Connect with your Facebook Account

Contact

16

The Pros and Cons of Being a Consistent Football Team

Posted by Huckleberry on January 8th, 2009 under Football

Many ratings systems are based on the idea that a sports team’s (or athlete’s) performance is normally distributed about their true strength. This true strength is estimated, then, to be the mean of the normal distribution and is what the system will spit out as the team’s final rating. This idea that a team has a true strength around which their performances are normally distributed is both logical and convenient for the computers.

The question is raised, though, about the standard deviation of performances. A consistent athlete or team should show a low standard deviation in their performances while an inconsistent team, of course, should have a high standard deviation. As usual, I will begin by issuing a few warnings regarding the information I’m going to present. In order to calculate a team’s standard deviation (or consistency), you have to assume that their opponent in each game was playing at its mean. With the limited number of data points in a college football season, it seems entirely possible that a team may be fortunate enough to catch more teams on bad days than good days or vice versa, and to do so in a high enough percentage to affect their consistency rating. And that warning includes what should always be considered when dealing with statistical analysis of college football – there aren’t enough data points to be completely sure about most things we care about. Sure there’s enough data to tell me that Florida should practically never lose to North Texas, but delineations between teams of similar strength don’t come with a great amount of confidence in this sport. (Playoff, anyone?)

I calculated each team’s consistency rating based on their power score for each game played. This power score can essentially be viewed to be the margin of victory in each game compared to the margin of victory an average opponent playing an average game would have against that opponent when the opponent played an average game. That’s a lot of average; I almost feel like I’m discussing Texas A&M recruiting. For this analysis I focused only on Division 1A teams and matchups.

Most Consistent Teams
Rank Team SDEV
1 Texas A&M 8.35
2 Air Force 8.50
3 Georgia 8.71
4 Miami (FL) 9.11
5 TCU 9.29
6 Akron 9.38
7 Virginia Tech 9.39
8 Boston College 9.57
9 Nebraska 9.71
10 Syracuse 9.72
Least Consistent Teams
Rank Team SDEV
1 Tulsa 23.39
2 San Diego St. 20.49
3 New Mexico 19.86
4 Rutgers 19.07
5 UTEP 18.68
6 Maryland 18.42
7 North Carolina St. 18.10
8 Virginia 18.08
9 Texas Tech 18.06
10 Missouri 17.82
Top 10 Power Teams w/ Consistency
Rank Team Power SDEV Cons Rk
1 Florida 63.67 12.25 46
2 Oklahoma 62.63 14.37 86
3 Southern Cal 60.19 12.99 62
4 Texas 57.20 10.33 20
5 Penn St. 53.47 11.14 31
6 Texas Tech 47.40 18.06 112
7 TCU 46.23 9.26 5
8 Missouri 45.82 17.82 111
9 Ohio St. 45.60 13.44 70
10 Utah 45.11 11.92 40

A few items about the tables:

  1. Texas A&M – the most consistent team in the nation. I’m sure this will become a point of pride, but as I’ll discuss later, a bad team doesn’t really want to be consistent.
  2. Georgia – a little surprising they were this consistent, but then you realize that they beat the teams they should have and got whipped by the teams they shouldn’t have.
  3. Texas Tech – No surprise at all.
  4. Ohio State – Normally viewed as a consistent team, they are slightly less consistent than average. I chalk this one up to the Pryor and Wells situations.
  5. As you can see, every team in college football had a standard deviation of more than a touchdown, all the way up to over three touchdowns for Tulsa.

Pros and Cons

Normally when people discuss college football teams, everyone talks about wanting to be a consistent football team. What they mean, or should mean, is that they want to be a consistently good football team. When you consider the problem of maximizing your team’s wins during the season, if you are a good football team whose opponents are all or nearly all worse than your team (the mean of the distribution) then you will want to be extremely consistent. This is because upsets are more probable when an inconsistent team is involved. By the same token, if you are a bad football team that will be playing mostly opponents that are better than your team, then consistency isn’t really something you should strive for if you want to win the most games possible. A team that is bad and plays at a consistent level will not get up for an upset. A team that is bad and plays inconsistently might put out a real stinker, but they are also more likely to upset a better team.

Take Texas A&M for example. They were a bad football team this year, but their performances were the most consistent in the nation. If we know that the Aggies are team whose performances averaged out to their power rating of 19.48, doesn’t it make sense that they would rather play half their games at a 34.48 level and half at a 4.48 level instead of all at their average strength? When playing games against a schedule that averaged 35.45 in terms of power ratings, a team with a 19.48 rating will win more games by being inconsistent than by being a consistent squad. The bottom line is that if you’re going to suck, you want to do it erratically.

