THE POWER RANK

  • About
    • About The Power Rank
    • Start Here
    • Contact
  • Predictions
    • Games
    • March Madness
  • Content
    • Must Read
    • Blog
    • Podcast
    • The Craft of Sports Betting Professionals
    • March Madness Book
  • Rankings
    • World Soccer/Football
    • College Basketball
    • College Football
    • NFL
    • NFL passing success rate
    • MLB
    • Cluster Luck
  • Members
    • CBB Rank
    • My Account
    • Login
    • Become a member
  • Log in

Is Gene Chizik a good coach? A look at his defensive coordinator positions.

By Dr. Ed Feng Leave a Comment

In a previous article, we asked whether Gene Chizik was a good coach and looked at head coaching positions. Did he run Iowa State into the ground for two years but then get extremely lucky at Auburn with Cam Newton and Nick Fairley to win the national championship in 2010? Or was Auburn’s poor performance in 2011 an inevitable result of losing Newton and Fairley, implying that Chizik will consistently have Auburn in the national championship hunt? In our previous article, we offer an infographic for you to draw your own conclusions.

In this analysis, we looked at a team’s performance relative to how it faired before and after the coach’s tenure. A school’s resources for football remain roughly constant over time. Even T. Boone Pickens couldn’t change Oklahoma State football overnight with his money. Here, we apply this idea to Gene Chizik’s tenure as a defensive coordinator at UCF, Auburn and Texas. Instead of using our team ratings, we apply our algorithm to give a defensive rating that accounts for strength of schedule. Typically, the defensive rating gives how many points the unit gives up against an average FBS offense. However, we shift the rating here so that it gives how many points better the defense is than the average defense. So a rating of +7 in the visual below implies the defense would give up 7 fewer points than the average defense against the average offense.

Is Gene Chizik a good defensive coordinator?

Again, a higher value implies a better defense. So how did Chizik do?

Central Florida. From 1999 through 2001, Chizik worked as the defensive coordinator under head coach Mike Kruczek. While the defense consistently improved during the last 3 years of his tenure, it fell off rapidly after Chizik left for Auburn in 2002. This led to Kruczek’s firing in 2003, paving the way for George O’Leary to take over as head coach. O’Leary is perhaps more famous for lying on his resume, an act that got him fired by Notre Dame after 5 days as head coach. But he has overseen a consistent improvement in defense from 2004 through 2010. UCF’s defense achieved a higher rating in 2010 than in Chizik’s last year as coordinator in 2001.

Over the 16 year period in the visual, UCF never had defenses as good as Auburn and Texas. This is why we evaluate a coach’s tenure relative a team’s performance at the same school. Also, we could have compared a defense to the average defense in the conference. However, the average rating of 12 teams can change significantly from year to year. Instead, we evaluate defenses with respect to a 120 team average.

Auburn. Chizik took over the defense at Auburn under head coach Tommy Tuberville in 2002 and oversaw a rapid rise to excellence. In 2004, Auburn went 13-0 only to be snubbed from the national championship game in favor of Oklahoma and USC. The defense featured future NFL players Carlos Rodgers and Jay Ratcliff and finished with a rating 13.5 points better than average, 2nd best in the country.

Texas. In 2005, Chizik left Auburn to work under head coach Mack Brown at Texas. Chizik served as co-defensive coordinator with Duane Akina. Led by quarterback Vince Young, the 2005 Texas Longhorns went 13-0 and beat USC in an epic national championship game. The defense posted a rating 9.2 points better than average, good for 7th in the nation. According to Wikipedia, this defense had 9 players taken in the next 3 NFL Drafts. Over the next two years, of which Chizik was around for only the first, the defense fell off quite a bit. This led to the demotion of Akina and the hiring of Will Muschamp as coordinator. In Muschamp’s 3 years at the helm, the defensive started strongly in 2008 only to drop in 2010, a performance eerily similar to the 2005-2007 time period.

So is Gene Chizik a good defensive coordinator? We make visuals so you can draw your own conclusions about the data. Please leave us a comment.

