Apparent Talent, Team Quality and Coaching Effects

US PRESSWIRE

Looking at how much teams’ accumulated talent, per the recruiting services, explained their success (or lack thereof) on the field.

As a longtime (albeit recovering) recruiting addict, I have often wondered just how closely the talent accumulated by a football program is reflected in the results on the field. I certainly knew that there was some general correlation between strong recruiting and team strength, after all USC and Florida are usually pretty strong teams, whereas Eastern Michigan and Idaho are, well, Eastern Michigan and Idaho. But I wanted to really look at how much teams’ accumulated talent, per the recruiting services, explained their success (or lack thereof) on the field.

In order to study this question I downloaded and tabulated recruiting data for all FBS teams from 2002 through 2012. Ideally I would include multiple sources of recruiting data and calculate a consensus recruiting rating, but given how labor intensive that step was I utilized only the ratings from Scout.com to start with. Once I had the data all arrayed and scrubbed, I calculated average star ratings for each program each year. I decided to utilize average star ratings rather than class rank because class rankings are heavily influenced by the number of commits in a class. Since I would be looking at a four year average of the talent, I wanted to just look at the "pure talent" without regard to lumpiness in the size of the individual classes. I calculated two measures of what I am calling Apparent Talent; the first was a simple four year moving average of class star averages. The second measure was one I felt was slightly more realistic: a weighted average that gives more value to classes three and four years ago, to account for the fact that upperclassmen usually start and play more than younger players.

I used FO's F/+ rating as an objective measure of team quality. I felt this would be a more appropriate measure than something like winning percentage, since I definitely wanted to adjust for team SOS. I also conducted analyses using S&P+, FEI and Sagarin’s Predictor rating. They all looked similar, give or take an outlier here or there. Since F/+ has the highest correlation with winning percentage of all of those advanced metrics, I decided to use it as the primary proxy for quality.

Finally, I limited my analysis to only programs from FBS Automatic Qualifier conferences, for a couple of reasons. First, I wanted to pare the data down to a manageable size. Second, and equally important, when I really inspected the recruiting data and thought about it I became concerned that the quality of the recruiting ratings for players that went to most non-AQ schools was probably inferior. It is a simple matter of economics, really. The recruiting services get several sets of eyes on the players who end up going to schools in which there is a lot of interest (i.e. schools from the AQ "power" conferences), and therefore a lot of paying subscribers, but likely expend less effort evaluating PSAs destined for college football’s relative backwaters.

A Definite Correlation

Not surprisingly, there was a definite and fairly strong correlation between Apparent Talent and team quality (as measured by F/+). The correlation coefficient between the simple 4 year Average star rating and the Predictor was 0.51. Interestingly enough, the correlation with my age-weighted model was actually slightly lower, at 0.49. This was based on sample of 466 observations: all seasons for teams in the ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big XII, Pac-10/12, and SEC from 2006 through 2012.

In order to further explore the relationship between Apparent Talent and Team Quality I calculated departures from average on both metrics for every squad in the sample and plotted them on a scatter plot. I also ran a simple linear regression. I thought utilizing departures from average would make interpretation of the data more intuitive. For instance, it stands to reason that a team that is 40% better than average in terms of Apparent Talent ought to be significantly better than average in terms of Team Quality, but how much better?

As it turns out the leverage of apparent talent on team quality is a lot less than a 1:1 ratio. In fact, based on the regression, the leverage (or Beta, or slope of the regression line) is approximately 0.46. Simply stated, at team with 40% better than average talent (for an FBS AQ school) would be expected to be 18% better than the average FBS AQ team in terms of F/+ rating.

What Good is This?

That’s a really fair question. For one thing, it fairly conclusively dispels a notion still held by some college football neo-Luddites. Namely, that "recruiting rankings don’t matter". They pretty clearly do.

For the real stats nerds, here is the regression output of a simple linear regression of F/+ rating for each FBS AQ team from 2006-2012, versus the simple arithmetic average star rating for the previous 4 recruiting classes, per the Scout database:

Yeah, but Other than Proving the Sky is Blue, What Good is This?

This is the part that is really interesting. While this model has some predictive power, it is still very simple and crude and probably not something I would want to use to say…put futures bets down on teams at a Vegas sports book. For instance, it isn’t as predictive as a simple naïve forecast that a team would have the exact same F/+ rating in a given season as it had in the previous one. And how could it be? That sort of naïve forecast has the advantage of capturing much of the same talent information (since the 4 year average recruiting ratings don’t move that much in a single year), while also capturing a whole host of other factors…like how those players are actually doing playing the game of football.

But the fact this model doesn’t capture those things actually makes it pretty useful for other purposes. Consider this simple conceptual model of team quality:

Team Quality (F/+Rating) = Apparent Talent + Coaching Effect + "Noise"

College football is a dreadfully complicated endeavor to model statistically, as you are doubtless aware. By using F/+ Rating we have already largely factored out a lot of the random in-game stuff, like bad bounces that result in one point losses, untimely misses by a walk-on field goal kicker, and so on. In this theoretical model, the "noise" factor includes a whole host of stuff ranging from key players being suspended, scandals turning the mojo around a program decidedly poor, to a whole cohort of players turning out to be grossly overrated. As anybody who follows college football knows, this stuff happens and can definitely affect how a team performs on the field, but from a statistical perspective it is truly unknowable, random and therefore can’t be considered.

The remaining piece of the puzzle is what I am calling "Coaching Effect", but refers not only to game prep and game-day coaching, but scheme, S&C program, and talent evaluation--coaches that routinely have better results than recruiting rankings indicate they should are probably doing a better job of evaluating the available talent than the ratings services are doing.

It stands to reason that over time, strong coaching staffs ought to consistently and measurably outperform (or at least perform in line) with the available talent on hand and weaker staffs will underachieve (sometimes spectacularly). Using the Apparent Talent metric and the simple model described above, we can statistically measure how well a staff performs, both in single season and over time. Of course even good coaches can have an outlier year to the downside and even lousy coaches are fortunate once in a while (cough, cough…Gene Chizik), but consistent deviation from what is predicted by the model ought to be statistically unlikely enough that it should indicate something about coaching performance. And as with most data of this kind, the really large outliers are very interesting.

The methodology was pretty simple. I calculated expected F/+ rating for each season for all AQ teams from 2006 to 2012, based on the Apparent Talent (four year star average), then compared it to the final actual F/+ for each team. I then normalized the deviations from the expected values using the standard deviation of the differences (Std Delta).

For example, the 2008 Washington Huskies were an approximately average team in terms of talent, with an Apparent Talent rating of 2.85. Based on that, they would have been expected to be an approximately average team; the model yielded a projected F/+ of 214.0. Instead, the team went 0-12 with a final F/+ rating of 143.3, just over 33%--or 2.77 standard deviations—worse than the model predicted.

