Coyotes – Stars game to end the season could see numerous tactical surprises

Hockey isn’t known for it’s tactics.  Sure, the nuances of the dump and chase are lost on many, but as a whole, it’s largely considered an “action” sport rather than much of a “tactical” one.  That’s an unfair assessment somewhat, but unlike other sports, hockey doesn’t rely as much on “matchups” or “eating up the clock.”

However, due to the playoff situation a-brewin’ in the Western Conference, we could see quite a few implementations of non-standard strategy in the Phoenix-Dallas game next Sunday, April 13th.

Here’s the breakdown, as of April 6th, the Stars lead the Coyotes by 1 point for the final playoff spot in the Western Conference.  The Stars also hold the tiebreaker, regulation + overtime wins, which the Coyotes cannot regain (they have 30 to Dallas’ 35, with 4 games remaining.)  Let’s break down all of the possible scenarios going into the final game here:

1) Dallas has a 2 point or greater advantage on the Coyotes.  

Result: The last game is moot, Dallas has clinched a playoff spot.

2) Dallas has a 1 point advantage on the Coyotes.

Result: The Coyotes must win in regulation to make the playoffs (due to losing the tiebreaker if the game goes into overtime, a problem which would be fixed with a 3-2-1-0 point system.)

The twist: Where this scenario gets interesting is in the third period.  A tie game would most certainly lead to Dave Tippett, tactical genius that he is, to pull his goalie with a minute or two remaining, given that taking the game into overtime ends his season.  It would be extremely rare to see a team potentially win a game on an empty netter (from my research, there has never been a game decided by an empty netter, ignoring situations where a team is down 1, pulls their goalie, gives up a goal, then scores a goal, and situations where the goalie is pulled on a delayed penalty).

3) Dallas and Phoenix are tied in the standings.  

Result: The team that wins the game makes the playoffs.  Simple, right?

The twist: If the game were to go to overtime, the two teams could end up just playing 5 on 5 hockey.  “What do you mean, the overtime period is, by rule, 4 on 4?” you may ask.  My theory is that there is the potential, depending upon each coach’s willingness to take the risk, that either, or both, teams may pull their goalie in the overtime period, valuing the additional attacker more than the goalie.  What is a more likely outcome, in my opinion, is that a post-icing faceoff may lead to a goalie being pulled, or any power play in overtime would likely lead to an empty net.

The double twist:  By puling your goalie in overtime, you forgo the point given by losing in overtime.  Normally, teams would not take this risk, but when losing means being eliminated from the playoffs (irrespective of whether you’re back 1 point or 2), desperate times may call for desperate measures.

4) Phoenix leads Dallas by 1 point

The result: Any Phoenix win, or any Dallas win gets the respective team into the playoffs.

The twist: There isn’t really one, but could you imagine the tension if the game were to go to a shootout?

5) Phoenix leads Dallas by 2 points

The result: See situation 2, but reverse the role between the two teams.

6) Phoenix leads Dallas by 3 or more points

The result: Phoenix is in, end of discussion.

 

Clearly, next Sunday’s game could be the most interesting, and perhaps confusing, games seen in recent history.  One can only hope that the results this week will lead to one of the above scenarios.

The NHL should move to a 3-2-1-0 point system

In the eternal struggle for gaining fans, hockey has run into a few problems.  Most of them have been overcome through various rules changes, much to the chagrin of traditionalists.  The addition of the shootout and the trapezoid, and the removal of the two line pass restriction being the largest.  However, in doing all of these changes, largely the first one, the NHL has created a system which rewards teams going in to overtime.  In a game ending in regulation, two points are given, both to the winner, but in an overtime or shootout game, an additional point is given to the loser.  The merits of this can be debated, but the point of this was to not punish teams that could not be defeated within the normal time frame of the game.  The unintended consequence, especially when teams get into the playoff run (like, say, March) is that teams that are on the verge of the playoffs are incentivized to take a game into overtime, where the expected point return is 1.5 instead of 1.0.  Though teams are disincentivized by tiebreakers being determined off of the count of regulation plus overtime wins, this disincentive is largely toothless, given that it has only determined the final playoff seed twice in the past five years.

A smart team, holding on to a 1-1 tie game in the third, would be smart to play conservatively to assure an additional point, rather than attempt to win the game in regulation.

In an effort to cull this, our friends over in the KHL use the 3-2-1-0 points system.  Three points are awarded for a regulation win, two points for an overtime or shootout win, 1 point for an overtime or shootout loss, and 0 points for a regulation loss.  This assures that no games have more of a “point jackpot” than others, since all games are distributed three points to be split among the two teams playing.  This is a good idea, and would largely ensure that the most talented teams benefit from winning in 60 minutes of hockey.

Let’s take a look at the current standings (as of March 23rds games):

East:

Team Reg wins OT/SO wins OT/SO losses Reg losses NHL Point system
Boston Bruins 43 6 5 17 103
Pittsburgh Penguins 37 9 5 20 97
Tampa Bay Lightning 28 11 8 24 86
Philadelphia Flyers 33 6 7 25 85
Montreal Canadiens 28 11 7 26 85
New York Rangers 34 5 4 29 82
Detroit Red Wings 24 9 14 24 80
Toronto Maple Leafs 23 13 8 29 80
Washington Capitals 21 13 11 27 79
Columbus Blue Jackets 30 6 6 29 78
New Jersey Devils 22 9 13 28 75
Carolina Hurricanes 27 5 9 33 73
Ottawa Senators 22 6 13 30 69
New York Islanders 17 10 9 35 63
Florida Panthers 19 7 8 38 60
Buffalo Sabres 12 9 8 43 50

West:

Team Reg wins OT/SO wins OT/SO losses Reg losses NHL Point System
St. Louis Blues 37 11 7 16 103
San Jose Sharks 32 14 8 18 100
Anaheim Ducks 39 7 7 18 99
Chicago Blackhawks 36 5 15 16 97
Colorado Avalanche 33 11 6 21 94
Los Angeles Kings 29 11 6 25 86
Minnesota Wild 27 10 11 24 85
Phoenix Coyotes 26 8 11 26 79
Dallas Stars 28 5 11 26 77
Vancouver Canucks 22 11 10 30 76
Winnipeg Jets 21 11 9 31 73
Nashville Predators 27 4 10 31 72
Calgary Flames 17 12 7 35 65
Edmonton Oilers 18 7 9 38 59

With the 3 point system, we see quite a few changes:

