California Golden Bears

College football win totals for 2014

How many games will your team win this season?

Let’s estimate wins with The Power Rank’s preseason rankings. These rankings come from a regression model that considers team performance the previous four years, turnovers in each of these four years and returning starters for the current season.

While I developed this model before the 2013 season, I’ve gone back and calculated the rankings for each year since 2005. The earlier years have less data to consider, since I only uses numbers from seasons prior to the seasons of interest.

In the rankings, each team has a rating, and the difference in rating gives an expected margin of victory on a neutral site. To get a prediction for a home game, add 3 points for the home team.

The predictions of my preseason model pick 70.5% of game winners for the current year and 60.3% of bowl game winners. I’m still a bit surprised how well you can predict the season before any game has been played. College football programs have a history and tradition that set expectations. Alabama never drops to the level of Rice, or vice versa.

The predicted margin of victory translates into a win probability for each game, which you can see on the team pages. Assuming the randomness of one game has no effect on any other game, you can add these win probabilities to get expected wins for a team.

Below, I show the difference in this prediction (TPR) from the total posted at Pinnacle sports (Markets). Win totals for all teams are listed at the bottom of this post.

1. California, 1.74, 4.2 TPR, 2.5 Markets.
2. Kentucky, 1.72, 5.2 TPR, 3.5 Markets.
3. Virginia, 1.35, 4.8 TPR, 3.5 Markets.
4. Utah, 1.20, 5.7 TPR, 4.5 Markets.
5. Arkansas, 1.17, 5.7 TPR, 4.5 Markets.
6. Kansas, 1.13, 4.1 TPR, 3.0 Markets.
7. Illinois, 1.12, 5.6 TPR, 4.5 Markets.
8. Wake Forest, 1.10, 4.6 TPR, 3.5 Markets.
9. Iowa State, 1.08, 4.6 TPR, 3.5 Markets.
10. Purdue, 0.94, 4.4 TPR, 3.5 Markets.
11. Rutgers, 0.90, 5.4 TPR, 4.5 Markets.
12. West Virginia, 0.85, 5.3 TPR, 4.5 Markets.
13. Indiana, 0.69, 6.2 TPR, 5.5 Markets.
14. Boston College, 0.66, 5.7 TPR, 5.0 Markets.
15. North Carolina State, 0.48, 6.0 TPR, 5.5 Markets.
16. Nevada, 0.40, 6.4 TPR, 6.0 Markets.
17. Texas A&M, 0.39, 7.9 TPR, 7.5 Markets.
18. Washington State, 0.38, 5.9 TPR, 5.5 Markets.
19. UNLV, 0.20, 4.7 TPR, 4.5 Markets.
20. Michigan, 0.14, 7.6 TPR, 7.5 Markets.
21. Vanderbilt, 0.12, 6.1 TPR, 6.0 Markets.
22. Arizona, -0.00, 7.0 TPR, 7.0 Markets.
23. Stanford, -0.05, 8.5 TPR, 8.5 Markets.
24. Oregon State, -0.11, 6.9 TPR, 7.0 Markets.
25. TCU, -0.15, 7.9 TPR, 8.0 Markets.
26. Colorado, -0.26, 4.2 TPR, 4.5 Markets.
27. Oklahoma State, -0.35, 7.2 TPR, 7.5 Markets.
28. Mississippi State, -0.39, 7.1 TPR, 7.5 Markets.
29. Minnesota, -0.41, 6.1 TPR, 6.5 Markets.
30. Miami (FL), -0.44, 7.1 TPR, 7.5 Markets.
31. Virginia Tech, -0.46, 7.5 TPR, 8.0 Markets.
32. Georgia Tech, -0.47, 6.0 TPR, 6.5 Markets.
33. Pittsburgh, -0.51, 7.0 TPR, 7.5 Markets.
34. LSU, -0.54, 8.5 TPR, 9.0 Markets.
35. Texas Tech, -0.58, 5.9 TPR, 6.5 Markets.
36. Florida, -0.59, 6.9 TPR, 7.5 Markets.
37. Fresno State, -0.60, 6.9 TPR, 7.5 Markets.
38. Mississippi, -0.64, 6.9 TPR, 7.5 Markets.
39. Florida State, -0.72, 10.3 TPR, 11.0 Markets.
40. Arizona State, -0.73, 6.8 TPR, 7.5 Markets.
41. Missouri, -0.74, 6.8 TPR, 7.5 Markets.
42. Alabama, -0.80, 9.7 TPR, 10.5 Markets.
43. Colorado State, -0.81, 5.7 TPR, 6.5 Markets.
44. Kansas State, -0.82, 6.7 TPR, 7.5 Markets.
45. Brigham Young, -0.82, 8.2 TPR, 9.0 Markets.
46. USC, -0.85, 7.6 TPR, 8.5 Markets.
47. Tennessee, -0.89, 4.6 TPR, 5.5 Markets.
48. Maryland, -0.91, 5.6 TPR, 6.5 Markets.
49. Louisville, -0.91, 6.6 TPR, 7.5 Markets.
50. Northwestern, -1.00, 6.5 TPR, 7.5 Markets.
51. Penn State, -1.01, 6.5 TPR, 7.5 Markets.
52. Texas, -1.01, 7.0 TPR, 8.0 Markets.
53. Washington, -1.05, 7.9 TPR, 9.0 Markets.
54. Notre Dame, -1.06, 6.4 TPR, 7.5 Markets.
55. Clemson, -1.08, 7.4 TPR, 8.5 Markets.
56. Georgia, -1.20, 8.3 TPR, 9.5 Markets.
57. Nebraska, -1.28, 6.7 TPR, 8.0 Markets.
58. Wisconsin, -1.30, 8.2 TPR, 9.5 Markets.
59. Oregon, -1.33, 9.2 TPR, 10.5 Markets.
60. Duke, -1.34, 7.2 TPR, 8.5 Markets.
61. Iowa, -1.37, 7.1 TPR, 8.5 Markets.
62. Michigan State, -1.41, 8.1 TPR, 9.5 Markets.
63. South Carolina, -1.48, 8.0 TPR, 9.5 Markets.
64. North Carolina, -1.58, 6.9 TPR, 8.5 Markets.
65. Baylor, -1.77, 7.7 TPR, 9.5 Markets.
66. Utah State, -1.78, 7.7 TPR, 9.5 Markets.
67. Auburn, -1.80, 7.7 TPR, 9.5 Markets.
68. Boise State, -1.88, 8.1 TPR, 10.0 Markets.
69. Oklahoma, -1.90, 8.6 TPR, 10.5 Markets.
70. UCLA, -2.30, 7.2 TPR, 9.5 Markets.

