Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
  • entries
    78
  • comments
    48
  • views
    34,744

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

SEC Fatigue

Let's get it out of the way. The SEC is the best. I'm not even going to try to dispute it as much as I'd like to. I am as sick of them as anybody else who doesn't live within 30 miles of a Civil War battlefield. The bona fides are not in question. Every Mythical National Championship since 2006. Only conference in history to win more than 3 in a row. By far the most NFL draft picks. And you can't avoid the superlatives. Steve Spurrier, albeit for transparently self-serving reasons, absurdly declared Alabama better than the Jacksonville Jaguars. ESPN, also for transparently self-serving reasons, touting the SEC even when it's ostensibly attacking the conference. As with any media darling, the SEC has legions of backlash haytas loaded for bare with reasons to diminish their success. They rarely play out-of-conference games outside the South. Outside the MNC and BCS games over the last 14 years, the SEC is a slightly more pedestrian 56-42. They haven't produced a decent NFL quarterback since Eli Manning. There are few quantitative measures by which one can conclude that the SEC has not been, on average, the best conference in college football. But the flip side of that coin is that the bias toward the SEC has become so strong that it seems as though the 110 college FBS teams who play in conferences not named the SEC have access to only one slot in the MNC, and even then, they still might not get the nod over the second place SEC team. That the SEC has won seven straight MNC games is a truly epic feat, but it is a feat whose accomplishment is owed as much to opportunity as it is superior play or talent. Getting to the game is the important part. Two of the best teams in the country winning a single game against the other is generally a statistical coin flip. Has the SEC won all these national championships because they clearly had the best team in the game or have they managed the statistically improbable feat of flipping heads 7 times in a row? Does the SEC Champion deserve a de facto berth into the MNC game? The question is probably moot until somebody beats them in the MNC. But the numbers, nonetheless, tell an interesting story. What Is the Best Conference? Before we dive into the details, how do we go about determining the best conference? The conference with the best singular team? The conference best at the top -- e.g., most teams in the top 25? The best conference top-to-bottom? The answer, usually, is whatever metric that supports whatever argument you want to support. Here at NMMH, we strive to avoid such tautologies. The first metric -- best singular team -- seems a poor metric for judging the strength of a conference. By that metric, the WAC was in the argument for best conference in the country during the Kellen Moore era at Boise State. But it's not a metric to be dismissed because it is, after all, the two "best" teams in the country who are supposed to be chosen for the MNC. And winning the MNC is the primary (but not the only) basis for extolling SEC dominance. As we discussed in the last blog post, the example of SMU and Georgia in the 1982 season showed that being undefeated in a "major" conference may not be sufficient justification for declaring a team the "best." A good, but not great, team can go undefeated based on the good fortune, or the uncanny capability if you choose to look at it that way, to put their best efforts out against the best opponents on the schedule. The turds that SMU laid against TCU and Texas Tech in 1982 are no less indicative of the kind of team they were than the impressive wins against Texas and Pitt. Had they executed against Texas and Pitt the way they executed against TCU and Tech, they not only would not have been undefeated, but they would have been blown out. Did they get lucky, or did they "play up" to their competition? So for the sake of argument, let's say that the top 5 teams in the DUSHEE poll are all teams that should have, at minimum, been in the conversation for best team in the country. Here are the DUSHEE top 5 for each year of the SEC's run, the teams in bold were selected to play in the MNC: 2006 LSU SEC 22.29 177.67 72.78 Ohio St. B10 24.69 133.22 71.60 Louisville BE 22.12 137.15 66.66 Florida SEC 20.10 160.33 65.64 BYU MWC 20.76 145.39 64.92 2007 West Virginia BE 25.04 167.29 77.17 LSU SEC 22.95 170.42 73.15 Oklahoma B12 24.60 135.54 71.72 Ohio St. B10 20.87 185.48 70.83 Missouri B12 22.46 148.11 68.94 2008 Florida SEC 35.59 184.94 102.21 USC P10 31.19 247.26 101.64 Oklahoma B12 32.67 207.85 99.21 Texas B12 28.67 157.01 83.46 Penn St. B10 25.52 178.00 79.72 2009 TCU MWC 27.12 222.03 89.36 Texas B12 26.45 205.00 85.52 Florida SEC 24.91 212.98 83.36 Alabama SEC 25.85 192.02 82.40 Boise St. WAC 24.97 157.39 75.63 2010 Boise St. WAC 32.41 251.22 104.80 TCU MWC 26.84 238.90 91.16 Ohio St. B10 25.02 209.34 83.09 Oregon P10 25.04 154.95 75.43 Auburn SEC 23.33 174.17 74.50 2011 Alabama SEC 31.50 269.74 105.48 LSU SEC 30.53 129.87 83.60 Boise St. MWC 25.52 163.45 77.65 Houston CUSA 22.46 182.74 73.86 Oregon P10 24.06 154.10 73.22 2012 Alabama SEC 31.13 217.62 97.30 Texas A&M SEC 26.30 201.68 84.73 Oregon P10 29.20 155.42 84.38 Florida St. ACC 19.33 178.66 66.59 Notre Dame Ind 17.89 144.12 58.62 Table 1. Top 5 DUSHEE teams from 2006-2012. From left to right: Team, Conference, PD, YD, and DUSHEE Score. DUSHEE Score is normalized against the average best team from 2000 through 2012. Bold teams played in MNC game. Ignore for a moment the DUSHEE WTF team of 2011 (I'd like to think Kevin Sumlin had Houston's DUSHEE ranking in hand when he interviewed for the A&M gig) and look at the conference affiliations of these 35 teams: SEC: 11 B12: 5 B10: 4 P12: 4 MWC: 4 BE: 2 WAC: 2 ACC: 1 CUSA: 1 Ind: 1 Table 2. The number of DUSHEE Top 5 teams per conference affiliation over the last 7 years The SEC has had 11 of the 35 Top 5 DUSHEE teams of the last 7 years, or 31%. Yet they have been given 8 of the 14 MNC game slots, or 57%. If we focus the analysis down to the top 2, the SEC has accounted for 7 of the 14 Top 2 DUSHEE teams, but 4 of those 7 came in the last two years. In the 5 years prior, the SEC accounted for 3 of 10 Top 2 teams. So, while the SEC has clearly had the most consistent presence in the Elite in college football over the last 7 years, it is also arguable that they have nonetheless gotten disproportionate opportunity to play in and win the MNC at the expense of other conferences. Notably, the MWC, which has had 4 teams in the top 5 (BYU, TCU (twice), and Boise) over the last 7 years, hasn't had a single opportunity in the MNC. The SEC has clearly deserved more opportunities, but one might argue that the growing bias toward them as somehow a "super" conference has given them even more opportunities than they've deserved. The Middle of the Road Perhaps the more relevant way to judge conference strength is to look at the conference from top-to-bottom. There are a few ways to assess this. The typical way a computer rating system does it is by averaging the scores of all the teams in the conference together and using a single number to determine conference strength. Let's begin with this customary conference rating approach. Again, over the last decade plus, here are the conferences ranked by average DUSHEE score of all teams in their conference: Figure 1. Three-Year moving average DUSHEE score per conference from 2001-2012. The moving average is plotted for the middle year. Figure 1 shows the 3-year moving average for each conference since 2001. A three-year moving average means that each point on the plot represents the average of the three years surrounding the point; for example, the 2011 SEC point represents the average DUSHEE score for 2010, 2011, and 2012 combined. The 2010 point combines 2009, 2010, and 2011. And so on. The reason for doing this is as busy as Figure 1 is, it's even busier if you plot each individual year by itself. Moving averages smooth out the data and make it a little easier to discern multi-year trends. Notice that the SEC curve remains on top all the way back to 2001. However, the AQ (automatic qualifier, in BCS parlance) conferences were much more tightly packed together in the early aughts. Based on the DUSHEE metric, the average team in the Big Six conferences were much more on par with each other in the early 2000's than they have been more recently. In fact, the average performance of all of the AQ conferences, after steadily rising for the most part in the early 2000's, have moved down over the last 4-5 years, EXCEPT for the SEC. This seems to indicate that the SEC dominance of the last few years hasn't been as much about their improvement as other conferences' decline. You'll also note our old stomping grounds, the MWC. Through 2008-2009, it was pretty close to on par with the ACC and in some years the highly volatile Big East. Not surprisingly, the MWC's performance has taken a significant dive after the loss of their big 3. The addition of Boise just hasn't been enough to replace three perennial top 25 teams. The MWC's decline has resulted in a convergence in the non-AQ conference performance, making the distinction between the haves and have-nots more obvious than ever. We're all happy to have been Indiana Jones rolling under the closing crypt door just in time but the downside may have truly been the death of the non-AQ conference as a serious BCS threat to the Elite. Only as Strong as Your Weakest Link Averaging conference performance is a perfectly fine way of assessing strength, but by boiling the data down to a single number, some information inevitably gets thrown away. For instance, say Conference A has 10 teams. Three teams have DUSHEE scores of 70, three are around 0, and the other four are all around -50. On average, Conference A has a DUSHEE score around 0 ... the definition of mediocre. Yet, they have three teams who are BCS, if not MNC worthy. Is that a mediocre conference? Meanwhile Conference B also has 10 teams, evenly distributed between 40 and 0. Nobody is terrible, and on average Conference B has a DUSHEE score around 20. Significantly higher than Conference A. Yet Conference A has three teams that could comfortably win Conference B. Which is the better conference? Conference B has the tougher "week in -- week out" grind. Yet none of those teams in Conference B play two games nearly as tough as the two games the top 3 of Conference A play against each other. This generalization, as I alluded to a few paragraphs above, somewhat describes the situation between the "Big 3" era MWC and the ACC and Big East. Figures 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 show the 3-year moving average DUSHEE scores for the SEC, Big 12, Big East, ACC, and MWC, respectively. Figure 2. SEC 3-year moving average DUSHEE score. Note Missouri and A&M haven't been in the conference long enough to make a 3-year average. Figure 3. Big XII 3-year moving average DUSHEE score. Note WVU and TCU haven't been in the conference long enough to make a 3-year average. Figure 4. Big East 3-year moving average DUSHEE score. Note Temple hasn't been in the conference long enough the second go around to make a 3-year average. Figure 5. ACC 3-year moving average DUSHEE score. Figure 6. MWC 3-year moving average DUSHEE score. Note Boise, Fresno, Hawaii, and Nevada haven't been in the conference long enough to make a 3-year average. The tops of the SEC (Fig. 2) and Big XII (Fig. 3) don't look qualitatively different. For the most part, both conferences have been dominated by 2-3 teams (SEC -- Alabama, LSU and Florida; Big XII -- Oklahoma and Texas, with brief challenges to supremacy by Kansas State and Oklahoma State). Moving down to that next tier, a little separation begins to emerge. The SEC has continually had a dense grouping of teams in the 20-40 range, keeping in mind that a DUSHEE score of around 30 means a team is at least on the cusp of being a Top 25 team. The Big XII's densest grouping of teams typically appears in the 0-20 range. And then at the very bottom, the distinction is even more clear. While both conferences have typically had 4-or-so below average teams (usually Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Mississippi State and Ole Miss in the SEC; Baylor, Kansas, Colorado and Iowa State in the Big XII), the SEC have not had what might be technically called God-awful teams as Baylor and Kansas were for parts of the last decade. The worst SEC team has been typically at about a DUSHEE score of -40. Baylor and Kansas have both spent time in the -60 to -70 range. The comparison between the ACC, Big East, and MWC also sheds some light on the ambiguity in assessing conference strength. Going back to my Conference A vs. Conference B scenario, the MWC (Fig. 6) for most of the last decade was a pretty good analog for Conference A. TCU, Utah, and BYU never dipped below a DUSHEE score of 20 and all three were typically at least flirting with 40. TCU's moving average during that time places it squarely in the Alabama/Oklahoma stratosphere. At the beginning of the last decade, before TCU joined, the MWC had a healthy grouping in that same 0-20 category that a lot of Big XII teams have held. However, both Utah and BYU were bunched there too; the MWC didn't start producing consistent Top 25 level teams until 2004, when Utah began to emerge ahead of the peloton. At about that same time, the steady decline of the bottom of the MWC begins. Colorado State, New Mexico, UNLV, and San Diego State all get bad, really bad, coincidental to the emergence of Utah, the re-emergence of BYU, and the entry of TCU into the league. By 2009-2010, the MWC has the rare distinction of containing three consistent Top 25 teams along with three consistent Bottom 25 teams, all within a 9 team conference. Compare that to the Big East and ACC during this time. Prior to leaving the Big East (Fig. 4), Miami and Virginia Tech were miles above the rest of the conference in terms of performance. Miami was winning MNC's and Virginia Tech was playing in BCS games; nobody else in the conference was in the Top 25. However, the decline that they had begun to show in the early part of the decade continued after they joined the ACC (Fig. 5), where they joined a declining Florida State in a conference whose champion generally found itself well outside the Top 10 and sometimes toward the bottom of the Top 25. Outside of the emergence of West Virginia and the initial success of Louisville in the few years immediately after they moved from CUSA (somehow managing to thrive in the week-in-week-out grind of an AQ conference), the Big East champion also tended to sit in that 15-25 spot in the AP (and DUSHEE) poll. Utah and BYU could have regularly challenged for championships in either of those two conferences and the Dalton-era TCU teams would have most likely won either of those conferences going away (much as they did in the MWC). The difference is that the bottom of both the Big East and ACC were not nearly as bad as the bottom of the MWC. The ACC has had only one perpetual resident in the less than -40 realm of the God-awful, Duke. The Big East had two roaming that wasteland, albeit at different times; Rutgers at the beginning of the decade and Syracuse at the end. The end of the Big East found the entire conference tightly bunched between -10 and 20, making it by far the most evenly balanced conference during the DUSHEE-analyzed era. None of the teams are terrible. And none of the teams are really good. The ACC in recent years has told a similar story. Most of their teams have been bunched between -20 and 40. One or two decent teams, one or two pretty bad teams, and everyone else varying shades of mediocre. So which was the "better" conference of the three? Based on average performance, the ACC and Big East were a little better, largely because their bottom halves weren't nearly as low. Conversely, their top 2-3 teams weren't nearly as good. Is it better to be consistently mediocre or have a few great teams along with several legitimately terrible teams? The Numbers, Unfortunately, Tell You What You Already Know The SEC has been the best conference in college football over the last decade-plus, based on almost any quantitative measure you wish to throw at it. But the growing notion that the SEC is somehow in a league of their own, a league that should receive an automatic berth into the MNC game by virtue of winning the conference is not supported by the numbers. The SEC isn't THAT much better, and particularly not at the beginning of this run. The Cam Newton Auburn team of 2010 was a really good team, but there were 4-5 other teams who had a claim to be worthy of an opportunity to play in a MNC. As many on this board feel, I'd have loved to have seen the Frogs get an opportunity to play them. Thank the Football Gods we're finally going to get to see some more teams with an opportunity to play. For as long as the SEC champion gets an automatic bid into the MNC, they're going to continue to win lots of championships. At least now, they're going to have to get that coin to flip heads at least twice as many times.

Duquesne Frog

Duquesne Frog

 

Jekyll and Hyde II -- Hell's Half Acre

Whither the 2016 Frogs?   Bruce Banner and the Hulk.  Yin and yang.  Tyler Durden and the unnamed Edward Norton character in Fight Club.  Devil with the Blue Dress.  Sméagol and Gollum.   The 2016 Frogs.   Pop culture is replete with dichotomous but symbiotic opposites contained in the same body.  For there to be beauty there must be ugliness.  Good cannot exist without evil.   There was some beauty to this edition of the Frogs.  That fabulous 40-point beatdown of the drain-encircling Rapey-bears.  The Charlie Strong swan song (La cucuracha, ya no puede caminar ...).  A 30-point beating of an SMU team who may not have been as dreadful as they appeared at the time (ask Houston).   But the evil Frogs appeared just as often.  Kansas.  West Virginia.  Oklahoma State.   And then there were the games when the Good and Evil Frogs battled for dominance within the same game, sometimes quarter-to-quarter.  Arkansas -- Evil Frogs in the first half, beautiful Frogs in the second.  Oklahoma -- Dr. Jekyll in the first and fourth, Mr. Hyde in the second and third.  For the first 5 weeks of the season, save for the inevitable Kenny Hill pick-6, the offense looked unstoppable while the defense looked atrocious.  Then, from weeks 6 through 9, the formerly unstoppable offense became totally inept while the defense started getting better.  Then for the last 4 weeks, the offense and defense joined forces, either showing Peach Bowl-level dominance or 1997-level ineptitude, but in unison and in alternating weeks.  Blow out Baylor.  Blown out by Okie State.  Blow out Texas.  Blown out by Kansas State.   And then there was "home field advantage."  The Frogs were uncategorically awful at "The Carter."  The Frogs averaged a point differential of nearly a +10 points on the road this year.  They averaged a point differential of -4 points at home.  That means the Frogs were 4 points worse than an average FBS team at home and 10 points better than an average FBS team on the road.  On average, FBS teams were 3.2 points better at home than on the road.  Twenty-nine teams (out of 128) had worse point differentials at home than on the road.  Only Army (-22) had a bigger home-road disparity than the Frogs.   A look at the Frog's numbers week-to-week shows just how inscrutable the Frogs were this season:   Opp    Ark  ISU @ SMU  OU @ Kan   @ WVU  Ttech @ Bay    OkSt @ Tex  KSU PD   -7.40 19.20 21.20 9.82 -24.30   -17.10 -8.30 44.60   -20.20 24.45 -17.50 YD   172.40 107.00 243.50 107.09 -265.70   -28.70 81.20 365.00   -194.90 134.18 -252.60 Score   3.44 18.00 25.96 11.75 -29.11   -12.79 -1.59 47.46   -22.93 22.82 -23.94   Up until week 6, this team had the look of a pretty solid team.  They lost a game to Arkansas they had no business losing, beating the Hogs physically but combining a slow start, shaky kicking, and insurmountable turnovers into a painful loss stew.  They dominated two teams they were supposed to dominate, Iowa State and SMU, and then played a top-10 Oklahoma team to an almost draw.    Then there was Kansas.  Effing Kansas.  Every. Damn. Year. Kansas.  By DUSHEE metrics, the Kansas game was the Frogs worst performance of the year.  It was last year as well.  And the year before.  All of them wins, mind you.  But awful, terrible, no good performances against awful, terrible, no good teams.    And from that point on, the Frogs were usually a below-average team.  Except for Baylor and Texas, when they looked like a legitimate top-25 team.   Looking at the standard deviation (a measure of inconsistency in this case) in point differential, the Frogs were the 12th most inconsistent team in FBS this season (Army, being the most inconsistent) with a standard deviation of 22.7 points.  That means the Frogs, who had an average point differential of 2.2 points/game, were just as likely to be 25 points better than an average team on a given afternoon (as they were against Texas) as they were to be 20 points worse than an average team (as they were against Oklahoma State).   Such were the 2016 Frogs.   Wither the "Big" XII-II?   It was a bad year for the conference as well.  I want to dig into conference strength more after the Army-Navy game Saturday officially closes out the regular season, but as a preview DUSHEE had the Big XII-II about as close, on average, to the American Athletic Conference as the PAC-12, the next lowest "Power 5" conference:   Conference Average DUSHEE Scores   SEC 5.39 ACC 4.35 B10 4.21 P12 4.08 B12 2.30 AAC 0.79 MWC -3.82 MAC -4.19 CUSA -8.38 SBC -8.55   The bulk of the conference was really, really, middling, with only Oklahoma and West Virginia averaging a touchdown or greater better than an average team.  Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and TCU were between a field goal and touchdown better than an average team; Texas and Baylor were definitively average.  Here are the conference numbers:              Rk Team                              PD           YD          Score (Orig) 8 Oklahoma  18.17 146.45 19.23 24 West Virginia  9.68 74.16 10.05 34 Oklahoma St.  7.75 31.94 6.72 45 Kansas St.  8.26 -12.39 4.90 49 TCU  2.22 42.59 3.55 52 Texas  0.04 51.32 2.52 54 Baylor  -0.97 52.61 1.91 73 Iowa St.  -2.89 -23.98 -3.09 74 Texas Tech  -3.51 -18.69 -3.25 121 Kansas  -20.46 -121.27 -19.53   The Revised DUSHEE score emphasizes strength-of-schedule and de-emphasizes performances that are far outside the norm for a particular team; but since a team's strength of schedule is dominated by the conference it is in (e.g., 82% of TCU's SoS was based on its 9 conference opponents of 11 FBS games), the conference's Revised DUSHEE rankings don't look a lot different than the Originals:   8 Oklahoma  20.80 148.08 22.40 23 West Virginia  10.81 72.78 11.41 33 Oklahoma St.  9.30 28.00 7.81 44 TCU  2.88 54.12 5.04 48 Kansas St.  8.09 -12.21 4.69 52 Texas  0.74 51.00 3.44 53 Baylor  -0.98 64.48 3.06 66 Texas Tech  0.59 -12.74 -0.34 75 Iowa St.  -2.94 -37.87 -4.15 112 Kansas  -16.10 -120.33 -17.67   I would caution not to put too much emphasis on the conference's weakness this season.  It was a down year.  The last two seasons, the Big XII-II were either second or third in the average ratings.  Three years ago, many were having a wake for the B1G as a relevant conference outside of Ohio State.  Now, people are clamoring for as many as three B1G teams in the CFP.  These things are transient, and a small conference like the Big 12 are harder hit by bad years from top teams (ahem, TCU and Baylor).   Whither Georgia?   I also intend to put out a blog on the Bowl season but since we're emphasizing the Frogs, let's take a look at their Liberty Bowl opponent, Georgia.   On an average basis, the Dawgs look about the same as the Frogs.  But on a week-to-week basis, Georgia was less Jekyll/Hyde and more consistently meh.   Opp UNC   Mizz Miss Tenn SoCar Vandy   Fla Ky Aub ULaLa GaTech PD 14.00   -6.90 -38.30 -0.40 7.40 -1.80   -9.27 -0.50 21.10 13.10 -0.20 YD 194.67   -100.10 -132.30 -13.60 -66.70 203.90   -26.27 140.90 271.10 -79.20 -25.60 Score (Orig) 18.79   -9.46 -31.96 -0.93 1.69 8.70   -7.46 6.51 27.23 4.89 -1.38 Score (Revised) 21.40   -13.57 -25.54 1.70 -6.36 7.57   -3.18 7.05 36.52 0.00 -1.60   Georgia had two good performances; in week 1 against UNC (33-24, outgaining 474-315) and in their week 11 upset of Auburn (13-7, outgaining 343-164).  Georgia's two worst performances were back-to-back in weeks 3-4 against a weak Missouri team (28-27, outgained 409-473) and Ole Miss (14-45, outgained 396-510).  Their other 7 games, they were really, consistently average.   Based on average DUSHEE score, the Frogs are a 2.5-point favorite over Georgia, but while we've seen a lot of the "average" Georgia team, we've seen very little of the "average" TCU team.  If the "good" TCU team shows, the line should probably be closer to 2-3 TDs.  If the "evil" TCU team shows, Georgia should be favored by 2-3 TDs.  I guess we'll just have to tune in and find out which side of the coin lands face up.  