Team Reg wins OT/SO wins OT/SO losses Reg losses KHL point system Ranking difference
Boston Bruins 43 6 5 17 146 0
Pittsburgh Penguins 37 9 5 20 134 0
Philadelphia Flyers 33 6 7 25 118 1
New York Rangers 34 5 4 29 116 2
Tampa Bay Lightning 28 11 8 24 114 -2
Montreal Canadiens 28 11 7 26 113 -2
Columbus Blue Jackets 30 6 6 29 108 3
Detroit Red Wings 24 9 14 24 104 -1
Toronto Maple Leafs 23 13 8 29 103 -2
Washington Capitals 21 13 11 27 100 -1
Carolina Hurricanes 27 5 9 33 100 2
New Jersey Devils 22 9 13 28 97 -1
Ottawa Senators 22 6 13 30 91 0
New York Islanders 17 10 9 35 80 0
Florida Panthers 19 7 8 38 79 0
Buffalo Sabres 12 9 8 43 62 0

And in the west:

Team Reg wins OT/SO wins OT/SO losses Reg losses New point system Ranking difference
St. Louis Blues 37 11 7 16 140 0
Anaheim Ducks 39 7 7 18 138 1
Chicago Blackhawks 36 5 15 16 133 1
San Jose Sharks 32 14 8 18 132 -2
Colorado Avalanche 33 11 6 21 127 0
Los Angeles Kings 29 11 6 25 115 0
Minnesota Wild 27 10 11 24 112 0
Phoenix Coyotes 26 8 11 26 105 0
Dallas Stars 28 5 11 26 105 1
Nashville Predators 27 4 10 31 99 2
Vancouver Canucks 22 11 10 30 98 -1
Winnipeg Jets 21 11 9 31 94 -1
Calgary Flames 17 12 7 35 82 0
Edmonton Oilers 18 7 9 38 77 0

This certainly reshuffles the deck.  Teams that have lived off of shootout wins like San Jose take a hit while teams that eke out wins in regulation like Columbus are rewarded.  Factoring in the additional opportunity to take three points from your division rival down the stretch, this could lead to much better hockey, while also helping somewhat rectify the “underdog phenomenon” we have seen in the hockey playoffs of the last few years, where we have seen 8th seeded teams that were much more capable (and ended up advancing) than their 5th, 6th, or 7th seed counterparts.

 

This seems like a common sense initiative in a sport that has done smart rule changes to attract additional fans.  Hopefully, we will see the NHL rules committee taking this up in the Summer of 2014, though I don’t see it very likely.

Posted in Uncategorized

Official AMSTS Computer Rankings 2014 NCAA Basketball Tournament Odds

With two of the first four games complete, here are the official (wins method) predictions for favorites in the NCAA tournament.  Unsurprisingly, we see an undefeated Wichita State at number one, a choice which the points method finds foolish (Wichita State being ranked 19th in the points ranking system).

Beyond that, there are few surprises, though things aren’t looking particularly good for Albany, even after a big win tonight.

Here’s the full list:

Region Seed Team Round 1 Round 2 Sweet 16 Elite 8 Final 4 Final 2 Champ        
1 Midwest 1 Wichita St. 100% 99.0% 88.4% 75.3% 63.8% 49.5% 36.1%   3 to 1
2 South 1 Florida 100% 98.6% 82.6% 67.8% 51.2% 38.2% 21.3%   5 to 1
3 West 1 Arizona 100% 96.5% 75.8% 52.5% 36.8% 16.8% 9.4%   11 to 1
4 East 2 Villanova 100% 93.5% 65.2% 42.3% 26.5% 12.3% 4.9%   20 to 1
5 South 3 Syracuse 100% 84.7% 59.2% 34.3% 13.9% 7.7% 2.8%   36 to 1
6 East 1 Virginia 100% 94.8% 63.8% 37.1% 19.2% 7.7% 2.6%   38 to 1
7 West 2 Wisconsin 100% 93.5% 64.5% 38.7% 17.4% 5.8% 2.4%   41 to 1
8 West 4 San Diego St. 100% 86.4% 58.8% 26.3% 15.3% 5.3% 2.3%   43 to 1
9 South 2 Kansas 100% 89.6% 57.1% 32.4% 12.6% 6.7% 2.3%   43 to 1
10 East 3 Iowa St. 100% 84.7% 56.9% 28.3% 15.7% 6.2% 2.1%   48 to 1
11 Midwest 2 Michigan 100% 94.3% 59.7% 35.3% 9.7% 4.3% 1.7%   58 to 1
12 West 3 Creighton 100% 87.8% 55.9% 29.6% 12.2% 3.7% 1.4%   70 to 1
13 Midwest 4 Louisville 100% 81.9% 52.3% 12.4% 7.0% 3.2% 1.3%   78 to 1
14 Midwest 3 Duke 100% 83.1% 54.2% 29.2% 7.7% 3.3% 1.3%   79 to 1
15 East 4 Michigan St. 100% 83.5% 46.5% 23.9% 11.1% 4.0% 1.2%   84 to 1
16 East 5 Cincinnati 100% 69.6% 38.8% 20.1% 9.4% 3.4% 1.0%   98 to 1
17 South 4 UCLA 100% 81.2% 47.8% 13.2% 6.1% 2.7% 0.8%   129 to 1
18 South 7 New Mexico 100% 63.8% 29.0% 13.9% 4.4% 1.9% 0.5%   187 to 1
19 East 7 Connecticut 100% 61.8% 23.2% 11.5% 5.3% 1.7% 0.5%   216 to 1
20 West 5 Oklahoma 100% 70.1% 30.0% 9.9% 4.5% 1.2% 0.4%   268 to 1
21 West 6 Baylor 100% 63.4% 29.2% 12.9% 4.3% 1.0% 0.3%   313 to 1
22 Midwest 5 Saint Louis 100% 64.3% 30.3% 5.5% 2.6% 1.0% 0.3%   324 to 1
23 Midwest 7 Texas 100% 59.6% 25.8% 12.8% 2.7% 1.0% 0.3%   329 to 1
24 South 6 Ohio St. 100% 62.3% 24.9% 10.5% 2.9% 1.1% 0.3%   372 to 1
25 West 7 Oregon 100% 62.7% 24.2% 11.0% 3.5% 0.8% 0.2%   435 to 1
26 East 6 North Carolina 100% 56.7% 23.5% 8.4% 3.4% 0.9% 0.2%   465 to 1
27 Midwest 6 UMass 100% 59.5% 26.5% 11.2% 2.2% 0.7% 0.2%   500 to 1
28 South 5 Va. Commonwealth 100% 53.1% 26.0% 5.8% 2.3% 0.9% 0.2%   501 to 1
29 South 9 Pittsburgh 100% 53.2% 9.6% 4.7% 1.9% 0.7% 0.2%   580 to 1
30 East 9 George Washington 100% 52.0% 19.0% 7.9% 2.8% 0.8% 0.2%   609 to 1
31 Midwest 8 Kentucky 100% 58.6% 7.5% 3.4% 1.5% 0.5% 0.2%   652 to 1
32 West 8 Gonzaga 100% 53.6% 13.4% 5.5% 2.3% 0.5% 0.1%   672 to 1
33 South 12a Stephen F. Austin 100% 46.9% 21.5% 4.4% 1.6% 0.6% 0.1%   840 to 1
34 East 8 Memphis 100% 48.0% 16.7% 6.7% 2.3% 0.6% 0.1%   856 to 1
35 South 8 Colorado 100% 46.8% 7.7% 3.5% 1.3% 0.5% 0.1%   992 to 1
36 West 9 Oklahoma St. 100% 46.4% 10.4% 3.9% 1.5% 0.3% 0.1%   1,244 to 1
37 East 11a Providence 100% 43.3% 15.4% 4.6% 1.6% 0.4% 0.1%   1,441 to 1
38 East 10a St. Joseph’s 100% 38.2% 10.7% 4.1% 1.4% 0.3% 0.1%   1,550 to 1
39 Midwest 10a Arizona St. 100% 40.4% 14.0% 5.7% 0.9% 0.3% 0.1%   1,649 to 1
40 South 10a Stanford 100% 36.2% 12.0% 4.2% 0.9% 0.3% 0.1%   1,875 to 1
41 East 12a Harvard 100% 30.4% 11.2% 3.6% 1.0% 0.2% 0.0%   2,731 to 1
42 Midwest 9 Kansas St. 100% 41.4% 4.0% 1.5% 0.5% 0.1% 0.0%   2,927 to 1
43 South 11a Dayton 100% 37.7% 11.2% 3.5% 0.7% 0.2% 0.0%   3,164 to 1
44 West 11a Nebraska 100% 36.6% 12.5% 4.0% 0.9% 0.1% 0.0%   3,182 to 1
45 West 10a BYU 100% 37.3% 10.5% 3.5% 0.8% 0.1% 0.0%   4,125 to 1
46 Midwest 11a Iowa 50.9% 20.8% 7.6% 2.6% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0%   4,738 to 1
47 Midwest 12b Xavier 54.5% 20.5% 7.3% 0.9% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0%   5,173 to 1
48 Midwest 11b Tennessee 49.1% 19.6% 7.0% 2.3% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0%   5,719    
49 West 12a North Dakota St. 100% 29.9% 7.7% 1.4% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0%   10,715 to 1
50 Midwest 12a N.C. State 45.5% 15.2% 4.9% 0.5% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0%   13,051 to 1
51 South 14a Western Michigan 100% 15.3% 4.6% 1.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%   39,985 to 1
52 Midwest 13a Manhattan 100% 18.1% 5.2% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%   48,011 to 1
53 East 14a N.C. Central 100% 15.3% 4.2% 0.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%   68,680 to 1
54 Midwest 14a Mercer 100% 16.9% 4.7% 0.9% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%   78,374 to 1
55 South 13a Tulsa 100% 18.8% 4.7% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%   89,064 to 1
56 West 13a New Mexico St. 100% 13.6% 3.6% 0.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%   103,577 to 1
57 East 13a Delaware 100% 16.5% 3.4% 0.6% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%   106,342 to 1
58 West 14a Louisiana 100% 12.2% 2.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%   470,215 to 1
59 South 15a Eastern Kentucky 100% 10.4% 1.8% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%   550,797 to 1
60 East 15a Wis.-Milwaukee 100% 6.5% 0.9% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%   2,099,097 to 1
61 West 15a American 100% 6.5% 0.9% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%   7,741,791 to 1
62 West 16a Weber St. 100.0% 3.5% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%   16,115,824 to 1
63 East 16a Coastal Carolina 100.0% 5.2% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%   29,686,553 to 1
64 Midwest 15a Wofford 100% 5.7% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%   32,041,970 to 1
65 Midwest 16a Cal Poly-SLO 45.7% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%   431,395,703 to 1
66 South 16b Mount St. Mary’s, Md. 47.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%   513,739,779 to 1
67 South 16a Albany 53.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%   909,758,778 to 1
68 Midwest 16b Texas Southern 54.3% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%   957,526,727 to 1
Posted in Uncategorized

The worst four conferences in NCAA Men’s Basketball

It’s almost February, and for most of us, we can spend our days looking forward to March Madness, with its theatrics and Cinderellas. Those whose team will not be participants in March will usually have at least one fellow conference member to cheer on (or root against). However, there are some fans who have suffered enough in the regular season, the likelihood of their conference champion even putting up a fight seems slim.

These are the fans who deserve the most credit.

Every year, a Cinderella team will make a late run into the NCAA tournament. Most belong to the group affectionately labelled “Mid-Majors.” We saw Butler make a couple of deep runs, causing them to even lose the “Cinderella” title after making a second straight National Championship Game. George Mason and VCU are a couple of other names to add to the list. For fans of these Mid-Majors, the top team is generally fairly qualified, despite the label. However, due to the NCAA tournament format, there are always a handful of teams that have absolutely no shot at advancing.

Let’s take a look at the current leaders for “Bet the house against these future 16 seeds.” And rather than worry about which team will win their conference, let’s just look at the four worst conferences from top to bottom, or rather, bottom to absolute-scraping-the-bottom-of-the-well-bottom.

4. MEAC
The MEAC is luckily blessed with North Carolina Central, a team that features in the AMSTS Computer Rankings at 110, but the talent in the conference drops off precipitously after that. For the other 12 teams in the conference, only one (Norfolk State at 11-10) has a winning record. Beyond that, there is only one team close to breaking .500 (Hampton, most famous for their 15 seed win against Iowa State, is 9-10). The rest of the conference (Morgan State, Coppin State, Florida A&M, NC A&T, Savannah State, Delaware State, South Carolina State, Howard, Bethune-Cookman, and Maryland-Eastern Shore, in case you forgot) are all 5 or greater losses below .500. In fact, eight of the thirteen teams in the MEAC fall below #300 in the AMSTS Computer Rankings. While the record disparity largely benefits North Carolina Central, I wouldn’t expect to see them much higher than a 14 seed in the best scenario, and that assumes some major conference tournament upsets in some other conferences.

3. Big South Conference
The Big South is perhaps the most impressive top to bottom conference of the worst 4, though that doesn’t say a whole lot. With one third of the conference having winning records (Coastal Carolina, Winthrop, Radford, and VMI), it is a 9-10 Charleston Southern team that leads the rankings at #190. However, the top heavy nature of this conference may lead to one of the more exciting conference tournaments, if you don’t mind the lower overall quality of play. Added bonus, I hear that Conway, South Carolina is nice that time of year. That is, if it’s ever “nice,” I suppose.