On the other hand, there’s Texas Tech. A team with a relatively high power rating will want to play consistently against lower-rated teams. I won’t elaborate here as the reasons should be obvious. However, it should be noted that a team’s power rating is less important to whether or not they should be consistent than their schedule. Tech, while #6 in the power ratings, actually played two teams with higher ratings. Being inconsistent helps against those two teams as far as increasing the expected value in terms of wins. And in reality, that’s what happened with the Red Raiders this year. With no standard deviation, they would have been expected to lose to both Texas and Oklahoma by comfortable margins. Instead they upset Texas in a close game and got destroyed by Oklahoma due to inconsistency (at least partially known as the Lubbock factor in Tech’s case).

Expected Wins in a True Round Robin

My power ratings only display the mean of a team’s distribution. Taking the distribution of all the team’s power ratings, then, and normalizing each team’s specific rating enabled us to give a percentage chance that one team would beat another. This method, though, did not account for the consistency of each team and we’ve shown that this will have an effect. Now that we have identified each team’s rating as a normal distribution of its own we can recalculate that percentage in each case thanks to the property of the sum of normally distributed variables.

Furthermore, thanks to my favorite toy, Excel, we can simulate a complete round robin of Division 1A football using this calculation. There are many things we can look at after doing this, including seeing how changing a specific team’s consistency changes their expected win total out of the 119 matchups. We can also compare a team’s rank in expected wins to their rank in power rating. We would expect that highly rated teams with poor consistency would fall in the rankings and that lowly rated teams with poor consistency would rise.

So let’s begin with the Aggies and Red Raiders. In a full round robin, based on their current rating and standard deviation, Texas A&M’s expected value in wins would be about 45.5 according to this calculation while the Red Raiders would have an EV of 94.6 wins. If we simply switch their standard deviation values, the Aggies EV goes up to 48.2 wins while the Red Raiders’ goes up to 101.0 wins. This makes sense based on the theory that consistency helps a good team’s expected wins and hurts a bad team’s expected wins.

Below is a table of the Top 25 in the power ratings along with their power rating, power rating rank, expected winning percentage in a true round robin, and their expected winning percentage rank. Thankfully it just so happened that nobody went into or out of the Top 25.

Rank Team Power SDEV Rk EWP EWPRk
1 Florida 63.67 12.25 46 0.952 1
2 Oklahoma 62.63 14.37 86 0.938 2
3 Southern Cal 60.19 12.99 62 0.931 3
4 Texas 57.20 10.33 20 0.925 4
5 Penn State 53.47 11.14 31 0.894 5
6 Texas Tech 47.40 18.06 112 0.795 10
7 TCU 46.23 9.29 5 0.832 6
8 Missouri 45.82 17.82 111 0.779 13
9 Ohio State 45.60 13.44 70 0.802 8
10 Utah 45.11 11.92 40 0.805 7
11 Alabama 44.81 12.45 48 0.798 9
12 Oregon 44.34 12.63 52 0.792 11
13 Mississippi 43.96 15.26 93 0.772 15
14 Iowa 43.33 15.68 97 0.762 17
15 Boise St 43.17 11.03 29 0.785 12
16 Oklahoma St 43.00 13.98 79 0.767 16
17 California 42.58 11.81 37 0.773 14
18 Arizona 41.14 12.56 51 0.750 18
19 Florida St 40.28 12.00 41 0.741 19
20 Oregon St 40.12 14.08 83 0.728 21
21 Georgia 39.21 8.71 3 0.740 20
22 North Carolina 37.34 17.73 109 0.672 24
23 Nebraska 36.80 9.71 9 0.698 22
24 Kansas 35.74 14.01 81 0.664 25
25 Clemson 35.26 9.77 11 0.673 23

According to this model, Florida is a little over a one-point favorite tonight, has a 52.2% chance of winning, and has a 39.6% chance of covering the current 6-point line.

More from this Barker


Share This

  • StumbleUpon

16 Responses

  1. Thornton Melon said:

    January 8th, 2009 at 1:55 pm

    I feel like I just gave birth… to an accountant!

  2. dasmithjones said:

    January 8th, 2009 at 2:03 pm

    Okay dude!

  3. I’m too stupid to talk to you Huck.

  4. Just for fun, what happens if you extend it out multiple years?

  5. I’m too stupid to talk to you Huck.

    I doubt that. I’ve talked to HenryJames before.

  6. Dude.

  7. I’m interested in performing the analysis on other seasons, but scoring environment changes might make combining seasons difficult. I haven’t looked at it that closely yet.

    One of the reasons I want to run last year is to run a sanity check using Oregon. They should have a higher than average standard deviation because of Dixon’s injury.