Duquesne Frog

Duquesne Frog

 

DUSHEE Bowl Preview 2017-2018

As in previous years, I take a look at the Bowls through the lens of various computer models and the early Vegas point spreads.  This year I am switching from the ESPN FPI to the College Football Reference SRS score, primarily because they make it easier to play around with their data.  Maybe this year (unlike the last several), I'll actually go back and review how these picks turned out before closing out the DUSHEE season.  We'll see how motivated I am by then.   In the tables below, DO is DUSHEE Original, DR is DUSHEE Revised (or Extra Crispy), DA is the average of the two DUSHEE rankings, Sag is Sagarin, and SRS is the College Football Reference "Simple Rating System".  I pulled the Sagarin and SRS numbers before the Army-Navy game, so the numbers may not be an exact match for those checking my work.   TCU   Alamo   Team Record DO DR Sag SRS SoS Stanford  9-4 10.20 12.30 85.53 12.50 4.08 TCU  10-3 14.00 17.73 87.18 14.59 4.52   Here we are again, back in ol' Saint Tony, to face off against a Pac-12 runner up.  That last game wasn't very exciting, but this one will be if the computers and Vegas are right.   TCU is a unanimous, if small, favorite across the computational models and Vegas.  DUSHEE likes the Frogs a little more than Vegas, Sagarin a little less and the SRS pretty well nails the point spread:   DO Fav DDO DR Fav DDR DA Fav DUSHEE Avg Vegas Fav Vegas Sag Fav DSag SRS Fav DSRS TCU  3.80 TCU  5.43 TCU  4.61 TCU  2 TCU  1.65 TCU  2.1   New Years Six   Orange Team Record DO DR Sag SRS SoS Wisconsin  12-1 24.45 28.65 93.09 22.65 2.73 Miami (FL)  10-2 9.04 12.25 83.72 15.97 5.62   Wisconsin is a unanimous favorite here as well, with all the computer models liking the Badgers more than Vegas.  DUSHEE likes Wiscy a LOT more than Vegas.  Vegas could be giving the Canes a home field advantage here.   DO Fav DDO DR Fav DDR DA Fav DUSHEE Avg Vegas Fav Vegas Sag Fav DSag SRS Fav DSRS Wisconsin  15.40 Wisconsin  16.40 Wisconsin  15.90 Wisconsin  6.5 Wisconsin  9.37 Wisconsin  6.7   Peach The Peach Bowl is the first of several games pairing teams with a disparate strength-of-schedule.  As one would expect, the DUSHEE Revised punishes the lower SoS much more than the Original.  Auburn had the 2nd most difficult schedule in college football this year (Maryland's ranked the toughest) while UCF's schedule ranked 85th.   Team Record DO DR Sag SRS SoS Auburn  10-3 26.81 34.81 92.18 18.42 9.09 UCF  12-0 20.63 20.54 83.72 16.78 -1.61   Auburn is a unanimous favorite, but Vegas likes the Tigers/WarEagles more than any of the computer models other than DUSHEE Revised.  DUSHEE Average is right at the point spread.   DO Fav DDO DR Fav DDR DA Fav DUSHEE Avg Vegas Fav Vegas Sag Fav DSag SRS Fav DSRS Auburn  6.18 Auburn  14.28 Auburn  10.23 Auburn  10 Auburn  8.46 Auburn  1.6   Fiesta The Fiesta predictions follow the same pattern as the Orange, with all models liking the Nittany Lions more than Vegas.   Team Record DO DR Sag SRS SoS Penn St.  10-2 25.00 27.67 96.58 21.57 1.85 Washington  10-2 17.99 19.55 92.24 17.56 -0.29   DO Fav DDO DR Fav DDR DA Fav DUSHEE Avg Vegas Fav Vegas Sag Fav DSag SRS Fav DSRS Penn St.  7.01 Penn St.  8.12 Penn St.  7.57 Penn St.  3 Penn St.  4.34 Penn St.  4.0   Cotton Again, all the computer models like Ohio State more than Vegas.  DUSHEE and Sagarin like the Buckeyes A LOT more.   Team Record DO DR Sag SRS SoS Ohio St.  11-2 30.94 39.28 96.34 21.24 4.30 USC  11-2 11.97 15.10 83.98 14.19 2.91   DO Fav DDO DR Fav DDR DA Fav DUSHEE Avg Vegas Fav Vegas Sag Fav DSag SRS Fav DSRS Ohio St.  18.96 Ohio St.  24.18 Ohio St.  21.57 Ohio St.  7 Ohio St.  12.36 Ohio St.  7.1   Rose The models and Vegas are NOT unanimous for the two Semi-Final games.  For the Rose Bowl, the computers all like Georgia but Vegas (at least at the time I pulled the number) liked the Sooners.  None have the spread higher that 4-points.   Team Record DO DR Sag SRS SoS Oklahoma  12-1 25.90 30.27 92.84 19.21 2.69 Georgia  12-1 27.31 33.93 95.34 22.70 5.72   DO Fav DDO DR Fav DDR DA Fav DUSHEE Avg Vegas Fav Vegas Sag Fav DSag SRS Fav DSRS Georgia  1.41 Georgia  3.66 Georgia  2.54 Oklahoma  1 Georgia  2.50 Georgia  3.5   Sugar The SRS likes Clemson, everybody else has the Tide as a small favorite.   Team Record DO DR Sag SRS SoS Clemson  12-1 24.96 31.80 96.18 22.34 5.68 Alabama  11-1 29.27 32.25 98.90 18.95 2.79   DO Fav DDO DR Fav DDR DA Fav DUSHEE Avg Vegas Fav Vegas Sag Fav DSag SRS Fav DSRS Alabama  4.31 Alabama  0.45 Alabama  2.38 Alabama  2 Alabama  2.72 Clemson  3.4   Games of That Already Happened So I wasn't thinking and assumed I had another week before games started.  So here, I'll put the games that happened this weekend.  DUSHEE went against Vegas and most of the computer models and took Marshall, Boise, and Georgia State.  DUSHEE, along with everybody else, missed on the Middle Tennessee-Arkansas State matchup.  DUSHEE really liked Arkansas State, so while DUSHEE nailed a bunch of upsets, it also lost out on a high confidence pick in the Pick'em contest.   DO Fav DDO DR Fav DDR DA Fav DUSHEE Avg Vegas Fav Vegas Sag Fav DSag SRS Fav DSRS Winner Margin Marshall  3.35 Marshall  3.95 Marshall  3.65 Colorado St.  5.5 Colorado St.  2.32 Colorado St.  1.3 Marshall  3 Boise St.  3.50 Boise St.  1.86 Boise St.  2.68 Oregon  5 Oregon  3.38 Boise St.  2.4 Boise St.  10 Arkansas St.  10.30 Arkansas St.  10.62 Arkansas St.  10.46 Arkansas St.  3.5 Arkansas St.  6.59 Arkansas St.  5.3 Middle Tenn. St.  5 Georgia State 0.50 Georgia State 2.73 Georgia State 1.61 West. Kentucky  4.5 West. Kentucky  4.34 West. Kentucky  2.0 Georgia State 10 Troy  8.38 Troy  5.98 Troy  7.18 Troy  6 Troy  7.22 Troy  4.7 Troy  20   Other Games of Texas or Big XII-II Interest   Frisco The Ponies are unanimous favorites and the all the computer models other than DUSHEE Original like the Ponies more than Vegas.   Team Record DO DR Sag SRS SoS Louisiana Tech  6-6 -2.36 -6.06 60.75 -4.52 -5.09 SMU  7-5 1.73 1.45 68.57 3.46 1.41   DO Fav DDO DR Fav DDR DA Fav DUSHEE Avg Vegas Fav Vegas Sag Fav DSag SRS Fav DSRS SMU  4.08 SMU  7.51 SMU  5.79 SMU  5 SMU  7.82 SMU  8.0   Armed Forces DUSHEE and Vegas are in close agreement, with the Aztecs about a touchdown favorite over Army.  Sagarin and SRS also like San Diego State, but not to cover.   Team Record DO DR Sag SRS SoS Army  8-4 1.46 -0.27 68.78 2.26 -2.49 San Diego St.  10-2 8.97 7.03 74.05 6.49 -4.59   DO Fav DDO DR Fav DDR DA Fav DUSHEE Avg Vegas Fav Vegas Sag Fav DSag SRS Fav DSRS San Diego St.  7.51 San Diego St.  7.30 San Diego St.  7.40 San Diego St.  7 San Diego St.  5.27 San Diego St.  4.2   Hawaii DUSHEE and SRS like the Bulldogs, Vegas and Sagarin like the Cougars.  Everybody likes Fresno against the spread.   Team Record DO DR Sag SRS SoS Houston  7-4 1.59 0.19 72.31 3.63 -2.91 Fresno St.  9-4 5.15 4.18 71.85 4.22 -1.47   DO Fav DDO DR Fav DDR DA Fav DUSHEE Avg Vegas Fav Vegas Sag Fav DSag SRS Fav DSRS Fresno St.  3.56 Fresno St.  3.99 Fresno St.  3.78 Houston  1.5 Houston  0.46 Fresno St.  0.6   Heart of Dallas SRS likes the Mountaineers; everybody else likes the Utes.  Everybody likes WVU against the spread.   Team Record DO DR Sag SRS SoS West Virginia  7-5 3.86 6.49 75.71 6.11 3.63 Utah  6-6 6.17 7.80 77.70 5.13 1.55   DO Fav DDO DR Fav DDR DA Fav DUSHEE Avg Vegas Fav Vegas Sag Fav DSag SRS Fav DSRS Utah  2.31 Utah  1.30 Utah  1.80 Utah  4.5 Utah  1.99 West Virginia  1.0   Cactus DUSHEE has been down on the Fightin' Snyders all year long compared to everybody else.  DUSHEE likes the Bruins, everyone else likes the Wildcats.   Team Record DO DR Sag SRS SoS Kansas St.  7-5 -2.01 -2.06 77.70 4.78 1.53 UCLA  6-6 0.52 3.29 74.55 2.86 4.06   DO Fav DDO DR Fav DDR DA Fav DUSHEE Avg Vegas Fav Vegas Sag Fav DSag SRS Fav DSRS UCLA  2.53 UCLA  5.35 UCLA  3.94 Kansas St.  3 Kansas St.  3.15 Kansas St.  1.9   Camping World DUSHEE and Vegas like the Cowboys by almost a touchdown; Sagarin and SRS only like the Fightin' Mullets by about a point.   Team Record DO DR Sag SRS SoS Virginia Tech  9-3 13.91 15.20 86.46 11.85 0.27 Oklahoma St.  9-3 19.64 21.71 87.67 12.52 0.14   DO Fav DDO DR Fav DDR DA Fav DUSHEE Avg Vegas Fav Vegas Sag Fav DSag SRS Fav DSRS Oklahoma St.  5.73 Oklahoma St.  6.51 Oklahoma St.  6.12 Oklahoma St.  6.5 Oklahoma St.  1.21 Oklahoma St.  0.7   Texas Everybody likes the Horns except Vegas.  Sagarin likes Texas by almost a TD, everybody else by a field goal or less.   Team Record DO DR Sag SRS SoS Texas  6-6 6.10 7.67 81.11 7.27 0.96 Missouri  7-5 3.84 3.62 74.35 5.34 -0.52   DO Fav DDO DR Fav DDR DA Fav DUSHEE Avg Vegas Fav Vegas Sag Fav DSag SRS Fav DSRS Texas  2.26 Texas  4.06 Texas  3.16 Missouri  1 Texas  6.76 Texas  1.9   Birmingham This bowl pits the teams with the largest differential in strength-of-schedule which translates to a big difference in how the Original and Revised formulations of DUSHEE see this game.  Original DUSHEE has USF as a 9-point favorite; Revised DUSHEE likes Tech by under a point.  Sagarin agrees with Revised DUSHEE; Vegas, SRS, and Average DUSHEE are close.   Team Record DO DR Sag SRS SoS Texas Tech  6-6 2.68 6.69 76.47 3.39 4.43 South Florida  9-2 11.70 6.04 75.52 7.30 -9.93   DO Fav DDO DR Fav DDR DA Fav DUSHEE Avg Vegas Fav Vegas Sag Fav DSag SRS Fav DSRS South Florida  9.03 Texas Tech  0.64 South Florida  4.19 South Florida  2.5 Texas Tech  0.95 South Florida  3.9   Belk It's easy to forget, especially those of us out of state, that A&M is still in Texas.  They face off against Wake Forest in Charlotte where the computer models all like Wake more than Vegas, and Vegas has the Demon Deacons as a 2.5-point favorite.   Team Record DO DR Sag SRS SoS Wake Forest  7-5 7.59 11.82 80.21 11.66 7.14 Texas A&M  7-5 2.38 3.52 75.20 3.05 3.29   DO Fav DDO DR Fav DDR DA Fav DUSHEE Avg Vegas Fav Vegas Sag Fav DSag SRS Fav DSRS Wake Forest  5.21 Wake Forest  8.31 Wake Forest  6.76 Wake Forest  2.5 Wake Forest  5.01 Wake Forest  8.6   Liberty The Cyclones face off against Memphis who is playing in their home stadium.  If Vegas views this as a home game for the Tigers, then the bettors view the teams as pretty well dead even, as does the SRS.  DUSHEE likes Memphis while Sagarin likes Iowa State.   Team Record DO DR Sag SRS SoS Memphis  10-2 12.97 13.36 78.04 9.63 -0.67 Iowa St.  7-5 8.48 11.29 82.27 9.38 3.54   DO Fav DDO DR Fav DDR DA Fav DUSHEE Avg Vegas Fav Vegas Sag Fav DSag SRS Fav DSRS Memphis  4.49 Memphis  2.07 Memphis  3.28 Memphis  3 Iowa St.  4.23 Memphis  0.3   All the Others Here are the other games     DO Fav DDO DR Fav DDR DA Fav DUSHEE Avg Vegas Fav Vegas Sag Fav DSag SRS Fav DSRS Boca Raton   Florida Atlantic  23.09 Florida Atlantic  23.35 Florida Atlantic  23.22 Florida Atlantic  17 Florida Atlantic  12.79 Florida Atlantic  10.5 Potato   Cent. Michigan  4.16 Cent. Michigan  4.70 Cent. Michigan  4.43 even 0 Wyoming  2.98 Wyoming  1.3 Bahamas   Ohio  10.35 Ohio  12.15 Ohio  11.25 Ohio  8 Ohio  13.73 Ohio  8.7 Dollar General   Toledo  5.92 Toledo  7.62 Toledo  6.77 Toledo  7 Toledo  6.98 Toledo  9.3 Gasparilla   Temple  2.43 Temple  6.44 Temple  4.44 Temple  8 Temple  8.11 Temple  3.0 Quick Lane   Northern Illinois  2.30 Duke  0.12 Northern Illinois  1.09 Duke  2.5 Duke  6.66 Duke  2.8 Independence   Florida St.  3.77 Florida St.  15.49 Florida St.  9.63 Florida St.  14 Florida St.  17.8 Florida St.  11.9 Military   Navy  7.82 Navy  7.36 Navy  7.59 Navy  3.5 Navy  1.72 Navy  3.3 Holiday   Washington St.  2.11 Washington St.  1.18 Washington St.  1.65 Washington St.  4.5 Washington St.  0.8 Michigan St.  3.6 Pinstripe   Iowa  4.66 Iowa  4.05 Iowa  4.36 Iowa  3 Iowa  5.76 Iowa  4.0 Foster Farms   Purdue  3.84 Purdue  5.97 Purdue  4.91 Arizona  4.5 Purdue  1.79 Purdue  5.6 Sun   N.C. State  6.44 N.C. State  9.05 N.C. State  7.75 N.C. State  5 N.C. State  5.4 N.C. State  5.5 Music City   Northwestern  14.26 Northwestern  16.61 Northwestern  15.43 Northwestern  8.5 Northwestern  14.65 Northwestern  10.5 Arizona   Utah St.  0.65 Utah St.  2.30 Utah St.  1.47 Utah St.  3 Utah St.  9.41 Utah St.  9.3 Citrus   Notre Dame  7.60 Notre Dame  10.32 Notre Dame  8.96 LSU  2.5 Notre Dame  6.23 Notre Dame  8.4 Outback   Michigan  12.42 Michigan  16.33 Michigan  14.37 Michigan  8.5 Michigan  7.71 Michigan  7.8 TaxSlayer   Mississippi St.  3.12 Mississippi St.  5.95 Mississippi St.  4.53 Louisville  6 Mississippi St.  1.36 Mississippi St.  0.4  

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

 

