Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
2015 Football Performance Ratings
Author Message
Jonathan Sadow Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,104
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 27
I Root For: Strigids
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #1
2015 Football Performance Ratings
Once again, I'm going to track how the Owls perform in this season's games using Kenneth Massey's power ratings. This is calculated by taking Rice's opponent's power rating, adjusting it for game site, then adding the Owls' margin of victory (or subtracting the margin of defeat) from that adjusted rating. This gives one an idea of the quality of the result. For example, in Rice's season opener, a 56-16 victory over Wagner, we take Wagner's Massey power rating (this week, it's 23.03), subtract the Owls' home field advantage since the game was played at Rice (this week, it's 2.90), and add the margin of victory (40 points) to come up with a Massey performance rating for the game of 60.13. You'll note that I type "this week" for the ratings, because they change each week as more games are played and Massey's system gets a better of idea of who these teams are. Performances that looked good at the beginning of the season might not be quite as good by the end, and vice versa.

As for the Owls's game against Wagner, the 60.13 rating right now looks pretty good. It's the highest of David Bailiff's nine season-openers as Rice's head coach, beating the 2008 (56.43) and 2013 (47.98) openers, the next two best, and it's the eighth-highest of his 102 games coached at Rice. It's also the highest rating of any C-USA team in its opener, the next-highest one being Marshall's 58.36 in its 41-31 win over Purdue, and ranged down to Charlotte's 31.34 for winning its inaugural Division I FBS game over bottom-feeder Georgia State 23-20.

Next up for the Owls is their old Southwest Conference rival, Texas. The Longhorns' first game was as bad as the Owls' was good, as they lost 38-3 at Notre Dame. That produced a rating of 34.13, much lower than what Texas fans are accustomed to or expect (by comparison, Rice's opener at Notre Dame last season, a 48-17 loss, produced a rating of 35.28). It's always perilous to make predictions based on one datum point, but I think these very early results show that the Owls should be not only competitive in the game, but have a real shot at their first victory in Austin in 50 years.
09-11-2015 08:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


owl at the moon Offline
Eastern Screech Owl
*

Posts: 15,238
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 1596
I Root For: rice,smu,uh,unt
Location: 23 mbps from csnbbs
Post: #2
2015 Football Performance Ratings
Very good stuff as always, however I will posit that the credit given "per point" (as margin of victory grows past a two or three-score game) should diminish slightly.

That's why I just can't buy that we're 26 points better than UT. Even on their home field, I don't see us winning this one by more than 21.
09-11-2015 09:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Jonathan Sadow Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,104
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 27
I Root For: Strigids
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #3
RE: 2015 Football Performance Ratings
Rice's 42-28 loss to Texas produced a Massey performance rating of 53.03, somewhat lower than the 62.39 produced in the Wagner game. A comparison of the two results gives us a chance to explain the significance of a performance rating:

(09-11-2015 09:26 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  Very good stuff as always, however I will posit that the credit given "per point" (as margin of victory grows past a two or three-score game) should diminish slightly.

That's why I just can't buy that we're 26 points better than UT. Even on their home field, I don't see us winning this one by more than 21.

Performance ratings don't measure how good one team is vis-a-vis another. Massey's power ratings do that. The performance rating measures how well a team performed in a particular game. When I write that Rice's performance rating in its first game was 26 points better than Texas's, I mean that the game Rice played against Wagner was 26 points better than the game Texas played against Notre Dame. The game that Rice played against Texas is a completely different result. I came up with the concept of a performance rating not to show which team is better, but rather which team is more likely to have a good result. It allows for comparisons across games so as to give one an idea of how "good" or "bad" a victory or loss is without a lot of arm-waving. Looking at Rice's two games, we see that the 40-point win over Wagner was a good but not great result, while the 14-point loss to Texas, while not good, was not a terrible result. In fact, that result was just about what one would've expected from Massey's power ratings. What that means is that Rice performed well in its first game and about average in its second game. Similarly, because Texas registered a 37.70 against Notre Dame and a 63.71 against Rice, it means that Texas played poorly in its first game and about what you'd expect in its second. Because Texas overall is a better team, that means it played well enough against Rice to win. It definitely didn't play well enough to win its first game.

The really interesting thing about performance ratings isn't so much what their value is as it is how much they vary between games. That's what makes it different from a power rating. The power rating is an attempt to establish the overall quality of a team. However, teams can play better or worse in any particular game. In the case of the Rice-Texas game, the Owls played well in their first game and the Longhorns didn't, thus leading to the wide disparity of performance ratings. However, games are discrete and individual events; there can be substantial variation in game-to-game performance. In their second game, Rice and Texas both played more to their predicted levels, resulting in a Texas win. That's why you have to look at performance ratings more as a spectrum of possible performances than as an absolute measure of a team's ability (that's the purpose of the power rating). For example, after the first two games Texas has a standard deviation of its performance rating of 18.39. In practical terms, that means that there's about a two out of three chance that in its next game it will perform with a power rating anywhere between 69.09 (which would make it a marginal top 25 team) and 32.31 (which would put it near the bottom of Conference USA). So it really doesn't mean much to look at a mean or median performance rating in isolation; you have to consider the game-by-game variation as well.

