6.7 yards for every point.  The Frogs have only exceeded that average three times: Kansas, Iowa State, and Oklahoma.  The Frogs average YD:PD ratio is 4.4.  What this means varies depending on interpretation -- either the Frogs have been very efficient or the Frogs have been a little lucky.  The scores should have been closer in a lot of the Frogs' games than they were based on how well the offense moved the ball relative to how well the defense kept the opposing offense from moving the ball.      @ Ark  SMU @ OkSt    WVU @ KSU  Kan @ ISU  Tex @ OU @ Ttech   9.11 23.22 29.60   12.33 26.44 16.89 2.22 28.10 0.90 24.56   18.67 155.22 136.10   -66.89 115.89 373.89 71.11 142.00 98.80 -27.22   7.00 23.16 26.47   4.91 23.36 29.76 5.00 25.76 5.49 15.02   Frogs Next Opponent Week-to-Week: Rapey Bears   Despite their record, Baylor has only been truly awful three times this season: Duke, Oklahoma State, and Texas.  But they've only played like an above average team once, against Oklahoma.  In fact they played Oklahoma better than the Frogs did.  In the Bears other six games, they have been squarely average.   The worst TCU performance this year would have beaten any individual Baylor performance other than Oklahoma.  Using DUSHEE, and running 10,000+ Monte Carlo simulations, TCU beats Baylor 94% of the time and has the Frogs as a 27 point favorite.  This game should be no problem.  Hopefully I do not regret those words on Friday.      UTSA @ Duke  OU @ KSU   @ OkSt  WVU  Tex @ Kan # Ttech  ISU   -1.38 -15.67 11.90 -10.22   -32.00 2.33 -24.70 1.33 -17.67 -1.11   -13.50 -132.89 102.10 -48.56   -223.60 50.89 -141.80 21.67 215.00 -56.67   -1.58 -17.02 12.99 -9.22   -32.40 4.07 -23.48 1.96 -1.14 -3.55   Conference Rankings   B10 6.57 SEC 6.28 ACC 5.78 B12 5.52 P12 3.81 AAC -0.58 MWC -5.94 MAC -7.84 CUSA -8.25 SBC -8.74   Top 3 Performances   49.71 - Louisville vs. Syracuse (46 Point Margin, 392 Yardage Margin) 44.93 - Georgia Southern vs. South Alabama (52 PM, 388 YM) 39.22 - Northwestern vs. Minnesota (39 PM, 181 YM)   Bottom 3 Performances   -77.15 - South Alabama at Georgia Southern (-52 PM, -388 YM) -52.10 - Cincinnati at East Carolina (-28 PM, -252 YM) -46.13 - Rutgers at Indiana (-41 PM, -313 YM)   Overall Rankings   Rank Team PD YD Score Rk +/- Score +/- 1 Ohio St.  27.50 272.25 31.81 0 0.33 2 Alabama  29.33 233.84 31.13 0 0.07 3 Auburn  27.24 210.87 28.60 0 1.13 4 Georgia  25.47 165.84 25.19 2 0.88 5 Oklahoma  21.15 217.93 24.88 -1 -0.84 6 Penn St.  26.15 138.81 24.31 -1 -1.07 7 Wisconsin  23.73 169.84 24.23 2 1.39 8 Clemson  21.26 188.43 23.50 -1 -0.46 9 Notre Dame  21.55 127.79 20.69 1 -1.33 10 UCF  21.98 121.05 20.65 1 -1.25 11 Oklahoma St.  17.54 172.23 20.22 -3 -2.75 12 Mississippi St.  16.16 129.77 17.20 0 -1.83 13 Washington  17.60 101.28 16.75 1 -0.67 14 TCU  17.34 101.76 16.59 -1 -0.94 15 Virginia Tech  15.84 99.77 15.49 0 -1.44 16 Miami (FL)  17.98 50.12 14.47 0 -2.28 17 Washington St.  9.67 137.48 13.25 2 -0.28 18 USC  12.33 94.10 12.88 -1 -2.11 19 Boise St.  12.51 73.54 11.98 7 1.49 20 Michigan  9.72 109.40 11.89 0 -0.29 21 Memphis  13.07 50.14 11.20 7 1.22 22 Florida Atlantic  13.94 37.12 11.13 10 2.12 23 South Florida  7.91 92.06 9.83 -2 -1.83 24 Louisville  5.22 127.23 9.77 18 4.70 25 Stanford  12.22 32.10 9.73 2 -0.55 26 LSU  7.57 94.71 9.73 -3 -1.23 27 Iowa  14.03 4.20 9.56 -5 -1.80 28 N.C. State  7.29 90.66 9.35 1 -0.34 29 Iowa St.  11.74 29.74 9.30 -5 -1.62 30 Michigan St.  6.65 96.21 9.20 -5 -1.62 31 Georgia Tech  5.03 112.86 8.94 -13 -4.63 32 San Diego St.  7.72 66.81 8.45 -1 -0.59 33 Wake Forest  9.82 38.32 8.45 -3 -1.01 34 Toledo  8.29 52.77 8.14 2 0.92 35 Northwestern  9.67 28.70 7.87 9 2.93 36 Texas  8.08 48.23 7.77 2 1.30 37 Purdue  8.35 38.35 7.47 -4 -0.48 38 Texas A&M  6.59 53.11 7.02 -1 0.51 39 Navy  5.64 51.25 6.30 0 0.03 40 West Virginia  5.28 49.15 5.95 -6 -1.64 41 Northern Illinois  5.13 27.98 4.80 4 0.82 42 Oregon  2.58 61.80 4.78 12 3.16 43 Boston Coll.  6.32 7.92 4.61 -3 -0.89 44 Missouri  5.58 15.44 4.48 2 0.61 45 Utah  3.33 42.75 4.33 5 1.31 46 Indiana  1.75 53.65 3.82 14 3.10 47 Arizona  4.29 15.81 3.64 -12 -3.62 48 Fresno St.  3.17 26.18 3.41 0 -0.08 49 Arkansas St.  3.68 15.15 3.20 7 1.92 50 Ohio  4.85 -6.17 2.93 -9 -2.27 51 SMU  4.60 -3.42 2.89 -8 -2.14 52 Troy  2.90 18.73 2.86 1 1.06 53 Texas Tech  1.13 32.19 2.35 -4 -0.74 54 Marshall  2.05 9.21 1.82 -2 -0.39 55 Florida St.  1.04 20.12 1.69 0 0.24 56 Army  1.31 13.29 1.53 5 0.81 57 UT-San Antonio -1.76 51.75 1.39 6 1.64 58 Arizona St.  1.50 4.64 1.23 -7 -1.10 59 Duke  0.52 9.23 0.80 13 3.62 60 Colorado St.  -0.60 17.68 0.48 2 -0.08 61 UCLA  0.69 0.22 0.47 3 0.77 62 East. Michigan  0.39 3.79 0.45 -3 -0.52 63 South Carolina  3.07 -38.64 0.13 2 0.65 64 Houston  1.20 -14.29 0.09 -7 -1.15 65 Southern Miss  -3.89 45.74 -0.33 10 2.78 66 Nebraska  -1.17 5.43 -0.51 0 0.58 67 North Texas  -1.63 0.57 -1.06 2 1.07 68 Syracuse  -3.45 25.04 -1.06 -21 -4.73 69 Appalachian State -1.20 -8.11 -1.20 -2 0.64 70 W. Michigan  0.57 -35.65 -1.38 6 1.90 71 Temple  -3.68 17.65 -1.58 -1 1.02 72 California  -0.50 -28.64 -1.75 -4 0.36 73 Kansas St.  2.44 -75.71 -2.12 4 1.43 74 Minnesota  -0.93 -32.16 -2.21 -16 -3.31 75 Virginia  -4.21 10.11 -2.31 7 2.16 76 Florida  -2.16 -24.23 -2.64 17 3.74 77 Mississippi  -4.20 -4.58 -3.03 -4 -0.15 78 Colorado  -1.71 -43.34 -3.28 -4 -0.25 79 Pittsburgh  -3.88 -18.54 -3.51 2 0.74 80 Buffalo  -3.59 -31.26 -3.94 -1 0.09 81 Wyoming  0.64 -94.57 -4.25 6 1.09 82 Kentucky  -0.76 -76.11 -4.27 2 0.40 83 Miami (OH)  -6.57 -3.30 -4.54 2 0.26 84 Air Force  -6.09 -10.41 -4.57 -6 -0.87 85 Utah St.  -1.48 -77.21 -4.81 14 3.77 86 Louisiana Tech  -4.92 -31.59 -4.84 -3 -0.18 87 Cent. Michigan  -4.14 -42.49 -4.86 -16 -2.06 88 Tulane  -2.94 -59.30 -4.90 3 1.22 89 Arkansas  -6.29 -21.20 -5.24 0 0.67 90 Massachusetts -8.58 -3.70 -5.91 -2 -0.22 91 Maryland  -5.96 -52.35 -6.56 1 -0.30 92 LA Monroe  -6.04 -56.77 -6.84 5 0.61 93 Baylor  -8.72 -22.74 -6.94 2 0.19 94 New Mexico St.  -10.31 -15.79 -7.65 2 -0.49 95 UAB -7.08 -59.36 -7.66 -9 -2.62 96 Middle Tenn. St.  -9.02 -35.96 -7.79 -6 -1.83 97 Georgia State -9.06 -38.09 -7.93 1 -0.20 98 UNLV  -7.95 -60.23 -8.28 2 0.68 99 Tulsa  -5.66 -100.29 -8.74 9 3.11 100 Florida Intl.  -8.35 -67.96 -8.93 -6 -2.43 101 Tennessee  -7.23 -83.28 -8.94 2 0.75 102 North Carolina  -8.17 -78.33 -9.32 -1 0.29 103 West. Kentucky  -10.46 -53.91 -9.64 4 2.02 104 Nevada  -8.07 -89.22 -9.79 1 1.21 105 Cincinnati  -11.87 -45.99 -10.19 -25 -6.07 106 Akron  -6.18 -146.86 -11.39 8 3.19 107 BYU  -10.80 -84.97 -11.41 6 2.89 108 Vanderbilt  -10.11 -95.36 -11.46 -2 -0.23 109 New Mexico  -13.61 -56.55 -11.87 1 0.93 110 Georgia Southern -12.62 -84.90 -12.61 13 8.07 111 Idaho  -12.81 -84.19 -12.71 -2 -0.45 112 Coastal Carolina -13.11 -85.40 -12.97 0 0.24 113 Illinois  -12.83 -113.10 -14.15 -2 -1.02 114 Rutgers  -12.08 -136.50 -14.81 -10 -4.11 115 East Carolina  -16.24 -94.67 -15.51 6 3.37 116 South Alabama -14.82 -122.37 -15.94 -14 -6.25 117 Old Dominion -15.65 -115.42 -16.15 0 -0.64 118 LA Lafayette  -15.41 -119.77 -16.20 4 3.40 119 Oregon St.  -17.27 -97.24 -16.33 -3 -0.89 120 Texas St. -17.71 -103.73 -16.94 -2 0.19 121 Hawaii  -19.02 -86.17 -16.94 -6 -1.87 122 Connecticut  -15.95 -129.13 -17.02 -3 0.39 123 Bowling Green  -15.78 -151.23 -18.00 -3 0.41 124 Rice  -23.87 -124.49 -22.07 1 0.70 125 Kansas  -24.40 -131.62 -22.78 1 0.13 126 UNC-Charlotte -22.64 -169.54 -23.48 -2 -2.79 127 Kent St.  -24.61 -149.76 -23.82 0 1.84 128 Ball St.  -28.51 -150.13 -26.43 0 0.49 129 UTEP  -26.70 -204.12 -27.90 0 0.78 130 San Jose St.  -34.44 -244.13 -35.04 0 1.08   By Conference   AAC 10 UCF  21.98 121.05 20.65 21 Memphis  13.07 50.14 11.20 23 South Florida  7.91 92.06 9.83 39 Navy  5.64 51.25 6.30 51 SMU  4.60 -3.42 2.89 64 Houston  1.20 -14.29 0.09 71 Temple  -3.68 17.65 -1.58 88 Tulane  -2.94 -59.30 -4.90 99 Tulsa  -5.66 -100.29 -8.74 105 Cincinnati  -11.87 -45.99 -10.19 115 East Carolina  -16.24 -94.67 -15.51 122 Connecticut  -15.95 -129.13 -17.02 ACC 8 Clemson  21.26 188.43 23.50 15 Virginia Tech  15.84 99.77 15.49 16 Miami (FL)  17.98 50.12 14.47 24 Louisville  5.22 127.23 9.77 28 N.C. State  7.29 90.66 9.35 31 Georgia Tech  5.03 112.86 8.94 33 Wake Forest  9.82 38.32 8.45 43 Boston Coll.  6.32 7.92 4.61 55 Florida St.  1.04 20.12 1.69 59 Duke  0.52 9.23 0.80 68 Syracuse  -3.45 25.04 -1.06 75 Virginia  -4.21 10.11 -2.31 79 Pittsburgh  -3.88 -18.54 -3.51 102 North Carolina  -8.17 -78.33 -9.32 B1G 1 Ohio St.  27.50 272.25 31.81 6 Penn St.  26.15 138.81 24.31 7 Wisconsin  23.73 169.84 24.23 20 Michigan  9.72 109.40 11.89 27 Iowa  14.03 4.20 9.56 30 Michigan St.  6.65 96.21 9.20 35 Northwestern  9.67 28.70 7.87 37 Purdue  8.35 38.35 7.47 46 Indiana  1.75 53.65 3.82 66 Nebraska  -1.17 5.43 -0.51 74 Minnesota  -0.93 -32.16 -2.21 91 Maryland  -5.96 -52.35 -6.56 113 Illinois  -12.83 -113.10 -14.15 114 Rutgers  -12.08 -136.50 -14.81 BXII-II 5 Oklahoma  21.15 217.93 24.88 11 Oklahoma St.  17.54 172.23 20.22 14 TCU  17.34 101.76 16.59 29 Iowa St.  11.74 29.74 9.30 36 Texas  8.08 48.23 7.77 40 West Virginia  5.28 49.15 5.95 53 Texas Tech  1.13 32.19 2.35 73 Kansas St.  2.44 -75.71 -2.12 93 Baylor  -8.72 -22.74 -6.94 125 Kansas  -24.40 -131.62 -22.78 CUSA    
    22 Florida Atlantic  13.94 37.12 11.13 54 Marshall  2.05 9.21 1.82 57 UT-San Antonio -1.76 51.75 1.39 65 Southern Miss  -3.89 45.74 -0.33 67 North Texas  -1.63 0.57 -1.06 86 Louisiana Tech  -4.92 -31.59 -4.84 95 UAB -7.08 -59.36 -7.66 96 Middle Tenn. St.  -9.02 -35.96 -7.79 100 Florida Intl.  -8.35 -67.96 -8.93 103 West. Kentucky  -10.46 -53.91 -9.64 117 Old Dominion -15.65 -115.42 -16.15 124 Rice  -23.87 -124.49 -22.07 126 UNC-Charlotte -22.64 -169.54 -23.48 129 UTEP  -26.70 -204.12 -27.90 Indies 9 Notre Dame  21.55 127.79 20.69 56 Army  1.31 13.29 1.53 90 Massachusetts -8.58 -3.70 -5.91 107 BYU  -10.80 -84.97 -11.41 MAC 34 Toledo  8.29 52.77 8.14 41 Northern Illinois  5.13 27.98 4.80 50 Ohio  4.85 -6.17 2.93 62 East. Michigan  0.39 3.79 0.45 70 W. Michigan  0.57 -35.65 -1.38 80 Buffalo  -3.59 -31.26 -3.94 83 Miami (OH)  -6.57 -3.30 -4.54 87 Cent. Michigan  -4.14 -42.49 -4.86 106 Akron  -6.18 -146.86 -11.39 123 Bowling Green  -15.78 -151.23 -18.00 127 Kent St.  -24.61 -149.76 -23.82 128 Ball St.  -28.51 -150.13 -26.43 MWC 19 Boise St.  12.51 73.54 11.98 32 San Diego St.  7.72 66.81 8.45 48 Fresno St.  3.17 26.18 3.41 60 Colorado St.  -0.60 17.68 0.48 81 Wyoming  0.64 -94.57 -4.25 84 Air Force  -6.09 -10.41 -4.57 85 Utah St.  -1.48 -77.21 -4.81 98 UNLV  -7.95 -60.23 -8.28 104 Nevada  -8.07 -89.22 -9.79 109 New Mexico  -13.61 -56.55 -11.87 121 Hawaii  -19.02 -86.17 -16.94 130 San Jose St.  -34.44 -244.13 -35.04 P12 13 Washington  17.60 101.28 16.75 17 Washington St.  9.67 137.48 13.25 18 USC  12.33 94.10 12.88 25 Stanford  12.22 32.10 9.73 42 Oregon  2.58 61.80 4.78 45 Utah  3.33 42.75 4.33 47 Arizona  4.29 15.81 3.64 58 Arizona St.  1.50 4.64 1.23 61 UCLA  0.69 0.22 0.47 72 California  -0.50 -28.64 -1.75 78 Colorado  -1.71 -43.34 -3.28 119 Oregon St.  -17.27 -97.24 -16.33 SBC 49 Arkansas St.  3.68 15.15 3.20 52 Troy  2.90 18.73 2.86 69 Appalachian State -1.20 -8.11 -1.20 92 LA Monroe  -6.04 -56.77 -6.84 94 New Mexico St.  -10.31 -15.79 -7.65 97 Georgia State -9.06 -38.09 -7.93 110 Georgia Southern -12.62 -84.90 -12.61 111 Idaho  -12.81 -84.19 -12.71 112 Coastal Carolina -13.11 -85.40 -12.97 116 South Alabama -14.82 -122.37 -15.94 118 LA Lafayette  -15.41 -119.77 -16.20 120 Texas St. -17.71 -103.73 -16.94 SEC 2 Alabama  29.33 233.84 31.13 3 Auburn  27.24 210.87 28.60 4 Georgia  25.47 165.84 25.19 12 Mississippi St.  16.16 129.77 17.20 26 LSU  7.57 94.71 9.73 38 Texas A&M  6.59 53.11 7.02 44 Missouri  5.58 15.44 4.48 63 South Carolina  3.07 -38.64 0.13 76 Florida  -2.16 -24.23 -2.64 77 Mississippi  -4.20 -4.58 -3.03 82 Kentucky  -0.76 -76.11 -4.27 89 Arkansas  -6.29 -21.20 -5.24 101 Tennessee  -7.23 -83.28 -8.94 108 Vanderbilt  -10.11 -95.36 -11.46  

Duquesne Frog

Duquesne Frog

 

Week 6 DUSHEE (2018)

Since this is late getting out, I'll keep the commentary to a minimum.  However, I'll revisit the Tech-TCU matchup because it is an interesting case study as to how the numbers change even when teams do not play.  As a teaser, Tech comes out of the bye better than the Frogs do ...   We have a new #1 as Clemson goes past Alabama to claim the top spot.    Top 3 Performances - Week 6 63.47 - Clemson at Wake (+60 MOV, 449 YM) 53.42 - Temple vs. ECU (+43, +274) 40.19 - New Mexico at UNLV (+36, +336)   Bottom 3 Performances -62.03 - ULaMon at Ole Miss (-49, -399) -52.24 - UNLV vs. UNM (-36, -336) -48.83 - Texas St. vs. ULaLa (-15, -132)   Conference Rankings SEC 14.30 B12 9.94 B10 9.32 ACC 4.11 P12 2.60 AAC -3.30 MWC -5.19 MAC -10.42 CUSA -10.69 SBC -12.84   Frogs Week-to-Week (Now) Opp:    @ SMU     N OhSt     @ Tex  |   ISU PD:       11.25      20.40         -8.40    |  2.75 YD:       -13.75    223.00       63.80    | 123.25 Score:   6.82       24.68        -2.43     |   7.96   Frogs Week-to-Week (Last Week) Opp:  @ SMU   N OhSt     @ Tex   |     ISU PD:     14.33      22.75      -7.50      |    0.67 YD:      5.00       231.75    86.25     |  107.33 Score:  9.81      26.75       -0.69     |     5.81   Note that the Frogs did not fare particularly well against Bye this week.  As a general rule, scores do regress toward the mean as the season goes on (in other words, scores, particularly toward the extreme, tend to drift closer to zero as the season goes on).  Only their Iowa State score improved.  I'm a little surprised the Texas score fell, given the Horns big upset of Oklahoma, but DUSHEE didn't have the Sooners ranked as high as many others.   Tech, on the other hand, had their average score go up during the bye, even though three of their four individual game scores went down (including Oklahoma State by 9 points).  Tech fared well during the bye on the backs of Ole Miss's annihilation of Louisiana-Monroe which made Tech's loss to Ole Miss look comparatively better.  It still doesn't look like a good loss, but it went from 5 TDs worse than average to a little more than 2 TDs worse than average.   Tech Week-to-Week (Now) Opp:          N Miss       Hou          @OkSt   |      WVU PD:           -23.50          34.33        43.75    |    15.67 YD:           -25.50        139.00      375.25    |   179.00 Score:      -16.93         29.80        47.81     |    19.34   Tech Week-to-Week (Last Week) Opp:        N Miss        Hou           @OkSt  |       WVU PD:           -41.00        37.00           52.33  |      19.50 YD:         -146.33      147.50         438.67 |    170.00 Score:      -34.65        32.04          56.82   |    21.50   With these results, Tech's DUSHEE score improved a little more than a point overall and TCU's dropped a little more than a point.  Tech climbed 6 spots in the rankings to #12 (due mostly to teams above them like Wisconsin, LSU, Kentucky, S. Carolina, and Miami falling) while the Frogs fell a spot to #34. And the DUSHEE line on the game goes from Tech -5 to Tech -7.  