2016 Final Regular Season DUSHEE Rankings Dump

This is just a dump of all the final DUSHEE rankings now that Army-Navy has officially ended the regular season.  This will be followed up with the DUSHEE Bowl Preview.   DUSHEE Original Formulation   Rank Team PD YD Score 1 Alabama  35.60 275.44 37.11 2 Ohio St.  34.18 247.63 34.82 3 Michigan  33.79 210.81 32.77 4 Clemson  23.54 204.90 25.65 5 Louisville  20.30 248.74 25.62 6 Washington  26.04 147.28 24.52 7 LSU  17.29 173.34 19.95 8 Oklahoma  18.17 146.45 19.23 9 West. Kentucky  19.39 126.58 19.08 10 W. Michigan  19.12 107.02 17.94 11 Wisconsin  18.54 112.35 17.82 12 Auburn  18.55 106.46 17.54 13 Penn St.  17.41 104.65 16.69 14 USC  14.19 142.95 16.41 15 Colorado  15.09 123.54 16.06 16 Florida St.  12.33 159.87 15.99 17 Washington St.  16.34 104.22 15.96 18 Temple  12.69 130.96 14.83 19 Houston  13.63 105.05 14.19 20 Boise St.  12.66 99.10 13.25 21 Toledo  10.61 116.26 12.72 22 Miami (FL)  12.94 69.02 11.98 23 Virginia Tech  11.30 86.12 11.72 24 West Virginia  9.68 74.16 10.05 25 Tulsa  7.01 84.20 8.77 26 San Diego St.  7.85 65.22 8.40 27 Appalachian State 7.81 55.76 7.91 28 Memphis  11.13 5.78 7.70 29 Louisiana Tech  7.59 54.09 7.69 30 Iowa  11.22 -14.52 6.77 31 South Florida  9.15 13.83 6.77 32 Colorado St.  6.43 50.25 6.73 33 Oklahoma St.  7.75 31.94 6.72 34 Stanford  8.40 22.27 6.68 35 Florida  6.22 50.26 6.59 36 Navy  7.74 28.47 6.54 37 Northwestern  7.67 23.90 6.28 38 Notre Dame  4.43 59.09 5.82 39 Texas A&M  9.33 -8.40 5.81 40 Pittsburgh  8.60 -2.92 5.59 41 Air Force  4.16 56.34 5.51 42 Troy  6.49 24.34 5.51 43 N.C. State  2.39 79.18 5.44 44 BYU  7.21 11.47 5.36 45 Kansas St.  8.26 -12.39 4.90 46 Tennessee  7.72 -21.93 4.08 47 Nebraska  3.73 22.85 3.59 48 Utah  4.20 15.84 3.57 49 TCU  2.22 42.59 3.55 50 North Carolina  3.79 20.41 3.52 51 Mississippi  2.46 33.08 3.25 52 Texas  0.04 51.32 2.52 53 Old Dominion 1.14 34.93 2.46 54 Baylor  -0.97 52.61 1.91 55 Michigan St.  -1.06 48.02 1.63 56 Georgia  -0.16 33.34 1.51 57 UCF  4.33 -30.22 1.42 58 Northern Illinois  0.61 4.64 0.63 59 Wyoming  3.31 -34.49 0.53 60 Indiana  -3.47 55.20 0.37 61 Arkansas  -0.56 14.27 0.32 62 Minnesota  3.14 -44.01 -0.05 63 Georgia Tech  2.43 -34.87 -0.08 64 Southern Miss  -5.86 74.75 -0.27 65 Mississippi St.  -0.13 -8.09 -0.48 66 Kentucky  -1.34 7.32 -0.54 67 Arkansas St.  0.87 -24.78 -0.63 68 Army  -2.98 22.61 -0.89 69 UCLA  -1.69 -4.30 -1.33 70 California  -2.87 11.71 -1.34 71 Vanderbilt  1.29 -62.50 -2.18 72 New Mexico  -3.71 4.12 -2.27 73 Iowa St.  -2.89 -23.98 -3.09 74 Texas Tech  -3.51 -18.69 -3.25 75 Ohio  -3.34 -28.27 -3.60 76 East. Michigan  -5.68 -3.38 -3.95 77 Cent. Michigan  -5.24 -10.85 -4.02 78 Utah St.  -5.82 -7.02 -4.22 79 Middle Tenn. St.  -4.79 -22.45 -4.28 80 Oregon St.  -3.47 -46.52 -4.57 81 Oregon  -5.42 -24.08 -4.78 82 Miami (OH)  -5.19 -33.47 -5.09 83 Duke  -5.32 -40.38 -5.51 84 Idaho  -4.23 -62.72 -5.87 85 Missouri  -7.08 -25.08 -5.94 86 South Alabama -5.29 -57.34 -6.31 87 UT-San Antonio -3.28 -85.12 -6.32 88 Wake Forest  -5.25 -60.38 -6.43 89 LA Lafayette  -6.91 -42.08 -6.65 90 SMU  -8.50 -26.90 -6.97 91 Maryland  -5.76 -67.76 -7.13 92 Georgia Southern -5.28 -74.85 -7.16 93 Ball St.  -9.09 -46.05 -8.30 94 Cincinnati  -8.96 -48.04 -8.30 95 Tulane  -8.06 -67.08 -8.63 96 Boston Coll.  -10.46 -51.17 -9.46 97 East Carolina  -14.51 -16.38 -10.47 98 Arizona  -12.41 -48.05 -10.61 99 Kent St.  -10.01 -83.53 -10.73 100 Virginia  -10.55 -83.73 -11.10 101 Georgia State -11.85 -73.42 -11.47 102 South Carolina  -9.05 -114.22 -11.58 103 Arizona St.  -7.98 -129.18 -11.60 104 Syracuse  -12.99 -67.27 -11.93 105 Akron  -9.96 -111.31 -12.05 106 Bowling Green  -14.75 -64.20 -12.96 107 UNLV  -13.77 -78.93 -13.02 108 Nevada  -12.19 -121.52 -14.03 109 San Jose St.  -15.25 -79.76 -14.04 110 Hawaii  -14.93 -89.87 -14.32 111 Florida Intl.  -16.06 -98.19 -15.48 112 North Texas  -13.34 -138.82 -15.64 113 Purdue  -17.46 -86.33 -15.83 114 Illinois  -15.30 -123.95 -16.22 115 UNC-Charlotte -16.75 -113.41 -16.68 116 New Mexico St.  -16.92 -113.40 -16.79 117 UTEP  -18.70 -118.20 -18.21 118 Fresno St.  -19.01 -118.17 -18.41 119 Connecticut  -18.46 -129.58 -18.60 120 Marshall  -17.94 -154.97 -19.49 121 Kansas  -20.46 -121.27 -19.53 122 Massachusetts -18.29 -151.10 -19.54 123 Rice  -18.37 -162.05 -20.12 124 Buffalo  -21.14 -137.72 -20.79 125 LA Monroe  -20.41 -148.34 -20.82 126 Florida Atlantic  -20.01 -164.67 -21.34 127 Rutgers  -21.33 -171.67 -22.56 128 Texas St. -30.67 -232.72 -31.76   Original Form. By Conference   18 Temple  12.69 130.96 14.83 19 Houston  13.63 105.05 14.19 25 Tulsa  7.01 84.20 8.77 28 Memphis  11.13 5.78 7.70 31 South Florida  9.15 13.83 6.77 36 Navy  7.74 28.47 6.54 57 UCF  4.33 -30.22 1.42 90 SMU  -8.50 -26.90 -6.97 94 Cincinnati  -8.96 -48.04 -8.30 95 Tulane  -8.06 -67.08 -8.63 97 East Carolina  -14.51 -16.38 -10.47 119 Connecticut  -18.46 -129.58 -18.60 4 Clemson  23.54 204.90 25.65 5 Louisville  20.30 248.74 25.62 16 Florida St.  12.33 159.87 15.99 22 Miami (FL)  12.94 69.02 11.98 23 Virginia Tech  11.30 86.12 11.72 40 Pittsburgh  8.60 -2.92 5.59 43 N.C. State  2.39 79.18 5.44 50 North Carolina  3.79 20.41 3.52 63 Georgia Tech  2.43 -34.87 -0.08 83 Duke  -5.32 -40.38 -5.51 88 Wake Forest  -5.25 -60.38 -6.43 96 Boston Coll.  -10.46 -51.17 -9.46 100 Virginia  -10.55 -83.73 -11.10 104 Syracuse  -12.99 -67.27 -11.93 2 Ohio St.  34.18 247.63 34.82 3 Michigan  33.79 210.81 32.77 11 Wisconsin  18.54 112.35 17.82 13 Penn St.  17.41 104.65 16.69 30 Iowa  11.22 -14.52 6.77 37 Northwestern  7.67 23.90 6.28 47 Nebraska  3.73 22.85 3.59 55 Michigan St.  -1.06 48.02 1.63 60 Indiana  -3.47 55.20 0.37 62 Minnesota  3.14 -44.01 -0.05 91 Maryland  -5.76 -67.76 -7.13 113 Purdue  -17.46 -86.33 -15.83 114 Illinois  -15.30 -123.95 -16.22 127 Rutgers  -21.33 -171.67 -22.56 8 Oklahoma  18.17 146.45 19.23 24 West Virginia  9.68 74.16 10.05 33 Oklahoma St.  7.75 31.94 6.72 45 Kansas St.  8.26 -12.39 4.90 49 TCU  2.22 42.59 3.55 52 Texas  0.04 51.32 2.52 54 Baylor  -0.97 52.61 1.91 73 Iowa St.  -2.89 -23.98 -3.09 74 Texas Tech  -3.51 -18.69 -3.25 121 Kansas  -20.46 -121.27 -19.53 9 West. Kentucky  19.39 126.58 19.08 29 Louisiana Tech  7.59 54.09 7.69 53 Old Dominion 1.14 34.93 2.46 64 Southern Miss  -5.86 74.75 -0.27 79 Middle Tenn. St.  -4.79 -22.45 -4.28 87 UT-San Antonio -3.28 -85.12 -6.32 111 Florida Intl.  -16.06 -98.19 -15.48 112 North Texas  -13.34 -138.82 -15.64 115 UNC-Charlotte -16.75 -113.41 -16.68 117 UTEP  -18.70 -118.20 -18.21 120 Marshall  -17.94 -154.97 -19.49 123 Rice  -18.37 -162.05 -20.12 126 Florida Atlantic  -20.01 -164.67 -21.34 38 Notre Dame  4.43 59.09 5.82 44 BYU  7.21 11.47 5.36 68 Army  -2.98 22.61 -0.89 122 Massachusetts -18.29 -151.10 -19.54 10 W. Michigan  19.12 107.02 17.94 21 Toledo  10.61 116.26 12.72 58 Northern Illinois  0.61 4.64 0.63 75 Ohio  -3.34 -28.27 -3.60 76 East. Michigan  -5.68 -3.38 -3.95 77 Cent. Michigan  -5.24 -10.85 -4.02 82 Miami (OH)  -5.19 -33.47 -5.09 93 Ball St.  -9.09 -46.05 -8.30 99 Kent St.  -10.01 -83.53 -10.73 105 Akron  -9.96 -111.31 -12.05 106 Bowling Green  -14.75 -64.20 -12.96 124 Buffalo  -21.14 -137.72 -20.79 20 Boise St.  12.66 99.10 13.25 26 San Diego St.  7.85 65.22 8.40 32 Colorado St.  6.43 50.25 6.73 41 Air Force  4.16 56.34 5.51 59 Wyoming  3.31 -34.49 0.53 72 New Mexico  -3.71 4.12 -2.27 78 Utah St.  -5.82 -7.02 -4.22 107 UNLV  -13.77 -78.93 -13.02 108 Nevada  -12.19 -121.52 -14.03 109 San Jose St.  -15.25 -79.76 -14.04 110 Hawaii  -14.93 -89.87 -14.32 118 Fresno St.  -19.01 -118.17 -18.41 6 Washington  26.04 147.28 24.52 14 USC  14.19 142.95 16.41 15 Colorado  15.09 123.54 16.06 17 Washington St.  16.34 104.22 15.96 34 Stanford  8.40 22.27 6.68 48 Utah  4.20 15.84 3.57 69 UCLA  -1.69 -4.30 -1.33 70 California  -2.87 11.71 -1.34 80 Oregon St.  -3.47 -46.52 -4.57 81 Oregon  -5.42 -24.08 -4.78 98 Arizona  -12.41 -48.05 -10.61 103 Arizona St.  -7.98 -129.18 -11.60 27 Appalachian State 7.81 55.76 7.91 42 Troy  6.49 24.34 5.51 67 Arkansas St.  0.87 -24.78 -0.63 84 Idaho  -4.23 -62.72 -5.87 86 South Alabama -5.29 -57.34 -6.31 89 LA Lafayette  -6.91 -42.08 -6.65 92 Georgia Southern -5.28 -74.85 -7.16 101 Georgia State -11.85 -73.42 -11.47 116 New Mexico St.  -16.92 -113.40 -16.79 125 LA Monroe  -20.41 -148.34 -20.82 128 Texas St. -30.67 -232.72 -31.76 1 Alabama  35.60 275.44 37.11 7 LSU  17.29 173.34 19.95 12 Auburn  18.55 106.46 17.54 35 Florida  6.22 50.26 6.59 39 Texas A&M  9.33 -8.40 5.81 46 Tennessee  7.72 -21.93 4.08 51 Mississippi  2.46 33.08 3.25 56 Georgia  -0.16 33.34 1.51 61 Arkansas  -0.56 14.27 0.32 65 Mississippi St.  -0.13 -8.09 -0.48 66 Kentucky  -1.34 7.32 -0.54 71 Vanderbilt  1.29 -62.50 -2.18 85 Missouri  -7.08 -25.08 -5.94 102 South Carolina  -9.05 -114.22 -11.58   DUSHEE Revised Formulation   1 Alabama  42.57 291.87 45.21 2 Ohio St.  39.66 248.78 40.78 3 Michigan  37.06 212.47 36.95 4 Clemson  27.44 204.40 30.08 5 Louisville  18.62 258.27 27.30 6 LSU  25.48 171.50 26.87 7 Washington  26.13 153.14 26.25 8 Oklahoma  20.79 148.09 22.39 9 Wisconsin  23.72 109.64 22.13 10 Florida St.  18.13 162.15 21.43 11 USC  19.41 144.81 21.29 12 Auburn  24.50 83.70 21.16 13 Colorado  21.01 117.38 20.77 14 Penn St.  20.82 99.06 19.59 15 Washington St.  17.55 105.73 17.79 16 West. Kentucky  15.25 123.58 17.29 17 Houston  13.70 114.14 15.71 18 W. Michigan  13.46 106.21 15.09 19 Temple  10.16 128.05 14.15 20 Virginia Tech  12.46 89.05 13.44 21 Boise St.  10.41 94.84 12.41 22 Miami (FL)  14.14 47.66 12.17 23 West Virginia  10.81 72.78 11.40 24 Toledo  6.97 112.51 11.13 25 Northwestern  11.80 27.29 9.44 26 N.C. State  7.11 81.12 9.42 27 Mississippi  11.48 30.21 9.39 28 Tulsa  6.48 84.88 9.21 29 Stanford  11.85 21.43 9.14 30 Texas A&M  13.45 -5.55 8.65 31 Pittsburgh  12.31 -3.67 8.00 32 Oklahoma St.  9.30 28.00 7.81 33 Navy  9.07 28.15 7.67 34 Iowa  12.59 -14.02 7.58 35 Florida  8.25 36.12 7.58 36 Colorado St.  6.26 59.00 7.57 37 Notre Dame  6.46 52.72 7.34 38 Tennessee  11.94 -20.70 6.77 39 Michigan St.  5.34 53.00 6.62 40 Memphis  10.22 -4.09 6.58 41 Arkansas  5.77 34.29 5.82 42 South Florida  8.26 -0.55 5.47 43 BYU  6.93 8.40 5.11 44 TCU  2.87 54.13 5.03 45 North Carolina  5.69 20.79 4.99 46 Utah  5.49 18.25 4.71 47 San Diego St.  1.50 63.96 4.69 48 Kansas St.  8.09 -12.21 4.69 49 Nebraska  4.25 30.78 4.61 50 Louisiana Tech  2.28 47.14 4.24 51 Appalachian State 0.64 59.84 3.88 52 Texas  0.75 51.00 3.44 53 Baylor  -0.98 64.49 3.06 54 Kentucky  2.25 25.29 2.96 55 Air Force  0.63 43.32 2.91 56 Mississippi St.  4.29 -6.72 2.47 57 Georgia  0.98 26.51 2.18 58 Troy  0.68 16.85 1.42 59 Wyoming  4.48 -29.13 1.31 60 Georgia Tech  4.55 -36.71 0.92 61 Northern Illinois  -0.67 22.79 0.87 62 UCLA  0.98 3.45 0.85 63 UCF  4.97 -43.07 0.83 64 California  0.47 6.18 0.67 65 Indiana  -4.58 54.86 0.11 66 Texas Tech  0.59 -12.73 -0.34 67 Vanderbilt  4.18 -59.02 -0.62 68 Minnesota  2.56 -44.37 -0.85 69 Oregon St.  2.43 -42.94 -0.86 70 Oregon  -0.09 -26.27 -1.57 71 Old Dominion -6.36 34.91 -2.23 72 Duke  -0.22 -38.89 -2.39 73 Utah St.  -3.92 -6.49 -2.99 74 Southern Miss  -11.62 74.88 -3.43 75 Iowa St.  -2.95 -37.89 -4.15 76 East. Michigan  -7.03 2.58 -4.54 77 Army  -9.16 17.12 -5.12 78 Cent. Michigan  -6.84 -10.79 -5.18 79 Arkansas St.  -6.07 -21.58 -5.29 80 Missouri  -6.11 -22.41 -5.37 81 Wake Forest  -2.91 -60.40 -5.42 82 SMU  -6.22 -27.95 -5.75 83 Maryland  -2.60 -80.10 -6.35 84 Arizona  -7.13 -47.29 -7.48 85 New Mexico  -11.03 -5.42 -7.66 86 Cincinnati  -8.12 -49.63 -8.27 87 Kent St.  -7.75 -58.59 -8.54 88 Ohio  -10.48 -29.49 -8.68 89 Miami (OH)  -10.46 -34.46 -8.96 90 Syracuse  -7.28 -71.78 -8.99 91 Boston Coll.  -9.77 -44.37 -9.07 92 Middle Tenn. St.  -12.40 -15.61 -9.17 93 Tulane  -8.45 -68.48 -9.58 94 Idaho  -8.83 -64.76 -9.62 95 Arizona St.  -3.23 -131.40 -9.72 96 Georgia Southern -7.96 -76.98 -9.74 97 East Carolina  -14.08 -16.22 -10.32 98 Virginia  -8.94 -78.15 -10.46 99 South Alabama -11.36 -56.69 -10.84 100 Ball St.  -13.36 -44.86 -11.50 101 LA Lafayette  -13.78 -41.67 -11.59 102 UT-San Antonio -9.38 -95.05 -11.73 103 South Carolina  -8.56 -111.33 -12.13 104 Bowling Green  -14.25 -57.97 -12.84 105 Illinois  -10.57 -124.54 -14.22 106 Akron  -12.23 -105.98 -14.26 107 Georgia State -15.72 -67.42 -14.37 108 Purdue  -16.54 -76.50 -15.44 109 UNLV  -17.56 -77.63 -16.18 110 San Jose St.  -17.46 -80.51 -16.28 111 Hawaii  -17.90 -93.06 -17.30 112 Kansas  -16.11 -120.33 -17.67 113 Rutgers  -12.81 -167.29 -18.18 114 North Texas  -17.38 -138.22 -19.55 115 Florida Intl.  -22.26 -89.92 -20.02 116 UNC-Charlotte -21.21 -104.58 -20.16 117 Fresno St.  -20.29 -116.72 -20.25 118 Connecticut  -19.36 -130.53 -20.43 119 New Mexico St.  -22.07 -113.61 -21.26 120 Nevada  -20.66 -131.18 -21.33 121 Massachusetts -21.19 -151.36 -22.85 122 LA Monroe  -23.01 -141.00 -23.46 123 UTEP  -26.42 -116.01 -24.30 124 Marshall  -21.75 -175.67 -24.62 125 Rice  -22.48 -178.83 -25.29 126 Buffalo  -26.78 -140.34 -25.94 127 Florida Atlantic  -25.61 -169.95 -26.87 128 Texas St. -34.29 -230.61 -36.15   By Conference   Rank Team PD YD Score 17 Houston  13.70 114.14 15.71 19 Temple  10.16 128.05 14.15 28 Tulsa  6.48 84.88 9.21 33 Navy  9.07 28.15 7.67 40 Memphis  10.22 -4.09 6.58 42 South Florida  8.26 -0.55 5.47 63 UCF  4.97 -43.07 0.83 82 SMU  -6.22 -27.95 -5.75 86 Cincinnati  -8.12 -49.63 -8.27 93 Tulane  -8.45 -68.48 -9.58 97 East Carolina  -14.08 -16.22 -10.32 118 Connecticut  -19.36 -130.53 -20.43 4 Clemson  27.44 204.40 30.08 5 Louisville  18.62 258.27 27.30 10 Florida St.  18.13 162.15 21.43 20 Virginia Tech  12.46 89.05 13.44 22 Miami (FL)  14.14 47.66 12.17 26 N.C. State  7.11 81.12 9.42 31 Pittsburgh  12.31 -3.67 8.00 45 North Carolina  5.69 20.79 4.99 60 Georgia Tech  4.55 -36.71 0.92 72 Duke  -0.22 -38.89 -2.39 81 Wake Forest  -2.91 -60.40 -5.42 90 Syracuse  -7.28 -71.78 -8.99 91 Boston Coll.  -9.77 -44.37 -9.07 98 Virginia  -8.94 -78.15 -10.46 2 Ohio St.  39.66 248.78 40.78 3 Michigan  37.06 212.47 36.95 9 Wisconsin  23.72 109.64 22.13 14 Penn St.  20.82 99.06 19.59 25 Northwestern  11.80 27.29 9.44 34 Iowa  12.59 -14.02 7.58 39 Michigan St.  5.34 53.00 6.62 49 Nebraska  4.25 30.78 4.61 65 Indiana  -4.58 54.86 0.11 68 Minnesota  2.56 -44.37 -0.85 83 Maryland  -2.60 -80.10 -6.35 105 Illinois  -10.57 -124.54 -14.22 108 Purdue  -16.54 -76.50 -15.44 113 Rutgers  -12.81 -167.29 -18.18 8 Oklahoma  20.79 148.09 22.39 23 West Virginia  10.81 72.78 11.40 32 Oklahoma St.  9.30 28.00 7.81 44 TCU  2.87 54.13 5.03 48 Kansas St.  8.09 -12.21 4.69 52 Texas  0.75 51.00 3.44 53 Baylor  -0.98 64.49 3.06 66 Texas Tech  0.59 -12.73 -0.34 75 Iowa St.  -2.95 -37.89 -4.15 112 Kansas  -16.11 -120.33 -17.67 16 West. Kentucky  15.25 123.58 17.29 50 Louisiana Tech  2.28 47.14 4.24 71 Old Dominion -6.36 34.91 -2.23 74 Southern Miss  -11.62 74.88 -3.43 92 Middle Tenn. St.  -12.40 -15.61 -9.17 102 UT-San Antonio -9.38 -95.05 -11.73 114 North Texas  -17.38 -138.22 -19.55 115 Florida Intl.  -22.26 -89.92 -20.02 116 UNC-Charlotte -21.21 -104.58 -20.16 123 UTEP  -26.42 -116.01 -24.30 124 Marshall  -21.75 -175.67 -24.62 125 Rice  -22.48 -178.83 -25.29 127 Florida Atlantic  -25.61 -169.95 -26.87 37 Notre Dame  6.46 52.72 7.34 43 BYU  6.93 8.40 5.11 77 Army  -9.16 17.12 -5.12 121 Massachusetts -21.19 -151.36 -22.85 18 W. Michigan  13.46 106.21 15.09 24 Toledo  6.97 112.51 11.13 61 Northern Illinois  -0.67 22.79 0.87 76 East. Michigan  -7.03 2.58 -4.54 78 Cent. Michigan  -6.84 -10.79 -5.18 87 Kent St.  -7.75 -58.59 -8.54 88 Ohio  -10.48 -29.49 -8.68 89 Miami (OH)  -10.46 -34.46 -8.96 100 Ball St.  -13.36 -44.86 -11.50 104 Bowling Green  -14.25 -57.97 -12.84 106 Akron  -12.23 -105.98 -14.26 126 Buffalo  -26.78 -140.34 -25.94 21 Boise St.  10.41 94.84 12.41 36 Colorado St.  6.26 59.00 7.57 47 San Diego St.  1.50 63.96 4.69 55 Air Force  0.63 43.32 2.91 59 Wyoming  4.48 -29.13 1.31 73 Utah St.  -3.92 -6.49 -2.99 85 New Mexico  -11.03 -5.42 -7.66 109 UNLV  -17.56 -77.63 -16.18 110 San Jose St.  -17.46 -80.51 -16.28 111 Hawaii  -17.90 -93.06 -17.30 117 Fresno St.  -20.29 -116.72 -20.25 120 Nevada  -20.66 -131.18 -21.33 7 Washington  26.13 153.14 26.25 11 USC  19.41 144.81 21.29 13 Colorado  21.01 117.38 20.77 15 Washington St.  17.55 105.73 17.79 29 Stanford  11.85 21.43 9.14 46 Utah  5.49 18.25 4.71 62 UCLA  0.98 3.45 0.85 64 California  0.47 6.18 0.67 69 Oregon St.  2.43 -42.94 -0.86 70 Oregon  -0.09 -26.27 -1.57 84 Arizona  -7.13 -47.29 -7.48 95 Arizona St.  -3.23 -131.40 -9.72 51 Appalachian State 0.64 59.84 3.88 58 Troy  0.68 16.85 1.42 79 Arkansas St.  -6.07 -21.58 -5.29 94 Idaho  -8.83 -64.76 -9.62 96 Georgia Southern -7.96 -76.98 -9.74 99 South Alabama -11.36 -56.69 -10.84 101 LA Lafayette  -13.78 -41.67 -11.59 107 Georgia State -15.72 -67.42 -14.37 119 New Mexico St.  -22.07 -113.61 -21.26 122 LA Monroe  -23.01 -141.00 -23.46 128 Texas St. -34.29 -230.61 -36.15 1 Alabama  42.57 291.87 45.21 6 LSU  25.48 171.50 26.87 12 Auburn  24.50 83.70 21.16 27 Mississippi  11.48 30.21 9.39 30 Texas A&M  13.45 -5.55 8.65 35 Florida  8.25 36.12 7.58 38 Tennessee  11.94 -20.70 6.77 41 Arkansas  5.77 34.29 5.82 54 Kentucky  2.25 25.29 2.96 56 Mississippi St.  4.29 -6.72 2.47 57 Georgia  0.98 26.51 2.18 67 Vanderbilt  4.18 -59.02 -0.62 80 Missouri  -6.11 -22.41 -5.37 103 South Carolina  -8.56 -111.33 -12.13   Strength of Schedule   1 Miss 8.74 2 Rut 8.35 3 LSU 8.17 4 Bama 6.77 5 MichSt 6.73 6 Aub 6.32 7 Syr 6.19 8 Col 6.14 9 Ark 5.76 10 OreSt 5.63 11 FSU 5.55 12 OhSt 5.37 13 Ore 5.29 14 Zona 5.16 15 Wisc 5.14 16 USC 4.99 17 NCSU 4.80 18 Duke 4.73 19 Ill 4.72 20 MissSt 4.67 21 ASU 4.44 22 Tenn 4.26 23 Kan 4.24 24 A&M 4.16 25 Nwstern 4.12 26 Clem 3.99 27 Pitt 3.83 28 Cal 3.45 29 Ky 3.42 30 Stan 3.41 31 Mary 3.40 32 PSU 3.37 33 Mich 3.18 34 Vandy 2.69 35 SMU 2.68 36 OU 2.66 37 ND 2.55 38 UCLA 2.39 39 Wake 2.32 40 GaTech 2.23 41 Ttech 2.03 42 Fla 1.96 43 UNC 1.93 44 USU 1.90 45 WSU 1.86 46 Mizz 1.82 47 Uva 1.73 48 ISU 1.71 49 MiaFl 1.63 50 OkSt 1.62 51 Navy 1.50 52 KentSt 1.39 53 Iowa 1.30 54 Utah 1.28 55 TCU 1.16 56 WVU 1.13 57 ECU 0.91 58 Cin 0.82 59 UCF 0.79 60 Wyo 0.75 61 Uga 0.73 62 VaTech 0.68 63 BC 0.64 64 Tex 0.56 65 Pur 0.53 66 SoCar 0.41 67 Neb 0.35 68 KSU 0.31 69 CSU -0.05 70 Mem -0.19 71 Tulsa -0.20 72 Wash -0.22 73 BYU -0.30 74 BGSU -0.42 75 Tulane -0.43 76 Hou -0.45 77 Bay -0.54 78 Minn -0.77 79 USF -0.83 80 Ind -1.16 81 Fres -1.26 82 UNI -1.31 83 Uconn -1.47 84 CMU -1.62 85 L'ville -1.66 86 Boise -2.08 87 Akr -2.23 88 EMU -2.25 89 SJSU -2.33 90 ULaMon -2.49 91 GaSo -2.56 92 Temp -2.62 93 Haw -2.78 94 Umass -2.94 95 Marsh -3.00 96 TexSt -3.44 97 AFA -3.51 98 Tol -3.63 99 UNLV -3.92 100 UNT -3.93 101 Rice -4.00 102 GaSt -4.01 103 WKU -4.06 104 Ball -4.28 105 Char -4.40 106 Ida -4.81 107 NMSU -5.01 108 Buf -5.32 109 MiaOh -5.35 110 LaTech -5.39 111 Army -5.40 112 USM -5.58 113 USA -5.59 114 WMU -5.60 115 UTSA -5.83 116 FAU -5.83 117 Troy -6.02 118 FIU -6.31 119 ArkSt -6.31 120 SDSU -6.44 121 ULaLa -6.84 122 Ohio -7.18 123 UNM -7.34 124 AppSt -7.38 125 UTEP -7.65 126 ODU -7.72 127 Nev -8.01 128 MTSU -8.11