Applying this analysis to Rice, the Owls turned in performance ratings of 62.39 and 53.03, respectively, in their first two games, which in turn yields a standard deviation of 6.62. I'm going to wait another week before I start publishing more detailed statistics on all of the C-USA schools so that more data can be obtained, but we already can see trends developing. In the East Division, as predicted Marshall and Western Kentucky look to be at the top, but based on its first two games Middle Tennessee looks like it'll be there with them. Florida International also appears improved, and Charlotte may not be the worst team in the division despite its newcomer status in Division I FBS. In the West Division, Rice and Louisiana Tech are fighting for the top as predicted, but Southern Mississippi and UTSA both appear to be improved and could give the two front-runners challenges. Meanwhile, UTEP looks like it could be the biggest disappointment in the conference.

This week, Rice takes on North Texas in Denton. Two years ago, the Owls' only C-USA loss of the season came in their game against UNT in Denton. Things look a lot different now. While Rice has continued to stay near the top of C-USA, North Texas slumped last year, and the initial result for this season isn't promising. The Mean Green dropped their season opener to an improving but still not very good Southern Methodist team 31-13, yielding a performance rating of 26.62. That's 26 points lower than Rice's performance against Texas. Keep in mind that UNT has played only that one game, and the usual admonitions about extrapolating from one datum point apply (and Rice's first game was about 26 points better than UT's; we know what happened there). Given the sparse data that do exist, however, an Owl victory does appear likely at this time.
09-16-2015 01:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mrbig Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,662
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 127
I Root For: Rice
Location: New Orleans
Post: #4
RE: 2015 Football Performance Ratings
Jonathan, thanks again for doing these! I really enjoy seeing how these develop over the course of the season.

One question for you. Rice's Performance Rating against Wagner was initially 60.13, which increased to 62.39 after the loss to Texas. I know it is not unusual for Performance Ratings in individual games to shift as more data goes into the system. But with Wagner off last weekend and Rice losing badly to a UT team with a bad week 1 performance, why did Rice's Performance Rating for the Wagner game increase? Obviously, the margine-of-victory did not change, so that mens that either Wagner's power rating decreased (but why, since they did not play and have no other games played this season) or the value of Rice's home-field advantage changed (which seems odd, especially a 2+ point swing after one week).

Just curious.
09-16-2015 01:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Jonathan Sadow Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,104
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 27
I Root For: Strigids
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #5
RE: 2015 Football Performance Ratings
(09-16-2015 01:28 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Jonathan, thanks again for doing these! I really enjoy seeing how these develop over the course of the season.

One question for you. Rice's Performance Rating against Wagner was initially 60.13, which increased to 62.39 after the loss to Texas. I know it is not unusual for Performance Ratings in individual games to shift as more data goes into the system. But with Wagner off last weekend and Rice losing badly to a UT team with a bad week 1 performance, why did Rice's Performance Rating for the Wagner game increase? Obviously, the margine-of-victory did not change, so that mens that either Wagner's power rating decreased (but why, since they did not play and have no other games played this season) or the value of Rice's home-field advantage changed (which seems odd, especially a 2+ point swing after one week).

Just curious.

You'd really have to ask Prof. Massey about that. From what I understand about how his system works, there are a couple of things that could be influencing these changes. The ratings at the beginning of the season are substantially influenced by the previous season's results, and as the present season is played out, that influence is diminished and finally disappears. It's possible that lowering the weighting from the previous season caused Wagner's rating to go up. Also note that the system is Bayesian, which means in essence that the ordering of results over time does have an influence on the value of the rating (unlike "classical" statistics, in which the order of the data has no effect on the statistical quantities derived from them).

Speaking of data, let's look at the data from Rice's most recent game. The 38-24 win over North Texas produced a performance rating of 54.95, which turns out to be the median result so far this season:

Wagner: 58.38
@Texas: 51.92
@North Texas: 54.95

That's actually the highest median value for the first three games of the season in the David Bailiff era, so at least he's got the guys playing consistently like an average Division I FBS team.

Here are the performance ratings for Conference USA teams this season:
School, Median, Mean, Standard Deviation
Louisiana Tech 61.86 61.74 7.24
Middle Tennessee 58.04 67.07 16.26
Western Kentucky 56.04 55.66 2.86
Rice 54.95 55.09 3.23
Southern Mississippi 52.20 51.31 1.66
Marshall 50.92 51.77 7.67
Florida International 44.71 47.48 7.63
Texas-San Antonio 43.18 38.55 23.07
Florida Atlantic 38.77 37.28 7.22
Charlotte 37.38 24.44 29.38
Texas-El Paso 36.82 30.44 11.70
Old Dominion 36.29 35.01 7.02
North Texas 32.62 32.62 6.12

