The model simulates every FBS game for the entire season.
As validation, I used the methodology to simulate the 2012 season and prepared a comparison between between the model results and the real game results.
This first chart shows some of those results of the predicted versus actual wins.
A positive number of the vertical axis means the model predicted more wins than a team achieved. Likewise, the negative numbers mean the model predicted fewer wins than the team achieved.
The average delta between the predicted win total and the actual win total is 1.15 games per team.
21% of teams were predicted correctly. 20% were under-predicted by one win, and 29% were over-predicted by one win. The model predicted more than 70% of seasons accurately to within one win.
The model under-predicted 12% of season by two wins and 5% by three wins. It over-predicted 7% over season by two wins and 6% of season by three wins.
Can you guess which team was the most over-achieving?
You betcha. Dear Old NU.
The model predicted 6.91 wins but the Huskers finished with 10 wins, for a delta of -3.09 wins.
While some may be inclined to see this as a positive, and it's certainly better than winning three fewer games than the model anticipated, the fact remains that Nebraska's scoring offense and scoring defense (the basis of the model) should have resulted in a 7-win season...not a 10-win season.
Remember the amazing streak of 4th quarter heroics in the Wisconsin, Northwestern, and Michigan State, and Penn State games? Remember how Denard Robinson left the game before halftime?
Sometimes, it's better to be lucky than good.
Interestingly, Ohio State is the #2 most overachieving team, with a predicted win total of 9.12. Had they played in the Big Ten Championship Game or a bowl game, they would almost certainly have been the most overachieving team by a large margin.
The Top-10 overachievers and Bottom-10 underachievers are:
I put a table with the full results of the model at the end of this post.
Finally, the model provides some insight into the consistency of a team's on-field performance. The standard deviation of the predicted wins can be used as a proxy for a team's consistency.
So, can you guess which team had the largest standard deviation in the model results, and by proxy, was the least consistent and predictable?
Yup, Dear Old NU. Again.
Now, guess which team had the lowest standard deviation in model results.
Hint: they won the National Championship.
I'll let my readers draw their own conclusions about this one.
By the way, I'm now a writer over at Football Study Hall. Stop by and check it out. I'll be writing about more than just the Huskers over there.
GBR!
@HuskerMath
| Rank | Team | Conf | Pred. Wins | Actual Wins | Delta (rnd) | Pred. Delta | Abs( Pred Delta) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Northern Illinois | MAC | 13.1 | 12 | 1 | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| 2 | Alabama | SEC | 12.7 | 13 | 0 | -0.3 | 0.3 |
| 3 | Florida State | ACC | 12.5 | 12 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| 4 | Utah State | WAC | 11.2 | 11 | 0 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| 5 | Oregon | Pac-12 | 11.0 | 12 | -1 | -1.0 | 1.0 |
| 6 | UCF | C-USA | 11.0 | 10 | 1 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| 7 | Georgia | SEC | 10.9 | 12 | -1 | -1.1 | 1.1 |
| 8 | Boise State | MWC | 10.8 | 11 | 0 | -0.2 | 0.2 |
| 9 | Arizona State | Pac-12 | 10.7 | 8 | 3 | 2.7 | 2.7 |
| 10 | Cincinnati | Big East | 10.6 | 10 | 1 | 0.6 | 0.6 |
| 11 | Tulsa | C-USA | 10.5 | 11 | 0 | -0.5 | 0.5 |
| 12 | BYU | Ind | 10.5 | 8 | 2 | 2.5 | 2.5 |
| 13 | Texas A&M | SEC | 10.4 | 11 | -1 | -0.6 | 0.6 |