Duquesne Frog

Duquesne Frog

 

Week 12 Rankings

Frogs are back up to 14th in this weeks ranking. The score of the Oklahoma game almost cancelled out the Kansas game the week prior, raising the Frogs' score by about 1.5 points. The top 4 remain the same with Navy (14th to 8th) and Michigan State (32nd to 24th) both making big jumps up. Memphis fell 20 spots and Houston fell 14. Frogs Week-to-Week Opp: Minn SMU Ttech | Tex KSU ISU | WVU OkSt Kan | OU YD: 3.40 4.56 6.78 | 42.22 -0.13 16.44 | 43.00 -4.78 -30.67 | 25.40 PD: 133.3 145.2 214.1 | 240.2 28.9 131.7 | 406.0 266.0 -130.6 | 56.2 Score: 8.53 9.86 14.57 | 39.43 1.27 17.15 | 47.73 9.31 -26.58 | 19.57 Despite the loss, TCU's performance against the Sooners earned the third highest DUSHEE score of the season. Next Opponent: Baptist Baylor was looking fairly invincible during the first half of the season against their customary soft schedule, their lowest scoring performance a 66-7 blowout of Kansas. The one thing Baylor can say that the Frogs cannot is that the Bears have taken care of business against bad teams. The Bears have looked a little more vincible of late against Iowa State (45-27), Kansas State (31-24), and Oklahoma (34-44) but returned to early season form against Oklahoma State. Opp: SMU Rice Ttech | Kan WVU ISU | KSU OU OkSt PD: 22.33 39.22 34.56 | 28.22 36.25 9.78 | -0.13 15.50 28.56 YD: 303.0 502.8 104.1 | 150.6 330.6 61.7 | -45.4 116.7 332.7 Score: 29.12 49.76 27.93 | 25.88 39.69 9.41 | -2.21 15.81 34.66 With an average DUSHEE score of 25.6 compared to TCU's 14.1, DUSHEE had Baylor as a 8.5 point favorite against the Frogs, a touchdown higher than Vegas. Conference Rankings SEC 8.15 B12 5.84 B10 4.30 ACC 4.05 P12 3.16 AAC -0.72 MAC -3.31 MWC -6.37 CUSA -8.01 SBC -9.81 The SEC now has a comfortable lead over the Big XII-II for top conference, largely due to the presence of Kansas. Without the Jayhawks, the BXII average score is an even 10.0. WTF with DUSHEE's WTF Teams?!?! DUSHEE seems to be abounding with more WTF teams this season than usual. Generally there are 1 or 2 (last season's most notable was Marshall) but this season there are a half dozen candidates. We'll take a look at 3 of the most obvious. Bowling Green Bowling Green lost this week to Toledo to fall to 8-3. The Falcons' losses have come as a 29-point loss to 17th-ranked Tennessee, a 3-point loss to 29th-ranked Memphis, and a 16-point loss to 16th ranked Toledo. So all of BGSU's losses have come to good opponents. They've had three mediocre wins, a TD win over a bad Purdue team, a 6-point win over a bad Buffalo team, and a The Falcons have made their hay by pounding Maryland (48-27) and the rest of their MAC schedule. And while the MAC isn't a "Power 5" conference, this year they appear to be one of the better "Other 5" or whatever euphemism we're using to describe those conferences these days, ranking behind the American Conference but ahead the Mountain West, Conference USA, and the Sun Belt. And prior to the Toledo loss, Bowling Green had been really rolling scoring nearly 20-points above average against 5 consecutive MAC opponents, UMass (62-38), Akron (59-10), Kent (48-0), Ohio (62-24), and Western Michigan (41-27). Here are BGSU's numbers week-to-week: Opp: Tenn Mary Mem | Pur Buf Umass | Akr KentSt Ohio | WMU Tol YD: -22.44 6.56 4.33 | -8.75 1.89 21.60 | 50.78 34.67 42.78 | 21.00 0.11 PD: -12.4 292.0 135.9 | -19.4 -15.2 203.3 | 265.7 343.4 86.6 | 90.6 53.33 Score: -15.55 18.08 9.27 | -6.74 0.54 23.95 | 46.33 39.24 32.58 | 18.25 2.58 The Falcons are ranked 37th in the Massey Composite and no higher than 20th in any of the rankings used in the composite. DUSHEE clearly overrates Bowling Green at 9th. Appalachian State App State is an 8-2 Sun Belt team ranked 15th in the DUSHEE rankings, having lost badly to Clemson (10-41) and Arkansas State (27-40). Like Bowling Green, they had a few stinker wins, namely Wyoming (31-13) and Troy (44-41). Aside from these 4, they've pounded their Sun Belt opponents, crushing Old Dominion (49-0), Georgia State (37-3), Louisiana-Monroe (59-14), Georgia Southern (31-13), and Idaho (47-20). Opp: Clem ODU Wyo | GaSt ULaMon GaSo | Troy ArkSt Ida PD: -13.89 39.50 0.44 | 33.75 21.78 31.63 | -2.38 -12.00 13.22 YD: 117.7 286.7 -149.2 | 309.3 144.8 291.1 | -66.5 -57.0 143.0 Score: -3.73 39.80 -6.71 | 37.02 21.32 34.75 | -4.71 -10.68 15.53 App State is 48th in the Massey Composite with a high of 21st. Again, DUSHEE clearly overrates the Mountaineers West Virginia Perhaps DUSHEE just has an inherent bias for Mountaineers? West Virginia has been discussed in previous posts but they remain very high in the rankings. Their updated week-to-week looks like this: Opp: GaSo Mary OU | OkSt Bay TCU | Ttech Tex Kan PD: 60.88 26.56 4.50 | 9.67 1.00 -20.33 | 9.00 14.44 17.11 YD: 455.4 207.6 157.4 | 136.0 -7.9 -146.2 | 134.1 -14.2 142.8 Score: 61.97 27.45 10.39 | 12.83 0.30 -20.42 | 12.30 8.96 18.11 West Virginia has avoided really awful performances aside from their game against the Frogs. Their ranking is still largely buoyed by the statistical outlier which is their 44-0 beatdown of a decent Georgia Southern team. Take away that game and WVU's PD falls from 13.65 to 8.74. So evaluating these three teams, one sees two different problems. In the West Virginia case, the problem is that of a statistical outlier. Statistical outliers are simple enough to deal with by downgrading games as they deviate more from the average performance of the team. The BGSU/AppSt problem is one of unbalanced scheduling. The foundation of the methodology is that there is enough interdependency between the 129 FBS teams that the "average" opponent for each team is roughly equivalent. That is not going to be the case for those on either end of the extreme in terms of strength of schedule. This problem is a more difficult one to reduce from the numbers. A blanket diminishing of games against bad teams is dangerous because close games against bad teams (or losses) would be de-emphasized just like blow out wins. And a blanket de-emphasis of blow out wins will diminish the effect of big margin wins against good teams. So the fix is to diminish big margins between widely disparate teams but not small margins. I'll put some thought into how to do that over the off season. Overall Ranking Rank Team P/G Y/G Score 1 Oklahoma 26.35 220.27 27.91 2 Clemson 22.56 247.64 26.67 3 Alabama 24.54 200.61 25.78 4 Baylor 23.81 206.30 25.56 5 Mississippi 17.78 152.28 19.00 6 Ohio St. 19.32 118.00 18.42 7 Notre Dame 17.61 133.43 18.01 8 Navy 18.86 77.66 16.22 9 Bowling Green 13.87 129.43 15.32 10 Michigan 15.16 100.99 14.85 ____________________________________________ 11 West Virginia 13.65 118.32 14.65 12 Mississippi St. 15.94 84.40 14.59 13 North Carolina 17.05 61.73 14.26 14 TCU 10.62 149.10 14.08 15 Appalachian State 12.45 113.32 13.62 16 Toledo 14.70 75.73 13.36 17 Tennessee 14.12 79.45 13.15 18 Florida St. 13.11 89.42 12.94 19 USC 13.74 76.73 12.76 20 Florida 13.26 81.20 12.65 _____________________________________________ 21 Arkansas 10.60 118.79 12.65 22 West. Kentucky 12.91 84.67 12.58 23 Oklahoma St. 15.97 39.73 12.51 24 Michigan St. 12.84 82.26 12.42 25 Stanford 13.85 64.99 12.29 26 Boise St. 9.52 125.49 12.24 27 Houston 13.57 64.59 12.08 28 LSU 11.32 94.50 11.98 29 Memphis 10.54 101.55 11.79 30 Air Force 7.37 134.28 11.22 _______________________________________________ 31 Wisconsin 10.44 88.34 11.11 32 Iowa 11.02 60.07 10.16 33 Southern Miss 6.94 115.03 10.03 34 UCLA 8.73 84.16 9.77 35 W. Michigan 7.62 89.35 9.28 36 BYU 9.33 65.06 9.27 37 Oregon 10.18 45.19 8.91 38 Texas A&M 9.27 53.21 8.68 39 Pittsburgh 7.75 58.63 7.92 40 Washington 9.78 26.86 7.78 _____________________________________________ 41 Nebraska 7.89 51.29 7.67 42 N.C. State 7.19 60.61 7.64 43 Georgia 7.77 51.46 7.60 44 Utah 10.34 14.91 7.59 45 California 6.94 61.79 7.53 46 Texas Tech 5.94 75.14 7.49 47 Georgia Southern 6.13 64.24 7.10 48 South Florida 8.20 21.09 6.46 49 Penn St. 7.88 23.87 6.38 50 Louisiana Tech 5.53 55.00 6.27 ___________________________________________ 51 Cincinnati 2.90 92.31 6.27 52 Temple 8.72 4.18 6.01 53 San Diego St. 5.91 39.21 5.78 54 Marshall 8.40 2.37 5.71 55 Washington St. 4.88 49.04 5.55 56 Northern Illinois 6.95 18.58 5.50 57 Utah St. 6.15 23.76 5.22 58 Louisville 3.03 62.89 4.97 59 Arizona St. 3.99 35.31 4.32 60 Cent. Michigan 4.25 31.31 4.30 ______________________________________________ 61 Northwestern 4.89 9.06 3.68 62 Virginia Tech 4.76 10.70 3.67 63 Georgia Tech 2.45 34.05 3.23 64 Middle Tenn. St. 1.06 39.93 2.58 65 East Carolina 2.75 8.72 2.24 66 Auburn 3.60 -9.47 1.96 67 Minnesota 0.17 37.93 1.90 68 Illinois 0.82 20.88 1.53 69 Miami (FL) -0.40 4.02 -0.08 70 Vanderbilt -0.30 2.19 -0.10 _____________________________________________ 71 Indiana 1.08 -19.25 -0.19 72 Arkansas St. -0.06 -9.66 -0.49 73 Duke -1.26 1.42 -0.77 74 Boston Coll. -1.93 3.32 -1.13 75 Ohio -3.50 14.38 -1.66 76 Missouri -1.15 -32.09 -2.27 77 Iowa St. -2.95 -7.02 -2.30 78 Connecticut -1.02 -38.58 -2.49 79 Arizona -3.86 -7.73 -2.93 80 Akron -3.87 -8.60 -2.98 _____________________________________________ 81 Kansas St. 0.41 -75.12 -3.25 82 Virginia -3.92 -18.08 -3.46 83 Colorado St. -4.30 -15.63 -3.60 84 Maryland -4.73 -18.42 -4.02 85 Kentucky -3.87 -31.10 -4.04 86 Tulsa -4.79 -28.47 -4.53 87 Troy -6.94 -42.22 -6.61 88 Texas -4.78 -73.08 -6.62 89 Buffalo -6.17 -55.39 -6.71 90 South Carolina -4.95 -89.30 -7.49 _______________________________________________ 91 San Jose St. -7.87 -51.31 -7.66 92 Massachusetts -7.96 -60.60 -8.15 93 Wake Forest -8.08 -60.60 -8.23 94 Georgia State -12.11 -43.56 -10.12 95 Florida Atlantic -10.49 -68.24 -10.20 96 Nevada -9.69 -81.13 -10.27 97 SMU -11.79 -61.09 -10.73 98 Syracuse -6.03 -145.89 -10.87 99 Purdue -9.66 -95.03 -10.90 100 Wyoming -15.05 -46.52 -12.22 _______________________________________________ 101 UNLV -12.45 -84.91 -12.29 102 South Alabama -15.65 -47.42 -12.66 103 Rutgers -11.17 -115.45 -12.87 104 LA Lafayette -14.11 -93.58 -13.80 105 Florida Intl. -12.12 -125.86 -13.99 106 New Mexico -10.77 -153.08 -14.37 107 Ball St. -12.52 -141.89 -15.01 108 Colorado -15.54 -105.96 -15.34 109 Old Dominion -16.23 -103.82 -15.69 110 Miami (OH) -18.51 -83.91 -16.28 _________________________________________________ 111 Army -16.87 -114.82 -16.64 112 Kent St. -16.70 -119.02 -16.72 113 UT-San Antonio -16.88 -123.51 -17.06 114 Idaho -18.88 -101.99 -17.38 115 Rice -19.68 -97.28 -17.69 116 Texas St. -18.09 -152.22 -19.21 117 Oregon St. -19.70 -153.40 -20.34 118 New Mexico St. -21.92 -141.10 -21.24 119 UTEP -22.10 -144.64 -21.53 120 North Texas -22.85 -145.31 -22.06 _______________________________________________ 121 Fresno St. -21.26 -186.33 -22.92 122 UNC-Charlotte -25.18 -135.77 -23.16 123 East. Michigan -23.59 -160.52 -23.26 124 Tulane -23.23 -174.08 -23.66 125 LA Monroe -27.49 -187.72 -27.14 126 Hawaii -27.66 -193.76 -27.54 127 UCF -25.87 -236.19 -28.34 128 Kansas -30.01 -247.28 -31.62 Conference Rankings Rank Team PD YD Score AAC 8 Navy 18.86 77.66 16.22 27 Houston 13.57 64.59 12.08 29 Memphis 10.54 101.55 11.79 48 South Florida 8.20 21.09 6.46 51 Cincinnati 2.90 92.31 6.27 52 Temple 8.72 4.18 6.01 65 East Carolina 2.75 8.72 2.24 78 Connecticut -1.02 -38.58 -2.49 86 Tulsa -4.79 -28.47 -4.53 97 SMU -11.79 -61.09 -10.73 125 Tulane -23.23 -174.08 -23.66 128 UCF -25.87 -236.19 -28.34 ACC 2 Clemson 22.56 247.64 26.67 13 North Carolina 17.05 61.73 14.26 18 Florida St. 13.11 89.42 12.94 39 Pittsburgh 7.75 58.63 7.92 42 N.C. State 7.19 60.61 7.64 58 Louisville 3.03 62.89 4.97 62 Virginia Tech 4.76 10.70 3.67 63 Georgia Tech 2.45 34.05 3.23 69 Miami (FL) -0.40 4.02 -0.08 73 Duke -1.26 1.42 -0.77 74 Boston Coll. -1.93 3.32 -1.13 82 Virginia -3.92 -18.08 -3.46 93 Wake Forest -8.08 -60.60 -8.23 98 Syracuse -6.03 -145.89 -10.87 B1G 6 Ohio St. 19.32 118.00 18.42 10 Michigan 15.16 100.99 14.85 24 Michigan St. 12.84 82.26 12.42 31 Wisconsin 10.44 88.34 11.11 32 Iowa 11.02 60.07 10.16 41 Nebraska 7.89 51.29 7.67 49 Penn St. 7.88 23.87 6.38 61 Northwestern 4.89 9.06 3.68 67 Minnesota 0.17 37.93 1.90 68 Illinois 0.82 20.88 1.53 71 Indiana 1.08 -19.25 -0.19 84 Maryland -4.73 -18.42 -4.02 99 Purdue -9.66 -95.03 -10.90 104 Rutgers -11.17 -115.45 -12.87 BXII-II 1 Oklahoma 26.35 220.27 27.91 4 Baylor 23.81 206.30 25.56 11 West Virginia 13.65 118.32 14.65 14 TCU 10.62 149.10 14.08 23 Oklahoma St. 15.97 39.73 12.51 46 Texas Tech 5.94 75.14 7.49 77 Iowa St. -2.95 -7.02 -2.30 81 Kansas St. 0.41 -75.12 -3.25 88 Texas -4.78 -73.08 -6.62 129 Kansas -30.01 -247.28 -31.62 CUSA 22 West. Kentucky 12.91 84.67 12.58 33 Southern Miss 6.94 115.03 10.03 50 Louisiana Tech 5.53 55.00 6.27 54 Marshall 8.40 2.37 5.71 64 Middle Tenn. St. 1.06 39.93 2.58 95 Florida Atlantic -10.49 -68.24 -10.20 106 Florida Intl. -12.12 -125.86 -13.99 110 Old Dominion -16.23 -103.82 -15.69 114 UT-San Antonio -16.88 -123.51 -17.06 116 Rice -19.68 -97.28 -17.69 120 UTEP -22.10 -144.64 -21.53 121 North Texas -22.85 -145.31 -22.06 123 UNC-Charlotte -25.18 -135.77 -23.16 Indies 7 Notre Dame 17.61 133.43 18.01 36 BYU 9.33 65.06 9.27 112 Army -16.87 -114.82 -16.64 MAC 9 Bowling Green 13.87 129.43 15.32 16 Toledo 14.70 75.73 13.36 35 W. Michigan 7.62 89.35 9.28 56 Northern Illinois 6.95 18.58 5.50 60 Cent. Michigan 4.25 31.31 4.30 75 Ohio -3.50 14.38 -1.66 80 Akron -3.87 -8.60 -2.98 89 Buffalo -6.17 -55.39 -6.71 92 Massachusetts -7.96 -60.60 -8.15 108 Ball St. -12.52 -141.89 -15.01 111 Miami (OH) -18.51 -83.91 -16.28 113 Kent St. -16.70 -119.02 -16.72 124 East. Michigan -23.59 -160.52 -23.26 MWC 26 Boise St. 9.52 125.49 12.24 30 Air Force 7.37 134.28 11.22 53 San Diego St. 5.91 39.21 5.78 57 Utah St. 6.15 23.76 5.22 83 Colorado St. -4.30 -15.63 -3.60 91 San Jose St. -7.87 -51.31 -7.66 96 Nevada -9.69 -81.13 -10.27 100 Wyoming -15.05 -46.52 -12.22 101 UNLV -12.45 -84.91 -12.29 107 New Mexico -10.77 -153.08 -14.37 122 Fresno St. -21.26 -186.33 -22.92 127 Hawaii -27.66 -193.76 -27.54 P12 19 USC 13.74 76.73 12.76 25 Stanford 13.85 64.99 12.29 34 UCLA 8.73 84.16 9.77 37 Oregon 10.18 45.19 8.91 40 Washington 9.78 26.86 7.78 44 Utah 10.34 14.91 7.59 45 California 6.94 61.79 7.53 55 Washington St. 4.88 49.04 5.55 59 Arizona St. 3.99 35.31 4.32 79 Arizona -3.86 -7.73 -2.93 109 Colorado -15.54 -105.96 -15.34 118 Oregon St. -19.70 -153.40 -20.34 SBC 15 Appalachian State 12.45 113.32 13.62 47 Georgia Southern 6.13 64.24 7.10 72 Arkansas St. -0.06 -9.66 -0.49 87 Troy -6.94 -42.22 -6.61 94 Georgia State -12.11 -43.56 -10.12 103 South Alabama -15.65 -47.42 -12.66 105 LA Lafayette -14.11 -93.58 -13.80 115 Idaho -18.88 -101.99 -17.38 117 Texas St. -18.09 -152.22 -19.21 119 New Mexico St. -21.92 -141.10 -21.24 126 LA Monroe -27.49 -187.72 -27.14 SEC 3 Alabama 24.54 200.61 25.78 5 Mississippi 17.78 152.28 19.00 12 Mississippi St. 15.94 84.40 14.59 17 Tennessee 14.12 79.45 13.15 20 Florida 13.26 81.20 12.65 21 Arkansas 10.60 118.79 12.65 28 LSU 11.32 94.50 11.98 38 Texas A&M 9.27 53.21 8.68 43 Georgia 7.77 51.46 7.60 66 Auburn 3.60 -9.47 1.96 70 Vanderbilt -0.30 2.19 -0.10 76 Missouri -1.15 -32.09 -2.27 85 Kentucky -3.87 -31.10 -4.04 90 South Carolina -4.95 -89.30 -7.49

Duquesne Frog

Duquesne Frog

 

Makin' Your Way in the World Today, Takes Everything You've Got ...