The Best & Worst Coaching Effects on F/+ (AQ Teams, 2006-2012)

Year School 4YR Avg vs Avg Est. Actual ∆% Coach Comments
2012 Kansas State 2.02 -28% 186.6 253.7 36% 3.02 Snyder Best season relative to apparent talent by a wide margin.
2007 West Virginia 2.53 -9% 203.5 265.4 30% 2.55 Rodriguez The '06 & '07 West Virginia teams validated spread-to-run approach
2006 Louisville 2.47 -11% 201.4 258.5 28% 2.38 Petrino Petrino outperformed at Louisville before he did at Arkansas.
2007 Cincinnati 2.08 -25% 188.6 242.1 28% 2.38 B. Kelly Best year of a strong run at Cinci
2011 Alabama 3.63 30% 239.9 307.8 28% 2.37 Saban Outperforming with well above average talent is a powerful combo
2011 Oklahoma State 2.95 6% 217.3 275.8 27% 2.26 Gundy The year after Dana Holgorsen left Stillwater.
2007 Kansas 2.22 -20% 193.3 244.1 26% 2.21 Mangino Unlikely to see another year from KU like this in the near future.
2007 South Florida 2.31 -17% 196.1 245.9 25% 2.13 Leavitt Sometimes yellers get results.
2012 Alabama 3.67 32% 241.1 301.3 25% 2.09 Saban Saban is every bit as good as his reputation.
2006 West Virginia 2.36 -15% 197.8 245.8 24% 2.03 Rodriguez The '06 & '07 West Virginia teams validated spread-to-run approach
2006 Rutgers 2.18 -22% 192.0 237.4 24% 1.98 Schiano Had very strong years in '06 & '07, then flatlined.
2011 LSU 3.57 28% 237.7 293.6 24% 1.98 Miles All the Mad Hatter's other years at LSU average out to…average
2009 Virginia Tech 2.82 1% 212.9 263.0 24% 1.97 Beamer Beamerball may not be artistic, but it is effective
2009 Iowa 2.55 -9% 204.1 250.2 23% 1.89 Ferentz Peak of a three year spike from average.
2007 Missouri 2.50 -10% 202.6 247.7 22% 1.87 Pinkel Best year for a guy who is probably underrated.
2011 Wisconsin 2.79 0% 212.2 258.6 22% 1.83 Bielema Bielema's teams consistently outperformed in Big 10, will they in SEC?
2010 Arkansas 2.77 -1% 211.5 257.1 22% 1.81 Petrino Petrino had gotten Arkansas on a roll before scandal
2010 Auburn 3.17 14% 224.6 272.9 21% 1.80 Chizik Cam Newton Effect
2009 Alabama 3.43 23% 233.1 282.4 21% 1.77 Saban Outperforming with well above average talent is a powerful combo
2012 Texas A&M 3.14 13% 223.6 270.2 21% 1.75 Sumlin Johnny Manziel Effect? Will it be as short-lived as Newton's?
2012 Oregon 3.32 19% 229.5 276.6 21% 1.72 C. Kelly Oregon's run from Kelly joining staff was pretty epic
2008 Florida 3.88 39% 248.1 298.7 20% 1.71 Meyer High level talent + perfect system QB + great coach = Super Elite team
2007 Oregon 2.83 1% 213.3 255.6 20% 1.67 Bellotti First year with Chip Kelly as Offensive Coordinator
2007 Connecticut 1.97 -29% 185.0 221.5 20% 1.65 Edsall Team should have been awful, instead was slightly above average
2009 Cincinnati 2.31 -17% 196.4 235.1 20% 1.65 B. Kelly Notre Dame may finally have the right coach…
2010 Stanford 3.13 12% 223.2 266.4 19% 1.62 Harbaugh Tempting to attribute this to Luck (rimshot!), but probably unfair
2007 Kentucky 2.27 -18% 195.1 231.6 19% 1.57 Brooks Trying to remember why Kentucky let Brooks go
2010 Alabama 3.45 24% 233.8 274.9 18% 1.48 Saban
2010 Wisconsin 2.79 0% 212.1 249.2 17% 1.47 Bielema
2012 Oregon State 2.55 -8% 204.2 239.9 17% 1.47 Riley
2011 Oregon 3.29 18% 228.4 267.5 17% 1.44 C. Kelly
2006 Boston College 2.45 -12% 201.0 235.2 17% 1.43 O'Brien
2007 Virginia Tech 2.86 3% 214.3 250.1 17% 1.40 Beamer
2008 Penn State 3.32 19% 229.7 268.1 17% 1.40 Paterno
2008 Cincinnati 2.21 -21% 192.9 224.3 16% 1.37 B. Kelly
2008 Ole Miss 2.88 3% 215.1 250.0 16% 1.36 Nutt
2010 Missouri 2.80 1% 212.5 246.6 16% 1.34 Pinkel
2010 Virginia Tech 2.91 4% 216.0 250.6 16% 1.34 Beamer
2008 Connecticut 2.20 -21% 192.5 223.3 16% 1.34 Edsall
2008 Oklahoma 3.44 24% 233.6 270.8 16% 1.34 B. Stoops
2006 Wisconsin 2.54 -9% 203.7 235.4 16% 1.31 Bielema
2008 Missouri 2.64 -5% 207.3 239.4 16% 1.30 Pinkel
2006 Arkansas 2.60 -7% 205.8 237.4 15% 1.29 Nutt
2007 Boston College 2.49 -11% 202.2 232.9 15% 1.28 Jagodzinski
2011 Michigan State 2.88 3% 215.0 247.6 15% 1.27 Dantonio
2010 Oklahoma State 2.95 6% 217.5 249.6 15% 1.24 Gundy
2008 USC 4.16 49% 257.3 295.2 15% 1.23 Carroll
2008 Texas Tech 2.75 -1% 210.9 241.4 14% 1.22 Leach
2009 Connecticut 2.26 -19% 194.7 222.8 14% 1.21 Edsall