| 14 | Kansas State | Big 12 | 9.9 | 11 | -1 | -1.1 | 1.1 |
| 15 | North Carolina | ACC | 9.8 | 8 | 2 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
| 16 | Rutgers | Big East | 9.8 | 9 | 1 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| 17 | Clemson | ACC | 9.8 | 11 | -1 | -1.2 | 1.2 |
| 18 | Oklahoma State | Big 12 | 9.8 | 8 | 2 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
| 19 | Bowling Green | MAC | 9.7 | 8 | 2 | 1.7 | 1.7 |
| 20 | Ohio | MAC | 9.7 | 9 | 1 | 0.7 | 0.7 |
| 21 | Vanderbilt | SEC | 9.7 | 9 | 1 | 0.7 | 0.7 |
| 22 | San Jose State | WAC | 9.6 | 11 | -1 | -1.4 | 1.4 |
| 23 | Fresno State | MWC | 9.6 | 9 | 1 | 0.6 | 0.6 |
| 24 | Stanford | Pac-12 | 9.6 | 12 | -2 | -2.4 | 2.4 |
| 25 | Kent State | MAC | 9.5 | 11 | -1 | -1.5 | 1.5 |
| 26 | Wisconsin | Big Ten | 9.4 | 8 | 1 | 1.4 | 1.4 |
| 27 | South Carolina | SEC | 9.2 | 11 | -2 | -1.8 | 1.8 |
| 28 | Notre Dame | Ind | 9.2 | 12 | -3 | -2.8 | 2.8 |
| 29 | Arkansas State | Sun Belt | 9.2 | 10 | -1 | -0.8 | 0.8 |
| 30 | Ohio State | Big Ten | 9.1 | 12 | -3 | -2.9 | 2.9 |
| 31 | San Diego State | MWC | 9.1 | 9 | 0 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| 32 | Penn State | Big Ten | 8.8 | 8 | 1 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| 33 | Florida | SEC | 8.7 | 11 | -2 | -2.3 | 2.3 |
| 34 | LSU | SEC | 8.7 | 10 | -1 | -1.3 | 1.3 |
| 35 | Oregon State | Pac-12 | 8.7 | 9 | 0 | -0.3 | 0.3 |
| 36 | Louisiana-Lafayette | Sun Belt | 8.6 | 9 | 0 | -0.4 | 0.4 |
| 37 | Northwestern | Big Ten | 8.6 | 10 | -1 | -1.4 | 1.4 |
| 38 | Oklahoma | Big 12 | 8.5 | 10 | -2 | -1.5 | 1.5 |
| 39 | Michigan | Big Ten | 8.3 | 8 | 0 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| 40 | UCLA | Pac-12 | 8.2 | 9 | -1 | -0.8 | 0.8 |
| 41 | Louisiana-Monroe | Sun Belt | 8.2 | 8 | 0 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| 42 | Pittsburgh | Big East | 8.1 | 6 | 2 | 2.1 | 2.1 |
| 43 | Western Kentucky | Sun Belt | 8.1 | 7 | 1 | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| 44 | Louisville | Big East | 8.1 | 11 | -3 | -2.9 | 2.9 |
| 45 | Mississippi State | SEC | 8.1 | 8 | 0 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| 46 | Rice | C-USA | 7.9 | 7 | 1 | 0.9 | 0.9 |
| 47 | TCU | Big 12 | 7.8 | 7 | 1 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| 48 | SMU | C-USA | 7.8 | 7 | 1 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| 49 | Louisiana Tech | WAC | 7.7 | 9 | -1 | -1.3 | 1.3 |
| 50 | USC | Pac-12 | 7.7 | 7 | 1 | 0.7 | 0.7 |
| 51 | Nevada | MWC | 7.6 | 7 | 1 | 0.6 | 0.6 |
| 52 | Michigan State | Big Ten | 7.5 | 7 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| 53 | Syracuse | Big East | 7.4 | 8 | -1 | -0.6 | 0.6 |
| 54 | North Carolina State | ACC | 7.4 | 7 | 0 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| 55 | Toledo | MAC | 7.2 | 9 | -2 | -1.8 | 1.8 |
| 56 | East Carolina | C-USA | 7.2 | 8 | -1 | -0.8 | 0.8 |
| 57 | Navy | Ind | 7.2 | 8 | -1 | -0.8 | 0.8 |
| 58 | Air Force | MWC | 7.2 | 6 | 1 | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| 59 | Georgia Tech | ACC | 7.1 | 7 | 0 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| 60 | Texas | Big 12 | 7.1 | 9 | -2 | -1.9 | 1.9 |
| 61 | Texas Tech | Big 12 | 7.0 | 8 | -1 | -1.0 | 1.0 |
| 62 | Nebraska | Big Ten | 6.9 | 10 | -3 | -3.1 | 3.1 |
| 63 | Western Michigan | MAC | 6.8 | 4 | 3 | 2.8 | 2.8 |
| 64 | UTSA | WAC | 6.6 | 8 | -1 | -1.4 | 1.4 |
| 65 | Central Michigan | MAC | 6.6 | 7 | 0 | -0.4 | 0.4 |
| 66 | New Mexico | MWC | 6.5 | 4 | 3 | 2.5 | 2.5 |
| 67 | Virginia Tech | ACC | 6.4 | 7 | -1 | -0.6 | 0.6 |
| 68 | Connecticut | Big East | 6.4 | 5 | 1 | 1.4 | 1.4 |
| 69 | Iowa State | Big 12 | 6.4 | 6 | 0 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| 70 | Washington | Pac-12 | 6.3 | 7 | -1 | -0.7 | 0.7 |