For more content, follow The Power Rank on Twitter.

Related Posts:
—Is Gene Chizik a good coach? A look at his head coaching positions.
—
Can a defense force turnovers?
—College football rankings.

Filed Under: Auburn Tigers, College Football, College Football Analytics, Football Analytics, Gene Chizik, Iowa State Cyclones, Texas Longhorns, UCF Knights

Is Gene Chizik a good coach? A look at his head coaching positions.

By Dr. Ed Feng Leave a Comment

When Auburn hired Gene Chizik as head coach in 2009, it set off a firestorm of controversy. In the previous two years at Iowa State, Chizik had a 5-19 record as head coach. This angry fan was happy to point this out to Auburn athletic director Jay Jacobs. The fan didn’t even get the memo that one win came against FBS opponent South Dakota State. Moreover, Iowa State lost to lower subdivision opponent Northern Iowa. However, Chizik quickly turned Auburn around. In 2010, the Tigers completed a 14-0 season with a National Championship game win over Oregon. With such contrasting tenures as a head coach, how can we know if Chizik is a good coach?

To answer this question, we’ll use the year end rating given by our algorithm for ranking teams. While we usually use the difference in ratings to give a projected point spread, here we use the absolute value of the rating. This value gives how many points better a team is than the average FBS team. However, we can’t just look at the difference between Iowa State in 2008 (-10.0) and Auburn in 2010 (24.9) and conclude that Chizik improved as a coach. Auburn has vastly more resources for football than Iowa State.

Instead, we look at a coach’s tenure compared with the school’s performance before and after this period. A school’s reputation and monetary resources for football are roughly constant over time. Iowa State will not suddenly turn into the money making machine that is Texas football. Some schools such as Oregon and Oklahoma State have received hundreds of million dollars in donations, but even this infusion of money doesn’t change the football team overnight. Here, we show The Power Rank’s rating for Iowa State and Auburn from 2004 through 2011.

The Power Rank looks at Gene Chizik's tenure at Iowa State and Auburn.

Iowa State had some decent teams under Chizik’s predecessor, Dan McCarney. The Cyclones came within a missed field goal of winning the Big 12 North title in 2005. However, Iowa State dropped off significantly in 2006, paving the way for Chizik’s two rough years in Ames. In defense of Chizik, McCarney didn’t leave the cupboard full of talent. After recruiting top 50 classes from 2002 through 2004, McCarney wasn’t able to replicate this feat afterwards. In fact, Iowa State hasn’t had a top 50 class since 2004, suggesting that Chizik didn’t do much to increase the talent level at Iowa State. Paul Rhodes took over in 2009 and has overseen steady progress in the program over the last 3 years. In 2011, Iowa State upset Oklahoma State, costing the Cowboys a shot at the National Championship game.

At Auburn, Tommy Tuberville led the Tigers to an undefeated season in 2004, a year in which they got snubbed from the National Championship game. This Auburn team ended the year with a 21.9 rating, 3 touchdowns better than the average FBS team. However, the program declined over the next 4 years, leading to Tuberville’s stepping down and Chizik’s hiring. In 2010, Chizik landed the 4th best recruiting class, highlighted by quarterback Cam Newton and defensive tackle Nick Fairley. These two junior college transfers led Auburn to the national title. The TIgers ended that year with 24.9 rating. In 2011, Auburn posted 8-5 record with a bowl win over Virginia. However, The Power Rank assigned them a 3.7 rating, not far above the 2.1 they had in 2008, Tuberville’s last season.

It’s unfair to judge a coach until he’s had 4 years at a school and the opportunity to recruit his own players and install his own system. However, Chizik faces an uphill climb, as 43% of his 2009 and 2010 recruiting signees are no longer with the program. Moreover, both of his coordinators are new this upcoming season.

However, we make visuals so you can draw your own conclusions about Gene Chizik’s coaching abilities. Did a cyclone hit Ames in 2007 that made coaching at Iowa State horrifically difficult? Were there mitigating circumstances that let Utah State almost beat Auburn to open the 2010 season? Please leave us a comment.

