Random Trends

[rivercitybirdie]

good thread. i like alot of the angles but some do seem a little marc lawrence-esque.

some comments:

surprised CUSA has been so good. i would have thought it was minor to moderate FADE conference for many years (but then the teams have changed alot)

sunbelt used to be brilliant non-conference ATS. but i think maybe there's been too much change in the teams. i should check the last few years.

it was alot of work but i came up with a 12 year ATS database by season record for every FBS NCAA team that exists today AND has a reasonable number of seasons........... here are some thoughts:

oregon has been really really good ATS forever........ notre dame not so good. alabama has some stinkers too............... a weird one but eastern michigan is just an unmitigated disaster. most of the other basement dwellers (NM, NMS, idaho, UMass, tulane etc.) have had some short-term ATS success.....

would fading preseason top 5 work well over time? did some backtesting. some amazing seasons. at least one terrible one...... basically top teams have little upward surprise factor??

auburn is completely up and down ATS over time. i wonder if it's significant or just chance......

i have noticed the UNLV being shockingly better at home (i was thinking all games, NOT conference only). not sure if i'd count on it continuing or not. would love some idea as to why it's the case. UNLV has pleasant dry weather. most of its road games have terrible weather???

 

[rivercitybirdie]

note this is obviously qualitative in choosing teams. i did choose 2012 as good time frame (3 years = not too long or too short)

since 2012 traditional powerhouse schools ATS non-conference:

florida 39%
texas 50%
michigan 36%
usc 31%
alabama 21% (offense more geared to ball control. classy coach?)
fsu 36%
ohio state 60%

AVG: 36% ATS

should i have included oregon 54%, oklahoma 58%. georgia 47%? ..... also i wouldn't think of stanford 50% as long term elite program.

EDIT: forgot LSU 53% who definitely should be included. probably change overall ATS to 37.5% or so..... wisconsin 40% maybe?

anyone know if there are 10 or 20 year football rankings anywhere? maybe i'll just look at SU for that period and make small adjustments.

 

[rivercitybirdie]

here's a question/answer that really surprised me.....

what team has the best NON-CONFERENCE ATS record since 2003? that's as far back as teamrankings.com goes and i am only looking at teams that seem to have been FBS the entire time.

the answer really surprised me.... when i first looked at the stats i thought it was overall ATS. and it completely shocked me.

anyway, Utah is the answer.

 

[rivercitybirdie]

something semi-random that this forum has talked about alot.

california having a huge home-road differential which i meant to mean terrible on road.... but lo and behold i see they were 5-0 ATS on the road last year....

i'm looking at a few more recent seasons.... was my understanding backwards? or has cal done a massive flip?

 

[rivercitybirdie]

Came across this in one of Dennis Dodd's recent articles:

The teams that are the most offensively efficient -- most points per minute -- win championships, Bartoo contends. He says the last seven national title winners have been in the top 10 in that category. Five of the last seven were No. 1.

Oregon was 1, OSU 6, FSU 24, and Bama 26.

wouldn't the top team in the country be expected to have either a powerhouse offense or defense if not both? i do think there is probably an argument for efficiency (as you say) vs. simply powerhouse (scoring a ton of points)...

i love yards per point (efficiency?) as an ATS system but two things to remember 1) turnovers and short/long fields affects it alot (not really O or D efficiency); 2) certain teams seems to congregate at the very top (alabama, baylor) and bottom (idaho, umass) on YPP (O and D and net) season after season.

 

[sendacash]

Rainbow dogs bite opening week??

Colorado travels to Hawaii opening week as a 7.5 point favorite knowing the Rainbows are 9-0 ATS as a non-conference home dog 8 points or less.

Buffs better beware of the dogs..........

I'd say their backers better beware, since 2010 Colorado is 6-20 ATS away from Boulder. Only twice in that time span were they favored and they failed to cover both times, once last year @ Umass where they barely held on to win SU and then the 2010 debacle against Kansas which I think was the final straw of the Dan Hawkins era.