2012 Oklahoma State 3.00 8% 218.9 250.5 14% 1.21 Gundy
2006 Cincinnati 2.06 -26% 187.9 215.1 14% 1.21 B. Kelly
2010 Iowa 2.60 -7% 205.9 235.4 14% 1.21 Ferentz
2008 Wake Forest 2.30 -17% 196.1 223.8 14% 1.19 Grobe
2009 Wisconsin 2.74 -2% 210.4 240.1 14% 1.18 Bielema
2008 Iowa 2.80 1% 212.5 242.2 14% 1.17 Ferentz
2011 Cincinnati 2.43 -13% 200.3 228.1 14% 1.16 B. Jones
2009 Oregon State 2.58 -7% 205.1 233.4 14% 1.16 Riley
2006 South Florida 2.16 -22% 191.4 217.8 14% 1.15 Leavitt
2009 Florida 3.89 40% 248.4 281.6 13% 1.12 Meyer
2006 Virginia Tech 2.77 -1% 211.4 239.5 13% 1.12 Beamer
2006 Wake Forest 2.25 -19% 194.2 219.9 13% 1.11 Grobe
2007 Clemson 2.89 4% 215.3 243.7 13% 1.11 T. Bowden
2011 Stanford 3.25 17% 227.1 256.9 13% 1.10 Shaw
2009 Nebraska 3.09 11% 221.9 251.0 13% 1.10 Pellini
2009 Texas 3.75 35% 243.8 275.7 13% 1.10 Brown
2007 Ohio State 3.53 27% 236.6 266.9 13% 1.07 Tressel
2011 Kansas State 2.40 -14% 199.3 224.4 13% 1.06 Snyder
2008 Alabama 3.22 16% 226.2 254.7 13% 1.06 Saban
2007 Oregon State 2.49 -11% 202.1 227.5 13% 1.06 Riley
2011 Arkansas 2.83 1% 213.3 239.7 12% 1.04 Petrino
2011 Wisconsin 2.86 3% 214.3 240.8 12% 1.03 Bielema
2012 Cincinnati 2.53 -9% 203.6 228.7 12% 1.03 B. Jones
2010 Oregon 3.19 15% 225.3 253.0 12% 1.03 C. Kelly
2007 Rutgers 2.37 -15% 198.1 222.4 12% 1.03 Schiano
2009 Penn State 3.41 22% 232.5 260.6 12% 1.01 Paterno
2007 LSU 3.60 29% 238.7 267.4 12% 1.01 Miles
2010 NC State 2.71 -3% 209.5 234.3 12% 0.99 O'Brien
2008 Texas 3.76 35% 244.2 273.0 12% 0.99 Brown
2009 Texas Tech 2.80 0% 212.3 237.3 12% 0.99 Leach
2012 South Carolina 3.08 11% 221.8 247.4 12% 0.97 Spurrier
2007 Arkansas 2.64 -5% 207.0 230.7 11% 0.96 Nutt
2008 Boston College 2.52 -9% 203.3 226.3 11% 0.95 Jagodzinski
2006 LSU 3.55 27% 237.0 263.8 11% 0.95 Miles
2009 Boston College 2.50 -10% 202.6 224.9 11% 0.92 Spaziani
2006 Georgia Tech 2.54 -9% 203.7 226.0 11% 0.92 Gailey
2012 Michigan State 2.97 7% 218.1 241.4 11% 0.89 Dantonio
2012 Florida 3.71 33% 242.5 268.3 11% 0.89 Muschamp
2007 Illinois 2.69 -3% 208.9 230.8 10% 0.88 Zook
2011 Baylor 2.59 -7% 205.4 226.9 10% 0.88 Briles
2010 South Carolina 3.06 10% 220.9 243.9 10% 0.87 Spurrier
2010 Ohio State 3.73 34% 242.9 267.9 10% 0.86 Tressel
2012 Syracuse 2.42 -13% 200.0 220.5 10% 0.86 Marrone
2007 Auburn 3.01 8% 219.5 241.7 10% 0.85 Tuberville
2007 Oklahoma 3.37 21% 231.2 254.6 10% 0.85 B. Stoops
2007 Arizona State 2.77 -1% 211.5 232.5 10% 0.83 Erickson
2006 Missouri 2.47 -11% 201.6 221.6 10% 0.83 Pinkel
2008 South Florida 2.40 -14% 199.2 218.9 10% 0.83 Leavitt
2006 Clemson 2.81 1% 212.9 233.9 10% 0.83 T. Bowden
2010 West Virginia 2.98 7% 218.4 239.7 10% 0.82 Stewart
2010 Michigan State 2.70 -3% 209.2 229.5 10% 0.82 Dantonio
2007 Wake Forest 2.25 -19% 194.4 212.9 10% 0.80 Grobe
2010 Nebraska 3.03 9% 220.1 240.6 9% 0.78 Pellini
2007 Texas Tech 2.68 -4% 208.6 227.9 9% 0.78 Leach
2009 Oregon 3.03 9% 219.9 240.3 9% 0.78 C. Kelly
2011 Michigan 3.38 21% 231.5 252.8 9% 0.77 Hoke
2006 Florida 3.66 31% 240.8 262.5 9% 0.76 Meyer
2009 Oklahoma 3.44 23% 233.5 254.5 9% 0.76 B. Stoops
2006 Ohio State 3.48 25% 234.9 256.0 9% 0.75 Tressel
2006 Oregon State 2.42 -13% 199.8 217.5 9% 0.75 Riley
2008 Rutgers 2.49 -11% 202.2 220.1 9% 0.74 Schiano
2008 Oklahoma State 2.84 2% 213.6 232.4 9% 0.74 Gundy
2008 Oregon State 2.58 -8% 205.0 223.0 9% 0.74 Riley
2012 Louisville 2.71 -3% 209.4 227.5 9% 0.72 Strong
2009 Arkansas 2.75 -1% 210.8 228.9 9% 0.72 Petrino
2012 Northwestern 2.67 -4% 208.2 225.9 8% 0.71 Fitzgerald
2012 Stanford 3.38 21% 231.5 251.1 8% 0.71 Shaw
2011 Texas A&M 3.13 12% 223.2 242.1 8% 0.71 Sherman
2006 South Carolina 2.79 0% 212.2 230.1 8% 0.71 Spurrier
2010 Oklahoma 3.56 28% 237.3 256.8 8% 0.69 B. Stoops
2012 Notre Dame 3.51 26% 235.9 254.9 8% 0.67 B. Kelly
2011 West Virginia 2.88 4% 215.2 232.4 8% 0.67 Holgorsen
2012 Baylor 2.68 -4% 208.4 225.0 8% 0.67 Briles
2009 Wake Forest 2.38 -15% 198.4 214.2 8% 0.66 Grobe
2012 Nebraska 3.10 11% 222.3 239.8 8% 0.66 Pellini
2011 Vanderbilt 2.42 -13% 199.8 215.5 8% 0.66 Franklin
2012 Florida State 3.66 31% 240.7 259.0 8% 0.64 Fisher
2012 Georgia 3.64 31% 240.0 258.2 8% 0.64 Richt