For more content, follow The Power Rank on Twitter.

Related Posts:

—Can a defense force turnovers?
—College football rankings.
—College football’s incredibly slow progress towards a playoff.
—The Power Rank featured on KALX Spectrum, the science and technology show on UC Berkeley student radio.

Filed Under: Auburn Tigers, College Football, College Football Analytics, Football Analytics, Gene Chizik, Iowa State Cyclones

LSU, Alabama have a 70% of a rematch in the National Championship game

By Dr. Ed Feng Leave a Comment

LSU, Bama
BCS tranquility
Seventy percent

College Football Rankings, Week 12, November 19, 2011

The insanity started Friday night. Oklahoma State, ranked 2nd in the BCS, traveled to Iowa State, and the game turned into a much closer affair than anyone imagined. Iowa State cornerback Leonard Johnson harassed Justin Blackmon all night, holding the Oklahoma State receiver to 99 yards on 10 catches. The road team Cowboys let the underdog Cyclones stay in the game with a soft defense and 5 turnovers. The last turnover, a Brandon Weedon interception in double overtime, led to an epic 37-31 Iowa State victory.

The insanity continued on Saturday night. Oklahoma, the 5th ranked team in the BCS, tied the game with Baylor at 38 with less than a minute remaining in the game. After the ensuing kickoff, Baylor played for overtime with a running play on 1st and 10. Oklahoma quickly called timeout in hopes of getting the ball back in regulation. This aggressive call backfired when Baylor quarterback Robert Griffin, an Olympic caliber 400 meter hurdler, ripped of two long runs to move the ball up the field. Finally, at the Oklahoma 34, Griffin scrambled left, stopped in the face of the Oklahoma defense, and fired a pass deep into the right corner of the end zone. The beauty of the pass was its location in which only his receiver could catch it. Oklahoma’s national championship dreams evaporated into the Texas night.

The insanity next surfaced in Oregon coach Chip Kelly’s head. Down 3 to USC with 2:54 minutes remaining, Oregon, 4th in the BCS, had 3 timeouts but 86 yards in front of them. Inexplicably, coach Kelly used only one timeout before the drive stalled in USC territory. No matter how well an uptempo offense works for the Ducks, two extra plays (3 if they didn’t take a knee in the middle of the field to set up the field goal) might have resulted in a touchdown or better field position. The field goal attempt sailed wide left, giving USC a 38-35 win. Oregon won’t play in the national championship game again this year.

The losses to 3 of the top 5 teams has prompted media outlets to apply the term “chaos” to this incarnation of the BCS. But chaos doesn’t apply when a region of the county just smiles at the sight of LSU, Alabama and Arkansas at the top of the BCS rankings. It’s BCS tranquility down south. With LSU and Alabama in the first and second position respectively, these two teams only need to win their remaining games to play in the national championship game. The Power Rank gives LSU a 77% chance to beat both Arkansas at home and Georgia in the SEC championship game while Alabama has a 90% chance to beat rival Auburn. This implies a 70% chance for a LSU versus Alabama rematch in New Orleans this January. While a fresh matchup might feel more satisfying, LSU (1) and Alabama (2) are both 5 points above any other team in The Power Rank.

Two other scenarios merit some attention. What if Arkansas makes good on the 13% chance they have of upsetting LSU in Baton Rouge? Assuming Alabama beats Auburn, this leaves 3 one loss teams in the SEC West. To break this stalemate, the SEC picks the top team in the BCS, expect if the 2nd place team is within 5 places, because then it selects the head to head winner between the top two teams. Make sense? Good, because then you can explain it to us. We won’t attempt to predict how the BCS will reshuffle these 3 teams in this situation.

Last, we consider an Alabama loss to Auburn, an event with 10% likelihood, coupled with an LSU win over Arkansas (87%). The second losses for Alabama and Arkansas would open a spot in the national championship game for a non-SEC West team. To calculate the likelihood that any team ranked 4th or lower in the BCS makes the game, we will assume each team must win their remaining games while the teams above them (except LSU) must lose at least once. The Power Rank gives the following chance for these teams.