Bill Clements' Pride and Joy and Must See TV Yesterday, some network (TVLand?) ran a Cheers! marathon starting with the first ever episode which aired on September 29, 1982. On that Wednesday, the American TV audience, one limited to an unthinkable half dozen TV channels from which to choose, stood up from their couches, walked over to the TV, and turned a knob to whatever number corresponded to their NBC affiliate station, and "Must See TV" was born. On the Saturday prior, SMU's Pony Express, ranked 6th in the country at the time and on their way to a SWC title and number 2 ranking in the AP at season's end, beat TCU in Texas Stadium by a score of 16-13. This was a TCU team still a few years away from the Unbelieeeeevable! Jim Wacker-led team of 1984; it was in fact, what would be 3-8 TCU team, in F.A. Dry's last season as coach, with wins over Utah State, Rice and Baylor. This wasn't SMU's only less-than-impressive victory on the year. SMU only beat Baylor by 3, a team TCU beat by 24. They beat a .500 Houston team by 6 at home. They beat a 4-7 Texas Tech team by 7. Yes, they won, but these were mediocre-to-bad teams in a mediocre conference. The only genuinely good teams in the conference and on SMU's schedule (their non-conference schedule consisted of Tulane, UTEP, and North Texas State, all of whom were about as good then as they are now) were Texas and Arkansas. And SMU did beat Texas by two scores, 31-17, (although they were outgained by Texas slightly) and tied Arkansas, 17-17 (again, outgained slightly). Cause They're Still Preoccupied With 19 ... 19 ... 1982 This was a pretty fascinating year in college football, and the stuff of a lot of future ESPN 30-for-30 documentaries. This was the season before the famous Elway-Marino draft of 1983. Herschel Walker won the Heisman at Georgia. Auburn had some freshman kid named Bo lead their team in rushing. Howard Schnellenberger, in his 4th year at Miami, was one year away from launching the next college football dynasty. Marcus Dupree was leading college football in yards per carry at OU and would blow out his knee the next season. Schnellenberger's starting quarterback was current Georgia coach Mark Richt (Jim Kelly spent much of the year hurt and Vinny Testaverde was 4th string). Fresno State's starting quarterback was recently fired Cal coach Jeff Tedford who was throwing to Henry Ellard. Rick Neuheisel was backing up at UCLA. Steve Young was calling the signals in Provo. Doug Flutie was starting for Boston College, still two years away from throwing the most famous Hail Mary in college football history. Randall Cunningham and Boomer Esiason were calling the plays for UNLV and Maryland, respectively. The game was played quite a bit differently then as well. Despite the much vaunted class of quarterbacks who were drafted that following spring, only 5 threw for more than 3000 yards in 1982: Todd Dillon, Long Beach State, 3517 (yes, they were D1-A then); Tony Eason, Illinois, 3248; John Elway, Stanford, 3242; Steve Young, BYU, 3100; and Ben Bennett, Duke, 3033 yards. Only three receivers had 1000 yards: Ellard, 1510; Mark Clayton, Louisville, 1112; and Darral Hambrick of UNLV, 1060. In 2012, thirty-eight quarterbacks threw for over 3000 yards and thirty-six receivers had 1000 or more yards. The landscape was quite a bit different as well. Obviously the SWC existed and Arkansas was still there. There were twenty-five Independent D1-A programs including most of what would become the Big East and CUSA. The ACC only had 7 teams. The Big 8 had, well, 8. The Big 10 had ... 10. This was the era when the number in an official conference designation actually meant something. The SEC only had 10 teams. And the "minor" conferences were completely different. The MAC still existed, albeit with only 10 teams. The WAC was the original WAC before it sorta became the Mountain West by a process that most of us remember all to well. The other two conferences were the Missouri Valley Conference, dominated by Tulsa, but also including Wichita State, West Texas A&M, and New Mexico State, among others, and the Pacific Coast Athletic Association, which would morph into the Big West Conference and included at the time Fresno, the Jack Elway led San Jose State (who beat his son's Stanford team that year), UNLV, and others. Evaluating 1982 At the end of the season, the nation rejoiced as living legend and man of unassailable character, Joe Paterno, won his first national championship in his 17th season at 55 years of age. Going into January 1 (back in the stone ages when the season ended on New Years Day), undefeated and #1 Georgia was playing 1-loss #2 Penn State in the Sugar Bowl. #3 Nebraska, who Penn State had beaten 27-24 in State College in week 4, was 10-1 and in the Orange Bowl against 13th ranked 8-2-1 LSU. Penn State went on to beat Georgia 27-23 to claim the MNC. However, based on the DUSHEE metric, Nebraska was far and away the best team in college football that year. Here is the DUSHEE top-25 for 1982: Rk Team PD YD Score 1 Nebraska 29.87 253.14 100.00 2 Penn St. 23.93 103.87 67.21 3 North Carolina 18.11 202.49 67.02 4 Florida St. 19.95 149.10 64.18 5 Pittsburgh 17.87 149.38 59.56 6 Texas 17.91 139.10 58.31 7 UCLA 17.52 115.82 54.39 8 USC 17.88 108.35 54.23 9 LSU 16.42 124.80 53.09 10 Maryland 15.76 116.93 50.58 11 Oklahoma 13.76 138.22 48.87 12 Arkansas 14.40 125.99 48.73 13 Arizona St. 14.68 118.28 48.35 14 BYU 14.35 122.58 48.16 15 Alabama 14.60 106.68 46.64 16 Georgia 17.04 33.05 42.52 17 Ohio St. 13.93 76.66 41.23 18 SMU 13.54 66.86 39.08 19 Southern Miss 12.93 77.34 39.07 20 Washington 12.87 76.73 38.86 21 Michigan 14.33 49.06 38.53 22 West Virginia 12.35 76.24 37.64 23 Florida 10.87 83.26 35.24 24 Illinois 9.88 81.26 32.75 25 Clemson 13.26 20.42 32.39 Table 1: Top 25 in DUSHEE score in 1982 A few things jump out about these numbers that we'll discuss further: 1) Why is Nebraska so much higher than Penn State when Penn State beat them? 2) 4-loss North Carolina? WTF, DUSHEE? 3) Why are Georgia and SMU so low? 1) Nebraska-Penn State As mentioned above, Penn State and Nebraska played on the field and Penn State won. That's all that needs to be said right? Penn State was better. This is sort of the paradox of using a scheme like this to evaluate performance. Ultimately, the win is all that matters. And in determining who should play for a national championship, what happened on the field probably is all that matters. But the question of "who was better" is more nuanced. Both teams played 10 other games prior to their bowl game. For each team, their game against each was only roughly 8% of what they did that season. All their other games contributed the other 92%. Penn State lost a game as well ... to Alabama. Alabama wasn't a bad team in 1982; they wound up 8-4 and unranked (although 15 in DUSHEE). But Penn State lost 42-21 to a team not nearly as good by every quantitative standard you wish to use as Nebraska's loss. And then there was the rest of the season. Seven of Nebraska's 10 wins on the year were among the top 5 DUSHEE rated performances for the week in which the game was played. Penn State had 2 wins (including Nebraska) rank that high in a given week. In other words, on a week-to-week basis, Nebraska was playing on a more consistent, high level than Penn State was. Figure 1: Histogram of week-to-week DUSHEE performance scores for Nebraska, Penn State, North Carolina, SMU, and Georgia during the 1982 season. On the y-axis label, "wins" should be "games" So you can see that from this chart, Penn State only had 2 games where they scored out better than 100, including the Nebraska game. Nebraska, on the other hand, had 7 games where they scored out 100 or better. The Penn State game for them was one of the games in the 0-50 block. The Alabama game is the game in the < 0 block for Penn State. So was Penn State the better team? Maybe. Were they a little fortunate to have played one of their best games against Nebraska at the same time that Nebraska played one of their worst? Maybe. Or was there just something about the matchup between the two where Penn State had an intangible advantage that doesn't necessarily show up in a box score? Hard to say definitively. But if I were a betting man and the two played 100 times that season, my money would have been on Nebraska to win more than they lost. 2) 4-Loss North Carolina As I mentioned in the last entry, every year there is at least 1 team that DUSHEE places in significantly higher esteem than pretty much anybody else in the world. In 1982, that team was North Carolina. UNC's 4 losses were: 1) a 1-point loss to Pitt (#5 DUSHEE), 2) a 7-point loss to Boomer Esiason's Maryland team (#10 DUSHEE), 3) a 3-point loss to Clemson (#25 DUSHEE) and 4) a 6-point loss to Duke (#47 DUSHEE). So all of their losses were close games and, aside from Duke, to high quality opponents. UNC also outgained Pitt (by 50) and Clemson (by 123). They pounded everybody else on their schedule, including a bunch of so-so teams, but also including three good to really good teams: 1) A 24-point win (313 YM) over Vandy (#40 DUSHEE), 2) a 19-point, 261-yard win over Bowling Green (#31 DUSHEE) and a 16-point, 125-yard win over Texas (#6 DUSHEE) in the Sun Bowl. In their 8 wins, they beat their opponents by an average of 36-9. So North Carolina was a case of a good team doing what it should against bad teams (beating the hell out of them), beating the hell out of most of the mediocre teams it faced, and going .500 against the good teams, blowing half out and losing to the others in squeakers. If a team plays a good team closely, the difference between a 1-point win and a 1-point loss is the difference between a PD of, say, 16 rather than 14. It has very little overall impact on the DUSHEE score the team earns on that day. A fatal flaw in the system, some might say. I say that the system is measuring average capability in a noisy data set. A one-point loss today could have easily been a 6-point win if played the next week. 3) Whither Georgia and SMU? How can 4-loss UNC be so high when one-loss Georgia and one-tie SMU were so low? Well, I've already spoiled the SMU analysis. Unlike North Carolina, SMU struggled to beat some bad teams in 1982. Here is how DUSHEE scored the Southwest Conference that year: Rk Team PD YD Score 6 Tex 17.91 139.10 58.31 12 Ark 14.40 125.99 48.73 18 SMU 13.54 66.86 39.08 65 Bay -3.96 -30.84 -12.91 66 Hou -7.53 24.95 -13.63 70 Tech -4.92 -51.01 -17.68 85 TCU -9.47 -71.74 -30.60 86 A&M -8.97 -97.44 -32.83 104 Rice -20.03 -89.80 -56.62 Table 2: DUSHEE ranking of the SWC in 1982 The SWC was very Mountain West-esque in 1982. In fact, on average, the WAC was a slightly better conference in 1982 than the SWC was. The average opponent beat Baylor by 4, Tech by 5, Houston by over a TD, TCU and A&M by 9, and Rice by 20. SMU managed to outdo the average opponent against A&M and Rice but underperformed compared to Baylor's, Houston's, and TCU's average opponent. SMU was outgained by Tech by 72 yards. SMU had three games with negative DUSHEE scores, UTEP, Baylor, and Texas Tech So compared to UNC, SMU did not do what good teams should do ... beat the hell out of bad and mediocre opponents. And they didn't have enough good opponents to make up the difference on that end. Georgia's lower than expected score comes from their YD shortfall. Georgia was outgained by their opponent in 5 of their 11 wins. Georgia was 9th in the country in PD, 39th in YD. Nonetheless, even if one dismisses the low YD, Georgia was still far from the top in PD. Georgia also failed to blow out several weak opponents including Kentucky (13-point win against a team that got beat by an average of 18 points against everybody else) and Mississippi State. Georgia just kinda plodded along, good but not great, but winning every game. The exception to that was a 44-0 blowout of a good Florida team. That was the only game where Georgia's DUSHEE score exceeded 65. Compare that to how Penn State and Nebraska did in Figure 2. Figure 2. Figure 1 with North Carolina, SMU, and Georgia added And in the end ... So what does all this mean? The results of the 1982 season are bogus? Penn State should return their MNC trophy and Herschel Walker should give his Heisman to Mike Rozier? Probably not. Penn State beat Nebraska. They might have won on "puncher's chance" type odds, but they won nonetheless. Was Georgia clearly the best team in the country going into the bowls by virtue of being undefeated? Maybe not. College football teams are erratic. Their performance varies greatly from week to week. If a lowly team has the good fortune to pair its best game of the season against the powerhouse's worst game, then upsets happen. Play that game again and the lowly underdog probably gets treated like the lowly underdog. In a league where a lot of teams play such a small schedule, you have to live with the variability. If a team gets lucky and wins an improbable game, you live with the result. And with such a short schedule, the odds of that improbable result affecting rankings and standings are very high. In major league baseball, the random improbable win over C.C. Sabathia is irrelevant over a 162 game season. Or as Coach would say, "I'm not a rich man, I'm not a young man, I'm not a handsome man, I'm not a tall man, I'm not a strong man, I'm not a talented man, I'm not a well travelled man, I'm not a smart man, I'm not a milk man, I'm not a fat man, I'm not a gingerbread man, I'm not a..."

Duquesne Frog

Duquesne Frog

 

Week 11 DUSHEE Ratings

Some shuffling in the top 10 as Oregon falls to 5 and Stanford climbs to 9. I promised some more commentary last week on which I did not deliver, so I'll try to touch some of those subjects this week ... 1 Baylor 44.27 365.45 100.00 2 Florida St. 42.12 256.35 86.90 3 Alabama 31.96 176.02 64.26 4 Ohio St. 26.69 209.70 59.34 5 Oregon 25.87 190.07 56.31 6 Louisville 21.52 182.47 49.05 7 Wisconsin 20.83 179.81 47.76 8 Texas A&M 20.15 133.68 42.57 9 Stanford 21.28 112.20 42.34 10 Arizona St. 17.94 164.18 41.98 11 Clemson 18.36 140.72 40.49 12 Missouri 20.54 79.68 38.28 13 Kansas St. 20.16 83.65 38.07 14 BYU 15.43 155.74 37.41 15 South Carolina 14.69 133.43 34.28 16 LSU 16.20 101.65 33.70 17 UCF 16.54 90.80 33.23 18 Virginia Tech 13.54 138.04 32.96 19 Washington 13.95 122.71 32.20 20 Georgia 11.80 146.73 31.11 21 Mississippi 12.41 94.39 27.30 22 Michigan St. 11.25 106.40 26.63 23 Fresno St. 10.60 113.52 26.29 24 Auburn 14.07 51.93 25.98 25 Oklahoma 9.44 117.08 24.86 26 Oklahoma St. 14.04 24.29 23.44 27 Iowa 10.81 77.02 23.31 28 USC 10.58 76.09 22.88 29 Georgia Tech 9.76 86.42 22.57 30 Utah St. 9.68 80.04 21.87 31 UCLA 10.83 59.40 21.75 32 Houston 13.86 7.48 21.65 33 Utah 9.81 58.23 20.11 34 East Carolina 8.38 72.70 19.24 35 Marshall 8.80 62.48 18.96 36 Miami (FL) 9.34 49.85 18.64 37 Mississippi St. 5.86 106.13 18.45 38 Michigan 9.05 32.17 16.60 39 Boise St. 7.61 53.03 16.31 40 Texas Tech 5.04 93.81 16.10 41 Arizona 6.30 62.12 15.15 42 Indiana 9.54 -3.40 14.14 43 Buffalo 7.99 20.64 13.96 44 North Texas 7.83 21.44 13.79 45 Oregon St. 4.16 72.38 12.83 46 Notre Dame 5.36 36.12 11.37 47 Texas 5.99 20.47 10.92 48 Nebraska 5.45 28.43 10.81 49 Florida 2.64 61.66 9.56 50 North Carolina 4.38 23.17 8.73 51 Toledo 4.48 17.75 8.38 52 Northern Illinois 3.71 19.17 7.34 53 Ball St. 5.08 -13.64 6.46 54 Pittsburgh 4.11 -1.03 6.13 55 Northwestern 3.10 4.89 5.13 56 Duke 4.17 -18.08 4.68 57 Minnesota 5.46 -40.04 4.65 58 Penn St. 0.93 18.37 3.07 59 Bowling Green 1.24 7.02 2.51 60 Ohio 2.60 -15.93 2.49 61 Memphis 0.21 18.30 1.97 62 N.C. State -1.31 36.94 1.36 63 Vanderbilt 1.80 -22.00 0.74 64 San Diego St. -3.58 47.90 -1.10 65 West Virginia -0.26 -13.68 -1.63 66 Tennessee -0.63 -15.83 -2.39 67 Rice -0.19 -28.04 -2.81 68 San Jose St. -4.72 27.24 -4.69 69 LA Lafayette -1.59 -25.37 -4.70 70 Florida Atlantic -2.26 -16.05 -4.88 71 Boston Coll. 0.81 -70.18 -5.11 72 UT-San Antonio -3.23 -3.78 -5.23 73 Illinois -1.61 -32.98 -5.41 74 Middle Tenn. St. -1.86 -34.43 -5.93 75 Cincinnati -5.64 20.97 -6.64 76 Kentucky -4.03 -20.75 -7.98 77 Washington St. -3.60 -32.71 -8.40 78 SMU -8.75 49.75 -8.75 79 TCU -3.81 -35.31 -8.96 80 South Alabama -4.26 -32.34 -9.36 81 Navy -2.29 -66.49 -9.48 82 Rutgers -3.95 -49.49 -10.44 83 West. Kentucky -8.56 26.54 -10.56 84 Syracuse -4.85 -37.52 -10.73 85 Colorado St. -4.06 -54.15 -11.04 86 Tulane -3.54 -73.12 -11.96 87 Wyoming -6.87 -40.00 -14.00 88 Arkansas -8.79 -33.80 -16.36 89 Arkansas St. -6.25 -79.57 -16.65 90 Maryland -9.96 -23.08 -17.16 91 Akron -7.87 -59.24 -17.27 92 Iowa St. -7.09 -72.89 -17.31 93 Wake Forest -7.65 -92.07 -19.89 94 California -14.15 1.51 -21.28 95 South Florida -9.37 -78.90 -21.31 96 UNLV -11.40 -72.19 -23.77 97 Temple -9.03 -118.70 -24.38 98 Virginia -12.46 -63.36 -24.57 99 Connecticut -13.24 -54.37 -24.96 100 Tulsa -14.35 -45.05 -25.78 101 Army -13.46 -64.15 -26.16 102 New Mexico -12.11 -103.23 -27.65 103 Kansas -12.27 -101.96 -27.77 104 Nevada -12.02 -106.85 -27.85 105 Troy -14.62 -64.33 -27.94 106 Hawaii -13.76 -80.02 -28.05 107 Kent St. -11.23 -122.70 -28.08 108 LA Monroe -13.76 -111.00 -30.85 109 Texas St. -12.36 -149.10 -32.17 110 Purdue -17.50 -99.57 -35.48 111 Louisiana Tech -18.37 -94.60 -36.35 112 Colorado -18.88 -103.79 -37.95 113 Cent. Michigan -17.35 -137.72 -38.69 114 Air Force -19.00 -146.22 -41.95 115 UTEP -21.55 -143.42 -45.56 116 Massachusetts -21.34 -169.12 -47.57 117 UAB -23.27 -147.34 -48.53 118 W. Michigan -24.96 -142.22 -50.63 119 Georgia State -21.33 -242.61 -54.19 120 East. Michigan -27.38 -177.02 -57.42 121 Idaho -27.10 -186.73 -57.88 122 New Mexico St. -29.47 -195.72 -62.27 123 Southern Miss -32.62 -154.25 -63.30 124 Florida Intl. -32.61 -207.70 -68.11 125 Miami (OH) -30.84 -301.74 -73.92 By Conference: 6 Louisville 21.52 182.47 49.05 AAC 17 UCF 16.54 90.80 33.23 AAC 32 Houston 13.86 7.48 21.65 AAC 61 Memphis 0.21 18.30 1.97 AAC 75 Cincinnati -5.64 20.97 -6.64 AAC 78 SMU -8.75 49.75 -8.75 AAC 82 Rutgers -3.95 -49.49 -10.44 AAC 95 South Florida -9.37 -78.90 -21.31 AAC 97 Temple -9.03 -118.70 -24.38 AAC 99 Connecticut -13.24 -54.37 -24.96 AAC 2 Florida St. 42.12 256.35 86.90 ACC 11 Clemson 18.36 140.72 40.49 ACC 18 Virginia Tech 13.54 138.04 32.96 ACC 29 Georgia Tech 9.76 86.42 22.57 ACC 36 Miami (FL) 9.34 49.85 18.64 ACC 50 North Carolina 4.38 23.17 8.73 ACC 54 Pittsburgh 4.11 -1.03 6.13 ACC 56 Duke 4.17 -18.08 4.68 ACC 62 N.C. State -1.31 36.94 1.36 ACC 71 Boston Coll. 0.81 -70.18 -5.11 ACC 84 Syracuse -4.85 -37.52 -10.73 ACC 90 Maryland -9.96 -23.08 -17.16 ACC 93 Wake Forest -7.65 -92.07 -19.89 ACC 98 Virginia -12.46 -63.36 -24.57 ACC 4 Ohio St. 26.69 209.70 59.34 B10 7 Wisconsin 20.83 179.81 47.76 B10 22 Michigan St. 11.25 106.40 26.63 B10 27 Iowa 10.81 77.02 23.31 B10 38 Michigan 9.05 32.17 16.60 B10 42 Indiana 9.54 -3.40 14.14 B10 48 Nebraska 5.45 28.43 10.81 B10 55 Northwestern 3.10 4.89 5.13 B10 57 Minnesota 5.46 -40.04 4.65 B10 58 Penn St. 0.93 18.37 3.07 B10 73 Illinois -1.61 -32.98 -5.41 B10 110 Purdue -17.50 -99.57 -35.48 B10 1 Baylor 44.27 365.45 100.00 B12 13 Kansas St. 20.16 83.65 38.07 B12 25 Oklahoma 9.44 117.08 24.86 B12 26 Oklahoma St. 14.04 24.29 23.44 B12 40 Texas Tech 5.04 93.81 16.10 B12 47 Texas 5.99 20.47 10.92 B12 65 West Virginia -0.26 -13.68 -1.63 B12 79 TCU -3.81 -35.31 -8.96 B12 92 Iowa St. -7.09 -72.89 -17.31 B12 103 Kansas -12.27 -101.96 -27.77 B12 34 East Carolina 8.38 72.70 19.24 CUSA 35 Marshall 8.80 62.48 18.96 CUSA 44 North Texas 7.83 21.44 13.79 CUSA 67 Rice -0.19 -28.04 -2.81 CUSA 70 Florida Atlantic -2.26 -16.05 -4.88 CUSA 72 UT-San Antonio -3.23 -3.78 -5.23 CUSA 74 Middle Tenn. St. -1.86 -34.43 -5.93 CUSA 86 Tulane -3.54 -73.12 -11.96 CUSA 100 Tulsa -14.35 -45.05 -25.78 CUSA 111 Louisiana Tech -18.37 -94.60 -36.35 CUSA 115 UTEP -21.55 -143.42 -45.56 CUSA 117 UAB -23.27 -147.34 -48.53 CUSA 123 Southern Miss -32.62 -154.25 -63.30 CUSA 124 Florida Intl. -32.61 -207.70 -68.11 CUSA 14 BYU 15.43 155.74 37.41 Ind 46 Notre Dame 5.36 36.12 11.37 Ind 81 Navy -2.29 -66.49 -9.48 Ind 101 Army -13.46 -64.15 -26.16 Ind 120 Idaho -27.10 -186.73 -57.88 Ind 122 New Mexico St. -29.47 -195.72 -62.27 Ind 43 Buffalo 7.99 20.64 13.96 MAC 51 Toledo 4.48 17.75 8.38 MAC 52 Northern Illinois 3.71 19.17 7.34 MAC 53 Ball St. 5.08 -13.64 6.46 MAC 59 Bowling Green 1.24 7.02 2.51 MAC 60 Ohio 2.60 -15.93 2.49 MAC 91 Akron -7.87 -59.24 -17.27 MAC 107 Kent St. -11.23 -122.70 -28.08 MAC 113 Cent. Michigan -17.35 -137.72 -38.69 MAC 116 Massachusetts -21.34 -169.12 -47.57 MAC 118 W. Michigan -24.96 -142.22 -50.63 MAC 119 East. Michigan -27.38 -177.02 -57.42 MAC 125 Miami (OH) -30.84 -301.74 -73.92 MAC 23 Fresno St. 10.60 113.52 26.29 MWC 30 Utah St. 9.68 80.04 21.87 MWC 39 Boise St. 7.61 53.03 16.31 MWC 64 San Diego St. -3.58 47.90 -1.10 MWC 68 San Jose St. -4.72 27.24 -4.69 MWC 85 Colorado St. -4.06 -54.15 -11.04 MWC 87 Wyoming -6.87 -40.00 -14.00 MWC 96 UNLV -11.40 -72.19 -23.77 MWC 102 New Mexico -12.11 -103.23 -27.65 MWC 104 Nevada -12.02 -106.85 -27.85 MWC 106 Hawaii -13.76 -80.02 -28.05 MWC 114 Air Force -19.00 -146.22 -41.95 MWC 5 Oregon 25.87 190.07 56.31 P10 9 Stanford 21.28 112.20 42.34 P10 10 Arizona St. 17.94 164.18 41.98 P10 19 Washington 13.95 122.71 32.20 P10 28 USC 10.58 76.09 22.88 P10 31 UCLA 10.83 59.40 21.75 P10 33 Utah 9.81 58.23 20.11 P10 41 Arizona 6.30 62.12 15.15 P10 45 Oregon St. 4.16 72.38 12.83 P10 77 Washington St. -3.60 -32.71 -8.40 P10 94 California -14.15 1.51 -21.28 P10 112 Colorado -18.88 -103.79 -37.95 P10 69 LA Lafayette -1.59 -25.37 -4.70 SBC 80 South Alabama -4.26 -32.34 -9.36 SBC 83 West. Kentucky -8.56 26.54 -10.56 SBC 89 Arkansas St. -6.25 -79.57 -16.65 SBC 105 Troy -14.62 -64.33 -27.94 SBC 108 LA Monroe -13.76 -111.00 -30.85 SBC 109 Texas St. -12.36 -149.10 -32.17 SBC 121 Georgia State -24.85 -225.85 -58.00 SBC 3 Alabama 31.96 176.02 64.26 SEC 8 Texas A&M 20.15 133.68 42.57 SEC 12 Missouri 20.54 79.68 38.28 SEC 15 South Carolina 14.69 133.43 34.28 SEC 16 LSU 16.20 101.65 33.70 SEC 20 Georgia 11.80 146.73 31.11 SEC 21 Mississippi 12.41 94.39 27.30 SEC 24 Auburn 14.07 51.93 25.98 SEC 37 Mississippi St. 5.86 106.13 18.45 SEC 49 Florida 2.64 61.66 9.56 SEC 63 Vanderbilt 1.80 -22.00 0.74 SEC 66 Tennessee -0.63 -15.83 -2.39 SEC 76 Kentucky -4.03 -20.75 -7.98 SEC 88 Arkansas -8.79 -33.80 -16.36 SEC

