See you on the other site

I've moved all action to http://www.cfbtn.com/  Check it out.

CFBTN vs. Vegas, The Bowls

Vegas and CFBTN are within 5 points for every bowl game. 

CFBTN vs. Vegas week 14

CFBTN and Vegas disagree by more than a field goal on one game this week. Vegas likes Oregon by 31.5 but CFBTN likes the Ducks by a more conservative 25. Either way, a conference championship game in which neither of the participants are the top-ranked in their division and one is favored by more than 4 touchdowns falls a bit short.

The Leach Effect

With the UCLA job opening up, we are hearing Leach-talk again. And I am again hearing from the ignorant masses that what Leach did at Texas Tech wasn't all that impressive - e.g., he may have scored a lot of points, but he never won a conference championship. This view is the result of ignorance and bias, and I hope to do my part to relieve that.

1) Tech was more than a quick strike offense. Leach was consistently winning 9 games against a very difficult schedule, and that takes more than a high-flying offense. People forget that Tech was playing in the best offensive division in the country and they gave up a few points as a result, but the Tech D was getting better. Since Tubberville's arrival, the opponent's numbers on the scoreboard have gotten bigger, not smaller. 

2) Have you ever been to Lubbock? To criticize Leach for not winning a Big 12 title is missing the point. That he was competing for a Big 12 South title against OU and Texas in less than a decade after arriving is remarkable - west Texas has more cows than people, let alone D1 talent. Leach was worth at least 2 wins a season during his stay and the program was on its way up. 

Vegas vs. CFBTN Week 13

CFBTN and Vegas disagree by more than 4 points on only 4 games this week. CFBTN likes the home team in each one, and in a couple of cases by a good margin. 

CFBTN vs. Vegas Week 12

CFBTN and Vegas disagree on five teams by more than a touchdown this week.

Vegas and CFBTN are within a touchdown on every game this week. Highlighted games are those where the two disagree by more than four points.

CFBTN predicts future. . . line moves

I've been noticing a pattern this season. When CFBTN and Vegas disagree, the line tends to move to be closer to the CFBTN prediction. In fact, in week 11, the CFBTN-line open and current line-line open had a correlation of .498. What does this mean? People tend to bet the same side that CFBTN is predicting . . . but that doesn't mean either of us is right.

CFBTN vs. Vegas

CFBTN and Vegas disagree on five teams by more than a touchdown this week.

Vegas and CFBTN are within a touchdown on every game this week. Highlighted games are those where the two disagree by more than five points.

CFBTN vs. Vegas week 10

The first chart has individual team point totals. CFBTN predicts more points for teams above the line than Vegas does. The second chart is points margins. CFBTN would take the road team for games above the line and the home team for games below the line.

CFBTN vs. Vegas, week 8

The first chart is predicted scores for individual teams according to Vegas and CFBTN. I've highlighted those teams where we disagree by more than a touchdown. Teams in red are road teams, blue are home teams.

The second chart is predicted margin. Again, highlighted games are those that we disagree on by more than a touchdown. Vegas likes the road team more than I do in games below the line.

Boy, did I get that wrong

Sometimes, the best methods still get it wrong. Below are all game prediction and outcomes so far this season. Named games are those that CFBTN got wrong by more than 4 touchdowns. The vertical axis is the actually margin and the horizontal axis is the predicted outcome.

A Tale of Two Halves

Some teams in college football have already faced their toughest tests, while others have a rougher road ahead of them. Teams above the line have a tougher SOS in the second half of the season than in the first.

Vegas vs. CFBTN

This is a chart of the margin according to CFBTN and Vegas for week 7. There are six games in which Vegas and I disagree by more than a touchdown. I like the home team more in those games that are above the line. 

When Good Predictions Go Bad

Some outcomes in college football are unexpected. While the predictions here are within two touchdowns of the actual outcome about 65% of the time, the algorithm is occasionally off by as much as 4 or 5 touchdowns. So far this season, the model has been off by 4 touchdowns or more 6 times. Across the bottom below are the predicted outcomes and the vertical axis has the actual margins. 

Probability of Double Digit Wins

By week 6 we already have a number of games behind us and a better idea of how things will go in the upcoming games. A few teams have already been eliminated from double digit win contention mathematically and others will be eliminated soon enough because they just aren't good enough. Below are the teams with the best odds of making it to ten wins or more in 2011.

Week 5 Over-Ranked Rankings

Rankings in college football are subjective, but they are only subjective because we have failed to defined what exactly it is we are ranking. With the BPR, I have developed a definition that I think best approximates the general opinion of what it is that we should be ranking. Basically, it evaluates a team's win/loss record against the strength of opposition that team has faced. 