Oklahoma State: 5.2%
Virginia Tech: 0.9%
Stanford: 1.7%
Boise State: 0.6%

Stanford has a higher chance than Virginia Tech because The Power Rank puts the latter at 28th, much lower than their BCS rank of 5th. Despite only one loss, Virginia Tech has squeaked by bad teams (Duke, North Carolina) in their wins. Needless to say, these teams have very slim hopes of playing in the national championship game. However, up to two of them could end up in the top 4, which guarantees a BCS bowl game and its hefty payout.

Have any scenarios that we’re missing? Please leave a comment. Here are some situations we considered but didn’t use above.

LSU loses to Arkansas, makes the SEC championship game through BCS magic, but then loses to Georgia in Atlanta: 1.4%.

LSU loses two games by the above scenario and Alabama loses to Auburn (This is the true BCS chaos scenario, since LSU, Alabama and Arkansas would each have 2 losses but SEC fans would still demand one of them play in the national championship game): 0.14%.

Filed Under: Alabama Crimson Tide, Arkansas Razorbacks, Boise State Broncos, College Football, College Football 2011, College Football Analytics, Football Analytics, Iowa State Cyclones, LSU Tigers, Oklahoma Sooners, Oklahoma State Cowboys, Oregon Ducks, Stanford Cardinal, Virginia Tech Hokies

College Football Predictions, October 1, 2011

By Dr. Ed Feng 1 Comment

Wisconsin (7) will beat Nebraska (11) by 6.9 at home. Nebraska has a 0.34 chance of beating Wisconsin. The line favors Wisconsin by 10 at home. With no significant injuries on either side, The Power Rank suggests that this line shows irrational exuberance over Wisconsin’s new quarterback Russell Wilson. However, let’s take a closer look at the teams. Wisconsin runs the ball behind a huge offensive line. Nebraska has given up 4.7 yards per carry to Fresno State’s Robbie Rouse (169 total yards) and 5.9 yards per carry to Washington’s Chris Polk (130 yards). Unless the defense steps up, it will be difficult for Nebraska to get the ball back from Wisconsin late in the game. Stay away from this game.

Iowa State (51) will beat Texas (39) by 0.1 at home. Texas has a 0.50 chance of beating Iowa State. Perhaps this is the true test of The Power Rank’s early season rankings, as the line favors Texas by 9.5 on the road. In reality, it will test the progress of Texas sophomore quarterback Case McCoy and the offense. Texas has earned a rating of 4.7. If one believes in this line of Texas by 9.5, then they should actually have a rating of 14.2. In other words, Texas is as good as Texas A&M. With the weak schedule Texas has played against Rice, BYU and UCLA, it’s difficult to think they have made this jump. Take Iowa State.

Texas A&M (12) will beat Arkansas (15) by 1.3 at a neutral site. Arkansas has a 0.47 chance of beating Texas A&M.

Alabama (2) will beat Florida (23) by 9.4 on the road. Florida has a 0.29 chance of beating Alabama.

Boise State (1) will beat Nevada (31) by 20.2 at home. Nevada has a 0.13 chance of beating Boise State.

LSU (4) will beat Kentucky (66) by 25.1 at home. Kentucky has a 0.09 chance of beating LSU.

Oklahoma (5) will beat Ball State (102) by 34.8 at home. Ball State has a 0.04 chance of beating Oklahoma.

Stanford (6) will beat UCLA (90) by 28.6 at home. UCLA has a 0.06 chance of beating Stanford.

Auburn (9) will beat South Carolina (14) by 0.7 on the road. South Carolina has a 0.48 chance of beating Auburn.

TCU (10) will beat SMU (85) by 25.1 at home. SMU has a 0.09 chance of beating TCU.

Virginia Tech (16) will beat Clemson (20) by 5.4 at home. Clemson has a 0.38 chance of beating Virginia Tech.