You might remember that last week I said that Tech's DUSHEE score against Oklahoma State was the highest single game score for any team this season?  Now, it's not even the highest score for its week, having been surpassed by Clemson's win in Week 4 over Georgia Tech.   Overall Rankings Rank Team PD YD Score Rk +/- Score +/- 1 Clemson  37.30 319.62 40.75 2 6.47 2 Alabama  37.92 259.39 38.17 -1 0.89 3 Penn St.  41.14 210.90 37.91 -1 2.74 4 Georgia  29.47 225.65 30.86 1 0.39 5 Ohio St.  29.51 218.01 30.51 -1 -2.19 6 Michigan  22.17 228.98 26.16 3 1.00 7 Appalachian State 26.07 175.94 26.12 0 -0.71 8 Oklahoma  22.75 145.29 22.39 4 -1.15 9 N.C. State  19.96 172.94 21.90 1 -2.38 10 West Virginia  20.23 166.60 21.77 6 1.21 11 Notre Dame  23.12 109.96 20.88 -5 -7.78 12 Texas Tech  17.56 166.94 20.00 6 1.08 13 Wisconsin  17.95 159.77 19.91 2 -2.40 14 Texas A&M  14.01 192.53 18.91 8 0.45 15 LSU  20.32 93.80 18.21 -1 -4.63 16 Missouri  12.31 184.38 17.37 4 -1.52 17 Iowa  17.56 111.34 17.24 11 3.04 18 Kentucky  18.80 91.65 17.09 -10 -8.48 19 Army  16.67 105.69 16.36 4 -2.05 20 Miami (FL)  15.23 120.57 16.15 -1 -2.76 21 South Carolina  14.18 131.38 15.98 -10 -7.64 22 Florida  18.98 59.55 15.61 5 0.46 23 Temple  15.32 106.82 15.52 11 5.23 24 Mississippi St.  15.07 67.63 13.41 11 3.62 25 Boise St.  10.82 105.27 12.44 -4 -6.12 26 Oklahoma St.  12.64 72.79 12.04 -13 -11.13 27 North Texas  10.38 98.96 11.83 -2 -4.94 28 Texas  11.46 73.96 11.31 3 0.28 29 Washington St.  6.95 124.75 10.83 -3 -4.47 30 Colorado  8.33 104.03 10.72 25 7.08 31 Maryland  10.24 72.97 10.45 -1 -2.27 32 Washington  10.49 66.37 10.29 -15 -8.86 33 Auburn  11.80 46.95 10.20 -9 -7.13 34 TCU  6.50 99.08 9.26 -1 -1.16 35 UCF  10.38 46.94 9.25 17 4.62 36 Utah St.  15.85 -27.56 9.19 20 5.76 37 Fresno St.  9.08 53.00 8.69 0 0.00 38 Arizona St.  9.99 38.01 8.55 1 0.89 39 Utah  9.69 16.21 7.26 8 1.23 40 Michigan St.  6.28 53.86 6.86 -11 -6.67 41 Virginia  3.73 84.83 6.70 -9 -3.92 42 Duke  10.31 -9.02 6.43 -1 -0.74 43 Minnesota  7.03 32.97 6.33 -7 -3.20 44 Iowa St.  7.24 15.99 5.62 7 0.60 45 Boston Coll.  9.02 -9.04 5.57 -1 -1.27 46 Houston  5.04 41.58 5.43 7 1.40 47 Mississippi  3.64 55.49 5.18 29 8.06 48 Purdue  2.63 68.00 5.13 -2 -1.37 49 San Diego St.  5.26 18.41 4.42 26 6.81 50 Vanderbilt  5.61 8.78 4.18 -2 -1.46 51 Stanford  8.47 -33.39 3.99 -13 -4.49 52 Cincinnati  4.62 12.10 3.68 13 3.80 53 Oregon  3.85 16.33 3.38 1 -0.57 54 USC  1.40 46.94 3.27 -14 -3.90 55 Baylor  1.83 35.31 2.98 -12 -3.91 56 Northwestern  3.81 1.79 2.63 2 1.02 57 Georgia Tech  2.63 17.47 2.62 24 8.26 58 Syracuse  3.35 7.20 2.59 -13 -4.16 59 Nebraska  -5.21 117.38 2.36 2 1.27 60 Buffalo  1.50 24.41 2.21 2 1.14 61 Virginia Tech  4.09 -11.51 2.16 -4 -1.23 62 South Florida  5.85 -44.07 1.71 -13 -3.50 63 Tennessee  -1.77 50.85 1.35 1 0.92 64 Indiana  -2.78 36.69 -0.03 2 0.46 65 Tulane  0.96 -16.24 -0.17 -2 -1.21 66 W. Michigan  -5.46 59.03 -0.71 2 -0.06 67 UCLA  -2.68 10.28 -1.27 6 0.49 68 Kansas  1.33 -44.70 -1.33 3 -0.24 69 Ball St.  -0.96 -16.69 -1.47 -10 -2.80 70 Pittsburgh  -0.65 -21.47 -1.50 23 8.09 71 Louisiana Tech  -3.91 21.38 -1.54 -21 -6.67 72 Arkansas St.  -4.12 15.58 -1.97 -3 -1.19 73 New Mexico  -0.51 -37.62 -2.21 35 16.29 74 Florida Atlantic  -4.11 -1.48 -2.81 21 7.36 75 BYU  -1.97 -36.92 -3.15 -1 -1.32 76 East Carolina  -7.90 40.02 -3.28 -34 -10.29 77 UAB -6.31 5.56 -3.93 19 6.73 78 Arizona  -8.80 37.03 -4.03 12 5.45 79 Georgia Southern 1.69 -112.10 -4.44 20 7.67 80 Air Force  -1.15 -75.88 -4.53 27 13.05 81 Kansas St.  -1.81 -68.15 -4.59 2 1.63 82 Liberty -5.04 -26.35 -4.67 -10 -3.29 83 East. Michigan  -4.99 -27.79 -4.71 2 2.04 84 Tulsa  -7.76 1.85 -5.08 2 2.97 85 Florida Intl.  -0.11 -113.05 -5.69 -7 -1.66 86 Florida St.  -6.69 -34.69 -6.18 2 2.16 87 California  -7.48 -24.81 -6.22 -10 -2.61 88 Arkansas  -11.15 21.68 -6.36 9 4.43 89 Memphis  -6.01 -51.19 -6.55 -10 -1.73 90 Troy  -7.60 -30.00 -6.56 -8 -0.89 91 Ohio  -5.71 -57.38 -6.66 -31 -7.84 92 Marshall  -8.05 -27.98 -6.76 -25 -6.21 93 Hawaii  -4.42 -79.15 -6.88 -6 1.39 94 Wyoming  -7.98 -45.48 -7.58 -3 1.91 95 Miami (OH)  -8.08 -52.82 -8.01 8 5.42 96 West. Kentucky  -9.67 -32.38 -8.05 -12 -1.62 97 Southern Miss  -13.67 6.42 -8.79 -17 -3.42 98 Wake Forest  -8.83 -86.12 -10.17 -28 -9.08 99 Northern Illinois  -8.39 -113.31 -11.22 11 7.71 100 SMU  -10.91 -83.12 -11.40 1 1.24 101 Illinois  -6.25 -148.02 -11.53 8 7.06 102 Toledo  -8.46 -124.10 -11.81 -13 -3.00 103 Coastal Carolina -11.44 -84.65 -11.83 9 7.16 104 Middle Tenn. St.  -13.90 -61.81 -12.34 9 7.10 105 Cent. Michigan  -12.96 -100.25 -13.62 -5 -1.02 106 Colorado St.  -15.04 -78.09 -13.90 -1 0.88 107 Louisville  -14.73 -87.09 -14.15 -9 -3.12 108 North Carolina  -21.37 -23.02 -15.39 -6 -2.68 109 Oregon St.  -19.12 -58.08 -15.63 7 5.62 110 Navy  -13.62 -133.26 -15.70 -16 -5.54 111 Nevada  -18.37 -87.20 -16.58 10 9.66 112 LA Lafayette  -14.78 -142.12 -16.92 7 7.58 113 Georgia State -17.95 -127.58 -18.31 -2 0.64 114 UNC-Charlotte -22.03 -93.31 -19.33 4 2.42 115 Akron  -14.80 -192.20 -19.42 -9 -2.89 116 UNLV  -18.85 -144.38 -19.74 -24 -10.20 117 Kent St.  -20.13 -156.68 -21.21 10 13.54 118 Old Dominion -19.29 -171.44 -21.38 -14 -6.86 119 South Alabama -21.61 -165.67 -22.64 -4 -1.71 120 UTEP  -22.39 -163.00 -23.02 8 13.31 121 Rutgers  -22.59 -167.46 -23.38 -7 -2.81 122 UT-San Antonio -20.32 -205.40 -23.75 1 4.26 123 Rice  -25.20 -147.66 -24.14 -6 -2.78 124 San Jose St.  -22.79 -208.83 -25.57 -2 1.01 125 Massachusetts -21.26 -248.32 -26.52 1 6.43 126 New Mexico St.  -26.08 -188.53 -26.76 3 13.39 127 Bowling Green  -30.64 -161.55 -28.45 -3 3.66 128 LA Monroe  -32.05 -187.80 -30.70 -8 -4.59 129 Connecticut  -29.18 -271.93 -32.97 -4 -0.70 130 Texas St. -39.15 -302.05 -41.11 0 0.88   Rankings By Conference AAC 23 Temple  15.32 106.82 15.52 35 UCF  10.38 46.94 9.25 46 Houston  5.04 41.58 5.43 52 Cincinnati  4.62 12.10 3.68 62 South Florida  5.85 -44.07 1.71 65 Tulane  0.96 -16.24 -0.17 76 East Carolina  -7.90 40.02 -3.28 84 Tulsa  -7.76 1.85 -5.08 89 Memphis  -6.01 -51.19 -6.55 100 SMU  -10.91 -83.12 -11.40 110 Navy  -13.62 -133.26 -15.70 129 Connecticut  -29.18 -271.93 -32.97   ACC 1 Clemson  37.30 319.62 40.75 9 N.C. State  19.96 172.94 21.90 20 Miami (FL)  15.23 120.57 16.15 41 Virginia  3.73 84.83 6.70 42 Duke  10.31 -9.02 6.43 45 Boston Coll.  9.02 -9.04 5.57 57 Georgia Tech  2.63 17.47 2.62 58 Syracuse  3.35 7.20 2.59 61 Virginia Tech  4.09 -11.51 2.16 70 Pittsburgh  -0.65 -21.47 -1.50 86 Florida St.  -6.69 -34.69 -6.18 98 Wake Forest  -8.83 -86.12 -10.17 107 Louisville  -14.73 -87.09 -14.15 108 North Carolina  -21.37 -23.02 -15.39   B1G 3 Penn St.  41.14 210.90 37.91 5 Ohio St.  29.51 218.01 30.51 6 Michigan  22.17 228.98 26.16 13 Wisconsin  17.95 159.77 19.91 17 Iowa  17.56 111.34 17.24 31 Maryland  10.24 72.97 10.45 40 Michigan St.  6.28 53.86 6.86 43 Minnesota  7.03 32.97 6.33 48 Purdue  2.63 68.00 5.13 56 Northwestern  3.81 1.79 2.63 59 Nebraska  -5.21 117.38 2.36 64 Indiana  -2.78 36.69 -0.03 101 Illinois  -6.25 -148.02 -11.53 121 Rutgers  -22.59 -167.46 -23.38   BXII-II 8 Oklahoma  22.75 145.29 22.39 10 West Virginia  20.23 166.60 21.77 12 Texas Tech  17.56 166.94 20.00 26 Oklahoma St.  12.64 72.79 12.04 28 Texas  11.46 73.96 11.31 34 TCU  6.50 99.08 9.26 44 Iowa St.  7.24 15.99 5.62 55 Baylor  1.83 35.31 2.98 68 Kansas  1.33 -44.70 -1.33 81 Kansas St.  -1.81 -68.15 -4.59   CUSA 27 North Texas  10.38 98.96 11.83 71 Louisiana Tech  -3.91 21.38 -1.54 74 Florida Atlantic  -4.11 -1.48 -2.81 77 UAB -6.31 5.56 -3.93 85 Florida Intl.  -0.11 -113.05 -5.69 92 Marshall  -8.05 -27.98 -6.76 96 West. Kentucky  -9.67 -32.38 -8.05 97 Southern Miss  -13.67 6.42 -8.79 104 Middle Tenn. St.  -13.90 -61.81 -12.34 114 UNC-Charlotte -22.03 -93.31 -19.33 118 Old Dominion -19.29 -171.44 -21.38 120 UTEP  -22.39 -163.00 -23.02 122 UT-San Antonio -20.32 -205.40 -23.75 123 Rice  -25.20 -147.66 -24.14   Indies 11 Notre Dame  23.12 109.96 20.88 19 Army  16.67 105.69 16.36 75 BYU  -1.97 -36.92 -3.15 82 Liberty -5.04 -26.35 -4.67 125 Massachusetts -21.26 -248.32 -26.52 126 New Mexico St.  -26.08 -188.53 -26.76   MAC 60 Buffalo  1.50 24.41 2.21 66 W. Michigan  -5.46 59.03 -0.71 69 Ball St.  -0.96 -16.69 -1.47 83 East. Michigan  -4.99 -27.79 -4.71 91 Ohio  -5.71 -57.38 -6.66 95 Miami (OH)  -8.08 -52.82 -8.01 99 Northern Illinois  -8.39 -113.31 -11.22 102 Toledo  -8.46 -124.10 -11.81 105 Cent. Michigan  -12.96 -100.25 -13.62 115 Akron  -14.80 -192.20 -19.42 117 Kent St.  -20.13 -156.68 -21.21 127 Bowling Green  -30.64 -161.55 -28.45   MWC 25 Boise St.  10.82 105.27 12.44 36 Utah St.  15.85 -27.56 9.19 37 Fresno St.  9.08 53.00 8.69 49 San Diego St.  5.26 18.41 4.42 73 New Mexico  -0.51 -37.62 -2.21 80 Air Force  -1.15 -75.88 -4.53 93 Hawaii  -4.42 -79.15 -6.88 94 Wyoming  -7.98 -45.48 -7.58 106 Colorado St.  -15.04 -78.09 -13.90 111 Nevada  -18.37 -87.20 -16.58 116 UNLV  -18.85 -144.38 -19.74 124 San Jose St.  -22.79 -208.83 -25.57   P12 29 Washington St.  6.95 124.75 10.83 30 Colorado  8.33 104.03 10.72 32 Washington  10.49 66.37 10.29 38 Arizona St.  9.99 38.01 8.55 39 Utah  9.69 16.21 7.26 51 Stanford  8.47 -33.39 3.99 53 Oregon  3.85 16.33 3.38 54 USC  1.40 46.94 3.27 67 UCLA  -2.68 10.28 -1.27 78 Arizona  -8.80 37.03 -4.03 87 California  -7.48 -24.81 -6.22 109 Oregon St.  -19.12 -58.08 -15.63   SBC 7 Appalachian State 26.07 175.94 26.12 72 Arkansas St.  -4.12 15.58 -1.97 79 Georgia Southern 1.69 -112.10 -4.44 90 Troy  -7.60 -30.00 -6.56 103 Coastal Carolina -11.44 -84.65 -11.83 112 LA Lafayette  -14.78 -142.12 -16.92 113 Georgia State -17.95 -127.58 -18.31 119 South Alabama -21.61 -165.67 -22.64 128 LA Monroe  -32.05 -187.80 -30.70 130 Texas St. -39.15 -302.05 -41.11   SEC 2 Alabama  37.92 259.39 38.17 4 Georgia  29.47 225.65 30.86 14 Texas A&M  14.01 192.53 18.91 15 LSU  20.32 93.80 18.21 16 Missouri  12.31 184.38 17.37 18 Kentucky  18.80 91.65 17.09 21 South Carolina  14.18 131.38 15.98 22 Florida  18.98 59.55 15.61 24 Mississippi St.  15.07 67.63 13.41 33 Auburn  11.80 46.95 10.20 47 Mississippi  3.64 55.49 5.18 50 Vanderbilt  5.61 8.78 4.18 63 Tennessee  -1.77 50.85 1.35 88 Arkansas  -11.15 21.68 -6.36  