2. Southern Conference
The Southern Conference is chock full of cupcakes, with only Chattanooga above .500, though their best win was only over #204 Elon last week. Western Carolina also has a weak 12-10 record, accounting for the only other above-.500 team within the conference. The conference has five teams with fewer than 10 wins, all of which (Georgia Southern, Samford, Appalachian State, Furman and The Citadel) fall below 300 in the rankings.

1. SWAC
The SWAC is, in no uncertain terms, absolutely wretched. It’s best team, Southern, has gained fame this year for beating an unaccredited Bible College by 104 points. On the surface that may sound impressive, but considering that the Jaguars are otherwise 9-10, yet still miles ahead of #2 Alabama State (The only team with a winning record in the conference at 11-6) should indicate how terrible the conference lies. Luckily for Southern, primary rival Grambling continues it’s two year run at futility, still winless against all of Division 1, checking off its last win at the D-1 level in March of 2012. For anyone out of the SWAC to get a 15 seed would be a gift to the 2 seed in that particular region. Of course, the likelihood of that is extremely small.

Now, if you are a fan of any of the bottom four conferences, here’s to you for sticking through the rough patch, though I suspect for some of these four, the rough patch has been more of the “normal times.” One can only hope that perhaps next year might just be your conference’s time to shine.

But it probably won’t be.

Posted in Uncategorized

NFL Teams Should Start Overtime with an Onside Kick

The new overtime rules (though not entirely too new at this point) are intriguing, for sure.  Once both teams have been given the right to “possess or have the opportunity to possess the ball,” then the game turns into sudden death.  Prior to that, a touchdown wins the game, while a field goal gives the other team one possession to tie it (as in the case of the Vikings – Packers game earlier this season) or win it with a touchdown.

The one loophole in this is the way that the league determines the “opportunity to possess the ball.”  According to Approved Rulings 16.2 and 16.3, an onside kick that is recovered by the kicking team means that the original receiving team has had the opportunity to possess.  In short: kick an onside kick, if you recover it, you only have to score a field goal.  If you don’t recover it, you are not considered to have had your opportunity to possess, and thus the game will go on if the receiving team goes on to kick a field goal.

This leads to the inevitable question, “Yes, but now you’ve given your opponents great field position in the event that they recover the onside kick.”  With the help of our friends over at Advanced NFL Statistics, we’re able to analyze the validity of this concern.

According to their Win Probability Calculator, the likelihood of a team scoring a touchdown when starting OT at their own 20 is approximately 15%.  If that same team starts at the opponent’s 45, the touchdown probability only increases to 28%.  This means that a team is only assuming 13 percentage points of additional risk in the onside kick attempt.

Now, to offset that risk, the balance of reward.  With the receiving team having had the “opportunity to possess,” the kicking team only needs a field goal to win.  Assuming that they start with the ball at their own 45, the probability of a touchdown is 23%, and a field goal is 16%, for a total probability of a game winning score of 39%.

Given the risk of 13% and the overall reward of 39%, this means that if greater than one in four onside kicks is successful, a team will be better off.  In 2013, the success rate of an onside kick sits at almost 22% (12/56 by my calculations), while surprise onside kicks (let’s just say any onside kick not in the 4th quarter) succeed 67% (4/6, sample size warning!) of the time.  An onside kick at the beginning over overtime would certainly be unexpected (at least the first time.)

So why don’t coaches do it?  Like most things, it comes down to the “gaffe factor.”  Those less familiar with the numbers (the fanbase as a whole, generally) would say if an attempt were to fail that it was an unnecessary risk, despite the fact that it is the smart move.  However, given that Week 17 is coming up and there are some coaches fighting for their jobs (or, in the case of Mike Shanahan, fighting to lose it), perhaps the time is now for the overtime onside kick.

Posted in Uncategorized

Week 12 Computer Predictions!

A fairly boring week in College Football ahead of us, as the game of the week is arguably Stanford at USC.  Interestingly enough, the spread is a mere 3 points in Stanford’s favor, with USC only having 1 win against an AMSTS top 40 team (Arizona) and getting throttled by the only Top 25 team they faced (ASU, 62-41).

Meanwhile, in the American Athletic Conference hides what could be the real game of the week.  Sure, it’s Louisville and Houston.  Sure, they’ve both lost to UCF this year.  But hey, two potent offenses facing off, and at least according to the Wins Model, a pretty even tilt.

Without much to talk about this week, I’ll keep it short.  Here are the week 12 predictions en masse:

11/12/2013 Ohio Bowling Green 10 37.78% 3.39 Toss up Ohio -6.61
11/12/2013 Buffalo Toledo 4 40.51% -1.81 Decisive Buffalo -5.81
11/13/2013 Ball State Northern Illinois 6 63.72% -1.03 Toss up Ball State -7.03
11/13/2013 Miami-Ohio Kent State 17.5 82.60% 9.95 Decisive Miami-Ohio -7.55
11/14/2013 Marshall Tulsa -14 19.21% -22.56 Decisive Marshall -8.56
11/14/2013 Georgia Tech Clemson 10 72.03% 1.16 Decisive Georgia Tech -8.84
11/15/2013 Washington U.C.L.A. 2 61.05% -2.79 Toss up Washington -4.79
11/16/2013 UL-Lafayette Georgia State -21 1.23% -25.92 Decisive UL-Lafayette -4.92
11/16/2013 U-C-F Temple -16.5 1.81% -21.08 Decisive U-C-F -4.58
11/16/2013 Ohio State Illinois -33 4.12% -26.03 Decisive Illinois 6.97
11/16/2013 Alabama Mississippi State -24.5 6.01% -20.28 Decisive Mississippi State 4.22
11/16/2013 Florida Atlantic Southern Miss -17 8.18% -24.03 Decisive Florida Atlantic -7.03
11/16/2013 San Diego State Hawaii -4.5 9.71% -5.70 Decisive San Diego State -1.20
11/16/2013 Central Michigan Western Michigan -3 15.01% -4.36 Decisive Central Michigan -1.36
11/16/2013 Akron Massachusetts -7.5 15.99% -8.62 Decisive Akron -1.12
11/16/2013 Stanford Southern Cal -3 21.80% -6.14 Decisive Stanford -3.14
11/16/2013 San Jose State Nevada-Reno -7.5 24.91% -5.70 Decisive Nevada-Reno 1.80
11/16/2013 Michigan Northwestern 3 27.42% -4.88 Decisive Michigan -7.88
11/16/2013 West Virginia Kansas -6.5 32.25% -8.26 Decisive West Virginia -1.76
11/16/2013 Colorado State New Mexico -6 36.81% -6.54 Decisive Colorado State -0.54
11/16/2013 Memphis South Florida -2.5 38.06% -11.67 Decisive Memphis -9.17
11/16/2013 Michigan State Nebraska -6.5 38.10% -4.14 Decisive Nebraska 2.36
11/16/2013 Miami-Florida Duke -3.5 40.31% -3.83 Decisive Miami-Florida -0.33
11/16/2013 Oklahoma State Texas -3 46.31% -7.02 Decisive Oklahoma State -4.02
11/16/2013 Houston Louisville 16.5 54.09% 4.75 Decisive Houston -11.75
11/16/2013 Texas State Arkansas State 6.5 55.96% 7.09 Decisive Arkansas State 0.59
11/16/2013 North Carolina Pittsburgh 0 56.73% -2.80 Toss up North Carolina -2.80
11/16/2013 Florida Intl UTEP 6 58.67% 9.04 Decisive UTEP 3.04
11/16/2013 Washington State Arizona 13 61.88% 8.88 Decisive Washington State -4.12
11/16/2013 Cincinnati Rutgers -1.5 65.52% -2.76 Toss up Cincinnati -1.26
11/16/2013 Georgia Auburn 3.5 66.92% 5.68 Decisive Auburn 2.18
11/16/2013 Texas Christian Kansas State 10.5 67.03% 10.97 Decisive Kansas State 0.47
11/16/2013 South Alabama Navy 9.5 70.78% 6.04 Decisive South Alabama -3.46
11/16/2013 California Colorado 3 71.44% 0.69 Decisive California -2.31
11/16/2013 No Carolina State Boston College 7.5 74.23% 3.27 Decisive No Carolina State -4.23
11/16/2013 Oregon State Arizona State 14 75.84% 13.71 Decisive Oregon State -0.29
11/16/2013 Wyoming Boise State 22 76.45% 14.22 Decisive Wyoming -7.78
11/16/2013 Indiana Wisconsin 20.5 77.37% 11.64 Decisive Indiana -8.86
11/16/2013 Florida South Carolina 14 77.82% 6.61 Decisive Florida -7.39
11/16/2013 Maryland Virginia Tech 15 81.33% 13.30 Decisive Maryland -1.70
11/16/2013 Utah Oregon 25 81.78% 16.72 Decisive Utah -8.28
11/16/2013 Texas Tech Baylor 27 85.16% 26.55 Decisive Texas Tech -0.45
11/16/2013 Troy Mississippi 28 85.55% 14.23 Decisive Troy -13.77
11/16/2013 Louisiana Tech Rice 17.5 85.67% 12.53 Decisive Louisiana Tech -4.97
11/16/2013 Kentucky Vanderbilt 12.5 85.77% 6.08 Decisive Kentucky -6.42
11/16/2013 Purdue Penn State 22 85.90% 17.89 Decisive Purdue -4.11
11/16/2013 Connecticut S-M-U 14 87.55% 7.84 Decisive Connecticut -6.16
11/16/2013 U-A-B East Carolina 26 90.19% 20.82 Decisive U-A-B -5.18
11/16/2013 Syracuse Florida State 38.5 92.43% 30.68 Decisive Syracuse -7.82
11/16/2013 Iowa State Oklahoma 24 95.86% 16.70 Decisive Iowa State -7.30
11/16/2013 Idaho State Brigham Young 98.01% 38.50 Decisive Idaho State N/A
Posted in Uncategorized

NCAA Football Week 11 Predictions

Week 11 brings a flurry of challenging games for the top contenders.  Baylor faces Oklahoma, Alabama faces LSU, and Oregon and Stanford battle for what will likely be the Pac 12 North crown.  Meanwhile, ACC favorite Florida State takes on a terrible* Wake Forest team (* = much to the chagrin of Mrs. AMSTS, a Wake alumna.)  The outcomes of this weeks games will dramatically shape who heads into the top positions as we get into crunch time in the season.

Unfortunately for fans of close matchups, the computers tend to think these games will be decided by 10 or more points, with LSU having the best chance of the upset according to the points model.  The wins model, however, predicts a chance of OU taking Baylor to the house, though at the time of writing (Halftime on Thursday), that seems unlikely.

Meanwhile, the two games of the week, according to the models at least, seem to be Tulane at UTSA, as the Roadrunners attempt to make bowl eligibility for the first time in their short tenure in FBS.

The second game of the week is Houston at UCF.  Ranked #25 and #20 respectively, this game will determine what the best 1 loss mid-major team in the country is.  I’ll bet that sentence caused you to stop everything you’re doing and run to set your DVR.

With that being said, here are the rest of the predictions.  The wins method is 149-55 since Week 7, while the points method is 150-54 straight up, and 101-96 against the spread.