Arizona State (17) will beat Oregon State (67) by 15.4 at home. Oregon State has a 0.19 chance of beating Arizona State.

Ohio State (18) will beat Michigan State (26) by 6.3 at home. Michigan State has a 0.36 chance of beating Ohio State.

Notre Dame (21) will beat Purdue (91) by 14.3 on the road. Purdue has a 0.21 chance of beating Notre Dame.

Georgia (24) will beat Mississippi State (25) by 3.9 at home. Mississippi State has a 0.41 chance of beating Georgia.

Pittsburgh (27) will beat South Florida (28) by 3.3 at home. South Florida has a 0.42 chance of beating Pittsburgh.

Illinois (29) will beat Northwestern (81) by 14.2 at home. Northwestern has a 0.21 chance of beating Illinois.

Tennessee (30) will beat Buffalo (114) by 25.3 at home. Buffalo has a 0.09 chance of beating Tennessee.

Navy (32) will beat Air Force (54) by 7.8 at home. Air Force has a 0.33 chance of beating Navy.

Utah (34) will beat Washington (42) by 4.8 at home. Washington has a 0.39 chance of beating Utah.

West Virginia (35) will beat Bowling Green (92) by 16.0 at home. Bowling Green has a 0.18 chance of beating West Virginia.

USC (36) will beat Arizona (62) by 8.9 at home. Arizona has a 0.30 chance of beating USC.

Kansas State (40) will beat Baylor (37) by 2.1 at home. Baylor has a 0.45 chance of beating Kansas State.

North Carolina State (49) will beat Georgia Tech (43) by 2.3 at home. Georgia Tech has a 0.45 chance of beating North Carolina State.

Texas Tech (44) will beat Kansas (96) by 10.6 on the road. Kansas has a 0.27 chance of beating Texas Tech.

Hawaii (46) will beat Louisiana Tech (76) by 3.3 on the road. Louisiana Tech has a 0.42 chance of beating Hawaii.

North Carolina (47) will beat East Carolina (87) by 6.6 on the road. East Carolina has a 0.35 chance of beating North Carolina.

Michigan (48) will beat Minnesota (78) by 9.8 at home. Minnesota has a 0.29 chance of beating Michigan.

Tulsa (50) will beat North Texas (113) by 20.0 at home. North Texas has a 0.13 chance of beating Tulsa.

Northern Illinois (52) will beat Central Michigan (107) by 11.5 on the road. Central Michigan has a 0.25 chance of beating Northern Illinois.

Connecticut (53) will beat Western Michigan (70) by 6.7 at home. Western Michigan has a 0.35 chance of beating Connecticut.

Penn State (55) will beat Indiana (100) by 9.5 on the road. Indiana has a 0.29 chance of beating Penn State.

Louisville (56) will beat Marshall (106) by 17.2 at home. Marshall has a 0.17 chance of beating Louisville.

Temple (57) will beat Toledo (68) by 5.3 at home. Toledo has a 0.38 chance of beating Temple.

Florida International (58) will beat Duke (86) by 8.9 at home. Duke has a 0.30 chance of beating Florida International.

Fresno State (71) will beat Mississippi (59) by 0.7 at home. Mississippi has a 0.48 chance of beating Fresno State.

Cincinnati (61) will beat Miami (OH) (79) by 0.8 on the road. Miami (OH) has a 0.48 chance of beating Cincinnati.

Brigham Young (64) will beat Utah State (63) by 2.8 at home. Utah State has a 0.44 chance of beating Brigham Young.

Southern Miss (65) will beat Rice (111) by 16.0 at home. Rice has a 0.18 chance of beating Southern Miss.

Syracuse (69) will beat Rutgers (80) by 4.9 at home. Rutgers has a 0.39 chance of beating Syracuse.

Ohio (72) will beat Kent State (105) by 13.2 at home. Kent State has a 0.23 chance of beating Ohio.

Colorado (73) will beat Washington State (74) by 3.3 at home. Washington State has a 0.42 chance of beating Colorado.