Duquesne Frog

Duquesne Frog

 

Week 8 DUSHEE (2018)

I figure interest in this blog is niche at best, even when the Frogs are playing well.  So I assume at this point, I'm just writing this for myself.  But nonetheless, for this week's entry in the second saddest diary ever written (allowing that Anne Frank's is probably still a little sadder) ...   Clemson reclaims the top spot in the rankings, but it really is just Clemson, Bama, and the rest of the field at this point.  There is an almost 10-point gap between those two teams and 3rd ranked Michigan.  The Sooners rose to the 4th spot in the rankings, due mostly to Ohio State and Penn State falling significantly.   A team I'd like to focus on this week is USF, which if DUSHEE is any judge, may be the worst 7-0 team in the history of major college football.  After beating the lowest-ranked DUSHEE team, UConn, by only a TD, DUSHEE now has Charlie Strong's Bulls ranked 94th.  That "win" garnered USF a DUSHEE score of -31.40 for the week.   When combined with playing the second easiest schedule in FBS ... USF's opponents are, on average, almost 2TDs worse than an average FBS team ... Georgia Tech (ranked 58th), Illinois (114), East Carolina (68), UMass (116), Tulsa (100), UConn (130) ... and only beating that ridiculously easy schedule by an average of 8-points, USF appears to be a paper tiger of the highest order.    Things start getting a little tougher for the Bulls next week with @Houston (52), Tulane (95), @Cincinnati (36), @Temple (25), and UCF (30) ... the remaining 5 games include the 4 best teams in the American as rated by DUSHEE.  (Although DUSHEE thinks UCF is extremely overrated too, just not as much as USF.)  The only one of those 5 games where USF should be favored is the game at home against Tulane and DUSHEE expects the Bulls to be heavy underdogs for all of the other 4 (best chance of winning is 23% at Houston this week).  DUSHEE gives USF an 0.05% chance of going undefeated through those 5 games.   Frogs Because DUSHEE has OU still very highly rated and had little expectation that the Frogs would be competitive, the Frogs didn't really drop as much as you might think, falling four spots to 43rd.  The Frogs week-to-week look like this now:   Opp:      @ SMU     N OhSt     @ Tex   |   ISU      Ttech      OU PD:         15.80          9.29         -8.50   |  6.00       5.40      -4.33 YD:         20.40      169.71        64.17  | 192.00   118.20  -150.83 Score:    11.51        14.34         -2.58  | 13.22       9.28     -10.13   So it was actually a pretty decent week in the moral victory department for the Frogs.  While the performance against OU was judged the worst of the season, and the walloping that Purdue put on Ohio State really dropped the Frogs' comparative score against the Buckeyes a ton, the wins against SMU and Iowa State are looking solid at this point, and even the loss to Tech looks pretty decent with Tech's excellent play of late.  As of this moment, only the Texas and Oklahoma games look like total turds.   Believe it or not (I expect most will not), DUSHEE has the Frogs as favorites for 4 of the remaining 5 games: @Kansas +12 (67% chance Frogs win) Kansas St. +12.5 (72%) @West Virginia -7.5 (34%) @Baylor +0.5 (51%) Oklahoma St. +4 (56%)   As of now, the Frogs have played the 4th toughest schedule in FBS, according to DUSHEE.  Although, that will take a hit this week as the Frogs play ...   Frogs Next Opponent (Kansas) Playing Kansas is generally the salve that calms troubled football teams, but God knows that has rarely been the case for the Frogs.  After showing some signs early in the season that the Jayhawks might have improved a little this season (ignoring Nichols St., as DUSHEE does), Kansas has returned to form of late, and seems to be in turmoil after dumping Meachem.  Hopefully, the Frogs take care of business as they did last year.   As mentioned above, DUSHEE has the Frogs as 12-point favorites on the road. Opp:      @ CMU      Rut     @ Bay   |   OkSt     @ WVU     @ Ttech PD:          12.33     25.57    -25.40  |   -16.80       -4.25        -29.40 YD:          18.67   148.71  -154.00  | -194.40   -205.00     -207.00 Score:       9.12     24.19     -24.33  |   -20.54     -12.68        -29.54   So after looking like a reasonable football team against two other really bad teams (CMU and Rutgers), Kansas has returned to form in conference play, getting pounded by everybody by at least 3 TDs.   Top Performances of the Week 50.70 Clemson vs. NC-State (34 MOV, 174 YM) 46.46 Missouri vs. Memphis (32 MOV, 238 YM) 46.02 Purdue vs. Ohio St. (29 MOV, -7 YM)   Bottom Performances of the Week -50.46 Oregon St. vs. Cal (-42 MOV, -298 YM) -38.55 Bowling Green at Ohio (-35 MOV, -283 YM) -36.11 Minnesota at Nebraska (-25 MOV, -185 YM)   Conference Ratings SEC 12.62 B12 7.31 B10 7.01 ACC 3.85 P12 2.30 AAC -4.04 MWC -4.91 CUSA -7.60 MAC -7.89 SBC -9.95   Overall Rankings   Week 8     Rank Team PD YD Score Rk +/- Score +/- 1 Clemson  36.58 314.39 39.49 1 0.66 2 Alabama  37.21 290.28 38.75 -1 -0.44 3 Michigan  26.00 254.44 29.55 0 0.81 4 Oklahoma  24.62 178.43 24.98 2 0.07 5 LSU  24.63 131.21 22.72 2 -0.78 6 Texas A&M  16.18 206.57 20.71 5 0.88 7 Georgia  21.43 115.93 19.85 3 -0.44 8 Ohio St.  18.19 157.38 19.68 -3 -6.82 9 Penn St.  22.64 87.45 19.30 -5 -8.44 10 Iowa  18.09 142.36 18.90 7 2.50 11 Appalachian State 19.41 117.35 18.57 -3 -4.64 12 Missouri  16.51 149.15 18.17 15 6.05 13 N.C. State  15.92 153.32 17.98 -4 -4.77 14 North Texas  16.73 135.10 17.64 2 1.11 15 Purdue  16.65 114.46 16.60 19 6.92 16 Wisconsin  15.02 129.11 16.21 2 -0.06 17 Miami (FL)  13.91 141.25 16.06 3 0.68 18 Washington  14.74 120.29 15.61 3 1.08 19 Army  16.36 83.93 14.94 -7 -2.77 20 Notre Dame  16.28 78.38 14.62 -1 -1.17 21 Utah  13.76 109.67 14.44 4 2.12 22 Texas Tech  14.00 105.65 14.41 1 1.43 23 Florida  15.51 76.82 14.03 -9 -2.87 24 Mississippi St.  13.34 103.37 13.86 -9 -2.78 25 Temple  12.57 102.30 13.29 -3 -0.17 26 Fresno St.  14.64 68.91 13.07 6 2.89 27 Kentucky  14.71 65.49 12.95 -14 -4.01 28 Washington St.  9.21 131.52 12.46 5 2.30 29 Iowa St.  10.92 93.52 11.77 0 0.12 30 UCF  12.71 43.55 10.57 1 0.04 31 Boise St.  9.39 87.61 10.47 9 2.03 32 West Virginia  12.52 43.16 10.42 -8 -1.90 33 UAB 8.69 81.99 9.73 15 4.76 34 Texas  9.71 63.99 9.55 -8 -2.75 35 South Carolina  8.95 69.01 9.28 6 1.29 36 Cincinnati  9.36 52.69 8.77 9 2.79 37 Michigan St.  9.00 44.23 8.13 -7 -3.10 38 Virginia  7.14 47.03 7.02 6 0.84 39 Utah St.  13.46 -41.28 6.99 -11 -4.70 40 Colorado  4.83 63.86 6.29 -3 -2.45 41 Auburn  6.70 37.48 6.27 10 1.55 42 Buffalo  5.66 46.50 6.01 8 1.23 43 TCU  3.94 68.94 5.94 -4 -2.65 44 Oregon  5.21 48.58 5.80 13 2.55 45 Oklahoma St.  6.44 29.24 5.70 1 -0.26 46 Maryland  5.70 36.17 5.54 -11 -4.04 47 Duke  9.69 -20.27 5.49 -9 -3.15 48 Mississippi  2.57 63.73 4.78 5 0.69 49 Syracuse  5.23 26.57 4.76 7 1.42 50 Stanford  9.00 -35.66 4.29 -1 -0.52 51 Boston Coll.  5.91 3.92 4.13 -8 -2.30 52 Houston  5.03 6.44 3.66 0 -0.43 53 Nebraska  -1.85 91.83 3.18 13 3.85 54 Arizona St.  4.20 5.30 3.05 -12 -3.61 55 East. Michigan  3.47 -7.49 1.95 16 3.79 56 Minnesota  1.61 17.43 1.91 -20 -7.64 57 Baylor  0.69 25.97 1.71 -2 -1.67 58 Georgia Tech  0.90 17.28 1.43 1 -0.81 59 BYU  2.20 -2.97 1.33 5 1.57 60 Vanderbilt  4.85 -40.07 1.31 3 1.18 61 USC  2.11 -8.27 1.01 -14 -4.17 62 UCLA  0.81 4.56 0.76 -1 -0.15 63 San Diego St.  1.94 -15.93 0.53 -9 -3.32 64 Indiana  -3.13 41.77 -0.08 12 2.96 65 Northwestern  -0.03 -3.64 -0.19 -5 -1.81 66 Louisiana Tech  0.36 -12.95 -0.39 -8 -3.52 67 Virginia Tech  1.38 -30.86 -0.56 0 0.81 68 East Carolina  -7.30 87.00 -0.69 9 2.41 69 W. Michigan  -4.08 38.94 -0.85 6 1.81 70 Tennessee  -1.56 -5.18 -1.29 0 0.53 71 Miami (OH)  -2.36 -9.41 -2.03 13 3.06 72 Arkansas St.  -4.15 13.67 -2.11 0 -0.24 73 Southern Miss  -7.48 58.57 -2.17 12 2.99 74 Kansas St.  0.52 -57.40 -2.41 -5 -0.75 75 Marshall  -0.77 -41.13 -2.49 3 0.73 76 Troy  -3.85 -13.53 -3.22 11 2.60 77 Pittsburgh  -1.68 -44.43 -3.25 -3 -0.95 78 Liberty -3.60 -20.37 -3.38 -5 -1.45 79 Air Force  -2.24 -40.41 -3.44 0 0.40 80 Ohio  -3.14 -35.34 -3.79 13 4.42 81 Northern Illinois  -2.62 -46.01 -3.96 8 2.70 82 Florida St.  -3.78 -29.94 -3.96 6 2.43 83 Memphis  -3.80 -34.23 -4.18 -18 -3.93 84 Florida Intl.  -2.64 -60.81 -4.68 8 2.65 85 Arkansas  -7.53 6.99 -4.69 1 1.12 86 Florida Atlantic  -7.05 -6.61 -5.02 -6 -0.50 87 LA Lafayette  -5.96 -23.14 -5.08 11 4.65 88 Wyoming  -5.63 -35.14 -5.44 12 5.65 89 Georgia Southern -0.45 -113.54 -5.75 2 1.24 90 Ball St.  -6.39 -34.65 -5.93 -9 -1.15 91 Arizona  -9.90 9.08 -6.17 -1 0.76 92 California  -9.48 -18.83 -7.22 15 5.42 93 Nevada  -7.86 -44.29 -7.37 10 4.50 94 South Florida  -7.66 -47.96 -7.41 -26 -5.81 95 Tulane  -7.00 -61.53 -7.62 -33 -7.88 96 Toledo  -4.71 -98.34 -7.86 -1 1.52 97 New Mexico  -7.07 -71.29 -8.14 -3 0.10 98 North Carolina  -13.96 20.06 -8.34 8 4.24 99 UNC-Charlotte -12.86 -0.77 -8.61 -3 0.79 100 Tulsa  -9.72 -47.95 -8.78 -17 -3.89 101 Kansas  -6.32 -98.84 -8.96 -19 -4.10 102 Middle Tenn. St.  -8.87 -95.11 -10.48 0 1.15 103 Colorado St.  -14.33 -20.53 -10.54 1 1.44 104 Navy  -10.00 -102.82 -11.60 4 2.10 105 Wake Forest  -11.40 -91.91 -12.01 -6 -1.49 106 Hawaii  -11.60 -99.05 -12.49 -5 -1.39 107 Cent. Michigan  -13.95 -74.36 -12.87 -10 -3.46 108 Coastal Carolina -13.66 -83.04 -13.10 1 1.19 109 SMU  -12.48 -109.22 -13.56 -4 -1.16 110 West. Kentucky  -15.39 -84.42 -14.31 1 0.97 111 Louisville  -13.93 -105.65 -14.36 1 1.73 112 Akron  -13.34 -142.16 -15.72 -2 -0.54 113 Old Dominion -16.53 -117.56 -16.67 4 3.10 114 Illinois  -13.28 -171.87 -17.11 1 0.87 115 UNLV  -15.29 -164.86 -18.11 1 0.47 116 Massachusetts -17.06 -157.26 -18.92 3 3.59 117 Georgia State -19.65 -133.58 -19.52 -4 -2.97 118 LA Monroe  -21.01 -124.09 -19.97 7 4.97 119 UTEP  -20.68 -145.07 -20.75 1 2.40 120 South Alabama -20.38 -167.69 -21.64 -2 -0.57 121 UT-San Antonio -20.07 -190.28 -22.52 1 0.97 122 Oregon St.  -25.50 -118.57 -22.69 -8 -5.81 123 Kent St.  -22.30 -177.94 -23.41 1 1.22 124 Rutgers  -22.78 -172.50 -23.47 -1 0.55 125 San Jose St.  -24.29 -172.59 -24.48 2 3.21 126 Rice  -25.90 -174.78 -25.66 0 1.83 127 Bowling Green  -28.38 -152.84 -26.26 -6 -2.84 128 Texas St. -25.68 -221.20 -27.74 0 1.49 129 New Mexico St.  -26.85 -208.74 -27.92 0 2.39 130 Connecticut  -26.78 -272.45 -30.94 0 3.58   Rankings By Conference AAC 25 Temple  12.57 102.30 13.29 30 UCF  12.71 43.55 10.57 36 Cincinnati  9.36 52.69 8.77 52 Houston  5.03 6.44 3.66 68 East Carolina  -7.30 87.00 -0.69 83 Memphis  -3.80 -34.23 -4.18 94 South Florida  -7.66 -47.96 -7.41 95 Tulane  -7.00 -61.53 -7.62 100 Tulsa  -9.72 -47.95 -8.78 104 Navy  -10.00 -102.82 -11.60 109 SMU  -12.48 -109.22 -13.56 130 Connecticut  -26.78 -272.45 -30.94   ACC 1 Clemson  36.58 314.39 39.49 13 N.C. State  15.92 153.32 17.98 17 Miami (FL)  13.91 141.25 16.06 38 Virginia  7.14 47.03 7.02 47 Duke  9.69 -20.27 5.49 49 Syracuse  5.23 26.57 4.76 51 Boston Coll.  5.91 3.92 4.13 58 Georgia Tech  0.90 17.28 1.43 67 Virginia Tech  1.38 -30.86 -0.56 77 Pittsburgh  -1.68 -44.43 -3.25 82 Florida St.  -3.78 -29.94 -3.96 98 North Carolina  -13.96 20.06 -8.34 105 Wake Forest  -11.40 -91.91 -12.01 111 Louisville  -13.93 -105.65 -14.36   B1G 3 Michigan  26.00 254.44 29.55 8 Ohio St.  18.19 157.38 19.68 9 Penn St.  22.64 87.45 19.30 10 Iowa  18.09 142.36 18.90 15 Purdue  16.65 114.46 16.60 16 Wisconsin  15.02 129.11 16.21 37 Michigan St.  9.00 44.23 8.13 46 Maryland  5.70 36.17 5.54 53 Nebraska  -1.85 91.83 3.18 56 Minnesota  1.61 17.43 1.91 64 Indiana  -3.13 41.77 -0.08 65 Northwestern  -0.03 -3.64 -0.19 114 Illinois  -13.28 -171.87 -17.11 124 Rutgers  -22.78 -172.50 -23.47   BXII-II 4 Oklahoma  24.62 178.43 24.98 22 Texas Tech  14.00 105.65 14.41 29 Iowa St.  10.92 93.52 11.77 32 West Virginia  12.52 43.16 10.42 34 Texas  9.71 63.99 9.55 43 TCU  3.94 68.94 5.94 45 Oklahoma St.  6.44 29.24 5.70 57 Baylor  0.69 25.97 1.71 74 Kansas St.  0.52 -57.40 -2.41 101 Kansas  -6.32 -98.84 -8.96   CUSA 14 North Texas  16.73 135.10 17.64 33 UAB 8.69 81.99 9.73 66 Louisiana Tech  0.36 -12.95 -0.39 73 Southern Miss  -7.48 58.57 -2.17 75 Marshall  -0.77 -41.13 -2.49 84 Florida Intl.  -2.64 -60.81 -4.68 86 Florida Atlantic  -7.05 -6.61 -5.02 99 UNC-Charlotte -12.86 -0.77 -8.61 102 Middle Tenn. St.  -8.87 -95.11 -10.48 110 West. Kentucky  -15.39 -84.42 -14.31 113 Old Dominion -16.53 -117.56 -16.67 119 UTEP  -20.68 -145.07 -20.75 121 UT-San Antonio -20.07 -190.28 -22.52 126 Rice  -25.90 -174.78 -25.66   Indies 19 Army  16.36 83.93 14.94 20 Notre Dame  16.28 78.38 14.62 59 BYU  2.20 -2.97 1.33 78 Liberty -3.60 -20.37 -3.38 116 Massachusetts -17.06 -157.26 -18.92 129 New Mexico St.  -26.85 -208.74 -27.92   MAC 42 Buffalo  5.66 46.50 6.01 55 East. Michigan  3.47 -7.49 1.95 69 W. Michigan  -4.08 38.94 -0.85 71 Miami (OH)  -2.36 -9.41 -2.03 80 Ohio  -3.14 -35.34 -3.79 81 Northern Illinois  -2.62 -46.01 -3.96 90 Ball St.  -6.39 -34.65 -5.93 96 Toledo  -4.71 -98.34 -7.86 107 Cent. Michigan  -13.95 -74.36 -12.87 112 Akron  -13.34 -142.16 -15.72 123 Kent St.  -22.30 -177.94 -23.41 127 Bowling Green  -28.38 -152.84 -26.26   MWC 26 Fresno St.  14.64 68.91 13.07 31 Boise St.  9.39 87.61 10.47 39 Utah St.  13.46 -41.28 6.99 63 San Diego St.  1.94 -15.93 0.53 79 Air Force  -2.24 -40.41 -3.44 88 Wyoming  -5.63 -35.14 -5.44 93 Nevada  -7.86 -44.29 -7.37 97 New Mexico  -7.07 -71.29 -8.14 103 Colorado St.  -14.33 -20.53 -10.54 106 Hawaii  -11.60 -99.05 -12.49 115 UNLV  -15.29 -164.86 -18.11 125 San Jose St.  -24.29 -172.59 -24.48   P12 18 Washington  14.74 120.29 15.61 21 Utah  13.76 109.67 14.44 28 Washington St.  9.21 131.52 12.46 40 Colorado  4.83 63.86 6.29 44 Oregon  5.21 48.58 5.80 50 Stanford  9.00 -35.66 4.29 54 Arizona St.  4.20 5.30 3.05 61 USC  2.11 -8.27 1.01 62 UCLA  0.81 4.56 0.76 91 Arizona  -9.90 9.08 -6.17 92 California  -9.48 -18.83 -7.22 122 Oregon St.  -25.50 -118.57 -22.69   SBC 11 Appalachian State 19.41 117.35 18.57 72 Arkansas St.  -4.15 13.67 -2.11 76 Troy  -3.85 -13.53 -3.22 87 LA Lafayette  -5.96 -23.14 -5.08 89 Georgia Southern -0.45 -113.54 -5.75 108 Coastal Carolina -13.66 -83.04 -13.10 117 Georgia State -19.65 -133.58 -19.52 118 LA Monroe  -21.01 -124.09 -19.97 120 South Alabama -20.38 -167.69 -21.64 128 Texas St. -25.68 -221.20 -27.74   SEC 2 Alabama  37.21 290.28 38.75 5 LSU  24.63 131.21 22.72 6 Texas A&M  16.18 206.57 20.71 7 Georgia  21.43 115.93 19.85 12 Missouri  16.51 149.15 18.17 23 Florida  15.51 76.82 14.03 24 Mississippi St.  13.34 103.37 13.86 27 Kentucky  14.71 65.49 12.95 35 South Carolina  8.95 69.01 9.28 41 Auburn  6.70 37.48 6.27 48 Mississippi  2.57 63.73 4.78 60 Vanderbilt  4.85 -40.07 1.31 70 Tennessee  -1.56 -5.18 -1.29 85 Arkansas  -7.53 6.99 -4.69  

Duquesne Frog

Duquesne Frog

Sign in to follow this  
×