  8. Using data from the previous season or two (addressing the reduced confidence in some way) might improve the data set. Yes, teams do sometimes have major differences from one season to the next, but in most cases I expect it would look more like a trend line.

    Disclaimer: We’re well beyond my statistical knowledge here. Stats 301 was an awful long time ago.

  9. What a fascinating….zzzzzz.

  10. As long as your analysis confirms atm consistently sucks, I couldn’t give a rat’s ass for the rest of the information. I do, however, really appreciate all the hard work and effort. What do you forsee for the USA’s IRR on TARP fund investments?

  11. LonghornScott said:

    January 8th, 2009 at 6:12 pm

    Huck,

    I’ve been toying with the idea of a similar analysis for a long time. The std dev of a good team is hugely important, imo. I think the final ranking you came up with there might just be the best ranking system I’ve seen.

  12. Seems like the idea of playoffs is the best way to go the more I hear about it. Down with the BCS!

    Here’s a very relevant video about how the BCS robbed us Longhorns of our rightful shot at the title this year:

    “BCS without the “C” – Texas should be #1

  13. maybe not as relevant as I originally thought…but I have to say that this had me laughing:
    “I feel like I just gave birth… to an accountant!”

  14. Now, who here likes a good story about a bridge?

  15. pleaseplaykindle said:

    January 9th, 2009 at 3:10 am

    Teams with higher power ratings will naturally have higher standard deviation. Basically, I’m saying its easier to be consistently bad than consistently good. This seems trivial, but it has the effect that teams that have higher power ratings have more of an opportunity to deviate from them, whereas teams with low ratings do not.

  16. Actually, the top 25 in the power ratings have an average consistency number of 12.9, while the bottom 25 have a number of 13.4 – this means that the top 25 were more consistent on average than the bottom 25.

Leave a Reply

Related Articles

Activity

  • Scipio Tex commented on the blog post All Signs Point to March Madness Expanding to 96 Teams   13 minutes ago

    Horrendous idea.

  • RRR wrote a new blog post: NIT Preview – Seton Hall   16 minutes ago

    Sorry for the hiatus. It started with disgust as I watched us mail in the conference finale in Boulder.  I didn’t have anything to say about that game.  Then work got in the way and I missed the redemption game in the first round of the conference tournament.  The Kansas game, too.  I’m a rotten fan.

    But

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”http://tortillaretort.fantake.com/1969/12/31/” });

  • dick commented on the blog post All Signs Point to March Madness Expanding to 96 Teams   16 minutes ago

    Our goal for next year will be to make it to the 2nd round of the tournament.

  • Texoz commented on the blog post All Signs Point to March Madness Expanding to 96 Teams   34 minutes ago

    Why stop at 96? Let’s bump it up to 192.

    Bigger is not always better, says the midget hooker.

  • Art Vandelay commented on the blog post As if we didn’t already like Traylon Shead enough…   34 minutes ago

    Traylon turns to Rick and says, Texas
    Rick says what?
    Traylon says, Texas
    Rick says what?

    Perry says “I’ve got to get out of here”

  • admin commented on the blog post All Signs Point to March Madness Expanding to 96 Teams   39 minutes ago

    When asked to comment, Rick Barnes said “Phew”.

  • Sailor Ripley commented on the blog post All Signs Point to March Madness Expanding to 96 Teams   39 minutes ago

    When asked for to comment, Rick Barnes said “Phew”.

  • dick commented on the blog post All Signs Point to March Madness Expanding to 96 Teams   40 minutes ago

    i hate this idea

  • srr50 wrote a new blog post: All Signs Point to March Madness Expanding to 96 Teams   1 hour, 7 minutes ago

    Perhaps as soon as next year. The NCAA has an “opt out” clause in its $6 Billion contract with CBS this summer and they have already asked for a Request For Proposal from any and all networks interested.

    The current contract with CBS is backloaded — the network owes the NCAA $2.3 Billion over the next

  • Patrick Bateman commented on the blog post Bush Paves the Way for Henderson?   1 hour, 8 minutes ago

    Big Booty Ho’s!

    BigDuke,

    You, as usual, are correct about the ACT score. However, that he decided to continue with his commitment to USC this late in the process and this close to an anticipated NCAA ruling is probably the bigger story. He had an out and still decided on USC. Just wondering aloud

  • Patrick Bateman commented on the blog post Bush Paves the Way for Henderson?   1 hour, 8 minutes ago

    Big Booty Ho’s!