2012 TCU 2.72 -3% 209.6 224.6 7% 0.60 Patterson
2009 Ole Miss 3.00 8% 219.0 233.8 7% 0.57 Nutt
2006 Auburn 2.98 7% 218.3 233.1 7% 0.57 Tuberville
2009 Purdue 2.40 -14% 199.2 212.7 7% 0.57 Hope
2008 West Virginia 2.67 -4% 208.0 222.0 7% 0.56 Stewart
2008 North Carolina 2.91 4% 216.0 230.4 7% 0.56 B. Davis
2009 Georgia Tech 2.94 6% 217.1 231.6 7% 0.56 P. Johnson
2008 Northwestern 2.34 -16% 197.2 210.0 7% 0.55 Fitzgerald
2012 Oklahoma 3.60 29% 238.7 253.9 6% 0.53 B. Stoops
2012 LSU 3.55 27% 237.0 251.9 6% 0.53 Miles
2008 Oregon 2.98 7% 218.5 232.1 6% 0.52 Bellotti
2011 Rutgers 2.76 -1% 211.1 224.2 6% 0.52 Schiano
2011 Missouri 2.91 5% 216.2 229.1 6% 0.50 Pinkel
2011 Virginia Tech 2.88 4% 215.2 228.0 6% 0.50 Beamer
2012 Arizona 2.64 -5% 207.3 219.6 6% 0.50 Rodriguez
2008 Vanderbilt 2.19 -21% 192.4 203.6 6% 0.49 Bo. Johnson
2009 Pittsburgh 3.29 18% 228.7 241.9 6% 0.49 Wannstedt
2011 Oklahoma 3.69 32% 241.7 255.4 6% 0.48 B. Stoops
2011 Florida State 3.49 25% 235.1 248.3 6% 0.47 Fisher
2006 California 3.06 10% 221.1 233.5 6% 0.47 Tedford
2007 Florida 3.80 36% 245.2 258.9 6% 0.47 Meyer
2011 South Carolina 3.01 8% 219.4 231.5 6% 0.46 Spurrier
2010 Texas A&M 3.19 14% 225.2 237.7 6% 0.46 Sherman
2008 Kansas 2.43 -13% 200.3 211.1 5% 0.45 Mangino
2007 Michigan State 2.60 -7% 205.7 216.7 5% 0.45 Dantonio
2006 Oklahoma State 2.66 -4% 207.9 218.6 5% 0.43 Gundy
2011 South Florida 2.67 -4% 208.2 218.8 5% 0.43 S. Holtz
2006 Kentucky 2.31 -17% 196.2 206.1 5% 0.42 Brooks
2006 Tennessee 3.32 19% 229.7 241.0 5% 0.41 Fulmer
2007 Mississippi State 2.42 -13% 199.9 209.7 5% 0.41 Croom
2009 Clemson 3.32 19% 229.4 240.5 5% 0.40 Swinney
2007 Wisconsin 2.61 -6% 206.2 216.1 5% 0.40 Bielema
2009 Ohio State 3.76 35% 244.0 255.6 5% 0.40 Tressel
2008 Pittsburgh 3.11 12% 222.7 233.3 5% 0.40 Wannstedt
2012 Iowa State 2.28 -18% 195.2 204.4 5% 0.39 Rhoads
2009 Northwestern 2.34 -16% 197.1 206.0 5% 0.38 Fitzgerald
2006 Nebraska 2.89 4% 215.5 225.1 4% 0.38 Callahan
2007 Georgia 3.55 27% 237.0 247.6 4% 0.37 Richt
2007 Louisville 2.69 -3% 208.8 218.1 4% 0.37 Kragthorpe
2006 Kansas 2.26 -19% 194.7 203.4 4% 0.37 Mangino
2010 Cincinnati 2.29 -18% 195.5 203.9 4% 0.36 B. Jones
2010 Mississippi State 2.81 1% 212.8 221.8 4% 0.35 Mullen
2008 Michigan State 2.56 -8% 204.5 213.0 4% 0.35 Dantonio
2006 Michigan 3.57 28% 237.9 247.4 4% 0.34 Carr
2006 Minnesota 2.29 -18% 195.6 203.2 4% 0.33 Mason
2011 Notre Dame 3.58 28% 238.0 246.9 4% 0.31 B. Kelly
2010 Maryland 2.73 -2% 210.2 217.9 4% 0.30 Friedgen
2010 Illinois 2.82 1% 213.2 220.8 4% 0.30 Zook
2012 Vanderbilt 2.57 -8% 205.0 212.2 4% 0.30 Franklin
2006 Vanderbilt 2.14 -23% 190.5 197.0 3% 0.29 Bo. Johnson
2012 Clemson 3.31 19% 229.1 236.7 3% 0.28 Swinney
2010 Florida State 3.35 20% 230.5 237.9 3% 0.27 Fisher
2008 Virginia Tech 2.85 2% 214.2 221.0 3% 0.27 Beamer
2006 Pittsburgh 2.61 -6% 206.3 212.5 3% 0.25 Wannstedt
2010 South Florida 2.66 -5% 207.8 213.8 3% 0.25 S. Holtz
2007 USC 4.20 51% 258.7 266.2 3% 0.24 Carroll
2008 Ohio State 3.74 34% 243.3 250.3 3% 0.24 Tressel
2009 Michigan State 2.58 -8% 205.0 210.9 3% 0.24 Dantonio
2012 Michigan 3.40 22% 232.1 238.7 3% 0.24 Hoke
2011 Connecticut 2.35 -16% 197.5 202.7 3% 0.22 Pasqualoni
2012 Arizona State 2.80 1% 212.5 218.1 3% 0.22 Graham
2007 UCLA 3.15 13% 223.9 229.5 2% 0.21 Dorrell
2012 Rutgers 2.85 2% 214.0 219.3 2% 0.21 Flood
2009 Oklahoma State 2.97 7% 218.0 223.3 2% 0.21 Gundy
2009 Stanford 2.99 7% 218.5 223.8 2% 0.20 Harbaugh
2011 Georgia 3.64 31% 240.1 245.5 2% 0.19 Richt
2010 Oregon State 2.49 -11% 202.3 206.7 2% 0.18 Riley
2011 Nebraska 3.07 10% 221.2 226.0 2% 0.18 Pellini
2009 Arizona 3.00 8% 219.1 223.4 2% 0.17 M. Stoops
2007 South Carolina 2.87 3% 214.8 219.0 2% 0.16 Spurrier
2006 Oklahoma 3.48 25% 234.9 239.4 2% 0.16 B. Stoops
2007 Oklahoma State 2.78 0% 211.8 215.8 2% 0.16 Gundy
2012 Ohio State 3.68 32% 241.5 245.9 2% 0.15 Meyer
2010 Kansas State 2.36 -15% 198.0 201.5 2% 0.15 Snyder
2009 Kansas 2.53 -9% 203.5 206.9 2% 0.14 Mangino
2007 Tennessee 3.41 23% 232.6 236.5 2% 0.14 Fulmer
2006 Oregon 2.68 -4% 208.3 211.8 2% 0.14 Bellotti
2008 Arizona 3.18 14% 225.0 228.7 2% 0.14 M. Stoops
2008 Clemson 3.16 13% 224.3 227.8 2% 0.13 Swinney
2006 Texas Tech 2.77 0% 211.5 214.6 1% 0.12 Leach