Date Visitor Home Vegas line Home team win chance Home team MoV Models agree? Spread team pick Difference over spread
11/5/2013 Bowling Green Miami-Ohio -23.5 5.59% -23.13 Decisive Miami-Ohio 0.37
11/5/2013 Ohio Buffalo 3 47.40% -2.75 Decisive Ohio -5.75
11/6/2013 Central Michigan Ball State 19.5 83.10% 19.97 Decisive Ball State 0.47
11/7/2013 Oregon Stanford -10 39.61% -14.15 Decisive Oregon -4.15
11/7/2013 Oklahoma Baylor 13.5 53.37% 23.24 Decisive Baylor 9.74
11/7/2013 Troy UL-Lafayette 13 66.83% 8.71 Decisive Troy -4.29
11/8/2013 Louisville Connecticut -27.5 1.90% -33.60 Decisive Louisville -6.10
11/8/2013 Air Force New Mexico 3 49.91% 3.94 Toss up New Mexico 0.94
11/9/2013 Missouri Kentucky -14 4.42% -18.18 Decisive Missouri -4.18
11/9/2013 Florida State Wake Forest -35 4.93% -31.64 Decisive Wake Forest 3.36
11/9/2013 Boston College New Mexico State -24 6.87% -24.36 Decisive Boston College -0.36
11/9/2013 Fresno State Wyoming -10 7.14% -8.70 Decisive Wyoming 1.30
11/9/2013 Southern Cal California -17 8.26% -19.59 Decisive Southern Cal -2.59
11/9/2013 Iowa Purdue -16 15.22% -21.42 Decisive Iowa -5.42
11/9/2013 Auburn Tennessee -7 19.35% -10.63 Decisive Auburn -3.63
11/9/2013 Notre Dame Pittsburgh -4 19.56% -4.77 Decisive Notre Dame -0.77
11/9/2013 Texas Christian Iowa State -7 23.52% -9.49 Decisive Texas Christian -2.49
11/9/2013 Texas West Virginia -8 24.19% -11.00 Decisive Texas -3.00
11/9/2013 Western Kentucky Army -6.5 25.29% -8.29 Decisive Western Kentucky -1.79
11/9/2013 Arizona State Utah -6.5 28.08% -9.78 Decisive Arizona State -3.28
11/9/2013 Tulane Texas-San Antonio 7 33.32% -0.40 Decisive Tulane -7.40
11/9/2013 U.C.L.A. Arizona 0 40.69% -3.14 Decisive U.C.L.A. -3.14
11/9/2013 Brigham Young Wisconsin 7 41.55% 2.71 Toss up Brigham Young -4.29
11/9/2013 S-M-U Cincinnati 9.5 49.64% 9.31 Toss up S-M-U -0.19
11/9/2013 Utah State Nevada-Las Vegas -12.5 50.06% -22.19 Toss up Utah State -9.69
11/9/2013 Nevada-Reno Colorado State 9 50.23% 6.56 Decisive Nevada-Reno -2.44
11/9/2013 Houston U-C-F 11.5 53.22% 0.31 Decisive Houston -11.19
11/9/2013 Syracuse Maryland 5 53.40% -0.90 Toss up Syracuse -5.90
11/9/2013 Arkansas State UL-Monroe 6 57.04% -3.71 Toss up Arkansas State -9.71
11/9/2013 Vanderbilt Florida 10 58.42% 6.44 Decisive Vanderbilt -3.56
11/9/2013 Penn State Minnesota 1.5 59.00% -0.29 Toss up Penn State -1.79
11/9/2013 Illinois Indiana 10 61.73% 7.51 Decisive Illinois -2.49
11/9/2013 Nebraska Michigan 7 64.32% 1.30 Decisive Nebraska -5.70
11/9/2013 Western Michigan Eastern Michigan -2 64.37% -2.89 Toss up Western Michigan -0.89
11/9/2013 San Diego State San Jose State 7 66.74% 5.04 Decisive San Diego State -1.96
11/9/2013 Virginia North Carolina 14.5 67.28% 7.18 Decisive Virginia -7.32
11/9/2013 Virginia Tech Miami-Florida 6 69.65% 6.13 Decisive Miami-Florida 0.13
11/9/2013 Kansas State Texas Tech 3 74.37% 0.32 Decisive Kansas State -2.68
11/9/2013 Southern Miss Louisiana Tech 15.5 75.82% 13.48 Decisive Southern Miss -2.02
11/9/2013 Mississippi State Texas A+M 18 76.69% 9.31 Decisive Mississippi State -8.69
11/9/2013 Old Dominion Idaho 78.03% 2.29 Decisive Old Dominion N/A
11/9/2013 Louisiana State Alabama 11 78.21% 10.85 Decisive Louisiana State -0.15
11/9/2013 Colorado Washington 28 79.29% 20.14 Decisive Colorado -7.86
11/9/2013 No Carolina State Duke 9 79.70% 9.86 Decisive Duke 0.86
11/9/2013 U-A-B Marshall 21 80.35% 21.13 Decisive Marshall 0.13
11/9/2013 Arkansas Mississippi 17 80.93% 15.50 Decisive Arkansas -1.50
11/9/2013 Tulsa East Carolina 14.5 86.49% 15.39 Decisive East Carolina 0.89
11/9/2013 Tennessee-Martin Memphis 88.28% 25.00 Decisive Tennessee-Martin N/A
11/9/2013 Hawaii Navy 18 89.38% 14.22 Decisive Hawaii -3.78
11/9/2013 Kansas Oklahoma State 30.5 89.59% 23.25 Decisive Kansas -7.25
11/9/2013 Florida Intl Middle Tennessee 17.5 92.13% 20.05 Decisive Middle Tennessee 2.55
11/9/2013 UTEP North Texas 25 94.55% 21.97 Decisive UTEP -3.03
11/9/2013 Appalachian State Georgia 98.51% 35.17 Decisive Appalachian State N/A
Posted in Uncategorized

I probably should just send him a fruit basket

I’m going to go out there and say something that’s not too earth shattering.

I never really expected much from this site.  Just a place where I could keep idle thoughts and my computer rankings.  Well, those, and the drinking games.  It all started with Joe Morgan back when I was in college, when a friend of mine and I finally wrote down the Joe Morgan Drinking Game rules, available here.  This was distributed to a few friends throughout the country, and then years later, I ended up slapping it up on here.  Unsurprisingly, it got a fair amount of attention every Sunday, but beyond that, there was little traffic to the site beyond that and a small group of friends.

Then, after watching the 2009 World Series, I had had enough of Mr. Joe Buck.  I threw together the Joe Buck Drinking Game.  I didn’t do much about it, it was after baseball season and frankly, he’s not really too terrible for football (perhaps due to being accompanied by perennial snooze-inducer Troy Aikman), and my cathartic “write out how terrible he is so I can laugh at it next year” cycle had completed itself.

So I posted it with little fanfare.  I’m not even sure I tweeted it out (@AMSTS, of course).  In fact, I’m fairly confident that very few people cared and/or saw it.  That was a few years ago, and I just left it sitting there, thinking it wasn’t getting much attention, though I’d noticed it was one of the better performing pages on the site, especially on Sundays in the fall.

Fast forward to this fall, and boy have I hit the jackpot.  Views and unique visits are both up over 1000% (from a surprisingly high base) on nights that Joe Buck has called a game on Fox. In fact, on the days in which there is a game on Fox, the pinnacle of traffic is exactly in the 30 minutes between Buck coming on air pre-game and the game’s first pitch.

I’m surprised that this many have been brought in simply by Joe Buck’s tepid announcing.  Is it people angry about a lack of emotion?  People angry about an excess of nepotism?  Anger at an organization that has relegated one who may perhaps be sports’ best play by play guy (Gus Johnson) to Soccer?  I theorize the answer is: Yes.

Truly Joe Buck is uniting force, perhaps for all of the wrong reasons.  It’s only appropriate, for most of us fans of sports, as many of us feel that he’s the number one play by play guy at Fox for all the wrong reasons.

That being said, I guess I owe Mr. Buck a thank you.  Thank you for everything you do, that drives so many (I’m guessing) young college-aged males to binge drinking.

We truly couldn’t do it without you.  Look us up next time you’re in town.

Best regards for a lengthy career,

Your friends at AMSTS

Posted in Uncategorized

Week 8 Predictions!

Week 8 is upon us, and with it comes a much better slate of games than Week 7 (at least one can hope).  And from what the models say, it looks to be like we’re in for some barn burners.