Let’s first look some teams predicted to be overrated by The Power Rank.

Oklahoma

Every year, a team wins big in a bowl game and gets overrated the next preseason.

Two years ago, it was West Virginia after crushing Clemson in the Orange Bowl. Last season, it was Clemson, who beat LSU in the closing minutes in the Chick-fil-A Bowl.

This season, Oklahoma sits at 3rd in the preseason Coaches Poll after beating Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. The markets expect the Sooners to win 10.5 games.

I have all the respect in the world for Bob Stoops and his program. They are consistently a top 10 program, and my preseason rankings place Oklahoma 7th.

However, to win 11 games, they can only stumble once in a tough Big 12 conference. With games against TCU, Texas, Baylor and Oklahoma State, this seems unlikely at best.

UCLA

Everyone loves QB Brett Hundley and the program Jim Mora has built at UCLA. Moreover, they have 16 returning starters, tops in the Pac-12. The Bruins are 7th in the AP and Coaches preseason polls, and the markets expect 9.5 wins.

My preseason model is down on UCLA for two reasons. First, they have only had success recently. In 2011, they were barely an average FBS team by my rankings. My preseason model considers a 4 year window to evaluate program strength.

Second, UCLA was +10 in turnover margin last season. While this isn’t a remarkable total (Houston led the FBS with +25), the Bruins should not expect a similar total this season since turnover margin regresses to the mean.

Their schedule doesn’t do them any favors either. UCLA travels to Texas and Washington and also hosts Stanford and Oregon. My numbers have UCLA as an underdog in each of these games. If they lose 2 of these 4 and drop another one along the way, they’ll come under 9.5 wins.

Now let’s check out two teams underrated by the markets.

California

As a Stanford alum, I laughed when Cal hired Sonny Dykes. He had an incredible offense at Louisiana Tech but didn’t seem that concerned with defense. Dykes also doesn’t seem like the type of guy that will win recruiting battles on the West Coast.

Cal dropped off significantly last season in Dykes’ first year, posting a 1-11 record. He started a freshman QB and had significant departures on defense. The markets expect 2.5 wins this season.

However, Cal had bad turnover luck last season with a -15 turnover margin. The randomness of turnovers implies this margin will regress towards zero this season. Since my preseason model considers this bad luck from last season, Cal is ranked 69th, much higher than the 103rd they ended last season.