Boston College (75) will beat Wake Forest (88) by 6.7 at home. Wake Forest has a 0.35 chance of beating Boston College.

Troy (77) will beat UAB (109) by 13.3 at home. UAB has a 0.22 chance of beating Troy.

Houston (82) will beat UTEP (104) by 4.8 on the road. UTEP has a 0.39 chance of beating Houston.

Arkansas State (84) will beat Western Kentucky (112) by 6.8 on the road. Western Kentucky has a 0.35 chance of beating Arkansas State.

Virginia (89) will beat Idaho (98) by 6.4 at home. Idaho has a 0.35 chance of beating Virginia.

Louisiana Lafayette (93) will beat Florida Atlantic (101) by 6.1 at home. Florida Atlantic has a 0.36 chance of beating Louisiana Lafayette.

Army (94) will beat Tulane (115) by 9.8 at home. Tulane has a 0.29 chance of beating Army.

Colorado State (99) will beat San Jose State (108) by 5.7 at home. San Jose State has a 0.37 chance of beating Colorado State.

Middle Tennessee State (103) will beat Memphis (120) by 22.6 at home. Memphis has a 0.11 chance of beating Middle Tennessee State.

New Mexico State (116) will beat New Mexico (118) by 3.2 on the road. New Mexico has a 0.43 chance of beating New Mexico State.

Eastern Michigan (117) will beat Akron (119) by 6.9 at home. Akron has a 0.34 chance of beating Eastern Michigan.

Filed Under: College Football, College Football 2011, College Football Analytics, Iowa State Cyclones, Nebraska Cornhuskers, Texas Longhorns, Wisconsin Badgers

Data driven betting information

Valuable. Concise. Entertaining.

To sign up for The Power Rank's email newsletter, enter your best email and click on "Sign up now!"

Popular Articles

  • How to predict interceptions in the NFL
  • 5 insights from academic research on predicting world soccer/football matches
  • How to win your NCAA tournament pool
  • The ultimate guide to predictive college basketball analytics
  • Accurate football predictions with linear regression
  • The surprising truth about passing and rushing in the NFL
  • Football analytics resource guide
  • The Reason You Can’t Avoid The Curse of Small Sample Size
  • The essential guide to predictive CFB rankings
  • How computer rankings make you smarter about sports
  • How to win your college football bowl pool
  • Do you make these 3 mistakes with college football statistics?
  • The Top 10 Things to Know About The Power Rank’s Methods

Recent Articles

  • Podcast: The secret edge in Super Bowl LVII between Kansas City and Philadelphia
  • 7-Nugget Saturday, February 4, 2023
  • Podcast: Hitman on NFL betting, Super Bowl LVII
  • Members: Super Bowl game and prop analysis
  • 7-Nugget Saturday, January 28, 2023

© 2023 The Power Rank Inc., All rights reserved.

About, Terms of Use, Privacy Policy

Smarter sports betting in less than 5 minutes

Valuable. Concise. Entertaining.


These are the goals with every correspondence, which cover bets on the NFL and college football.


To sign up for The Power Rank's free email newsletter, enter your best email and click on "Sign up now!"


No thanks, I'll make my predictions without data and analytics.

{"cookieName":"wBounce","isAggressive":false,"isSitewide":true,"hesitation":"","openAnimation":false,"exitAnimation":false,"timer":"","sensitivity":"","cookieExpire":"","cookieDomain":"","autoFire":"","isAnalyticsEnabled":true}
  • About
    • About The Power Rank
    • Start Here
    • Contact
  • Predictions
    • Games
    • March Madness
  • Content
    • Must Read
    • Blog
    • Podcast
    • The Craft of Sports Betting Professionals
    • March Madness Book
  • Rankings
    • World Soccer/Football
    • College Basketball
    • College Football
    • NFL
    • NFL passing success rate
    • MLB
    • Cluster Luck
  • Members
    • CBB Rank
    • My Account
    • Login
    • Become a member