Testing Matchup Myth #1: the Rematch

Myth #1: It's hard to beat the same team twice in one season
Myth #2: You can throw out the records for a rivalry game

In this first edition of the two part series, I will be taking on myth #1.

Billy Sims and the Sooners would
get revenge and redemption

The principal idea seems to be that the winner of the first game has less to prove in round 2, is overconfident entering the game, and therefore does not prepare as well or play as hard. The game 1 loser is looking for revenge or redemption.

In modern-era college football, teams play a second time in a bowl game or conference championship game. This is important for two reasons: first, it means that the teams are relatively evenly matched; second, it means that there is a whole new set of motivational variables (e.g. if the team is happy or disappointed to be in that particular bowl game) that will dilute the importance of seeking revenge or redemption for the loser.

There is a second countervailing logic: the winner of the first game already divined a game plan that wins. The loser will need to reevaluate its game plan, and faces a degree of uncertainty that the game plan will be effective. In other words, if the two teams are otherwise evenly matched, the team that won the first game has a better chance of winning the second game precisely because it won the first game.

The Choke at Doak: 31-3 to 31-31; The 5th quarter
in the French Quarter was no better for Florida

So, let's look at the numbers. Since 1950, there have been 49 rematches in college football. (Florida State tied in game 1 in 1994 - the infamous Choke at Doak.) The average score in game 1 has been 29.5-16.4, and in game 2, 31.0-17.7. Home teams were 31-16-1 in game 1. Most game 2s were played on neutral fields; home teams were only 4-6.

Game 1 winners were 29-18 in second games (62%). Simplistically, 62% is less than 100%, so game 1 losers did better in game 2, but 62% is also more than 50%, so game 1 winners were still more likely to win game 2.

Thinking about this logically, the team that won the first game was probably the better team, and so we would expect them to win the second game more often than not. Based on their performance throughout the season, we would have expected game 1 winners to win 61% of game 2s. In reality, they won 62%. In other words, game 1 winners improved their chances of winning the rematch by 1 percentage point.

BYU/UCLA 2007

On average, game 1 winners won the rematch 26.4 to 22.5. We would have expected game 1 winners to win 26.6 to 22.0 on average. That means game 1 losers outplayed game 2 expectations by .79 points. Based on game 2 scores and a pythagorean-style win/loss adjustment, game 1 losers should have won 45% of game 2s, but they only won 38%. Game 2 losers played slightly better by the scoreboard, but they were unlucky when it came to actually winning games.

In conclusion, it is not hard to beat a team twice in the same season - winning or losing game 1 has no effect on winning or losing game 2. But it is hard to blow a team out twice in the same season. So Nebraska/Washington Part II might be closer than 55-21, but don't expect Washington to pull off the upset just because they lost the first time around.

BYU wins despite setbacks

BYU WINS, and they do so without their all conference linebacker and running back. They win despite giving away the ball three times inside their 30. And Max Hall was hobbled himself. OU obviously wasn't at full strength, but lets remember that they only scored 10 points in the first half with Bradford on the field. Before we start making excuses for Oklahoma at the expense of BYU, lets just remember that BYU outgained Oklahoma in the first half (because Bradford didn't have any protection) and led in every major statistical category besides turnovers at the end of the game. I hope Sam Bradford makes a speedy recovery and earns millions in the NFL, but we need to recognize that, today, his football team was not as good as Max Hall's football team.

This week's games: BYU vs. Oklahoma

I am posting two sets of graphs to compare teams that will be playing this week. One set shows how the teams have performed from 1994 to 2008 using the Matrix Hybrid rating. The second shows the trend-O-meter rating from 2008. Enjoy.

BYU was moving in the wrong direction last season, in large part because of the injury to TE Dennis Pitta. Pitta's back, but WR Austin Collie's gone, and the Cougars can only hope that recently returned missionary Mckay Jacobson can make up for Collie's lost production. His ability to do that will depend less on his own talent and more on BYU's relatively inexperienced offensive line. Oklahoma's D-line will be about as good as any in the country, and QB Max Hall could spend a lot of time in a more horizontal position than he might like.