The markets expect 2.5 wins. However, Cal should beat Sacramento State and get a weak Colorado team at home. They only need one more win the rest of the way for that third win.

Kentucky

The Wildcats look like another team in which people look at their poor record from last season (2-10) and have low expectations for the current season. The markets expect 3.5 wins.

However, Kentucky has 16 returning starters, which places the Wildcats 68th in my preseason rankings. They should win games against Tennessee-Martin, Ohio and Louisiana Monroe. Moreover, my numbers expect them to beat either Tennessee or Vanderbilt.

Just in case they fall short and have 3 wins heading into their last game, they have a better than 1 in 3 chance of beating Louisville, a team that enjoyed quite a bit of turnover luck last season.

Win totals for all teams

Georgia State already has one win after their dramatic come from behind win over Abilene Christian last night.

1. Florida State, 10.28.
2. Alabama, 9.70.
3. Oregon, 9.17.
4. Oklahoma, 8.60.
5. Marshall, 8.54.
6. Northern Illinois, 8.50.
7. LSU, 8.46.
8. Stanford, 8.45.
9. Georgia, 8.30.
10. Wisconsin, 8.20.
11. Brigham Young, 8.18.
12. Houston, 8.17.
13. Boise State, 8.12.
14. Ohio State, 8.12.
15. Michigan State, 8.09.
16. South Carolina, 8.02.
17. UCF, 8.02.
18. Washington, 7.95.
19. Texas A&M, 7.89.
20. TCU, 7.85.
21. Baylor, 7.73.
22. Utah State, 7.72.
23. Auburn, 7.70.
24. Louisiana Lafayette, 7.70.
25. USC, 7.65.
26. Michigan, 7.64.
27. Toledo, 7.60.
28. Navy, 7.58.
29. Virginia Tech, 7.54.
30. Bowling Green, 7.49.
31. Georgia Southern, 7.45.
32. Clemson, 7.42.
33. Cincinnati, 7.28.
34. UCLA, 7.20.
35. Duke, 7.16.
36. Oklahoma State, 7.15.
37. Iowa, 7.13.
38. Mississippi State, 7.11.
39. Miami (FL), 7.06.
40. Arizona, 7.00.
41. Pittsburgh, 6.99.
42. Texas, 6.99.
43. Buffalo, 6.97.
44. North Carolina, 6.92.
45. Florida, 6.91.
46. Fresno State, 6.90.
47. Oregon State, 6.89.
48. Mississippi, 6.86.
49. Arkansas State, 6.82.
50. Arizona State, 6.77.
51. Missouri, 6.76.
52. Nebraska, 6.72.
53. Ball State, 6.71.
54. Kansas State, 6.68.
55. Louisville, 6.59.
56. Northwestern, 6.50.
57. Penn State, 6.49.
58. South Alabama, 6.47.
59. Western Kentucky, 6.46.
60. Notre Dame, 6.44.
61. Nevada, 6.40.
62. Troy, 6.25.
63. Indiana, 6.19.
64. Rice, 6.13.
65. Vanderbilt, 6.12.
66. UTSA, 6.10.
67. Minnesota, 6.09.
68. San Diego State, 6.08.
69. South Florida, 6.06.
70. Georgia Tech, 6.03.
71. Air Force, 6.00.
72. North Texas, 5.98.
73. North Carolina State, 5.98.
74. San Jose State, 5.96.
75. Texas Tech, 5.92.
76. Middle Tennessee State, 5.90.
77. Central Michigan, 5.90.
78. Washington State, 5.88.
79. Temple, 5.72.
80. Akron, 5.71.
81. Utah, 5.70.
82. Colorado State, 5.69.
83. Syracuse, 5.67.
84. Arkansas, 5.67.
85. Boston College, 5.66.
86. East Carolina, 5.64.
87. Ohio, 5.62.
88. Illinois, 5.62.
89. Maryland, 5.59.
90. Army, 5.57.
91. Memphis, 5.53.
92. Old Dominion, 5.51.
93. Tulsa, 5.50.
94. Rutgers, 5.40.
95. Louisiana Monroe, 5.40.
96. West Virginia, 5.35.
97. Western Michigan, 5.25.
98. Kentucky, 5.22.
99. UAB, 5.21.
100. Connecticut, 5.21.
101. Appalachian State, 5.19.
102. Hawaii, 5.18.
103. Florida Atlantic, 5.12.
104. Southern Miss, 4.98.
105. Louisiana Tech, 4.90.
106. Virginia, 4.85.
107. Wyoming, 4.79.
108. Kent State, 4.78.
109. SMU, 4.76.
110. UNLV, 4.70.
111. Tennessee, 4.61.
112. Wake Forest, 4.60.
113. Iowa State, 4.58.
114. Florida International, 4.54.
115. Purdue, 4.44.
116. Idaho, 4.42.
117. Texas State, 4.37.
118. UTEP, 4.37.
119. California, 4.24.
120. Colorado, 4.24.
121. Kansas, 4.13.
122. Tulane, 3.94.
123. New Mexico State, 3.77.
124. Massachusetts, 3.67.
125. Miami (OH), 3.64.
126. New Mexico, 3.32.
127. Eastern Michigan, 3.04.
128. Georgia State, 3.00.

The Top 25 College Football Teams of 2013 by Recruiting Rankings

By Dr. Ed Feng Leave a Comment

Recruiting rankings do matter.

Each year, Rivals assigns a rating or points value to each school that describes the talent of the players who signed a letter of intent. For Sports Illustrated, we developed a model that takes the Rivals ratings and predicts future team performance. To compare the rankings from this model with the preseason AP poll, we looked at which rankings better predicted the final AP poll.

The Rivals model did as good or better than the preseason AP poll on 46 out of 100 teams over the last 4 years. This is remarkable given the limited information the recruiting model has compared with the writers that vote in the AP poll.

To get the full story on SI.com, click here.

Before we count down the top 25 teams for 2013, we note the following about this regression model.

The regression model has learned from the past by relating recruiting ratings to the team ratings from The Power Rank algorithm. For example, recruiting data from 2009 to 2012 were fit to The Power Rank’s results for the 2012 season. Our team ratings from the regular season have picked the winner in 62.8% of bowl games over the last 11 years, a better percentage than the Vegas line (62.2%). Part of the accuracy of the recruiting model depends on our team ratings.
We used the final AP poll as the measuring stick for the accuracy of the Rivals model and the preseason AP poll. This poll has problems, as it strongly considers wins but almost ignores margin of victory. However, it was the most relevant measurement of team strength for a general college football audience.
The 100 teams we looked at were the top 25 teams in the preseason AP poll over the last 4 years. This puts the recruiting model in a better light, since this set of teams didn’t include teams highly ranked by the recruiting model but outside the AP top 25. For example, the recruiting model had Auburn 7th heading into the 2012 season. The preseason AP poll had Auburn 28th, which more accurately predicted their disasterous season.

With the passing of National Signing Day 2013, we now have the Rivals ratings to predict the 2013 college football season. The predictions are based the past 8 years of team performance.

25. Stanford. The Cardinal only had 12 scholarships to offer incoming freshmen. Since the number of recruits directly affects the Rivals team rating, Stanford only had the 61st ranked class this year, a far cry from their 5th ranked class a season ago.

24. Miami (FL). Miami coach Al Golden can’t walk off campus without tripping over a highly touted high school player. However, impending NCAA sanctions made recruiting difficult this year, as they had the 44th best class, much worse than their 9th ranking a year ago.

23. Virginia Tech. Despite two down years, coach Frank Beamer still recruited the 22nd ranked class. The Hokies need QB Logan Thomas’s passing to improve or groom a better passer.

22. California. The Bears continue to recruit well despite the coaching change from Jeff Tedford to Sonny Dykes. However, this ranking is probably too high. The Cal offense will be learning a new spread system under Dykes, while the defense lost coordinator Clancy Pendergast to USC.

21. Washington. The Huskies have continually improved their recruiting rank over the last 4 year, rising from 28th in 2010 to 18th in 2013. Hopefully, some of the linemen recruiting during this time will give QB Keith Price better protection next season.

20. Nebraska. The Cornhuskers pulled in the 17th best class, by far the 3rd best class in the Big Ten. Unfortunately, Michigan and Ohio State were way ahead, and Nebraska has to travel to Ann Arbor this season.

19. South Carolina. With all the media chatter about the talent in Columbus and the draw dropping hits from Jadeveon Clowney, you might think South Carolina is a top 10 recruiting team. In reality, their 16th ranking in 2013 was their best over the last 4 seasons.

18. Tennessee. The Rivals model had the Vols 13th in the nation last season, which was way too high. With new coach Butch Jones taking over, this year’s 18th ranking is also probably too high.