    BigDuke,

    You, as usual, are correct about the ACT score. However, that he decided to continue with his commitment to USC this late in the process and this close to an anticipated NCAA ruling is probably the bigger story. He had an out and still decided on USC. Just wondering aloud

  • Patrick Bateman commented on the blog post Bush Paves the Way for Henderson?   1 hour, 8 minutes ago

    Big Booty Ho’s!

    BigDuke,

    You, as usual, are correct about the ACT score. However, that he decided to continue with his commitment to USC this late in the process and this close to an anticipated NCAA ruling is probably the bigger story. He had an out and still decided on USC. Just wondering aloud

  • bigdukesix commented on the blog post Bush Paves the Way for Henderson?   1 hour, 38 minutes ago

    Perhaps it’s all a coincidence, but Seantrel just got his ACT score this past week. Without a test score, a recruit is ineligible to sign with any school. I’m wondering how much of this was just a smokescreen on Henderson’s part.

    I think you’re right on point number 2. They were

  • Farmer Ted wrote a new blog post: Red Cash   1 hour, 38 minutes ago

    Sammy Vegas over at Double Extra Point put together a summary of the NFL earnings of former Huskers since 2000. It’s worth a look, especially if you want to get depressed about your career choice.

    Who would have guessed that Chris Kelsay ($29 million) was in the same ballpark as Ahman Green ($35 million)?

    Or that Kris

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • P.Drez wrote a new blog post: David Beckham’s World Cup Dream Over   1 hour, 48 minutes ago

    In the dying moments of AC Milan’s victory over Chievo on Sunday, the world’s most famous footballer ruptured his achilles tendon and with it, his dream to represent his country in one last World Cup.  What a sad way to end such a fine professional’s international career.

    Beckham’s legendary last-second free kick against Greece in 2001

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • Kevin Berger wrote a new blog post: Bracket Anaylysis: Monsters of the Midwest   1 hour, 54 minutes ago

    The top four seeds in the Midwest region were introduced by Jim Nantz on selection Sunday in seemingly rapid fire succession. Kansas. Ohio State. Georgetown. Maryland.

    Like rockets fired from Columbia Broadcasting System missile command, the names lit up the Midwest Bracket. Stuff just got real.

    Kansas is the

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • Sailor Ripley commented on the blog post As if we didn’t already like Traylon Shead enough…   2 hours, 34 minutes ago

    Do you have a little brother who is several meters high? Is he built just like a quarterback and says he’ll testify?

  • gingerballs commented on the blog post We talkin’ ’bout brackets   2 hours, 45 minutes ago

    You make a solid point, Get your buy-in asap.

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • Vasherized commented on the blog post Bush Paves the Way for Henderson?   2 hours, 50 minutes ago

  • Vasherized commented on the blog post Bush Paves the Way for Henderson?   2 hours, 50 minutes ago

  • Vasherized commented on the blog post Bush Paves the Way for Henderson?   2 hours, 50 minutes ago

  • Vasherized commented on the blog post Bush Paves the Way for Henderson?   2 hours, 50 minutes ago

  • Art Vandelay commented on the blog post As if we didn’t already like Traylon Shead enough…   2 hours, 53 minutes ago

    Warm winds blowing
    Heating blue sky
    And a road that goes forever
    I’m going to Texas

  • dick commented on the blog post Texas Basketball is Dangerous   2 hours, 54 minutes ago

    “We never had any shot of winning the tournament ”

    I meant regular season.

  • dick commented on the blog post Texas Basketball is Dangerous   2 hours, 56 minutes ago

    I don’t buy that we HAVE to win this conference or the conference tourney unless KU is in an awful down year. That would be like someone other than OU or Texas saying that their football season was a failure because they didn’t win the Big 12 title. The owners of the Big

  • Sailor Ripley commented on the blog post Bush Paves the Way for Henderson?   2 hours, 56 minutes ago

    Oh please.

  • admin commented on the blog post Bush Paves the Way for Henderson?   2 hours, 56 minutes ago

    Oh please.

    Also, hadn’t realized that Sean was short for Seantrel. Cool.

  • P.Drez commented on the blog post Can Anyone Stop Wayne Rooney?   3 hours, 8 minutes ago

    When Bendtner scores 32, I’ll do that write-up.

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • gingerballs wrote a new blog post: We talkin’ ’bout brackets   3 hours, 14 minutes ago

    Alright, in case you all did not have a chance to swing by Barking Carnival today the fantake network is having a bracket contest.  Be sure and sign up using your fantake handle and what not.

    Go Here

    Group name: Beat the Barkers Tourney Bracket

    Password: Damien

    In case you were looking for something with a little more at

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • Farmer Ted commented on the blog post Castille Day   3 hours, 27 minutes ago

    No, unless by “steal” you mean “smoke” and by “laptops” you mean — well, you get the idea.

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });