2 YEAR NET LOSS INDICATOR

Yesterday I blogged about a 2 year net win differential on teams that improved their record after having a record much weaker one season than they had the previous 2 years. I went in depth as to how I came upon that chart and the results. Today I will take a look at the 2 year net loss indicator. For a deeper explanation on how this chart was achieved, go to the blog posted on June 23rd.

When I reviewed the numbers since 1990, it was surprising that team’s with a -4.5 net loss indicator or higher, which was a great sampling than the -7.5 net or higher actually achieved a better percentage. While two teams managed to improve their record at the very top of the chart, none did in 6.5 or 6.0. In fact of teams that had a -6.0 net loss indicator or higher, only 2 managed to improve their record. In 2003 Navy which went from 8-5 to 10-2 and 2000 South Carolina which went from 8-4 to 9-3. The biggest drop offs were 1998 Tulane which had a -7.5 net loss indicator and went from 12-0 to 3-8. Interestingly in 1998 I called for Washington St to go from a Rose Bowl to last place in the Pac-10 - which they did and in the 2 year net loss indicator they were -6.0 and went from 10-2 to 3-8. Others that achieved large drop offs were 2008 Ball St which went from 12-2 to 2-10 with a -6 net loss indicator and 1996 Army which went from 10-2 to 4-7 with a -5.5 net loss indicator.

A look at the 2 year net loss indicator shows a power trend of basically 80% if teams have a -2.0 net loss indicator or more since 1990. Unlike the chart I produced a few days ago with a plus net win indicator, there were actually two teams that bucked the trend with a -7.5 or -7 and improved but overall the chart has higher percentages. Teams that had a net loss indicator of -5 or higher had a weaker or the same record the next year 90% of the time with 67 having a weaker record, only 8 managing to improve and 4 having the same record (89.8%). Even teams with a net loss indicator of -3.0 to -4.5 were in an 81% category having a weaker record 155 times and improving the record just 40 and the same record 16 times. Unlike the net win indicator, I was not pleased with the results of -1.5 which was just 61.2% so the chart really should be cut off at 2.0. The teams in the -2.0 to -2.5 net loss indicator had a weaker or same record the next year 73.6% of the time and at -1.5 were just 61.2% of the time actually having a weaker record 61 times and improving their record 50 times which is closer to 55% but I did not include it on the chart below.

Bottom line is 90% trend of a weaker or same record if -5 indicator, -3 to -4 is 81% and -2 to -2.5 73.6%. Overall, teams that had -2 net class indicator or higher had the weaker or the same record 79.5 or basically 80% of the time.
The teams this year that have trends going in a downward direction at the top of that chart in the 90% category are Miami, Oh, which was 3-21 the prior 2 years for an average of 1.5 wins per season and improved to 10-4 last year giving them a net loss indicator of -8.5. Auburn had a record of 13-12 the previous 2 years or an average of 6.5 wins per seasons and improved to 14 last year (-7.5 net loss indicator). San Diego St had a record of 6-18 or an average of 3 wins per season and improved to 9-4 last year for a -6 net loss indicator. Stanford and Nevada both checked in a -5.5 and UCF which had been 12-13 the previous 2 years for an average of 6.5 wins and improved to 11 wins last year checks in at -5.0.

Here is a complete listing of all of this year’s teams with a net loss indictor of -2.0:

Only 68 DAYS LEFT UNTIL THE FIRST COLLEGE FOOTBALL GAME!!!