The first game not to miss this weekend, according to the Win Model of the AMSTS Computer Rankings, is Washington vs Arizona State.  #22 Washington heads to Tempe to take on the #28 Sun Devils, with a slight favor to the Huskies, who are expected to win by 3 points and have a 53% chance of winning, according to each model.  (6:00 PM EDT, Pac-12 Network)

The second big game, at least according to the Points Model, is going to be Indiana vs Michigan.  The narrowest of all point margins of the week, IU is the slight favorite in the Big House, though the Win Model sees an easy Michigan win.  Which model will prevail?  We’ll just have to find out. (3:30 PM EST, Big Ten Network)

And finally, the biggest game of the week might just be Auburn vs Texas A&M.  The #16 and #17 teams face one another with the models split on the outcome: the Win Model favors A&M while the Points Model says Auburn wins by 2.5.  (3:30 PM EDT, CBS)

As for the entire week (including last night’s ULL-WKU Sun Belt tilt):

Date Visitor Home Vegas line Home team win chance Home team MoV Models agree? Spread team pick Difference over spread
10/15/2013 UL-Lafayette Western Kentucky 4.5 64.21% 0.26 Decisive UL-Lafayette -4.24
10/17/2013 Miami-Florida North Carolina -8 9.73% -20.00 Decisive Miami-Florida -12.00
10/18/2013 U-C-F Louisville 10.5 66.31% 9.57 Decisive U-C-F -0.93
10/19/2013 Ball State Western Michigan -19 2.63% -27.36 Decisive Ball State -8.36
10/19/2013 Rice New Mexico State -17.5 4.32% -24.12 Decisive Rice -6.62
10/19/2013 Army Temple 2.5 9.75% -5.34 Decisive Army -7.84
10/19/2013 Northern Illinois Central Michigan -16.5 12.04% -14.52 Decisive Central Michigan 1.98
10/19/2013 Oregon State California -10 13.58% -13.39 Decisive Oregon State -3.39
10/19/2013 Georgia Vanderbilt -9 14.16% -9.27 Decisive Georgia -0.27
10/19/2013 Ohio Eastern Michigan -18.5 14.61% -20.94 Decisive Ohio -2.44
10/19/2013 Oklahoma Kansas -24 14.98% -16.31 Decisive Kansas 7.69
10/19/2013 North Texas Louisiana Tech -6.5 18.50% -15.23 Decisive North Texas -8.73
10/19/2013 Texas Tech West Virginia -8 19.23% -16.05 Decisive Texas Tech -8.05
10/19/2013 Louisiana State Mississippi -8 22.16% -13.96 Decisive Louisiana State -5.96
10/19/2013 Akron Miami-Ohio -7 22.43% -8.80 Decisive Akron -1.80
10/19/2013 Maryland Wake Forest -6 26.28% -6.67 Decisive Maryland -0.67
10/19/2013 South Carolina Tennessee -7 26.29% -3.96 Decisive Tennessee 3.04
10/19/2013 Utah Arizona 6 30.24% -3.95 Decisive Utah -9.95
10/19/2013 Utah State New Mexico 32.76% -15.13 Decisive Utah State N/A
10/19/2013 Duke Virginia 2.5 37.18% -6.75 Decisive Duke -9.25
10/19/2013 U.C.L.A. Stanford 6.5 38.15% -2.40 Decisive U.C.L.A. -8.90
10/19/2013 Wisconsin Illinois -10 39.35% -11.07 Decisive Wisconsin -1.07
10/19/2013 Washington Arizona State 3 47.23% -3.48 Decisive Washington -6.48
10/19/2013 Navy Toledo 6.5 47.88% -2.29 Decisive Navy -8.79
10/19/2013 Auburn Texas A+M 14 50.67% -2.50 Toss up Auburn -16.50
10/19/2013 Syracuse Georgia Tech 9 51.93% 5.42 Decisive Syracuse -3.58
10/19/2013 Minnesota Northwestern 12.5 52.16% 2.88 Decisive Minnesota -9.62
10/19/2013 Florida State Clemson -2.5 55.47% -9.41 Toss up Florida State -6.91
10/19/2013 S-M-U Memphis 3 56.22% 10.96 Decisive Memphis 7.96
10/19/2013 Southern Cal Notre Dame 2.5 56.31% -4.64 Toss up Southern Cal -7.14
10/19/2013 Texas Christian Oklahoma State 7 60.09% 5.91 Decisive Texas Christian -1.09
10/19/2013 Kent State South Alabama 6.5 60.55% 5.75 Decisive Kent State -0.75
10/19/2013 Nevada-Reno Boise State 21.5 64.04% 17.39 Decisive Nevada-Reno -4.11
10/19/2013 Brigham Young Houston -9 67.75% -4.16 Toss up Houston 4.84
10/19/2013 Indiana Michigan 10.5 68.87% -0.06 Toss up Indiana -10.56
10/19/2013 Colorado State Wyoming 6.5 75.60% 9.52 Decisive Wyoming 3.02
10/19/2013 Florida Missouri -3 77.85% 5.28 Decisive Missouri 8.28
10/19/2013 Iowa Ohio State 16 81.69% 13.22 Decisive Iowa -2.78
10/19/2013 Nevada-Las Vegas Fresno State 22.5 81.84% 13.53 Decisive Nevada-Las Vegas -8.97
10/19/2013 Washington State Oregon 37.5 82.74% 28.11 Decisive Washington State -9.39
10/19/2013 Connecticut Cincinnati 14 88.01% 13.96 Decisive Connecticut -0.04
10/19/2013 Purdue Michigan State 26 89.47% 21.87 Decisive Purdue -4.13
10/19/2013 Massachusetts Buffalo 20 90.64% 14.84 Decisive Massachusetts -5.16
10/19/2013 Southern Miss East Carolina 20.5 93.03% 22.93 Decisive East Carolina 2.43
10/19/2013 Arkansas Alabama 28 93.41% 23.73 Decisive Arkansas -4.27
10/19/2013 Iowa State Baylor 30.5 94.60% 29.72 Decisive Iowa State -0.78
10/19/2013 Georgia State Texas State 17.5 96.41% 18.52 Decisive Texas State 1.02
10/19/2013 Charleston Southern Colorado
10/19/2013 Old Dominion Pittsburgh
Posted in Uncategorized

NCAA Football Week 7 predictions!

So week 7 is upon us, and with it come the first predictions from the computer models. For those unfamiliar, two separate models are run which create sometimes varying predictions.  First, there is the “Win Model” which values when a team wins, not caring if they win by 15 or 50.  It ranks the teams Elo-Chess style, and then uses that ranking to predict the likelihood of success for a team against another team.

Alternatively, there is the points model, which uses a modified Elo-Chess based upon margin of victory. Sometimes the two methods may disagree, which is what the “Models agree?” column denotes.