17. Oregon. Over the last 4 years, the Rivals model has consistently underrated the Ducks. The preseason AP poll was more accurate each year. Will this continue after head coach Chip Kelly handed the program over to Mark Helfrich?

16. UCLA. In talent rich Southern California, the Bruins always recruit well. They finally lived up to that talent last season under first year head coach Jim Mora. Their 11th ranked class this year should continue this trajectory.

15. Texas A&M. New coach Kevin Sumlin is getting tons of credit for recruiting the 10th best class this year. Of course, it helps that Johnny Manziel (a 3 star recruit) led the Aggies to their best season in more than a decade.

14. Mississippi. The Rebels and coach Hugh Freeze had a magical signing day, landing two top 10 recruits on the offensive and defensive line. Their 7th ranking is by far their best since 2002. However, three of their rivals in the SEC west are ranked higher in these rankings.

13. Clemson. With their dramatic, come from behind win against LSU in the Chick-fil-A Bowl, the Tigers will surely be an overrated top 10 team in the preseason AP poll. This ranking in the teens seems more appropriate.

12. Oklahoma. In the past 12 years, the Sooners have recruited a top 10 class 7 times. However, none of these top 10 classes have occurred during the last 3 seasons. Coach Bob Stoops needs more talent on the defensive line to start contending for national titles again.

11. Texas. Even Mack Brown can’t recruit after 3 subpar seasons. The Longhorns had the 23rd ranked class, their worst since 2002. Their usually excellent defense really needs help after last season.

10. Georgia. How would the Bulldogs recruiting class would have fared if the coaches had told QB Aaron Murray to spike the ball during the waning moments of the SEC championship game? A win over Alabama would have landed Georgia in the national title game against Notre Dame. Instead, they had the 12th best class, a fine rank but the second worst for coach Mark Richt over the last 12 years.

9. Michigan. After a disasterous 3 seasons under Rich Rodriguez, Brady Hoke has turned around this program both on the field and recruiting trail. The Wolverines notched the 5th ranked class after finishing 7th last year. These are their two best ranked classes over the last 8 years.

8. USC. While we kept hearing about the defections from the Trojan’s class, no one mentioned that coach Lane Kiffin still had five 5 star recruits coming to campus, more than any other school (yes, even Alabama). Lack of talent will not be a problem for USC.

7. Auburn. Yes, feel free to call BS on this one. The Tigers continue to recruit well. But unless the next Cam Newton and Nick Fairley show up on campus this fall, Auburn will not return to elite status this season under new coach Gus Malzahn.

6. Florida State. Call BS on this one at your own risk. Despite disappointing loses to NC State and Florida this year, expect the talent rich Seminoles to exceed expectations next season.

5. LSU. It’s a bit shocking that top recruit Robert Nkemdiche picked Ole Miss over LSU. There’s more certainly in winning games in Baton Rouge. Still, coach Les Miles landed the 6th best class in the nation.

4. Notre Dame. The Fighting Irish took full advantage of their undefeated regular season and landed the 3rd best class in the nation. While we should expect Notre Dame to be good next year, 4th is probably too high.

3. Ohio State. The Buckeyes will not surprise anyone this year. In coach Urban Meyer’s first season, Ohio State started the year 18th in the preseason AP poll. Now, with an undefeated season and a 2nd ranked recruiting class, anything but a national title will be a disappointment.

2. Florida. Last year, first year coach Will Muschamp landed the 3rd ranked class despite finishing 7-6. Somehow, a 11-2 season this year got the Gators the 4th ranked class (although they did top the rankings before National Signing Day). Talent is never a problem at Florida.

1. Alabama. Duh. What did you expect? After going 7-6 in his first year at Alabama, coach Nick Saban still recruited the top ranked class in 2008. This started a streak of top ranked classes for Alabama in 5 of the last 6 years. The rest of the SEC should resort to a voodoo consultant to bring bad turnover luck to Alabama next season.

Outlook

No one should take these rankings too seriously. With the short season and the youth of the players involved, college football is incredibly difficult to predict during the preseason. And these rankings have their problems. There’s an incredibly high likelihood that Boise State will be better than the 60th best team in the nation next year.

However, these rankings are still useful, and not only because they are six months ahead of the preseason AP poll. As with all predictive analytics, use these rankings has a guide to help navigate expectations for next season.

Moreover, this is only the beginning of our preseason college football predictions. To keep up to date, sign up for our free email newsletter below.

Thanks for reading.

