As you can see in the posted Compu-Picks 2012 spring top 25 list,
the system projects Texas as not just being better than LSU, but being much
better. Given that LSU is almost everyone's #1 team, and Texas is not at all a popular
pick, I've put together a number of exhibits and analyses to help support this
inevitably controversial projection.
One important piece of the projection is turnover margin. The below table shows the turnover margins
enjoyed by both LSU and Texas over the past thirteen seasons:
| Team | Average | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | 1999 |
| LSU | 3.46 | 20 | 8 | 4 | -1 | 20 | 0 | -9 | -2 | 5 | -1 | 4 | 4 | -7 |
| Texas | 5.23 | 0 | -12 | 9 | 2 | 1 | 9 | 7 | 5 | 2 | 17 | 10 | 5 | 13 |
| Difference | -1.77 | 20 | 20 | -5 | -3 | 19 | -9 | -16 | -7 | 3 | -18 | -6 | -1 | -20 |
As you can see, for the past two years LSU has enjoyed a +20 turnover differential compared to Texas. This relative success has been a major
historical aberration, as for the most part their turnover margins have fluctuated substantially but not
typically in any lasting way (also worth noting: Football Outsiders
did an analysis on NFL turnovers, and while that's not directly applicable to college, the same general point about turnovers, especially on defense,
being largely luck do still apply; see also Phil Steele's note about turnover luck tending to indicate turnarounds).
So just from looking at this chart it seems likely that this gap will substantially decline in 2012.
More specifically, it is especially likely that LSU's turnover margin will substantially decline in 2012.
Their +20 turnover margin is a substantial outlier compared to their historical numbers, which suggests substantial
decline is likely. In addition, looking at teams from 2000-2010 who have achieved similarly high turnover margins (based on
this article) suggests
the same conclusion. The below table shows the highest turnover margins from this time period,
as well as the margins achieved the year before and the year after.
Essentially, the only program to sustain extremely high turnover margins over any sort of sustained
time period was USC from 2002-2005. While there have been very occassional other instances of high margins
in one year leading to the same in the next, the overall averages tell the final story. While it is certainly
possible to repeat extreme turnover success, for the most part the expectation is substantial decline.
This means that LSU, like any other program who achieves extreme turnover success in one season,
is highly unlikely to repeat the same success, and highly likely to experience
a turnover decline of more than 12, which translates to around one (or more) per game. That's a HUGE impact
on success, as every turnover in a game is valuable, especially for a team who truly lived on huge defensive
plays like LSU in 2011. If that success goes away (and history suggests that is quite likely), then LSU