Bradford, though, might also experience more horizontality this season than he has yet as the Sooner QB. If BYU's Jan Jorgensen can disrupt the calm demeanor of OU's offense, BYU could keep Oklahoma under 40. BYU can score 28 against anybody on a good day, so it is possible they keep this game moderately close. It's also possible they lose by 50. And that, my friends, is why we play the games-to see if they will lose by 10 or half a century (or maybe's it really just the big paycheck).

Trend-O-Meter 2008, cont.

Again for a quick explanation, the curve represents a team's trended performance over the course of the season. It is fit to the data points that measure roughly how well a team played in each game. You will notice in some cases that, even when team A beats team B, team B might have a higher score for that week. Essentially, this means that team A won on luck--e.g., bad turnovers, injuries, defensive mistakes for team B.

You will notice that, for the most part, Oklahoma was better than Texas for all but one week, Utah was consistently better than Alabama (though the gap in the lines exaggerates the difference a little), and Michigan was really bad and not getting better under Rich Rod. And before I forget, Washington State really was the worst BCS conference team in the history of the world, even if they did peak just at the right time to take home the apple bowl win.
I've also ranked the top 25 by improvement over the season. This does not include bowl game performances. This year we'll see if NC State and Ole Miss can continue where they finished last season.

I would be happy to produce any other two team comparisons that ya'll might be interested in seeing.

Trend-O-Meter 2008

I will soon be posting the results from the trend-O-meter 2008. For those who are unfamiliar with the concept (and most are since I invented it), the trend-O-meter - formerly known as the trend-O-matic - tracks a teams performance over the course of the season. The curve below follows the performance trends of the teams below.

As you can see, Florida was the best team for most of the season, but particularly after "the speech" and the Ole Miss game. Kudos to Tebow, because they were faced an opponent in the national championship game that was also peaking at the end of the season.

Quick Note: Week 4 Results

1) The BYU Defense-BYU has not allowed a point in two complete games now. The last points against the Cougars were score by Jake Locker and, notably, not Washington's kicker. Inexperience and lack of depth on defense were supposed to be BYU's achille's heel when the season kicked off, but the Y has pitched shoutouts even when they've thrown out the scout team in big blowouts. They aren't Auburn or anything, but as Wyoming's Devin Moore put it, "They were a little faster than I though they were."

2) Auburn/LSU-I don't care what SEC backers say, beating Mississippi State 3-2 is not a good thing, and Auburn finally got a small taste of comeuppance. This was a tight game between two very evenly matched teams that was essential decided by two injuries. The first injury was that inflicted by LSU's Andrew Hatch. QB Jarrett Lee's performance in the first half had been so bad that he was not going to see the field again--until Hatch was knocked unconscious. Then, all of a sudden, Jarrett Lee was back in the spotlight and he couldn't screw up if he tried. Auburn also suffered some breakdowns in the secondary and, for the first time in the game, LSU was able to make them pay.

The second big injury was suffered by Auburn's RB Brad Lester. Ben Tate was going to get most of the carries anyway, but the change of pace between the two was beginning to give LSU some headaches. And as time was running down, Lester could have been used out of the backfield to add a little unpredictability to an otherwise painfully predictable offense.

3) South Florida-the Bulls need to drop a few spots. Beating Kansas was a nice, but needing a big comeback at home-against a team that looks more like a 20-30 type team instead of the top 10 team of last year-does not merit a sub-teen ranking. And now that they have struggled against both UCF and FIU, they are getting no love from me. But, of course, since they play in the Big East, which might not be as good as the MWC from top to bottom this season, they'll probably finish the season with two losses and a trip to a BCS bowl.