There are lots of interesting tidbits to be gleaned from these data:
  • In the Eastern Division, while Marshall is still a good team, it's not dominant like it was last season. Both Middle Tennessee and Western Kentucky look like they'll have a better claim to the divisional crown over the course of the season.
  • For a team playing its first Division I FBS season, Charlotte performed creditably well in its first two games, victories over FBS bottom-feeder Georgia State and FCS member Presbyterian. However, the 49ers were totally destroyed by Middle Tennessee 73-14 in their C-USA opener, resulting in the lowest performance rating by a C-USA team (-9.13) since Alabama-Birmingham's rollover to Southern Miss in the 2013 finale (-19.50). Conversely, the Blue Raiders' win was the highest-performing game of the season so far for a C-USA team (85.84).
  • Speaking of Southern Miss, the Golden Eagles appear to be recovering nicely from their three-year slump in which they won only four games (three of which were last season). USM's 56-50 win at Texas State, while hardly striking fear into the likes of Ohio State, was the type of game the Golden Eagles reliably lost in the previous three seasons. The win puts them at 2-1 on the season, with the other results being a creditable loss hosting Mississippi State and a big win against FCS bottom-feeder Austin Peay. Todd Monken's rebuilding plan appears to be working, and right now I'd say Southern Miss is the most improved (and perhaps underrated) team in C-USA.
  • On the flip side, UTEP has to be the most disappointing. Sean Kugler got his Miner team to a bowl game last year, and even better things were expected this season. Instead, UTEP was not competitive against Arkansas and Texas Tech, at best mid-level Power 5 conference teams, then had to go into overtime to beat New Mexico State, perhaps the worst team in Division I FBS. Looking at the rest of the schedule, I don't see how the Miners are going to be bowl-eligible this season. They should beat Incarnate Word in their next game, but the only other possibilities for wins now look like Old Dominion, North Texas, and...
  • ... UTSA, which is doing the same thing it did last season: have a competitive loss to a good Arizona team, then trend downward as the season progresses. Last week, it was a humiliating 69-14 loss to Oklahoma State, a team about as good as Arizona. It was never going to be easy for the Roadrunners, who have the toughest schedule by rating in C-USA this season, but given the trend over the last two seasons, you have to wonder what Larry Coker is doing over there.

Rice's opponent this week is Baylor, a consensus top 5 team. The Bears, obviously worried about the Owls, scheduled an off-week before the game and thus only have played two games this season, but both were five-touchdown victories over outmanned Southern Methodist and Lamar, respectively. In neither game, however, were the Bears truly dominant, giving up lots of points and winning only by massively outscoring the opposition. That'll likely happen against Rice as well, but maybe not to the degree it did in Baylor's first two games. The Owls are a better team than SMU and Lamar, and I think they'll keep it closer than those two did against the Bears. Given the wide disparity in the two teams ratings (Baylor's lesser performance of this season is about seven points better than Rice's best performance of the season), I see little chance of an Owl victory. However, for those who like to bet (legally, of course) on these things, given the fact that the spread is, like the margin in Baylor's first two games, about five touchdowns, putting some money down on the Owls might be profitable (keeping in mind that past performance is not entirely predictive of future results).
09-24-2015 02:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Jonathan Sadow Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,104
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 27
I Root For: Strigids
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #6
RE: 2015 Football Performance Ratings
Not surprisingly, Rice's 70-17 defeat at the hands of Baylor was the lowest-rated game of the 2015 season for the Owls, yielding only a 28.19 rating. That's Rice's worst performance since the Louisiana Tech debacle from last season (16.80). Here are the ratings for the Owls' games so far this season:

Wagner: 54.37
@Texas: 50.85
@North Texas: 52.76
@Baylor: 28.19

Even with the big loss, that's still the highest median value for the first four games of the season in the David Bailiff era.

Here are the performance ratings for Conference USA teams this season:
School, Median, Mean, Standard Deviation
Louisiana Tech 57.91 58.66 7.76
Western Kentucky 57.24 61.80 12.00
Middle Tennessee 55.89 62.60 13.85
Marshall 52.49 51.99 4.97
Rice 51.81 46.54 12.32
Southern Mississippi 51.18 51.89 5.24
Florida International 45.94 47.00 5.60
Texas-San Antonio 45.93 40.35 18.60
Florida Atlantic 38.79 37.56 5.97
Old Dominion 33.06 25.81 18.46
Charlotte 30.62 23.58 22.47
Texas-El Paso 27.41 26.86 9.20
North Texas 26.89 27.79 6.71

Here are a few observations based on these data:
  • The Louisiana Tech - Western Kentucky game three weeks ago, won by the Hilltoppers, looks like an early showdown for the C-USA crown.
  • Southern Miss continued its revitalization against Nebraska. The Golden Eagles went down 22-0 early but managed to fight back to within 36-28 by game's end. They continue to be the most-improved team in C-USA. On the flipside, UTEP continues to be the most disappointing. The Miners pulled away late to beat Division I FCS member Incarnate Word by 10 in UTEP's home opener - hardly an inspiring performance for a team coming off of a bowl season.
  • UTSA dropped to 0-4 but looked better in a two-point loss to an okay Colorado State team. I think the Roadrunners have a good shot at their first win of the season when they play UTEP this week.
  • North Texas was routed 62-16 at Iowa, continuing its fall from bowl-game winner of just two seasons ago. At this point, the Eagles only chances for a win this season look like a non-conference game against FCS member Portland State and maybe against UTEP.
  • Middle Tennessee shares the early lead of the East Division with Western Kentucky, and we'll get an look at how the two teams compare when the Blue Raiders take on Vanderbilt this week, a team the Hilltoppers beat 14-12 to open the season.