 

[sendacash]

good thread. i like alot of the angles but some do seem a little marc lawrence-esque.

some comments:

surprised CUSA has been so good. i would have thought it was minor to moderate FADE conference for many years (but then the teams have changed alot)

sunbelt used to be brilliant non-conference ATS. but i think maybe there's been too much change in the teams. i should check the last few years.

it was alot of work but i came up with a 12 year ATS database by season record for every FBS NCAA team that exists today AND has a reasonable number of seasons........... here are some thoughts:

oregon has been really really good ATS forever........ notre dame not so good. alabama has some stinkers too............... a weird one but eastern michigan is just an unmitigated disaster. most of the other basement dwellers (NM, NMS, idaho, UMass, tulane etc.) have had some short-term ATS success.....

would fading preseason top 5 work well over time? did some backtesting. some amazing seasons. at least one terrible one...... basically top teams have little upward surprise factor??

auburn is completely up and down ATS over time. i wonder if it's significant or just chance......

i have noticed the UNLV being shockingly better at home (i was thinking all games, NOT conference only). not sure if i'd count on it continuing or not. would love some idea as to why it's the case. UNLV has pleasant dry weather. most of its road games have terrible weather???

It is a little known fact that UNLV should only be bet on @ home, but the last couple years they have been completely unbackable. My theory is not that UNLV is that much better at home, its more along the lines that maybe their opponents might not be totally focused on the game due to the "distractions" of Sin City. Who can forget that game against Hawaii when they won 40-20 as 17point dogs, there were allegations of fixing on that game as well. And what about that infamous "lights out" game against Wisky years ago when power was lost to the stadium before the game went final.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/sports/unlv-rebels/football/night-lights-went-out

 

[bobbyjones2]

teams that played navy the week before are really bad ats..

 

[cloverleaf]

Cash you are right on about UNLV at home. Silly business going on...I don't know about that but the team definitely plays better toward the line as a home team.

Off win: 11-9 Off loss: 28-30
Vs Conf: 27-29 Vs Non-Conf: 15-12

On the road is a different story...especially as a favorite. 8-21 vs conf and 7-11 vs non conf.

Rule of thumb if you have to play UNLV. Play as a home dog (15-12) otherwise...pay the man.

I wouldn't touch this football team...especially being in Las Vegas.

 

[rolltide]

teams that played navy the week before are really bad ats..

not really. were bad last year but that's about it. 10 year #'s by site and season:

po:team = NAVY and season > 2004 and ...

games	ATS W - L- P (marg, %win)	Avg Line	OU W - L- P (marg, %over)	Avg Total	SU W - L- P (marg, %win)	SDQL
2	0-2-0 (-6.75, 0.0%)	-0.8	1-1-0 (-6.25, 50.0%)	50.2	0-2-0 (-6.00, 0.0%)	site = neutral
59	28-30-0 (-1.64, 48.3%)	-6.5	23-25-0 (0.94, 47.9%)	53.6	29-30-0 (4.75, 49.2%)	site = home
39	19-19-1 (1.23, 50.0%)	7.4	16-21-0 (0.59, 43.2%)	54.4	13-26-0 (-6.21, 33.3%)	site = away

Showing 1 to 3 of 3 entries

10	3-7-0 (-4.90, 30.0%)	-6.1	8-2-0 (5.45, 80.0%)	56.0	3-7-0 (1.20, 30.0%)	season = 2014
10	6-3-1 (8.70, 66.7%)	1.8	2-8-0 (-1.95, 20.0%)	56.2	6-4-0 (6.90, 60.0%)	season = 2013
10	4-6-0 (0.90, 40.0%)	-0.2	6-4-0 (4.00, 60.0%)	56.9	6-4-0 (1.10, 60.0%)	season = 2012
10	4-6-0 (-4.55, 40.0%)	-2.8	3-7-0 (-7.85, 30.0%)	56.9	5-5-0 (-1.80, 50.0%)	season = 2011
11	5-6-0 (-0.50, 45.5%)	-2.9	6-4-0 (7.90, 60.0%)	57.2	5-6-0 (2.36, 45.5%)	season = 2010
11	5-6-0 (-5.50, 45.5%)	3.5	6-4-0 (1.75, 60.0%)	52.5	2-9-0 (-9.00, 18.2%)	season = 2009
10	5-5-0 (-0.60, 50.0%)	-8.3	3-6-0 (2.22, 33.3%)	49.0	5-5-0 (7.70, 50.0%)	season = 2008
10	8-2-0 (4.95, 80.0%)	1.2	4-5-0 (0.11, 44.4%)	52.3	4-6-0 (3.70, 40.0%)	season = 2007
9	5-4-0 (-0.28, 55.6%)	3.7	2-7-0 (-6.61, 22.2%)	46.2	4-5-0 (-4.00, 44.4%)	season = 2006
9	2-6-0 (-4.62, 25.0%)	1.6	0-0-0 (0.00, 0.0%)	-	2-7-0 (-5.89, 22.2%)	season = 2005

Showing 1 to 11 of 11 entries