4) One fifth of the top 25 is currently held by the MWC and the WAC. These five teams have gone a combined 17-1 over a schedule that has included Oregon, Washington, UCLA, Rutgers, Michigan and Wisconsin, not to mention in-conference foes (and teams that went bowling a year ago) in New Mexico and Air Force. The MWC teams will beat each other up a little, and TCU has a tough task ahead in going to Oklahoma, but if one the three survives the ringer, Boise State or Fresno State wins and Tulsa continues its winning ways, we could be on path to a major BCS logjam.

Bowl Picks 5 - BCS Bowls

Complete Bowl Picks

The Matrix and the folks in Vegas don't seem agree about the BCS matchups. In most cases here, I take the side of the folks in Vegas.


Rose Bowl. Illinois vs. USC

If Illinois were to win this game, they might start next season in the top 5 and Ron Zook would be elected governor of Illinois. The only offense of note in this game is Illinois' run game which will face up against the 2nd most efficient run D in the country. The Illini, though, already beat the 3rd ranked run defense (the Ohio State). Mendenhall is as good of a runningback as any in the country and Juice is another dangerous running back who throws the ball more than most. USC, though, also touts a tough running game that now, in the form of Joe McKnight, is showing a little more explosiveness. USC is the better team and is essentially playing at home, but they don't have the fire power to put Illinois away.

The Matrix - USC by 8.3, 39.8% against the spread

Sugar Bowl. Georgia vs. Hawaii

All season, I wanted this mediocre Hawaii team to lose so they wouldn't get to this point and embarrass the non-BCS fraternity. Hawaii is undefeated because they have played the 105th toughest schedule in the nation - they beat Louisiana Tech by 1, got lucky against San Jose State and have a loss against Nevada in my unofficial record keeping. They are a better team when Colt is on the field, but who's to say Georgia won't get a couple of solid hits and knock him out of the game in the 1st quarter. And QB Colt Brennan will take his shots, because Hawaii has no running game and the Georgia lineman can pin back their ears and speed rush. Georgia's pass D is not spectacular, but it has the speed in the secondary it needs to contain Hawaii's receivers. On the other side, watch RB Knowshon Moreno to have a big game. He is in my RB top five (with McFadden, Charles at Texas, Patrick at OU, and UCF's Kevin Smith). I'm not as impressed with Georgia as others, but I think they have the speed to be where the Hawaii players are and the strength to put them down once they get there.

The Matrix - Georgia by 3.7, 33.1% against the spread

Fiesta Bowl. West Virginia vs. Oklahoma

These two teams would be playing in the national championship game but they suffered freakish upsets when their quarterbacks got knocked out. West Virginia was hit the hardest, because they lost in the very last game to a rival and because they have fewer opportunities to win titles than OU. Now, after being kicked in the gut, Rich Rodriquez has gutted the coaching staff. Pat White will have some time to recover from bruisings, but WVU, a 1-dimensional run offense, will be facing one of the nation's best run defenses. To make matters worse, by the end of the season OU's offense was as effective as as I've seen all year. QB Bradford rarely lets the ball touch the ground or an opponent, and OU's stable of NFL running backs runs through holes opened up by a dominant O-line. And Stoops is a better coach than whoever WVU will be able to pick out from the pee-wee league. Personally, I have loved watching WVU for the last two seasons and hope them the best after Rich jumped ship, so I hope they can at least keep this game close for the first half. If the game stays reasonably close, this will be the game to watch this bowl season.