As for the Hilltoppers, they are Rice's opponent this week. As noted above, WKU beat Vanderbilt by two and Louisiana Tech by three to start the season before dropping a disappointing 3-point decision to Indiana. Last week, the Hilltoppers finally had a big win, 56-14 over an overmatched Miami of Ohio squad. That was good for a 79.57 Massey performance rating, easily better than any of Rice's games this season. However, the other three results were all in the 50s, just like the Owls' games this season (other than the Baylor game, of course). Thus, it appears that the two teams' performances are roughly similar. This game and the one against Louisiana Tech are critical for Rice's chances at the West crown this season. Win both, and the Owls are likely division champs; a split makes things uncertain, and two losses likely means wait 'til next year. With the game being played at Rice Stadium, here's hoping this gives the Owls enough of an advantage to pull this one out.
09-30-2015 01:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Jonathan Sadow Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,104
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 27
I Root For: Strigids
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #7
RE: 2015 Football Performance Ratings
Rice's 49-10 loss to Western Kentucky rated even worse than the Baylor game, yielding a rating of only 17.59. That pulled the median rating for the season down to 47.99, still the second-highest of the Bailiff era after five games (after 2008), but it's falling fast. Here are the ratings for the Owls' games so far this season:

Wagner: 52.88
@Texas: 48.17
@North Texas: 47.99
@Baylor: 28.57
Western Kentucky: 17.59

The last two games are the first consecutive sub-30 games Rice has had since the 2010 season, when the Owls registered sub-30 games against Central Florida, Tulsa, and Tulane consecutively.

Here are the performance ratings for Conference USA teams this season:
School, Median, Mean, Standard Deviation
Louisiana Tech 58.59 60.69 8.78
Western Kentucky 58.44 67.89 15.18
Middle Tennessee 56.52 58.89 13.84
Marshall 53.49 52.80 5.69
Southern Mississippi 49.12 52.93 7.10
Rice 47.99 39.04 15.21
Texas-San Antonio 45.52 42.02 16.62
Florida International 44.73 44.76 5.85
Old Dominion 36.51 28.54 17.89
Florida Atlantic 36.31 36.00 6.60
Charlotte 25.30 22.24 19.32
North Texas 24.34 22.76 7.58
Texas-El Paso 23.31 25.69 7.36


Here are a few observations based on these data:
  • Now 2-0 in conference play, Western Kentucky will face Middle Tennessee in a game that will go a long way toward deciding the East champion. The Blue Raiders had a chance to make a statement hosting Vanderbilt but lost by four to a team the Hilltoppers beat by two.
  • North Texas was blown out by Southern Mississippi to record its fourth double-digit loss in four games this season. The Mean Green might beat Portland State this weekend, but the only other game this season that looks like a possible win is the finale against UTEP.
  • UTSA picked up its first win of the season with a comfortable 25-6 victory at UTEP. The Roadrunners probably won't beat Louisiana Tech this weekend, but after that they have a stretch of five games which are all within reach, meaning that UTSA could still pull out a decent season. Meanwhile, it looks like the only hope for another Miner win this season is the finale at North Texas.

This week, Rice tries to get back on the winning track against Florida Atlantic, and I can guarantee that the Owls will win this game (necessarily). FAU will be the third opponent out of five non-season opening opponents Rice will face coming off a bye week so far this season. The Athene Owls got their first win of the season last week but didn't look impresssive against Division I FBS newcomer Charlotte, grinding out a ten-point win. When the two teams last met, at Rice Stadium two years ago, Rice had to use some fourth-quarter defensive heroics to pull out an 18-14 win. FAU isn't as good this year as then, but it looks like Rice isn't as good, either, and this time the game's being played in Boca Raton. FAU's season-opening loss at Tulsa in overtime is its highest-rated game of the season so far at just 43.39, but that's still better than either of Rice's last two games. I'd favor the Bubo Owls in this one, but given the high standard deviation Rice's last two performances have generated, "hoo" knows?...
10-07-2015 12:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,640
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #8
RE: 2015 Football Performance Ratings
This past week's results help indicate just how using the median helps to control for outliers. The average result of 39.04 puts us well below some other CUSA teams and I would assume that DB average for the first five games.
10-07-2015 06:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
owl at the moon Offline
Eastern Screech Owl
*

Posts: 15,238
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 1596
I Root For: rice,smu,uh,unt
Location: 23 mbps from csnbbs
Post: #9
2015 Football Performance Ratings
I wonder if variations in turnover differential correlate closely with wide swings in performance rating game-to-game.
Last year we were one of the more consistent teams week to week (low STd deviation) and also consistently low in net turnovers lost.
10-08-2015 01:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MerseyOwl Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,184
Joined: Aug 2006
Reputation: 37
I Root For: The Blue & Gray
Location: Land of Dull Skies
Post: #10
RE: 2015 Football Performance Ratings
Sorry to be contrary, but with only 5 data points the median is pretty much worthless in my opinion. My real concern is the standard deviation of 15.21. To me that strongly suggests a lack of consistency that one wouldn't normally attribute to a maturing program (8+ years of DB).