will need to succeed in a very different way in 2012 if they are to remain a top team.
| TEAM NAME | Year | Next Year | This Year | Prev Year |
| MIAMI (FLA) | 2001 | -1 | 27 | 13 |
| OKLAHOMA | 2008 | 4 | 23 | 8 |
| NEBRASKA | 2003 | -13 | 23 | -3 |
| AIR FORCE | 2009 | 5 | 22 | 13 |
| FLORIDA | 2008 | 7 | 22 | 5 |
| TULANE | 2002 | 5 | 22 | 2 |
| TOLEDO | 2000 | 1 | 22 | 8 |
| BOISE ST | 2009 | 8 | 21 | 7 |
| KANSAS | 2007 | 4 | 21 | -5 |
| TCU | 2005 | 7 | 21 | 4 |
| USC | 2005 | 4 | 21 | 19 |
| USF | 2002 | -1 | 21 | 2 |
| FRESNO ST | 2001 | 6 | 21 | 0 |
| RUTGERS | 2009 | 7 | 20 | 1 |
| LSU | 2007 | -1 | 20 | 0 |
| MIAMI OH | 2003 | -10 | 20 | 7 |
| USC | 2003 | 19 | 20 | 18 |
| VIRGINIA TECH | 2010 | 5 | 19 | 9 |
| ALABAMA | 2009 | 11 | 19 | 6 |
| BUFFALO | 2008 | -7 | 19 | 3 |
| TULSA | 2005 | -5 | 19 | -11 |
| USC | 2004 | 21 | 19 | 20 |
| OKLAHOMA | 2002 | 17 | 19 | 9 |
| WEST VIRGINIA | 2002 | 16 | 19 | -8 |
| FLORIDA ATLANTIC | 2007 | -9 | 18 | 1 |
| MINNESOTA | 2006 | -15 | 18 | -1 |
| FLORIDA | 2005 | 5 | 18 | 4 |
| CALIFORNIA | 2002 | 3 | 18 | -18 |
| USC | 2002 | 20 | 18 | 16 |
| WAKE FOREST | 2002 | 7 | 18 | -3 |
| WISCONSIN | 2002 | -3 | 18 | 2 |
| MARYLAND | 2001 | 1 | 18 | 3 |
| SYRACUSE | 2001 | 2 | 18 | -6 |
| FLORIDA | 2000 | -6 | 18 | -5 |
| OREGON ST | 2000 | -7 | 18 | 7 |
| TULSA | 2010 | -6 | 17 | -2 |
| OHIO STATE | 2009 | 15 | 17 | 16 |
| WAKE FOREST | 2008 | -4 | 17 | 9 |
| BALL ST | 2007 | 5 | 17 | 1 |
| E CAROLINA | 2007 | 5 | 17 | 4 |
| OKLAHOMA | 2003 | 4 | 17 | 19 |
| ARKANSAS | 2002 | 11 | 17 | 4 |
| TEXAS | 2002 | 2 | 17 | 10 |
| BOWLING GREEN | 2001 | 9 | 17 | 4 |
| ARMY | 2010 | -9 | 16 | 5 |
| BAYLOR | 2008 | -5 | 16 | -18 |
| OHIO STATE | 2008 | 17 | 16 | -3 |
| CINCINNATI | 2007 | -8 | 16 | -6 |
| OKLAHOMA ST | 2004 | -15 | 16 | -4 |
| WEST VIRGINIA | 2003 | 3 | 16 | 19 |
| OREGON | 2001 | 5 | 16 | 6 |
| USC | 2001 | 18 | 16 | -19 |
| MARYLAND | 2010 | 4 | 15 | -6 |
| OHIO STATE | 2010 | 5 | 15 | 17 |
| ARKANSAS | 2009 | 1 | 15 | -9 |
| CALIFORNIA | 2008 | 4 | 15 | -3 |
| NAVY | 2008 | 9 | 15 | -2 |
| RICE | 2008 | -9 | 15 | -2 |
| BOSTON COLLEGE | 2006 | 6 | 15 | -4 |
| KENTUCKY | 2006 | -1 | 15 | -9 |
| BOWLING GREEN | 2004 | 8 | 15 | -6 |
| UTAH | 2004 | -1 | 15 | 9 |
| ALABAMA | 2002 | 1 | 15 | 3 |
| IOWA | 2002 | 4 | 15 | 0 |
| TCU | 2002 | 4 | 15 | -1 |
| VIRGINIA | 2002 | 5 | 15 | 4 |
| Average - 15+ margin | | 2.94 | 18.02 | 2.47 |
| Average - 18+ margin | | 3.06 | 19.94 | 3.63 |
| Average - 20+ margin | | 3.00 | 21.59 | 5.82 |
| Average - Exactly 20 margin | | 3.75 | 20.00 | 6.50 |
There are a few important notes and caveats I need to make about this model:
1) Compu-Picks does not endorse implicitly or explicitly any form of illegal gambling.
Compu-Picks is intended to be used for entertainment purposes only.
2) No guarantee or warranty is offered or implied by Compu-Picks for any information provided and/or predictions made.
2012 Compu-Picks Blog
Questions, comments or suggestions? Email me at cfn_ms@hotmail.com
