By: Edward Egros

college

Gary Patterson is the Most Hated Man in College Football

Pasted Graphic
(Courtesy: Getty Images)

It's not Nick Saban, Urban Meyer or some college football pundit who polarizes fan bases to insanity, just for that monthly paycheck.

It's TCU head coach Gary Patterson, who's led the program since 2000, including a pair of conference transitions and two New Year's Six Bowl victories. Despite few controversial issues within his program, Patterson earns this distinction because of who he is and where he works.

Who he is, is a winner. Perhaps most notable among his accomplishments, his teams are 43-5 when ranked in the Top 10. This record suggests the longevity of having played so many games near the top of the poll du jour, but also a near perfect winning percentage when expected to succeed.

Where he works is a small, private university with
roughly 10,000 students. To compare, this student body is 1/4 the size of Alabama's and roughly 1/5 the size of other highly touted college football schools like Penn State and Ohio State. Also, many of these schools are flagships of their own state, meaning their fan bases extend well beyond those who actually attend the university. Not only can't TCU boast being a flagship, it operates from a state with some of the larger followings in America like Texas and Texas A&M.

Gary Patterson is a successful coach who works for a small school with a smaller fan base trying to get his team into Year 4 of the College Football Playoff. He came close during the inaugural year of the playoff, but was pushed aside for: Ohio State (Baylor also finished ahead of TCU but was also left out, another small private university). Some will argue vindication for the eventual champion Buckeyes, but how TCU would have performed in the playoff that year remains a mystery, even more shrouded given its 39-point victory over 9th-ranked Ole Miss in the Peach Bowl. The gripes only grow louder knowing TCU
controlled games better than Ohio State, had a better defensive efficiency (a metric that predicts success better than offensive efficiency) and the strength of schedule between the Frogs and Buckeyes were roughly the same.

TCU's lone loss that season was to Baylor, and committees historically rank good losses worse than mediocre defeats. The trend seems counterintuitive, but rhetorically serves as an acceptable argument within college football. Also, because the Frogs and Bears split the Big 12 Championship, despite the head-to-head result, they could have "canceled each other out", opening the door for Ohio State.

Still, the only other school with a successful season these last four years most like TCU is Stanford, with an
enrollment roughly 50% larger than the Frogs'. In 2015, they won the Pac-12 Championship, but two losses locked them out. The last two-loss team to win a National Championship was LSU in 2007, so opportunities for those in Stanford's position have always been limited.

Today, TCU is in a more advantageous position than three years ago. The latest College Football Playoff poll has TCU ranked 6th. They will face 5th-ranked Oklahoma and could face the Sooners again in a separate Big 12 Championship Game, something that did not exist during the TCU/Baylor controversy. The conference added this contest because their analytics suggest the game gives a Big 12 team
a greater likelihood of making the Final Four. Two wins over a highly ranked Sooners squad would give the Horned Frogs an undisputed league championship, something that is a statistically significant variable for making the playoff. Their strength of schedule ranking would also increase and defensive efficiency may also rise because a win would include containing Sooner quarterback and Heisman hopeful Baker Mayfield.

Despite the lone loss, if TCU wins its remaining games, the Frogs' resume would be arguably as bulletproof as any one-loss team. The committee admits to wanting geographic diversity, but there would not be another program in that region of the country with a more attractive resume. If TCU is still left out, something should be considered amiss. Having a smaller following could be assumed as a factor for being left out. Gary Patterson would then spotlight a problem with this era of determining a National Champion: he has done virtually everything he can to put his team in a position to play for a title; and yet gets left out for a second year. A conspiracy theory, true or otherwise, that undermines the validity of the selection process, is something the sport and the committee would hate.

A New NCAA Tournament

UNADJUSTEDNONRAW_thumb_10d3
There's no doubting the increased awareness of analytics in predicting the NCAA tournament field in college basketball. Instead of just diagnosing a team's record against the Top 50, it's Rating Percentage Index or Ken Pomeroy rankings, that are becoming more commonplace. It has gotten to where data scientists are actually meeting with the NCAA to determine if one metric should be used above all others to pick tournament teams.