Moreover the mean less one STD, 23.83, strongly suggests were at risk to lose to almost every other conference member if they can produce an 'average' performance.

There's a reason ESPN's Football Power Index has Rice ranked 103 with a projected win - loss of 5.6 - 6.4. And those additional 3.6 wins are against a remaining strength of schedule ranked 122 out of 128.
10-08-2015 07:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,640
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #11
RE: 2015 Football Performance Ratings
(10-08-2015 07:01 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  Sorry to be contrary, but with only 5 data points the median is pretty much worthless in my opinion. My real concern is the standard deviation of 15.21. To me that strongly suggests a lack of consistency that one wouldn't normally attribute to a maturing program (8+ years of DB).

Moreover the mean less one STD, 23.83, strongly suggests were at risk to lose to almost every other conference member if they can produce an 'average' performance.

There's a reason ESPN's Football Power Index has Rice ranked 103 with a projected win - loss of 5.6 - 6.4. And those additional 3.6 wins are against a remaining strength of schedule ranked 122 out of 128.

This is really the first year with a bad standard deviation. A relatively small standard deviation has kind of been the hallmark of Bailiff's tenure here.
10-08-2015 07:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Jonathan Sadow Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,104
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 27
I Root For: Strigids
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #12
RE: 2015 Football Performance Ratings
(10-08-2015 01:10 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  I wonder if variations in turnover differential correlate closely with wide swings in performance rating game-to-game.
Last year we were one of the more consistent teams week to week (low STd deviation) and also consistently low in net turnovers lost.

I suspect that you might be right, but unfortunately I'm not in a position to verify that. Maybe it's a project for the future....


(10-08-2015 07:01 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  Sorry to be contrary, but with only 5 data points the median is pretty much worthless in my opinion. My real concern is the standard deviation of 15.21. To me that strongly suggests a lack of consistency that one wouldn't normally attribute to a maturing program (8+ years of DB).

Moreover the mean less one STD, 23.83, strongly suggests were at risk to lose to almost every other conference member if they can produce an 'average' performance.

There's a reason ESPN's Football Power Index has Rice ranked 103 with a projected win - loss of 5.6 - 6.4. And those additional 3.6 wins are against a remaining strength of schedule ranked 122 out of 128.

Keep in mind that the standard deviation, in this case, is no less "worthless" than the median, and might be even moreso, given the fact that one can't automatically assume that performance ratings are distributed normally. From the data that I have, a standard deviation of 15.21 isn't excessively high. For comparison purposes, I've been tracking Baylor's numbers this season because they played Rice, and the Bears are highly-ranked (in fact, they're #1 in Massey's latest ratings). Right now, Baylor' performance rating standard deviation is 13.61.

(10-08-2015 07:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  This is really the first year with a bad standard deviation. A relatively small standard deviation has kind of been the hallmark of Bailiff's tenure here.

Here are the standard deviations of all of Bailiff's Rice teams:
2007 11.25
2008 13.89
2009 16.04
2010 12.04
2011 6.41
2012 13.01
2013 10.93
2014 13.94

Rice's current standard deviation is lower than four of those eight seasons (and, for that matter, two of the four seasons that Bailiff was head coach at Texas State). From what I've been able to see from the data I've collected the last few seasons, there's no significant correlation between standard deviation and team performance.
10-12-2015 09:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,640
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #13
RE: 2015 Football Performance Ratings
(10-12-2015 09:44 PM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  
(10-08-2015 01:10 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  I wonder if variations in turnover differential correlate closely with wide swings in performance rating game-to-game.
Last year we were one of the more consistent teams week to week (low STd deviation) and also consistently low in net turnovers lost.

I suspect that you might be right, but unfortunately I'm not in a position to verify that. Maybe it's a project for the future....


(10-08-2015 07:01 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  Sorry to be contrary, but with only 5 data points the median is pretty much worthless in my opinion. My real concern is the standard deviation of 15.21. To me that strongly suggests a lack of consistency that one wouldn't normally attribute to a maturing program (8+ years of DB).

Moreover the mean less one STD, 23.83, strongly suggests were at risk to lose to almost every other conference member if they can produce an 'average' performance.

There's a reason ESPN's Football Power Index has Rice ranked 103 with a projected win - loss of 5.6 - 6.4. And those additional 3.6 wins are against a remaining strength of schedule ranked 122 out of 128.

Keep in mind that the standard deviation, in this case, is no less "worthless" than the median, and might be even moreso, given the fact that one can't automatically assume that performance ratings are distributed normally. From the data that I have, a standard deviation of 15.21 isn't excessively high. For comparison purposes, I've been tracking Baylor's numbers this season because they played Rice, and the Bears are highly-ranked (in fact, they're #1 in Massey's latest ratings). Right now, Baylor' performance rating standard deviation is 13.61.

(10-08-2015 07:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  This is really the first year with a bad standard deviation. A relatively small standard deviation has kind of been the hallmark of Bailiff's tenure here.

Here are the standard deviations of all of Bailiff's Rice teams:
2007 11.25
2008 13.89
2009 16.04
2010 12.04
2011 6.41
2012 13.01
2013 10.93
2014 13.94

Rice's current standard deviation is lower than four of those eight seasons (and, for that matter, two of the four seasons that Bailiff was head coach at Texas State). From what I've been able to see from the data I've collected the last few seasons, there's no significant correlation between standard deviation and team performance.

Isn't our current standard deviation 15.21? If so, it is the second highest.
Maybe my memory is failing me, but it almost always seemed like in year's past that we had a relatively low standard deviation when compared to the rest of CUSA.

But agreed on the correlation.
10-13-2015 06:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Jonathan Sadow Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,104
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 27
I Root For: Strigids
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #14
RE: 2015 Football Performance Ratings
(10-13-2015 06:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(10-12-2015 09:44 PM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  
(10-08-2015 07:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  This is really the first year with a bad standard deviation. A relatively small standard deviation has kind of been the hallmark of Bailiff's tenure here.

Here are the standard deviations of all of Bailiff's Rice teams:
2007 11.25
2008 13.89
2009 16.04
2010 12.04
2011 6.41
2012 13.01
2013 10.93
2014 13.94

Rice's current standard deviation is lower than four of those eight seasons (and, for that matter, two of the four seasons that Bailiff was head coach at Texas State). From what I've been able to see from the data I've collected the last few seasons, there's no significant correlation between standard deviation and team performance.

Isn't our current standard deviation 15.21?

Not anymore.... While Rice's 27-26 comeback victory over Florida Atlantic may have been inspiring, its performance rating for the game was not, yielding only a rating of 39.24. It's the third-straight sub-40 rating for the Owls, which hadn't happened since 2012, in consecutive losses to Marshall, Houston, and Memphis. Here are the ratings for the Owls' games so far this season:

Wagner: 43.73
@Texas: 48.82
@North Texas: 40.34
@Baylor: 27.11
Western Kentucky: 14.76
@Florida Atlantic: 39.24

Here are the performance ratings for Conference USA teams this season:
School, Median, Mean, Standard Deviation
Western Kentucky 61.31 64.37 13.36
Louisiana Tech 55.88 56.18 9.21
Middle Tennessee 50.31 50.92 16.39
Marshall 49.64 49.98 5.19
Texas-San Antonio 45.01 40.73 14.11
Southern Mississippi 43.44 46.04 7.07
Florida International 42.10 43.85 11.61
Rice 39.79 35.67 12.51
Florida Atlantic 36.45 34.56 6.33
Old Dominion 30.45 24.29 17.13
Charlotte 22.28 19.04 19.79
North Texas 20.41 10.38 20.20
Texas-El Paso 19.38 19,14 10.49


Here are a few observations based on these data:
  • Western Kentucky dispatched Middle Tennessee 58-28 in their showdown game for the East Division lead, and it appears now only Marshall could prevent the Hilltoppers from winning the East championship.
  • North Texas's game against Portland State looked like a reasonable chance for a Mean Green victory before the season; the Vikings were coming off a 3-9 season in the Division I FCS Big Sky Conference and looked like a suitable homecoming opponent. Instead, Portland State showed its victory over Washington State in its season opener was no fluke as it laid down an epic 66-7 beating on UNT to move to 4-1 for the year, the first time since 2001 that an FCS team has recorded two wins over FBS teams in the same season. It also was the biggest win ever recorded by an FCS team over an FBS team and produced the lowest performance rating that I've ever calculated (-23.58 for North Texas). To add insult to injury, PSU took home an appearance fee of $425,000 for the game. Instead of the usual postgame press conference by head coach Dan McCarney, athletic director Rick Villareal used the occasion to fire McCarney on the spot (and provided another example of being careful what you wish for...). Unless the interim coaches can turn things around, the Mean Green's only reasonable shot at victory the rest of the year looks like the finale against UTEP.
  • Speaking of UTEP, it was thrashed almost as badly by Florida International 52-12. At least the Miners already have two wins, albeit against possibly the worst team in Division I FBS and a below-average FCS team. Meanwhile, FIU is recovering nicely from its forgettable 2013 season, and at 3-3 currently might even reach bowl eligibility this season.
  • Louisiana Tech kept pace with Rice for the West Division lead by kicking a last-second field goal to edge UTSA 34-31. Both the Bulldogs and the Roadrunners look like they could cause problems for the Owls this season and look to be must-win games if Rice is to have any chance of going to the conference championship game.

With the Owls being off this week, next week I'll review the conference action and preview tha game against Army.
10-14-2015 01:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
waltgreenberg Online
Legend
*

Posts: 33,139
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 138
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Chicago

The Parliament Awards
Post: #15
RE: 2015 Football Performance Ratings
Thanks for that, Jonathan. And the actual data of or performance YTD-- halfway through the season-- confirms what the eyes have witnessed. Our performance so far this year has regressed from the previous 3 year relative plateau. We have fallen from the top tier of CUSA to below the middle of the pack. That's the sad reality. Sure, we still have a chance to turn the season around, and given how truly bad half our remaining opponents are, we'll almost assuredly go bowling, but so far this season we are deserving of or sub-100 ranking, and being a bottom quartile FBS team ourselves.
10-14-2015 08:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,640
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #16
RE: 2015 Football Performance Ratings
(10-14-2015 08:40 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Thanks for that, Jonathan. And the actual data of or performance YTD-- halfway through the season-- confirms what the eyes have witnessed. Our performance so far this year has regressed from the previous 3 year relative plateau. We have fallen from the top tier of CUSA to below the middle of the pack. That's the sad reality. Sure, we still have a chance to turn the season around, and given how truly bad half our remaining opponents are, we'll almost assuredly go bowling, but so far this season we are deserving of or sub-100 ranking, and being a bottom quartile FBS team ourselves.

Not sure what you consider a relative plateau. As Jonathan pointed out in another thread (http://csnbbs.com/thread-752625-post-124...12497387), our Massey power rating has increased steadily since 2010 (with our only dip surprisingly coming between 2012 and 2013 - by 0.02 pts), and our opponent rating has increased in each of the past three years.

I don't know if plateau is correct, but we do seem to be on the highway to a single year regression from the previous upward trend.
10-14-2015 09:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


mrbig Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,662
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 127
I Root For: Rice
Location: New Orleans
Post: #17
RE: 2015 Football Performance Ratings
(10-14-2015 01:50 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  It's the third-straight sub-40 rating for the Owls, which hadn't happened since 2012, in consecutive losses to Marshall, Houston, and Memphis.

Thanks as always Jonathan.


Certainly provides numerical explanation for the increased volume and sharper tone from the anti-Bailiff folks. That stretch was miserable! At least now we can point to some recent relative success from Rice football. At that point in 2012, there was nothing even remotely positive to fall back on.
10-14-2015 09:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Jonathan Sadow Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,104
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 27
I Root For: Strigids
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #18
RE: 2015 Football Performance Ratings
(10-14-2015 09:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(10-14-2015 08:40 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Thanks for that, Jonathan. And the actual data of or performance YTD-- halfway through the season-- confirms what the eyes have witnessed. Our performance so far this year has regressed from the previous 3 year relative plateau. We have fallen from the top tier of CUSA to below the middle of the pack. That's the sad reality. Sure, we still have a chance to turn the season around, and given how truly bad half our remaining opponents are, we'll almost assuredly go bowling, but so far this season we are deserving of or sub-100 ranking, and being a bottom quartile FBS team ourselves.

Not sure what you consider a relative plateau. As Jonathan pointed out in another thread (http://csnbbs.com/thread-752625-post-124...12497387), our Massey power rating has increased steadily since 2010 (with our only dip surprisingly coming between 2012 and 2013 - by 0.02 pts), and our opponent rating has increased in each of the past three years.

I don't know if plateau is correct, but we do seem to be on the highway to a single year regression from the previous upward trend.

Yes, I'm not too worried at this point, as I don't find one-year trends to be terribly convincing. If it becomes a two or more year trend, then there's a problem.
10-14-2015 01:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Jonathan Sadow Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,104
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 27
I Root For: Strigids
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #19
RE: 2015 Football Performance Ratings
The Owls had last weekend off, so the changes in Massey performance ratings for the season occurred solely through the results from Rice's opponents. Here are the ratings for the Owls' games so far this season:

Wagner: 41.23
@Texas: 48.72
@North Texas: 40.32
@Baylor: 28.60
Western Kentucky: 14.16
@Florida Atlantic: 38.68

Here are the performance ratings for Conference USA teams this season:
School, Median, Mean, Standard Deviation
Western Kentucky 53.32 61.79 12.96
Louisiana Tech 53.21 52.70 9.02
Marshall 50.30 50.15 7.12
Middle Tennessee 47.91 50.14 16.51
Southern Mississippi 46.03 48.02 8.23
Texas-San Antonio 40.87 36.60 13.83
Rice 39.50 35.28 12.19
Florida International 39.47 41.77 10.75
Florida Atlantic 37.34 34.97 7.16
Old Dominion 28.48 24.96 13.13
Charlotte 26.02 22.27 18.99
North Texas 22.29 14.31 18.59
Texas-El Paso 18.32 18.64 10.97

Here are a few observations based on these data:
  • Southern Miss beat UTSA 32-10, giving USM its fourth win of the season. With Charlotte, UTEP, and Old Dominion still left to play, it looks like the Golden Eagles have risen out of the West Division cellar and are at least the third-best team in the division, if not second-best, and are likely to be bowl-eligible this season.
  • Old Dominion defeated Charlotte 37-34 for the 49ers' fourth loss in a row. With this result, in all likelihood Charlotte will finish at the bottom of the East Division.
  • Western Kentucky continued towards its season-ending showdown with Marshall for the East Division title by pummeling North Texas 55-28. The Mean Green likewise continued toward their season-ending showdown with UTEP to try to win a game this year.
  • Louisiana Tech failed in its attempt to beat a good Power 5 conference team by falling at Mississippi State 45-20. Western Kentucky gets to try to do it this weekend against Louisiana State.

This weekend, Rice meets its final non-conference foe of the season in Army. The Cadets lost their first three games by a total of 10 points but then got on the right side of the ledger with an easy victory over hapless Eastern Michigan. A close loss to Penn State followed, so even with a 1-4 record things were looking up for Army. However, in the next game the Cadets were blown out by Duke and then struggled to a seven-point win over a below-average FCS squad in Bucknell. Army actually has a little better median performance rating than the Owls this season at 41.19, but its last two games were its worst of the season. It also helps Rice in that, for once this season, the Owls are the ones coming off a bye week and not the other way around, something that might be crucial in practicing to defend against the Cadets' triple-option offense. My guess is that the home-standing Owls will be victorious, but I doubt it'll be by a big margin.
10-21-2015 05:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
KTOWL Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 215
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 2
I Root For: RICE
Location: Katy
Post: #20
RE: 2015 Football Performance Ratings
(10-21-2015 05:13 PM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  The Owls had last weekend off, so the changes in Massey performance ratings for the season occurred solely through the results from Rice's opponents. Here are the ratings for the Owls' games so far this season:

Wagner: 41.23
@Texas: 48.72
@North Texas: 40.32
@Baylor: 28.60
Western Kentucky: 14.16
@Florida Atlantic: 38.68

Here are the performance ratings for Conference USA teams this season:
School, Median, Mean, Standard Deviation
Western Kentucky 53.32 61.79 12.96
Louisiana Tech 53.21 52.70 9.02
Marshall 50.30 50.15 7.12
Middle Tennessee 47.91 50.14 16.51
Southern Mississippi 46.03 48.02 8.23
Texas-San Antonio 40.87 36.60 13.83
Rice 39.50 35.28 12.19
Florida International 39.47 41.77 10.75
Florida Atlantic 37.34 34.97 7.16
Old Dominion 28.48 24.96 13.13
Charlotte 26.02 22.27 18.99
North Texas 22.29 14.31 18.59
Texas-El Paso 18.32 18.64 10.97

Here are a few observations based on these data:
  • Southern Miss beat UTSA 32-10, giving USM its fourth win of the season. With Charlotte, UTEP, and Old Dominion still left to play, it looks like the Golden Eagles have risen out of the West Division cellar and are at least the third-best team in the division, if not second-best, and are likely to be bowl-eligible this season.
  • Old Dominion defeated Charlotte 37-34 for the 49ers' fourth loss in a row. With this result, in all likelihood Charlotte will finish at the bottom of the East Division.
  • Western Kentucky continued towards its season-ending showdown with Marshall for the East Division title by pummeling North Texas 55-28. The Mean Green likewise continued toward their season-ending showdown with UTEP to try to win a game this year.
  • Louisiana Tech failed in its attempt to beat a good Power 5 conference team by falling at Mississippi State 45-20. Western Kentucky gets to try to do it this weekend against Louisiana State.

This weekend, Rice meets its final non-conference foe of the season in Army. The Cadets lost their first three games by a total of 10 points but then got on the right side of the ledger with an easy victory over hapless Eastern Michigan. A close loss to Penn State followed, so even with a 1-4 record things were looking up for Army. However, in the next game the Cadets were blown out by Duke and then struggled to a seven-point win over a below-average FCS squad in Bucknell. Army actually has a little better median performance rating than the Owls this season at 41.19, but its last two games were its worst of the season. It also helps Rice in that, for once this season, the Owls are the ones coming off a bye week and not the other way around, something that might be crucial in practicing to defend against the Cadets' triple-option offense. My guess is that the home-standing Owls will be victorious, but I doubt it'll be by a big margin.

Thanks Jonathan. I saw that you predicted a Rice victory over FAU, you must have seen the weather report. The rain delay gave us hope and we sneaked out with a W. No rain, we are 2-4.
This game will not be close, Rice should blow them out. Army is awful. This is based on the eye test. We are not that good either but we have to win this by 21 or more. We're playing at home, two weeks to prepare, Army does not throw the ball. Big blowout the more I write. 45-17.
10-21-2015 06:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.