| 71 | Middle Tennessee | Sun Belt | 6.3 | 8 | -2 | -1.7 | 1.7 |
| 72 | Ball State | MAC | 6.3 | 9 | -3 | -2.7 | 2.7 |
| 73 | Baylor | Big 12 | 6.2 | 8 | -2 | -1.8 | 1.8 |
| 74 | Mississippi | SEC | 6.2 | 7 | -1 | -0.8 | 0.8 |
| 75 | Minnesota | Big Ten | 6.2 | 6 | 0 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| 76 | Troy | Sun Belt | 6.1 | 5 | 1 | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| 77 | Utah | Pac-12 | 6.1 | 5 | 1 | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| 78 | Memphis | C-USA | 5.9 | 4 | 2 | 1.9 | 1.9 |
| 79 | Iowa | Big Ten | 5.6 | 4 | 2 | 1.6 | 1.6 |
| 80 | Miami (Florida) | ACC | 5.4 | 7 | -2 | -1.6 | 1.6 |
| 81 | West Virginia | Big 12 | 5.3 | 7 | -2 | -1.7 | 1.7 |
| 82 | Purdue | Big Ten | 5.2 | 6 | -1 | -0.8 | 0.8 |
| 83 | Arizona | Pac-12 | 5.2 | 8 | -3 | -2.8 | 2.8 |
| 84 | Texas State | WAC | 5.1 | 4 | 1 | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| 85 | Houston | C-USA | 5.1 | 5 | 0 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| 86 | Wyoming | MWC | 4.9 | 4 | 1 | 0.9 | 0.9 |
| 87 | South Alabama | Sun Belt | 4.8 | 2 | 3 | 2.8 | 2.8 |
| 88 | Marshall | C-USA | 4.8 | 5 | 0 | -0.2 | 0.2 |
| 89 | UNLV | MWC | 4.8 | 2 | 3 | 2.8 | 2.8 |
| 90 | Virginia | ACC | 4.8 | 4 | 1 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| 91 | Maryland | ACC | 4.8 | 4 | 1 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| 92 | North Texas | Sun Belt | 4.7 | 4 | 1 | 0.7 | 0.7 |
| 93 | Colorado State | MWC | 4.7 | 4 | 1 | 0.7 | 0.7 |
| 94 | Buffalo | MAC | 4.6 | 4 | 1 | 0.6 | 0.6 |
| 95 | Indiana | Big Ten | 4.5 | 4 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| 96 | Tennessee | SEC | 4.4 | 5 | -1 | -0.6 | 0.6 |
| 97 | UTEP | C-USA | 4.4 | 3 | 1 | 1.4 | 1.4 |
| 98 | Florida International | Sun Belt | 4.3 | 3 | 1 | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| 99 | UAB | C-USA | 4.3 | 3 | 1 | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| 100 | Duke | ACC | 4.2 | 6 | -2 | -1.8 | 1.8 |
| 101 | Akron | MAC | 4.0 | 1 | 3 | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| 102 | Army | Ind | 4.0 | 2 | 2 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| 103 | South Florida | Big East | 3.9 | 3 | 1 | 0.9 | 0.9 |
| 104 | Temple | Big East | 3.9 | 4 | 0 | -0.1 | 0.1 |
| 105 | Boston College | ACC | 3.8 | 2 | 2 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
| 106 | Florida Atlantic | Sun Belt | 3.8 | 3 | 1 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| 107 | Missouri | SEC | 3.5 | 5 | -2 | -1.5 | 1.5 |
| 108 | Arkansas | SEC | 3.5 | 4 | -1 | -0.5 | 0.5 |
| 109 | Auburn | SEC | 3.4 | 3 | 0 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| 110 | Wake Forest | ACC | 3.3 | 5 | -2 | -1.7 | 1.7 |
| 111 | Miami (Ohio) | MAC | 3.3 | 4 | -1 | -0.8 | 0.8 |
| 112 | Washington State | Pac-12 | 3.1 | 3 | 0 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| 113 | California | Pac-12 | 2.8 | 3 | 0 | -0.2 | 0.2 |
| 114 | Hawaii | MWC | 2.7 | 3 | 0 | -0.3 | 0.3 |
| 115 | Kentucky | SEC | 2.5 | 2 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| 116 | New Mexico State | WAC | 2.4 | 1 | 1 | 1.4 | 1.4 |
| 117 | Illinois | Big Ten | 2.4 | 2 | 0 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| 118 | Eastern Michigan | MAC | 2.3 | 2 | 0 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| 119 | Tulane | C-USA | 1.8 | 2 | 0 | -0.2 | 0.2 |
| 120 | Kansas | Big 12 | 1.8 | 1 | 1 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| 121 | Southern Mississippi | C-USA | 1.7 | 0 | 2 | 1.7 | 1.7 |
| 122 | Idaho | WAC | 1.3 | 1 | 0 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| 123 | Colorado | Pac-12 | 0.9 | 1 | 0 | -0.1 | 0.1 |
