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

Do coaches understand the randomness of turnovers? A letter from Big Ten Media Day

By Dr. Ed Feng 4 Comments

I flipped out when Purdue announced their new head coach.

On December 5th, 2012, the Boilermakers hired Darrell Hazell, a coach with a grand total of two years head coaching experience. His first season at Kent State (2011) followed their historic trend as a slightly below average MAC team, as you can see in the visual.

Kent State

In his second season (2012), Hazell seemed to turn Kent State around. They had a Disney World season, a fantasy in which they were 11-1 heading into the MAC championship game. With a win over Northern Illinois, Kent State could have made a BCS bowl game. The Power Rank rated them better than the average FBS team, the first time for this program in the last 30 years.

The randomness of turnovers

However, a big factor in their success was turnover margin. Kent State had 20 more takeaways than giveaways, 3rd best in the nation in 2012. But turnover margin from year to year is like flipping a coin. A team’s value one season only explains 3% of the variance in turnover margin the following season.

Turnover margin regresses strongly to the mean.

Darrell Hazell got lucky his second season at Kent State with this large turnover margin, especially during their 11-1 regular season. They were only +1 in turnover margin against Northern Illinois in the MAC championship game and lost. They couldn’t force any turnovers against Arkansas State in the GoDaddy.com Bowl, losing that game as well.

Purdue, while quite the academic institution with its stellar engineering programs, didn’t get the memo about the randomness of turnovers. They hired Hazell as coach.

Did Hazell know he got lucky?

Big Ten Media Days

The Big Ten held its annual media days this week in Chicago. Every head coach gets 15 minutes in front of the media to make an opening statement and take questions. Except for Ohio State’s Urban Meyer, the questions from the media did not fill the entire 15 minutes, making for an awkward silence.

I took the silence at the end of coach Hazell’s time to ask about turnovers. I didn’t want to be a pompous academic lecturing about correlation coefficients, so I posed the question this way: “Your team last year had an incredible turnover margin, did you do anything in practice to get that incredible turnover margin?”

There was a lot of coach speak in his reply: “That’s probably the number one component to losing football games is turning the football over.” Blah, blah, blah. “We have a great responsibility to Purdue football to take care of the football.” Blah, blah, blah.

But he never took credit for Kent State’s remarkable turnover margin last season. I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt. I think he understands the randomness of turnovers.

There’s hope for Purdue football.

Filed Under: College Football, College Football 2013, College Football Analytics, Kent State Golden Flashes, Purdue Boilermakers

The Shocking Truth About The Colley Matrix BCS Computer Poll

By Dr. Ed Feng 30 Comments

Ed Feng exposes flawed Colley Matrix computer poll used by BCSCollege football fans like us hate the BCS.

Unless you work for ESPN and the BCS contributes to your paycheck, the idea of allowing only two teams to play for the national championship is criminal.

And if you’re reading this numbers based blog, you probably know about the problems with the computer polls used in the BCS rankings.

First, only one of the six ranking systems gives enough details so that others can reproduce the results. The other five black boxes are shrouded in mystery.

Second, the BCS forbids the computers from using margin of victory in their calculations. It does not matter that a 33 point loss says something much different about a team than a 1 point loss. In the name of sportsmanship, the BCS will not give teams the incentive to run up the score.

Last, you may have even heard that Richard Billingsley, the man behind one computer poll, is not a mathematician. As he admitted to the authors of Death to the BCS, “I don’t even have a degree. I have a high school education. I never had calculus. I don’t even remember much about algebra.”

But it gets worse.

Why Strength of Schedule and Margin of Victory Matter

I wasn’t looking for a flaw in a BCS computer poll.

I was thinking about strength of schedule and margin of victory. In college football debates, most people agree that a ranking system should account for these factors. The intuition is obvious. Northern Illinois does not play the quality schedule that Alabama does. Oregon’s 24 point win over a solid Oregon State team says something much different about the Ducks than a 1 point win. However, no one has provided any quantitative evidence to support accounting for schedule strength and victory margin in rankings.

Bowl games at neutral sites provide a simple quantitative test for ranking systems: how often does the higher ranked team win each game? For a system that incorporates neither schedule strength and victory margin, rank teams by winning percentage. For a system that accounts for strength of schedule but not margin of victory, rank teams with the Colley Matrix of the BCS. Last, my rankings account for both.

I spent some time digging into the details of the Colley Matrix.

Colley Matrix does not consider the results of each game

It was easy to get mesmerized by the beautiful mathematics behind Colley’s method. His paper discusses Laplace’s die problem, a symmetric positive definite matrix and solving a linear system of equations. I spent the weekend telling my wife that if college football games had only winners and losers, this would be a dandy little ranking algorithm.

Then thinking back on the equations, it hit me.