Perhaps surprisingly, data scientists want simpler criteria for picking teams: who wins, who loses and who have you played. This is opposed to other explanatory variables used in more advanced metrics, like margin of victory and offensive/defensive efficiency. Coaches, on the other hand, would prefer more complex formulae for determining the tournament field. Logically, this approach makes more sense from their perspective, because of competition. If a coach has figured out a style of play or way to schedule opponents that increases the likelihood of making the tournament, they develop a competitive advantage. Data scientists want to keep it simple for fans, coaches want a figure out a competitive advantage.

Perhaps in this same spirit of transparency, the tournament selection committee released "in-season" projections for the first time ever, one month before Selection Sunday. It only has the top four seeds of every region, but it is added information for where highly ranked teams really sit. As with any analytic project, more data "usually" means more robust forecasts. Already, it is easier to make more accurate assumptions and offer a better glimpse as to what the committee is looking for.

However, these in-season projections do not include the full field of 68, and what usually causes the most consternation is simply who does and does not make the dance. While it makes sense not to include the full field because you have to assume certain conference champions in mid-major conferences, something that would include all "at large" teams would provide even more information as to the criteria for inclusion.

Nothing is easy about picking 68 teams to play in a tournament, and while analytics may be helpful in forecasting a Final Four, easy-to-understand criteria can help teams and fans quell any controversy.

A New Journalism Feature

Pasted GraphicEach week, I will air a segment on Good Day on Fox 4 in Dallas/Fort Worth that takes an analytic look inside college football. First, I look at a statistical trend inferring something we saw from the weekend before, the challenges predicting games and the secrets to being a more informed fan. Second, I use data and modeling to forecast games featuring some of the favorite teams from north Texas.

I will then post these segments to YouTube and share the links on the Journalism section here. You can click Journalism at the top of the page or
click here.

Evaluating Your Bracket

Pasted Graphic 1The Law of Conservation of Mass tells us: matter is neither created nor destroyed. When you burn your horribly incorrect college basketball bracket, remember, you never destroyed it, it is in another form somewhere in the universe. So instead of ignoring your transgressions, let's embrace what still exists and see which approaches were the best when predicting who will be in the Final Four.

There's a one-seed (North Carolina), a couple of two-seeds (Villanova and Oklahoma) and a 10-seed (Syracuse). There is not as much parity with this quartet as with some tournaments in the last few years. Still, some of the favorites to win the National Championship did not survive the first two weeks of this crucible. For instance, the top three teams in the Pythagorean Rating at the end of the conference tournaments are not playing in Houston. In fact,
Syracuse did not even crack the top 25, until recently. ESPN's Basketball Power Index offers these rankings: North Carolina (1), Villanova (3), Oklahoma (6) and Syracuse (39). The LRMC Basketball Rankings still has its two, three and seven, but ranks the Orange 41st.

Some computer models have resorted to predictions without solely implementing historical data. How is this possible? Microsoft's search engine, Bing, uses social media to determine which teams will survive and advance.
It has already proven successful in other sporting events like the World Cup and NFL games. But how did it fare for this tournament? Sadly for Bing, it only predicted one Final Four team correctly (North Carolina). In fact, the system predicted the Orange to lose their first game.

It should be clear by now the two schools that ruined this tournament's predictiveness: Kansas and Syracuse. The Jayhawks were the top team by nearly all accounts, yet lost in the Regional Final,
perhaps uncharacteristically. At the other end of the spectrum, Syracuse could be the worst team ever to make the Final Four. There have been 11-seeds to make it to the final weekend of the season, but many debated if Syracuse even deserved to make the tournament. Their RPI was 72 at the time of selection, worse than other schools that were not chosen (e.g. Valparaiso, San Diego St. and St. Bonaventure). Instead of the favorite vying for the National Championship, it's the controversial at-large two wins away from glory.

Even listening to me would not have been wise. Using my own system, I only correctly predicted one team (and it was a different school than what I said was coming out of that Region on Fox 4). My National Champion was knocked out during the Elite Eight (Kansas) and my second place team lost in the First Round (Michigan St.).

So what is the best way to fill out your bracket for the next tournament?

I don't know.