It is, then, against the BPR poll that I evaluate other national polls. Below, I have ranked teams by the amount they are over-ranked in the combined AP and Coaches polls. Red teams are over-ranked and green teams are under-ranked. In general, over-ranked teams are those that were ranked high to begin the season but have lost in games against top-quality opponents. Human pollsters do not want to punish these teams too much for losing a tough game, but my computer is still waiting for them to prove they belong. Under-ranked teams are those that have won big games but the human pollsters are still waiting to see if they are legitimate or one-hit wonders.

Stat of the Week - # of Plays

So far this season, Auburn's opponents have run 101 more plays than the Tigers, putting them well behind the second worst FBS team in play differential (Tulsa at -73). But in those 100 fewer plays, Auburn has score 13 more points than their opponents (and in just the right proportion to put Auburn at 3-1). In fact, the correlation this season between play differential and point differential is only .279, with Oregon and LSU also among the teams that have defended more plays than they have run themselves.

What do all of these teams have in common? What do all good teams have in common? Higher yards per play than their opponents. Oregon, for example, has been averaging more than 2 yards per play more than their opponents this season. Across teams, the correlation between points per possession and plays per possession is only r=.274 while the correlation between points per possession and yards  per play is a massive .878. In other words, few teams make a living on long, sustained drives. Instead, they score points on big plays and short fields.

And more plays do little to help a team rack up more yards per play by wearing out defenses. The correlation between yard per play and number of plays is weak, and can be totally explained by plays per possession - teams get more plays because they get more first downs. In other words, more plays on their own do nothing to increase a team's offensive efficiency.

BPR Poll Week 4

BPR is the ultimate in computer ranking. (Click here for an explanation.)
 

Don't be Naive: Conference Realignment is NOT about Greed

In real life, I'm a social scientist. I, like other social scientists, study human behavior and the factors that influence decision making. And I'm better at it than most. And if you think college football realignment is motivated by greed, you're just being silly and naive.

In short, too many people are making the leap that because a decision will generate more revenue for an institution, this decision is motivated by greed, the "excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions". (People make the same mistake when discussing the actions of "the government" or of "the state", as though it is a single-minded entity.) But institutions do not make decisions, people within institutions make decisions, so to understand the incentives at work, we must understand how these decision-making individuals benefit from conference realignment. How do the boards of regents, university presidents and, to a lesser degree, athletic directors benefit?

Before we visit this question, though, let me pose another question - if a football program generates more revenue, where does that revenue go? Who benefits? Some goes to pay for better coaches and some to pay for better facilities. Some money goes to pay for field hockey and water polo (coaches, facility maintenance, equipment, travel), especially as budget crises pull funds from these smaller sports. So the real beneficiaries are coaches, school bus drivers, the people that build indoor practice facilities, and the college athletes themselves. While these people may be whispering in the collective ears of the decision makers, they are kept well away from the controls, and coaches, outside of Norman, Oklahoma, generally try to distance themselves from realignment talk.

And then there are the college football fans. Many fans of particular programs are screaming for realignment, and some boosters, like the coaches and indoor practice facility builders, may occasionally have the ear of a university president, but they, again, are not the one's making the decisions. And even if they did have more influence, fans and boosters are not looking to make a buck from realignment. They want the resources and exposure to attract and train better athletes and better football teams.

And now we return to the real decision makers. What motivates R. Bowen Loftin and Kenneth Star? People in these positions are not looking to make an extra buck wherever they can - their reputation among a class of intellectuals is worth far more. And Loftin will not make more money and Star less money when A&M leaves for the SEC, at least not directly or immediately - or ever. But they are judged for their management of university resources, including the athletic departments. Finding funding for bull riding in a budget crisis is a feather in their cap. Finding the resources to hire the best coaches and build the best facilities to build a better college football program is a much bigger feather, or perhaps even the cap itself (so much so, that the other feathers are sometimes lost). The people that Loftin has to please are not interested in how much money the football program is generating for its own sake, but, like the fans, they appreciate a football program that brings positive attention to the university.

So while there are many people that want realignment, and want the extra revenue from realignment, they-fans, coaches, athletic directors, university presidents, boosters, everyone but the builders of indoor practice facilites-are ultimately motivated by building a better football program and, to a much lesser extent, a better volleyball program. They aren't greedy - money is only a means - but the best things in life aren't free. And I will never criticize anyone - athlete, coach, fan, booster, university administrator - for wanting their football to be a better football team.

BPR Poll

BPR is the ultimate in computer ranking. (Click here for an explanation.)