The method does not care who a team loses to in ranking them. It considers the win loss record of each team and the number of games played between each pair of teams. However, the specifics of who won each game are not an input to Colley’s method.

Omitting specific game results in a ranking system is like disabling the guiding system on a missile. The technology will do its job, but it will not be that accurate.

You can check this yourself by reading the descriptions of equation 18 and 19 in Colley’s paper. It’s possible to solve for the rankings (equation 17) knowing only each team’s record and how many games each pair of teams played.

As a mathematician, I find this omission appalling. To see why, take Alabama in 2012 as an example. The Crimson Tide lost to Texas A&M, a respectable loss to another top 10 team. But the Colley Matrix does not account for this. Suppose Alabama beat Texas A&M but lost to a bad Florida Atlantic team. Since a top team almost never loses to a bad team, this bad loss should lower Alabama’s rank. It doesn’t.

You can check this with your own example. Wesley Colley has set up a page on which you can add and remove games and recalculate the rankings.

When I first discovered this omission in 2012, Stewart Mandel of Sports Illustrated suggested looking into whether this flawed computer poll was helping Kent State. The Golden Flashes were 11-1 heading in the MAC championship game and ranked 17th in the BCS. If they moved up to 16th or better, they would earn a BCS bowl bid.

Sure enough, the Colley Matrix had Kent State ranked 15th, the highest rank in any computer poll. It did not consider that their lone loss came at Kentucky, a 2-10 team that won zero SEC games that year. This flawed computer poll played a small role in placing Kent State 17th overall in the BCS rankings. I wrote about this on SI.com.

“Sam Feng’s article is a perfect example of anti-science”

In response to my article, I got this tweet the next day. Amidst a flurry of four letter words, a blogger blasted the mathematics behind my analysis of Colley’s method.

I disapprove of Feng because I don’t know what the f*$% he was doing, and I don’t think he knows what the f*$% he was doing either.

I guess that can happen when your writing jumps from a small blog to SI.com. At least he could get my name right.

I promptly replied to his post, and a conversation ensued about the details of the mathematics. In the end, the blogger verified my main conclusion that Colley omits the results of each game. The post started with a rant about “anti-science”. It progressed with a dense mathematical discussion in the comments. It ended with this in the last comment.

I’d rather have Ed’s rankings making the decisions than Colley’s or a roomful of NCAA bureaucrats.

The blogger still had a problem with the example I used in the article, a criticism with some merit. The example is equivalent to the Alabama scenario above. In exchanging the loss to Texas A&M for a loss to Florida Atlantic, the records of these two opponents change. Since the Colley Matrix does consider each team’s record, the rankings do change. However, Alabama’s rank does not change. This makes no sense when a team loses to a cupcake.

To be precise, one can show the rankings remain exactly the same under certain changes of wins and losses. For an example in 2012,

  • Stanford beat Oregon
  • Oregon beat Washington
  • Washington beat Stanford

Suppose we change the result in each game.

  • Oregon beat Stanford
  • Washington beat Oregon
  • Stanford beat Washington

Since all teams have the same record, the rankings stay exactly the same. Oregon would remain 7th despite losing to an average Washington team. It just doesn’t make sense.

However, for the sake of simplicity, I went with the example in which one team traded a loss for a win. At the end of the day, Colley’s method disregards massive amounts of useful information.

Northern Illinois busts the BCS.

Before the MAC championship game in 2012, Kent State threatened to bust the BCS with their ranking of 17th. However, their opponent, Northern Illinois, wasn’t too far behind at 21st.

After winning the championship game, Northern Illinois jumped to 15th in the final rankings to earn a BCS bowl game against Florida State. In the computers, the Huskies made massive jumps in the polls of Richard Billingsley and Peter Wolfe.

Billingsley does not describe this ranking method, so no one knows why he bumped Northern Illinois from 19th to 12th.

However, Peter Wolfe describes his method and even offers a few references for his Bradley-Terry model. This nice academic article by Keener describes the model in some detail, making it possible to reproduce the results. After carefully reading this paper, I didn’t find any problems with the ranking method. It does matter that Kent State lost to Kentucky. The math seems to favor teams that play an extra game, which most likely helped Northern Illinois jump from 23rd to 12th after their win over Kent State.

A Playoff on the Horizon

I didn’t think anything could make me hate the BCS more. I was wrong.

At least the current computer polls will be banished when a four team playoff arrives in 2014. A selection committee similar to the group that determines the field for the NCAA men’s basketball tournament will pick the four teams. I only hope their debates will be aided by better algorithms for ranking teams.

Thanks for reading.

Filed Under: College Football, College Football 2012, College Football Analytics, Football Analytics, Kent State Golden Flashes, Northern Illinois Huskies

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

  • 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
  • Cincinnati at Kansas City, AFC Conference Championship Game

© 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