Duquesne Frog

Duquesne Frog

 

DUSHEE beat Vegas! (barely)

A few have asked how DUSHEE did picking the bowl games this year and the answer is a mixed bag. Historically, DUSHEE has done very well picking bowl winners while the regular season was more sketchy. (Since most of the documentation of prior DUSHEE success was cataloged on kf.c, you'll have to take my word for it or see if you can find it over there.) This year, DUSHEE wasn't really much better in the bowls than it was in the regular season, which is to say, not that great. Using the same ESPN 'confidence points' technique used by our esteemed panel of college football experts, DUSHEE would have garnered 422 points, which would have placed him sixth out of nine. DUSHEE's top 10 confidence picks, based on the largest differentials in the teams' DUSHEE scores were: Bowl | Winner Score1 DUSH1 | Loser Score2 DUSH2 | ActualPM DUSHPredPM DUSHConfidence Boca Raton | Marshall 52 21.66 | Northern Illinois 23 -1.75 | 29 23.41 38 Heart of Dallas | Louisiana Tech 35 12.97 | Illinois 18 -6.47 | 17 19.44 37 Foster Farms | Stanford 45 10.77 | Maryland 21 -4.17 | 24 14.94 36 Texas | Arkansas 31 15 | Texas 7 2.64 | 24 12.36 35 Rose | (3) Oregon 59 23.33 | (2) Florida State 20 12.06 | 39 11.27 34 Independence | South Carolina 24 2.42 | Miami (FL) 21 12.27 | 3 -9.85 33 Belk | (13) Georgia 37 19.1 | (20) Louisville 14 10.67 | 23 8.43 32 Fiesta | (21) Boise State 38 15.34 | (12) Arizona 30 7.43 | 8 7.91 31 Cactus | Oklahoma State 30 -5.84 | Washington 22 2.05 | 8 -7.89 30 Las Vegas | (23) Utah 45 0.26 | Colorado State 10 8.02 | 35 -7.76 29 The games in red, DUSHEE missed: the Independence where an expected 10 point Miami win (DUSHPredPM stands for DUSHEE Predicted Point Margin) was a 3 pt win for South Carolina, the Cactus where an expected 8 point win for Washington was an 8 point win for Oklahoma State, and the Las Vegas bowl where an expected 8 point win for Colorado State was a 35 point win for Utah. Not surprisingly, the Las Vegas Bowl was the game DUSHEE missed by the most, reality deviating from expectation by almost 43 points. The 5 games that deviated from expectation the most were: Bowl | Winner Score1 DUSH1 | Loser Score2 DUSH2 | DUSHDiff Las Vegas | (23) Utah 45 0.26 | Colorado State 10 8.02 | 42.76 Russell Athletic | (18) Clemson 40 10.5 | Oklahoma 6 16.26 | 39.76 Peach | (6) Texas Christian 42 24.67 | (9) Mississippi 3 21.94 | 36.27 Rose | (3) Oregon 59 23.33 | (2) Florida State 20 12.06 | 27.73 GoDaddy | Toledo 63 0.26 | Arkansas State 44 3.11 | 21.85 It is interesting to note that DUSHEE predicted the correct winner in 2 of the 5 games (Peach and Rose) but predicted much closer games than the blowouts that occurred. In total, DUSHEE picked 21 out of 39 bowls winners correctly, barely getting half right. Mediocre, by definition. Although DUSHEE did predict the correct winner in 6 of the 7 "New Years Day 6" plus MNC games, missing only Georgia Tech's upset of Mississippi State in the Orange. However, DUSHEE was less mediocre than Vegas, meaning if I'd had the courage to actually put some money on DUSHEE, I would have done decently. Taking the spreads from TeamRankings.com (not being a gambler, I don't know if that is a reputable source for spreads or not) and setting those spreads as Vegas' expected point margin, Sin City's confidence picks look slightly worse than DUSHEE's, earning 418.5 points (compared to DUSHEE's 422), the half confidence point coming from the fact that Vegas only gives lines with a precision of 0.5 points so that there are often multiple games with the same point spreads. For instance, there were 6 bowls tied for 8th most confident with a point spread of 7. Thus, instead of randomly assigning those games confidence points ranging from 32 to 27 (corresponding with the 8th through 13th most confident picks) all the games were assigned an average confidence of 28.5. Vegas missed on 4 of their most confident 13 picks, colored in red: Bowl | Winner Score1 Loser Score2 | VegasPredPM Foster Farms | Stanford 45 Maryland 21 | 14 New Mexico| Utah State 21 Texas-El Paso 6 | 9.5 Boca Raton | Marshall 52 Northern Illinois 23 | 8.5 Music City | Notre Dame 31 (22) | Louisiana State 28 | -8 Rose | (3) Oregon 59 (2) Florida State 20 | 7.5 Sugar | (5) Ohio State 42 (1) Alabama 35 | -7.5 Sun | (15) Arizona State 36 Duke 31 | 7.5 Cactus | Oklahoma State 30 Washington 22 | -7 Belk | (13) Georgia 37 (20) Louisville 14 | 7 Texas | Arkansas 31 Texas 7 | 7 Birmingham | Florida 28 East Carolina 20 | 7 Holiday | (24) Southern California 45 (25) Nebraska 42 | 7 Outback | (17) Wisconsin 34 (19) Auburn 31 | -7 DUSHEE and Vegas agreed on 6 of the 10 Bowls selected for higest confidence (Foster Farms, Boca Raton, Rose, Cactus, Belk, and Texas) and both missed on one of those 6, Oklahoma State's upset of Washington in the Cactus. Both DUSHEE and Vegas got the other 5 correct and the 5 favorites in those games won by an average of 4 TDs, easily covering the spread in each case. Vegas' most spectacular miss was the Russel Athletic Bowl (DUSHEE's 2nd worst miss) where the 6 point favorite Sooners were beaten by Clemson by 34, a 40 point miss. All told, Vegas expected the correct winner in only 18 of the 39 games (compared to DUSHEE's 21 of 39). So keep that in mind the next time you hear someone argue that we should just let Vegas determine the college football playoff rankings. Vegas and DUSHEE both correctly predicted 14 games and both incorrectly predicted 14 games. DUSHEE correctly predicted 7 games that Vegas didn't: Bowl | Winner Score1 Loser Score2 | ActualPM DUSHPredPM VegasPredPM Fiesta | (21) Boise State 38 (12) Arizona 30 | 8 7.91 -3 Poinsettia | Navy 17 San Diego State 16 | 1 4.94 -3.5 MNC | (4) Ohio State 42 (2) Oregon 20 | 22 2.60 -5.5 Cotton | (7) Michigan State 42 (4) Baylor 41 | 1 2.33 -2.5 Sugar | (5) Ohio State 42 (1) Alabama 35 | 7 1.45 -7.5 Quick Lane | Rutgers 40 North Carolina 21 | 19 0.47 -3.5 Military | Virginia Tech 33 Cincinnati 17 | 16 0.34 -2.5 For whatever it's worth, and I don't think it's worth much as I think it's all pretty random, DUSHEE did a better job picking winners in the big games, getting 4 of the "New Years 6" plus the MNC right where Vegas missed (Fiesta, Cotton, Sugar). In particular, DUSHEE had Boise as a substantial favorite against Arizona and nailed the outcome almost exactly. Blind squirrel finds acorn. On the flip side, Vegas got 4 games that DUSHEE missed: Bowl | Winner Score1 Loser Score2 | ActualPM DUSHPredPM VegasPredPM Citrus | (16) Missouri 33 Minnesota 17 | 16 -0.82 4.5 Holiday | (24) Southern California 45 (25) Nebraska 42 | 3 -2.68 7 GoDaddy | Toledo 63 Arkansas State 44 | 19 -2.85 3.5 Las Vegas | (23) Utah 45 Colorado State 10 | 35 -7.76 2.5 Finally, let's look at how DUSHEE would have done if we'd used it to pick games against the spread. If the DUSHEE Predicted Point Difference was larger than the Vegas point spread and the team DUSHEE favored covered, DUSHEE covers. If the DUSHEE Predicted Point Difference was less than the point spread and the Team DUSHEE didn't favor did not cover, DUSHEE covers. Using this scheme, DUSHEE went 23-16 against the spread during the bowl season. Better than it did straight-up. Go figure. Just goes to show, the "experts" in Vegas can't control random noise any better than anybody else.

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

 

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

 

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

 

Week 14 DUSHEE

A lot of movement, although not at number 1. Much like the Frogs after Kansas, Baylor fell to 8 after struggling against Tech. DUSHEE loves Michigan State and Marshall, despite their loss, still remains high. Rank Team P/G Y/G Score 1 Alabama 23.72 193.23 25.16 2 Michigan St. 22.15 193.83 24.14 3 Ohio St. 22.86 170.19 23.47 4 TCU 24.21 136.86 22.76 5 Wisconsin 19.25 198.05 22.41 6 Marshall 20.93 156.93 21.54 7 Mississippi 21.89 141.68 21.44 8 Baylor 19.50 174.16 21.42 9 Oregon 22.64 120.90 20.94 10 Auburn 19.03 166.20 20.72 _____________________________________ 11 Georgia 20.85 116.66 19.54 12 Oklahoma 19.47 130.13 19.27 13 Mississippi St. 19.44 107.41 18.15 14 Boise St. 14.60 148.29 16.90 15 Georgia Tech 16.35 109.21 16.18 16 Arkansas 15.78 92.15 14.98 17 Kansas St. 15.52 90.86 14.74 18 LSU 14.12 99.49 14.22 19 Nebraska 14.78 89.35 14.18 20 Louisiana Tech 14.82 61.13 12.84 ________________________________________ 21 Miami (FL) 9.75 124.92 12.54 22 UCLA 11.36 93.84 12.11 23 Florida St. 12.67 68.72 11.77 24 USC 12.03 67.24 11.27 25 Louisville 9.39 92.26 10.73 26 Clemson 8.49 103.66 10.67 27 Stanford 9.18 91.37 10.54 28 Arizona 12.30 38.72 10.07 29 West Virginia 7.12 106.59 9.90 30 Missouri 9.67 42.25 8.49 _________________________________________ 31 Colorado St. 8.36 52.28 8.10 32 Minnesota 8.60 43.38 7.83 33 Boston Coll. 5.87 63.93 7.01 34 Arizona St. 8.81 16.31 6.66 35 Florida 7.04 39.29 6.59 36 Tennessee 7.56 31.22 6.55 37 Notre Dame 5.39 57.46 6.37 38 Georgia Southern 5.42 55.57 6.30 39 BYU 5.84 47.50 6.19 40 Virginia Tech 5.58 49.02 6.09 _________________________________________ 41 Memphis 8.75 0.09 5.84 42 Cincinnati 6.02 17.92 4.88 43 East Carolina 0.53 91.39 4.78 44 Penn St. 2.87 58.73 4.76 45 Virginia 2.78 57.12 4.62 46 Iowa 3.12 48.60 4.43 47 Pittsburgh 1.82 63.95 4.31 48 Navy 3.88 25.69 3.83 49 Arkansas St. 2.38 31.49 3.11 50 Texas 2.08 34.74 3.07 ________________________________________ 51 West. Kentucky 3.96 8.08 3.03 52 UCF 2.09 31.64 2.92 53 South Carolina 2.64 23.32 2.89 54 Texas A&M 5.20 -12.50 2.87 55 Washington 5.03 -23.22 2.23 56 Utah St. 3.17 1.34 2.18 57 Michigan 0.53 34.41 2.02 58 UAB 1.60 5.34 1.33 59 W. Michigan 2.03 -6.07 1.06 60 Toledo -0.65 28.59 0.95 ______________________________________________ 61 Appalachian State -2.44 50.66 0.82 62 N.C. State -0.15 14.46 0.60 63 Utah 2.96 -32.01 0.42 64 Duke 4.26 -53.32 0.26 65 Houston 0.50 -7.96 -0.05 66 Air Force 1.77 -28.63 -0.20 67 San Diego St. -2.46 19.30 -0.70 68 Nevada 2.15 -45.11 -0.75 69 Northwestern -2.05 -2.23 -1.48 70 Washington St. -7.27 56.46 -2.11 ________________________________________________ 71 LA Lafayette -1.90 -24.07 -2.43 72 California -2.48 -16.42 -2.45 73 Rutgers -3.96 -14.41 -3.34 74 Temple 0.43 -77.72 -3.47 75 Cent. Michigan -5.22 -3.42 -3.65 76 Rice -3.79 -25.52 -3.76 77 Maryland -0.95 -65.16 -3.79 78 North Carolina -3.37 -34.40 -3.91 79 Kentucky -3.56 -33.41 -3.99 80 Syracuse -5.75 -4.59 -4.05 __________________________________________ 81 Northern Illinois -3.31 -47.23 -4.49 82 UTEP -5.39 -21.66 -4.64 83 Middle Tenn. St. -3.99 -51.97 -5.18 84 Texas St. -5.91 -27.45 -5.27 85 Colorado -7.12 -12.65 -5.36 86 South Alabama -6.29 -26.69 -5.49 87 Oregon St. -6.33 -28.30 -5.59 88 Illinois -3.70 -74.58 -6.08 89 Purdue -6.05 -42.28 -6.08 90 Texas Tech -8.92 -4.78 -6.18 ___________________________________________ 91 Ohio -8.24 -31.84 -7.03 92 Buffalo -9.36 -16.60 -7.04 93 Oklahoma St. -5.77 -75.39 -7.49 94 Bowling Green -6.86 -74.12 -8.16 95 Akron -9.24 -61.62 -9.14 96 Florida Intl. -6.32 -101.86 -9.14 97 LA Monroe -10.07 -51.04 -9.18 98 Old Dominion -10.14 -51.19 -9.24 99 Indiana -9.21 -64.70 -9.27 100 Ball St. -4.51 -129.72 -9.28 ______________________________________________ 101 Miami (OH) -9.34 -67.65 -9.50 102 Wyoming -11.55 -45.39 -9.89 103 San Jose St. -16.15 14.84 -10.05 104 Tulane -13.75 -20.63 -10.17 105 Iowa St. -10.23 -87.63 -11.06 106 Fresno St. -10.05 -102.21 -11.65 107 Hawaii -11.31 -90.98 -11.94 108 Idaho -14.99 -47.19 -12.27 109 Florida Atlantic -11.62 -106.54 -12.90 110 Massachusetts -14.03 -81.05 -13.27 _______________________________________________ 111 UT-San Antonio -11.71 -114.82 -13.36 112 New Mexico -10.92 -142.74 -14.19 113 South Florida -12.12 -130.78 -14.41 114 Kansas -13.26 -121.01 -14.69 115 Southern Miss -14.77 -100.33 -14.70 116 Connecticut -16.09 -91.19 -15.14 117 Tulsa -16.40 -102.44 -15.89 118 Army -15.50 -139.23 -17.06 119 Kent St. -15.86 -136.56 -17.18 120 Vanderbilt -17.68 -127.44 -17.95 ______________________________________________ 121 Troy -18.90 -113.13 -18.07 122 Wake Forest -13.31 -190.93 -18.11 123 North Texas -17.84 -142.15 -18.77 124 UNLV -19.13 -154.18 -20.21 125 New Mexico St. -23.33 -149.27 -22.78 126 Georgia State -24.57 -145.30 -23.40 127 East. Michigan -29.05 -218.10 -29.91 128 SMU -31.15 -252.03 -32.96 By conference: Rank Team PD YD Score 41 Memphis 8.75 0.09 5.84 42 Cincinnati 6.02 17.92 4.88 43 East Carolina 0.53 91.39 4.78 52 UCF 2.09 31.64 2.92 65 Houston 0.50 -7.96 -0.05 74 Temple 0.43 -77.72 -3.47 113 South Florida -12.12 -130.78 -14.41 116 Connecticut -16.09 -91.19 -15.14 117 Tulsa -16.40 -102.44 -15.89 128 SMU -31.15 -252.03 -32.96 ______________________________________________ 15 Georgia Tech 16.35 109.21 16.18 21 Miami (FL) 9.75 124.92 12.54 23 Florida St. 12.67 68.72 11.77 25 Louisville 9.39 92.26 10.73 26 Clemson 8.49 103.66 10.67 33 Boston Coll. 5.87 63.93 7.01 40 Virginia Tech 5.58 49.02 6.09 45 Virginia 2.78 57.12 4.62 47 Pittsburgh 1.82 63.95 4.31 62 N.C. State -0.15 14.46 0.60 64 Duke 4.26 -53.32 0.26 78 North Carolina -3.37 -34.40 -3.91 80 Syracuse -5.75 -4.59 -4.05 122 Wake Forest -13.31 -190.93 -18.11 _____________________________________________ 2 Michigan St. 22.15 193.83 24.14 3 Ohio St. 22.86 170.19 23.47 5 Wisconsin 19.25 198.05 22.41 19 Nebraska 14.78 89.35 14.18 32 Minnesota 8.60 43.38 7.83 44 Penn St. 2.87 58.73 4.76 46 Iowa 3.12 48.60 4.43 57 Michigan 0.53 34.41 2.02 69 Northwestern -2.05 -2.23 -1.48 73 Rutgers -3.96 -14.41 -3.34 77 Maryland -0.95 -65.16 -3.79 88 Illinois -3.70 -74.58 -6.08 89 Purdue -6.05 -42.28 -6.08 99 Indiana -9.21 -64.70 -9.27 _____________________________________________ 4 TCU 24.21 136.86 22.76 8 Baylor 19.50 174.16 21.42 12 Oklahoma 19.47 130.13 19.27 17 Kansas St. 15.52 90.86 14.74 29 West Virginia 7.12 106.59 9.90 50 Texas 2.08 34.74 3.07 90 Texas Tech -8.92 -4.78 -6.18 93 Oklahoma St. -5.77 -75.39 -7.49 105 Iowa St. -10.23 -87.63 -11.06 114 Kansas -13.26 -121.01 -14.69 ______________________________________________ 6 Marshall 20.93 156.93 21.54 20 Louisiana Tech 14.82 61.13 12.84 51 West. Kentucky 3.96 8.08 3.03 58 UAB 1.60 5.34 1.33 76 Rice -3.79 -25.52 -3.76 82 UTEP -5.39 -21.66 -4.64 83 Middle Tenn. St. -3.99 -51.97 -5.18 96 Florida Intl. -6.32 -101.86 -9.14 98 Old Dominion -10.14 -51.19 -9.24 104 Tulane -13.75 -20.63 -10.17 109 Florida Atlantic -11.62 -106.54 -12.90 111 UT-San Antonio -11.71 -114.82 -13.36 115 Southern Miss -14.77 -100.33 -14.70 123 North Texas -17.84 -142.15 -18.77 _______________________________________________ 37 Notre Dame 5.39 57.46 6.37 39 BYU 5.84 47.50 6.19 48 Navy 3.88 25.69 3.83 118 Army -15.50 -139.23 -17.06 ___________________________________________ 59 W. Michigan 2.03 -6.07 1.06 60 Toledo -0.65 28.59 0.95 75 Cent. Michigan -5.22 -3.42 -3.65 81 Northern Illinois -3.31 -47.23 -4.49 91 Ohio -8.24 -31.84 -7.03 92 Buffalo -9.36 -16.60 -7.04 94 Bowling Green -6.86 -74.12 -8.16 95 Akron -9.24 -61.62 -9.14 100 Ball St. -4.51 -129.72 -9.28 101 Miami (OH) -9.34 -67.65 -9.50 110 Massachusetts -14.03 -81.05 -13.27 119 Kent St. -15.86 -136.56 -17.18 127 East. Michigan -29.05 -218.10 -29.91 ____________________________________________ 14 Boise St. 14.60 148.29 16.90 31 Colorado St. 8.36 52.28 8.10 56 Utah St. 3.17 1.34 2.18 66 Air Force 1.77 -28.63 -0.20 67 San Diego St. -2.46 19.30 -0.70 68 Nevada 2.15 -45.11 -0.75 102 Wyoming -11.55 -45.39 -9.89 103 San Jose St. -16.15 14.84 -10.05 106 Fresno St. -10.05 -102.21 -11.65 107 Hawaii -11.31 -90.98 -11.94 112 New Mexico -10.92 -142.74 -14.19 124 UNLV -19.13 -154.18 -20.21 ___________________________________________ 9 Oregon 22.64 120.90 20.94 22 UCLA 11.36 93.84 12.11 24 USC 12.03 67.24 11.27 27 Stanford 9.18 91.37 10.54 28 Arizona 12.30 38.72 10.07 34 Arizona St. 8.81 16.31 6.66 55 Washington 5.03 -23.22 2.23 63 Utah 2.96 -32.01 0.42 70 Washington St. -7.27 56.46 -2.11 72 California -2.48 -16.42 -2.45 85 Colorado -7.12 -12.65 -5.36 87 Oregon St. -6.33 -28.30 -5.59 _____________________________________________ 38 Georgia Southern 5.42 55.57 6.30 49 Arkansas St. 2.38 31.49 3.11 61 Appalachian State -2.44 50.66 0.82 71 LA Lafayette -1.90 -24.07 -2.43 84 Texas St. -5.91 -27.45 -5.27 86 South Alabama -6.29 -26.69 -5.49 97 LA Monroe -10.07 -51.04 -9.18 108 Idaho -14.99 -47.19 -12.27 121 Troy -18.90 -113.13 -18.07 125 New Mexico St. -23.33 -149.27 -22.78 126 Georgia State -24.57 -145.30 -23.40 ___________________________________________ 1 Alabama 23.72 193.23 25.16 7 Mississippi 21.89 141.68 21.44 10 Auburn 19.03 166.20 20.72 11 Georgia 20.85 116.66 19.54 13 Mississippi St. 19.44 107.41 18.15 16 Arkansas 15.78 92.15 14.98 18 LSU 14.12 99.49 14.22 30 Missouri 9.67 42.25 8.49 35 Florida 7.04 39.29 6.59 36 Tennessee 7.56 31.22 6.55 53 South Carolina 2.64 23.32 2.89 54 Texas A&M 5.20 -12.50 2.87 79 Kentucky -3.56 -33.41 -3.99 120 Vanderbilt -17.68 -127.44 -17.95

Duquesne Frog

Duquesne Frog

 

FINAL 2014 DUSHEE Rankings

Rank Team P/G Y/G Score 1 Ohio St. 29.65 213.64 30.20 2 TCU 29.18 186.04 28.54 3 Alabama 25.58 194.32 26.54 4 Michigan St. 24.08 207.86 26.21 5 Oregon 26.33 153.90 25.07 6 Marshall 23.66 171.29 24.14 7 Baylor 21.34 199.49 23.97 8 Georgia 23.78 130.48 22.23 9 Auburn 18.64 162.62 20.37 10 Mississippi 20.30 126.72 19.72 ______________________________________ 11 Wisconsin 14.54 182.51 18.61 12 Mississippi St. 18.12 107.03 17.31 13 Georgia Tech 18.20 104.56 17.24 14 Arkansas 16.65 112.39 16.59 15 Boise St. 14.18 115.08 15.07 16 Oklahoma 13.91 105.78 14.44 17 Nebraska 14.16 89.60 13.81 18 Clemson 12.00 117.58 13.74 19 UCLA 12.18 103.52 13.18 20 LSU 12.89 93.37 13.16 ________________________________________ 21 Kansas St. 14.07 73.83 12.99 22 Stanford 11.19 102.34 12.46 23 Louisiana Tech 15.60 39.47 12.33 24 USC 13.03 71.91 12.20 25 Miami (FL) 7.85 121.66 11.17 26 Florida St. 11.22 67.17 10.76 27 Louisville 8.63 87.21 10.02 28 Missouri 9.73 36.52 8.27 29 Arizona 10.09 24.40 7.92 30 West Virginia 4.95 88.03 7.60 _______________________________________ 31 Arizona St. 9.85 12.53 7.18 32 Memphis 9.59 10.44 6.91 33 Tennessee 8.09 29.24 6.82 34 Notre Dame 5.62 60.97 6.72 35 Florida 7.95 27.61 6.65 36 Minnesota 6.94 38.64 6.52 37 Virginia Tech 7.03 31.96 6.25 38 Georgia Southern 5.34 54.26 6.21 39 East Carolina 1.14 111.06 6.19 40 Boston Coll. 5.17 55.36 6.15 ________________________________________ 41 BYU 5.85 37.89 5.75 42 Cincinnati 5.86 29.57 5.35 43 Penn St. 3.04 66.26 5.27 44 Colorado St. 5.16 18.08 4.32 45 Pittsburgh 1.88 61.25 4.24 46 Utah 6.49 -2.92 4.18 47 Texas A&M 5.66 -2.53 3.65 48 Virginia 1.71 49.97 3.58 49 UCF 2.15 36.85 3.23 50 West. Kentucky 3.83 13.76 3.23 _________________________________________ 51 Navy 2.81 23.28 3.01 52 South Carolina 3.04 18.96 2.95 53 Utah St. 3.92 2.20 2.72 54 Arkansas St. 1.14 33.17 2.38 55 Michigan 0.70 34.78 2.16 56 Toledo 0.55 33.94 2.03 57 Iowa 0.02 34.97 1.72 58 N.C. State 0.56 26.45 1.66 59 Houston 0.74 14.10 1.18 60 UAB 1.18 3.33 0.95 ______________________________________ 61 Appalachian State -2.56 50.82 0.77 62 Air Force 3.36 -31.68 0.69 63 W. Michigan 1.27 -4.71 0.61 64 Washington 3.39 -37.94 0.41 65 Duke 4.41 -55.32 0.24 66 Texas -0.39 7.07 0.08 67 San Diego St. -2.81 10.66 -1.35 68 Northern Illinois -1.06 -16.11 -1.49 69 LA Lafayette -1.25 -21.23 -1.87 70 Washington St. -7.42 55.86 -2.22 ______________________________________ 71 Rice -2.54 -15.56 -2.45 72 Northwestern -3.32 -6.25 -2.52 73 California -3.13 -19.51 -3.04 74 Cent. Michigan -4.72 -3.64 -3.32 75 Nevada -0.22 -75.63 -3.84 76 Rutgers -3.90 -26.43 -3.89 77 Temple -1.24 -69.15 -4.21 78 Kentucky -4.10 -39.19 -4.65 79 Syracuse -6.51 -10.00 -4.83 80 Texas St. -6.12 -25.13 -5.31 ______________________________________ 81 Oregon St. -6.15 -25.51 -5.34 82 UTEP -6.38 -29.74 -5.71 83 Middle Tenn. St. -4.58 -54.48 -5.71 84 Oklahoma St. -3.91 -64.15 -5.74 85 Colorado -7.80 -15.11 -5.94 86 Maryland -3.29 -83.08 -6.25 87 North Carolina -5.85 -48.44 -6.27 88 Illinois -5.16 -69.03 -6.81 89 South Alabama -7.68 -40.55 -7.10 90 Texas Tech -9.99 -10.81 -7.19 ________________________________________ 91 Buffalo -9.61 -17.51 -7.26 92 Ohio -8.67 -32.56 -7.37 93 Purdue -7.73 -50.45 -7.61 94 LA Monroe -10.16 -49.68 -9.20 95 Florida Intl. -6.50 -103.93 -9.41 96 Akron -9.49 -63.54 -9.43 97 Old Dominion -10.26 -53.18 -9.43 98 Ball St. -4.75 -128.59 -9.45 99 Indiana -9.65 -68.75 -9.79 100 Miami (OH) -9.89 -68.36 -9.93 ________________________________________ 101 Wyoming -12.13 -51.22 -10.59 102 Bowling Green -9.73 -88.53 -10.81 103 San Jose St. -17.00 9.16 -10.88 104 Tulane -13.79 -35.87 -10.95 105 Fresno St. -11.52 -94.40 -12.29 106 Hawaii -11.77 -93.41 -12.41 107 Idaho -15.41 -49.86 -12.71 108 Florida Atlantic -11.95 -108.87 -13.28 109 Massachusetts -14.01 -81.68 -13.33 110 UT-San Antonio -12.14 -116.79 -13.79 __________________________________________ 111 Army -12.51 -116.42 -14.03 112 Iowa St. -12.97 -119.07 -14.46 113 New Mexico -11.40 -148.12 -14.84 114 South Florida -13.07 -133.07 -15.21 115 Southern Miss -15.20 -104.97 -15.26 116 Kansas -14.49 -127.85 -15.91 117 Tulsa -17.25 -104.74 -16.62 118 Kent St. -15.43 -133.62 -16.81 119 Troy -18.81 -110.89 -17.95 120 Connecticut -18.69 -120.38 -18.34 ____________________________________________ 121 Wake Forest -13.43 -192.10 -18.34 122 Vanderbilt -17.97 -131.01 -18.38 123 North Texas -17.66 -142.66 -18.74 124 UNLV -19.83 -156.42 -20.86 125 New Mexico St. -23.53 -149.07 -22.97 126 Georgia State -24.41 -145.18 -23.37 127 East. Michigan -29.10 -220.61 -30.18 128 SMU -29.72 -226.87 -30.90 By Conference Rank Team PD YD Score 32 Memphis 9.59 10.44 6.91 39 East Carolina 1.14 111.06 6.19 42 Cincinnati 5.86 29.57 5.35 49 UCF 2.15 36.85 3.23 59 Houston 0.74 14.10 1.18 77 Temple -1.24 -69.15 -4.21 114 South Florida -13.07 -133.07 -15.21 117 Tulsa -17.25 -104.74 -16.62 120 Connecticut -18.69 -120.38 -18.34 128 SMU -29.72 -226.87 -30.90 ________________________________________ 13 Georgia Tech 18.20 104.56 17.24 18 Clemson 12.00 117.58 13.74 25 Miami (FL) 7.85 121.66 11.17 26 Florida St. 11.22 67.17 10.76 27 Louisville 8.63 87.21 10.02 37 Virginia Tech 7.03 31.96 6.25 40 Boston Coll. 5.17 55.36 6.15 45 Pittsburgh 1.88 61.25 4.24 48 Virginia 1.71 49.97 3.58 58 N.C. State 0.56 26.45 1.66 65 Duke 4.41 -55.32 0.24 79 Syracuse -6.51 -10.00 -4.83 87 North Carolina -5.85 -48.44 -6.27 121 Wake Forest -13.43 -192.10 -18.34 _________________________________________ 1 Ohio St. 29.65 213.64 30.20 4 Michigan St. 24.08 207.86 26.21 11 Wisconsin 14.54 182.51 18.61 17 Nebraska 14.16 89.60 13.81 36 Minnesota 6.94 38.64 6.52 43 Penn St. 3.04 66.26 5.27 55 Michigan 0.70 34.78 2.16 57 Iowa 0.02 34.97 1.72 72 Northwestern -3.32 -6.25 -2.52 76 Rutgers -3.90 -26.43 -3.89 86 Maryland -3.29 -83.08 -6.25 88 Illinois -5.16 -69.03 -6.81 93 Purdue -7.73 -50.45 -7.61 99 Indiana -9.65 -68.75 -9.79 ____________________________________________ 2 TCU 29.18 186.04 28.54 7 Baylor 21.34 199.49 23.97 16 Oklahoma 13.91 105.78 14.44 21 Kansas St. 14.07 73.83 12.99 30 West Virginia 4.95 88.03 7.60 66 Texas -0.39 7.07 0.08 84 Oklahoma St. -3.91 -64.15 -5.74 90 Texas Tech -9.99 -10.81 -7.19 112 Iowa St. -12.97 -119.07 -14.46 116 Kansas -14.49 -127.85 -15.91 __________________________________________ 6 Marshall 23.66 171.29 24.14 23 Louisiana Tech 15.60 39.47 12.33 50 West. Kentucky 3.83 13.76 3.23 60 UAB 1.18 3.33 0.95 71 Rice -2.54 -15.56 -2.45 82 UTEP -6.38 -29.74 -5.71 83 Middle Tenn. St. -4.58 -54.48 -5.71 95 Florida Intl. -6.50 -103.93 -9.41 97 Old Dominion -10.26 -53.18 -9.43 104 Tulane -13.79 -35.87 -10.95 108 Florida Atlantic -11.95 -108.87 -13.28 110 UT-San Antonio -12.14 -116.79 -13.79 115 Southern Miss -15.20 -104.97 -15.26 123 North Texas -17.66 -142.66 -18.74 ___________________________________________ 34 Notre Dame 5.62 60.97 6.72 41 BYU 5.85 37.89 5.75 51 Navy 2.81 23.28 3.01 111 Army -12.51 -116.42 -14.03 ___________________________________________ 56 Toledo 0.55 33.94 2.03 63 W. Michigan 1.27 -4.71 0.61 68 Northern Illinois -1.06 -16.11 -1.49 74 Cent. Michigan -4.72 -3.64 -3.32 91 Buffalo -9.61 -17.51 -7.26 92 Ohio -8.67 -32.56 -7.37 96 Akron -9.49 -63.54 -9.43 98 Ball St. -4.75 -128.59 -9.45 100 Miami (OH) -9.89 -68.36 -9.93 102 Bowling Green -9.73 -88.53 -10.81 109 Massachusetts -14.01 -81.68 -13.33 118 Kent St. -15.43 -133.62 -16.81 127 East. Michigan -29.10 -220.61 -30.18 ________________________________________________ 15 Boise St. 14.18 115.08 15.07 44 Colorado St. 5.16 18.08 4.32 53 Utah St. 3.92 2.20 2.72 62 Air Force 3.36 -31.68 0.69 67 San Diego St. -2.81 10.66 -1.35 75 Nevada -0.22 -75.63 -3.84 101 Wyoming -12.13 -51.22 -10.59 103 San Jose St. -17.00 9.16 -10.88 105 Fresno St. -11.52 -94.40 -12.29 106 Hawaii -11.77 -93.41 -12.41 113 New Mexico -11.40 -148.12 -14.84 124 UNLV -19.83 -156.42 -20.86 _________________________________________________ 5 Oregon 26.33 153.90 25.07 19 UCLA 12.18 103.52 13.18 22 Stanford 11.19 102.34 12.46 24 USC 13.03 71.91 12.20 29 Arizona 10.09 24.40 7.92 31 Arizona St. 9.85 12.53 7.18 46 Utah 6.49 -2.92 4.18 64 Washington 3.39 -37.94 0.41 70 Washington St. -7.42 55.86 -2.22 73 California -3.13 -19.51 -3.04 81 Oregon St. -6.15 -25.51 -5.34 85 Colorado -7.80 -15.11 -5.94 _________________________________________________ 38 Georgia Southern 5.34 54.26 6.21 54 Arkansas St. 1.14 33.17 2.38 61 Appalachian State -2.56 50.82 0.77 69 LA Lafayette -1.25 -21.23 -1.87 80 Texas St. -6.12 -25.13 -5.31 89 South Alabama -7.68 -40.55 -7.10 94 LA Monroe -10.16 -49.68 -9.20 107 Idaho -15.41 -49.86 -12.71 119 Troy -18.81 -110.89 -17.95 125 New Mexico St. -23.53 -149.07 -22.97 126 Georgia State -24.41 -145.18 -23.37 ___________________________________________________ 3 Alabama 25.58 194.32 26.54 8 Georgia 23.78 130.48 22.23 9 Auburn 18.64 162.62 20.37 10 Mississippi 20.30 126.72 19.72 12 Mississippi St. 18.12 107.03 17.31 14 Arkansas 16.65 112.39 16.59 20 LSU 12.89 93.37 13.16 28 Missouri 9.73 36.52 8.27 33 Tennessee 8.09 29.24 6.82 35 Florida 7.95 27.61 6.65 47 Texas A&M 5.66 -2.53 3.65 52 South Carolina 3.04 18.96 2.95 78 Kentucky -4.10 -39.19 -4.65 122 Vanderbilt -17.97 -131.01 -18.38

Duquesne Frog

Duquesne Frog

 

Week 13 DUSHEE

Thankfully, Baylor's performance against OkieSt was just mediocre enough to drop them from the top spot. They are now 2nd behind Alabama. DUSHEE continues to really love the B1G and Marshall. TCU climbs one spot due to the precipitous fall of Ole Miss out of the top 10. Rank Team P/G Y/G Score 1 Alabama 24.68 219.53 27.00 2 Baylor 23.01 219.04 25.86 3 Ohio St. 23.60 178.72 24.32 4 Michigan St. 21.60 198.06 23.92 5 Marshall 22.65 173.65 23.44 6 Wisconsin 19.86 194.77 22.59 7 TCU 22.59 143.95 21.97 8 Auburn 20.93 161.46 21.71 9 Georgia 22.86 132.46 21.60 10 Oregon 22.82 116.17 20.79 _______________________________________ 11 Mississippi 20.67 138.61 20.44 12 Mississippi St. 21.37 117.69 19.90 13 Oklahoma 19.48 131.75 19.31 14 Arkansas 18.01 115.91 17.58 15 LSU 16.38 98.74 15.66 16 Georgia Tech 15.26 100.52 15.00 17 Nebraska 15.53 92.97 14.82 18 UCLA 13.88 110.51 14.56 19 Boise St. 11.71 133.46 14.22 20 Miami (FL) 12.19 125.19 14.14 _______________________________________ 21 Kansas St. 14.98 81.02 13.88 22 Florida St. 13.14 69.85 12.12 23 Louisville 10.91 93.39 11.76 24 West Virginia 8.08 117.62 11.03 25 Notre Dame 9.32 84.95 10.29 26 Clemson 7.88 98.74 10.00 27 Arizona 11.62 42.51 9.79 28 Tennessee 10.32 55.70 9.55 29 Louisiana Tech 11.21 30.10 8.92 30 Stanford 7.65 74.98 8.70 ______________________________________ 31 USC 9.51 47.80 8.64 32 Minnesota 8.68 47.35 8.06 33 Colorado St. 8.78 44.84 8.00 34 Missouri 9.04 31.15 7.52 35 BYU 6.57 60.33 7.28 36 Florida 7.59 44.64 7.21 37 Arizona St. 9.52 12.11 6.93 38 Virginia 3.87 78.07 6.33 39 Georgia Southern 5.62 47.96 6.05 40 Virginia Tech 6.17 39.79 6.03 ______________________________________ 41 Texas A&M 7.00 20.83 5.67 42 Boston Coll. 4.74 49.73 5.55 43 Memphis 8.23 -1.17 5.43 44 East Carolina 1.00 98.99 5.42 45 Navy 5.12 33.11 5.01 46 Cincinnati 5.43 27.68 4.95 47 South Carolina 4.47 35.66 4.69 48 Penn St. 3.28 49.99 4.59 49 Texas 3.95 35.53 4.34 50 Utah St. 5.16 7.07 3.78 _______________________________________ 51 Pittsburgh 0.53 70.21 3.73 52 Iowa 1.90 43.23 3.34 53 UCF 2.04 35.13 3.05 54 Northwestern 1.39 24.25 2.09 55 Michigan 0.17 29.27 1.52 56 Washington 4.95 -38.67 1.44 57 Arkansas St. 0.79 18.66 1.42 58 UAB 1.92 0.60 1.31 59 Utah 4.25 -32.03 1.29 60 W. Michigan 2.59 -13.46 1.08 ________________________________________ 61 Duke 4.81 -44.83 1.05 62 Houston 1.29 -5.29 0.60 63 Appalachian State -3.62 52.06 0.09 64 Toledo -1.54 21.58 0.01 65 Rice -0.76 -0.44 -0.53 66 West. Kentucky 0.76 -21.92 -0.54 67 Nevada 1.78 -41.52 -0.81 68 North Carolina -0.69 -10.84 -0.98 69 Air Force -0.13 -31.66 -1.60 70 Washington St. -7.20 65.48 -1.65 ____________________________________________ 71 N.C. State -2.36 -5.77 -1.85 72 Maryland 0.56 -58.16 -2.42 73 Rutgers -3.77 0.33 -2.50 74 Syracuse -4.55 5.59 -2.76 75 California -2.60 -24.37 -2.90 76 San Diego St. -4.76 -1.03 -3.22 77 LA Lafayette -3.57 -29.93 -3.82 78 Kentucky -3.86 -28.68 -3.95 79 Purdue -3.89 -30.88 -4.08 80 Cent. Michigan -6.05 -8.09 -4.42 _____________________________________________ 81 Temple 0.08 -94.73 -4.50 82 Colorado -6.97 -7.50 -5.01 83 UTEP -6.23 -23.47 -5.28 84 Middle Tenn. St. -4.15 -57.92 -5.55 85 Oregon St. -6.83 -25.61 -5.79 86 Texas St. -7.11 -28.32 -6.10 87 South Alabama -7.24 -31.50 -6.34 88 Ohio -8.32 -31.26 -7.05 89 Illinois -4.81 -83.61 -7.22 90 Northern Illinois -6.30 -62.89 -7.22 ______________________________________________ 91 Oklahoma St. -5.77 -74.52 -7.42 92 Bowling Green -6.30 -73.18 -7.72 93 Akron -8.51 -50.21 -8.09 94 San Jose St. -14.39 28.14 -8.24 95 Florida Intl. -6.35 -102.33 -9.15 96 Indiana -9.33 -62.22 -9.21 97 Miami (OH) -9.18 -67.50 -9.36 98 Wyoming -11.04 -51.15 -9.82 99 Old Dominion -10.43 -61.20 -9.89 100 Texas Tech -12.02 -42.62 -10.06 _____________________________________________ 101 Buffalo -12.24 -40.45 -10.11 102 LA Monroe -12.01 -52.58 -10.53 103 Tulane -14.44 -24.97 -10.83 104 Iowa St. -9.98 -87.76 -10.87 105 Ball St. -6.38 -138.75 -10.92 106 Hawaii -10.40 -91.78 -11.34 107 Florida Atlantic -11.73 -102.27 -12.73 108 Massachusetts -13.72 -75.21 -12.76 109 Kansas -11.91 -106.45 -13.06 110 Idaho -15.67 -56.51 -13.16 ______________________________________________ 111 Southern Miss -13.78 -85.29 -13.28 112 Fresno St. -12.05 -109.69 -13.31 113 New Mexico -11.23 -134.96 -13.97 114 UT-San Antonio -12.82 -119.72 -14.30 115 Connecticut -16.07 -95.66 -15.31 116 South Florida -13.37 -149.49 -16.09 117 Army -15.81 -145.05 -17.51 118 Tulsa -17.82 -121.27 -17.70 119 Troy -18.80 -113.06 -17.97 120 Wake Forest -13.64 -196.83 -18.55 _____________________________________________ 121 Vanderbilt -18.05 -136.70 -18.60 122 Kent St. -17.76 -151.47 -19.11 123 North Texas -18.16 -148.56 -19.25 124 UNLV -19.40 -153.38 -20.30 125 New Mexico St. -23.47 -144.18 -22.57 126 Georgia State -25.47 -155.96 -24.47 127 East. Michigan -28.82 -218.04 -29.69 128 SMU -32.77 -255.60 -34.12 By Conference: Rank Team PD YD Score 43 Memphis 8.23 -1.17 5.43 44 East Carolina 1.00 98.99 5.42 46 Cincinnati 5.43 27.68 4.95 53 UCF 2.04 35.13 3.05 62 Houston 1.29 -5.29 0.60 81 Temple 0.08 -94.73 -4.50 115 Connecticut -16.07 -95.66 -15.31 116 South Florida -13.37 -149.49 -16.09 118 Tulsa -17.82 -121.27 -17.70 128 SMU -32.77 -255.60 -34.12 ____________________________________________ 16 Georgia Tech 15.26 100.52 15.00 20 Miami (FL) 12.19 125.19 14.14 22 Florida St. 13.14 69.85 12.12 23 Louisville 10.91 93.39 11.76 26 Clemson 7.88 98.74 10.00 38 Virginia 3.87 78.07 6.33 40 Virginia Tech 6.17 39.79 6.03 42 Boston Coll. 4.74 49.73 5.55 51 Pittsburgh 0.53 70.21 3.73 61 Duke 4.81 -44.83 1.05 68 North Carolina -0.69 -10.84 -0.98 71 N.C. State -2.36 -5.77 -1.85 74 Syracuse -4.55 5.59 -2.76 120 Wake Forest -13.64 -196.83 -18.55 __________________________________________ 3 Ohio St. 23.60 178.72 24.32 4 Michigan St. 21.60 198.06 23.92 6 Wisconsin 19.86 194.77 22.59 17 Nebraska 15.53 92.97 14.82 32 Minnesota 8.68 47.35 8.06 48 Penn St. 3.28 49.99 4.59 52 Iowa 1.90 43.23 3.34 54 Northwestern 1.39 24.25 2.09 55 Michigan 0.17 29.27 1.52 72 Maryland 0.56 -58.16 -2.42 73 Rutgers -3.77 0.33 -2.50 79 Purdue -3.89 -30.88 -4.08 89 Illinois -4.81 -83.61 -7.22 96 Indiana -9.33 -62.22 -9.21 _________________________________________ 2 Baylor 23.01 219.04 25.86 7 TCU 22.59 143.95 21.97 13 Oklahoma 19.48 131.75 19.31 21 Kansas St. 14.98 81.02 13.88 24 West Virginia 8.08 117.62 11.03 49 Texas 3.95 35.53 4.34 91 Oklahoma St. -5.77 -74.52 -7.42 100 Texas Tech -12.02 -42.62 -10.06 104 Iowa St. -9.98 -87.76 -10.87 109 Kansas -11.91 -106.45 -13.06 _________________________________________ 5 Marshall 22.65 173.65 23.44 29 Louisiana Tech 11.21 30.10 8.92 58 UAB 1.92 0.60 1.31 65 Rice -0.76 -0.44 -0.53 66 West. Kentucky 0.76 -21.92 -0.54 83 UTEP -6.23 -23.47 -5.28 84 Middle Tenn. St. -4.15 -57.92 -5.55 95 Florida Intl. -6.35 -102.33 -9.15 99 Old Dominion -10.43 -61.20 -9.89 103 Tulane -14.44 -24.97 -10.83 107 Florida Atlantic -11.73 -102.27 -12.73 111 Southern Miss -13.78 -85.29 -13.28 114 UT-San Antonio -12.82 -119.72 -14.30 123 North Texas -18.16 -148.56 -19.25 ___________________________________________ 25 Notre Dame 9.32 84.95 10.29 35 BYU 6.57 60.33 7.28 45 Navy 5.12 33.11 5.01 117 Army -15.81 -145.05 -17.51 ___________________________________________ 60 W. Michigan 2.59 -13.46 1.08 64 Toledo -1.54 21.58 0.01 80 Cent. Michigan -6.05 -8.09 -4.42 88 Ohio -8.32 -31.26 -7.05 90 Northern Illinois -6.30 -62.89 -7.22 92 Bowling Green -6.30 -73.18 -7.72 93 Akron -8.51 -50.21 -8.09 97 Miami (OH) -9.18 -67.50 -9.36 101 Buffalo -12.24 -40.45 -10.11 105 Ball St. -6.38 -138.75 -10.92 108 Massachusetts -13.72 -75.21 -12.76 122 Kent St. -17.76 -151.47 -19.11 127 East. Michigan -28.82 -218.04 -29.69 ___________________________________________ 19 Boise St. 11.71 133.46 14.22 33 Colorado St. 8.78 44.84 8.00 50 Utah St. 5.16 7.07 3.78 67 Nevada 1.78 -41.52 -0.81 69 Air Force -0.13 -31.66 -1.60 76 San Diego St. -4.76 -1.03 -3.22 94 San Jose St. -14.39 28.14 -8.24 98 Wyoming -11.04 -51.15 -9.82 106 Hawaii -10.40 -91.78 -11.34 112 Fresno St. -12.05 -109.69 -13.31 113 New Mexico -11.23 -134.96 -13.97 124 UNLV -19.40 -153.38 -20.30 _________________________________________ 10 Oregon 22.82 116.17 20.79 18 UCLA 13.88 110.51 14.56 27 Arizona 11.62 42.51 9.79 30 Stanford 7.65 74.98 8.70 31 USC 9.51 47.80 8.64 37 Arizona St. 9.52 12.11 6.93 56 Washington 4.95 -38.67 1.44 59 Utah 4.25 -32.03 1.29 70 Washington St. -7.20 65.48 -1.65 75 California -2.60 -24.37 -2.90 82 Colorado -6.97 -7.50 -5.01 85 Oregon St. -6.83 -25.61 -5.79 _________________________________________ 39 Georgia Southern 5.62 47.96 6.05 57 Arkansas St. 0.79 18.66 1.42 63 Appalachian State -3.62 52.06 0.09 77 LA Lafayette -3.57 -29.93 -3.82 86 Texas St. -7.11 -28.32 -6.10 87 South Alabama -7.24 -31.50 -6.34 102 LA Monroe -12.01 -52.58 -10.53 110 Idaho -15.67 -56.51 -13.16 119 Troy -18.80 -113.06 -17.97 125 New Mexico St. -23.47 -144.18 -22.57 126 Georgia State -25.47 -155.96 -24.47 _________________________________________ 1 Alabama 24.68 219.53 27.00 8 Auburn 20.93 161.46 21.71 9 Georgia 22.86 132.46 21.60 11 Mississippi 20.67 138.61 20.44 12 Mississippi St. 21.37 117.69 19.90 14 Arkansas 18.01 115.91 17.58 15 LSU 16.38 98.74 15.66 28 Tennessee 10.32 55.70 9.55 34 Missouri 9.04 31.15 7.52 36 Florida 7.59 44.64 7.21 41 Texas A&M 7.00 20.83 5.67 47 South Carolina 4.47 35.66 4.69 78 Kentucky -3.86 -28.68 -3.95 121 Vanderbilt -18.05 -136.70 -18.60

Duquesne Frog

Duquesne Frog

 

End of Regular Season (sorta) DUSHEE Ranking

Well, the college football committee wasn't the only entity impressed by Ohio State's beatdown of Wisco. Remember when Alabama's thrashing of A&M was a historically big DUSHEE score? Much like Perrine's eclipsing Gordon's rushing record (or was it vice versa?) Ohio State's win eclipsed Alabama's(66.40 now) with a PD of 78.55. The Buckeyes were 11 TD's better against Wisconsin than the average opponent was. And with that, Ohio State lept Alabama into first. The Frogs climb to 3rd, Oregon vaults into 5th, and Baylor winds up 6th. Florida State remains in the 20s, where they've been most of the year. SMU's win wasn't quite enough to pull them ahead of Eastern Michigan. Over the next few weeks, we'll take a look at some of the bowl matchups and all the controversy that befell college football the last few weeks. The final rankings will include the Army-Navy game. Rank Team P/G Y/G Score 1 Ohio St. 27.11 195.50 27.54 2 Alabama 24.82 197.05 26.09 3 TCU 25.51 158.30 24.67 4 Michigan St. 22.57 197.16 24.60 5 Oregon 24.51 144.35 23.33 6 Baylor 20.08 183.50 22.27 7 Marshall 20.69 162.38 21.66 8 Mississippi 21.94 139.97 21.40 9 Auburn 18.68 161.85 20.29 10 Georgia 20.39 113.67 19.10 _______________________________________ 11 Mississippi St. 19.51 107.58 18.22 12 Wisconsin 14.24 168.93 17.67 13 Oklahoma 16.35 110.62 16.26 14 Georgia Tech 15.85 101.75 15.49 15 Boise St. 13.98 124.24 15.34 16 Arkansas 15.78 92.47 15.00 17 Kansas St. 14.92 82.68 13.95 18 LSU 13.53 95.33 13.64 19 Nebraska 14.07 86.68 13.58 20 Louisiana Tech 15.26 57.78 12.97 ________________________________________ 21 Miami (FL) 9.50 122.58 12.27 22 Florida St. 12.91 71.35 12.06 23 UCLA 11.13 92.78 11.92 24 USC 11.60 65.33 10.90 25 Stanford 9.33 93.87 10.77 26 Louisville 9.32 92.09 10.67 27 Clemson 8.30 102.64 10.50 28 West Virginia 6.62 103.69 9.43 29 Colorado St. 8.37 50.45 8.02 30 Minnesota 8.48 43.36 7.75 ______________________________________ 31 Arizona 10.09 14.58 7.43 32 Boston Coll. 5.79 63.76 6.95 33 Missouri 7.90 34.29 6.93 34 Notre Dame 5.31 57.14 6.31 35 Florida 6.73 37.41 6.30 36 Arizona St. 8.44 12.92 6.25 37 Memphis 9.10 3.31 6.22 38 Tennessee 7.19 29.14 6.21 39 Georgia Southern 5.29 54.72 6.18 40 Virginia Tech 5.61 47.46 6.04 _______________________________________ 41 BYU 5.72 45.08 6.00 42 Cincinnati 7.38 16.10 5.70 43 East Carolina 1.66 91.81 5.55 44 Penn St. 3.10 59.92 4.97 45 Virginia 2.59 56.24 4.45 46 UCF 3.08 46.08 4.28 47 Pittsburgh 1.71 63.17 4.20 48 Navy 4.25 28.15 4.20 49 Iowa 2.11 40.95 3.39 50 Arkansas St. 2.38 31.49 3.11 ______________________________________ 51 Texas A&M 5.34 -10.76 3.04 52 Texas 1.64 31.93 2.64 53 West. Kentucky 3.43 4.53 2.51 54 South Carolina 2.21 19.62 2.42 55 Michigan 0.79 35.23 2.23 56 Utah St. 3.19 -0.32 2.11 57 Washington 4.82 -23.99 2.05 58 W. Michigan 2.06 -5.47 1.11 59 Houston 1.04 7.34 1.05 60 UAB 1.26 3.30 1.00 _____________________________________ 61 Appalachian State -2.44 50.66 0.83 62 N.C. State -0.33 13.53 0.43 63 Utah 2.68 -31.40 0.26 64 Toledo -1.27 22.85 0.26 65 Duke 4.18 -54.43 0.15 66 Air Force 1.76 -30.51 -0.30 67 San Diego St. -2.49 18.96 -0.74 68 Nevada 1.75 -48.59 -1.19 69 Northern Illinois -0.67 -26.90 -1.75 70 Northwestern -2.46 -4.44 -1.85 ______________________________________ 71 Washington St. -7.50 55.46 -2.31 72 California -2.71 -17.30 -2.65 73 LA Lafayette -2.02 -27.66 -2.69 74 Cent. Michigan -4.95 -1.20 -3.36 75 Rutgers -4.22 -18.05 -3.69 76 Temple -0.63 -69.69 -3.80 77 Rice -4.06 -27.07 -4.02 78 Syracuse -5.82 -4.75 -4.11 79 North Carolina -3.59 -36.53 -4.16 80 Maryland -1.29 -68.27 -4.17 ______________________________________ 81 Kentucky -3.86 -35.36 -4.29 82 UTEP -5.69 -25.28 -5.02 83 Texas St. -5.91 -27.45 -5.27 84 Middle Tenn. St. -4.17 -52.15 -5.31 85 Oregon St. -6.18 -25.72 -5.36 86 South Alabama -6.29 -26.69 -5.49 87 Colorado -7.31 -13.15 -5.51 88 Oklahoma St. -4.04 -65.02 -5.84 89 Illinois -4.06 -77.75 -6.47 90 Texas Tech -9.36 -7.34 -6.60 ______________________________________ 91 Purdue -6.70 -46.48 -6.72 92 Ohio -8.36 -31.47 -7.10 93 Buffalo -9.74 -18.32 -7.38 94 LA Monroe -10.07 -51.04 -9.19 95 Ball St. -4.48 -129.01 -9.24 96 Florida Intl. -6.51 -102.20 -9.29 97 Miami (OH) -9.27 -66.75 -9.41 98 Akron -9.63 -63.42 -9.49 99 Old Dominion -10.47 -53.25 -9.56 100 Indiana -9.47 -67.32 -9.57 _____________________________________ 101 Wyoming -11.43 -43.37 -9.72 102 Fresno St. -9.27 -74.84 -9.81 103 San Jose St. -16.18 16.40 -9.99 104 Tulane -13.45 -36.37 -10.73 105 Bowling Green -9.51 -93.55 -10.87 106 Hawaii -11.35 -89.57 -11.90 107 Idaho -14.99 -47.19 -12.28 108 Florida Atlantic -11.69 -106.18 -12.93 109 Massachusetts -14.24 -82.46 -13.49 110 Iowa St. -12.27 -113.89 -13.69 ________________________________________ 111 UT-San Antonio -12.23 -118.66 -13.90 112 New Mexico -10.95 -142.94 -14.23 113 South Florida -12.49 -132.91 -14.76 114 Southern Miss -14.98 -101.83 -14.92 115 Kansas -13.70 -123.10 -15.10 116 Tulsa -16.29 -100.05 -15.71 117 Kent St. -15.50 -134.54 -16.85 118 Army -15.38 -139.21 -17.00 119 Vanderbilt -17.59 -125.89 -17.82 120 Connecticut -18.29 -120.33 -18.02 _________________________________________ 121 Troy -18.90 -113.13 -18.08 122 Wake Forest -13.37 -190.87 -18.16 123 North Texas -17.65 -140.74 -18.58 124 UNLV -19.34 -153.00 -20.30 125 New Mexico St. -23.33 -149.27 -22.79 126 Georgia State -24.57 -145.30 -23.41 127 East. Michigan -28.78 -215.92 -29.64 128 SMU -29.38 -228.80 -30.67 By conference: Rank Team PD YD Score 37 Memphis 9.10 3.31 6.22 42 Cincinnati 7.38 16.10 5.70 43 East Carolina 1.66 91.81 5.55 46 UCF 3.08 46.08 4.28 59 Houston 1.04 7.34 1.05 76 Temple -0.63 -69.69 -3.80 113 South Florida -12.49 -132.91 -14.76 116 Tulsa -16.29 -100.05 -15.71 120 Connecticut -18.29 -120.33 -18.02 128 SMU -29.38 -228.80 -30.67 ____________________________________ 14 Georgia Tech 15.85 101.75 15.49 21 Miami (FL) 9.50 122.58 12.27 22 Florida St. 12.91 71.35 12.06 26 Louisville 9.32 92.09 10.67 27 Clemson 8.30 102.64 10.50 32 Boston Coll. 5.79 63.76 6.95 40 Virginia Tech 5.61 47.46 6.04 45 Virginia 2.59 56.24 4.45 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 -4.16 122 Wake Forest -13.37 -190.87 -18.16 _______________________________________ 1 Ohio St. 27.11 195.50 27.54 4 Michigan St. 22.57 197.16 24.60 12 Wisconsin 14.24 168.93 17.67 19 Nebraska 14.07 86.68 13.58 30 Minnesota 8.48 43.36 7.75 44 Penn St. 3.10 59.92 4.97 49 Iowa 2.11 40.95 3.39 55 Michigan 0.79 35.23 2.23 70 Northwestern -2.46 -4.44 -1.85 75 Rutgers -4.22 -18.05 -3.69 80 Maryland -1.29 -68.27 -4.17 89 Illinois -4.06 -77.75 -6.47 91 Purdue -6.70 -46.48 -6.72 100 Indiana -9.47 -67.32 -9.57 ____________________________________ 3 TCU 25.51 158.30 24.67 6 Baylor 20.08 183.50 22.27 13 Oklahoma 16.35 110.62 16.26 17 Kansas St. 14.92 82.68 13.95 28 West Virginia 6.62 103.69 9.43 52 Texas 1.64 31.93 2.64 88 Oklahoma St. -4.04 -65.02 -5.84 90 Texas Tech -9.36 -7.34 -6.60 110 Iowa St. -12.27 -113.89 -13.69 115 Kansas -13.70 -123.10 -15.10 _______________________________________ 7 Marshall 20.69 162.38 21.66 20 Louisiana Tech 15.26 57.78 12.97 53 West. Kentucky 3.43 4.53 2.51 60 UAB 1.26 3.30 1.00 77 Rice -4.06 -27.07 -4.02 82 UTEP -5.69 -25.28 -5.02 84 Middle Tenn. St. -4.17 -52.15 -5.31 96 Florida Intl. -6.51 -102.20 -9.29 99 Old Dominion -10.47 -53.25 -9.56 104 Tulane -13.45 -36.37 -10.73 108 Florida Atlantic -11.69 -106.18 -12.93 111 UT-San Antonio -12.23 -118.66 -13.90 114 Southern Miss -14.98 -101.83 -14.92 123 North Texas -17.65 -140.74 -18.58 ________________________________________ 34 Notre Dame 5.31 57.14 6.31 41 BYU 5.72 45.08 6.00 48 Navy 4.25 28.15 4.20 118 Army -15.38 -139.21 -17.00 ________________________________________ 58 W. Michigan 2.06 -5.47 1.11 64 Toledo -1.27 22.85 0.26 69 Northern Illinois -0.67 -26.90 -1.75 74 Cent. Michigan -4.95 -1.20 -3.36 92 Ohio -8.36 -31.47 -7.10 93 Buffalo -9.74 -18.32 -7.38 95 Ball St. -4.48 -129.01 -9.24 97 Miami (OH) -9.27 -66.75 -9.41 98 Akron -9.63 -63.42 -9.49 105 Bowling Green -9.51 -93.55 -10.87 109 Massachusetts -14.24 -82.46 -13.49 117 Kent St. -15.50 -134.54 -16.85 127 East. Michigan -28.78 -215.92 -29.64 ________________________________________ 15 Boise St. 13.98 124.24 15.34 29 Colorado St. 8.37 50.45 8.02 56 Utah St. 3.19 -0.32 2.11 66 Air Force 1.76 -30.51 -0.30 67 San Diego St. -2.49 18.96 -0.74 68 Nevada 1.75 -48.59 -1.19 101 Wyoming -11.43 -43.37 -9.72 102 Fresno St. -9.27 -74.84 -9.81 103 San Jose St. -16.18 16.40 -9.99 106 Hawaii -11.35 -89.57 -11.90 112 New Mexico -10.95 -142.94 -14.23 124 UNLV -19.34 -153.00 -20.30 _______________________________________ 5 Oregon 24.51 144.35 23.33 23 UCLA 11.13 92.78 11.92 24 USC 11.60 65.33 10.90 25 Stanford 9.33 93.87 10.77 31 Arizona 10.09 14.58 7.43 36 Arizona St. 8.44 12.92 6.25 57 Washington 4.82 -23.99 2.05 63 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 -5.36 87 Colorado -7.31 -13.15 -5.51 _________________________________________ 39 Georgia Southern 5.29 54.72 6.18 50 Arkansas St. 2.38 31.49 3.11 61 Appalachian State -2.44 50.66 0.83 73 LA Lafayette -2.02 -27.66 -2.69 83 Texas St. -5.91 -27.45 -5.27 86 South Alabama -6.29 -26.69 -5.49 94 LA Monroe -10.07 -51.04 -9.19 107 Idaho -14.99 -47.19 -12.28 121 Troy -18.90 -113.13 -18.08 125 New Mexico St. -23.33 -149.27 -22.79 126 Georgia State -24.57 -145.30 -23.41 ________________________________________ 2 Alabama 24.82 197.05 26.09 8 Mississippi 21.94 139.97 21.40 9 Auburn 18.68 161.85 20.29 10 Georgia 20.39 113.67 19.10 11 Mississippi St. 19.51 107.58 18.22 16 Arkansas 15.78 92.47 15.00 18 LSU 13.53 95.33 13.64 33 Missouri 7.90 34.29 6.93 35 Florida 6.73 37.41 6.30 38 Tennessee 7.19 29.14 6.21 51 Texas A&M 5.34 -10.76 3.04 54 South Carolina 2.21 19.62 2.42 81 Kentucky -3.86 -35.36 -4.29 119 Vanderbilt -17.59 -125.89 -17.82

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

 

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

Sign in to follow this  
×