2010 Pittsburgh 3.27 17% 227.8 231.0 1% 0.12 Wannstedt
2006 Arizona State 2.73 -2% 210.1 213.0 1% 0.12 Koetter
2006 Alabama 2.77 0% 211.5 214.5 1% 0.12 Shula
2011 Iowa 2.66 -5% 207.8 210.6 1% 0.11 Ferentz
2006 USC 3.98 43% 251.3 254.6 1% 0.11 Carroll
2007 Alabama 2.96 6% 217.6 220.4 1% 0.11 Saban
2007 Arizona 2.97 6% 217.9 220.5 1% 0.10 M. Stoops
2011 Louisville 2.68 -4% 208.3 210.7 1% 0.10 Strong
2010 Louisville 2.70 -3% 209.0 211.4 1% 0.09 Strong
2010 Miami-FL 3.36 21% 231.0 233.5 1% 0.09 Shannon
2008 Georgia Tech 2.84 2% 213.7 215.7 1% 0.08 P. Johnson
2010 LSU 3.63 30% 239.9 242.0 1% 0.08 Miles
2007 Indiana 2.13 -24% 190.3 192.0 1% 0.08 Lynch
2006 Texas A&M 2.99 7% 218.7 220.6 1% 0.07 Franchione
2007 Virginia 2.78 0% 211.6 213.5 1% 0.07 Groh
2007 California 3.23 16% 226.5 228.4 1% 0.07 Tedford
2012 Penn State 3.27 18% 228.0 229.9 1% 0.07 O'Brien
2010 Connecticut 2.29 -18% 195.7 197.2 1% 0.06 Edsall
2007 Maryland 2.72 -3% 209.6 211.0 1% 0.05 Friedgen
2009 Miami-FL 3.46 24% 234.1 235.6 1% 0.05 Shannon
2011 USC 3.83 37% 246.3 247.4 0% 0.04 Kiffen
2012 Connecticut 2.40 -14% 199.2 199.9 0% 0.03 Pasqualoni
2012 Ole Miss 2.98 7% 218.5 219.3 0% 0.03 Freeze
2006 Washington State 2.55 -8% 204.3 205.0 0% 0.03 Doba
2009 North Carolina 3.09 11% 221.8 222.3 0% 0.02 B. Davis
2010 Arizona 2.86 3% 214.3 214.7 0% 0.02 M. Stoops
2009 Kentucky 2.54 -9% 203.8 204.2 0% 0.01 Brooks
2007 Kansas State 2.40 -14% 199.4 199.7 0% 0.01 Prince
2009 Tennessee 3.30 18% 228.8 229.1 0% 0.01 Kiffen
2006 UCLA 2.88 4% 215.2 215.1 0% (0.00) Dorrell
2010 Clemson 3.27 17% 227.8 227.7 0% (0.00) Swinney
2012 Virginia Tech 2.89 4% 215.3 215.1 0% (0.00) Beamer
2007 Penn State 3.25 17% 227.1 226.8 0% (0.01) Paterno
2010 Boston College 2.58 -7% 205.1 204.7 0% (0.02) Spaziani
2009 West Virginia 2.80 1% 212.5 212.0 0% (0.02) Stewart
2007 Vanderbilt 2.18 -22% 192.0 191.6 0% (0.02) Bo. Johnson
2011 Miami-FL 3.08 11% 221.8 221.0 0% (0.03) Golden
2007 Georgia Tech 2.72 -2% 209.7 209.0 0% (0.03) Gailey
2007 Washington 2.73 -2% 210.2 209.5 0% (0.03) Willingham
2006 Connecticut 1.88 -32% 182.2 181.5 0% (0.03) Edsall
2010 Kentucky 2.55 -8% 204.3 203.5 0% (0.03) Phillips
2009 South Carolina 3.05 9% 220.6 219.5 -1% (0.04) Spurrier
2010 Notre Dame 3.60 29% 238.9 237.6 -1% (0.04) B. Kelly
2009 Missouri 2.66 -4% 207.8 206.5 -1% (0.05) Pinkel
2011 Georgia Tech 2.90 4% 215.6 213.5 -1% (0.08) P. Johnson
2010 Syracuse 2.34 -16% 197.2 195.2 -1% (0.08) Marrone
2008 Wisconsin 2.71 -3% 209.6 207.4 -1% (0.09) Bielema
2008 NC State 2.67 -4% 208.1 205.9 -1% (0.09) O'Brien
2012 Texas Tech 2.91 5% 216.2 213.8 -1% (0.09) Tuberville
2008 Florida State 3.38 21% 231.4 228.8 -1% (0.09) B. Bowden
2007 Colorado 2.55 -9% 204.1 201.6 -1% (0.10) Hawkins
2012 West Virginia 2.90 4% 215.8 213.2 -1% (0.10) Holgorsen
2011 Iowa State 2.28 -18% 195.4 192.9 -1% (0.11) Rhoads
2008 California 3.34 20% 230.3 227.1 -1% (0.12) Tedford
2006 Texas 3.52 26% 236.2 232.8 -1% (0.12) Brown
2008 Maryland 2.69 -3% 208.8 205.9 -1% (0.12) Friedgen
2012 UCLA 3.20 15% 225.7 222.4 -1% (0.12) Mora
2012 Georgia Tech 2.89 4% 215.4 212.3 -1% (0.12) P. Johnson
2006 Iowa 2.72 -2% 209.7 206.5 -2% (0.13) Ferentz
2006 Notre Dame 3.34 20% 230.1 226.2 -2% (0.14) Weis
2008 Baylor 2.35 -16% 197.6 193.8 -2% (0.16) Briles
2007 Texas 3.65 31% 240.4 235.5 -2% (0.17) Brown
2011 Mississippi State 2.83 1% 213.3 208.8 -2% (0.17) Mullen
2006 Georgia 3.47 25% 234.4 229.6 -2% (0.17) Richt
2007 Purdue 2.59 -7% 205.4 201.0 -2% (0.18) Tiller
2006 Maryland 2.75 -1% 210.9 206.2 -2% (0.19) Friedgen
2006 Penn State 3.13 12% 223.2 218.2 -2% (0.19) Paterno
2011 Syracuse 2.36 -15% 197.9 193.4 -2% (0.19) Marrone
2009 Auburn 3.18 14% 224.8 219.6 -2% (0.19) Chizik
2011 Arizona State 2.92 5% 216.4 211.3 -2% (0.20) Erickson
2011 Wake Forest 2.49 -11% 202.2 197.3 -2% (0.20) Grobe
2009 South Florida 2.60 -7% 205.9 200.8 -2% (0.21) Leavitt
2008 South Carolina 2.97 7% 218.1 212.7 -2% (0.21) Spurrier
2007 Pittsburgh 2.85 2% 214.2 208.8 -3% (0.21) Wannstedt
2011 Northwestern 2.58 -7% 205.2 199.8 -3% (0.22) Fitzgerald
2011 Illinois 2.71 -3% 209.6 204.0 -3% (0.22) Zook
2008 Nebraska 3.15 13% 223.8 217.3 -3% (0.24) Pellini
2008 Illinois 2.86 3% 214.5 208.2 -3% (0.25) Zook
2011 Virginia 2.62 -6% 206.6 200.5 -3% (0.25) London
2010 Arizona State 3.00 8% 219.0 212.3 -3% (0.26) Erickson
2006 Northwestern 2.18 -22% 191.9 185.9 -3% (0.26) Fitzgerald
2012 North Carolina 3.06 10% 220.9 213.6 -3% (0.28) Fedora
2012 Pittsburgh 3.03 9% 219.9 212.1 -4% (0.30) Chryst
2011 Clemson 3.29 18% 228.7 220.5 -4% (0.30) Swinney
2006 Syracuse 2.21 -21% 192.8 185.6 -4% (0.31) Robinson
2008 Georgia 3.64 31% 240.1 231.1 -4% (0.32) Richt
2011 Utah 2.74 -2% 210.6 202.5 -4% (0.32) Whittingham
2012 NC State 2.67 -4% 208.0 199.5 -4% (0.34) O'Brien
2006 Kansas State 2.63 -6% 206.7 198.2 -4% (0.34) Prince
2009 Rutgers 2.67 -4% 208.2 199.4 -4% (0.36) Schiano
2009 Florida State 3.28 18% 228.2 217.9 -4% (0.38) B. Bowden
2007 Washington State 2.58 -7% 205.3 196.0 -5% (0.38) Doba
2010 Texas Tech 2.77 -1% 211.3 201.4 -5% (0.39) Tuberville
2008 Virginia 2.66 -4% 207.9 198.0 -5% (0.40) Groh
2009 Mississippi State 2.79 0% 212.1 202.0 -5% (0.40) Mullen
2007 Michigan 3.60 29% 238.8 227.3 -5% (0.40) Carr
2008 Kentucky 2.39 -14% 199.0 189.4 -5% (0.41) Brooks
2009 Iowa State 2.22 -20% 193.4 183.8 -5% (0.42) Rhoads
2008 LSU 3.63 30% 239.7 227.8 -5% (0.42) Miles
2011 NC State 2.76 -1% 211.0 200.5 -5% (0.42) O'Brien
2011 Penn State 3.42 23% 232.9 221.1 -5% (0.43) Paterno/Bradley
2010 Baylor 2.51 -10% 202.9 192.6 -5% (0.43) Briles
2010 North Carolina 3.20 15% 225.6 214.0 -5% (0.43) B. Davis
2009 Notre Dame 3.71 33% 242.5 230.0 -5% (0.43) Weis
2006 Colorado 2.58 -8% 205.0 194.4 -5% (0.44) Hawkins
2006 Arizona 2.84 2% 213.9 202.6 -5% (0.44) M. Stoops
2011 Pittsburgh 3.09 11% 222.0 210.1 -5% (0.45) Graham
2009 LSU 3.65 31% 240.5 227.5 -5% (0.46) Miles
2006 Indiana 2.09 -25% 188.9 178.4 -6% (0.47) Hoeppner
2009 Duke 2.45 -12% 200.9 189.5 -6% (0.48) Cutcliffe
2012 Washington 2.92 5% 216.3 203.5 -6% (0.50) Sarkisian
2011 North Carolina 3.19 15% 225.3 211.8 -6% (0.50) Withers
2012 Temple 2.16 -22% 191.4 179.9 -6% (0.50) Addazio
2009 Kansas State 2.40 -14% 199.2 187.1 -6% (0.51) Snyder
2006 Florida State 3.40 22% 232.3 218.0 -6% (0.52) B. Bowden
2006 Washington 2.75 -1% 210.6 197.5 -6% (0.52) Willingham
2012 Texas 3.85 38% 247.0 231.2 -6% (0.53) Brown
2011 California 3.24 16% 227.0 212.4 -6% (0.54) Tedford
2009 Vanderbilt 2.25 -19% 194.3 181.7 -6% (0.55) Bo. Johnson
2010 Georgia 3.60 29% 238.9 223.2 -7% (0.55) Richt
2006 Mississippi State 2.37 -15% 198.2 185.2 -7% (0.55) Croom
2008 Minnesota 2.46 -12% 201.2 187.7 -7% (0.56) Brewster
2012 Arkansas 2.89 4% 215.3 200.8 -7% (0.56) J.L. Smith
2011 Texas 3.82 37% 246.0 229.5 -7% (0.56) Brown
2008 Stanford 2.85 2% 214.2 199.7 -7% (0.57) Harbaugh
2008 Purdue 2.55 -9% 204.1 190.2 -7% (0.57) Tiller
2006 Michigan State 2.46 -12% 201.2 187.5 -7% (0.57) J.L. Smith
2010 Northwestern 2.45 -12% 201.0 187.2 -7% (0.58) Fitzgerald
2009 NC State 2.61 -6% 206.0 191.8 -7% (0.58) O'Brien
2009 Texas A&M 3.21 15% 226.0 210.2 -7% (0.59) Sherman
2006 Illinois 2.56 -8% 204.5 190.1 -7% (0.59) Zook
2009 Minnesota 2.57 -8% 205.0 190.5 -7% (0.59) Brewster
2010 Iowa State 2.22 -20% 193.2 179.4 -7% (0.60) Rhoads
2007 NC State 2.68 -4% 208.6 193.7 -7% (0.60) O'Brien
2012 USC 3.82 37% 246.0 228.4 -7% (0.60) Kiffen
2009 Virginia 2.49 -11% 202.3 187.7 -7% (0.61) Groh
2006 Baylor 2.21 -21% 193.1 179.1 -7% (0.61) Morriss
2009 Arizona State 2.98 7% 218.3 202.2 -7% (0.62) Erickson
2012 Missouri 2.96 6% 217.6 201.4 -7% (0.62) Pinkel
2007 North Carolina 2.76 -1% 211.0 195.2 -7% (0.63) B. Davis
2006 Purdue 2.66 -5% 207.7 192.1 -8% (0.63) Tiller
2012 Mississippi State 2.91 5% 216.2 199.8 -8% (0.63) Mullen
2006 Virginia 2.77 0% 211.5 195.6 -8% (0.63) Groh
2012 Indiana 2.50 -10% 202.6 187.1 -8% (0.64) Wilson
2008 Duke 2.50 -10% 202.6 187.0 -8% (0.65) Cutcliffe
2007 Stanford 2.71 -3% 209.6 193.3 -8% (0.65) Harbaugh
2012 Utah 2.70 -3% 209.1 192.5 -8% (0.67) Whittingham
2012 Purdue 2.51 -10% 202.9 186.2 -8% (0.69) Hope
2010 Duke 2.43 -13% 200.1 183.5 -8% (0.70) Cutcliffe
2009 Washington 2.84 2% 213.7 195.9 -8% (0.70) Sarkisian
2007 Florida State 3.37 21% 231.1 211.8 -8% (0.70) B. Bowden
2012 Minnesota 2.49 -11% 202.2 185.1 -8% (0.71) Kill