Can Cal beat Texas? The most important matchup of the Holiday Bowl

By Dr. Ed Feng Leave a Comment

Recently, we started ranking games according to the strength of the teams and an excitement factor based on our predictions. When applied to this year’s Bowl games, the Holiday Bowl matchup between Texas and California came up 6th out of 35, just behind the Cotton Bowl game between Kansas State and Arkansas. While it might seem strange that a December 28th game between two 7-5 teams ranks so highly, the matchup has a high excitement factor. The Power Rank (TPR) predicts a 0.8 point victory for Texas in a close game, essentially a coin flip. In fact, the algorithm predicted a 0.3 point win for Cal prior to the start of Bowl season. It changed its mind after Arizona State’s 56-24 loss to Boise State last week, making Cal’s 9 point win over the Sun Devils less impressive.

Also, after a week of watching teams like Florida International and Marshall play in bowl games, the Holiday Bowl does not disappoint in the team strength department. While we mocked the AP poll for putting Texas 19th after their 3-0 start, the Longhorns made it as high as 21st in TPR. Losing 3 of their last 4 dropped Texas to 26th at the end of the regular season. Cal was 62nd after an embarrassing 17 point loss to UCLA . They ended the season 3-1, and their only loss was a 3 point game at Stanford in Big Game. This late season surge pushed Cal up to 28th at the end of the regular season, a big factor in making the Pac-12 our third rated conference behind the Big 12 and SEC.

To further break down this matchup, we look at our offense and defense rankings.

This visual is based on offense and defense ratings that correspond to the predicted points scored or allowed against an average opponent. (Click on offense and defense for the numerical values.) Texas has a better defense while Cal has the better offense. These rankings predict a 24.0-22.7 win for Texas, a defensive battle considering that a team scores 26.9 points per game on average. The 1.3 point margin of victory is similar to the 0.8 predicted by the team rankings.

These rankings point towards the Cal offense against the Texas defense as the most important matchup of the game. After watching his quarterback Zach Maynard struggle early in the season, Cal coach Jeff Tedford started calling more running plays in the last 4 games. The Bears racked up over 5.9 yards per carry in all but one of those games. This proficiency in the running game helped Maynard, who completed 67% of his passes and threw 5 touchdowns to 1 interception in those last 4 games. However, running the ball against Texas will not be easy, as the Longhorns only allowed 3.34 yards per carry, good for 18th in the country according to cfbstats.com. If Maynard can avoid the interceptions that plagued Cal early in the season, the Bears will stay in the game. If Maynard can find receivers Keenan Allen and Marvin Jones down the field, Cal can beat Texas.

For more content, find The Power Rank on Twitter.

—About The Power Rank.
—Ranking college football bowl games: a viewer’s guide.
—College football’s incredibly slow progress towards a playoff.
—3 types of college football coaches that got fired.
—The Power Rank featured on KALX Spectrum, the science and technology show on UC Berkeley student radio.

The Power Rank on KALX Spectrum

By Dr. Ed Feng Leave a Comment

This isn’t a phone conversation that immediately gets posted as a podcast. I went to the studios of KALX, the student radio station at UC Berkeley, and taped about 70 minutes of material with Rick Karnesky and Brad Swift. They subsequently spent 8 to 12 hours editing the material into the show that aired on Spectrum, the science and technology show on KALX. We discuss the algorithm, its roots in statistical physics, and my thoughts about Big Game that largely came true. You can listen to the 20 minute show here.

California (51) will beat USC (49) by 2.9 at home

By Dr. Ed Feng Leave a Comment

USC and Cal are two teams that have underachieved the first part of this season. USC ended last year with a 11.4 rating but currently have a 2.4 rating. Cal’s rating has dropped from 9.2 at the end of last season to 2.3 now. Both our rankings, which include a one year window of games with this year’s games counted twice, and rankings with only games this year suggest two very evenly matched teams. A 3 point home field advantage suggests Cal will win at home on Thursday night, which differs from the line that favors USC by 3 on the road. Moreover, Cal has played much better at home than on the road. For example, last year they gave up 2.67 yards per rush attempt at home compared with 5.03 on the road. In the air, they gave up 5.6 yards per pass attempt at home but 7.0 on the road, despite a schedule that had Stanford and Oregon visit Berkeley. With the 2.9 predicted margin of victory for Cal, USC has a 0.43 chance of pulling a road upset.

Oklahoma

UCLA

California

Kentucky

Win totals for all teams

Outlook

Data driven betting information