The Matrix - Oklahoma by 1.2, 35.1% against the spread

Orange Bowl. Virignia Tech vs. Kansas

I agree with everyone else that Missouri, not Kansas, should be in this game. But here's why Kansas is good: QB Todd Reesing has completed more than 60% of his passes for 3200 yards. The human sledgehammer RB Brandon McAnderson has rushed for over 1,000 yards, averaging 6 yards per carry and scoring 16 times. And they have a top 10 defense in adjusted yards per play. Watching the game, I was convinced that Kansas was better than Missouri, but made rare mistakes that cost them the game (and, therefore, Missouri should be in this game). I've only watched two Hokies games in their entirety, and one of those was the slaughtering LSU put on them, so my impressions maybe skewed. But Virginia Tech's "stifling" defense has only managed to stifle two offenses worth noting (BC and Clemson) and Kansas will bring in the best offense they have seen all season. And Virginia Tech will struggle against a Jayhawk defense that has allowed fewer opponent-adjusted yards per play than the Hokies own. It is also significant that Kansas has no significant injuries. On the other hand, Kansas has won all year against inferior opponents with inferior talent and Virginia Tech's speed may be their undoing.

The Matrix - Virginia Tech by .8, 43.1% against the spread

National Champion Game. Ohio State vs. LSU

I was thinking I would make a special blog entry for this game or do something to set it apart until I remembered that I don't actually care all that much about this game. These two teams deserve to be in this game, but this season will go down with 1990 and 1984 as seasons in which a national champion was named only because we feel compelled to name a national champion - not because any team merited the title.

This hogwash about Ohio State not being able to deal with a mobile quarterback is, well, hogwash. Ohio State has a solid defense with real athletes. Only one team broke 20 against the Buckeyes this year, and Illinois (who managed 28, 32 less than Arknasas against LSU) are not similar to LSU in style. And Tressel & Co. can have the athletes to game plan in the two weeks they have running up to the game - and they can watch film on what 13 other teams have tried to stop Crowton's very undynamic offense.

The real story, in my opinion, for this game is going to be the health of LSU. Here is the injury report for LSU from NOLA.com:

Linebacker Darry Beckwith (12/3, right ankle) is probable for the BCS National Championship on 1/7 against Ohio State. Running back Trindon Holliday (12/3, ankle) is probable for the BCS National Championship on 1/7 against Ohio State. Wide receiver Early Doucet (12/3, shoulder) is probable for the BCS National Championship on 1/7 against Ohio State. Quarterback Ryan Perrilloux (12/3, finger) is probable for the BCS National Championship on 1/7 against Ohio State. Quarterback Matt Flynn (12/3, shoulder) is probable for the BCS National Championship on 1/7 against Ohio State. Defensive tackle Charles Alexander (12/3, knee) will miss the BCS National Championship on 1/7 against Ohio State. Guard Will Arnold (12/3, viral infection) is questionable for the BCS National Championship on 1/7 against Ohio State. Left tackle Mark Snyder (12/3, knee) will miss the BCS National Championship on 1/7 against Ohio State.

That's a long list and includes a lot of critical contributors. LSU has better athletes and was dominant before injury slimmed their ranks, and will win if they have their team back.

The Matrix - Ohio State by 1.9, 73.3% against the spread

Week 15 Rankings

Complete Week 14 Ratings Table Here

According to the Matrix, the national championship game already took place, in San Antonio, on Saturday, and Oklahoma won.

I mentioned yesterday how Stoops was trying to manipulate the national championship game with his vote. Well, this is how that kind of manipulation occurs statistically. It is a bootstrap technique. Missouri's rating is dependent on OU's rating because both of Missouri's losses came at the hands of the Sooners. Oklahoma's rating, likewise, depends on Missouri's, because Oklahoma's two biggest wins came against Missouri. When Missouri loses to Oklahoma, Oklahoma's stock is boosted, which lessens the penalty levied on Missouri for losing twice to them, which, again, boosts Oklahoma's stock for having beaten them, etc.

That, of course, does not mean the system is flawed. If you look at the way these two teams have performed, with the exception of Oklahoma's games against Colorado and Tech, you will not find a more impressive record in the country.

Missouri, though still #1, took a hit. Last week, it was consensus number 1 (in all three polls the Matrix generates) with huge leads over everyone but West Virginia. If West Virginia had not managed to choke as no other team has ever choked before or ever will again (Pitt is now the nation's second hottest team according to the Recent rating), Missouri would have dropped to 2 and, in fact, could have potentially dropped below Oklahoma in the Hybrid poll as well.

USC and Ohio State still sit comfortably at #1 and #2 with the nation's best defenses. Florida still has the highest performing offense, but Navy (from the wishbone, no less) is now nipping at the heels of the Gators.

The Vandals have made a strong move to the bottom of the list as the nation's worse team, claiming a title Florida International had been coveting all season. The Gophers are the worst team from a BCS conference - Brewster's really taking things a whole new direction. The amazing thing about the 1-11 season is that it should never happen. Minnesota actually has a history of success in the game, a massive student body (=fans in the stadium and revenue for financing facilities), and is in the Big 10. Ironically, Minnesota payed Brewster more per win than any other team in the country.

That is not the case with football failures SMU and Rice. They were almost competitive for years in the SWC but, like Baylor, cannot compete with the larger schools in Texas - especially since SMU can't get away with putting together the best team money can buy anymore. Despite all the talent in that fine state, Texas has three of the nation's six worst teams (with the Mean Green joining the others at 118). At the other end, Texas has no teams in the top 25 according to the Matrix.

Before moving on, I would like to congratulate Washington for scoring this season's most difficult schedule. Unfortunately, the strength of that schedule is very visible in their record this season.

I thought I would end this with a brief discussion of the rating measures you can find on the table.

Performance - A rating based only on margin of victory and opponent strength.
Potential - Based on the performance rating, but tries to take into account match-ups and "luck" that might have distorted a teams performance rating.
Elo - A rating based on wins and losses and opponent strength.
Hybrid-2 - A combined rating that takes into account the first three rating approaches.
Strength of Schedule (SOS) - this is the mean of a team's opponents' ratings. I have included it as an additional piece of information - it is not used in the calculations of any ratings.
Recent - A rating of a team's recent performance relative to its average performance - a Recent rating does not mean that a team is good, only that it is playing better than before.
Consistent - the consistency rating is read like a golf score - a low number means the team has been relatively predictable.
Efficiencies - These are relatively self-explanatory. A higher number means that a team has demonstrated a higher level of efficiency in that area.

Complete Week 14 Ratings Table Here

Week 14 Picks

Complete Picks Here

The schedule is short this week, and with blockbusters like Miami (OH) hosting Central Michigan and Tulsa going to Central Florida, it will be easier to focus on the more important games. Several conference championships and the entire slate of BCS bowl match ups will be decided this weekend. And, of course, the Cadets and Midshipmen have their annual showdown - that everyone pretends to care about.

Game 1. Missouri vs. Oklahoma

Missouri is playing in the most important game of the week for the second time in a row. When they played in Norman, they combined for 72 points. I wouldn't be surprised if they combined for 90 this week. Statistically, Oklahoma is better on offense, defense (in terms of opponent-adjusted efficiency), and at scoring points. Missouri is better at beating around Colorado and Tech. The Matrix gives a strong edge to the Tigers - the most likely team this weekend to cover - but I will be surprised if Missouri loses by less than last time. Missouri deserves to be #1, but Oklahoma has more talent, experience, and a much bigger chip on the shoulder. I got to watch OU, Kansas and Missouri play A&M in successive weeks, and the Sooners were head and shoulders above the other two in those games.

The Matrix - Missouri by 10, 89.5% chance to cover

Game 2. UCLA @ USC

The Buckeyes would be wise to keep a close eye on this game. If USC wins and Missouri wins, they'll have to go into the Rose Bowl. If that happens, the Big-10 will get embarrassed for a second year in a row. The Ohio State wouldn't get into double digits against USC. USC will beat the Bruins, win in the Rose Bowl, and start next year off at #1 again.

The Matrix - USC by 15.2, 43.9% chance to cover

Game 3. LSU vs. Tennessee

This game was a couple of two point conversions short of being hugely important. LSU's defense is limping into this game and will need to win this game by putting points on the board. Tennessee has been unpredictable, and have been especially vulnerable away from Neyland, but LSU couldn't blow out my high school team. First team to 30 will win.

The Matrix - LSU by 12.8, 62.9% chance against the spread

Game 4. Navy @ Army

In my opinion, the only things funner to watch than Navy's offense in college football is McFadden operating from the shotgun. Army has worse pass D efficiency than Utah State and a worse run D efficiency than the Black Shirts - and that's really bad. But Navy has the worse defense in this game, and maybe the entire nation. Navy is favored by 14, and they will need to score 70 to cover.

The Matrix - Navy by 2.5, 13.2% chance to cover

If the Matrix is correct, we should see Missouri and West Virginia in the championship game, Boston College and Georgia in the Orange Bowl, Ohio State and USC in the Rose Bowl, Kansas and Arizona State in the Fiesta Bowl, and LSU against Hawaii in New Orleans.

Complete Picks Here

Week 12 Picks

Complete Week 12 Predictions Here

Last week was not a great week for the Matrix (about 40% against the spread). I was able to identify some flaws, and I'm hoping it will perform better from here on out.

This isn't an exciting week. Michigan and Ohio State is suddenly much less interesting.
A lot of high ranking teams are on the road, but generally against softer competition.

This week I am reporting two point margins - Season and Recent. Obviously, the second gives more weight to recent performances. In most cases, this is rather insignificant, but not always. Iowa State makes up 10 points against Kansas (who hasn't been playing badly), but is still 30 from winning.

Game 1. (6) West Virginia @ (22) Cincinnati
Obviously, Cincinnati could win. West Virginia is very dependent on their running game and Cincinnati is tough against the run. Playing at home doesn't hurt either (and it means we don't have to watch West Virginia in bright yellow). But I could also see West Virginia scoring early and often and winning easily.

West Virginia by 2.6 (1.8), 37.9% against the spread

Game 2. (7) Ohio State @ (21) Michigan

This game does not have national title implications, but it does have Big 10 and bragging right implications that matter just as much to those involved. The Matrix ranks Ohio State as the second best defensive team in the country (only LSU is better). Michigan has filled in the holes in the secondary and now actually ranks higher in pass defense than run defense. Their are no obvious match-up issues, and Michigan only has a slight advantage in terms of recent performance, but Ohio State is just a much better team.

Ohio State by 9.2 (8.4), 75% chance of winning

Game 3. (4) Oklahoma @ Texas Tech

Statistically, this game should be much different than most people assume. Tech might lead the nation in yards, but Oklahoma is 3rd in points, 2.5 more per game than Tech. Oklahoma plays killer defense against the run, but is little above average, and worse than Tech, against the pass. Tech will move the ball and will score some points. Tech hasn't played better at home this season and throughout the year all the biggest upsets have happened on the road. But if Oklahoma got down early, it could be tough to come back in Lubbock.

Oklahoma by 10.3 (10.9), 85% chance of winning

Game 4. (17) Boston College @ (15) Clemson

These two teams are playing for a chance to play in the ACC championship game. For Clemson, it would be redemption after a sloppy start. For BC, they are trying to save a season that was flushed the last two weeks. Clemson will want to run the ball, but BC is tough against the run. BC will want to throw and Clemson plays good pass defense. But Clemson has emerged as the better team over the last few weeks and, playing at home, is definitely the favorite to win again. BC, though, will try to avoid falling from undefeated and #2 to 8-3 and unranked in 15 days.

Clemson by 7.5 (9.4), 80% chance of winning

Why Some Teams are Good, Part 2 - The Importance of Population

Obviously, a team has a better chance of landing a recruit if he lives nearby (or, in the case of Joe McKnight, they might be wishing they had stayed closer to home). In this blog I provide some evidence to support a claim I made in part 1 that increasing population increased the talent pool and, therefore, led to better football teams.