Enough explaining, let’s get to Week 7, shall we?   The game of the week seems to be Oregon vs Washington, but both models agree that there is very little chance of a UW win, with the Win Model putting the odds at 2.7% and the Points Model predicting an 11 point defeat.

Looking for a close game instead?  Missouri at Georgia may be your best bet, with one model giving a slight edge to the Dawgs, the other thinking the Tigers pull off a close one.  One thing to note about the Points Model, however, is that it doesn’t account for a home team.  Traditionally, it is assumed that a home team “gets” three points.  However, given that my rankings do not subtract three points from a home team winning, I tend to believe that this advantage may already be factored in, but I am keeping an eye on it throughout the season.

As for the best betting opportunity, I am tempted to go against my alma mater (as I will be at the game, it is sure to be a blowout) and select Nebraska as the lock of the week, I think the real choice is Baylor -20 at Kansas State.  Baylor has shown the ability to hang points, and with the typically conservative Points Model predicting Baylor to win by 29, I would not be surprised to see a 40 point margin for the Bears this Saturday.

Enough commentary, here’s the rest of Week 7!

Date Visitor Home Vegas line Home team win chance Home team MoV Models agree? Spread team pick Difference over spread
10/10/2013 Arizona Southern Cal 4.5 54.20% -5.89 Toss up Arizona -10.39
10/10/2013 San Diego State Air Force -3 61.23% 1.07 Decisive Air Force 4.07
10/10/2013 Rutgers Louisville 17 87.33% 16.91 Decisive Rutgers -0.09
10/11/2013 Temple Cincinnati 21.5 99.72% 10.63 Decisive Temple -10.87
10/12/2013 Alabama Kentucky -27 0.21% -14.73 Decisive Kentucky 12.27
10/12/2013 Baylor Kansas State -20 1.35% -28.93 Decisive Baylor -8.93
10/12/2013 Oklahoma Texas -14 2.14% -10.31 Decisive Texas 3.69
10/12/2013 Oregon Washington -14 2.74% -11.04 Decisive Washington 2.96
10/12/2013 Stanford Utah -8 3.89% -4.57 Decisive Utah 3.43
10/12/2013 Nebraska Purdue -14 5.67% -24.65 Decisive Nebraska -10.65
10/12/2013 East Carolina Tulane -10 9.83% -7.76 Decisive Tulane 2.24
10/12/2013 Troy Georgia State -19 10.43% -21.64 Decisive Troy -2.64
10/12/2013 South Carolina Arkansas -6.5 11.17% -6.93 Decisive South Carolina -0.43
10/12/2013 Texas A+M Mississippi -7 11.64% -8.54 Decisive Texas A+M -1.54
10/12/2013 Michigan Penn State -3 11.87% -0.88 Decisive Penn State 2.12
10/12/2013 Marshall Florida Atlantic -13 12.80% -14.02 Decisive Marshall -1.02
10/12/2013 Buffalo Western Michigan -10 18.37% -17.17 Decisive Buffalo -7.17
10/12/2013 Boise State Utah State -7 28.41% 1.98 Toss up Utah State 8.98
10/12/2013 Rice Texas-San Antonio -3.5 30.36% -4.44 Decisive Rice -0.94
10/12/2013 Tulsa UTEP -11 36.96% -1.00 Decisive UTEP 10.00
10/12/2013 Florida Louisiana State 7 49.63% 4.17 Toss up Florida -2.83
10/12/2013 Missouri Georgia 10 50.04% -2.41 Toss up Missouri -12.41
10/12/2013 Oregon State Washington State 2.5 50.35% 3.94 Decisive Washington State 1.44
10/12/2013 Navy Duke 2.5 52.62% -1.46 Toss up Navy -3.96
10/12/2013 Pittsburgh Virginia Tech 9.5 63.23% 2.41 Decisive Pittsburgh -7.09
10/12/2013 Georgia Tech Brigham Young 6.5 63.30% -2.15 Toss up Georgia Tech -8.65
10/12/2013 U-A-B Florida Intl -7 63.60% -14.81 Toss up U-A-B -7.81
10/12/2013 Northwestern Wisconsin 10 71.42% 7.96 Decisive Northwestern -2.04
10/12/2013 Syracuse No Carolina State 4.5 72.93% -4.96 Toss up Syracuse -9.46
10/12/2013 Indiana Michigan State 9.5 74.04% -7.48 Toss up Indiana -16.98
10/12/2013 Bowling Green Mississippi State 10 76.34% 3.86 Decisive Bowling Green -6.14
10/12/2013 Virginia Maryland 7.5 78.79% 2.53 Decisive Virginia -4.97
10/12/2013 San Jose State Colorado State 3.5 79.31% 0.14 Decisive San Jose State -3.36
10/12/2013 Middle Tennessee North Texas 6.5 80.34% 6.23 Decisive Middle Tennessee -0.27
10/12/2013 UL-Monroe Texas State 7.5 84.63% 7.52 Decisive Texas State 0.02
10/12/2013 Memphis Houston 10.5 91.23% 7.67 Decisive Memphis -2.83
10/12/2013 South Florida Connecticut 6 91.59% 0.74 Decisive South Florida -5.26
10/12/2013 Eastern Michigan Army 8 91.99% 9.28 Decisive Army 1.28
10/12/2013 Miami-Ohio Massachusetts 3 93.95% 1.01 Decisive Miami-Ohio -1.99
10/12/2013 Kent State Ball State 15 96.02% 18.13 Decisive Ball State 3.13
10/12/2013 New Mexico Wyoming 15 96.13% 7.87 Decisive New Mexico -7.13
10/12/2013 Hawaii Nevada-Las Vegas 9.5 96.35% 4.78 Decisive Hawaii -4.72
10/12/2013 Boston College Clemson 24.5 97.16% 18.10 Decisive Boston College -6.40
10/12/2013 Central Michigan Ohio 17 97.62% 23.91 Decisive Ohio 6.91
10/12/2013 Iowa State Texas Tech 16 97.96% 19.02 Decisive Texas Tech 3.02
10/12/2013 Colorado Arizona State 24.5 98.07% 17.01 Decisive Colorado -7.49
10/12/2013 Kansas Texas Christian 26 98.57% 12.81 Decisive Kansas -13.19
10/12/2013 Akron Northern Illinois 21.5 98.94% 10.79 Decisive Akron -10.71
10/12/2013 California U.C.L.A. 24.5 98.98% 24.03 Decisive California -0.47
10/12/2013 Idaho Arkansas State 24.5 99.32% 17.03 Decisive Idaho -7.47
10/12/2013 Western Carolina Auburn None
Posted in Uncategorized