2009 Georgia 3.64 31% 240.2 219.6 -9% (0.72) Richt
2011 Duke 2.49 -11% 202.3 184.7 -9% (0.73) Cutcliffe
2011 Purdue 2.49 -11% 202.1 184.5 -9% (0.73) Hope
2010 Ole Miss 3.01 8% 219.3 200.0 -9% (0.74) Nutt
2007 Northwestern 2.26 -19% 194.5 177.3 -9% (0.74) Fitzgerald
2011 Boston College 2.59 -7% 205.6 187.3 -9% (0.75) Spaziani
2006 NC State 2.82 1% 213.0 193.9 -9% (0.76) Amato
2008 Arkansas 2.72 -3% 209.6 190.5 -9% (0.77) Petrino
2009 Syracuse 2.35 -16% 197.5 179.5 -9% (0.77) Marrone
2012 Duke 2.49 -11% 202.1 183.4 -9% (0.78) Cutcliffe
2010 Indiana 2.35 -16% 197.6 179.3 -9% (0.78) Lynch
2011 Tennessee 3.23 16% 226.5 205.4 -9% (0.78) Dooley
2006 Miami-FL 3.50 26% 235.5 213.5 -9% (0.79) Coker
2010 Colorado 2.74 -2% 210.6 190.6 -9% (0.80) Hawkins
2007 Iowa 2.78 0% 211.8 191.7 -9% (0.80) Ferentz
2006 Iowa State 2.21 -21% 193.1 174.6 -10% (0.80) McCarney
2011 Florida 3.71 33% 242.5 219.0 -10% (0.81) Muschamp
2012 Iowa 2.68 -4% 208.6 188.1 -10% (0.82) Ferentz
2011 Ohio State 3.72 33% 242.7 218.7 -10% (0.83) Fickell
2012 South Florida 2.68 -4% 208.5 187.6 -10% (0.84) S. Holtz
2007 Texas A&M 2.99 7% 218.7 196.6 -10% (0.85) Franchione
2009 Indiana 2.28 -18% 195.2 175.3 -10% (0.85) Lynch
2011 Washington 2.98 7% 218.2 195.6 -10% (0.87) Sarkisian
2006 Ole Miss 2.68 -4% 208.3 186.7 -10% (0.87) Orgeron
2010 Washington 2.93 5% 216.7 194.0 -10% (0.88) Sarkisian
2010 Virginia 2.56 -8% 204.5 182.9 -11% (0.89) London
2012 Miami-FL 3.05 10% 220.8 197.3 -11% (0.89) Golden
2010 Georgia Tech 3.05 10% 220.7 196.5 -11% (0.92) P. Johnson
2009 USC 4.09 47% 254.8 226.8 -11% (0.92) Carroll
2010 Purdue 2.43 -13% 200.3 178.1 -11% (0.93) Hope
2009 California 3.24 16% 226.9 201.5 -11% (0.94) Tedford
2008 Kansas State 2.51 -10% 202.7 179.6 -11% (0.96) Prince
2008 Tennessee 3.34 20% 230.1 203.8 -11% (0.96) Fulmer
2008 Indiana 2.19 -21% 192.4 170.2 -12% (0.96) Lynch
2010 Florida 3.90 40% 248.7 219.6 -12% (0.98) Meyer
2012 Tennessee 3.28 18% 228.3 201.6 -12% (0.98) Dooley
2007 Minnesota 2.28 -18% 195.3 171.9 -12% (1.00) Brewster
2008 Arizona State 2.97 6% 217.9 191.8 -12% (1.00) Erickson
2010 Tennessee 3.30 18% 228.9 201.4 -12% (1.01) Dooley
2011 Arizona 2.70 -3% 209.2 183.6 -12% (1.03) M. Stoops
2010 Penn State 3.46 24% 234.3 205.0 -12% (1.05) Paterno
2007 Iowa State 2.21 -21% 193.1 168.9 -13% (1.05) Chizik
2010 Michigan 3.50 26% 235.5 205.9 -13% (1.05) Rodriguez
2007 Nebraska 3.00 8% 218.9 191.4 -13% (1.05) Callahan
2010 Minnesota 2.58 -7% 205.2 179.2 -13% (1.06) Brewster
2009 Baylor 2.42 -13% 200.0 174.3 -13% (1.08) Briles
2009 Maryland 2.74 -2% 210.3 182.8 -13% (1.10) Friedgen
2008 Syracuse 2.40 -14% 199.3 173.1 -13% (1.10) Robinson
2008 Auburn 3.17 14% 224.6 195.0 -13% (1.11) Tuberville
2011 Oregon State 2.54 -9% 204.0 176.9 -13% (1.11) Riley
2012 Virginia 2.74 -2% 210.4 182.3 -13% (1.12) London
2012 Boston College 2.59 -7% 205.6 177.9 -13% (1.13) Spaziani
2008 Notre Dame 3.64 31% 240.1 207.5 -14% (1.14) Weis
2011 Auburn 3.29 18% 228.4 197.3 -14% (1.14) Chizik
2009 UCLA 3.44 24% 233.6 201.5 -14% (1.15) Neuheisel
2008 Iowa State 2.31 -17% 196.3 169.3 -14% (1.15) Chizik
2009 Colorado 2.76 -1% 211.1 181.6 -14% (1.17) Hawkins
2007 Ole Miss 2.82 1% 213.0 182.2 -14% (1.21) Orgeron
2011 Washington State 2.51 -10% 203.0 173.4 -15% (1.22) Wulff
2008 Miami-FL 3.56 28% 237.3 202.7 -15% (1.22) Shannon
2010 Rutgers 2.74 -2% 210.4 179.6 -15% (1.23) Schiano
2010 USC 4.08 46% 254.6 217.1 -15% (1.24) Kiffen
2011 Kentucky 2.70 -3% 209.1 178.2 -15% (1.24) Phillips
2010 Vanderbilt 2.33 -16% 197.0 167.5 -15% (1.26) Caldwell
2011 Texas Tech 2.92 5% 216.5 183.7 -15% (1.27) Tuberville
2006 North Carolina 2.68 -4% 208.4 176.7 -15% (1.28) Bunting
2009 Michigan 3.57 28% 237.7 201.0 -15% (1.30) Rodriguez
2012 Maryland 2.75 -1% 210.9 178.2 -15% (1.30) Edsall
2006 Duke 2.33 -17% 196.8 163.8 -17% (1.41) Roof
2008 Louisville 2.83 2% 213.4 176.8 -17% (1.44) Kragthorpe
2011 Maryland 2.75 -1% 210.8 174.1 -17% (1.46) Edsall
2010 Wake Forest 2.43 -13% 200.3 165.4 -17% (1.46) Grobe
2012 California 3.19 15% 225.3 185.9 -17% (1.47) Tedford
2011 Minnesota 2.61 -6% 206.1 169.5 -18% (1.49) Kill
2007 Duke 2.37 -15% 198.3 162.2 -18% (1.53) Roof This got Ted Roof fired from Duke
2012 Wash State 2.56 -8% 204.4 166.8 -18% (1.54) Leach Leach's first year in Pullman was nothing to write home about
2008 Mississippi State 2.61 -6% 206.2 167.9 -19% (1.56) Croom This got Sylvester Croom fired
2007 Miami-FL 3.56 28% 237.5 193.0 -19% (1.57) Shannon Shannon's first year as HC of Hurricanes
2009 Louisville 2.75 -1% 210.9 171.1 -19% (1.58) Kragthorpe This got Steve Kragthorpe fired
2010 California 3.24 16% 226.9 184.0 -19% (1.59) Tedford The year the slow decline of Cal's performance got serious
2007 Baylor 2.18 -22% 191.9 154.9 -19% (1.62) Morriss This got Guy Morriss fired
2008 Colorado 2.77 -1% 211.5 170.6 -19% (1.62) Hawkins Intramurals?
2006 Stanford 2.65 -5% 207.5 167.0 -19% (1.64) Harris This got Walt Harris fired
2009 Illinois 2.89 4% 215.3 173.2 -20% (1.64) Zook Ron Zook's worst year of a tenure that wasn't great
2007 Syracuse 2.27 -18% 195.0 156.9 -20% (1.64) Robinson Greg Robinson is a very good DC. His results as a HC weren't good
2012 Kansas 2.56 -8% 204.6 164.0 -20% (1.67) Weis Decided schematic advantage?
2010 Texas 3.81 37% 245.8 196.2 -20% (1.69) Brown Things had to go very wrong for a team this talented to be so poor
2012 Wake Forest 2.51 -10% 202.7 161.7 -20% (1.70) Grobe Things went steadily downhill for Grobe since 2009
2008 Michigan 3.63 30% 239.7 188.5 -21% (1.79) Rodriguez Rich Rod's first year at Michigan. It didn't get much better for him there
2011 Indiana 2.43 -13% 200.2 157.0 -22% (1.81) Wilson Wilson's first year in Bloomington
2010 Washington State 2.58 -7% 205.1 159.9 -22% (1.85) Wulff Some improvement over first two years
2012 Illinois 2.65 -5% 207.4 161.4 -22% (1.86) Beckman Beckman's first year at Illinois
2011 UCLA 3.33 20% 229.9 178.4 -22% (1.88) Neuheisel This (finally) got Neuheisel fired
2010 UCLA 3.56 28% 237.5 183.3 -23% (1.91) Neuheisel The consistency of failure here is breathtaking
2008 UCLA 3.37 21% 231.1 178.2 -23% (1.92) Neuheisel Neuheisel's first year in Westwood
2011 Ole Miss 2.95 6% 217.2 166.7 -23% (1.95) Nutt Looks like Nutt was mailing it in by this stage
2012 Kentucky 2.75 -1% 210.8 158.1 -25% (2.10) Phillips This got Joker Phillips fired
2010 Kansas 2.59 -7% 205.5 153.0 -26% (2.14) Gill Owen Gill's first year in Lawrence
2011 Colorado 2.66 -4% 207.8 154.7 -26% (2.15) Embree John Embree's first year in Boulder
2007 Notre Dame 3.39 22% 231.7 172.2 -26% (2.16) Weis Decided schematic advantage?
2011 Kansas 2.71 -3% 209.5 152.7 -27% (2.27) Gill Turner Gill's last year in Lawrence
2008 Texas A&M 3.17 14% 224.7 163.1 -27% (2.30) Sherman Sherman's first year in College Station
2012 Auburn 3.47 25% 234.5 162.9 -31% (2.56) Chizik Absolutely inexcusable
2008 Washington 2.85 2% 214.0 143.3 -33% (2.77) Willingham It takes a special effort to take average talent and go 0-12
2012 Colorado 2.57 -8% 204.7 128.0 -37% (3.14) Embree John Embree's last year in Boulder
2008 Washington State 2.49 -11% 202.2 125.5 -38% (3.18) Wulff Wulff's first year in Pullman
2009 Washington State 2.55 -9% 204.0 125.8 -38% (3.22) Wulff Pretty impressive that he got a 3rd (nevermind 4th) year
Full Sample Averages 2.79 3.3% 214.9 214.9 0.0%
Standard Deviation 0.46 16.4% 15.0 29.6 11.9%

Trending Discussions

X
Log In Sign Up

forgot?
Log In Sign Up

Forgot password?

We'll email you a reset link.

If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.

Forgot password?

Try another email?

Almost done,

Join Football Study Hall

You must be a member of Football Study Hall to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Football Study Hall. You should read them.

Join Football Study Hall

You must be a member of Football Study Hall to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Football Study Hall. You should read them.

Spinner

Authenticating

Great!

Choose an available username to complete sign up.

In order to provide our users with a better overall experience, we ask for more information from Facebook when using it to login so that we can learn more about our audience and provide you with the best possible experience. We do not store specific user data and the sharing of it is not required to login with Facebook.

tracking_pixel_9341_tracker