I picked 8 states more or less at random. I tried to include states from a variety of regions, with a variety of sizes and that have experienced a variety of population trends. I have included both Nebraska and Oklahoma, and, honestly, I don't know why.

Ratings come from Soren Sorenson, who you will find listed in the Statistics Hall of Fame. I have added 5000 to all scores so that they are all positive (Sorenson's system ranges from -4000 to +4000, +or- a thousand). Population data is drawn from the Census. Census data is collected every ten years and I have used my own estimates to fill in the gaps.

I have looked at states as a whole, adding together the ratings of all teams in that state, because teams in the same state recruit for players in the same talent pool. For now, I am ignoring population growth in the region (e.g. Georgia benefits from population growth in Florida), and characteristics of the population (e.g. old people in Arizona don't play football), but some day I will look at those issues in more detail.

So, first we begin in 1950.

The 8 states are Nebraska and Oklahoma, which I already mentioned, Florida, Arizona, New York, Indiana, North Carolina and Alabama. The graphic on the left shows the teams as they were ranked in 1950, color coded by state. Florida State, UCF, USF, and Buffalo did not have D 1 programs at the time (or, in some cases, did not have a football team, or just started admitting boys to the school).

This chart is important because, from here on, I will be focusing on indexed values for the state, so that indexed value will always reference back to this starting point. For example, 1950 was a good year for Oklahoma and Army (perhaps the two best teams in the country). This will be important to keep in mind.

This next chart demonstrates an important principle as well. This compares the percent of the total points held by a state (with their scores added together) of all the points available against the percent of the US population in that state. So, New York, despite Army's success, was under-performing. Anyone who has been to a high school football game in Dallas and in Rochester knows why this is happening. It shouldn't surprise anyone that Oklahoma performed the best giving their population size. Alabama was facing a unique challenge in segregation. It would be another 20 years before Sam Bam Cunningham would convince Bear Bryant to integrate, allowing Alabama to dip much deeper in its talent pool.

The population of most states would grew over the next 50 years, but some grew much faster than others. Florida and Arizona are good examples of states that blew up in terms of population, while New York stagnated.

In the following charts, I present data for each state in terms of their performance and their population over the 5 decades from 1950 to 2000. The black line is the team's performance. It is a running four year average which I use under the assumption that players from a cohort will play for a team for four years. The red line is the indexed population, where 100 is equal to the population in 1950. The blue line is based on the same principle, but represents the percent of the US population represented by that state, so that if a team's population is growing slower, but slower than the entire US, the blue line will fall but the red line will rise. The red line, therefore, represents the real talent pool and the blue line the relative talent pool, and because teams are good relative to each other, we should focus on the blue line. (You can click the charts to see a bigger version.)


Nebraska had some kicking teams in the 70's and the mid to late 90's, which shows up in their chart. The population as a percent of the US population was actually going down, but Nebraska kept spitting out world class teams. It makes me think that Osborne may have been a much better coach than we give him credit for. Arizona's performance isn't improving with its rapidly growing population. I think two things are at issue. First, Arizona doesn't have as strong of a football culture as the rest of the South and, second, Arizona's programs might be experiencing a bit of a lag.

I was a little surprised to see how well Indiana fits the pattern. Notre Dame has a unique advantage to recruit nationally and should be able to overcome general demographic shifts. Notre Dame claims their challenges are rooted in high academic standards, so I guess I'll have to look at that claim another day.

Alabama has been generally outplaying its population since the 50's but, like all the others, its performance is generally falling with the decline in its relative population size. The effect of integration on performance is still a little unclear, but something I will definitely look at more closely in the future.

But the overall results from this little experiment are clear--population trends in a region definitely effect the performance of that regions teams. The black lines tend to go where ever the blue lines are going. It also shows that we can't ignore culture, quality of coaches and the power of programs to attract players from long distances.